![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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:
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.
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)
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)
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."
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Care to support your opinions? 842U ( talk) 00:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
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.
Two other unscripted series will have animal-lovers rejoicing with the addition of Rescue Ink and Dog Whisperer to the schedule.
Millan never reviews the cases ahead of time.
With the exception of situations in which the dog is potentially a threat to Millan or to the crew, he isn't told ahead of time about the situation. Millan then goes about solving the problem -- training the people and rehabilitating the dog -- on the spot.
Millan shows up at 9 the night of the taping. He never reviews the cases ahead of time. He just asks a few questions and observes the dog.
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:
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:
Marj ( talk) 23:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
"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."
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)
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 [1]
Not related to program format - is there a better place in the article for it? Marj ( talk) 20:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I don't believe that neutrality is demonstrated in the following actions:
Marj ( talk) 22:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
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.
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)
"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:
Marj ( talk) 17:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
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.
Thanks! Dreadstar ☥ 20:10, 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.
I wanted to avoid this. Marj ( talk) 21:11, 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)
"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)
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)
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)
"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)
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))
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)
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)
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)
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. |
|
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. |
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)
|
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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:
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.
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)
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)
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."
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Care to support your opinions? 842U ( talk) 00:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
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.
Two other unscripted series will have animal-lovers rejoicing with the addition of Rescue Ink and Dog Whisperer to the schedule.
Millan never reviews the cases ahead of time.
With the exception of situations in which the dog is potentially a threat to Millan or to the crew, he isn't told ahead of time about the situation. Millan then goes about solving the problem -- training the people and rehabilitating the dog -- on the spot.
Millan shows up at 9 the night of the taping. He never reviews the cases ahead of time. He just asks a few questions and observes the dog.
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:
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:
Marj ( talk) 23:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
"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."
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)
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 [1]
Not related to program format - is there a better place in the article for it? Marj ( talk) 20:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I don't believe that neutrality is demonstrated in the following actions:
Marj ( talk) 22:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
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.
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)
"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:
Marj ( talk) 17:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
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.
Thanks! Dreadstar ☥ 20:10, 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.
I wanted to avoid this. Marj ( talk) 21:11, 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)
"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)
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)
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)
"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)
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))
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)
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)
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)
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. |
|
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. |
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)
|
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)