Talk:Dog Whisperer with Cesar Millan

Intro

"...Millan offers suggestions on how the owners can become their pet's "pack leader," consistent with the theory that dogs are pack animals."

The theory? Uh... pretty certain it's a fact that dogs and other canines are pack animals. Like, kind of the definition of a pack animal. Kind of thinking this should be rewritten. Anyone else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.177.76 (talk) 02:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Everything in science, including animal behavior, are theories. Notable examples which are considered facts, but are still theories, are evolution and gravity. No need to change it. --188.120.86.28 (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Cesar's group

Article says that Cesar is part of a group; and that the group supports the use of devices which causes pain to punish and correct dog behaviour. But as I recall, it seemed as though Cesar believed these types of devices were not necessary? The article needs to cite sources; particularly this one.

iacp

I agree, it is implying that Ceasar uses those methods or approves of those methods. I was unable to find any inkling that was part of IACPs mission statements or purpose and it seems to be open for any type of professional from Vets, groomers to trainers which will use all kinds of different methods.

Why IACP

They do have a position on their website about debarking (surgical, not shock colar) and service dogs.. but that type of information belongs under IACP wiki article and not under every member of IACP or in Cesar's case, an honorary member. It looks like they offer a lot of exams, etc and I'm taking by 'honorary' means he didn't take an exam anyway.

Edits to criticism section

I rearranged the criticism section so that it was in chronological order (Dreadstar has made some helpful changes since then, splitting praise into its own section). I also added the NYT op-ed by Mark Derr, mentioned at the top of this page. I disagree with the contention that it belongs in Millan's article only. The methods being criticized are showcased on the program almost exclusively, discarding private clients he may have. If this should be moved to the Cesar Millan page, so should Jada Pinkett Smith's remarks. She was also commenting on Millan's techniques and persona, and seems to have primarily relied on her personal experience with him. The show is mentioned, but it's no more or less relevant than it is to the op-ed.

Millan and the show are tightly intertwined, and some duplication is inevitable. I don't think criticism of his techniques, as seen on the show, must be relegated to his biography only. In fact, that seems more inappropriate. Anna (talk) 03:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't really a separation of praise and criticism, it was an attempt to separate out the type of response the show has received. One section was meant to be for television-related content, such as celebrity comments and television awards, etc; the other was meant to contain critical commentary by pet 'professionals' on the tactics and scenarios shown in the program. But, I guess lumping it all together can work - but right now, it has no logical flow. I'll engage more on this when I get back to editing regularly, well, if I get back to regular editing.. :) Dreadstar ☥ 23:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

And just fyi, criticism sections are in no way forbidden, read over WP:CRITS. For contrast, right below CRITS is "Evaluations in a "Reception" or "Reception history" section." Dreadstar ☥ 00:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for a "Reception" section, that contains evaluations. But just as the quotes around pet 'professionals' above implies they are not really professionals, putting criticisms in their own section suggests they are just opinions and not part of the information on the television program and its audience. Marj (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Are we really going to go down this road again?842U (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't seem germane to the current discussion. I'm the one who initiated this spate of changes and am not connected to Marj in any way. Anna (talk) 02:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Dreadstar, I've undone some of your changes. I placed the tidbits into chronological order to avoid placing too much weight on any and avoid making arbitrary decisions. First two 2006 columns, then AHA things beginning in 2006, then the awards, then Jada Pinkett-Smith, then Steve Dale. This is about as neutral as I can see it being, unless we split these out into separate sections. Praise coming first is entirely arbitrary. Furthermore, I've compromised and added back in "AHA Board Member". That is relevant to the piece and his viewpoint -- readers will remember reading about the AHA's stance a ways up as well. I modified the other descriptor to "pet columnist". Finally, I removed some of the praise Dale gave Millan. That bit made it seem as though Dale's piece was largely positive when it was not. Our summary should be representative of the entire article. Anna (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with most of what you're saying. Chronological order doesn't make sense in this case, it turns the section into a muddle of 'this, that, this other, then this', with no real logical order; which is why I suggested creating two sections - one for TV/Media/Celebrity acclaim and awards, and one for critical commentary from professional dog behaviorists and trainers. I put Smith first because she was his first celeb client, well before the comment's date. I'm not sure piling on criticism at the start of reception is NPOV either. I haven't really started looking around for positive comments from other celebs, but from viewing his 100th show, he has a lot of those - so weight is definitely a factor. Anyway, I wasn't ready to really start editing in earnest, but apparently I just couldn't resist... :) Dreadstar ☥ 04:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, and I too am in favor of splitting technique crits (and RS praise, if it's out there) and entertainment into their own sections. I added a more neutral opening sentence to avoid criticism at the beginning for now. If other published celeb praise is out there, which you'd think it would be, I agree it should be added. Anna (talk) 05:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, excellent changes - very good job! I think we'll make this a good article yet! Now we just have to come up with good section names, "TV/Media/Celebrity acclaim and awards" is kinda clunky.. :) Dreadstar ☥ 05:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it is stretching a point to say Dog Whisperer has received "critical acclaim". It has won "people's choice" awards which are based on popularity and an Imagine Award (I can't find out what this award is. It is certainly not high profile and does not amount to critical acclaim. Was it meant to be the award presented by the Imagen Foundation?) Marj (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Further research: The Imagen Awards were established in 1985 to encourage and recognize the positive portrayal of Latinos in the media. The Dog Whisperer received an award for the best Reality or Variety TV program presented by a Latino. See Imagen Foundation Press Release. There is no Imagine Award that I can discover. Marj (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Emmy awards and nominations are Television's most prestigious recognitions. We can safely say a show with two such prestigious nominations has been critically acclaimed(olive (talk) 02:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC))

Yes they are prestigious. That is a better expression. Marj (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Prestigious is an adjective that describes the quality of the awards themselves. Acclaim and critical is a term/terms that describes how the show itself has been received. The words aren't interchangeable since they mean different things and have different contexts. If a television actor or show has received the prestigious recognition such an award gives them, then we can further say the shown or actor has been critically acclaimed.(olive (talk) 03:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC))

Critical acclaim is enthusiastic praise from the 'critics' experts in evaluating quality in television. Emmy nominations come from people who work in the television industry. Being nominated (not winning) does not amount to critical acclaim. Marj (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a narrow, possibly subjective definition. A nomination in either movies or television is very highly regarded. There are many good actors, TV shows, and only one winner. Those shows singled out as excellent enough for nomination are indeed acclaimed, the one show that wins is of course also acclaimed but its separation from the group of shows nominated is not that those shows which do not win are not acclaimed but simply that the title, winner, can only be slapped on one. I've added a more encyclopedic term than prestigious for now.(olive (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC))

I have found a number of lists of 'critically acclaimed' television programs of the past decade - The Wire, Breaking Bad etc. Dog Whisperer was not on any of the lists. Does anyone have a reference for the fact that Dog Whisperer is critically acclaimed? Otherwise this is synthesis - Emmy award winners are acclaimed, Dog Whisperer received an Emmy nomination so Dog Whisperer is acclaimed. Marj (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

'Numerous' means a great many, too many to count. It is not encyclopaedic to describe five or fewer as 'numerous' Marj (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the word 'numerous' here, but it's meaning isn't that restrictive, it basically means many. As for 'critical acclaim', there are sources that say that, as well as 'acclaim', 'international acclaim' and 'world acclaim'. [1][2][3][4][] These must have some basis that can be found in reliable sources, so it's worth considering and looking into. Dreadstar ☥ 23:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

From the dictionary on my desk - 'Numerous' very many; forming a great number; consisting of great numbers of units or individuals. What Dog Whisperer has achieved is significant, there is no need to exaggerate with phrases like 'critical acclaim' and 'numerous awards'. As for 'acclaim' I know that sadly promotional material often has claims that are not based in reliable information. Marj (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know what the dictionary says, which backs my statement just as much as yours. I looked at twelve different dictionaries. What's your point on arguing this further, I've already stated my lack of support for the word. As far a 'promotional material', my suggestion is that we look around to see if it can be substantiated by RS. Dreadstar ☥ 00:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Original research/synthesis

I only have google book access but this content and its source "Programs about humans and companion animals are among the most popular types of reality series", doesn't seem to make any reference to either Millan or the TV show, Dog Whisperer, so is synthesis, creates a form of OR, is non compliant, and so should be removed. If someone has the book and can quote the parts that deal with Millan or the show that would be great.(olive (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC))

The section seems entirely lame. What's the point? This isn't an article about "popularity of reality series." 842U (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The article is about a reality TV series, Dog Whisperer. Happy for you to delete the statement, though published positive comments about the program are hard to find. Marj (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be a book not an article, and as I said the program Dog Whisperer is not mentioned as far as I can tell in a search. I don't see that popularity one way or another enters the equation in terms of this content. I'll remove the OR. Thanks.

@842U: Its standard and appropriate to include a section in articles on the reception of movies, TV series, books, as long as we are neutral and don't allow our own POV to enter the picture.(----)

The 'article' I was referring to is the one we are writing here. The Wikipedia article on the Dog Whisperer, which is a reality television program. The popularity of pet oriented television programs would seem to be germane. It is not original research, it it a referenced fact. It is not synthesis, where two pieces of information are used to infer something not stated in either reference. But delete away. It's easier than adding researched content. Marj (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:OR: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented." The source and content I referred to do not refer directly to Dog Whisperer or Milan so is a synthesis and is OR. Checking sources is tedious and time consuming to address your pointed comment. I realize we aren't in agreement on several issues but I hope we can maintain a civil editing environment.(olive (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC))

Thanks for that explanation, but is the sentence in question Original Research or is it Synthesis? These are two very different things. I would still argue that we are writing about a reality program whose focus is humans and their companion animals, and so the piece adds to the informative value of the article -- just as it is acceptable to include information on 'honeyeaters' in an article on a specific type of honeyeater. I have said that I have no problem with the sentence being deleted, but it would be easier to maintain a civil editing environment if we could be consistent in the way we approach the inclusion and exclusion of material. Marj (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH is a type of WP:OR, so it's a moot point - and sometimes determining the difference can be difficult. Per WP:OR, the source needs to be "both directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented." So if the source doesn't mention the topic of the article, the tv show "Dog Whisperer", then it's OR. Dreadstar ☥ 23:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

COI question

Mdk572/Marj, refresh my memory. Didn't we determine before that you had been teaching a class on Digital Culture and you were using these very two pages, the Dog Whisperer article and the Dog Whisperer talk page, in your class -- without first disclosing that you had a potential COI on those two pages? Because the tone of your editing is starting to get close to the same level of contentiousness again, e.g., 3RR warnings, etc. and I'm just curious if you're teaching that class again and if your students are again "focused on the process" of these two pages? 842U (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

@842U: This comment is probably out of place on the talk page of an article and is best left only on the editor's user page since such personal comments tend to derail discussion. Just a suggestion.(olive (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC))

the comment is actually on both this page and the user talk page. Comments like this are highly germain on an article talk page, where more editors will see and note them. On an individuals talk page they can be effective -- but can also be deleted.842U (talk) 02:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Handling COI is outlined here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest, for those interested, the commented on WP:COIN report is here. Dreadstar ☥ 21:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Stricken comment pursuit

This element of the discussion is over, further pursuit should be taken up the chain. Dreadstar ☥ 21:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
842U: What you're describing is a clear case of Poisoning the well. This page is for discussion of the article and is not a place to alert other editors to a perceived COI. I'm aware that you posted on the editor's talk page and if she deletes it that's her prerogative. If you feel her edits suggest COI then take it to the COI notice board. I know you've already done so in the past, but do it again if there is a real problem. This just isn't the place.(olive (talk) 02:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)) The guidelines do not suggest that to bring up a possible COI on the discussion page would be "Poisoning the Well" In fact, according to COI: How to handle conflicts of interest, the guidelines say "the first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline." WP:COI also says editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing, particularly if those edits may be contested. In other words, this is exactly the place for such a discussion. Which is probably why you used the strike-through on your post. 842U (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC) She struck through it, so what's the point of continuing this particular aspect of the discussion? It doesn't pay to continue in such a manner, it merely distracts from the real issue at hand, the potential COI. You've made your point, move on. Dreadstar ☥ 18:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Why? For the Record: because merely striking through a comment doesn't begin to say what's actually true; that the statement was incorrect.842U (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Generally, when comments are struck, they are ignored - as should have been done in this case. Olive could have merely removed the comment instead of striking it. At this point, this serves no further purpose on this article talk page per Wikipedia:TALK#How_to_use_article_talk_pages. Time to focus on article content instead of other editors. Dreadstar ☥ 18:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC) I struck my comment because I didn't want to get into a big harangue about COI on this editor who I know very little about. COI on Wikipedia is often misunderstood. It must refer to edits which are not compliant, and then those edits must be seen as a result of whatever is perceived to be more important to the editor than Wikipedia at the time the edits are made ."Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." , and such view is a judgement call. I have seen multiple cases where editors perceived a COI and deliberately detailed a discussion to pursue an attack in this direction rather than just deal with the article. I'm not saying that's what you were doing at all, just my own experience. So, whatever the perceived COI situation here, I have no desire to discuss it or deal with it. I deal with the editors here straight on or leave the article. Anything more is not worth my time or energy. Best wishes.(olive (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)) None of that changes the fact that asking a direct question of an editor on this talk page about possible COI is congruent with Wikipedia guidelines.842U (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Jada Pinkett Smith

Why is this in the article. It seems grossly out of place. And why is the section called "Celebrity appearances and comments." It doesn't mention an appearance, just a comment.842U (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It will. Smith was on the show and I'll be adding to that comment soon. Suggestions on section names would be welcome. Dreadstar ☥ 03:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes... titles of sections indicate what's in the article, not what will be in an article. I still have a hard time imagining how this celebrity material anything to do with an encyclopedia reference article, though? 842U (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

There's already content in that section, so what "will" be is largely irrelevant to the existence of the section heading. Celebrity appearances are a big part of the show, so it needs to be mentioned. With so much of the article needing work, it might be beneficial for you to work on finding sources, adding content and copyediting the article. Dreadstar ☥ 12:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Celebrity involvement

The reference given in this section says that Jada Pinkett Smith, Patti LaBelle, Virginia Madsen, Ed McMahon and Daisy Fuentes appeared on the 100 Episode, not that they featured on the program having their dog rehabilitaed, I don't think that is clear.

Celebrity	Dog	Episode	Title
Bob Weide	Jake	Season 1, Episode 14	Jake and King
Jackie Zeman	Goldie	Season 1, Episode 20	Pepsi and Goldie
Daisy Fuentes	Alfie.	Season 1, Episode 26	Boyfriend and Alfie
Denise Richards	Betty, Lucy and Hank	Season 2, Episode 8	Wild Things
Phil Jackson and Jeanie Buss	Princess	Season 2, Episode 11	LA Laker Meltdown
Mike White	Tootsie and Ginger	Season 4, Episode 3	Kiko, Tootsie & Ginger, and Binkey
Kathy Griffin	Two dogs	Season 4, Episode 27	My Life on the Dog List
Jada Pinkett Smith, Patti LaBelle, Virginia Madsen, Ed McMahon and Daisy Fuentes.	100 rehabilitated dogs	Season 4, Episode 32	100th Episode Celebration
Jillian Michaels	Seven	Season 6, Episode 5	Hairy Houdini
Howie Mandel	His wife’s dog	Season 7, Episode 1	Mandel's Big Deal
Rhona Mitra	Oscar	Season 7, Episode 5	Honeymoon Hell

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdk572 (talk • contribs)

I think there was a misunderstanding, hatting for more joyous editing environment. :) Dreadstar ☥ 00:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The wording seems fine to me given the brief nature of the section, but I also have no problem with added explanatory text.(olive (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)) I'm fine with the current wording, but it would be good to add more content along these lines. But certainly not incorrect or misleading content like this. I know McMahon and LaBelle were both on episodes other than the 100th and had their dogs rehabilitated. Dreadstar ☥ 22:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC) The reference cited says "Cesar Millan's big week continues with the 100th episode of "Dog Whisperer" (9 p.m., National Geographic). The celebrated dog trainer assembles many of his successful cases, including Wilshire the fire dog, Kane the Great Dane and the Pink Lady and her pink dog. Millan's two-legged fans appear as well, including celebrity guests Jada Pinkett Smith, Patti LaBelle, Virginia Madsen, Ed McMahon and Daisy Fuentes." So how is it incorrect or misleading to say "Other celebrity guests in this episode were Patti LaBelle, Virginia Madsen, Ed McMahon and Daisy Fuentes." It does not say that they did not appear on any other episode - just accurately quotes the reference cited. Guests on the 100th epidose were Jada Pinkett Smith, Patti LaBelle, Virginia Madsen, Ed McMahon and Daisy Fuentes. You say you "know" Ed McMahon and Patti La Belle appeared on other episodes but the reference you give only discusses the 100th episode, so this statement is WP:OR as you explain it above. Marj (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Your change while accurate in and of itself omits context. The text implies celebrities where part of the 100th show only, but actually there were several shows which featured celebrities and several sources which say so. Leaving your change in place without adding more information is not accurate. Its not just additions that can be inaccurate but omissions as well can create false information. (olive (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)) Then add an additional sentence that says that celebs appeared in other episodes having their dog rehabilitated. Don't misquote an article about the 100th episode to say that it refers to the series as a whole. Marj (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC) It's not misquoting anything, it's merely saying these celeberity guests appered on the show, which the 100th episode is one of. Nothing in the content says they appeared on the 'series as a whole'. Dreadstar ☥ 23:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC) So my statement "Other celebrity guests in this episode were Patti LaBelle, Virginia Madsen, Ed McMahon and Daisy Fuentes." implies that these guests were on no episode other than the 100th, and your new paragraph "Other celebrity guests appearing on the show include Patti LaBelle, Virginia Madsen, Ed McMahon and Daisy Fuentes." suggests only that they were on the 100th episode and may or may not have been on other episodes of the program. I think this is another semantic game whose goal is to ensure that your view of the program is the only one that is accepted. Marj (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Only if you try to combine the first and second paragraphs, which then defeats the purpose of paragraphs. In any case, the point is now moot, researched, sourced and copy edited. Dreadstar ☥ 00:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Why doesn't someone do some research? Read through the episode guides and locate just who and when celebs were on the show, complete the table that I started, and then noone will have to misrepresent references to get their point across? Marj (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC) I don't see any reason why this discussion has to deteriorate into nastiness once again. No one is misrepresenting sources and I for one have no points to get across. You imply you are the only one who has researched this topic which is unfair and incorrect. If I have the time tomorrow I Will be looking through the sources I have on hand so that more content can be added. In the meantime sit tight and please play nice.(olive (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC))

• Oh, gosh, Marj, nice work on the chart, didn't mean to gloss over that work and research. Sorry. It's a good idea and we can certainly incorporate it. Because it was unsigned, I actually thought Olive put it together...then I looked more carefully and added Template:Unsigned. Sorry... Dreadstar ☥ 00:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

How do you like the new wording and sources?, could prolly be improved. Should we add the actual chart? Might look good and then we can add to it! Dreadstar ☥ 00:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that's now info that is supported by the references. Sorry about forgetting to sign - it's my first table, lots to keep straight.Marj (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Good job! The tables are complex! Dreadstar ☥ 02:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Can we at least give each other the courtesy of a discussion before undoing others edits. There is nothing to say that your opinion on wording or organisation is 'right' and others are wrong.Marj (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not what I was doing, I was merely ordering in what I thought was the logical order. Apparently, you did the same thing. So here we are. Why is your reordering superior to what is there now? Please point out where you discussed your reordering of the article before undoing what what was there. Dreadstar ☥ 02:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

No one was working on the article when I applied the structure recommended for Television series. Apart from that I have been doing the huge tedious job of ensuring all references follow the same format - starting at the top of the page. Your re-ordering means I have to start again, not just go from the ref number I was up to.Marj (talk) 02:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well, where is the recommended structure? Not sure how this would affect references, I haven't seen anything about how they're numbered and ordered. Sorry if I messed up something like that. Dreadstar ☥ 02:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you mean your own personal list, going down through the references in order? Sorry! I guess you could just look here and use that for a reference order. Dreadstar ☥ 02:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't edit that version. Clicking on the number and editing the specific section is a lot simpler than having two versions open and keeping track of changes. I'll abandon the task.Marj (talk) 03:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW Dreadstar, a smartass comment attached to an "undo" does little to improve the editing process or the collaborative environment.Marj (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, a sense of humour is not amiss on these pages. Good grief!(olive (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC))

Good point Littleolive oil, I agree. Dreadstar a funny comment would have been great!Marj (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I find Dreadstar's edit summary very funny, and it is refreshing when a good edit is accompanied by a comment that is light. But each to his own.(olive (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC))

I didn't misunderstand. I guess it makes a difference that you weren't the one who put most of the weekend into looking for the required reference and re-writing the section, to have it changed to something that was poor grammar.Marj (talk) 22:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think you'd misunderstood. In fact using "being" makes the sentence passive which is grammatically weaker than what was in place.... And while I understand the work that goes into writing articles, I don't see that this edit undid your work. One has to be ready to allow collaboration on syntax . It what makes article stronger. However I'm sure Dreadstar doesn't need help from me so I'll leave you to it.(olive (talk) 23:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC))

Sorry! I thought your saying "You misunderstand" meant that you thought I'd misunderstood. Obviously I misunderstood your "You misunderstand". Apologies. Marj (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Program format

The article is now very specific: it follows Millan as he rehabilitates guests’ “last chance” dogs. Millan emphasises that the Dog Whisperer program is not a guide to training dogs. He says "This is not a 'sit down, stay, come here, good boy' show" but is about modifying the behavior of dogs that might otherwise be put down or on medication." Clearly not all the dogs on the show are last chance or about to be put down. So what gives? 842U (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a direct quote from Millan. I guess you'd have to ask him "What gives?" Certainly there are plenty of dogs dumped or killed that you or I would not think 'beyond hope'. Do you think there is a problem with the article being specific? Marj (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It is a direct quote, taken out of context -- and used as synth. The article is from 2007 and the quote is in the context of an interview about controversy surrounding training technique. A more appropriate description of the program format would be from a less controversial source -- possibly a source that's describing the television show and not the techniques in the show.842U (talk) 11:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I think one of the things that has made writing this article difficult is that the program has changed significantly between 2006 and 2011. The references I have that give a general description of the program are written by media sociologists, television critics, etc and you've only let me quote dog experts in the past, many of which are critical of some of the techniques demonstrated. The way you have re-written the section is great.Marj (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the point is necessarily to have dog experts for a section on program format. I rewrote the sentence to reflect the nature of the quote; in point of fact, there's no reason to introduce controversy into a part of the article that's rather flat, cut and dried. But if the program format is being coached in terms of controversy, at least show that transparently.842U (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't it you you introduced the term 'controversy' here, 842U? The previous wording didn't suggest there was anything controversial about the program format. Millan has said the same thing in a number of interviews.Marj (talk) 06:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I only introduced the word controversy to the article because the source on the program format (itself already in the article and rather inaccurate) is from an article on dog training controversy. I'd be much happier if the program description were less synth and more accurate. But in the meantime, at least the reader knows transparently he's getting a format description of The Dog Whisperer from a celebrity rag article steeped more in controversy and hyperbole than neutrality. No worries. 842U (talk) 11:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Here are some program descriptions from other sources, already cited in the article:

"Millan rejects the label ‘dog trainer’ and calls himself a ‘dog rehabilitator’. Even in his books, Millan explores the root problems experienced by the dogs and vaguely describes solutions, but does not give specific skill sets for training purposes."

"Millan believes viewers understand, 'This' he says 'is not a how-to-do show. Most of the dogs he works with, he notes, are 'dogs that have an appointment to die'"

"'I tell people this is not a how-to-show, but it can create awareness insight into the possibilities,' says Millan, ducking a question about how often he has been bitten while rehabbing dogs"

I think Millan repeats the point that this is a reality program that follows him as he rehabilitates dogs with serious problems, not a guide to training your dog at home, sufficiently often that we can safely include that information. We can't get more accurate information than Millan's own repeated opinion.Marj (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Shall I re-write this using the quote from one, or all, of the above - newspapers and an academic journal - rather than People magazine?Marj (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Either way, the program format does not limit itself to last chance dogs. The show follows Millan's work in the field of dog rehabilitation: on the program he works with all kinds of cases, e.g., dogs that can't walk across slippery floors, dogs with separation anxiety, etc. — he visits animal shelters, etc. No need to go to great length to suggest the show is only about last chance dogs, use quotes (out of context) to suggest that it's the case -- when it is not the case. Again, no worries. 842U (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeh, that's one of the problems of WP:OR. An editor can know from watching 170 episodes what the program format is, but every written account concentrates on one aspect of it. Unfortunately we have to reflect the majority of published accounts. I'll re-write the section.Marj (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I found a web site that says that the program deals with problems like barking so have included that.Marj (talk)

Celebrity Appearances

Not sure about the show/hide box for these, good to know how to create one but is it better to just have the permanent table. What do you all think? Marj (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC) No argument so I'll leave the show/hide box Marj (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The lede

The lede needs to cover all of the sections in the article, in the order that they appear. (One reason to have sections and subsections rather than a list of short sections). If we can stabilize the organisation someone can tackle re-writing it. Marj (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll be happy to rewrite it. I'll give a day or two to makes sure the article is stable as you say.(olive (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC))

I'd still like to see the guideline that lays out the specific order of sections/sub-sections that you alluded to earlier, it would make it much easier to determine section ordering and layout. Dreadstar ☥ 05:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to find it again - if I'd thought it was gong to be contentious I would have bookmarked it. I get lost amongst all the different guides and templates. It wasn't a specific order, just a suggestion of the standard sections something like: format, history/development, people appearing in it, people working on it, reception ... Marj (talk) 05:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I've never seen anything definitive myself. There is this which you both may have seen. If help is needed reworking/rewriting the lead I'd be happy to help and do it, but if not needed or someone else wants to do it, no problem.(olive (talk) 11:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC))

Yes that's what I was reading, as I said above it was just a suggestion of sections to include, but it made sense to me.Marj (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I won't touch the organisation again, but if writing by myself I'd have

Format

History or Development

Cast

Millan

Guests or Clients

Celebrities

Daddy

Crew or Production crew

Reception

Ratings

Awards

Criticism

References

Happy for you to draft a new lead section Littleolive oil Marj (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I noticed you changing a few of the words in the lead section, Littleolive Oil. I think it needs much more than that so have had a go at drafting a new section that summarizes the material in the body. Marj (talk) 06:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Episodes from Australia, UK etc

Episodes were shot here (in Australia) in 2009 and will be again later this year. Some were also filmed in the UK, I remember the outcry in the British media at the time. Any in Canada or elsewhere? Can we have a paragraph on these? Marj (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Done Marj (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Perform

Doctors perform surgery, people perform tasks. "Perform" is not limited to the stage. Marj (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

However / Although

However and although have different meanings.

• Millan modifies dog behaviour, although it is not a dog training program.
• Millan modifies dog behaviour, however it is not a dog training program.

The first suggests that Millan modifies dog behaviour in spite of it not being that sort of program. The second suggests that while Millan modifies dog behaviour, the program should not be interpreted as a dog training program. Marj (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Why suggest, just out and out say it..."while Millan modifies dog behaviour, the program should not be interpreted as a dog training program." Dreadstar ☥ 19:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

That's using 'while' instead of 'however' or 'although' but I'm happy with that. Marj (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, the point really was that there's got to be a better way to write it without depending on these vague structures. Dreadstar ☥ 20:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• While Millan modifies dog behaviour, it is not a dog training program.

It is no less 'vague' just a third alternative. Which I accept, and I hope Littleolive Oil does too.Marj (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You created the analysis of the "however, although" wording based on your words posted here not on what I had written and in context of what was in the article. "Although." in the context I used it was correct and accurate, not worth fighting over though. The lead is somewhat cumbersome, so I'm sure we can work together to fix it up.(olive (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC))

Too vague, we don't want it to appear that we're saying the work by Millan isn't dog training; no matter what the various opinions are on it. The television show isn't meant to teach you how to train your dog, it illustrates the training methods that Millan uses. There's a subtle difference in that wording which can be POV. Dreadstar ☥ 21:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure who this is addressed to but I'm not proposing the either of the words 'although' or 'however' be used. I'm pointing out that I don't agree with the way my edit was analyzed. My feeling is that it should be rewritten rather than touched up here and there, so I'm fine with anything that is correct grammatically and is accurate per the sources. (olive (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC))

But you kept "touching up" what I had written, changing 'however' to 'although'. Dreadstar suggested a re-write, which I did. And you now change it back to the 'however' construction that I originally used. Maybe we should let an edit sit for 24 hours rather than rushing to change it and then have to re-consider. Marj (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

What was in place seemed awkward. I looked at the several versions in the diffs and went with one that seemed clear. I didn't look at who wrote what necessarily, and I don't care whose words they are. My concern was clarity. I only revert once. I'll step out of this conversation and let you and whoever else is interested decide.(olive (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC))

Assumptions

Wikipedia editors cannot make assumptions, but they can certainly report on assumptions made by researchers in peer-reviewed scientific papers. It is cited as a a conclusion reached by the researchers, not as an undisputed fact. Though any viewer of the program would make the same assumption. One owner specifically named the Dog Whisperer as the source. The study also discusses the alpha roll and the dominance down, but they are demonstrated by both the Monks of New Skete and Dog Whisperer.Marj (talk) 06:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You have referenced particular episodes as "evidence" of celebrity appearances. Do you want me to referenece the episodes where Millan uses these techniques?Marj (talk) 06:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but assumptions are assumptions. BLP requires more stringent sources that those that 'guess' at what the opinons they're publishing are - especially from WP:SPS WP:PSTS. We'll need to justify the use of research papers and projects, since they seem to fall under WP:SPS WP:PSTS. Who are these people, who is publishing them and how are the reliable sources per WP:BLP? Let's get started on that, eh? Then we'll need to find consensus on their inclusion and how to present the material. Further attempts to edit war it in will be problematic. Dreadstar ☥ 09:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

As a courtesy, could you please give the terms in full instead of giving abbreviations that I have to look up? I see from your user page that most of your involvement in Wikipedia, Dreadstar, is reverting vandalism. Do you ever approach an edit believing that it was a good faith attempt to add useful information? Marj (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

We should look at the research paper. Does anyone have it, I don't see it online.The two sites that I looked at do not mention the Dog Whisperer, but make a general comment about TV shows unless I missed it. We can't use that kind of information. Linking the outcome of this survey with TV shows and then linking TV shows with Dog Whisperer is WP:OR and isn't compliant in any Wikipedia article.(olive (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC))

There are four different research papers, Littleolive Oil. All of them published by reputable scientists, all specifically discuss Dog Whisperer and all of them in authoritative peer-reviewed journals. You have no problem with using pop magazines, Millan's press releases, etc. And Dreadstar was able to use WP:OR in saying what he knew from experience about the appearance of celebrities - even when he couldn't give the actual episode. It seems the difference it that it was me that added the information. Marj (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with using peer reviewed research papers and did not say I did. I am asking to see the papers which is/are cited in the source. The articles I looked at, which are not papers but comments on the research do not cite Dog Whisperer which is why I asked if anyone could point me to the paper or papers so I could look at the papers themselves and verify the content. I have "no problem with using pop magazines"? Could you point me to where I sourced research to a pop magazine. Sources are compliant per the information you are citing. If you have a problem with a source lets discuss it or replace it. But you can't make blanket statement about a source.

Looking through your contributions I can't find where you have actually added information, you've only modified what others have added, so I can't point you to where you referenced a pop magazine. However a glance down the reference list will support my statement. Marj (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Dreadstar linked you to the pertinent policies and guidelines, the standard, courteous and easy way to make it easy for editors to look at the pertinent policies or guidelines...and... If there is OR in the article it needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs)

It's interesting how often you speak for Dreadstar, Littleolive Oil and he sees no need to comment for himself. Also interesting how often the two of you appear side by side where a contententious issues is being discussed - such as on the TM article. Marj (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're making some kind of accusation, then I suggest you take it up the chain, otherwise, look to your own COI and edit warring first. One thing I learned from the TM ArbCom is exactly how COI works and how it can get editors banned from articles. Tread softly. Dreadstar ☥ 21:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't speak for anyone. Editors work on Wikipedia when they can. Why say that another editor has not commented because he has hasn't commented with in your time frame. Let me explain something to you, Your comments and tone are uncivil and you have created a battleground mentality which is disruptive. I suggest you stick with what is going on on this page . Do not mischaracterize my intentions or my editing. I am familiar with Dispute Resolution and I'm not afraid to go there again should you choose to continue. I asked to look at the refs and I will do so tomorrow when I have the time to give them the attention they deserve. Whether you are wrong or right is of no concern to me . i just need to verify the references. This is collaborative and that means other editors have a right and duty to make sure things are right.(olive (talk) 01:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC))

Content that is not compliant should be removed. Why would anyone assume the content was not added in good faith. Good faith and content that isn't compliant are two different issues. No one accused you of not editing in good faith . This isn't personal, its about the content in an article that impacts a living person. We are compelled to be stringent. Could you point me to the papers you are citing. I don't see them online but may have missed them(olive (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC))

I have provided the full citation, no more specific 'pointer' is possible. Marj (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

<start copy>

An editor has deleted the information that I added from these sources, saying they are all "self published".

• Walsh, Froma (2009). "Human-Animal Bonds II: The Role of Pets in Family Systems and Family Therapy". Family Process (Family Process Institute) 48 (4): 462–480. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2009.01296.x.

Walsh, Froma Family Process:

• Greenebaum, Jessica B (2010). "Training Dogs and Training Humans: Symbolic Interaction and Dog Training". Anthrozoos (International Society for Anthrozoology (ISAZ)) 23 (2): 129–141. ISSN 0892-7936.

Jessica Greenebaum Anthrozoos

• Jackson-Schebetta, Lisa (2009). "Mythologies and Commodifications of Dominion in The Dog Whisperer with Cesar Millan". Journal for Critical Animal Studies (Institute for Critical Animal Studies (ICAS)) 7 (1): 107-130. ISSN 1948-352X.

Jackson-Schebetta, LisaJournal for Critical Animal Studies

• Herron, Meghan E.; Shofer, Frances S. , Reisner, Ilana R. (2009). "Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behaviours". Applied Animal Behaviour Science (International Society for Applied Ethology (ISAE)) (117): 47–54. ISSN 0168-1591.

Meghan HerronApplied Animal Behaviour Science

Can I please get another opinion on whether they are reliable sources? Thanks Marj (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

These do not appear to be self-published sources. The editor that has told you that research papers come under WP:SPS is not correct. I can see from the talkpage that there may be other issues, such as whether the papers actually mention the Dog Whisperer show, which is another matter. But the material passes RS. --FormerIP User talk:FormerIP 21:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. The papers do all specifically mention the Dog Whisperer. The material cited is accurate and contains no original research. User talk:Mdk572 21:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

<end copy>

• Let's not copy statement in a way that makes it appear that the editor commented here, when the comment was elsewhere. [5] Dreadstar ☥ 06:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• Let's read the heading From Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard as saying this is copied from elsewhere.Marj (talk) 03:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

End Noticeboard copy

This conversation is rapidly becoming absurd. One does not post on a NB for an hour then take the first comment that comes along as definitive especially when it supports your position. Sheesh. Dreadstar asked that we look at each source individually to assess its reliability. That is a reasonable, standard, neitral way of dealing with sources that are disputed, and two editors here have concerns that at least some of these sources are not reliable and do not mention Dog Whisperer. (olive (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC))

Well you seem to have a lot more experience with dispute resolution than I have, but looking at what is on the board, once a question is definitively answered there is no further discussion. How about you list your evidence that these are self-published. What are these concerns? You haven't given any reason for repeated deletions. And you are speaking for Dreadstar again! Marj (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The questions have not been definitively answered. I didn't say these are self published. I said to repeat that I'd like to look at the sources which takes time and care. I'm not speaking for Dreadstar. I addressed some issues you seemed to have overlooked. And your tone and comments border on incivility.(olive (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC))

I have explained that they do specifically mention Dog Whisperer. Are you calling me a liar? Marj (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow.You're battleground mentality is not appropriate. I have a right to ask to see the sources. I assume you're human like the rest of us and I'd like to come back to you with an informed comment if that's OK with you. Its about respect. It has nothing to do with truthfulness. (olive (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC))

Easy to develop a battle ground mentality when you are constantly under attack. No-one edits until I post some new information - then you delete, change or otherwise subvert without explanation or evidence.Marj (talk)

You have a right to locate the sources. The terms of my database subscriptions do not allow me to provide others with a copy. I have given a direct quote of the relevant section, but you probably accuse me of fabricating that too. Do you know how to use Google? You can copy and paste the title into the search bar to locate copies of the article that you have access to. Marj (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

No one said you fabricated anything. I did not see the sources online and asked if anyone had them. You gave a direct quote only after the NB and once I had formatted a discussion section. You seem to misunderstand the process on Wikipedia. Your content was contested so the next step is not to attack everyone but to take a closer look. I add what I can when I can and if I have an area of expertise, it is copyediting. Once the content is on the page its not yours anymore, it belongs to the article and the encyclopedia so I am copyediting content that's all . I could care less who's it is. Different people do different things on Wikipedia and it takes several editors in most cases to create good articles. I came to an article that was well formed when I came so I've only added a small section. I also said I'd write the lead but you got there first. Fair enough. I have had several dogs in my life and own one now, a rescue dog which needed a lot of training, so I find this topic interesting.(olive (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC))

My copy was not contested. It was deleted without explanation or any attempt at discussion. If it had been queried I would have been able to explain my reasoning for including the material. When a reason was given it was totally false, how could any of these be described as 'self published'. When I came to the article it was not well formed - it was primarily about the person Cesar Millan, not the television program Dog Whisperer, with long lists of Millan's appearances on talk shows and and guest spots on tv dramas, and almost no other information. I have put many hours into locating, summarizing, and referencing the information that made the well-formed article you found. The process that has worked for me on other articles has been to query any edits that I disagree with, and work towards a consensus. Your process of deleting without explanation and requiring the editor to prove that it should not be deleted is confrontational, not collaborative. Marj (talk) 02:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Not that it means anything in this context but I am a professor of media studies at a university, a certified pet dog trainer, and a lifelong owner of dogs including two current dogs. My interest in the program article began when an article I was interested in linked to it. Marj (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it means you have a WP:COI and need to really be cautious about your editing. No more edit warring, for example. Discuss your changes on the talkpage before adding them, and don't edit war them back into place when they're removed. Dreadstar ☥ 06:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not have a conflict of interest, I have been accused and cleared of that in the past. This is about a Television Program!! My 337 edits have all been designed to make it an article about a television program, not about Cesar Millan, or dog training. BTW it takes two to edit war, and removing good faith edits as though they were vandalism is a good way to start an edit war.Marj (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Show me where you were cleared. What I see is that the discussion was derailed because of the behavior of your accuser. I assure you, with me, there will be no such distraction. You have a clear and undeniable COI, with POV editing and warring to allow for sanctions under COI. My suggestion is that you strictly abide by COI. Dreadstar ☥ 23:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no conflict of interest, and the record shows my edits are even handed. I use neither dominance based nor positive training methods, and have never trained any but my own dogs. So carry out your threat.Marj (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Depend on it. Step across the line again and we'll see if there's meat to the COI bone. I think there's an entire steak there. Dreadstar ☥ 03:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.842U (talk) 03:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks? Dreadstar's comment above "the discussion was derailed because of the behavior of your accuser" refers to you 842U! Marj (talk) 02:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, It's apparent that Dreadstar is calm/assertive in these situations; there's much to learn. Either way, I appreciate his affirming the earlier evidence of your COI; there's no more playing around with inserting deep bias into the article. The message has been served twice now. 842U (talk) 10:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I've twice been accused of a conflict of interest, without any evidence that my accusers actually understand what is meant by the term "conflict of interest", let alone evidence of how I stand to benefit by any information given in a Wikipedia article on the Dog Whisperer program. 842U you haven't reminded us that you too were accused of a conflict of interest. It is interesting that your only dog related editing is Cesar Millan and Dog Whisperer. Are you an avid fan? Marj (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. Again, thanks Dreadstar, for affirming the COI.842U (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Please show me where I deleted with out explanation. If you want an article that no one can touch you're in the wrong place. No one owns these articles and every contribution is worthwhile. If you want others to assume good faith of you I suggest you do the same for them. Dreadstar's point and mine were simply to allow for examination of the sources. That means we all look at them and discuss them. If Dreadstar or I or you are wrong fine, we just clean things up. That's all.(olive (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC))

• I removed it, with an explanation in the edit summary,[6] which was then edit warred back into place.[7] This process made all the added material questionable, so I removed it all pending discussion.[8] Discuss it please. Dreadstar ☥ 06:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Commentary

The Dog Whisperer program has been the focus of a number of research papers from a variety of discipline perspectives including family therapy and ethology.

A research paper that examines the role of family pets in family processes and relationships, says that in Dog Whisperer Cesar Millan goes to the family home and works much like a structural family therapist, helping to build an effective family structure and establish hierarchies and boundaries.

In an observational study of the philosophies, methods, and skill sets used by dog trainers, one researcher concluded that there were two very different methods that dominated current dog training: a modern version of dominance/obedience training demonstrated on Dog Whisperer and a method based on reward and behavioral modification demonstrated on It's Me or the Dog. The author concluded that the fact that both methods continue to dominate the training world suggests that people still have ambiguous relationships with their companion animals.

A study of the narrative structure of Dog Whisperer published in a leading critical animal studies journal placed it within a tradition of representing the relationship between humans and nature as one of domination, where non-human animals are presented as commodities that serve the human animal’s wishes.

In a research project designed to assess the safety risks of techniques used by owners of dogs with behavior problems, owners reported hearing about the techniques of giving a "schhhtt" sound correction and "abruptly jabbing the dog in the neck", on television. They were not asked for the names of television sources, but one respondent specified that they were referring to the program Dog Whisperer. Both techniques were concluded to be potentially provocative and therefore capable of triggering defensive aggression.

Sources:

• 1.Walsh, Froma (2009). "Human-Animal Bonds II: The Role of Pets in Family Systems and Family Therapy". Family Process (Family Process Institute) 48 (4): 462–480. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2009.01296.x.

Walsh, Froma Family Process:

• 2.Greenebaum, Jessica B (2010). "Training Dogs and Training Humans: Symbolic Interaction and Dog Training". Anthrozoos (International Society for Anthrozoology (ISAZ)) 23 (2): 129–141. ISSN 0892-7936.

Jessica Greenebaum Anthrozoos

• 3.Jackson-Schebetta, Lisa (2009). "Mythologies and Commodifications of Dominion in The Dog Whisperer with Cesar Millan". Journal for Critical Animal Studies (Institute for Critical Animal Studies (ICAS)) 7 (1): 107-130. ISSN 1948-352X.

Jackson-Schebetta, LisaJournal for Critical Animal Studies

• 4.Herron, Meghan E.; Shofer, Frances S. , Reisner, Ilana R. (2009). "Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behaviours". Applied Animal Behaviour Science (International Society for Applied Ethology (ISAE)) (117): 47–54. ISSN 0168-1591.

Meghan HerronApplied Animal Behaviour Science

Discussion:

Source 4.

SPS or not, such material that states "They were not asked for the names of specific television sources, but it was assumed by the study authors that they were referring to the program Dog Whisperer" is highly problematic, and such guessing does not rise to the threshold of WP:V, much less W:BLP. Then, suddenly, it changes to "one respondent specified that they were referring to the program Dog Whisperer". Let's start there. Dreadstar ☥ 06:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The original: "Television was the most frequently reported source for the ‘‘schhhtt’’ sound correction and abruptly ‘‘jabbing the dog in the neck’’, both of which have been demonstrated on a popular dog training program (Millan et al., 2004). Because respondents were not asked to provide the names of specific television sources, it was assumed by the authors that owners listing television as the source for the two training techniques were referring to this popular show, although only one owner cited it specifically. Both techniques are potentially provocative and, therefore, may trigger defensive aggression." Marj (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like an oddly-worded Primary source being used to add contentious material to the article. I'd rather leave this one out and find reliable secondary sources that talk about this research paper - if they can be found. Dreadstar ☥ 20:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The "primary source" was a series of interviews with dog owners who had been bitten while training their dogs. Their responses are the research. There are much more critical sections of the paper that deal with the serious injuries people received while using an 'alpha roll' or a 'dominance down'. The fact that owners try Millan's techniques at home and get bitten is the source of most of the objections to the program. It is an important point. Marj (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This is indeed the very definition of a Primary source under Wikipedia policy and needs to be treated as such, especially so, since this is regarding WP:BLP. That's the important point. We're not a 'how-to' manual on whether or not people are abiding by Millan's clearly defined parameters or not - or if even the responses are to the subject of this article. That's one of the problems with primary sources, what are they talking about, the subject of this article or something else? The source even says they didn't ask for the specific show, but they 'guess' which one it was? Nah. We already have reliable sources that say an owner should not attempt these techniques, and the attendant consquences thereof. Dreadstar ☥ 21:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, if you can't understand that Wikipedia policy is telling us that we can't use what people in the street say (primary source) but we can use published papers based on interviews (secondary source), then there is no point in further discussion.Marj (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Source 1.

"Pet trainers, coaches, and therapists, called in to resolve serious pet behavior problems, commonly find it is not the animal but the family that has the problem. On the popular televised series The Dog Whisperer, trainer Cesar Milan (2006) goes to the family home and works much like a structural family therapist (Minuchin, 1974). First he observes family-pet interactions and enactment of the problem behavior. With hyperactive and out-of-control pets, he notes that the family has let the dog control them and works with them to build family structure, boundaries, and hierarchy, with the parents authoritatively in charge as the ‘‘family pack leaders.’’" Marj (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Source 1: cites an article for the quote, but also a research paper which does not mention Dog Whisperer. So I don't see how this fits under a section on research papers. Perhaps a summary of the quoted comment could go somewhere else. (Apologies Dreadstar thought I'd finish up this 1st, 2nd, 3rd source.)(olive (talk) 10:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC))

The original acknowledges Minuchin as the source of the term "structural family therapist" This does not negate the fact that Walsh is talking about the program. I thought it was a good positive comment about the program to balance the criticisms. Marj (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The research paper does not reference Dog Whisperer at all so we can't use it. Content must be explicitly referenced in and by the sources otherwise we are staring to get into OR and synthesis territory.(olive (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC))

We are citing Walsh - who does specifically mention Dog Whisperer. Walsh cites Minuchin as the source of the term he uses. We can't use Minuchin, but we can use Walsh. Marj (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Source 2: I can't access Original excerpts:

"Obedience/dominance training is based on social dominance theories that use harsh corrections to get rid of unwanted behavior (Yin 2007). The Koehler method, popular in 1960s and 1970s due to methods such as helicopter move (with the leash attached to the collar on dog, the trainer holds onto the collar and spins the dog around in air), alpha roll (flipping the dog on its back and holding him or her down, sometimes holding him or her down by the throat), use of choke collars and throw chain (applying a sharp hit to the rear to surprise the dog without them knowing who hit him or her) (Koehler 1962). These techniques that dominate dogs into submission are considered cruel and outdated by many contemporary dog trainers. While Koehler’s methods are rarely used today, some of his basic ideas and skill sets have been adapted and modernized, by trainers including Cesar Millan. Millan’s books explore the root problems experienced by the dogs and vaguely describes solutions, but does not give specific skill sets for training purposes. Millan insists that the training should consist of discipline, exercise, and affection, in that order. Millan, however, is adamant that people should “never hit or otherwise harm your dog, instead use sound, energy, and eye contact, or a firm, physical “touch” correction . Most tools of discipline, including choke collars, are used inappropriately by humans, and should not be used if angry or frustrated (Millan 2007). However, many trainers do consider his methods and techniques to be outdated and potentially dangerous and abusive. According to Yin (2007, p. 416), dominance-submission dog training is based on outdated ideas of wolf pack behaviors that do not apply to the lifestyle of domesticated dogs."

"Yin, as well as other critics (Herron, Shofer and Reisner 2009), claims this leads to aggression,rather than eliminates it. His alpha-dog training tips make good television and may provide fast results. But what happens when the show’s over? … Yet the showmanship continues. On Millan’s Dog Whisperer, he goes house to bad-dog house, jerking leashes, shaking scruffs of necks, and throwing the occasional kick—in a wolfman-to-wolfpack fashion,except that the dogs aren’t truly fooled. They don’t believe he’s a dog. What’s worse, says Janis Bradley, a San Francisco trainer and author of the helpfully titled Dogs Bite, the dogs often fall into a helpless state Millan calls “calm submission,” but what trained behaviorists see as possible chronic stress or “shutdown,” which can lead to a dog eventually fighting back. (Pesmen and Martin 2006)"

"Derr (2006) agrees with Pesmen and Martin’s interpretation of Cesar Millan. While Mr. Millan rejects hitting and yelling at dogs during training, his confrontational methods include physical and psychological intimidation, like finger jabs, choke collars, extended sessions on a treadmill and what is called flooding, or overwhelming the animal with the thing it fears. Compared with some training devices still in use-whips and cattle prods, for example—these are mild, but combined with a lack of positive reinforcement or rewards, they place Mr. Millan firmly in a long tradition of punitive dog trainers."

Greenbaum discusses positive training methods in similar detail, then concludes:

"This study expands upon previous research conducted by sociologists that use symbolic interaction o highlight our complex and contradictory connections with dogs. Sanders’ (2006) research highlights how training K9 officers maintains the ambiguity with which we regard dogs. Irvine’s (2004) work on critical anthropomorphism and animal care shows how this new evaluation of animal interaction has encouraged an alternative relationship with dogs. Now that dogs are granted “personhood,” dog training is slowly changing. Although dominance-based training is still popular, reward-based dog training is on the rise. The fact that both methods continue to dominate the training world suggest that Sanders is correct in his analysis that people still have ambiguous relationships with their companion animals. I suggesting that there is an absolute or direct correlation between type of dog training and the relationship people have with their dogs. Dogs must be trained in order to become socialized, well-behaved members of the human family. Dogs can learn the different training skills required with either method of dog training. All the choices dogs make are manipulated; the differences are whether they are physically forced or emphasized through a learning process. However, through the process of training, dogs learn their role and status within the family. When bringing a dog to training, most people only expect that their dogs will learn how to behave. They do not expect that they will receive an education as well. In fact, one of the main purposes of dog training is to reshape the guardians’ behavior. It is through this process that guardians learn, through the trainers, how to treat dogs both physically and symbolically. This research draws attention to the complicated relationship between humans and dogs and contains implications for the way we think about dogs in our society in general and dog training specifically. As a society we love dogs, but the love is not expressed or possessed uniformly. While they are frequently cherished as family members, they are also treated as prized possessions or loved as cute objects. Here lies the problem; if they are treated as tools, possessions, or objects, then they can be easily disposed of when they do not live up to our expectations. It is critical for us to realize that dog training is just as much, if not more, about training humans as it for training dogs. It is we who fail dogs. We fail to communicate properly with them. We fail to live up to our commitments and our roles and responsibility as guardians. Thus, hopefully this research will promote and encourage humane dog training that promotes dogs as thinking and active agents in communication and the socialization process." Marj (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for adding this quoted content.(olive (talk) 02:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC))

No worries, hope it clarifies things.Marj (talk) 03:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Source 3: looks good, but not a research paper per se.... but a study, so maybe the first sentence of that Commentary section could be changed slightly to accommodate the different kinds of content.

Research in media studies involves 'studying' the program. But yes the first sentence can mention different kinds of research.Marj (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm definitely fine with 1 and 3 being in the article...as long as we remove the research paper on Source 1, that doesn't mention DW. if there's something I'm missing on the use of that paper let me know. Any chance of qouting the part in 2 that refers to DW.(olive (talk) 11:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC))

• To consider per WP:IRS:

Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context.

(olive (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC))

Content elements

I don't think the entirity of the above content or source information needs much more than a sentence or two, much less an entire section. Let's work on adding something appropriate. And no, sources that 'guess' at what the respondents are talking about aren't reliable sources. Dreadstar ☥ 22:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Reputation

To use "reputation for working with large breeds and at risk dogs" in the lead section, it should be in the body of the article, and referenced. Marj (talk) 03:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yup, see WP:LEAD. Dreadstar ☥ 04:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead Section

842U, I think you have misunderstood the guidelines on the lead section, referred to by Dreadstar above. It's not that the material should not be in the lead, but that it needs to be in the body before it can be in the lead. I think the article needs some information on who Millan is, up front. Marj (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Reference

"Established a reputation for working with aggressive breeds" is a mis-reprentation of the source's "interest is in rehabilitating aggressive dogs". Having an interest in something is not the same as having a reputation for doing it. In any case The Immigration Professor's Blog, unreferenced, is not an authoritative source of information.Marj (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Mis-representation of references

It is not appropriate to cherry-pick bits of information from a source, such as "most animal professionals are quick to say much of what Millan imparts is solid". If you quote the small amount of positive comment, you should quote some of the extensive criticism. Marj (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The quote is verbatim and not a mis-representation of the reference. In fact, the use of the quote now describes the context of the quote and the context of the article's criticisms -- those sources of criticisms being clearly cited. It could be argued that the the source had been "cherry-picked" before to take a comment Millan made in the specific discussion about criticisms of the show and include this comment in the introduction of the article as a general description of the show -- while overlooking the strongly worded, clear and positive comment about the show's training techniques. Either way, we can be relieved given the apparent difficulty in finding positive comments about the show.842U (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If you have found authoritative references that make unequivocal positive comments about the program, why aren't you using them instead of picking one positive comment out of a highly critical article? Marj (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is this whole paragraph in italics? Marj (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You also misrepresent the other reference in this section. The source says "Mr. Millan, 36, started by working in the early 1990's in a San Diego dog-grooming studio, where he gained a reputation for working well with the hard-to-handle cases." It is inappropriate to cite this as "...Millan is a self-taught dog trainer who established a reputation for working with .... hard to handle cases." If you want to use this reference, say "...Millan is a self-taught dog trainer who established a reputation for working with .... hard to handle cases, in the San Diego dog-groomers where he worked." His reputation was limited to the particular San Diego dog groomers. Marj (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ambiguous?

"It currently airs exclusively on the Nat Geo WILD in the United States." It actually airs on a number of channels around the world - do you mean "In the United States it currently airs exclusively on the Nat Geo WILD channel. Marj (talk) 06:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Words that become dated, like "currently", should be avoided. "In the United States in 2011 it aired exclusively on the Nat Geo WILD channel." Marj (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I am fairly new to Wiki editing and appreciate all there is to learn from discussion pages. This seems an important point, ie, about currently. Would you suggest, just delete "currently"? Or reword with another appropriate wording?Coaster92 (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Something like "In the United States it airs exclusively on the Nat Geo WILD channel." would get around both problems. Marj (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer.216.175.109.139 (talk) 04:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be in American English?

I believe that since this is a TV show that started in the United States, American English is appropriate. As I have time, I will convert it. DBlomgren (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Reminder: Talk Page Guidelines

• "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject."
• "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal."
• Do not use the talk page as a forum
• Editors unfamiliar with these policies will find more information here: Talk Page Guidelines.842U (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

For discussion - should this newly published information be included?

There has been little new material published on the program for a while but this piece has recently appeared, (April 21 2012) written by an eminent animal behaviorist, and published in a reputable journal. I'd be interested in other's opinions on whether to include this in the article. Marc Bekoff is noteworthy - his opinions are worthy of discussion even if the final agreement is to not include them in the article.

Did Cesar Millan Have To Hang the Husky? Stringing up a dog by a noose to discipline them is animal abuse by Marc Bekoff Ph.D.in Animal Emotions, Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder. Psychology Today April 21, 2012 http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201204/did-cesar-millan-have-hang-the-husky

Marj (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• As there has been no comment rejecting this information I will include it in the article. Marj (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

More recently published material for consideration and discussion:

The Science of Cesar Millan's Dog Training: Good Timing and Hard Kicks in the Stomach by Anna Jane Grossman, writer and dog trainer, Huffington Post April 9, 2012 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anna-jane-grossman/the-dog-whisperer-technique_b_1406337.html

Marj (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

In general, I believe the Huff Post Blog editorials are not considered RS. We have to be especially careful when considering this content for BLP material.(olive (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC))

Of course this is an article about a television program, and should be written as such, not as a biography of a living person - that is the Cesar Millan article. Marj (talk) 07:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Any content that is added on a living person falls under BLP Policy. The Huff Post source is not a RS for any content let alone for BLP content. We must of course, exercise great care when dealing with people's lives and reputations, and we start by making sure our sources are of the highest quality. At the very least that means the source must be a RS.(olive (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC))

From WP:BLP (bold mine) :

This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages

This does not contradict the fact that this article should not be about Cesar Millan. It is not a fan page for him but an article about the program. Interesting that you are concerned with reliable sources here when in the past you have used TheFutonCritic, The Hollywood Gossip, People Magazine, Hulu ... when it supports your personal opinion. Marj (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The source and this article talk about Millan, so it falls under WP:BLP. Dreadstar ☥ 20:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

No-one said it didn't. The issue I raised, separate to this, is that the article could, and should, be written so that the focus is television not biography. It should be about a reality television program without the emphasis on the personal details of the presenter. Marj (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This statement seems to imply otherwise, so I felt a little clarification was in order, just in case..  :) Dreadstar ☥ 22:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Whatever you inferred, I did not imply that BLP rules were not applicable - I simply reminded editors that most personal material about Millan has no place in this article. A little clarification, just in case ... :) Marj (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right, it's not really an implication, it's more of an outright statement that BLP concerns are not applicable - which is clearly false. Dreadstar ☥ 21:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Even the title of the proposed addition is an inflammatory attack piece, and it seems to be extraordinarly biased in content. I don't think the source or the content are suitable for inclusion per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, we'd also be straying into WP:UNDUE territory. (no pun intended!) Dreadstar ☥ 21:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

There were two articles suggested - you have only discussed one, "the title of the proposed addition" Marj (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Both have been discussed above, so I don't know what you mean. This is a controversial article and you should have made sure there was consensus before adding it, much less edit-warring over it. Dreadstar ☥ 01:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Three months after I posted the articles here there was no comment on the Bekoff article, and a discussion on the second article which I accepted, that the Huffington Post editorial was not considered a "Reliable Source". No objection was posted to the Bekoff article. Acknowledged expert, reliable journal, moderate summary of the key points - makes it acceptable. Dreadstar's having a different opinion to the author does not make the article 'controversial'. Criticism by definition is not balanced - that is why it is in a section headed Criticism to alert readers to the fact that it is a particular point of view - not a neutral statement of fact. Marj (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, an editor had streneous objections to your even including it on this talk page,[9] but that may be becuase of the way you phrased it, perhaps he just thought you had no intention of adding it to the article. Either way, it was an objection that should have been addressed before you added it to the article. No one said anything about criticism needing to be 'balanced', WP:UNDUE is a different concept, and there certainly no reason to add every single negative or positive comment one can find to the article. I thought Olive had commented on the Bekoff source, but on re-read it doesn't appear that she did. Hopefully they'll both weigh in here and clarify their views on that source. My view is that it adds nothing and is just an inflammatory attack on Millan. Dreadstar ☥ 05:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hat off-topic discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
BTW it takes two to edit-war. Dreadstar's habit of deleting everything I post without discussion is not the best way of collaborating or reaching consensus. Marj (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Check out WP:BRD, the edit war began the moment you reverted my removal of your non-consensus addition. You boldly added content, I reverted, then we should have discussed -instead you chose to edit war your proposed content into the article - that's not the way things work. Dreadstar ☥ 05:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC) I added referenced content that I foreshadowed I would be adding, after waiting three months without receiving a single objection. In the six Good Articles and three Featured Articles that I have been primary editor on that is exactly how things worked. The edit war began when you summarily deleted this content without discussion. Marj (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Well, then I certainly don't understand this bit of business between you and User:824U, certainly looks like an objection to me: [10][11][12][13]. And your appeal to authority doesn't appeal to me, thanks. Dreadstar ☥ 06:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC) User824U was removing my comments from the talk page. I am used to Millan's fan club deleting my additions to the article, but I do not accept that they have the right to delete my appropriate requests for discussion. Marj (talk) Dreadstar should not use terms that they do not understand. There was no "appeal to authority". Dreadstar accused me of not knowing "how things were done". I responded that I did have sufficient experience with quality articles to have a good idea of how things were done. Marj (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC) BTW WP:BRD says "Care and diplomacy should be exercised, since some editors will see it as a challenge, so be considerate and patient." Marj (talk) 06:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Then perhaps you shouldn't be insulting other editors, and mocking their comments. And yes, I see your comments here on the talk page and your reversions of my removal of non-consensus material as a challenge. But I still remain civil. And, obviously, you don't understand BRD, otherwise you wouldn't have reverted my revert...by that reasoning it would actually be WP:BRDR - a redlink. Dreadstar ☥ 06:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC) I did not resort to WP:BRD. Dreadstar is the editor who consistenly games the system by tossing in links to policies that are invariably irrelevant, misunderstood or misused. Marj (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC) "Resort to BRD"? BRD is "irrelevant, misunderstood or misused"? I think you have that last bit partially correct, it's misunderstood alright...clearly by you. "Resort to BRD", wow. That's like saying, 'I didn't resort to CIVILITY or NPOV'....um, things everyone should resort to. Then tossing out more insults? I think this sideline discussion has run its course. Dreadstar ☥ 16:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC) The bold, revert, discuss cycle is only one method for reaching consensus, and as the guidelines say it can be confrontational, so I did not resort to using it, I began with a discussion. Dreadstar's use of policy to support their actions is often on the basis of "irrelevant, misunderstood or misused" links. But I agree that as Dreadstar's comments make no sense there is little value in continuing an exchange of opinions. Marj (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Yes, I initially chose the BRD cycle, then you 'resorted' to the far more confrontational WP:EDITWAR method. Wonderful. And beginning "with a discussion" doesn't preclude or eliminate WP:BRD, it clearly says "Similarly, if you used the article's talk page because you were unsure, and it has had no response for a few days, go ahead and make your edit." Using the article's talk page, then posting means discussion first then adding to the article. Which is exactly what you did, so it falls under BRD, but that fell by the wayside when you decided to WP:EDITWAR. So be sure to read the two sentences that follow that statement as well. And sure, go ahead and pile on the insults, Marj, I find them amusing and I think they just make you look bad.... Dreadstar ☥ 23:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• I object to both sources and the proposed content from them. The Huffpost source is insufficient for WP:BLP, and the Berkoff content adds absolutely nothing encyclopedic to the article, the title of the source and content are biased and inflammatory. Dreadstar ☥ 06:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• I agree completely with Dreadstar's analysis of the sources. I don't like nor do I agree with the personal attacks on editors on this page nor with the assumptive reasoning that is , that by protecting an article from BLP concerns a editor is a Milan supporter. In fact , in training the dogs I've had I sometimes agree with Milan's techniques and sometimes not. I will not agree to content that is so inflammatory as to harm. We've have clearly included critical comments concerning Milan and his television show. At some point, and I believe that point is now, we weight the article in a pejorative way and violate WEIGHT, NPOV, and BLP.(olive (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC))

• This article is not about dog training. It is about a reality television program. There is nothing inflammatory in the information I added - "In a 2012 article where he discusses the discipline methods used in dog training, Marc Bekoff, Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder, uses an excerpt from The Dog Whisperer as an example of a training technique which he believes most people would see as unnecessarily cruel." Balance is about reflecting the weight of published opinion. Marj (talk) 04:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Your proposed text adds nothing encyclopedic to the article, the title of the source is extraordinarly inflammatory and biased, as is the content of that source. And if you're right and this is just a reality show, then the appropriate experts to source from would be those who have notable expertise in reality shows, not dog training. Dreadstar ☥ 04:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

As in April, please read WP: BLP, Marj.(olive (talk) 13:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC))

Off talk-page question

dear Cesar, HELP!!! My daughter just separated from her husband which is difficult enough--they have moved in with us. She has 3 teenage childre and one 11 yr old female golden retreiver who is the daughter of our oldest golden sophie--she is 13. Ou problem is our 4 yr old golden Chloe who is very strong willed in fact since we got her when she was 4 months old we have watch your show every nite--just trying to survive her antics. She has come a long way thanks to your shows and books--but she has attacked Bailey 3 times in two days. She goes to the red zone it seems for no reason. We now have to crate her and keep Bailey upstairs--I have 19 grandchildren and with the holidays coming up I am desparate!!!! I can't take a chase that one of the little ones may get in the middle of this. Chloe did do this recently when my other daughter watched them at her house where there were 3 goldens. I can't take a chance we live in a small lake community where everyone walks their dogs. Actually we walk her every morning and thanks to you she does well. Please I don't know what to do!!! Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.197.37 (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

This article was not been written by Cesar Milan nor does he answer questions here or anywhere on Wikipedia. You might try the reference desk [14], although the problem sounds serious enough to ask a trainer. I can also recommend books by Monks of New Skete [15] and their books [16].(olive (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC))