There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2020.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
This article goes off the deep-end (sez me).
This part of this doesn't seem missional to me and I humbly propose sending it to the shit-can:
- "Millan uses confrontational methods to assert dominance such as jabbing the dog (which he calls a "touch"), choke collars, forcibly holding the dog down, and overwhelming the animal with the thing it fears. While this is not as bad as hitting the dog, using whips or even cattle prods (which some trainers still use!), there is an almost complete lack of positive reinforcement. If you're thinking "but Millan's methods seem effective enough", then consider that you're only seeing half an hour of the dog in a highly edited TV show and only see the dog over the course of a short period of time. Perhaps more importantly is the question whether Millan's methods are more or less effective compared to conventional methods?"
- I'd say that the stuff about the effectiveness of Millan's methods is very much missional, as it regards accurate assessment and evaluation of effects of aMillan's "unconventional" approach. However, I doubt that many dog trainers use "whips or even cattle prods" (methinks that would constitute animal cruelty), so that not as bad as claim should be ditched. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)