Main Page

Pro-Mi{l}lan 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as well as many professional dog trainers and organizations, is that Millan's methods are based on incorrect and outdated beliefs about dog and wolf behavior, and that the resulting training methodology is ineffective and sometimes inhumane.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-Mil{l}an when it features a section on criticism. It may be the lede {lead} paragraphs don't address the criticism of Mil{l}an 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 Mil{l}an, an editor would need to find scientific journals that specifically make that case about Mil{l}an -- and not popular magazines "about science", pet sites, blogs -- or sources that don't mention Mil{l}an 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). Mil{l}an 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)

Regarding {..}: I made these corrections in respect for Cesar Millan and with the intention to prevent mis-spelling and to help those who are less familiar with the English language; I didn't intend to find fault with the authors.

77.189.7.149 (talk) 06:18, 2 April 2022 (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 {TMZ and/or TMZ on TV}) 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)

Criticism and reference

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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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

I cleaned up this section and blanked a lot of it. The whole Queen Latifa thing cited WP:TMZ. Using TMZ on a WP:BLP in this case is WP:FALSEBALANCE. Maybe this was an attorney trying to promote his case (hence the attorney's name being red linked). If someone has a problem with this, feel free to discuss here and ping me. I also removed some 'scientific journal' that doesnt agree with the article subject, that itself lacks a wikipedia page (often an easy way to rule out of something is due). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@KevinKelly1990: I have again removed the WP:LONGQUOTE which you re-added. Dont re-add it again without finding consensus here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@KevinKelly1990: I also noted your account appears to be an WP:SPA with a possible WP:COI for the purpose of promoting an attorney that filed a case against the article subject. It appears you might be attempting to justify notability of attorney Brian Adesman, who you also have tried to create an article for. This is not ok at wikipedia. I have removed all mention of Adesman from this article out of an abundance of caution, it is in fact irrelevant who is the non-notable attorney Draft:Brian_Adesman that filed a case against this article subject. Efforts at WP:PROMO are not acceptable here or on any other article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Service dog training

Hello, I am a Disabled Veteran who served 24 years in the Navy.I was diagnosed with diabetes while my husband was ill and died in 2009. I was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2011 and 2018. I have a 2.5 year old German Shepherd who I want to be trained as my service dog. Please help. (Redacted) is my email address. Sandra Doyle-Gilchrist (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Sandra Doyle-Gilchrist: This is not the place to inquire about this. This page is exclusively intended for the discussion of improvements to the Cesar Millan article here on Wikipedia. It is not a message board to contact Mr. Millan or any dog trainer or dog training organization. You will need to contact Mr. Millan and/or some other dog training organization through some other means. General Ization ^Talk 18:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

"in-humane"?

Dogs are dogs, not humans, and need to be treated as dogs. 77.189.7.149 (talk) 05:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)