Talk:Cesar Millan/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2014

Under videography after "Raising the Perfect Puppy," please add the new DVD title "Essentials of Dog Behavior: Socialization". Verification is at Cesar's website, http://www.cesarsway.com/shop/Essentials-Of-Dog-Behavior-Socialization. 71.92.75.158 (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now: Let's have a decent reliable source instead of a link to any site selling his products, please. Sam ^Sing! 21:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll change that to done, but obviously not with the link. Thanks. Sam ^Sing! 21:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Personal section confusing

The personal section currently states "In June 2010, Ilusión Millan filed for divorce, seeking primary physical custody of their children with visitation for Cesar, as well as spousal support. In May 2010, after his dog Daddy died in February and his wife filed for divorce in March, Millan attempted suicide." So, did his wife file for divorce twice, once in March and then again in June? If so, place the second sentence after the first in order to represent the information better chronologically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.6.197 (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

page needs update since Cesar Millan has recently passed away

page needs update since Cesar Millan has recently passed away — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.250.15.174 (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Except that the subject has not recently passed away, and is rumored to be in perfectly good health. This is a hoax. General Ization ^Talk 15:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem. This isn't the first Cesar Milan hoax so I saw no need to keep it per BLP. But acceptable call on your part.Thanks:O) (Littleolive oil (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC))

POV

The article is pro-Millan partisan and advertising in many ways, like letting have him the final say to on criticism without any content-related statement (removed by me), ignoring criticism in the introduction, finishing the introduction with praising quotes etc. Therefore the POV-template until a neutral version is established. --KnightMove (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

POV

Parts of this article read like an anti-Millan advertisement, mentioning critical reception of his work from professional dog trainers, but omitting to talk about positive reception from other professional dog trainers. The whole truth is that some professional dog trainers and behaviorists like him and his methods, some of them dislike him and his methods, and some have mixed feelings about him and his methods. Apples&lemons (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

We should change the neutrality tag from the entire article to just the reception section. I thought the other sections were pretty neutral, however the reception section is only negative. 2601:601:C780:724:FCFD:A902:D4A4:CCEF (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Controversy section?

Can we add a controversy section?

Cesar Millan's methods are not scientifically backed, and he has been sued multiple times. His methods are about 40 years behind the science of dog training, and he has no formal education in dog training. I understand he is a popular figure, so to keep the article unbiased, it makes sense to me to add a "controversy" section.

Here are some recommended readings:

http://www.whole-dog-journal.com/issues/14_12/features/Alpha-Dogs_20416-1.html

http://beyondcesarmillan.weebly.com/dogs-in-danger.html

http://pawsitivelygenius.com/an-open-letter-to-national-geographic/

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 05:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Controversy section is discouraged by Wikipedia policy. It is better that criticism be integrated into the article, perhaps as part of a section on the reaction of animal behaviorists, so that the pros and cons can be discussed side-by-side. See WP:CSECTION which says: "An article dedicated to negative criticism of a topic is usually discouraged because it tends to be a point-of-view fork, which is generally prohibited by the neutral point-of-view policy....(S)ections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism.... (B)est practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section. For example, if a politician received significant criticism about their public behavior, create a section entitled "Public behavior" and include all information – positive and negative – within that section. If a book was heavily criticized, create a section in the book's article called "Reception", and include positive and negative material in that section." --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 06:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cesar Millan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cesarsway.com/news/cesarspeaks/Dog-Psychology-Center-Evolution-of-a-Dream
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/tv/dog_whisperer_cesar_millan_attempted_yQoaATXSaUkoCL01b6HIBM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100223051849/http://www.cesarsway.com/news/daddy-memoriam to http://www.cesarsway.com/news/daddy-memoriam
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110825110640/http://www.jeopardy.com/news/cesarmillan.php to http://www.jeopardy.com/news/cesarmillan.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Need help with our dog

Our dog barks way too much and is housetrained but still pops and urinates in the house what do we do and we have a baby on the way. Please let me know if u are able to help us. Mrs charlotte purdy Charlotte1514 (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is a page for discussing improvements to the article, not a forum for general discussion of the topic. 2601:644:1:B7CB:38C2:3851:7DA:6490 (talk) 09:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Pro-Milan bias

This whole article seems to be a PR piece for Millan. The lead section reads like a CV, with references to Millan's supposed "25 years of experience" and "über-balanced mien". Additionally, criticism is placed far down in the lead and article. Any critical statements are given extremely specific attribution. This is a big red flag, as it usually reflects an effort to minimize criticism by making it seem to come from just a few isolated sources, rather than those sources reflecting larger trends of criticism.

The prevailing view in the scientific community, as well as many professional dog trainers and organizations, is that Millan's methods are based on incorrect and outdated beliefs about dog and wolf behavior, and that the resulting training methodology is ineffective and sometimes inhumane. The article needs to properly reflect this.

Some sources (not all RSs):

• http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168159108003717
• https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dogs-best-friend/201212/cesar-millan-and-the-tradition-pack-bully-pack-leader
• https://www.petful.com/news/cesar-millan-critics/
• https://www.livescience.com/5846-critics-challenge-dog-whisperer-methods.html
• https://ppgworldservices.com/2017/02/17/dog-behavior-dominance-reality-or-myth/
• https://www.whyanimalsdothething.com/posts/2016/6/2/the-damage-of-dog-whispering
• https://drsophiayin.com/philosophy/dominance/

General position statements about dominance-based training:

• https://apdt.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/dominance-and-dog-training.pdf
• https://avsab.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Dominance_Position_Statement_download-10-3-14.pdf
• http://kb.rspca.org.au/What-is-the-RSPCAs-view-on-dominance-dog-training_475.html

It's hard to understand that the "whole article" is pro-Milan when it features a section on criticism. It may be the lede paragraphs don't address the criticism of Milan represented in the article and should be addressed -- or that the criticism section needs to be expanded. But as far as the Big Statement about "the prevailing view in the scientific community" regarding Milan, an editor would need to find scientific journals that specifically make that case about Milan -- and not popular magazines "about science", pet sites, blogs -- or sources that don't mention Milan specifically, as with two of the cited sources. Otherwise the editor is conflating sources to support a contention not explicit in the sources, aka "Original Research by Synthesis" (see wp:SYNTH). Milan clearly has critics, but to outright say the critics represent the prevailing scientific view, may be inferred but isn't explicit in the cited sources. 842U (talk) 12:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Possible flaw in dates

In the "Personal life" section, paragraph 2, sentence 1 claims that his wife filed for divorce in June 2010. Sentence 2 then refers to an event in May 2010 (attempted suicide) as having occurred "after.. his wife filed for divorce."

Problem: May 2010 did not come "after" June 2010... I think..?

Path to solution: Sentence 2 cites a New York Post (source dubious at best) article stating he "learned" in March, 2010 that "his wife... planned to divorce him."

Sentence 1 cites a Yahoo News article (of only slightly higher repute than TMZ) which states that divorce motions were filed in June, 2010.

Conclusion: I feel like a TMZ reporter and now hate myself for even having looked into this...

Real conclusion: change to "after.. he learned his wife was planning to file for divorce" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.223.208.56 (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)