Talk:Dog Whisperer with Cesar Millan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Crticisms

Dog expert Mark Derr (author of "A Dog’s History of America") has recently written a NYTimes Op-Ed piece which was highly critical of Milan and his practices.

Take a look:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/31/opinion/31derr.html?ei=5087%0A&en=3af63e2acfb2b695&ex=1157256000&pagewanted=print1

or try this link (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/31/opinion/31derr.html?ex=1157256000&en=3af63e2acfb2b695&ei=5087%0A)

I think it really sheds light on Milan's one-size-fits all approach to handling dogs, and the fact that what makes for good TV isn't always built on sound research. I think some of Derr's observations should be invluded here in a 'criticisms" seciton, lest everyone think that Milan's approach is accepted across the board by all dog experts.

That criticism relates more to Ceasar himself than to this article. Try his page. --Hobbes747 14:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

To balance this article, are there any sources supporting his methods? I'd like to hear another side other than negative critiques (if they exist). --192.77.126.50 (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

5/5/06 Lawsuit

He just got sued, somebody wanna include that? It's just as notable as being parodied on South Park.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/05/05/tv.us.dogwhisperer.ap/index.html

link leads to a 404, please fix the link thanks.--Kilikman (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A link might be http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12648003/ --Kevinkor2 (talk) 07:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

iacp

Took out the message about the IACP

"The IACP promotes the usage of punishment and electronic devices to treat animal behavior. " there is no source to this and nothing on the website indicates that fact, and seems to offer memberships via various people taking exams, like training exams, grooming, etc -- like a certification. cesar is also an honorary member (didn't take an exam). nothing in mission statements/purpose indicates the iacp promotes this --

HOWEVER, if so, a better place to put that commentary would be on an IACP page (along with sourcing it)

Probably a better place to even put the IACP membership is on the Cesar page and not the dog whisperer page, but moved it so it was in the brief introduction. Will make a stub for IACP.

Oogles 17:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The correct title of the show is "Dog Whisperer," without the definite article "The."

Title

The last unsigned poster is right, it's Dog Whisperer. Looking at Dog Whisperer looks like the last person merged the wrong way - someone feel free to do that ;) Oogles 15:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No idea how. 67.164.209.137 02:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

This actual title of the program is Dog Whisperer, not The Dog Whisperer. Could an admin please move the page to the correct name? See above for community consensus. Thanks. --Elonka 18:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Nightstallion (?) 07:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.  :) --Elonka 20:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

POV tag?

Someone slapped this with a POV tag. I'll assume it's for the criticism section with the excessively long link list of anti-Cesar articles. It needs some balance, since there has been a lot of praise for the program as well. Furthermore, the links are just presented as "Further Reading", which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. They should only be including in the references list, and only if they are being referenced by the article itself. Rebochan 13:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed Sentence

"The dog whisperer is also known to use trained animal actors to ensure the safety of Mr. Milan this is done primarely for insurance reason. It is not inteneded that the general public try cesar's technics without the supervison of a trained professional."

I removed the following sections because I don't believe that he uses "trained animal actors" since the only dogs are the show are the ones the owners have trouble with, which from their markings can clearly be identified, and his own pack of dogs -- these dogs mostly being mixed breed 'gladiator' type dogs, some of which have injuries. Unless the claim is that all the poor behaving animals are trained to be bad on command so that he can 'fix' them. And it's 'Millan' and 'primarily' and 'insurance reasons' and 'Cesar' and 'techniques'.

Unless there is a very good reason to reinstate this horrid bit of text, please do not. Samalander (talk) 08:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Dog Whisperer uses silent hill music

I looked all over the net and i can't find anything about this, but a simple listen to the silent hill 3 original video game soundtrack, shows that the dog whisperer makes extensive use of music from the game, once again i can't dig up any sources, so i figured i should say it here instead of adding it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.218.153.154 (talk) 09:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Dog Whisperer uses Curb Your Enthusiasm music(?)

Someone identified some Curb Your Enthusiasm tracks in an unnamed episode on IMDB here:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0423642/board/thread/101544330

I checked the first and last episodes of season 1 and both credit "Original Music" to "Killer Tracks - a unit of BMG Entertainment" and "Additional Music" to "String Fever Music/Gregg C. Miner". For seasons 2 and 3 only National Geographic's web site has the credits, and only for some episodes. Coincidence? Maybe they'll break out some Final Fantasy or Ys IV in future episodes...that would rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinfishburne (talk • contribs) 06:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Emmy Award Nominated

Please do not remove that the The Dog Whisperer was nominated for Emmy Awards. It is, it has been nominated 3 times. Mokoniki (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Mokoniki

Balanced Article

A balanced article is not one that gives equal support and criticism, but one that accurately reflects the level of support and criticism in the broader community.

Cesar Millan has the support of a large number of celebrities and a significant viewing audience, and of dog trainers who use aversive techniques. He is almost universally criticised by the scientific community of animal behaviorists, by veterinarians, by animal welfare groups, and by modern dog trainers including worldwide members of the APDT.

Tension, conflict, fast dramatic change, winners and losers, make for great television. They don't necessarily make for great relationships with dogs. Marj (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a Big Statement: "He is almost universally criticised by the scientific community of animal behaviorists, by veterinarians, by animal welfare groups, and by modern dog trainers including worldwide members of the APDT." In fact, there is no universal survey or census of all these entities. If it were true, it wouldn't be put this forth on the discussion page; it would be cited it in the article... along with a solid source. 842U (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

That's my opinion - based on my inability to find any support for Millan, and many articles criticizing Millan, from these sources. However I acknowledge that my inability to find it does not mean that it doesn't exist. So I expressed it here on the discussion page as an opinion. Hopefully someone will locate published material from these experts and quote it in the Awards and Accolades section. Marj (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No one else seems to have been able to locate references where an animal behaviorist, veterinarian, animal welfare group, or modern dog trainer offers unqualified support for the Dog Whisperer's methods, which would seem to support what I found in my literature search: such support does not exist in significant quantities, or sufficiently high profile sources. Marj (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Much of the criticism of the Dog Whisperer is based on the belief that he is an "aversive" trainer, however some of the techniques shown on the program are in fact "positive" techniques. I have cross referenced them, where I have a citation. If anyone has specific reference on this it would be good to include it. Marj (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources for appearences

"Millan has also appeared on ABC World News Tonight (2002), CBS-TV (2001), Channel 7 News (May 2005), CNN (April 2006), Creative Arts Emmys 2006 (August 2006), Entertainment Insider (December 2004), Good Day Live (February 2005), Good Morning America With Diane Sawyer (September 2004), KTLA-TV (2002), Last Call with Carson Daly (November 2006), Martha Stewart Show (April 2006), Megan Mullally Show(November 2006), Nightline (July 2006), NBC-TV (2001), Today Show (April 2006), Tonight Show With Jay Leno (February 2005), The View (July 2006), WUSA-TV 9 News (April 2006), season 4 of the Emmy winning reality show Kathy Griffin: My Life on the D-List and various radio shows."

This is truly a massive collection of appearences, and it deserves an equally massive collection of sources if it's real. Does anyon have any citations for all this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mailedbypostman (talk • contribs) 06:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Emmy

The article says in at least two place that The Dog Whisperer 'won' Emmy nominations. Did the program simply receive nominations? Or did it actually win an Emmy?

The National Geographic website says that "Dog Whisperer with Cesar Millan has been honored with its third consecutive Primetime Emmy nomination for Outstanding Reality Program" which seems to suggest that he hasn't yet won an Emmy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdk572 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Dog Whisperer or Cesar Millan?

There seems to be some confusion about whether this page refers to the program or the man. There is a separate page for the man - so information about him could be moved there. Marj (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of duplication; what would you move?842U (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hoping someone else would make that decision :-) Perhaps sections that start with Cesar Millan ... rather than Dog Whisperer ... Marj (talk) 05:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

ICAS: Unreliable Source

It has been said that the fact that Lisa Jackson-Schebetta is a PhD Candidate, Theatre History, Theory and Criticism. University of Washington, discredits her analysis of the Dog Whisperer program. She is is the last year of her PhD. She is also Manager, Latin America Publishing at BBC Worldwide Americas, and teaches into the drama program at Washington, including television studies. And the article was published in an authoritative peer-reviewed journal. Marj (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

And does any of this qualify her to comment on dog behavior? She doesn't exactly seem to be commenting on Theatre History here, ostensibly her area of expertise. 842U (talk) 03:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If USA Today and The Hollywood Gossip are accepted as authoritative sources, I would argue that Journal for Critical Animal Studies should be accepted. Marj (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Huffington/Hollywood: there would be a different standard for a source reporting a discreet piece of information, e.g., that The Dog Whisperer won a People's Choice Award, and source reporting professional criticism of an entire television show (about dog behavior) — especially when the source does not confine themselves to their area of expertise. In other words, Jackson-Schebatta (activist?) makes broad criticisms relating not to the show, but to dog behavior. The Hollywood references has been reinforced with several other sources. USAtoday is considered a reliable source.842U (talk)

The qualifications in question are hers, not the Journal for Critical Animal Studies nor The Online Journal of Embodiment and Technology. How, after all is a Theatre History candidate qualified to write about mythologies and commodifications of dominion in a show about dogs? I could understand if she was commenting on a show called The Theatre Whisperer.842U (talk) 03:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The point of academic publishing is that a single author's personal opinion does not get into print. The editorial board and the peer reviewers must accept that the argument is logically made and appropriately supported with evidence. Marj (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of "the Dog Whisperer" does not require expertise in the field of dogs? 842U (talk) 03:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

At last!!! Whewww! Right, we are discussing a tv program, we need experts in tv programs. If we were discussing a dog we'd need an expert in dogs. Happy we're now on the same page and can go back to cooperative editing. Marj (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Small problem:

"The article by Jackson-Schebatta does not appear to be a reliable source for this topic. The author is not qualified as an animal behavior expert, and the journal that published the article seems to be an activist publication that is not peer-reviewed. There is no editorial board, but they do list an "editorial team" that includes no experts in animal behavior or directly related fields." [1]-- |source=Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Peer reviewed or not, Theatre History candidate or not, the Institute for Critical Animal Studies (ICAS) is highly biased; it was co-founded by Steven Best, formerly known as the Center on Animal Liberation Affairs (CALA): an animal liberation group.Center on Animal Liberation Affairs. ICAS is affiliated also with libnow.org, their animal liberation activist blog. As such, ICAS has a clear COI commenting on the television series about dogs; they would be largely inclined to exactly the conclusions parroted in the Lisa Jackson-Schebetta section. And as such, ICAS as a source isn't NPOV or RS. 842U (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The SPCA is also 'highly biased' That does not mean that their opinion is not 'reliable' The National Geographic Channel is also highly biased about the program, and we still use them as a reliable source of information. Neutrality does not lie in whether or not the sources have a particular point of view, but in how their information is used, and whether their point of view is made obvious to the reader.Marj (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

"She concluded that the goal of the program is always a product, a dog that behaves according to its owners' desires, however illogical" - you only have to watch the show to realise this is completely backwards. The goal of the program is always to change the owners' behaviour to suit the needs of the dog. BEVE (talk)  21:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

There is quite a bit of material, from John Katz's The New Work of Dogs to Emma Power's Furry Families showing the increasing commodification of dogs since the 1990s. People want dogs that don't bark, dig, mark territory, jump up ... If you think about it, twenty years ago you would have been hard put to find a dog trainer. Now we have (here in Aus at least) half a dozen TV programs telling you how to mold your dog to behave the way you want, and lists of trainers in the phone book. Marj (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Seems appropriate to use as a criticism in the article, as long as you specify the source ("... journal of animal liberation group ..." or something like that). The fact that a show about animals is criticized by animal rights activists is important, and ICAS and/or CALA seem like a notable animal rights journal and organization respectively from what you've written here and our article. It is an edited journal, which says nothing about neutral, all that means is that it's not just one person ranting, the article is approved by some kind of organization. We can't expect criticism to come from NPOV sources, criticism is inherently POV. However, I think it's getting a bit of undue weight in the article as is; the section on Jackson-Schebatta's criticism is just another criticism, and shouldn't get a separate section. I also think the fact that she's a theatre student isn't important; the fact that her criticism was published in an animal rights magazine seems the important part to me. I'd put it into the criticism section, and shorten it by a third. --GRuban (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The section has been changed in line with this advice Marj (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not delete the information regarding the specific qualifications of the author, and the organization that publishes her article's journal. These are highly pertinent aspects of the declaration of COI and NPOV. The NPOV tag advises a reader that the source of the information isn't neutral. The other critics in the section are not in question here; this critic has an axe to grind, as has been discussed clearly. Please be advised of wp:3rr. 842U (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

How can you have a neutral criticism? The author's credentials are given, the standpoint of the journal's publishers are provided. It is an academic peer-reviewed journal so that the article is not one person's rant, and the article itself is provided as a pdf so readers can check the whole paper and make up their own minds. There is no logical reason for deleting this information. On the contrary, I would argue that it is important to know what a high profile animal rights agency thinks of the program. Marj (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I have asked for additional opinions on this. In the interest of resolution could noone please edit or delete this specific section again until we have had the opportunity to receive these opinions. I have provided information on the author and the journal and on how the research was conducted, though admittedly in less dismissive terms than those used by User:842U Marj (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The section disputed by User:842U

"In 2009, Lisa Jackson Schebetta, a Ph.D. candidate in Theatre History, Theory and Criticism at the University of Washington[31] published an article in the journal of the Institute for Critical Animal Studies (ICAS), established for the purpose of fostering academic study of critical animal issues in contemporary society and promoting animal liberation. Analysing the first season of Dog Whisperer on DVD, Jackson Schebetta concluded that the goal of the program is always a product, a dog that behaves according to its owners' desires, however illogical. [32] She describes the program format as following a formula. Millan meets the dog, the dog submits to him, and the owners celebrate, often voicing their amazement in referring to the miracle they have witnessed. This formula — problem dog meets Millan, dog submits, and owners are overjoyed — was followed in every episode of the season analysed. Jackson Schebetta also commented that, while the footage is clearly edited to construct the predictable story, each episode presents itself as natural and spontaneous.[32]" Marj (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Lisa Jackson-Schebetta Article

Jackson-Schebetta is an 'expert', not in dog training, but in the myths of dominion played out in contemporary drama. She has written about the representation of women, and of Hispanics in these terms. She was awarded a PhD from the University of Washington this year. She is qualified to comment on television programs.

The article was published in a peer reviewed journal, so at least two, perhaps three, non-associated experts have agreed that the opinions stated in the article have been substantiated. Peer Review "prevents the dissemination of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal views."

The journal was published by one of the most significant animal rights organisations, the Center on Animal Liberation Affairs and is a journal which seeks to establish an academic study of animal liberation and related policy. As such it is an important source of comment on the Dog Whisperer program. Marj (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This article makes the important point that Dog Whisperer is a television program, scripted, filmed and edited to have a happy ending. Marj (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Not that it matters because the facts don't seem to make much difference here... but, there is no evidence the show is scripted, because in fact... it isn't scripted. Furthermore, the author made the... er... study... simply by watching the show... there's no evidence that there was any scientific methodogy at work and no evidence of any behind the scenes research. It's anecdotal opinion packaged as science. And it would be great to know what source claims CALA is "the most significant animal rights organization." Then again, maybe in Australia, they rank animal rights organizations like football teams. Either way, without backup, it's just another Big Statement... interesting but anecdotal. 842U (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Critical Discourse Analysis is a scientific method. It is an established discipline with an academic tradition. Watching the show and analysing its structure is an appropriate way to research its narrative pattern. BTW there are a number of published lists of significant animal rights organisations - including on Wikipedia. Just because you don't know about it it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Marj (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You're the one who made the Big Statement... care to back it up? Produce a reputable source that supports your statement that CALA is "one of the most significant animal rights organisations." Otherwise, it's just opinion masquerading as substance... something not uncommon in these woods. To with, there was your earlier contention that "He (Millan) is almost universally criticised by the scientific community of animal behaviorists, by veterinarians, by animal welfare groups, and by modern dog trainers." Another belief stated as fact. You could probably come up with backup for that statement, as well, while you're at it. 842U (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Check the heading at the top of this page. This is a Talk page. A place where people express opinions. You can say things like "there is no evidence the show is scripted, because in fact... it isn't scripted." without any burden of proof. If you wish to challenge my opinion that CALA is "one of the most significant animal rights organisations" all you have to do is see whether Wikipedia lists it as noteworthy on their list of Animal Rights Organisations. If you disagree with my opinion (appropriately stated on the Talk page) that "He (Millan) is almost universally criticised by the scientific community of animal behaviorists, by veterinarians, by animal welfare groups, and by modern dog trainers" then add some references to the section on awards and accolades that quote animal behaviorists, veterinarians, animal welfare groups, and modern dog trainers praising the methods demonstrated on the program. I formed my opinion when I found a good deal of criticism of Millan and his methods from these sources, and not one item supporting him. If you can locate this support I will willingly change my opinion. Marj (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

So while some editors make Big Statements and dare readers to disprove them, others are willing to support their statements. Is the Dog Whisperer scripted? No: Care to support your opinions? 842U (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This is wonderful!! The best laugh I have had in a long time! The first reference in a list of sources supposedly proving that Dog Whisperer is not scripted is an article by Jim Milio & Melissa Jo Peltier the writers of The Dog Whisperer talking about scripting for reality television. Marj (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

A press release saying that Millan himself does not review cases ahead of time is not evidence that the producers do not have a clear plan for the persons to appear on camera, the locations, the time of day, the mise en scene, the lighting, camera angles, the topics to be raised ... In other words a script. "We look at reality TV, which is billed as unscripted, and we know it is scripted," said Daniel Petrie Jr., president of the Writers Guild of America-West, which represents 9,000 scribes working in Hollywood film and television. "We understand that shows don't want to call the writers writers because they want to maintain the illusion that it is reality, that stuff just happens." "One executive conceded that reality show producers definitely do not want to see a "written by" credit on their shows. "It is important that people think it's real," she said." Washington Post Tuesday, August 10, 2004; Page C01 Marj (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I feel as though I'm telling you there is no Santa Claus, but reality show producers write lines for participants, generate drama by causing conflict, induce emotional outbursts to gain audience sympathy, edit footage to depict particpants in desired ways, and generally do what is required to get a dramatic, entertaining program. Marj (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If you don't think this information should be included, then argue your point here - don't just delete it. Particularly if you are not adding anything constructive to the page. A balanced article needs both accolades and criticism, find some published positive comment and include it, rather than removing criticism. Marj (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

As it stands, with the qualifiers and the link to additional information on J-S this paragraph reads badly (very cumbersome) and places too much emphasis on this point, it doesn't rate a large paragraph. The pdf of the article is attached and the publisher is given. Would other editors accept:

• Lisa Jackson Schebetta analysed the first season of Dog Whisperer on DVD,and concluded that the program followed a formula. Millan meets the dog, the dog submits to him, and the owners celebrate. [34] Marj (talk) 05:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Animals in film and tv

The Dog Whisperer program can legitimately be discussed, not simply as 'dog training' but also as an entertainment program based on the relationships between dogs and humans. There are a number of books and articles on this broader topic:

Berger, J. (1991). Why look at animals? NY: Vintage International.

Burt, J. (2002). Animals in film. London: Reaktion Press.

Lippit, A. M. (2000). Electric animal: Toward a rhetoric of wildlife. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Porter, P (2006) Engaging the Animal in the Moving Image Society and Animals VOL 14; NUMB 4, pages 399-416

Marj (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Vacuum Cleaners

Someone may be interested in following this up...

Title:Teaching Pet-Friendly Homes New Cleaning Tricks. Authors:NEWMAN, ANDREW ADAM. Source:New York Times; 2/16/2010, p3, 0p

In Dog Whisperer with Cesar Millan, now in its sixth season on the National Geographic Channel, several episodes have featured vacuum cleaners that send dogs into a barking frenzy. With tactics like placing their food bowls next to vacuums that are not in use, Mr. Millan helped reverse the behavior. Now Swiffer, the 11-year-old Procter & Gamble brand, is hiring Mr. Millan to help with a different sort of behavior modification: getting consumers to forgo traditional floor cleaning devices and buy Swiffer products less likely to disturb their dogs. Marj (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms

Is the criticisms section now longer than the rest of the article put together? At what point does this cease to be an encyclopaedia article and instead become an attack piece? So much for WP:NPOV! BEVE (talk)  13:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Bingo. It quite possible there's an editor with a COI: "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." 842U (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you may be right. It would be interesting to see which editors have added factual information, support, and criticism, (including suggestions for additional information to be added) and which editors have only added information which is in line with their particular interests. Cross checking with the Cesar Millan page would help identify editors who are writing as fans of Millan. Canis5855 (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

And which editors edit almost exclusively this article, an article about a competing show and only one or two other articles... about dogs. Only.842U (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

A new editor who started on pages on related topics - now that is sinister! Marj (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess you are also intrigued by the editor who uses an IP address that hasn't been used to edit Wikipedia since 21 November 2006, who now makes one edit (twice) - removing the section that was disputed but was then declared resolved. People's motivation for editing is complex, but we must assume "good faith", mustn't we? Marj (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The criticism and responses section includes at least three responses from Millan, and also includes comments from critics of some aspects of the program outlining what they think are the good points of the program. Marj (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

We need to find published support for the Program. I found a quote from Jada Pinkett Smith and Canis5855 included it but haven't been able to locate anything from his other celebrity supporters. Does anyone have his books? There may be a quote from someone that we can use, or find another source for. I have also noted a couple of things here that we may be able to include in the body of the article to expand it - the program's support from sponsors who pick up on problems identified in the program and market a solution (eg Swiffer) and info on the appeal of animal/human programs for entertainment. Marj (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW the Dog Fighting page has ended up saying that dogfighting is not a good thing - and that is not the same as having been written from a biased point of view, it simply reflects the published information on dog fighting. Dogfighting has passionate supporters, but the bulk of published information is opposed to it. Marj (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It's an interesting assertion that because the dog fighting article is overall negative, it's ok for the this article to be overall negative too. However, I believe that dog fighting is (in most countries) an illegal, criminal activity; whereas the television show Dog Whisperer, as far as I'm aware, is not. I think this is a key difference that suggests it to be a false equivalency. In addition, I don't think that anyone could argue that dog fighting is intended for the benefit of the dogs, whereas 'dog whispering' - even if you disagree with some of the methodology used - clearly is. BEVE (talk)  08:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Steve, hi, I did not make any links between the two. BTW was meant to signal that I was introducing a different topic. My point was simply that writing with a npov can still give you a page that has a negative (or positive) spin. Marj (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Section Headings

I think the headings give a negative cast to the the program, with a small section headed 'awards and accolades' and then the big 'criticisms and responses section' which doesn't contain just criticisms, but as I said earlier includes quoted explanations from Millan, and critics pointing out the good things about the program as well as what they don't like. Are there alternatives that can be used? Perhaps have Awards and Reception as two main headings? Marj (talk) 08:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Spin offs

We could include spin-offs from the program such as the nintendo game http://g4tv.com/games/ds/53364/caesar-millans-the-dog-whisperer/index/ Was the sit-com based on the program produced? It was to star Wilmer Valderrama. Marj (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

There was a "In popular Culture" section that was mainly appearances by Cesar Millan. Are there references to the program (not the person)? Marj (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

WP:NPOV "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Marj (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV is not about having equal support and criticism, it is about representing significant published views proportionately. If there is more support for the program published by reliable sources then we need to include that, not delete criticisms so they 'match' support. Marj (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

An absence of a neutral point of view is demonstrated when an editor quotes a phrase out of context and in doing so implies that the article says something that it doesn't. An example is citing "the show became National Geographic's number one show during its first season" from an article that is a list of criticisms of the program from qualified experts, and ignoring those criticisms to imply that the article is support for the program. Another example is to quote "And this is all for a show where absolutely nothing in the field (save Cesar’s arrivals to the dog owner’s front doors) is fabricated… what we like to call the last “real” Reality show on television" to 'prove' that the show is not scripted, when the article was written by the show's scriptwriters who are saying that even a program as authentic as Dog Whisperer is highly scripted, and the writers should be treated equally with writers of drama programs. Marj (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Training techniques

At the end of the section on Program Format there is a statement about one of the training techniques demonstrated on the program, which doesn't belong in a discussion of the format. Could we include a section on training techniques that have been shown on the program? does someone have a reliable source of information on this? It seems to me that there are more 'positive' techniques being used recently than in the first series, with treats and food used to motivate dogs, but I don't have a reference for this. Canis5855 (talk) 04:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Millan himself says that the 'training' techniques are in his books and dvds. The program demonstrates him using techniques to 'rehabilitate' problem dogs. I think the distinction is important. I agree though, that the para doesn't belong under Program Format. Perhaps 'Behaviour modification techniques'? Marj (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"One of the techniques shown in the program is a noise that Millan makes when correcting a bad behavior made by a dog. A quick and sharp "shiss" noise is made, followed by a touch or tap that Millan believes represents a bite that would have been made by the alpha dog in a pack. Millan had once said that he adapted this noise from his mom a long time ago, and associated this into his training and rehabilitation of dogs."

Broken link

23. "'Dog Whisperer' Training Approach More Harmful Than Helpful". American Humane Association. 2006-09-06. http://www.americanhumane.org/about-us/newsroom/news-releases/06-dog-whisperer.html. Retrieved 2010-02-18. does not link to the article. 21. - the correct link to the article, does not mention the announcement about inviting Millan to participate in the symposium. If someone has a source of this quote ... ? Marj (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This happens with older links; there is some consensus that broken citations remain in the article, nonetheless. 842U (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Program Format

Q:What happens after you've rehabilitated the dogs, trained the people and turned off the cameras?
A: They can't blame the dog anymore.

Cesar Millan, 2006 interview

Not related to program format - is there a better place in the article for it? Marj (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It is quoted in the Cesar Millan article, is it notable enough to be repeated here? Marj (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Images

The images are just adding a bit of interest. I searched for existing images but could find a good one with the required permissions, so I taught my dog to "watch tv" and "cover your eyes" and snapped the piccies. There is one watching with interest and one not watching so I think it meets NPOV Guidelines. Happy to discuss inclusion/deletion. Marj (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Point of View Check

I have nominated the article for a point of view check. The article has essentially been rebuilt by one editor who edits almost exclusively a few articles about dogs, going so far as to include staged photographs of their personal pet intended to disparage the subject of this article. The dog in question is referred to as an ACD, or Australian Cattle Dog, and the editor in question edits that article also.842U (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This article now essentially represents the point of view of a single editor who suggests with their edits — among other things — that the history of the TV program can neutrally introduced with information from a lawsuit. 842U (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

IF there was only an image of the dog watching the program (and not the one of it not watching) would that conform to your definition of NPOV? Marj (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem here has as much to do with COI as NPOV. Wikipedia isn't a place for an editor insert staged piccies of their own dog... especially when completely unrelated to clear, encyclopedic presentation of information. 842U (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I searched wikimedia commons, I emailed National Geographic, I searched several image databases, I requested permissions from Flickr users including:

"Hi James, I'd like to be able to use your photo of Maggie watching Dog Whisperer to illustrate the wikipedia article on the program. Apart from being a wonderful image, it illustrates the tv program, not just Cesar the person.

If you are OK with this use of the image, could you please upload it to wikimedia? The image on the Wikipedia Dog Whisperer page will link to the "information supplied by the uploader, including the copyright status, the copyright owner, and the license conditions."

Regards, Marj"

I asked my neighbours, but none of their dogs watched dogs on TV (one watched birds but I couldn't find an episode with birds) so I trained my dog to watch tv and cover her eyes. I would much rather have the Flickr photo above - but the photographer would not agree to it. Marj (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you find a better image, instead of just deleting what others provide? Marj (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, do you understand what "conflict of interest" means? It is not the same as "having a personal point of view". Marj (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors

At the recent Wikipedia research conference in Amsterdam there were a couple of papers that identified Wikipedia editors as falling along a continuum between "content experts" who made relatively few, but significant, edits to a small number of articles, and "wikifiers" who made a very large number of small edits to a wide range of articles. I can't see that there is anything sinister about being on one end of the continuum or the other. Wikipedia need both types of editor. Marj (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

I don't believe that neutrality is demonstrated in the following actions:

• Citing the Sharon Peters article on the estimated audience of Dog Whisperer, but ignoring the fact that the whole article was quotes from experts highly critical of the program.

• Quoting Nicholas Dodman agreeing with the need for leadership in a way that suggested he supported the methods used on the program when he is a very public critic.

• Referencing the AHA’s press release which said that Millan expressed an interest in contributing to their symposium, and they responded that they could invite a number of leading trainers to be involved in a dialogue, as “the AHA invited Millan to present at their symposium” implying a level of support that does not exist.

• Describing the South Park episode as Millan succeeding when the tv nannies have failed, without mentioning that the plot line has Millan’s methods repressing Cartman’s violence and turning him into a killer.

• Describing Suarez’s suit against Millan as ending when “Suarez settled out of court” implying Suarez was at fault. Both parties settled out of court.

• Quoting a sentence out of context to 'prove' that the show is not scripted, when the article was written by the show's scriptwriters who are saying that even a program as authentic as Dog Whisperer is highly scripted, and the writers should be treated equally with writers of drama programs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdk572 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Providing references that, when read beginning to end, contain no mention of the information supposedly referenced.

• Editing other editors’ comments on talk pages to make it appear that they have said something different from what they originally typed.

• Not logging in when making contentious edits so these edits are not linked to the username.

• Blanking the discussion page for the IP address so the history of complaints about the contentious edits is deleted.

Marj (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

In good faith

• Please consider that introducing the History section on a televisions series that first aired in 2004 with facts from a lawsuit in 2006, can indicate a strong negative bias about the subject of the article. In my opinion, the section emphasizes contention, rather than balance.

• Please consider either deleting the quote by Lisa Jackson's Schebetta or re-including the associations of the journal where she has published; specifically the associations with Center on Animal Liberation Affairs, Steven Best, libnow.org/ or Animal Liberation Front, take your pick.

• Please consider re-including the quotebox you removed earlier from the Program Format section, by Millan, about what happens after filming stops. The quote is sourced, relevant to the show, and demonstrates the point of view of the central figure of the show.

• And lastly, please consider removing the statement that I've removed from your talk page, re Daddy, a statement I made that I feel is nolonger applicable.

Either we demonstrate here that we can be collaborative — or we don't. After rereading the article, I think you've tempered much of what has had me seriously concerned about OWN, NPOV, COI and GAME. If we can demonstrate collaboration, we have a chance to put these concerns behind us.

With all due respect, let's see if we can find a way to be constructive together. 842U (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that your engaging in a discussion, which is what I have asked for all along, is a good first step.

• It is on the public record that another party believes that they devised the idea for a Dog Whisperer program and produced a pilot for it, before the current production company negotiated a deal with National Geographic. The facts came to light in a lawsuit, which was of sufficient public interest to be reported in news sources. This is part of the history of the program. The information is presented as coming from a law suit. Not including any information which may reflect negatively on Millan is not how I interpret balance, neutrality, and ethical editing. I'd like other registered editors' opinions on the information.

• I think expanding the information about Jackson-Schebetta gives her quote too much weight in the article, I'd be inclined to reduce what is there not add more emphasis. Before posting the sentence that is there I posted it in the discussion forum asking if it was ok with other editors. You did not respond.

• This quote is already in the Cesar Millan article. I didn't simply delete it, but posted it in the discussion forum saying that it was not related to Program Format, was there a better spot in the article for it, and was it notable enough to be repeated. I'd like to hear other registered editors' views.

• I have helped you, not only by providing information, but by locating references for information you included. You thanked me for the Daddy information, and now that you are trying to make me out to be the wicked witch of the west you want to remove evidence that you were appreciative of my help. You have edited my comments on your talk page so that it appears that I said something quite different from what I typed, and I can't do anything about that. But I can say publicly that you don't have my permission to delete the history of our interaction from my discussion page.

• I have not edited the article since your formal complaint about COI and NPOV. Whatever was there before the complaint is still there. Which seems to suggest a vexatious complaint.

Yes, certainly let's try to be constructive, though the use of "with all due respect" seems a strange way of mending fences, as it generally means "you're wrong but I'll be nice about correcting you". Marj (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth ok? We're must go very easy here, and I did not, have not, and will not suggest that you were the Wicked Witch of the West! And please don't misunderstand 'with all due respect.' I've never seen or heard, btw, of that interpretation of the words. Either way, we must work on reconstructing mutual respect here, and I was being sincere.

We can certainly reorganize the history section easily enough — without burying the very real history surrounding the lawsuit. Right? First things first, The Sidney Mourning Herald and the Times of London report that show started here, and progressed this way, and this person says things went differntly, like so. It's hard to say if the "after the filming" quote better belongs in this article or the other, since it is program/Millan related. Would you like to just give that issue a rest and leave it out of this article? It's not a given that the two articles have to be viewed as a whole, but we can let that rest. Nothing is technically deleted from Wikipedia -- so my once having thanked you will be forever digitally preserved (I'm trying to be funny here). But if I'd like it removed, why not just remove it? It's a simple, little thing... maybe it will go a long way toward rebuilding a collaborative environment. Certainly a "living gratitude," is better than something in the past, anyway. About Jackson-Schebetta: it doesn't have to be a lengthy addition, so that it gets "too much weight." But it's true, and seriously helps readers vet the source for themselves.

I understand the "complaint" about possible COI may be vexatious. I'd call it not a complaint or an accusation, but a concern. We can go forward here, and continue that discussion on the COI page with some third-party assistance. Going forward here successfully will allay concern that collaboration isn't being thwarted, should there be a valid COI. The ultimate test will be the collaboration we build here. On your User page, you disclose a lot of things, but not the thing that I still see as problematic: that you may be using pages you edit in a class somewhat related to the "process of editing" that gainfully employs you. But again, let's focus on collaboration. Have a great weekend. 842U (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

A "vexatious complaint" is a complaint where the complainant continually raises new issues, or seeks to prolong an investigation by continually raising further concerns or questions upon receipt of satisfactory responses, not a complaint that I find personally irritating. Your initial complaint was that there was a COI in that I was promoting the breed of Australian Cattle Dogs, now you are saying that the COI is that I used the Dog Whisperer page in class implying that I was somehow paid extra for doing so. I don't 'sell' my classes as you state. I'd explain that I used Dog Whisperer, Climate Change, Posthumanism, FIFA World Cup, and Madagascar, and when I'd go to print Dog Whisperer you'd have deleted large chunks of it without explanation, but you will come up with a new accusation. Marj (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that it's a process and that it all doesn't just come out at once, as a fully complete and neat thought. Again, if we work the discussion about COI on that page, and we demonstrate collaboration, we'll both have crossed the fundamental bridge. We're at a point now where we can put that aside, possibly at some point behind us. Wouldn't that be beneficial for both of us, and the article? Let's see if we can do this. 842U (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ok folks, I strongly recommend that everyone stop talking about other editors and restrict their comments on this article talk page to the editorial content of the article. Comment on content, not on the contributor. There are good points being made about content, but it's clouded by the continued comments about each other - there are other avenues for dealing with editor behavior; article talk page discussions should focus on improving the associated article. Dreadstar ☥ 23:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Re-write

"Dr. Nicholas Dodman, an animal behavior pharmacologist and director of the Animal Behavior Clinic at Tufts University's Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, contended in a February 2006 article for the New York Times, that the program had set dog training back considerably.[49] Dodman believes that the single most important preventive measure people can take to help avoid behavior problems in their pets would be to provide leadership in a non-confrontational way.[50]"

This statement uses the dismissive "contended" and does not acurately reflect Dodman's views:

• Dr. Nicholas Dodman, Director of Animal Behaviour Clinic at Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine said: “His methods are misguided, outmoded, in some cases dangerous and often inhumane." k9obedience

• Dr. Dodman said "My college thinks it [The Dog Whisperer] is a travesty. We've written to National Geographic Channel and told them they have put dog training back 20 years." New York Times

• The American College of Veterinary Behaviorists has written to the National Geographic Channel expressing concerns about the techniques. “They are basically abuse,” says Nicholas Dodman, program director for the Animal Behavior Clinic at the Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University. The San Diego Union Tribune

Marj (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

OR concerns

Some of the sources used for this article may need to be checked to make certain they follow WP:OR policy. For instance, these two sources, #29 and #30, do not appear to be directly related to the subject of this article, and appear to advance a position. Please correct me if I'm wrong or remove the sources and content they support - or find new sources that meet WP:RS for it.

• 29 "McConnell, Patricia (2002). The Other End of the Leash: Why We do What We do Around Dogs.. New York: Ballantine Books. pp. 42 - 43. ISBN 1-86325-320-3."
• 30 RSPCA (2008). "Helpful hints on how to have a well behaved dog". RSPCA Western Australia. http://www.rspcawa.asn.au/training/hints_tips.html.

Thanks! Dreadstar ☥ 20:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Reworded - the references were intended to support the fact that this is a positive technique when used by Millan, but that critics say it can be misused.Marj (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Do the references actually mention the show or Millan? Per WP:OR, we must "cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented.". In this case, the topic of the article is the television show Dog Whisperer, not Dog training or Patricia McConnell. The fact that the show may utilize techniques that are talked about in sources unrelated to the actual show, does not mean those sources can be used in the article on the show. And as you say, "the references were intended to support the fact that this is a positive technique when used by Millan, but that critics say it can be misused", this makes use of those sources fall squarely under WP:SYNTH. Dreadstar ☥ 20:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that references that do directly mention the use of hand nips on the show, do so in highly negative terms.

Quote "He has faced heavy criticism for his use of hand smacks and hits which he calls 'hand nips'. In using this technique, other dog trainers and behavior experts feel that it's inhumane to cause confusion and fear in a dog that is already stressed." People and Pets, USA Marj (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Quote "Hand nips involve repeatedly jabbing the animals in the ribs or face at the first sign of trouble, to teach them who is the boss." Daily Mail, UK Marj (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to avoid this. Marj (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand and sympathize, but we've got to follow policy. When dealing with either positive or negative material, we also need to abide by WP:NPOV, paying close attention to WP:WEIGHT - so while we want to present all significant views, we need to be careful not to overemphasize the relative prominence of the various point of views. The section Dog_Whisperer#Program_Techniques has a few issues with it and I think it would benefit from some reorganization, in a way that clearly explains how the show portrays the techniques as well as the various points of view on the show's use of those techniques.

We also want to be careful using potentially POV wording such as "heavy criticism", that kind of statement needs to be carefully evaluated and possibly directly attributed. Dreadstar ☥ 21:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I've read the policy on synthesis, but am not sure I understand it. I didn't think I combined two references to make a point not made by either. I cited one reference for one fact, and another reference for a separate fact. But I thought I presented them as two separate facts. Marj (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, SYNTH is a somewhat difficult and complex part of NOR, but essentially in this case it is combining (juxtaposing) content from sources that talk about Milian's use of a technique alongside content from sources that talk about the technique in order to "support the fact that this is a positive technique when used by Millan, but that critics say it can be misused." If two juxtaposed facts A and B imply a conclusion, C, then it's as if you stated it. If that conclusion has not been made by a reliable source in relation to the topic, then you're likely engaged in original research. The more obvious violation of NOR is where the sources are unrelated to the subject, but there's also an aspect of SYNTH to the use of the sources. Dreadstar ☥ 22:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

CALA and Dog Whisperer

"Lisa Jackson Schebetta analysed the first season of Dog Whisperer on DVD and concluded that the program format follows a formula: Millan meets the dog, the dog submits to him, and the owners celebrate.[16] The article was published in a refereed journal associated with the Center on Animal Liberation Affairs.[16]"

I added the specific information that the journal was linked to CALA, but am concerned that this misrepesents CALA's position on Dog Whisperer. I have done a pretty extensive literature review on the program and have not found a source that suggests any type of criticism of the program by CALA, Steve Best, or any other animal rights organisation. The information, in fact the entire article, is also given in the references. Marj (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Section Removal

The Dog Whisperer page gets barely 200-300 visitors a day. It is not worth the effort to try to recast published criticism so that it does not appear critical, without misrepresenting the source. Marj (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

We're not supposed to try to recast published criticism so that it does not appear critical, and we should never misrepresent a source. Doing any of that would violate core Wikipedia policies. Dreadstar ☥ 23:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

And yet when myself and other editors complain about the misrepresentation of Dodman here and on the Cesar Millan page the misrepresentation remains. Marj (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Btw, I get the feeling that, in an attempt to make the overall criticism section seem more level, a large Dodman comment was inserted that was apparently in agreement with Milan. IMHO to make things more even you need to find authorities who vouch for Cesar! I read both cited articles by Dodson and he's basically dead set against those kinds of techniques, and he's for what he describes as 'non-confrontational'. An appropriate quote: 'I work on the theory that if you can train a killer whale to launch itself out of a swimming pool, roll on its side and urinate into a small plastic cup, given only a whistle and a bucket of fish, without a choke chain, then you don’t need those confrontational techniques with dogs.' As I say, I really felt it was an unfair assessment of Dodman to have a small line about his disapproval, and a huge para about his apparent agreement, when he seems fundamentally opposed. My two cents. Jburbell (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Marj (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If you feel sources are being misrepresented, then taking the issue to the appropriate noticeboards such as Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is a good step. Following other options listed in the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process, such as WP:3O and WP:MEDIATION can be helpful as well. Dreadstar ☥ 01:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Reception

The second Dodman sentence (Dodman believes...) probably doesn't belong — especially given the cogent points offered above. Is is just me, or does the Jada Pinkett Smith quote have a tone that's mawkish, rather than say, authoritative? I don't quite get why the quote is in the article. To me at least, the quote lacks significance. What are her credentials? Dodman, otoh, has noted credentials.

Also, I'd like to take a stab at re-including some of the critical information that the article had included, while hewing as close as possible to the Criticism guidelines. 842U (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

We need to present other significant views to preserve WP:NPOV. While Jada may not have the credentials of Dodman, she's still a notable figure, one of his first celebrity clients and a close friend - so I think we can include her quote. Dreadstar ☥ 20:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"Millan expressed an interest in participating in a national symposium on humane dog training that the Association expected to convene in 2010." This symposium is no longer on the agenda, so Millan's interest in participating in something that is not going to happen doesn't really provide useful information about the television program that is the focus of this page. Marj (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2010 (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)

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'. [2][3][4][5][] 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)

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)

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)