Talk:Cesar Millan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Ever been bitten?

Just curious and think it would be interesting in the article to note if Mr. Millan has ever been bitten by a dog. Just curious. Anyone know? I understand this isn't a message board for fan trivia or blogging and am reserving other questions that are more appropriately asked in that format but I do think this tidbit would be interesting to include in the article if known. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.42.16 (talk) 14:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

He has, there have been a few instances of that occurring in his show.--Dpryan (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree. He has been bitten by dogs with uncontrolled aggression, who (according to his TV show) would have been euthanized had César not been able to rehabilitate them. He states that he does not mind bites and scratches due to the satisfaction of helping to save dogs' lives. David Spector 04:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Cesar Moved To Santa Clarita

He no longer lives in Inglewood.

Queequeg22 (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Biography too long, too congratulatory

This guy's biography really needs to be condensed and be less personal.

Stoned philosophaster (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

End of the critics section

The end of the critics section states that "most of Cesar's followers..." without references or anything. It's all just opinion. I didn't want to remove the whole paragraph without some input...but there is no basis for this paragraph so I don't see why it should stay? Since I'm sure there was no study to see if people that like Cesar Millan have backgrounds in animal behavior and all the other stuff it says I'm sure there is nothing to actually cite...

Puresholtz 05:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Genesis Award?

Removed the folllowing link:

http://www.hsus.org/about_us/hsus_hollywood_office/the_genesis_awards/20th_anniversary_genesis_awards/Animals-Come-Into-Focus-The-20th-Anniversary-Genesis-Awards-Honors-the-Media-that-Spotlighted-Animals-in-2005.html

As a source to "In 2005, the National Humane Society Genesis Award Committee presented him with a Special Commendation for his work in rehabilitating sheltered animals." Nowhere on that page does it say anything about Cesar Millan winning a award. In fact, if you search the hsus.org website, there is not one mention of Cesar Millan.

The only source I could find for this award was from the Random House website. All other googling will lead you to the same wording as above, leading one to believe that everyone has used the same source for this information.

Could it be he received the award from a different orginzation? The website posted, hsus.org, is actually called "The Humane Society of The United States", not "The National Humane Society". There are two groups I found which call themselves "The National Humane Society" http://www.humanesocietynational.org/ http://www.nationalhumane.com/ But they don't seem to have a "Genesis Award Committee".

I've been trying to clarify this as well. It "may" be that the term "national" is used generically by the source. As it is the Genesis Award that is the relevant point that is what I used as a link. It was not meant as a direct link to any mention of Cesar but as a link to the GA Committee itself. Cesar in fact did notreceive an award as such, but a special commendation by the Genesis Award Committee. I have not been able to locate any refence to "special commendations" at all. I'm still digging on this and it may take an actual email to them to clarify. Tintina 18:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The reference to this "award" is very misleading, especially since the link to Genesis Award points to the HSUS website. The HSUS has not issued Millan any awards (you can view a complete listing of award recipients on the HSUS website. This appears to be another unsubstantiated claim by Millan's PR people. Random House and Malcom Gladwell appear to be repeating what they were told.

I removed the below statement, because this is about the show...not Cesar himself. Seems like it should be on the Dog Whisperer page or a page about the TV rating system, rather than in this article.

"On October 27, 2006, the International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants warned the National Geographic Channel that the Dog Whisperer might encourage children to behave unsafely around dogs. The group questions the 'TV_G' rating the show is given. [1]"Whedonrox

Regarding National Humane Society Commendation. I have also tried to locate the specific report without success, but feel that because it is represented by reliable sources (Random House and other reputable/Malcolm Gladwell)that it should be included until disputed/denied by the NHS. I'd like to add a glossary to the menu but not sure how. Tintina 04:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Never mind my comments:>) I'm getting in sync! Tintina 04:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The National Humane Society Commendation is also noted on the flap of his book Cesar's Way. Whedonrox 12:30, 25 January 2007

I wasn't sure where to add this comment but as it is a thought that recurs and I believe fundamental to the entry on Cesar Millan, I am posting it on top.

What is the purpose of this entry? Is it meant to be a biography of Cesar Millan as a "celebrity persona" or is it a sideways discussion of his methods in the rehabilitation of dogs?

He is a Dog Whisperer Tintina 04:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

On first reading it appears to be a biography. The controversy section however seems to be a little heavy, and one wonders if it may become the highlight of the biography itself.

As Cesar does not call himself a behaviourist why is this even mentioned? He has never implied that he has any certification.

Other than these comments I will assist in editing the content.

Tintina 17:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

1-4-06

I added a section on Cesar's Methods. The Controversy and Criticism sections refers to critique of his methods, but the article never states exactly what they are.

Also, I added a few articles to the external resources section.

Below is mine..above is not signed

I did some editing in the controversy section. re arranging and clarifying some points. I added a basic description of the opposing points of view from which the controversy stems. Tintina 20:23, 17 January 2007 (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

Sure, I'll work it in there.

I think thats trash and should not be included in wikipedia. If you want to include it you should wait to see if this is truth or just someone flinging rumors.LdyDragonfly 18:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The lawsuit & why it should be included

.... Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted.

The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.

What is the intent of Cesar Millan's Biography?

Because something has been published does not necessarily mean it MUST be included. what other published items are there that are not included-plenty I'm sure.

Tintina 22:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind I like Cesar. It's important, however, to keep the article up to date; it doesn't matter whether or not the lawsuit is justified. It just happened; and this article will state it THAT WAY, just as the CNN article states it that way (it does not claim that the lawsuit is justified). 67.164.209.137 19:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this the rule, coming from a newbie here, to add in CNN info, even if it doesn't seem to hold much truth and is more rumor then fact? LdyDragonfly 19:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

To me, it seems to hold a lot of truth (the lawsuit itself being filed). Whether or not the allegations in the lawsuit are justified is unkown, which is why this article and the CNN article does not claim that the lawsuit is justified. However, it looks as though the lawsuit ITSELF is real, and not a rumor, which is why the article should reflect that. Also, the guideline is to add what is generally considered to be true; not what is actually fact (if Wikipedia existed back in the day when people believed the world was flat; than Wiki SHOULD state that the world is flat). But I don't think this guideline needs to be applied here; because the lawsuit IS real, not a rumor. Just don't know if it's justified (or if it was Cesar's fault). 67.164.209.137 19:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to be somewhat reluctant on this but I guess I should understand. However, I'm surprised if your taking such a stand why are you not a logged in user rather then an IP??? LdyDragonfly 19:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

A single lawsuit does not necessarily meet the standards of Wikipedia:Notability. If it did, there would be thousands of Wal-Mart lawsuit wikipedia pages.  ;) To meet the standard, it needs to be the subject of other third party articles (granted, the CNN article is a start). But the fact that an anonymous user immediately came to Wikipedia to post an alert on both the Dog Whisperer page and the Cesar Millan page, strikes me more as someone with an agenda, than a bonafide desire to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles. If the information does go into the article, it should be carefully reviewed to ensure that it stays neutral (see WP:NPOV), and is not promoting some attorney's agenda somewhere. --Elonka 22:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

LdyDragonfly; one doesn't need a user name to make decisions in order to help improve an article. Elonka: Well, the Notability essay isn't a guideline, just a belief among some users. The essay is usually applied to articles; not sure how you could narrow it down for whether or not you could add a piece of information into an article. Also, if you go to the Wal-Mart article, there probably is a section devoted to criticisms and lawsuits made against it. I feel that the CNN article is enough; although, I'm willing to bet there are other news sites reporting on this lawsuit as well (this doesn't matter, as one is probably enough). Another thing is, it doesn't matter if it was an agenda or not; the article is valid -- besides, if this person has an agenda against Cesar Millan, but provides something that would still benefit the article, including that information into the article will only prove to the person that we are not bias for or against Cesar, just neutral (our goal is simply to improve an article) -- we're basically doing what the person didn't expect us to do.

Don't worry! I've made it as neutral as I see possible. 67.164.209.137 00:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I too find his motives questionable, especially since he was here within hours of the news - and also phrased it in a way that implicated Millan as at fault, and not Millan being sued because something happened at a center that was owned by him. Oogles 02:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

.............. I don't know the a law suit in itself is noteworthy of mention. Anyone can file a lawsuit for any number of reasons. I think it would be more appropriate to wait until the results of that suit are decided. Including it at this point does read as a bit infammatory (even though a suit may have been filed) it implies guilt in the read. I would prefer to err on the side of discretion. Tintina 21:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Place of Birth

Cesar Millan was born in Culican, Mexico and NOT Mexico City, Mexico. This is clearly stated in his book and on shows he's in. (Sorry if my format is off I'm still a newbie here) LdyDragonfly 02:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Not a Certified Animal Behavorist

I removed the reference to him being a "behaviourist" from the opening paragraph. He is not. He does not say he is. It is a misplaced comment.

It begins the biography on a note of "doubt" which is not neutral or understated. It is the criticism from others that refer to him having no certification as such. Tintina 22:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Added the line "not certified as an applied animal behavorist" due to the fact he is not. Text below explains what applied animal behavior is, how one gets certified, and a link to current members. From the Animal Behavior Society website:

What is Applied Animal Behavior? The field of Applied Animal Behavior specializes in the behaviour of companion animals in relation to behavioural problems and training, the behaviour of farm, zoo and laboratory animals (i.e animal management and welfare) and studies of the behaviour of wild animals when these studies are relevant from an applied perspective, (i.e. wildlife management, pest management or nature conservation) as well as methodological studies.

Animal behaviorists are often educated in a variety of disciplines, including psychology biology, zoology or animal science. A professional applied animal behaviorist has demonstrated expertise in theprinciples of animal behavior, in the research methods of animal behavior, in the application of animal behavior principles to applied behavior problems and in the dissemination of knowledge about animal behavior through teaching and research. http://www.animalbehavior.org/ABSAppliedBehavior/

THE ANIMAL BEHAVIOR SOCIETY PROGRAM FOR CERTIFICATION OF APPLIED ANIMAL BEHAVIORISTS

Prepared for the ABS Board of Professional Certification, August, 1990. (Revised Jan 2002)

WHAT IS CERTIFICATION?

The Animal Behavior Society (ABS) is the leading professional organization in North America for

the study of animal behavior. The Society recognizes that animal-oriented groups or agencies,

businesses, and the general public seek professional advice about the animal behavior in general or

about behavioral problems of animals. Certification is the means by which the ABS demonstrates to the

public that certain individuals meet the minimum standards of education, experience and ethics required

of a professional applied animal behaviorist as set forth by the Society.

Animal behaviorists can be educated in a variety of disciplines, including psychology biology,

zoology or animal science. A professional applied animal behaviorist has demonstrated expertise in the

principles of animal behavior, in the research methods of animal behavior, in the application of animal

behavior principles to applied behavior problems and in the dissemination of knowledge about animal

behavior through teaching and research.

Certification constitutes recognition by the Animal Behavior Society that, to its best knowledge,

the certificant meets the educational, experiental and ethical standards required by the Society for

professional applied animal behaviorists. Certification does not constitute a guarantee that the applicant

meets a specific standard of competence or possesses specific knowledge.

WHO SHOULD BE CERTIFIED?

Certification is beneficial to anyone who consults with the public or with other professionals about

the applications of animal behavior knowledge or about specific behavioral problems of animals.

Examples are persons working in a clinical animal behavior setting (i.e., involving the diagnosis and

treatment of animal behavior problems), and those consulting with agricultural interests, zoos, research

institutions or governmental agencies about the behavior or behavior problems of wild or domestic

animals. By consulting with a certified professional applied animal behaviorist, the client can be assured

of the qualifications of the consultant.

WHAT ARE THE LEVELS OF PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION?

There are two levels of certification: Associate Applied Animal Behaviorist and Certified Applied

Animal Behaviorist. The Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist category has more rigorous educational and

experiental requirements. Requirements for both are listed below.

WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATION?

Associate Applied Animal Behaviorist

The successful applicant must meet requirements of education, experience and endorsement to

become certified as an Associate Applied Animal Behaviorist. Educational requirements include a

Master's Degree from an accredited college or university in a biological or behavioral science with an

emphasis in animal behavior. The degree should include a research based thesis. Undergraduate and/or

graduate coursework must include 21 semester credits in behavioral science courses

including 6 semester credits in ethology, animal behavior and/or

comparative psychology and 6 semester credits in animal learning, conditioning and or animal

psychology (e.g., experimental psychology).

Experiential requirements include a minimum of two years of professional experience in applied

animal behavior. The applicant must demonstrate the ability to perform independently and

professionally in applied animal behavior. Examples include performing independent studies, data

analysis, formulation and testing of hypotheses and professional writing. Also required is evidence of

significant experience working interactively with a particular species (such as as a researcher, research

assistant, or intern working with a certified applied animal behaviorist) prior to working independently

with the species in a clinical animal behavior setting.

Endorsement requirements include the provision of a minimum of three letters of recommendation

from regular ABS members affirming the applicant's professional experience in the areas listed above.

Only two of these letters may come from the same institution.

Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist

Educational and experiental requirements include a doctoral degree from an accredited college or

university in a biological or behavioral science with an emphasis on animal behavior, including five years

of professional experience, or a doctorate from an accredited college or university in veterinary medicine

plus two years in a university-approved residency in animal behavior and three additional years of

professional experience in applied animal behavior. Any of these degrees must include the same

coursework requirements as the Associate Applied Animal Behaviorist. The successful applicant must

also demonstrate a thorough knowledge of the literature, scientific principles and principles of animal

behavior, demonstrate original contributions or original interpretations of animal behavior information

and show evidence of significant experience working interactively with a particular species as a

researcher, research assistant or intern with a Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist prior to working

independently with the species in a clinical animal behavior setting.

Endorsement requirements are identical to those of the Associate Applied Animal Behaviorist.

Exceptions to any of the above requirements will be considered by the Board of Professional

Certification upon receipt of a written statement explaining why and how the intent of the educational

and experiential requirements are satisfied.

http://www.animalbehavior.org/Applied/Pamph3N-Jan2002.htm

Current Members: http://www.animalbehavior.org/Applied/CAAB_directory.html

Downplayed "Not a Certified Animal Behavorist"

I'm still getting the hang of this..forgive

I agree with the below. I changed the opening paragraph-omitting the word and reference to not being certified for something he doesn't describe himself as in the first place. Tintina 22:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I felt this needed to be stepped down in significance. Two reasons. First, having it right at the start set the wrong tone, as if somehow not being certified made him a dubious character or unqualified in some way. Secondly, looking over the Animal Behavior Society web site, they are largely concerned with scientific studies of animal behaviour. They have nothing to do with domestic animal training or therapy except where an academic might be studying these things for scientific reasons. So Millan not being a member of ABS is meaningless, because he wouldn't need to be a member, any more than he would need to be a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 08:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I think toning it down was proper. The information is still in the article, but it's not necessary as "top paragraph" information. --Elonka 16:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

STILL MISLEADING

Neale,

The reason I added "Not a Certified Animal Behavorist" in the first paragraph is to offset the vague term "dog behaviorst" in the first sentence. Animal Behavior is a science, and Mr. Millan is being dubious when he (or anyone else) tries to insinuate that he has any formal training. Members of the Animal Behavior Society are actually animal behavorists and actually DO work with domestic pets such as cats and dogs. That's what "applied" means in the title "Cerified APPLIED Animal Behavorist." From their website:

Who should be Certified?

Certification is beneficial to anyone who consults with the public or with other professionals about the applications of animal behavior knowledge or about specific behavioral problems of animals.

Examples are persons working in a clinical animal behavior setting (i.e., involving the diagnosis and treatment of animal behavior problems), and those consulting with agricultural interests, zoos, research institutions or governmental agencies about the behavior or behavior problems of wild or domestic animals. By consulting with a certified professional applied animal behaviorist, the client can be assured of the qualifications of the consultant.

http://www.animalbehavior.org/ABSAppliedBehavior/certified-applied-animal-behaviorists/the-animal-behavior-society-program-for-certification-of-applied-animal-behaviorists/

They really are the only serious originzation when it comes to diagnosing and treating pet behavior problems. To become certified, you must have extentsive education, experience and publish original research studies.(see qualifications in my first post)

I can call myself a doctor, astronaunt, or sea captain - that does not make me one.

As you addded, Mr. Millan is a member of "The International Association of Canine Professionals", which according to the first page on its website: (is) For DOG TRAINERS; GROOMERS; KENNEL OWNERS; VETERINARIANS; PET SITTERS; DOG HANDLERS; RETAILERS; PET FIRST AID INSTRUCTORS; BOUNDARY FENCE INSTALLERS & ALL PROFESSIONALS WITHIN THE DOG WORLD

Also from their site: What is the definition of a Canine Professional for the IACP? A Canine Professional is an individual pursuing or engaged in an occupation, vocation, or activity related to dogs. Examples: Dog Trainer, Veterinarian, Groomer, Kennel Manager, etc. Anyone in the field of dogs can become a member.

Who can Join? Anyone who qualifies as a Canine Professional. There are three main levels of membership; PROFESSIONAL Member, ASSOCIATE Member, and AFFILIATE Member. These categories allow the IACP the opportunity to welcome all persons, from the student or hobbyist to the owner of a canine-related business. As a part of our networking and educational opportunities, we encourage all those involved in the canine industry to join our organization. For more information on the membership levels and benefits, visit our Membership Section http://www.dogpro.org/index.php?pageID=29

To put this organization before ABS implies that one is equal to the other. They are not. Cleaned it up a bit to make it more clear.

Hiya, just as a tip, your arguments on Wikipedia are likely to receive more weight if they are calm, short, to the point, and avoid use of ALL CAPS section headers. I recommend reading Wikipedia:Wikiquette. Other than that, your change to the actual article looks fine to me. --Elonka 18:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Does indeed look better now. I am a bit worried that the entire entry is a little negative, and focuses on the controversy rather than on his successes. Whether the one outweighs the other, I do not know.

Membership of professional associations, or accreditation by them, is somewhat debatable as far as being "good" at something goes. I have a PhD in palaeontology, so could be called a professional palaeontologist. But I have met many amateurs with more experience of field work and fossil collecting, understanding of stratigraphy, and all round general knowledge than I do. They are "better" palaeontologists than I am. But they're mailmen, store clerks, etc., not "professionals". Of course being a therapist is somewhat different, the point has mileage here -- just because he isn't part of the traditional profession doesn't mean he isn't any good.

Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 19:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on the "little negative" part, so I bought and read Millan's book, and expanded the article considerably [2]. I hope you like it.  :) It definitely needs some pictures though to break up the text. We need a picture of his bookcover, and maybe a couple public domain images of dogs or Mexico to spice up the article. --Elonka 17:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks very good now. The controversy is in the right place, and balanced against his fame/success. The contrast between the casual use of animal behaviourist and that recognised within science is clear, which I like. All in all, much improved. What I'd like to see is _why_ some people criticize "dominance theory" -- it seems to me that that is exactly what dogs need, and is surely what they experience as wolves in a pack? So what's the issue here? Anyway, good work! Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 18:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Edited Criticism and Controversy

Took out the following under "Criticism and Controversy":

However, it should be noted that membership of this society does not infer profesional competance or ability and non memership is not a sign of anything other than choice. Though Cesar has come under criticism many so called academic behaviourists find it hard to agree on any number of the theories that abound in this area, dominance being just one. In the end it is the client who is responsible for chosing the behaviourist and many go to experienced trainers who have developed as behavioural consultants over many years of working and study. It is a sad fact that a number of academic behaviourist do not own dogs and have never done so, some consider it unimportant to see or work with the animal directly, as they feel the prognosis and treatment can be provided remotely. Most dog owners need and in fact want direct help and behaviourists like Cesar provide this irrespective of academic snobbery.'

..and changed Mr. Millan to not being a "member" of ABS to not being "certfied". It is true that anyone can be a member of ABS (just like anyone can be a member of a historical society)- but obviously the distinction here is certification. Mr. Millan cannot be certified, as he so far lacks the proper education.

The statement "It is a sad fact that a number of academic behaviourist do not own dogs and have never done so, some consider it unimportant to see or work with the animal directly, as they feel the prognosis and treatment can be provided remotely" is not factual. The job of Certified Animal Behaviorists is to work directly with pets.

The statement "Most dog owners need and in fact want direct help and behaviourists like Cesar provide this irrespective of academic snobbery."'' is biased opinion.

I don't think there would be that much controversey if Cesar Millan just referred to himself as a "Dog Trainer". What's wrong with that? It's when he starts using language like "Dog Psychology Center" and "behaviorist" that he seems to attach a unearned credibility to himself.

............................

The controversy is over his methods and the two main camps of thought. He's NOT a trainer, he works from a behavioural point of view As far as I know he does not refer to himself as a behaviourist. Others have tagged that on him and subsequently it used as a criticism

Tintina 22:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Cesar refers to himself as a dog behavior expert - not a trainer or a behaviorist.

Comment from producer

---

THIS IS IMPORTANT:

---

Cesar has never referred to himself as an "Animal Behaviorist."

I just started to watch The Dog Whisperer with the DVD of the first season. I pop it into the DVD player, watch the first episode, and not four minutes in, Millan is introduced as "Dog behaviorist Cesar Millan." True, it wasn't Millan's own voice providing that narration, but he can hardly disavow responsibility for it. (For that matter, neither can you.) Especially if this is typical of the series, which I suppose I will find out in short order. Capedia 05:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

He has no college degrees and makes no bones about that, no pun intended. On the show, we call him a "Dog Behavior Expert" for that very reason. He does not call himself a "dog trainer" because training has traditionally been associated with teaching a dog to follow commands, such as "sit, stay, come, heel." Cesar rehabiliates dogs with behavior problems, and helps owners understand how to see the world through their dogs' eyes, which he interprets as "dog psychology."

As for the lawsuit issues, will they be updated with future information as it becomes available? Such as the fact that neither Flody Suarez nor his dog were ever clients of Cesar's - but were clients of another,less experienced trainer who was "borrowing" the facility that day? Seems a pertinent fact, no?

Remember, anyone can file any lawsuit at any time. Does this then mean that every lawsuit ever filed against Wikipedia subjects should be included in their pages? If so, better get editing, guys.

- --64.12.116.71 15:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Melissa Jo Peltier - Co-Executive Producer, Dog Whisperer with Cesar Millan and his co-author on Cesar's Way.

Thank you Melissa, and welcome to Wikipedia. I enjoyed your book, and am a fan of the show.  :) I'm not a Wikipedia administrator, but I'm an executive producer too, who helps out as a Wikipedia volunteer in updating some media-related articles. As general advice on helping improve the article here on Wikipedia, I recommend that you create a login name so as to have an "identity" here, which will help to identify your comments. I also encourage you to be as polite and civil as possible, since anything perceived as "demanding" in an autobiographical way, can generate bad feeling among other Wikipedia editors and delay article updates. Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. As for updating the trial information, the best way that you can assist with getting the bio updated, is to provide links to newspaper or magazine articles with updated information, or, put trial documents online so that they can be referred to as references. Wikipedia has a strict policy on "No original research", which means that before any information can go into a Wikipedia article, it first has to appear in an outside source. Check Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. You are also welcome to contact me directly if email or a phone call would be easier communication for you. Just click on my name for contact information. :) --Elonka 17:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Dog behaviorist title

In response to the above concern by an anonymous user claiming to be the producer for Millan's show, I investigated the "dog behaviorist" title claim. However, it seems pretty clear that the title is referenced. For example, here, on the National Geographic page promoting the show, Millan is listed as "dog-behaviorist-to-the-stars" [3]. And at this page, tmz.com, he is again listed as a dog "behaviorist".[4] What do other editors think? Should we change his title on the bio page? --Elonka 21:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, "dog behaviourist" is like saying you're a healer or athlete or writer. It can mean all kinds of things, and people within one camp will be very critical of people in another camp using that title. As far as I can see, it isn't like saying you're an public school teacher, MD, or lawyer, which implies credentials, certification, and membership of a trade union. So, if you put dog behaviourist here, some people will see that as a fair description of what he does, while others will say he's a charlatan. Cheers, Neale Monks 12:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It's simple - To be a "Dog behaviorist" you need no degrees, you need no training, you need no certification. It isn't like a veternarian, or lawyer as above person mentioned. A trainer teaches tricks, a dog behaviorist deals with behavior of a dog. While you can take a scientific approach to dog behavior, unfortunately this is the same "title" - there isn't a different word to describe that, only to list their degrees or certifications along with it. However, that still makes Cesar a dog behaviorist. Also reference to the "Animal Behavior Society" is beyond absurd, who cares about that and their small handful of people they've chosen to certify... And what importance do they hold? Seems like advertizing for this 'society' more than anything. Oogles 04:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

In other words, according to you the steps to become a dog behaviorist: 1)Break the United States Immigration Federal Law by crossing the border through Tijuana. 2) Get a job as a groomer, yes, washing dogs. 3)Read one book about dogs. 4)Hire a PR company. 5)Claim you are a dog behavior expert. 6)Convince a bunch of ignorant people that you have a way to communicate with animals. 7)Get a TV show...nice. Why do people waste all those years in school? Lets all follow Cesar honorable example. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.17.83 (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

The above is unfair. Acoording to the Wikipedia entry, Cesar Millan claims to have read TWO books on dogs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.145.74.32 (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

I have to say that add that if someone is a programmer and does not have any college degrees in programming, can you say that he is not a programmer? I am probably a better programmer than 80% of programmers out there who have been college educated because I started programming when I was 9 and have been doing it my whole life. I have no college degrees in computer anything but I can guarantee you if something is wrong with your computer regardless of OS I can fix it. Same rules apply for Cesar and his expertise. Expertise does NOT require a college degree or certification to be called expertise. It merely needs to exist. Now if he claimed he was a "certified" dog behavior expert, that would be a different story. 198.200.181.206 (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC) - (user aqhillie - i'm too lazy to login)

Response to Producer

Elonka has stated that credible websites indeed consider Cesar Millan to be a "dog behaviourist"; however, I don't believe National Geographic.com or TMZ.com were being as cautious as we are in designating who or what is a dog behaviourist; when National Geographic made the statement; "dog behaviourist to the stars" (something like that); the author of that line may not have been cautious or aware of the meaning being that term. Also, I wouldn't consider TMZ.com to be a very verifiable source.

However, the possibility that the Producer of The Dog Whisperer does not call Cesar Millan a "dog behaviourist" does not mean he isn't one; it just means it's his/her belief. Also, even if Cesar Millan himself calls himself a dog behaviour expert and not a "dog behaviourist", without the reasons for it (or if the reasons don't "work"), it STILL doesn't mean Cesar Millan isn't a dog-behaviourist. It could be that Cesar Millan is unaware of the qualifiers, or rather, the lack of qualifiers to identify oneself as a dog-behaviourist (or that he's playing it safe). It could also be that the Producer of the show wants to avoid any complications; so s/he would rather call Millan a dog-behaviour-expert. It STILL does not mean he isn't one. If Steven Spielberg stated that he wasn't a film-director; the Wikipedia article on him would still call him a film-director, because the definitions would match with his occupation. THe only thing that would change in the article is perhaps having a smaller paragraph stating that Spielberg doesn't view himself as a film-director (he does; I'm just speaking hypothetically).

I'm not sure what Cesar Millan should be designated in this article. It's possible to have a short statement saying that neither Cesar Millan nor his Producers believe/call him a dog-behaviourist (and give possible reasons why they do this). But I think it's best to still refer to him as a behaviourist; but to note as an aside that he has no college degree; but also, that the dog-behaviorist title does not require a degree -- unlike the position of being a Doctor, for example (which requires permission from the government).

So, I think the key is to try to find a verifiable source which helps define what it means to be a "dog behaviourist"; not to try and find if "credible" sources call Cesar Millan a dog behaviourist. Both may contradict; but there's only one truth.

For the exec. producer of the show: as long as there is a credible source (an article for example; because unfortunately, it is hard to verify whether or not your are indeed the producer of the show) stating that Cesar was not associated with the dog or it's owner, than it could be included in this Wikipedia entry. I for one believe you, but this just isn't how Wikipedia handles things (and I agree with this policy); so I'd advise you to issue a statement to a credible news source saying that Millan was not associated with the dog or owner, and that another behaviourist was. It seems that there are no current sources that help to clarify this. National Geographic's official statement only vaguely says that Cesar Millan was not there at the time of the incident. Oh, and I'd like to say that I enjoyed your book, and am also a big fan of the show. 24.23.51.27 05:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

American Humane Society

So, I've just read the statement released by the AHS; asking the National Geographic channel to stop airing these episodes; and accusing Millan of inhumane practice. What I don't think AHS realizes is that most or a lot of these dogs that Millan is hired to "fix" are "red zone" cases; or cases that are beyond repair. In any normal circumstance, a professional trainer (possibly one associated with the AHS) would not be able to help improve the dog and fix the problems; and in the case of an aggressive one, they would simply recommend that it be put down. The site states that AHS believes there are other options to euthanizing a dog... and yet they seek to shut down Cesar Millan? When after many trained certified professionals have tried to re-balance a dog and have failed, Cesar Millan was always the person who was up to the task. If it wasn't for his "harsh" or "inhumane" techniques; than the dogs probably would have continued to act out aggressively and attack people -- and possibly be euthanized. When Millan says that "no dog needs to be euthanized", that "all dogs can change"; he means it. Even if it means using a choke collar, or a, god forbid, shock-collar (although with his skills, I think this is a little excessive). And placing a dog onto the ground (otherwise known as the Alpha roll) is too excessive? Have the AHS ever heard of the phrase, "drastic times call for drastic measures"? When a dog is recommended for death roll by the top trainers and its only hope is Cesar Millan, you better hope he does whatever he can to save that dog's life. The AHS needs to stop beeing pansies and realize that sometimes, you just need to be harsh. The end result is well worth it in my opinion. 24.23.51.27 13:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well said. If you can find any editorial/article anywhere with a similar view, I think it would be a worthwhile addition to the article, to represent a balanced view. So far, it looks like the press isn't giving a lot of attention to the AHS letter, anyway. It's also ironic, considering that just a couple weeks earlier, Millan was in the press, for raising money for a different Humane society organization [5]. We may want to add that to the Wikipedia article. --Elonka 18:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I find it difficult to fathom the AHS's motives with the letter. If there really are verifiable instances of animal cruelty featured on the show, then a simple law suit could have been used instead of a letter. Even the threat of a law suit would probably have been enough to cause the producers to change or stop the show. On the other hand, if the animal cruelty alleged is, let us say, subjective and dependent on the point of view of the viewer, then AHS might not have been able to sue, and thus a letter might have been their only remaining option. Either way, I know a lot of dog-friendly people who don't see the show as cruel, and consider "firm and consistent" training to be much better for a dog than trying to be the dog's best friend all the time. So I think the whole debate about what is cruel and what is simply firm rather subjective. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 07:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

On what do you base the assumption that only Millan works with "red zone" cases? Thousands of behavior consultants and certified behaviorists work with and help (or "rehabilitate") these types of cases on a daily basis. And they do not simply recommend that the dogs be euthanized. This is pure marketing on Millan's and NG's part, with no factual evidence. There is also no evidence that the people he works with on the show have worked with other trainers/behaviorists...or have done any training at all before they came to him. There are other options to working with aggression cases and Millan himself admits that his way is not the only way. These types of baseless assumptions are exactly what the AHS and other professional organizations (made up of those who regularly and successfully work with dogs with behavior problems) are seeking to dispel.

The show has constantly noted that Millan is often a last resort for dogs who are considered "helpless" by other "professionals"; while these claims can be lies, no one has come up to dispel these, even after the show mentions them at least 10 times during each airing. Through observation and probably common sense, you can deduct that Millans hands on approach to things (for example, correcting the "bad" behaviours instead of ignoring them) would probably be more effective than typical clicker-training (and simply rewarding the "good behaviours") techniques. For cases like his (what he calls "red zone" cases; extreme cases), I think they really demand more than your average dog behaviourist would do. I have yet to see any footage of a dog behaviourist perform his/her classic techniques or dominance rituals on extreme-case dogs to a successful degree. Most shows I have seen are of people using clicker training or other methods to correct simple things, usually not aggression. And if aggression is involved; the results you see are not as immediate as those seen on The Dog Whisperer. 24.23.51.27 13:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Clicker training does not encompass positive training methods any more than Cesar Millan's "way" encompasses compulsive training methods. This argument that the only alternative to Cesar Millan is clicker training is evidence of the ignorance of his fans. Positive training is not permissive, nor is it about waiting for the dog to exhibit the right behavior. It is about teaching the dog the right behavior and setting the dog up to succeed so that "correction" isn't necessary. If the dog requires correction, then it is a reflection on the quality of the trainer. As for the comment that the *show* notes Cesar Millan is a last resort, David Copperfield's shows and website make the claim that he has made the Statue of Liberty disappear. Has anyone come forward to dispute that? No, but it doesn't mean that an intelligent person doesn't question his methods or his marketing claims. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.182.166.46 (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

Clicker training is a very popular form of positive reinforcement training -- although it isn't the "only" form of training, and even if I did make the mistake in stating this, I don't see why you bother to correct me on that. Shouldn't you attempt to show that this type of training is indeed effective (and probably in your case, more effective than Millan's techniques)? You said, " It is about teaching the dog the right behavior and setting the dog up to succeed so that "correction" isn't necessary. If the dog requires correction, then it is a reflection on the quality of the trainer." To me, you seem to bring this up for no good reason -- it sounds like a logical fallacy. You are right, if a dog requires correction, it is indeed a reflection of it's previous trainer -- the owner. I think you're trying to make the argument that having to "correct" and address the wrong behaviour is not needed (and probably inhumane in your eyes), and that one should comepletely ignore this kind of behaviour -- only positively reinforcing the "good" behaviour (or, as you say, what the trainer has "set up for the dog to do".) Whether or not this "good" behaviour is set up or not doesn't mean clicker training can't or isn't used as a way of reinforcing this positive behaviour. I've seen a lot of videos of trainers commending the clicker-training method, and I don't doubt that it works. The question is whether or not that's the only option. You, like many other "behaviourists" seem to be stuck in this mindset that any type of "correction" is inhumane, which is why you prefer to use the words "punishment" instead of "correction". For me, dogs aren't stupid (they aren't slabs of meat on legs) -- I believe they will "get" what the dominant leader/trainer wants it to do and not do. Dogs live in packs. There is always a leader/dominant one. You cannot sit there and tell me that there is no "correcting" done within packs, by the leaders (or other dominant dogs). What Millan does is simply become the alpha leader (by using some techniques of what a real dog would do). Those who believe soley on positive reinforcement (which Millan definately uses; he's not stuck in the mindset that only 1 is better than the other) may be considered more "humane" to some, but to me, it is a slow process that often times would confuse a dog. By addressing the issue head on -- dogs are intelligent enough to know that this is not what you want. And through positive reinforcement -- the dog knows this is what you like. This simple. Both are used by Millan -- I can't say the same for other behaviourists. Oh, and you can't sit there and tell me no one has questioned Copperfield making a Statue disappear. This is what science is for. It doesn't hold up to the scientific theory. You bring up yet another illogical and unconnected example.

I don't believe that "correction" is inhumane. It is inhumane, however, when the dog has not been taught the correct behavior first. I use corrections and am a positive trainer. However, I have never needed to use physical corrections no matter what the behavior problem. If it is not necessary, why do it? Perhaps the human ego just needs someone to push around and most dogs let us do it. Millan is far from an "alpha leader" - he exerts a lot of energy reacting to the dog. This is not alpha behavior. Read material by Mech (who actually studies wolves - not just dogs on a farm as a child), O'Heare, Milani and others. And Millan doesn't have enough of an understanding of what a real dog would do to be able to replicate it. "Leadership" is about controlling the resources, not physically controlling the dog. The use of physical force is the behavior of a status-seeker, not an alpha.

To me, there are better things to worry about than being nice or "humane" to the animal when your busy trying to save its life. 24.23.51.27 22:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

And if the methods used exacerbate to save the dog's life actually exacerbate the problem, what is blamed? The methods or the dog? There are humane methods that save the lives of "red zone" dogs every day. Even clicker training.

Alpha rôle or alpha roll?

Can someone clarify which is correct here? If we're talking playing the part of the alpha male, then presumably this should be "alpha rôle". But if the roll in question is a body rolling over, then alpha roll. I do not know, but noticed that this was the latest correction made (see here [6]. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 14:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It is "alpha roll", not "alpha role". This is a standard dog behaviorist term. David (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Second to last Paragraph in Criticism Section

It seems like whoever added this particular criticism did it because of personal reasons -- not because it is a controversial or heavilly criticised interview (there is no notability), but because the person who added this criticism just disagreed with a lot of what Cesar said. So because there is no notability, I'm going to remove it (and possibly other criticisms if I see fit). For a criticism to be included in an article, it's gotta be a common one.

Here is what was posted, "On October 22, 2006, Cesar Millan appeared on Pet Central with Steve Dale. Millan refused to appear live or take calls from listeners, so the interview was recorded on October 21. When questioned where he learned about dominance in "packs," Millan responded that, in addition to watching animals as a child, he learned by watching shows on television about elephants. Unable to clarify his definition of "calm-assertive," Millan also agreed that his methods are not replicable and his show should not be considered a "how-to." [7] " Here's what one should understand from this interview: the interviewer is clearly unfamiliar with a lot of what Cesar does (and is in disagreement with his techniques). Whoever listed this interview sensed that this was a great opportunity to criticize Millan, and add it to this article. The nitpicking and odd biased POV in the "critcism" is just bizzare -- I listened through most of the same interview, and saw it from a different standpoint, hopefully a more objective one.

First, where was it stated in the interview that Millan refused to appear live or to take calls from listeners? And in a community where everyone will most likely question Millan or go out to disprove his techniques, how can you really blame him? I agree that if I was in his shoes, I'd try and be more bold and attempt to squash some of these criticisms (because we all know -- the whole reason Steve Dale wants Millan to have a "conversation" with other "professionals" is to disprove him). But it's hard to blame him.

And look at the bias behind the statement; "...he learned by watching shows on television about elephants". I did not come accross this statement in the interview myself, but notice how this is meant to be a hidden criticism -- the statement fails to explain itself, but whoever included this in this interview obviously wanted people to see that he learned by "watching elephants" and that he has not formal education. It was included without explanation, and simply as a way to ridicule him. It's like a run-on sentence even; just a little factoid which makese sense being there. The whole section is stated in a way that attempts to be neutral, but fails miserably at it. Millan wasn't "unable to clarify what he means by calm-assertive", this can be very subjective. One can view it as Neil being unable to understand, or Millan having bad English (he's not very good at explaining himself). But whoever wrote that tried to imply that he was under pressure, that he couldn't back himself up when interrogated, that he's a crook, etc. These statements are not objective. Whoever listened to the interview listened with a biased POV and posted it as so. I'm removing it. 24.23.51.27 23:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Millan's statement that the show is not a how-to and his methods not necessarily emulatable by viewers is an interesting piece of information and I think it belongs in the article. I agree that the stuff about the interview being recorded and the TV shows about elephants are superfluous and possibly prejudicial, but perhaps that last sentence should be put back into the article in some form or other. Capedia 04:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The show itself includes frequent textual and audio notices that (1) there are many ways to correct the behavior of a pet and that a professional should be consulted for the best method of producing a balanced pet, and that (2) the methods shown should not be attempted at home without guidance by a professional. It might be helpful if the article mentioned these two frequent notices, which are relevant to some of the controversies. David (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible Response to Criticism section?

There are a lot of article with a criticism section that also have a Response to Criticism section, yet this article doesn't. Responses, if common or notable responses, should be included after criticisms which come in the form of viewpoints -- the trivia (such as lawsuits) shouldn't be responded to (or at least, I haven't seen this done before). There are definately articles out there which praise Millan instead of bashing him -- just the other day I came accross a positive article which was meant as a response to this current trend of Millan-criticism. 24.23.51.27 00:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism And Controversy

After reviewing guidelines I feel that Criticism and Controversy section should be changed to a simple Critics:

Wiki Guidelines:Excerpts:

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises as to which version is the most neutral, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed; hammer out details on the talk page and follow dispute resolution. Describe the controversy

An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy.

This has been inserted and will be expanded and integrated.

Please be clear that the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views in a controversyBold text

It's difficult to establish if Positive Only viewpoints, although popular, are the generally accepted dog training standard within the industry. How is that measured? Although there is a distinct "following" for this viewpoint, that does not necessarily make it the standard or most widely accepted one, in spite of the fact that many involved may have degrees or be published.

Main Entry: 1par·ti·san Variant(s): also par·ti·zan /'pär-t&-z&n, -s&n, -"zan, chiefly British "pär-t&-'zan/ Function: noun Etymology: Middle French partisan, from north Italian dialect partian, from part part, party, from Latin part-, pars part 1 : a firm adherent to a party , faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegianceBold text

Positive Only trainers/behaviourists may represent partisan points of view. The description alone may convey this. It appears obvious from statements by Cesar Millan-who advocates seeking other professional help-of no specific viewpoint that he has a wide perspective on training.

Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below). Self explanatory.

'The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one.''''Bold text' If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.

''Italic text

''When writing an article on most topics in Wikipedia, simple declarations of fact and received opinion do not need to be sourced; indeed, it would be cumbersome to burden a writer with the onus of providing documentary proof for every assertion.

However, when dealing with potentially contentious topics, such as in the field of religion or current affairs, a lot more care has to be taken. The more at variance from commonly accepted notions an assertion is, the more rigorously it should be documented. Keep the following things in mind:

[edit] Be careful with weasel words

The term "weasel words" refers to expressions such as "is claimed", "is thought to be", and "is alleged." While these may be legitimate rhetorical devices, they should be carefully scrutinized to ensure that they are not used to insert hidden bias, since claimed implies that the claim may not be true and that there is some reason to doubt it. For example:

   * ...is widely thought to be the work of... (good)
   * ...who claimed they were forced from their homes... (bad--It's quite possible the people described were forced from their homes. )

comments regarding below: The lines removed apply according to the guidelines above. There is nothing untrue in the statement. It is the "partisan" Positive Only viewpoint that disputes this. In addition to "pet dog" trainers and owners there are hundreds of trainers and owners involved in herding, protection work, hunting, formal obedience and other specialized fields.

What is the industry mainstream standard? My background and experience tell me it is not Positive Only.

This faction may be more active and outspoken and receive more media coverage. Tintina 18:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed the lines: "For the most part, Cesar Millan's methods have been welcomed by the professional dog training and dog behaviour community. His support base includes various dog trainers, rescue groups, veterinarians, and other dog-related organizations and professionals."

Reason: The following paragraph shows this not to be true by citing 4 different experts in the " professional dog training and dog behaviour community." I moved the two supporters of Millan the poster cited (without sources) further down in the section as they seem to be in the minority.

Removed sections referencing "purely positive" and "positive only" trainers as being the only critics of Millan's techniques, as this is simply untrue and highly misleading. And on 1/22/07 ONCE AGAIN removed the reference to operant conditioning methods being popularized by Karen Pryor through the use of clicker training. Positive reinforcement methods were, in fact, popularized by Ian Dunbar and not through the use of clicker training. Clicker training is ONE TYPE of positive training, and not all positive training falls under clicker training.

  It would be really nice if you would sign your posts:>)and perhaps even create an identity so that your commitment to a NPOV and this article could be determined.

I will DILIGENTLY watch and edit this article to maintain a NPOV and other Wiki guidelines and policy. Typically in a discussion of differing POV the positive is expressed first and the detraction second. As per wiki guidelines:IF anything, the article should reflect positive RATHER than negative. This is a living person BIOGRAPHY and a news outlet.

The media may focus on controversy over a celebrity. It obviously sells more papers, mags when that is the case. That is not an indication that they are the majority or mainstream and I will argue the point that primarily PO are not the main detractors. This should especially be adhered to in a Biography of living person.

I would think that the show being in its third season and his book reaching bestseller status would be an "indication" of mainstream thought and the overall opinion and reception is positive..

Let's keep this in perspective.

  Ian Dunbar may have initiated this but I believe Karen Pryor "popularized it, with Don't Shoot the Dog.

Initiation and popularization are two distinct processes.

The PO are the MAIN critics. clear identification of what rates as notable should be followed. Jean Donaldson is a prime example of PO critic. Tintina 22:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

current 01/20/2006 comments re work in progress and NPOV

Obviously this is still a work in progress and for my part I intend to continue on the intro.condensing some info and adding other. The intro should be a synopsis of the entire article and that is what I am aiming for.

in line with BLP guidelines,  what is noteworthy today may not be noteworthy 5 or 10 years from now. 

I think the controversy section must be handled in an extremely neutral way, criticisms from opponents can of course be included..with the "weasel word" caveat and attention to partisan critics.

Rather than extracting "hot" phrases, quotes should remain intact. As for People Magazine..it is a Celebrity gossip magazine.

Other comments: Cesar Millan's primary role or profession at this time is working with dogs. Where he goes from here is anyone's guess, but that is main contribution at present.

Although I am a new contributor, I have taken the time to log in and identify myself.I have, and still am familiarizing myself on the guidelines and policies. I ask politely that those who only pop in without a commitment, please do not revert or change editing in progress without comment.

It may seem that I have done the same, but I have not. I have created an account and although initially didn't recognize the comment area, now try to use it diligently.

The other question I have is source for the other BIO information, Early childhood etc.

Has it been taken directly from Cesar's book?

Tintina 23:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

controversy needs balance ask for review

the controversy section as it stands seems heavy to me. I am going to ask for a Wiki review of this article for opinion on it. Tintina!

• posting other thoughts. After checking on policy I posted a question at Village Pump on an essentially contested concept there regarding the "controversy" over Cesar Millan. This is with regard to the perennial "discussion" on dog training methods in general and what is humane, old fashioned, etc. There is agreement that dogs need leadership and training but much disagreement on how this should be obtained and what constitutes humane treatment.

I'll post my question and response as I don't know if it can be accurately linked.

I believe this is the core of maintaining a NPOV on Cesar Millan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesar_Millan

I have posted a link below, if you are reading and responding to this, you might the lower article first.

"essentially contested concept is one where there is widespread agreement on an abstract core notion itself (e.g., "fairness"), whilst there is endless argument about what might be the best instantiation, or realization of that notion.[4]

Some of the notability of this person revolves around this issue. (controversy) He is in a profession of diverse opinions. He has reached celebrity status.

Although I have internet articles that support that this is indeed the case, there is no published media that describes the issue itself. Controversy is not over a fundamental issue but how that issue should be treated or resolved. The scope of the discussion is a topic in itself and perhaps that is the best way to handle it..if I can think of a title..other than Dog Training (which has been transwikied to wikibooks, prematurely in my mind.)

Can I use internet articles that describe the controversy (essentially contested concept)as there is no other source material that does (that I know of)and I have been researching this for some time (years) prior to editing this article.

I'll provide a link to an overview which I feel reflects this accurately. http://www.puppywishes.com/1601-puppies/Cesar%20Millan%20Vs%20Jean%20Donaldson.html

I feel that any controversy around him should be explained and placed in its proper context. I attempted to do this but an anon user reverted and changed my edit.There is no current discussion other than my own comments.

I would like to proceed with cleaning up this article, but I'm not clear on how to handle it.

Thank you Tintina 05:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

there is no published media that describes the issue itself - then the controversy (issue) is NOT notable and anything you do to describe or summarize it is a violation of WP:NOR.

As to the larger issue of "cleaning up" the article, you should follow Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, which lays out the process, starting with informal discussions (talk page) and up through Arbitration Committee action. It's exceptionally rare, of course, for the latter to be needed. Please (a) follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines - for example, WP:RS with respect what sources are acceptable, and WP:NOR, and (b) abide by what the majority of other editors believe should be done (or not), because no single editor is infallible. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 00:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course there may in fact be source material on the ISSUE itself that I have not come across or am aware of.

I feel like I'm talking to myself here, but am documenting my thoughts anyway.

Until such time as this material related to contention on the issue (not comments from critics alone) I feel that critics should be noted as such without mention of "controversy" in the article itself. There are many references to such a controversy. As per John Broughton's comments above until reliable source material is provided it does meet Notability standards for inclusion as such, thus Controversy heading renamed as Critics.

Tintina 23:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

blank revert by tintina and vandal comment

Reverted page blank vandal noted as 206.111.238.34 may have accidentally blanked page or not known how to revert. Actual vandal is 206.107.104.93 has been reported and has several warnings on user page.

2 minor edits were reverted.

see separate discussion on OR pending —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tintina (talk • contribs) 22:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC). yep thanks, I was distracted for a moment Tintina 22:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What a Mess

How does one even start to fix this and is it even worth it?

Tintina,

All internet snarkiness aside, you need to calm down. I am not saying this to belittle or to condescend, but your edits are boardering on the hysterical. Please, when editing, look at the format of other bios on wiki to see how they flow. You seem to be in such a passionate defense of Mr. Millan, that you want to push or cut down anything you perceive as negative. He is controversial. The previous edits had a good balance of both the "positive" and "negative". Now we have a compleletley irrevelent list of EVERY time he has been on TV, a section called "Philantophy" which talks about his wife, and every other source link seems to lead to Cesar Millan's site.

As it stands now, the article looks like a poorly written advertisement for Mr. Millan's Dog Centers.

"above by anon user"

   Hello,anon commenter, If you review the history you will see that I have not contributed to the bulk of the article. As this is a BIOGRAPHY of Cesar Millan, obviously he is the subject, the controversy is not the subject.

Please keep in mind the article is "in progress" and takes time and effort to rework.

I did not make the lists or philanthropy sections. Nor did I add the links to his site.

As for positive/negative I am following the wiki policy and guidelines on BLP and take the time to ask questions regarding such at the Village Pump. If you read through the discussion, explanations are provided. Any further constructive comments are welcome. Tintina 17:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"Dog Whispering?"

You added a parargraph that makes it seem that "dog whispering" is an actual profession and not some marketing term made up by Cesar Millan's manager and now exploited by one of your cited references -samthedogtrainer.com. To try to make this credible, you created a seperate article titled "dog whispering" where you just cut and pasted one paragraph from samthedogtrainer.com.

I was going to edit this entry, but I'm too busy finishing my book "The Cat Whisperer". It's a follow up to "The Fish Whisperer". My next book will be called "The Open Heart Surgery Whisperer", in which I take a fresh new approach to whispering.

When the wikis are written about me, I know I can count on you Tintina to help me strech reality just a bit to fit my needs! You can have three whole new articles to make! Maybe an entire sub-catergory of just all kinds of whisperers!

    Yes, Dog Whispering IS a profession and Cesar Millan was not the first dog whisperer. Paul Owens and Jan Fennel are others who were practicing this profession well before Cesar's show. There are others, less well known.

In 1998 The Horse Whisperer was a movie that came out starring Robert Redford. I believe it loosely followed the life of Monty Roberts, a very well known Horse Whisperer. Tintina 02:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Birthdate

On Cesar's offical MySpace page, his astrological sign in given as Virgo. A May 12th birth date as listed on the Wiki bio would makes him incorrectly a Taurus. I doubt Cesar would incorrectly state his own astrological sign on his official site. http://www.myspace.com/cesarmillan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.62.95.95 (talk) 04:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Gotta Love Cesar Millan!:] He is making a difference on how people treat their dogs and puppies! Keep up the fantastic work!

SPCA have criticisms?

The SPCA should really look at themselves before criticizing Millan's methods. I've seen an episode which documents what they do on Animal Planet, and there was a case where there were maybe 100+ feral cats living in an abandoned home. The SPCA went in there, took all the cats out, and because they were unable to adopt them all out (maybe because of lack of interest from outsiders, or due to financial issues), they decided to "humanely" euthanize most if not all of the cats. Might as well have left the cats to live on their own in this abandoned home. No one seemed to mind except he SPCA. Almost as bad as the Chinese government taking countless (POSSIBLY diseased) dogs right from their owners on the streets and beating them dead (right in front of them). Almost as bad as PETA. 24.23.51.27 23:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If you really believe what you say above, I highly recommend leaving your regular job and working for your local shelter or SPCA. Change can only be made from within. Perhaps you have some unique insight as to how to address problems like this that the shelters don't.

Oh, I don't know, maybe they could have left the cats there? It would have even been better if they hadn't of discovered the cats. Sure, the living condition was poor; but it's better than mass euthanasia. This is one of the reasons why PETA has come under attack. 207.12.38.25 23:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I 100% agree on this, although I'm coming from an angle of not necessarily the SPCA who have criticisms of him, but shelters and rescues who won't even try to rehabilitate most aggressive dogs because they erroneously believe that it simply cannot be done. How many dogs are dying because they're living in ignorance of what is possible, then they have the nerve to say that Cesar is abusive? If more people learned Cesar's methods less dogs would die in shelters. That's why the Millan foundation exists, and it isn't just with dogs. There's so much bad stuff that happens in this world because people simply do not know any better, and God forbid anyone tell them that they're wrong. - Aqhillie (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Spelling/pronunciation of name

In Spanish, the "ll" is pronounced like "y" in English. So I wonder if he has simply adopted an anglicized version of his last name, so that it is pronounced "Mee-LAHN" instead of "Mee-YAHN". It's a small point, but it is worth clarifying if some source can be found about it. Though I doubt that, almost nothing else in this article is sourced... Grandmasterka 01:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It can also sound like a "l", a "j", or some combination of these sounds, depending on the regional dialect you're hearing. I'm not saying he didn't change his name (I wouldn't be surprised if it were anglicized just a bit), but it's not impossible depending on where he's from (a rural community, as indicated in this article) that "Mee-LAHN" is his family's traditional pronunciation.

Who is Christian Chapparo?

This name is mentioned in the "Media Fame" section, but there's no explanation of who he is. I intend to delete the mention in another week unless someone else provides at least a few words of explanation. HiramShadraski 17:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

LGBT?

Why is the category "LGBT People from Mexico" attached to this article? There's no mention of Millan being gay; in fact, his wife is mentioned in a couple of places. I intend to delete this category link in another week unless someone can show me why I should not. HiramShadraski 17:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed that, it was vandalism. --Dpryan 18:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Critics: this part of the article is biasing the article to negative territories...

I think we have to post all the pros and cons of the subject, in this case, Cesar Millan. If you post only the critics part, you are misguiding people to a wrong conclusion about him, so, is like manipulating the article. Is because of this that I want to post a prises part on the article (or delete the critics one). I don't have any interest in making Cesar look more atractive, since I'm from Spain and don't have any link with him, but I think we have to try to make articles look neutral.

--Emongeca7 (talk) 10:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly appropriate, but it should be properly cited - from sources than just Cesar's website. HiramShadraski (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand you, but let me note that going to the link that I have posted, you can download the full letters that those persons have sent to Cesar. I think there is no reason not to post this opinions, even more when that letters are correctly signed by the autor, and Cesar has no influence on them, he only posts the letters on his website.

Take a look at the full letters and you will see what I mean. I think that the source is very reliable, because are personal letters sent to Cesar, but not written by him.--Emongeca7 (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

See: WP:SELFPUB, which says, in part, Self-published... sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as... it is not unduly self-serving. This means, to me, that in an article about person A, support for A's work, actions, or positions should not be cited solely from A's own body of work. Yes, the actual authors of that support are, in this case, others, but - speaking in general terms here; this is not to suggest anything about Millan - there is no assurance that those expressions of support were not fabricated. Additionally, Millan would certainly have no motivation to include criticism of him on his own website, so such a source is necessarily self-serving. In any case, if there is a significant body of support for Millan and his work and methods, it should be fairly easy to find (and cite) such via other channels. HiramShadraski (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh? See WP:RELIABLE. Letters written to Cesar are not something that should EVER be included in an encyclopedic entry. I could also point out WP:NEUTRAL to note that the article should have a neutral point of view. Including only a criticism section without including some of the many sources that portray Cesar and his methodology in a more positive light is antithetical to the most fundamental principles of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.129.127 (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I will not follow on with this matter. Is I've said, I'm not interested in making Cesar look better. I only want the articles to be neutral, and I think we have to delete the Critics part to make it neutral (or at least, if you post a critics parts, you should post a "prises" part, to compensate. Is not my responsability, is yours). The major part of the good opinions about him are from persons that are grateful to him for having rehabilitated their dogs. I don't mind the opinions of other "big" professional trainners, they only do their own best. If you want a neutral article, I think you should delete the "critics" part of it (or post a "praises" part too). I will delete this part, but if you disagree with me, undo the changes and I will not try to delete it anymore. But, please, think about the neutrality of the article, Wikipedia is not an opinon forum, is a site to post neutral articles, think about this.

I don't think we have to go to a dispute for this matter, but with the "critics" part alone, you know the article is very biased. Regards --Emongeca7 (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I highly doubt that a lack of "Praises" section makes the article "biased." Not with sections such as "Awards and Nominations," and "Philanthropy." Also, the "Methods" section notes that "His methods have been lauded by many normal dog owners who put them into practice [11] and also canine professionals. [12]" -Seidenstud (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That's my feeling as well. However, I should note that I do not have any objection to a "Praises" section (although I do think it should be titled differently, perhaps "Support"), so long as it is properly referenced. HiramShadraski (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Seidenstud, I don't think that the lack of "praises" section is bisasing the article. I think that a section called "critics" biases the article (I know that on other parts of the article the work of Cesar is supported, but not in an independent section). I don't like a "support" section, but I also don't like a "critics" section, but probably I'm wrong. A part, the "praises" title could be not correct, excuse me about that. As I told you, I'm from Spain and my English vocabulary is not huge. HiramShadraski, thanks for the feedback about my query.--Emongeca7 (talk) 07:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If you think that having a criticism section makes an article biased, then I am afraid all hope is lost for you, my friend. 71.198.72.26 (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree the the criticism section is biased. There should be such a section, but as it stands the section individualizes to Milan what is an entire school of dog training methodology. For Balance what it really needs is an notation in the first graph of the section that there are competing (literally since most of the critics are selling books as well) schools of thought, Milan's methods are not marginal as implied, they are widely and successfully used by many succesful award winning trainers, they are and not even original to Milan.72.75.39.42 (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Religion?

I saw a show recently where he mentioned his spirituality, but he was vague. Does anyone know if he's religious and if so what religion? Thanks. Alexwoods (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have seen episodes of the dog whisperer where he takes a client to a Yoga meditation instructor, and he bows to the guy and says Namaste, of course this could be like just being polite to someone of different customs. He did mention (i believe) that this was one of his secrets to staying fit and healthy, so he may be into Yoga, which is a form of spirituality.

His philosophies strike a resemblance to me of Native American/Eastern philosophy. Everything about balance, and living in the now, and energy. I believe he is spiritual and not religious, but I could be wrong. I know I follow Native American philosophy and I believe in God. A lot of times we call him the Creator but it's all the same. God, Creator, etc.

I do know that Cesar recently went to Fiji on a spiritual retreat with his wife, possibly his family too. but don't know any details on that. Aqhillie (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to add that there are multiple Buddha (or possibly Shiva?? now I can't remember argh) in the Dog Psychology Center in South LA. If they are Buddha statues, Buddhism did originate in India as did Yoga, but Cesar to me seems like the kind of person who sees the value and commonalities in all spiritual paths. The way he has a knack for "translating" his methods/techniques into a language that all walks of life can understand seems to show this quality in him. Of course, I could be wrong. -- 68.49.227.123 (talk) 06:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed Biased Criticism

Wikipedia is not a soapbox to criticize groups, individuals, behaviors or correction techniques you don't agree with.

Factual statements about the criticisms of Millan are consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. Opinions, however, are not. As such, "Millan's technique of using a choke collar is outdated and outrageous." is an opinion, even if it is held by an authority. "Millan has been criticized by Mr. Authority for his use of choke collars." is a factual statement that includes no weasel words or opinions.

I deleted all value judgements and opinions, even if they were part of a quote from an authority. Because the debate is relevant, I left the facts. --Thesoxlost (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Trainer vs. Behaviorist vs. Behavioralist vs. Psychologist

The page was recently edited to state that Millan is a "behavioralist." It was stated that a trainer trains dogs to do tricks; a behavioralist teaches the owners. 1. Behavioralism is a school of political science. Perhaps it has been used in the context of animal behavior, but not widely. This is not a good description of Cesar. 2. Behaviorism is an outdated school of psychology that argues that we should be studying the concrete, measurable aspects of psychology: behavior; and that internal, unobservable or introspective latent variables can not be studied scientifically. Behaviorism was replaced by cognitive psychology which allows for the study of internal, directly unobservable states (e.g., emotions, thoughts). The Animal Behavior Society uses Behaviorism in this sense. For instance, see this book written by ABS certified behaviorist: http://www.howdogslearn.com/. This is also not a good description of Cesar. 3. Animal Behaviorist also refers to an animal behavior specialist. Some have academic degrees (http://www.petbehaviorist.com/pages/YODY.html) and no certification. There are a number of certifications, and they do not recognize each other. There is no objective standard, as there is for lawyers or medical doctors. 4. You do not need to be a member of APA in order to be a psychologist (in America). Many psychologists are not. You don't need to be recognized by a group in order to be a psychologist or animal psychologist or dog trainer. 5. Calling yourself a psychologist does not imply that you are a member of the APA. Nor does claiming that your a dog behaviorist imply that you are a member of any one of the numerous animal behaviorist certificate programs. Clearly, you aren't an astronaut just by saying you are; but you don't have to be certified by NASA in order to be one. 6. Dog training, according to the wikipedia article, includes obedience training, dog sport training and dog-owner training. It does not mean that you only teach a dog to heel. 7. Behaviorism, as a subfield of psychology, has a residual influence in psychology, but the term "behavorism" is now commonly used in a derogatory sense--along the same lines as phrenology--refering to psychological theory or psychologist that is comically behind the times. It really isn't an important honorific. Looking at the ABS list of "Animal Behavior" programs in the U.S., notice that they are all "Biological Science Department" or "Behavioral and Cognitive Psychology" departments. Behaviorism is dead.

--Thesoxlost (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

um. alrighty then. Well, the thing with Cesar is that he is not a dog trainer, in the sense that he will not teach you how to make your dog come, fetch, sit, etc. In the minds of the majority of Americans THAT is the definition of dog training. Cesar doesn't do that. Now if you want to include what Cesar does as dog training well ok then, but the fact remains when you ask John Q. Public what enters his mind when he thinks of dog training, he's going to tell you a class you attend with your dog or a school you send your dog to where he learns how to sit, stay, etc. What Cesar does is trains YOU, the human, how to be seen as the leader in your dog's eyes, and how to communicate with your dog, as a dog, through dog psychology. Cesar lists a book called "Dog Psychology" as one of his references in Cesar's Way so this isn't just something he's making up that he uses dog psychology. He actually learned a lot of it elsewhere by constantly reading books and being open to learning from others. Aqhillie (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The article includes links to Dog trainer. César Millan states that he is not a dog trainer. He does not make dogs execute specific behaviors by signal. He makes dogs with psychological and behavioral problems display balanced behavior by training owners in how to be strong, balanced pack leaders and by rehabilitating dogs. I'm not sure how to integrate this distinction into this article, but eliminating the unsupported link would be a start. David Spector 03:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

A Video Game

There's a nintendo DS game based on Ceaser Millan and the Dog Whisperer show. I think it should have some sort of mention in the media section or something. Anyway, just bringing it up. 10:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.118.74.213 (talk)

Accents in name

An editor just moved the article to "César Millán" from "Cesar Millan". However I checked his official website, [8], and found he spells his name without accents. Other sources also spell his name without accents.[9] So I moved the article back. If anyone has a different view let's discuss it before moving the article again.   Will Beback  talk  05:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that it is an English WP guideline for article titles to be In English. I also believe his birthname was César Millan. It should be easy to find a citation for his birthname spelling, but I don't want to look if it isn't considered important. David Spector 03:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

criticism section still full of weasel words

the criticism section is not up to par yet.

i also think there should be some mention of the fact that he is training people at least as much, if not more than, the dogs. this seems sourceable.

i recommend an NPOV tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.125.15 (talk) 06:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

As I noted higher up the criticisms section is problematic in that it attributes to Milan individually many specifics and general methods that are long used (and widely accepted and recommended in large breeds).72.75.39.42 (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your overall point, and approve of this edit of yours. I'd take issue with your "widely accepted and recommended" above, but this isn't a forum for discussion of dog-training techniques. Mark Shaw (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I removed a bit about the AHA retracting their disapproval, because I checked the source and couldn't find the claim. Was my bad (sorry), it was in the embedded video at the bottom. It was Milan himself, however, which seems a strange source! I tried to find other sources for retraction to no avail. But then... I tried to find the original article on the AHA's site, and that's gone as well! Tacit retraction?! The article's still available on other sites, but it's strange it's not on their own. I sent off a quick email to the AHA to ask if they retracted - I know that's not usable as a source, but I'm just interested!

Btw, I get the feeling that, in an attempt to make the overall criticism section seem more level, a large Dodson 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)

philanthropy

are we sure that most of the stuff about helping dogs is philanthropic as such? How about philcanine? 147.188.27.27 (talk) 13:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

this section reads like a promotional brochure, and I'm not sure that donations of $5000 are really noteworthy in this kind of detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.176.12 (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sections: Early Life, Mazatlán, Emigration to the United States

These sections are largely unreferenced and hence, don't belong. As they exist currently, they are original research.842U (talk) 10:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

In popular culture

Cesar Millan guest starred as himself in episodes of the television programs Bones on September 17, 2008, and Ghost Whisperer on March 30, 2007. There have been references to Cesar Millan or Dog Whisperer in X-Play, the King of the Hill episode "Doggone Crazy", The Venture Bros season 4 premier, and the comic strips "Blondie" and "Bizarro". Tegan and Sara mention the show in one of their video chapters for their album, The Con. Millan was parodied in the season 10 episode of South Park, Tsst, and in the chapter "The Cat Whisperer" of Tom and Jerry Tales.

A mobile phone game called "My Dog Coach: Understand Your Dog With Cesar Millan" was released in 2008.

Marj (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Daddy

Information on Daddy's death http://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/TV/2010/02/22/Cesar-Millans-dog-Daddy-dead-at-16/UPI-25321266890353/ may be more appropriate here than under "Program Format" in Dog Whisperer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdk572 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Illegal immigrant

An editor has added this article to an illegal immigrant category, but I don't see any mention of that in the article. Do we have a source for it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

He did cross the border illegally. He was an illegal immigrant for a while, but is now a legal resident. I undid the category change mainly because the editor removed a valid category to add the illegal immigrant category. Even if the illegal immigrant category is valid, deleting the other category is vandalism. --Thesoxlost (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If it's re-added it should have a source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not delete or remove any valid category. Millan's illegal entry into the country is described in the article and he is described as an illegal immigrant in The New York Times, London's The Independent, again in The Times and a few other sites 1 2. As such, I plan on re-adding the category. - Schrandit (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

According to the history log, you removed catagory:mexican television personality. --Thesoxlost (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I can understand how you would make that mistake but check the log again. I removed no such category. - Schrandit (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

According to one of your sources, "He's now a permanent resident and on his way to citizenship." [10] Is it appropriate to put legal permanent residents in the Category:Illegal immigrants to the United States? Since he is on his way to citizenship, I am sure that the govermnment is aware of his presense, and surely we can wait for him to be convicted on a felony before adding him to the category. Let's all give the federal court system a chance to work before condemning the man by unilaterally adding him to the category. A little patience would seem advisable here. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, Category:Illegal immigrants to the United States[11] is a subcategory of Category:American criminals [12]. The category currently has 3 people on it, namely the subject of this biographic article and two mass murderers. It is important that we make sure that the criteria for adding this category be met. That criteria is spelled out on the parent category page, and is as follows (see [13]):

For inclusion in this category, a person must:

• Have been duly, lawfully, and finally convicted of a felony by one or more United States federal courts or State courts (excluding impeachments, convictions that have subsequently been fully pardoned, cases resulting in a conviction that have been sealed or expunged, or cases resulting in a conviction that have been subsequently dismissed and/or reopened with a new trial), or
• Can claim notability solely because of the crime, or
• Have committed notable and unambiguously verifiable felony criminal acts, but have gone unconvicted for reasons other than lack of proof such as death during the commission of the crime where the allegation of criminal activity was undisputed, undisputed confession, death during appeal where guilt was undisputed, or being a fugitive from justice where original guilt was undisputed.

This is a fairly rigorous standard. Does the subject of this biography satisfy these criteria? --Ramsey2006 (talk) 02:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed the "criminal" category and replaced it with Category:Immigrants to the United States. Not all illegal immigrants are criminal, if I understand correctly. For example, those who overstay their visas. And the matter of convictions is also relevant. However this really isn't the best place to discuss that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll inquire about the criteria for inclusion over at the talk page of the category. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 03:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Per your (very valid) question on whether or not it is appropriate to put Mr. Millan in the IIUS category - I believe it is appropriate as Mr. Millan did immigrate illegally. I can think of little precedence for this one way or the other but Mr. Millan is described in several legitimate media outlets, though in the past tense, as an illegal immigrant and he would be sharing the category with Dan-el Padilla Peralta, a gentleman of a similar circumstance.

Will, César stated on his TV program (I heard him myself) that he first entered the USA illegally. However, that does not make him a criminal since he was not arrested. He was young and made a mistake, a common one among young people in México who have ambitions for a better life. He is now a naturalized citizen of the USA. I'm certain there must be a primary source for this information, either the DVD or a transcript for the TV show in question. There may even be a secondary source that probably copies this primary source. If you wish to make an edit due to lack of citation, that is your right. However, you now know that a source exists, even if we can't get it without spending money. David Spector 03:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The article makes it appear as if there is debate on when cesar crossed. there are four good sources all stating the crossing was when he was 21. don't see how there is any debate about it.Yourmanstan (talk) 05:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a direct quote that he came when he was 18 -- and sources that he came at 21.842U (talk) 11:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

A single mistake vs FOUR other credible sources that all state he was 21. If you believe there is controversy here, then you need to find more more sources that state the crossing was at 18. please see WP:REDFLAG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourmanstan (talk • contribs) 15:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Please update cited sources #36

The link # 36, under the sources or external links, needs to be updated. Here's the new link with the quote that was paraphrased: http://www.americanhumane.org/about-us/newsroom/news-releases/dog-training-symposium.html It contains the part where American Human invites Cesar Millan to a national meeting amongst professionals, stating that despite their differences in views, they have many similarities in their goals, etc., all in that new link. I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia yet, if anyone could help me update that link, would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.85.201.41 (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

The selective use of out of context quotes, the misrepresentation of the point of view of sources, and the over reliance on the article subject as a source of information may have compromised the neutrality of this article. Marj (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

In one specific example of the biased use of references, the article says:

Criticism and response

Dr. Nicholas Dodman, an animal behavior pharmacologist and the 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 Millan had set dog training back considerably.[30] Dodman agrees, however, that the most important preventative measure people can take to help avoid behavioral problems in their pets would be to provide leadership. “ Leadership is very important because of the pack mentality of dogs. If you are the leader, I don’t think that the dog is unhappy about having you as the leader ... They don’t care about being at the top of the hierarchy, they just need to know where they are in it."[31]

Apart from using the dismissive "contended" which connotes a disputed point of view, this quote misrepresents Dodman who is a public and vocal critic of Millan, implying a level of support for his methods that does not exist.

• Dr. Nicholas Dodman, Director of Animal Behaviour Clinic at Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine said: “Cesar Millan's methods are based on flooding and punishment. The results, though immediate, will only be transitory. His methods are misguided, outmoded, in some cases dangerous and often inhumane. You would not want to be a dog under his sphere of influence. The sad thing is the public does not recognise the error of his ways" 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

• Nicholas Dodman, director of the Animal Behavior Clinic at Tufts University, is one of the leading proponents of positive training methods. Dodman has some data to back him up. In February 2004, a paper in Animal Welfare by Elly Hiby and colleagues at the University of Bristol compared the relative effectiveness of the positive and punitive methods for the first time. The dogs became more obedient the more they were trained using rewards. When they were punished, on the other hand, the only significant change was a corresponding rise in the number of bad behaviors. Live Science

• You may not be aware of it, but there's a quiet war raging right now in the dog-training world. It's a conflict between positive reinforcement (+R) trainers and behaviorists like Ian Dunbar and Nicholas Dodman who base their methods on the principles of learning theory. They've pitted themselves against traditional or dominance trainers like Cesar Millan and the Monks of New Skete, who follow the alpha theory. Psychology Today

• The American College of Veterinary Behaviorists has written to the National Geographic Channel expressing concerns about 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. He says that Millan's first offense is not checking for underlying medical conditions. But the main issue, Dodman says, is that “Millan is using the same methods used by military trainers to train the dogs of war during World War II. The San Diego Union Tribune

Marj (talk) 07:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

What's the best way for interested editors to collaborate with you on this effort? Eventually, this area of the article could be much larger, with more and more current sources. I'd especially like it if we could keep the tone of criticism as dry as possible, but understanding that there are many critics of Milan and that may be an important point in an of itself. But again, is there a way to write a really good criticism section that collaboratively? Again, I'd like to honor the spirit of your request, and I'd especially like to collaborate with you, keeping in mind that I have ideas on this section, too. Criticism areas are a tricky area, a slippery slope, and I suggest we both re-read the criticism section. I think it's important to keep the criticism free from the trollish quality that Jimbo Wales refers to in the article. I wonder if there is a way, where we work together on this and collaborate, we can create an even more effective article. I guess we can start by renaming the section 'Reception'. 842U (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of the published criticisms are of the program not the person. They belong on the program page. A general statement summing up some of the more often repeated criticisms of Millan's methods, naming two or three of the more public critics and referencing authoritative sources is probably all that is required. Marj (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good. Do you want to give it a stab and we can look at it? Also, do you know of any current, say 2009-2010 criticisms? 842U (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to take on any more Wikipedia pages. I do know though that Millan's recent tour of the UK provoked an outburst of public criticism. Press Release Marj (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Auto-archiving

I've added Mizabot auto-archiving to this talk page, please let me know if anyone objects. Dreadstar ☥ 22:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Methods

I removed this quote "...your message has profound implications and takes our knowledge that nothing exists in the universe except thought and energy to a new level. If the human species destroys itself, it will be because of its disposition to follow unstable pack leaders. And, if diplomacy could be carried out with calm assertiveness and calm submission, we could resolve our differences without aggression. Your mission to teach the people in third-world countries to offer reciprocal fulfillment could, indeed, bring world peace. For if love nurtures the state of mind and only the calm and submissive are fed, then the whole paradigm of human behavior shifts," says Adrian S. Windsor Ph.D from Inside Edge."

Reason: The quote was pulled from Millan's dog psychology website and seems to be used as a marketing tool and does not specifically address his methods. Acoording to her website, Adrian S. Windsor Ph.D is a Real Estate Broker, who holds a doctorate in Literature from the University of Michigan and is the author of the book "Seven Tools to Transform Genius into Practical Power" http://www.adrianwindsor.com/

Perhaps when writing about Cesar Millan we should follow Wikipedia's guidelines for Reliable sources:

"Scholarship

Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world. Items that fit this criteria can always be considered reliable. However they may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense there are alternative scholarly explanations. Wikipedia articles should point to all major scholarly interpretations of a topic.

The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals. Items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies are preferred. In articles on religions and religious practices, religious scholars (recognized authorities on the religion) are considered reliable sources for the religion's practices and beliefs, and traditional religious and academic views of religious practices should generally both be cited and attributed as such when they differ.

Non-scholarly sources

Some criteria that can assist editors in evaluating non-scholarly sources:

Attributability—The more we know about the originator, either organisation or individual, of source material, the better. This helps us measure of the authority of the content: Expertise of the originator about the subject—An academic expert in one subject is more reliable when writing about that subject than when writing about another. For example, a biologist is more reliable when writing about biology than when writing about nuclear physics. Bias of the originator about the subject—If an author has some reason to be biased, or admits to being biased, this should be taken into account when reporting his or her opinion. This is not to say that the material is not worthy of inclusion, but please take a look at our policy on Neutral point of view. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

Moved from Dog Whisperer

These sections are about Cesar Millan the man - not the program Dog Whisperer

Television Appearances

Millan has been featured twice on the Oprah Winfrey Show, as well as 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 Kathy Griffin: My Life on the D-List.

In 2005, the Humane Society of the United States Genesis Award Committee presented Millan with a Special Commendation for his work in rehabilitating animals, and in 2007 he was awarded the Michael Landon Award for Inspiration to Youth Through Television. In 2008, Millan was recognized as a "Treasure of Los Angeles" for his contributions to the City of Los Angeles.

"Dog Whisperer" section

The sentence relating to the warnings ("Each episode contains repeated warnings that viewers should not try some of the behavior modification techniques at home") isn't supported by the reference. I've seen the show and there is definitely a warning of some sort, possibly at the beginning of each segment (each new dog, set of dogs, etc). I was under the impression that the warning was more like "don't do this without consulting a professional." I'll try to locate the text of the actual warning -- in which case it may be more appropriately presented in the Dog Whisperer article rather than here. 842U (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Text not supported by source?

Resolved

Comment moved from my talk page --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Dodman quote is correct, and the NYT article includes this statement by Dodman: Dr. Dodman said: My college thinks it is a travesty. We've written to National Geographic Channel and told them they have put dog training back 20 years. 842U (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I had removed the text and source about that quote from the article because I could not find that info in the linked New York Times article. I'm not saying the text is false, only that it is not supported by that particular source.

Here is the text in question:

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 Millan had set dog training back considerably. [FOOTNOTE: "C'mon, Pooch, Get With the Program". The New York Times, Anna Bahney, February 23, 2006. February 23, 2006. Retrieved April 28, 2010. Dr. Dodman said: My college thinks it is a travesty. We've written to National Geographic Channel and told them they have put dog training back 20 years.]

The problem is that the linked article does not include the specified quote or even anything about Dr. Dodman at all.

To make it easier to search the text, here is an alternate link to the same article in a plain text one-page version that's easier to search: [14].

Is it possible that the quote came from a different article and it's just the link in the footnote that's wrong?

Unless the quote can be confirmed as in that article, it should be removed. In case I missed it, please post a note here about what paragraph the quote appears in, or some of the other text near it, so it can be verified as actually appearing in that source.

Thanks.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The NYT article is "configured" as three pages — your shortcut only includes the first of the three. Look at the text of your link. Like you say, it's easy to search... but it stops in mid-thought. It's clearly not the entire text of the article. 842U (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, that verifies the source, thanks. I see what happened now. There is an error in one of the links on the NYT page. They have a link to a single-page combination version of the article that is supposed to include all three pages in one, that's where I read the article. I just tested it again now, and their single-page combination view mistakenly includes just the first page. So, this is resolved, thanks for clearing it up. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem.842U (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Dodman, pharmocologist

Dodman's qualificaton that he's an animal pharmocologist got removed again from the article, so I added two ref's with quotes in the reference citations:

"Acura Pharma is now to undergo tests on the two former treatments, one a Prozac-style anti-depressant and the other an OCD treatment, with a view to dispensing them via prescription in the UK. Vet and behavioural pharmacologist Dr Nicholas Dodman developed the drugs. He said: “Pets are facing more mental health problems for the same reasons we do, as we live increasingly constrained, easy, pedestrian lifestyles.”

And this:

"Both have been developed by Dr Nicholas Dodman, a British-born but US-based vet and behavoural pharmacologist who has been at the forefront of the pet drug movement. Dr Dodman said that bad behaviour was the main reason why American pets were put down each year – behaviour, he said, that might be corrected by psychoactive drugs." It's really quite pertinant to include the qualifications of sources, and in this case there could be a clear conflict of approach between Dodman and Milan that the "animal pharmocologist" title could shed light on.

In other words, if Dodman is at the forefront of the pet drug movement, it's not implausible he might have a bias against someone promoting dog excercise as the primary solution to dog behavioral problems. 842U (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit to "Criticism" section

While I'm certainly no fan of Cesar Millan's, I believe the paragraph and reference I removed via this edit was in violation of WP:ELNO and possibly WP:BLP. I'd like to hear what other editors have to say about that, however. Mark Shaw (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

"Mexican-American"

The article discusses how he illegally crossed the border from Mexico to America, yet in the introductory paragraph of his biography he is called a "Mexican-American." Shouldn't he then be called an "American immigrant of Mexican descent"? - Cactusjump (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't clearly define Mexican-American in that respect. However Category:American people by ethnic or national origin says: "This category page lists sub-category pages that categorize citizens of the United States by any ethnicity they are of or descendent of, or previous nationality that they held or are descendent of. The categories lists as one those both of full and partial origin or descent." "Previous nationality" would seem to cover it because he is now a U.S. national. But there's probably a better page to point you to - this topic has been thrashed out hundreds of times.   Will Beback  talk  01:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not an article I was wondering about the topic being linked to as much as the wording in this article. I just wondered if it was correct here, and if "Mexican-American" only referred to native-born Americans of Mexican descent. - Cactusjump (talk) 02:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Global TV 16:9?

Anyone tell me what that is, and why every mention of the subject on any TV station anywhere should be notable? While were at it, "many" isn't very encyclopedic. "Some" is.99.245.37.46 (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I think what you are getting at has more to do with whether the source is reliable. See WP:RS and the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. 842U (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Source

I'd rather we find a better source than a PR webpage like www.dogwelfarecampaign.org. What makes this a reliable source that meets WP:BLP? Seems a poor source to me, but perhaps there's more to it than I've been able to find..who edits it, do they have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? This is a BLP, we need to be "very firm about the use of high-quality sources". Sure, it says it's a charity and that it's supported by several groups of dog welfare charities and other orgs, but does this make it a reliable source per WP:BLP standards...? I'm not sure... Dreadstar ☥ 22:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Taken to BLPN. There seems to be a bit of a history of objection to any criticism of Milan. Dougweller (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Dreadstar, your removal was apt. That particular source was especially inflammatory. For example, just by quickly googling "Cesar Millan aversion", I found a much more rational opinion quote which blames the network effect found in the rest of the world. "Cesar Millan has an extremely confident, charismatic, and alpha personality that makes him very successful. Unfortunately, a side-effect of this, is that people may just follow his techniques and not explore other alternatives." source I'm not advocating this source and I'm not weighing in on the topic in general, but I'm just bolstering the need for removal of some of that junk. If written about at all, the topic should be clearly written as being controversial as per WP:CONTROVERSY, inside the very prose. Thank you. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 04:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

No, that source is clearly a blog and definitely cannot be used in a BLP. The Dog Welfare Campaign is backed by some prestigious dog welfare organisations. Dougweller (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The Dog Welfare Campaign site has no apparent editorial oversight, nor do we know who know who the writer is or writers are, so cannot assess whether they are professionals in this area. Given that this is BLP content requiring extra scrutiny of sources, and that the area of dog training and dog psychology requires expertise and professionalism rather than opinion, I do not per our own WP standards see this source as reliable.

Further, linking to the pages of organizations does not ensure those organizations actually support the DWC position. With editorial oversight we could trust that these organizations do actually support the DWC position, but as I noted there is no apparent oversight, and authorship is hidden. I may be missing something but this is what I see at this point.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC))

And I see this was taken to the BLP Notice Board with out discussion here which seems a little precipitous. Surely this can be discussed and settled here?(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC))

I doubt it. And seriously, you think one of those organisations doesn't support them and didn't know they were mentioned? That the site is lying? Dougweller (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't look at sources that way, in that, my opinion doesn't matter. I looked for oversight, I looked for authorship and the site is conspicuously devoid of both which in itself is odd. Mind you, I've seen some odd things on Wikipedia and on the internet in general so nothing, very little :O) surprises me. At any rate its not compliant by our standards so out it should go. My opinion any way.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC))

So BLP and NPOV are policies - think if we could just ignore them when evaluating sites like that; man would we be on FIRE in a constant state of edit warring, blocks, bans, burning at the steak....boy howdy, I've been there (yeah even at the burn at the steak incident...strip off the burn and oh, what a delicious meal..!

The onus is on you, Dougweller, to show that the site you're supporting meets WP:RS and WP:BLP. There's absolutely nothing on that site which meets our most important guidelines and policies. Surely, with all the negative information about this man out there (if his detractors are right and he's evil, then sourcing it should be easy as cake. Secondly, this is an article about the MAN and not the TV Show, so people and writers and critics who watched the show and said "oh, look, he's torturing and choking and freezing and killing and skinning wild dogs on his show.....all of that should be in the article about the show. If a neighbor saw him off-camera, in his back yard pulling the eyebrows off a dog with pliers, then that would go in the article about the man. And NO, you're not going to find any source that says what I just said...I said it for effect. (eek! Don't be mad at me Mr. Millan....I'm just saying this to prove a point!! :j ..)

And reading Dougweller's first comment, it appears that he doesn't give a flaming fork about sources, his main contention - buried in the lead - is that Great Balls of Fire! There's a whole lotta -- pushin' goin' on!. If I'm wrong, then I'll sincerely apologize. In the meantime, rethink your motives and find some reliable sources that meet BLP.

Let's be clear about one thing though, we do not have to show that the site is lying; instead, you have to show that it is a reliable source that meets BLP. Dreadstar ☥ 03:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I've had no response at all at BLP so have closed that down. I'm making one last request at RSN as I found a couple of sources - but that's all - and if no one supports me there I will shut up. I have restored Yin's comments as they are clearly about him and his methods as well as the show. And I'm not at all clear where you draw the boundaries between "him as a man" and "him as what he does for a living, eg the show". There's a list of links criticising him at the bottom of that link,[15] do you think any of them are relevant to him and sufficient for this article? Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It may be that you received no comments on WP:BLPN because you linked to Cesar Milan instead of this page. As an aside, it would be very helpful if you provided a link to the page where you have requested comment instead of just noting that you placed the request on BLP or RSN. Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but the spelling with one 'l' redirects to this page so that shouldn't have been a problem. I've requested help at WP:RSN#Dogwelfarecampaign.org where I added [16] as a balanced source, a response and some criticism from the editor of Dogs Today, owned by the Daily Mail. Dougweller (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

You're right; the page itself redirects but the Talk and History pages don't, and that's what I should have noted above. My apologies for creating confusion. Thanks for including the link to the RSN page. Ca2james (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

My bad anyway for the mistake. Dougweller (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Yin is a woman by the way. She is selling courses that support her version of how dogs should be trained so it is in her best interests to show how alternative methods-Milan's- do not work as well as what she is selling. I'd add that in this article we have a summary created from content on the TV show, the mother article, so consistent practice would indicate adding content on the TV show should be to the mother article, not here. The comment made on the BLP/NB is apt. Content on Milan should summarize criticism and should not be a list of complaints from trainers in alternative methods. This comment was made per this article, a BLP, where we should be stringent about what and why we add content.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC))

Removing critical material on the basis that it is about the show

What guidelines say that criticism if it concerns the methods he demonstrates on his TV show should not be in the article? This article already says "the program demonstrates Cesar Millan's application of his philosophy that healthy, balanced dogs require strong 'pack leadership' from their owners, specifically in the form of exercise, discipline and affection (in that order)". Why can't we have criticism of that in the article? I'd be happy to have it integrated into the section on his show rather than in the controversy section. Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

My comment above is pertinent here: I'd add that in this article we have a summary created from content on the TV show, the mother article, so consistent practice would indicate adding content on the TV show should be to the mother article, not here.

At some point, common sense has to come into play . We have an article on the TV show , that's where content on the TV show goes. We have an article on Milan that's where we add content on Milan and in doing so delineate that content from content that would fit more happily in the TV show article. We don't need two articles with the same content. And as a disclaimer while I believe Milan to be a gifted animal trainer, I have used other methods more successfully with my own dog, so I'm not pushing a POV here.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC))

It seems pretty obvious that most critical material is going to mention his show. If we rule out any critical material from this article that is based on his show, won't that imbalance this article? I can't see how that would meet WP:NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the Yin source, every video example and every comment by Yin about Cesar is about the show and what she saw on the show, it is not about his personal life, with absolutely nothing except for what she has seen on TV. Comments about the TV show belong in the article about the TV show, comments related to Cesar's Biography and his life belong here. Sure, being on TV is part of his life, but we only see bits and pieces of that - and we have an article on the show. Now if we had someone who was on set and was a good WP:RS who saw and wrote about it, that would be 'real life'. Not what you saw on TV. All we need in this BLP is a short summary of his show, which is already Here: Cesar_Millan#Dog_Whisperer_with_Cesar_Millan, that section can have a short summary of the criticism Millan has had on the show. There's no reason to repeat every single criticism from every single source about what people say they saw him do in his appearances on the show; all this BLP needs is a short summary in the section about the show. I think it would be UNDUE to do otherwise. Dreadstar ☥ 19:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support: Detailed information about the show's reception belongs on that article, not here. The same is true however for the "Dog Whisperer with Cesar Millan" section, which could be summed up in a couple sentences. CorporateM (Talk) 03:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

Scanning over the article, there are a few areas that I think are worth drawing attention to:

• Lead: "Millan's most important tool in both his success with dogs and business has sometimes been attributed to a personal sense of balance.[6] The New York Times said that he "lives in the now and maintains a sort of über-balanced mien".[6]"

• Lead: If his methods are controversial, this should be reflected in the Lead

• Personal life: "The family later moved to Mazatlán, and there – at age 13, on their way to his judo competition and standing in front of a large statue – Millan declared to his mother he would one day be the best dog trainer in the world.[9]" (*yack)

• Personal life: Usually these sections go at the bottom. Also, the level of detail regarding his divorce seems potentially inappropriately personal.

• Media and guest appearances: I think this whole section could be deleted. The media are our sources, but we do not need to report on the reporting.

• Structure: Are all of the "Awards" really significant? Also, Controversy and Legal issues are not neutral headers. Pulling them out to separate sections is probably why the Principles and Dog Whisperer sections are so one-sided. They should be merged to create balanced sections, rather than dedicated positive/negative ones. Meanwhile, a lot of the sections can be consolidated into a single Career-type section.

CorporateM (Talk) 03:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey CorporateM thanks for the edits and work you're doing here. Nice to integrate the criticism. I have some concerns with some of the changes. For example the complete awards section was deleted with out discussion. I'd like to reinstate the section then trim if necessary. Also primary sources are acceptable and even needed in areas where they are describing the subject as written by the subject given these conditions are met. So I'd like to review the primary source deletions. I'll start on some of those changes(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC))

Press can be a source and also used as content in an article. Neither is mutually exclusive of the other. So i'd like to restore that section as well.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC))

Thanks Littleolive oil. I understand that primary sources may be used in some cases, but felt that WP:BLP practically forbids the use of primary sources for contentious material about a living person, unless also supported by a secondary source. I am guessing that there are secondary sources with similar information that could be found though. Without sifting through the edit-history, I think the Awards section was unsourced? and I usually only include awards if a source independent from the award itself talks about the subject earning it. Just my two cents. Thanks for chipping in! CorporateM (Talk) 17:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm just looking through now. I agree, some of the awards are unsourced. The primary source use I'm talking about would be content about the subject of the article, by the subject him/herself, and I'd agree primary sources that are contentious should not be used, probably at all. Anyway, I'm going through everything which may take a day or two and I'll drag anything over here that I'd like to discuss. There have been other editors here too, so maybe they'll jump in. Thanks.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC))

Awww, I misunderstood which primary sources you meant. Best to work it out in article-space I think, because it's hard to tell exactly which source/text is being discussed on Talk. CorporateM (Talk) 18:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Media and guest appearances

I don't think we have to source these appearances except to the stations themselves. In a sense these are primary sources giving information about themselves. We can trust the information is correct, and that, that rightness has oversight of the station itself. None of this is contentious.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC))

Millan appeared on the May 22, 2006 episode of The Oprah Winfrey Show, as well as 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), The Tonight Show with Jay Leno (February 2005), The View (July 2006), WUSA-TV 9 News (April 2006), season 4 of the Emmy Award winning reality show Kathy Griffin: My Life on the D-List.

Millan guest-starred as himself in Ghost Whisperer in Season 2, Episode 18, "Children of Ghost". In the episode, Melinda (Jennifer Love Hewitt) seeks out Millan for advice on how to help "Homer", Ghost Whisperer's Ghost Dog (from Season 1), cross over into the light.

A satirized version of Millan was portrayed in "Tsst", the May 3, 2006 episode of the Comedy Central animated series South Park, in Lianne Cartman enlisted his help in applying his principles to Eric Cartman.

Millan played himself in "The Finger in the Nest", the September 17, 2008, episode of Bones, helping the lead characters to determine if a location was used for dogfighting. Millan played himself in Beethoven's Big Break which premiered in cinemas on December 30, 2008, and the The Back-Up Plan, which was released April 23, 2010 in theaters.

Millan made a guest appearance as a judge on Episode 3 of the 10th season of The Apprentice and the April 27, 2011 episode of Jeopardy!

(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC))

I think you are right, to an extent. Listing every broadcast news station that has covered him or interviewed him is trivia, but some of these like being satired in South Park is pop-culture and should be included. At a glance, it looks like the second half of it would be suitable for restoration, in my opinion. CorporateM (Talk) 22:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Esquire

Why would Esquire be an acceptable link for a BLP on a dog trainer? (Littleolive oil (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC))

Why not? It's not being used as a source, but an EL, as you know. We have sources and links much more critical to the subject on other BLPs. Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

My comment has nothing to do with the quality of the content, and I haven't said anything about the content. I have concerns about a men's magazine being a RS source, which you did mention in your comment, and even a link. Dog training requires expertise. Is this a sourcve/link that will give that kind of advice. Further, I suppose the article is pretty inflammatory. Is a questionable source (my position) a source for inflammatory content or link. Just asking the question and looking for an answer, of course. (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC))

Links for this article shouldn't be giving advice. The fact that it's target audience is men doesn't make it fail to meet our criteria at WP:EL. You see it as inflammatory comment, something I don't understand. It is indeed critical, and most of the article is comments by four professionals. The fact that it is critical is definitely not a reason to remove it. Dougweller (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's recently used as a source and I have concerns about its use here. Being critical is indeed not a reason to remove it, but what are they exactly commenting on and is it really a source for this BLP? Dreadstar ☥ 03:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Does it work?

I think one of the biggest things our readers want to get out of this article is to know whether his methods are effective and humane, who has sanctioned his methods and who opposes them. We need the absolute highest quality of sources to do this well and it is probably the most important aspect of the article. If we are overly critical, it is a BLP problem, and if we are overly supportive, we are misleading our readers and encouraging animal abuse.

I think the media is a very weak source for this, because their job is grandstanding and storytelling, shock and awe. I wonder if there has been any sophisticated academic review of his techniques? I will take a look at some point, but if someone here has expertise on the topic, they may have an easier time finding the best possible quality sources. CorporateM (Talk) 23:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, it appears that sourced biographical material was removed from the article. A lot of edits were made in a very short period of time, so it is hard to detail the changes.

I do agree about the media and I'd definitely like to see any high quality academic or scientific sources that talk about Millan's techniques (outside any that merely watched the show to gain insight and data - that really does belong in the article about the show). Dreadstar ☥ 02:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I see that a lot of the details were condensed down, and I do like what I'm seeing....I'm just a tad bit short on time and attention span, so it all may be truly excellent!  :) Dreadstar ☥ 03:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• [17]Seems to be a pay-site, does it mention Millan by name and what does it say about him? Is it based on what they saw on the TV show? Dreadstar ☥ 04:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I added a URL. Currently I'm trying to dig up what might be a much better one. It appears a peer-reviewed journal, Current Science, did an article in 2007 that is exclusively focused on Milan's techniques. From what I've read about the Current Science study, it has similar conclusions, but I'm trying to obtain a full copy. CorporateM (Talk) 05:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Cool. With all this, we may have to WP:SPINOUT a Science of The Dog Whisperer article.. :) Dreadstar ☥ 05:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for providing that URL, CorporateM, very appreciated! So, looking at the sourcing on [that URL, it seems to be sourced thusly:

Millan, C., Emery, S.P., Sumner, K.B., 2004. MPH Entertainment (Firm),Screen Media Films (Firm). Dog Whisperer with Cesar Milan: The Complete First Season.

And apparently, one to his book and the other to his website. Is that correct? Dreadstar ☥ 05:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yah, I was citing this part: "The use of such confrontational and punitive training methods has been presented and popularized in books, on the internet, and on television (then three of the citations are to Millan's books, etc.) It seemed obvious enough what they were meaning by citing them. But lets wait until I get the Current Science article, which should make this one obsolete. I don't like the idea of a separate article for the science, as it is hard to find enough sources to even justify a section that are up to our high standards of verification for this kind of material. (although I like sub-articles in general) CorporateM (Talk) 14:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Great! I thought it interesting that part of the sourcing was to the first season of the show, given the many discussions here. Plus, reading the 'results' section, it is interesting to note that owners were purportedly using the techniques of Millan contrary to what he and his show/book/magazine/site say; and the assumptions made (which may be correct assumptions) "'it was assumed by the authors that owners listing television as the source for the two training techniques were referring to this popular show, although only one owner cited it specifically"' and "Television was the most frequently reported source". Also interesting is "Owners felt that most of the listed interventions had a positive or lack of effect on their dogs’ behavior" Survey questions containing wording such as "hitting or kicking’’"" makes one wonder about the neutrality of the survey itself. Then there's "Because of the risk of heightened fear of the owner as a result of their use, leash corrections are not typically recommended by positive-reinforcement-based trainers and behaviorists", makes one wonder if these "positive-reinforcement...trainers and behaviorists" have a dog in the game themselves...ooooo...sorry, bad idiomatic pun, but money and competition can be a powerful motivator. That is then followed up with "However, in our study, 63% of owners who used leash corrections felt they had a positive effect." and then, apparently, by more guesses/assumptions by the authors about why that contrary notion had such a high percentage of success.

Looking forward to the new source. The comment about a spintout article was just an attempt at humor. Dreadstar ☥ 22:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I've asked user:Anthonyhcole if he/she has any way of accessing the Current Science article (that's the one I was referring to) and I submitted an interlibrary loan request with the public library (the university library I usually use can't let me access it, so maybe they can). Should be a very solid source if we can get at it. CorporateM (Talk) 23:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

CorporateM, I'm waiting on a call back from my library's researcher support team and it's 4:23pm here, so maybe not today. Have you tried asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request? I have about a 95% success rate there. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I can access other stuff via Ebsco Host but that article is unavailable - the researcher support lady couldn't access it either. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Woot! No luck with an inter-library loan, but the reference desk pulled through. The Current Science article confirms what we already expected from weaker sources, that there is a widespread disapproval of Millan's techniques among professional dog trainers, who think he is abusive. However, the article cites a counter-view from an article in The New Yorker

"Last summer, The New Yorker magazine ran an article about Millan. Readers reproved the writer, Malcolm Gladwell, for neglecting to mention how controversial the Dog Whisperer is. Replying to that criticism on his Web site, Gladwell said that in the many hours he had spent with Millan, he rarely saw the trainer use aversive techniques. Gladwell described Millan's interactions with dogs away from the TV cameras as "gentle."

If anyone can dig up The New Yorker piece, it might be worthwhile. CorporateM (Talk) 19:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

This seems fine; the concern with "widespread disapproval" among "professional dog trainers" is that some of the trainers obviously have their own interests to protect in addition to any concerns they have about Millan's techniques. And, from what I understand, many of these trainers would handle red-zone dogs in quite a, um, different manner than the last-resort techniques Millan uses for them. I'm also concerned that we don't go overboard with this, since we have little to go on regarding Millan's personal interactions with dogs. This is all about TV, magazine and an internet page - not really about the person. Dreadstar ☥ 21:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking about What The Dog Saw, By Gladwell and the follow-up response to critics of that piece? Dreadstar ☥ 21:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Dreadstar, are you really that experienced with dog trainers and dog training to be able to make your comments about about remuneration? My experience over a couple of decades is that what you say simply isn't true, and the ones that I know who are critical aren't in any way impacted financially by Millan. Dougweller (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you asking me questions about my personal life and experience?  :) I changed the above to say "some of" which is clearly the case I was making - not that all dog trainers were just after the cash. Dreadstar ☥ 02:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting I was trying to out you? Because if so, that's ridiculous. You made a comment that implied some sort of knowledge, I was trying to find out why you thought that comment justified. Dougweller (talk) 06:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see, so you're merely commenting on another contributor...? I do not need to justify my talk-page opinions or comments to you, nor do you to me; you're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine - as long as we're not using our own opinions as sources for content in the article, there's no problem. Obviously my own experience, knowledge, and sources infuse my comments; such yours do for your comments - to suggest otherwise is saying....well...what, exactly?....(purely a rhetorical question; I suggest we drop this line of questioning and comments about the experience and knowledge of other contributors - as I believe it will get us nowhere. Dreadstar ☥ 13:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

And my query was not a personal attack either, why are you linking to NPA? Links like the earlier one and this one don't help build a friendly atmosphere. Dougweller (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

From the start here, your own comments have created a less than friendly atmosphere (e.g. accusations of POV Pushing, etc..) These recent comments have nothing to do with discussing the sources; they're more along the lines of personal asides which get us nowhere. I'll not be commenting on this any further. Dreadstar ☥ 17:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, those are more great sources. The primary counter-point seems to be that the show is filled with theatrics that are not necessarily representative of his methods and that dog experts are responding to the over-dramatized version they see on television. Every source has its own motives that color their perspective and this is the reason we rely on a broad set of sources that come from different backgrounds. In his blog, The New Yorker journalist talks a little bit about this too - why the controversy was left out of the profile to achieve a certain angle of the story. We are not in a position to say whether the criticisms are true or not, only that his methods aren't accepted by the professional community. CorporateM (Talk) 23:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, each source has perspectives colored by particular motives. Apparently, the only source that talks about Millan (the person) who has actually been around Millan off-camera is Gladwell, the rest of the sources - even the peer-review journal - apparently base their opinions on what they see on TV, or read on a webpage, or even a magazine. And yes, we're in a position to look at the criticisms and judge them by our policies and guidelines, my point is that we don't attribute something to the entire purportedly monolithic "scientific community" or "professional community" based on a few studies and comments. We attribute it to the source - definitely not beyond, and we definitely need to be very cautious and very selective, per WP:BLP. I'm still concerned about whether sources based on TV/webpage/magazine are sufficient and/or appropriate for a BLP. Dreadstar ☥ 02:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

That is the counter-argument presented by The New Yorker journalist, however we are only in a position to document the debate and present both viewpoints fairly. We are not in a position to evaluate bias in the sources. CorporateM (Talk) 05:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit like judging a writer by their writing. A number of writers/radio/tv people who make their living by commenting on political or social issues get criticised for what they say or write, is that unreasonable? Dougweller (talk) 06:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

@CorporateM; I'm not suggesting we disallow the sources due to the potential bias of the source; as WP:NPOV says: reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective, but we are indeed in a position to evaluate potential bias in a source, making sure not only to use the source in the proper context, but to properly attribute the content as well as covering my earlier comments about the source having editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Dreadstar ☥ 13:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we both understand our respective positions, but it would be best at this point to discuss specific article-text and/or to work it out in article-space. I see where you are coming from, but I don't know what changes you are suggesting need to be made. CorporateM (Talk) 18:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I think we understand each other and we seem to agree on most points - I also think we can and are collaborating very well on this. Right now, no major changes in mind, just some minor tweaks when I have a bit more time. Dreadstar ☥ 19:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Unmentioned series

Cesar Millan did a 10 episode series set in Spain that aired in channel cuatro (http://www.cuatro.com) during 2012, titled "El líder de la manada" (The leader of the pack). Episodes are now available on the network's streaming site: http://www.mitele.es/programas-tv/el-lider-de-la-manada/ Maybe a native English speaker can add this to the main article? Segata128 (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

If you can find a good source for it (not the show itself, but a newspaper article perhaps), it sounds like a very reasonable addition to me. We would want to know every major TV series or movie he participated in, though we don't want to list every newspaper he is featured in or interview he does on TV, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 17:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Here are several news items about the show (in Spanish) http://www.formulatv.com/programas/el-lider-de-la-manada/noticias/ The site is a major TV-related news portal so I suppose it would count as reliable. This article is about the show's premiere on December 2nd 2011 and this one about the last two episodes, which aired on January 13th 2012. In each episode, a family adopts an abandoned dog from a dogs' home and has Cesar help them rehabilitate the dog. Several episodes had guest celebrities starring. Segata128 (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds great! I can't read Spanish but they don't have to be in English. However, my suggestion would be to not describe individual episodes, just that he was in the series. CorporateM (Talk) 21:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Working animals

The section on Pets is about dogs who "work". Work is a standard and common phrase used for animals who have specific and ongoing purposes as Border Collies do. In this case the section describes dogs who are working with Milan, have a specific purpose, and are not just pets. I'm not going argue over this heading , however, the heading title, "Working pets" is accurate per the content in the section and is in no way OR. (Littleolive oil (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC))

I agree. The section title "Pets" is misleading, Daddy (dog) and Junior are "popular assistants" on the show, not just pets of Millan. It looks to me that Millan has many, many pets, but only a few 'assistants', and even fewer notable, lead assistants. We need a better title for the section. Daddy has his own article, and this one has a summary style section in it; Junior is Daddy's replacement. So I think the section heading could be "Daddy", with just an add-on sentence about Junior from Daddy's article. Dreadstar ☥ 15:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

"Daddy" is fine with me. (Littleolive oil (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC))

I've restored the original section title which was changed here without consensus. Dreadstar ☥ 15:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I can agree with that.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2014

216.59.120.210 (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC) Millan died today as confirmed by major news media.

 Not done - you might want to read this report entitled "Hoax Busted: Report on Popular 'Dog Whisperer' Cesar Millan's Death is False" - Arjayay (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)