This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cesar Millan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
Hello everyone,
There is a certain problem with the way this article has been written. I sincerely understand that any person presenting methods for dog's education should demonstrate its validity, preferably with scientific arguments, and it doesn't seem to be done. At the same time, I am really not convinced by the citation #36 (Fraser, Stephen (January 19, 2007), "Ruff Treatment", Current Science, 92 (10): 8) and its content on which relies most of the argued criticisms of the so-called section. It happens that Current Science is a journal which has seen its website copied several times by - apparently - predatory journals. On the official website from which I found link in the related wiki page ( /info/en/?search=Current_Science), I was not able to find, with the given informations, the cited article. I am truly worried about the use of this citation which looks like a reference to authority (Look, this is an authentic scientific journal! It should be with strong, huge and complex arguments to be there...).
Sincerely
stolen prt 8.3.123.167 ( talk) 16:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
@ User:98.116.234.227, please stop adding references to Adesman. Regardless of whether you're connected with the above account or not, it looks like promotional editing to put the focus on the attorneys who filed the case, rather than the case itself. Rusalkii ( talk) 22:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cesar Millan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello everyone,
There is a certain problem with the way this article has been written. I sincerely understand that any person presenting methods for dog's education should demonstrate its validity, preferably with scientific arguments, and it doesn't seem to be done. At the same time, I am really not convinced by the citation #36 (Fraser, Stephen (January 19, 2007), "Ruff Treatment", Current Science, 92 (10): 8) and its content on which relies most of the argued criticisms of the so-called section. It happens that Current Science is a journal which has seen its website copied several times by - apparently - predatory journals. On the official website from which I found link in the related wiki page ( /info/en/?search=Current_Science), I was not able to find, with the given informations, the cited article. I am truly worried about the use of this citation which looks like a reference to authority (Look, this is an authentic scientific journal! It should be with strong, huge and complex arguments to be there...).
Sincerely
stolen prt 8.3.123.167 ( talk) 16:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
@ User:98.116.234.227, please stop adding references to Adesman. Regardless of whether you're connected with the above account or not, it looks like promotional editing to put the focus on the attorneys who filed the case, rather than the case itself. Rusalkii ( talk) 22:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)