Talk:Cesar Millan

Does it work?

I think one of the biggest things our readers want to get out of this article is to know whether his methods are effective and humane, who has sanctioned his methods and who opposes them. We need the absolute highest quality of sources to do this well and it is probably the most important aspect of the article. If we are overly critical, it is a BLP problem, and if we are overly supportive, we are misleading our readers and encouraging animal abuse.

I think the media is a very weak source for this, because their job is grandstanding and storytelling, shock and awe. I wonder if there has been any sophisticated academic review of his techniques? I will take a look at some point, but if someone here has expertise on the topic, they may have an easier time finding the best possible quality sources. CorporateM (Talk) 23:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, it appears that sourced biographical material was removed from the article. A lot of edits were made in a very short period of time, so it is hard to detail the changes.

I do agree about the media and I'd definitely like to see any high quality academic or scientific sources that talk about Millan's techniques (outside any that merely watched the show to gain insight and data - that really does belong in the article about the show). Dreadstar ☥ 02:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I see that a lot of the details were condensed down, and I do like what I'm seeing....I'm just a tad bit short on time and attention span, so it all may be truly excellent!  :) Dreadstar ☥ 03:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• [1]Seems to be a pay-site, does it mention Millan by name and what does it say about him? Is it based on what they saw on the TV show? Dreadstar ☥ 04:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I added a URL. Currently I'm trying to dig up what might be a much better one. It appears a peer-reviewed journal, Current Science, did an article in 2007 that is exclusively focused on Milan's techniques. From what I've read about the Current Science study, it has similar conclusions, but I'm trying to obtain a full copy. CorporateM (Talk) 05:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Cool. With all this, we may have to WP:SPINOUT a Science of The Dog Whisperer article.. :) Dreadstar ☥ 05:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for providing that URL, CorporateM, very appreciated! So, looking at the sourcing on [that URL, it seems to be sourced thusly:

Millan, C., Emery, S.P., Sumner, K.B., 2004. MPH Entertainment (Firm),Screen Media Films (Firm). Dog Whisperer with Cesar Milan: The Complete First Season.

And apparently, one to his book and the other to his website. Is that correct? Dreadstar ☥ 05:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yah, I was citing this part: "The use of such confrontational and punitive training methods has been presented and popularized in books, on the internet, and on television (then three of the citations are to Millan's books, etc.) It seemed obvious enough what they were meaning by citing them. But lets wait until I get the Current Science article, which should make this one obsolete. I don't like the idea of a separate article for the science, as it is hard to find enough sources to even justify a section that are up to our high standards of verification for this kind of material. (although I like sub-articles in general) CorporateM (Talk) 14:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Great! I thought it interesting that part of the sourcing was to the first season of the show, given the many discussions here. Plus, reading the 'results' section, it is interesting to note that owners were purportedly using the techniques of Millan contrary to what he and his show/book/magazine/site say; and the assumptions made (which may be correct assumptions) "'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"' and "Television was the most frequently reported source". Also interesting is "Owners felt that most of the listed interventions had a positive or lack of effect on their dogs’ behavior" Survey questions containing wording such as "hitting or kicking’’"" makes one wonder about the neutrality of the survey itself. Then there's "Because of the risk of heightened fear of the owner as a result of their use, leash corrections are not typically recommended by positive-reinforcement-based trainers and behaviorists", makes one wonder if these "positive-reinforcement...trainers and behaviorists" have a dog in the game themselves...ooooo...sorry, bad idiomatic pun, but money and competition can be a powerful motivator. That is then followed up with "However, in our study, 63% of owners who used leash corrections felt they had a positive effect." and then, apparently, by more guesses/assumptions by the authors about why that contrary notion had such a high percentage of success.

Looking forward to the new source. The comment about a spintout article was just an attempt at humor. Dreadstar ☥ 22:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I've asked user:Anthonyhcole if he/she has any way of accessing the Current Science article (that's the one I was referring to) and I submitted an interlibrary loan request with the public library (the university library I usually use can't let me access it, so maybe they can). Should be a very solid source if we can get at it. CorporateM (Talk) 23:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

CorporateM, I'm waiting on a call back from my library's researcher support team and it's 4:23pm here, so maybe not today. Have you tried asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request? I have about a 95% success rate there. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I can access other stuff via Ebsco Host but that article is unavailable - the researcher support lady couldn't access it either. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Woot! No luck with an inter-library loan, but the reference desk pulled through. The Current Science article confirms what we already expected from weaker sources, that there is a widespread disapproval of Millan's techniques among professional dog trainers, who think he is abusive. However, the article cites a counter-view from an article in The New Yorker

"Last summer, The New Yorker magazine ran an article about Millan. Readers reproved the writer, Malcolm Gladwell, for neglecting to mention how controversial the Dog Whisperer is. Replying to that criticism on his Web site, Gladwell said that in the many hours he had spent with Millan, he rarely saw the trainer use aversive techniques. Gladwell described Millan's interactions with dogs away from the TV cameras as "gentle."

If anyone can dig up The New Yorker piece, it might be worthwhile. CorporateM (Talk) 19:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

This seems fine; the concern with "widespread disapproval" among "professional dog trainers" is that some of the trainers obviously have their own interests to protect in addition to any concerns they have about Millan's techniques. And, from what I understand, many of these trainers would handle red-zone dogs in quite a, um, different manner than the last-resort techniques Millan uses for them. I'm also concerned that we don't go overboard with this, since we have little to go on regarding Millan's personal interactions with dogs. This is all about TV, magazine and an internet page - not really about the person. Dreadstar ☥ 21:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking about What The Dog Saw, By Gladwell and the follow-up response to critics of that piece? Dreadstar ☥ 21:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Dreadstar, are you really that experienced with dog trainers and dog training to be able to make your comments about about remuneration? My experience over a couple of decades is that what you say simply isn't true, and the ones that I know who are critical aren't in any way impacted financially by Millan. Dougweller (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you asking me questions about my personal life and experience?  :) I changed the above to say "some of" which is clearly the case I was making - not that all dog trainers were just after the cash. Dreadstar ☥ 02:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting I was trying to out you? Because if so, that's ridiculous. You made a comment that implied some sort of knowledge, I was trying to find out why you thought that comment justified. Dougweller (talk) 06:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see, so you're merely commenting on another contributor...? I do not need to justify my talk-page opinions or comments to you, nor do you to me; you're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine - as long as we're not using our own opinions as sources for content in the article, there's no problem. Obviously my own experience, knowledge, and sources infuse my comments; such yours do for your comments - to suggest otherwise is saying....well...what, exactly?....(purely a rhetorical question; I suggest we drop this line of questioning and comments about the experience and knowledge of other contributors - as I believe it will get us nowhere. Dreadstar ☥ 13:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

And my query was not a personal attack either, why are you linking to NPA? Links like the earlier one and this one don't help build a friendly atmosphere. Dougweller (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

From the start here, your own comments have created a less than friendly atmosphere (e.g. accusations of POV Pushing, etc..) These recent comments have nothing to do with discussing the sources; they're more along the lines of personal asides which get us nowhere. I'll not be commenting on this any further. Dreadstar ☥ 17:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, those are more great sources. The primary counter-point seems to be that the show is filled with theatrics that are not necessarily representative of his methods and that dog experts are responding to the over-dramatized version they see on television. Every source has its own motives that color their perspective and this is the reason we rely on a broad set of sources that come from different backgrounds. In his blog, The New Yorker journalist talks a little bit about this too - why the controversy was left out of the profile to achieve a certain angle of the story. We are not in a position to say whether the criticisms are true or not, only that his methods aren't accepted by the professional community. CorporateM (Talk) 23:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, each source has perspectives colored by particular motives. Apparently, the only source that talks about Millan (the person) who has actually been around Millan off-camera is Gladwell, the rest of the sources - even the peer-review journal - apparently base their opinions on what they see on TV, or read on a webpage, or even a magazine. And yes, we're in a position to look at the criticisms and judge them by our policies and guidelines, my point is that we don't attribute something to the entire purportedly monolithic "scientific community" or "professional community" based on a few studies and comments. We attribute it to the source - definitely not beyond, and we definitely need to be very cautious and very selective, per WP:BLP. I'm still concerned about whether sources based on TV/webpage/magazine are sufficient and/or appropriate for a BLP. Dreadstar ☥ 02:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

That is the counter-argument presented by The New Yorker journalist, however we are only in a position to document the debate and present both viewpoints fairly. We are not in a position to evaluate bias in the sources. CorporateM (Talk) 05:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit like judging a writer by their writing. A number of writers/radio/tv people who make their living by commenting on political or social issues get criticised for what they say or write, is that unreasonable? Dougweller (talk) 06:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

@CorporateM; I'm not suggesting we disallow the sources due to the potential bias of the source; as WP:NPOV says: reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective, but we are indeed in a position to evaluate potential bias in a source, making sure not only to use the source in the proper context, but to properly attribute the content as well as covering my earlier comments about the source having editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Dreadstar ☥ 13:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we both understand our respective positions, but it would be best at this point to discuss specific article-text and/or to work it out in article-space. I see where you are coming from, but I don't know what changes you are suggesting need to be made. CorporateM (Talk) 18:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I think we understand each other and we seem to agree on most points - I also think we can and are collaborating very well on this. Right now, no major changes in mind, just some minor tweaks when I have a bit more time. Dreadstar ☥ 19:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Unmentioned series

Cesar Millan did a 10 episode series set in Spain that aired in channel cuatro (http://www.cuatro.com) during 2012, titled "El líder de la manada" (The leader of the pack). Episodes are now available on the network's streaming site: http://www.mitele.es/programas-tv/el-lider-de-la-manada/ Maybe a native English speaker can add this to the main article? Segata128 (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

If you can find a good source for it (not the show itself, but a newspaper article perhaps), it sounds like a very reasonable addition to me. We would want to know every major TV series or movie he participated in, though we don't want to list every newspaper he is featured in or interview he does on TV, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 17:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Here are several news items about the show (in Spanish) http://www.formulatv.com/programas/el-lider-de-la-manada/noticias/ The site is a major TV-related news portal so I suppose it would count as reliable. This article is about the show's premiere on December 2nd 2011 and this one about the last two episodes, which aired on January 13th 2012. In each episode, a family adopts an abandoned dog from a dogs' home and has Cesar help them rehabilitate the dog. Several episodes had guest celebrities starring. Segata128 (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds great! I can't read Spanish but they don't have to be in English. However, my suggestion would be to not describe individual episodes, just that he was in the series. CorporateM (Talk) 21:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Working animals

The section on Pets is about dogs who "work". Work is a standard and common phrase used for animals who have specific and ongoing purposes as Border Collies do. In this case the section describes dogs who are working with Milan, have a specific purpose, and are not just pets. I'm not going argue over this heading , however, the heading title, "Working pets" is accurate per the content in the section and is in no way OR. (Littleolive oil (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC))

I agree. The section title "Pets" is misleading, Daddy (dog) and Junior are "popular assistants" on the show, not just pets of Millan. It looks to me that Millan has many, many pets, but only a few 'assistants', and even fewer notable, lead assistants. We need a better title for the section. Daddy has his own article, and this one has a summary style section in it; Junior is Daddy's replacement. So I think the section heading could be "Daddy", with just an add-on sentence about Junior from Daddy's article. Dreadstar ☥ 15:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

"Daddy" is fine with me. (Littleolive oil (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC))

I've restored the original section title which was changed here without consensus. Dreadstar ☥ 15:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I can agree with that.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2014

216.59.120.210 (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC) Millan died today as confirmed by major news media.