Talk:Shock collar

message: Shock collars are an emotive subject. It is frustrating for all concerned if editing this page simply becomes tit-for-tat deletion and vandalism.
It would be sensible to regard the current page (12:19 GMT, 30th July 2011) as containing most of the information needed as a basis for a good page, which could then be refined as a result of  discussion on this talk page.
Is it possible that from now on, major changes are discussed here before being implemented?
I removed the comments here because this seems like a place for more positive comments. Hope nobody minds. The page generally looks good, but do you think it would be sensible to take the part titled "frame of reference" and put at least some of it into the technical considerations section? I don't want to make a big change like this without asking someone, but it just doesn't seem necessary to have two sections that are essentially talking about the same thing. Also, without wishing to be argumentative, the opening statement says "Some professional dog trainers and their organizations oppose their use and some support them". I think this statement needs to be better supported; I don't think its a good idea to have links to specific dog trainers, because that just becomes advertising, but we should have some references to dog training organizations that support the use of electronic training aids (and ones that don't). The WUSD and its members (BAGSD & GSDL) have sided with KC ban, but I am not familiar with these organizations so I don't know whether they classify as dog training organizations?Harrumpher (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing this page

message: I don't know if one of my edits did it (probably since I'm so new at this), but reference ^6 to the Christiansen study is "broken."  I don't have the original so I can't repair it.  Can someone repair it please?  If it was me, mea culpa.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I've deleted the comments about the power of the TENS units that followed the information from Klein.  There is nothing in those comments that "contradicts" (as those comments said) the statement that shock collars are comparable to TENS units.  They merely throw up number to scare people.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: stop removing information. Those figures are real, and they were inserted in a way that was phrased so as not to cause alarm. I tried my best,  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rondoggy (talk • contribs) 07:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Klein Comments

message: changed POV on word use to data based reference on word use using Google Insights. GI indicates a growth in the word use since 2004.
http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=shock%20collar&cmpt=q  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesnews13 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Stats for word use "shock collar"

message: Please read the technical section before making additions of this kind.  This frame of reference  section is mostly a rehash of that, but less objective and citing some dubious refs. It would be nice to avoid more of this, so can we discuss stuff like this here, rather than having to repeatedly edit the wikipage?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rondoggy (talk • contribs) 21:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that the Frame of Reference Section is a rehash of the Technical Section.  I also disagree that the "refs" are "dubious."  They're similar to the opinion pieces from the KC and other anti-Ecollar groups.  Each group has their agenda and states the "facts" as they see them.  It's fascinating that you don't see this.  Again, an objective of Wiki is providing a neutral viewpoint.  If it's OK to post the KC's opinion, it's OK to post Radio Fence's opinion.  At least the information from Radio Fence is verifiable.  The information from the KC is mere opinion and much of it based on a lack of knowledge.  But you'll notice I haven't deleted any of it.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point is that the comment from KC is presented as exactly that. It is in the correct section of the page where it is obvious that it is not on a par with the scientific evidence, it is clear what its source is, and people can immediately go to find out more about the comment and the organisation that made it, and make their own mind up. KC opinion is not being elevated above what it is. When YOU cite Radio Systems articles, you do so in a way that attempts to elevate the status of the source. It isn't a white paper; they can call it that, but it is in fact a sales brochure that is selective in its use of references, and the content is inferior to what is already on the wiki page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.239.203 (talk) 09:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The White Paper comments are in the "praise" section.  They're hardly elevated to the level of a scientific study.  As to your opinion that it is not a "White Paper" I'll refer you to the entry in Wiki on that topic.   "A white paper is an authoritative report or guide that helps solve a problem. White papers are used to educate readers and help people make decisions, and are often requested and used in politics, policy, business, and technical fields. In commercial use, THE TERM HAS ALSO COME TO REFER TO DOCUMENTS USED BY BUSINESSES AS A MARKETING OR SALES TOOL."   it EXACTLY fits that definition.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I'll disagree and so does the author of the paper.  That's the term he applied to it.  No product is advertised, rather information is supplied about the entire range of products available under the general heading of "shock collars."  Please refer to the Wikipedia entry White Paper  "A white paper is an authoritative report or guide that helps solve a problem. White papers are used to educate readers and help people make decisions, and are often requested and used in politics, policy, business, and technical fields. In commercial use, the term has also come to refer to documents used by businesses as a marketing or sales tool."   This White Paper and Lindsay are not my only references but there's really no point in explaining further to someone who can't remain civil.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I'll disagree with your opinion that the origins are "misrepresenting information."  But even if they were, they are as quoted DIRECTLY from the White Paper.  If you think it's "deliberately misleading" take it up with Radio Systems.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Frame of Reference Section

message: :: I have made some small revisions, but left the bulk of this intactHarrumpher (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christiansen Study

message: I've just gone through the article and cleaned it up a bit. I removed or reworded some POV, made it flow better and formatted all the references. What I suggest needs to be done now is that the studies - which occupy some 1/3 to 1/2 of the article - be incorporated into the text itself. If the studies are of critical importance or significance then perhaps they can become articles themselves, but they should be used in this text to verify statements made, not be features of the article themselves. kabl00ey 10:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup: Academic articles 

message: This concerns POV tag cleanup.  Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it.  This permits discussion and consensus among editors.  This is a drive-by tag, which is discouraged in WP, and it shall be removed. Future tags should have discussion posted as to why the tag was placed, and how the topic might be improved.  Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements.  This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags.  No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: This article included a statement as to how the collars were used (classical vs. operant conditioning) that was simply false.  I added citations to the instruction manuals of the two largest manufacturers for the specific purpose of documenting how the collars actually are used.
I agree that any information as to the effectiveness, or the safety, etc., provided by the manufacturers should be considered to be suspect.  They are not unbiased observers on those issues.
But as to the point of how the collars are intended to be used, the instruction manuals that are placed in the hands of every user would seem like the best source of information.
So I would argue that the citations to these manuals should be restored.
--jdege (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cites to manufacturers 

message: Lindsay directly addressed parameters and conclusions of the Schilder and van der Borg study and mentions it by name.  (See Lindsay, Volume 3, pg 611).  Schilder was copyrighted in 2003 and accepted 23 October, 2003, well before the 2005 publication date of Lindsay's Volume 3.  It's obvious that he was aware of their conclusions.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments about Lindsay 

message: :: Criticism section has remained quite stable for a period. It would be good to add some praise of an equivalent quality; specific quote from organizations that support the use of shock collars (does International Association of Canine Professionals have a statement, for example?)Harrumpher (talk) 08:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was just looking at their site a few days ago and intended to put something into the article but got busy and forgot.  Thanks for reminding me.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

text: NEVERMIND.  I fixed it.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

text: PETA is an extremist group and is therefore subject to the Wiki guideline on "Questionable Sources."  Their comments should be removed from the Criticism Section.  Per Wiki,  "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or lacking meaningful editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties."   Beanyandcecil (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism section 

message: I've been watching this page but largely uninvolved, aside from a few relatively minor edits and the discourse up there (and I do concede the bit about physical damage, am eating crow, etc.), and I think the "edit warring" is unproductive and probably breaching some sort of policy. It's not in rapid succession but every day there are at least a couple of reverts. Would it be helpful for someone to lock down the article so everyone is forced to talk about the disputed passages instead of just reverting each other over and over again? This really won't accomplish anything at the current rate. Anna talk 15:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering the same thing Anna.  I went looking for a way to lock the topic but I didn't find anything.  Perhaps I missed it.  Wiki seems to take a "hands off" approach to this and wants the editors to work things out on the discussion pages.  I'm happy to try that but others have spent so much time in personal attacks that I think it would be difficult, if not impossible to reach a consensus.  The recent additions from 217 are a good example.  Who wants to deal with someone who starts a conversation with rudeness, name calling and questioning the experience of a complete stranger?  Don't worry about "eating crow."  That sort of thing is so embedded in the anti−Ecollar rhetoric that many people accept it as being true.  What's the saying?   "A lie that's repeated often enough becomes believed."  It's one of the reasons that I'm here, trying to set the record straight on this subject.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is easy to get a page locked. My suggestion as a starting point is to delete all of the discussion on this page, because it is mostly either resolved or argumentative, and seems to be attracting a lot of bile from unsigned contributors who just want to start a fight. That might at least make it look like the page, and its discussion, are on the way to a consensus. I don't want to do this without agreement, from at least the two of you!Harrumpher (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Harrumpher I think that you can see the problem of including such a second hand statement in the text of what is supposed to be a summary of a scientific study.  It does not belong there.  It was included in the study as part of the background, not as part of the conclusion.  If some want to include the statement from the Norwegian Council it belongs in the criticism section.  I've said a couple of times that if they put it there, if it's a complete and accurate quote that I won't bother it.  But they refuse.  In the section on the Christiansen section the statement has been removed from its context and it's impossible to see if Christiansen cited it accurately.  It no longer meets Wiki's requirement for verifiability since it's been quoted second hand.  I'm happy to discuss changes here first but given the attitude of the anti's, their repeated personal attacks, their name calling and their lack of respect for Wiki's rules and guidelines, I don't hold much hope for coming to any agreement or even being able to have a civil discussion.  I'll fix my last revision to accurately reflect the Norwegian Council's comments.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will leave it where you put it, and make a minor edit, but I don't understand your justification. You have cited information from the Radio Systems White paper that is second hand and impossible to verify. For example, the quote from Randall Lockwood cannot be found anywhere else. Dieter Klein's work is not available in its original form anywhere that I can find.  Even the White paper is not available from Radio Systems anymore, as far as I can tell, and in any case it says "Permission to reprint and distribute this white paper in its entirety is granted by Radio Systems Corporation through January 31, 2010" on it, so the document itself has expired. So, if we were applying the rule that second hand information should not be included, then none of this should be on the page without some primary link. At least the Christiansen paper is a current document that can be checked and the quote is absolutely accurate. By the way, I have no strong opinion against shock collars. My position is that people should have a choice. The only area I would like to see a change is in regulation of manufacturing standards. Nothing Draconian, because companies must be able to develop their products, but it is bad that a TENS machine has to fulfil manufacturing standards but an electric collar (gas, shock or ultrasound) doesn't. These are devices that should be reliable (able to cope with getting wet, have battery life indicators, always deliver a consistent output, have an accurate maximum operating range etc, etc). I have used gas collars in the past; I won't tell you the brand, but when I say they were so unreliable as to be useless you may guess which one. Harrumpher (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  How do you know that Lockwood's quotation was not made specifically for the White Paper and therefore it would not appear anywhere else?  The footnote to Klein's study shows the original source.  One could contact the Journal directly.  There's no requirement that information be available on line, only that it's verifiable.  It may not be "easily" verifiable but then neither is the Christiansen study.  One must pay over $30US to read anything but the abstract.  The White Paper has not "expired, only the "permission to reprint and distribute" it.  It's still available on the Invisible Fence website, per the link.  I've provided the primary links for my quotations.  As to "standards" . . . I see no reason that these devices should not be regulated.  But one can't reasonably compare the standards for TENS to the lack of them for Ecollars.  TENS are manufactured as "medical devices" and there have been standards in place for them for quite some time.  ECMA (Electronic Collar Manufacturer's Association) has established standards for Ecollars, but they are only a recommendation and do not have the force of law.  I’m told that Germany has placed a limit on the highest output of Ecollars but I've not confirmed that.  Whether Ecollars fall under legal requirements to have standards enforced on them or not is a matter for legislators.  If there's enough public outcry for it, it will probably happen, even though the chance of physical injury from these devices is all but non-existent.  In the US much of this sort of control comes about either directly through lawsuits or through fear of them.  To my knowledge, over the course of over four decades of the use of Ecollars, there has not been a single lawsuit brought against any of the Ecollar manufacturers for physical injuries sustained through even the improper use of these devices.  There have been dozens of scientific studies on them, many of which have used the collars at the highest levels and there is nothing that even suggests that it can happen.  So it seems to me that this is a bit of "the sky is falling" thinking.  If such regulation was beneficial (or even of any substantial use) it would already be in place.  Mentioning levels of current are great for scaring people but when the truth is examined, it quickly falls apart.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

text:  I don't want to get in a fight over differing views on regulation. Approaches to regulation are different in the UK, EU and USA. The Lockwood statement may well have been made to Radio Systems. It is not clear what its origin is, but I accept your point on that. I understand your other points, but there is a difference between information that is verifiable at a cost (Lindsay's book costs >$100, papers cost $10 - 30 each), and information that is apparently impossible to verify or access (Klein's study etc). The issue with the Klein study is that it is not available anywhere else, and is only cited indirectly in the Radio systems document. I feel that if we are going to apply the "no second hand information" rule then it ought to be applied throughout (to not at all). You have made a lot of references to the RS white paper without any references to primary sources. It would seem fair that these should be removed until primary references are found. Harrumpher (talk) 09:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

text:  I paid $32 for a used copy of Lindsay's book.  Both Amazon and Google allow one to read virtually the entire text (at least all of the statements that I've quoted) free of charge.  Anyone can easily verify and see the context of the comments.  Klein's study is not "impossible to verify."  I managed to get a copy of the journal so therefore anyone else could as well.  I'm happy to apply the "no second hand rule" and I've done so.  I've linked three references to the White paper, all of them original statements.  There's the quote from Lockwood and then two comments that discuss how the stim relates to other devices.  Specifically what information do you think is not original and what is the basis for your statements?  Beanyandcecil (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

text:  I made a change to your quote from the Norwegian council, but then read the last line of your response above. If you want to revert to your version, that's fine. There was nothing wrong with it, I just wanted to put in the link to the paper because it is in English and the Norwegian site isn't.Harrumpher (talk) 07:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll revert it because one can't find the original study from the original citation, only a rewording of it (an an inaccurate one at that).  Even though the site is in Norwegian there are plenty of translation engines that will give a good translation of it.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I am not sure what you mean. The link to the original document was provided, and the quote in the paper was fair. I won't change it back but I think you are splitting hairs here.Harrumpher (talk) 09:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I didn't say that no harm had been done.  I said that there is no evidence of harm done in any study even though most of them have used stim at the highest levels that the collars afford, much higher than where most people use them.  If any had occurred, it would have been mentioned especially given the fact that most of the studies that have been done, have been done by antis.  Not only is there no damage shown in any study but there is only one mention of it in the urban legend category and that's already been discussed.  I'll revert your edit.  As to discussion before editing . . . I've yet to see anyone do that here and no one has done it with me.  Instead the antis have simply reverted and deleted my edits without any discussion at all except to be rude, commit personal attacks, one after the other to include speculation about my experience and name calling.  You seem to be more reasonable about this, you've not engaged in the name calling or other personal attacks, but you didn't discuss this edit beforehand, you just went ahead and did it.  Like some others you only seem to want discussion AFTER you've done your edits, not before.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Anna said "Would it be helpful for someone to lock down the article so everyone is forced to talk about the disputed passages instead of just reverting each other over and over again?", and you agreed with her, so I thought that was going to be the way forward. It would avoid pointless re-editing, and mean that both of us can keep track of the page and protect what we've done.  I removed your edit...because the phrasing was too strong and it seemed that you had no intention of cooperating. You can say that I only wanted discussion after making edits, but in fact I started out by asking about discussion... in any case this is a chicken and egg argument. Anyway, originally it said "However, there is no evidence that physical injury can occur or has 'ever' occurred as a result of the electrical current that shock collars produce, 'either in the scientific literature or in common use'." It just isn't possible to make a statement that is this definitive. The new phrasing looks good, so I have no problem with it. Truce??Harrumpher (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that my statement was too strong and so when I edited it I "softened it."  You and I can have a truce but unless the others join in, it won't mean a thing.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I meant to save the page with the text in another section, but ti didn't save. Have a look and see whether this is OK.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.239.203 (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important bit: locking article down? 

message: 203 you deleted part of the comments from the IACP.  Your reasoning was that part of it was "opinion" and therefore did not belong.  It appears that you merely read my comment and then acted.  Perhaps my writing wasn't clear but the entire piece was from the IACP and therefore it should have been left alone.  I'm guessing, but it appears that you did not read the IACP statement before your edit.  If this is the case, might I suggest that before you edit a quotation that you explore what has been said.  I've edited the statement and replaced it.  Perhaps if you'd discussed it before acting this could have been avoided?!  Beanyandcecil (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed it by adding inverted commas, so that this is now clear it is a direct quote. Good to see this and the statement from NIce, it looks more balanced  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.239.203 (talk) 10:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:   The entire block of text is a quotation from the IACP.  I'll move the quotation marks so that later on someone does not object to the strong language that right now, is outside them.  Apologies for not being clearer.   Beanyandcecil (talk) 11:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Praise Section

message: Cyberbot II has detected links on Shock collar which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global
If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.thebestdogtrainingcollars.com/
*:Triggered by \bthebestdogtrainingcollars\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on [[Shock collar]] 

message: The law in Quebec did not ban the use of Ecollars as has been previously stated.  I'm going to remove that statement from the article.  The law contains the language, "The animal's collar must not hamper the animal's breathing, or cause it pain or injury."  There is no mention made of any specific collar or tool.  After the law was written a detailed application guide was published to help people understand the law and how it would be applied by the courts.  But the application guide (which does not have the force of law and is not written by legislators) DID specifically say that both Ecollars and pinch or prong collars were "banned."  That error has been corrected.  Now they are considered "not recommended" rather than "illegal [or] banned." Beanyandcecil (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quebec, Canada Law on Ecollars 

message: Cyberbot II has detected links on Shock collar which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global
If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.thebestdogtrainingcollars.com/
*:Triggered by \bthebestdogtrainingcollars\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on [[Shock collar]] 

message: Cyberbot II has detected links on Shock collar which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global
If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.thebestdogtrainingcollars.com/
*:Triggered by \bthebestdogtrainingcollars\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on [[Shock collar]] 

message: Cyberbot II has detected links on Shock collar which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global
If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.thebestdogtrainingcollars.com/
*:Triggered by \bthebestdogtrainingcollars\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on [[Shock collar]] 

message: Since the term "Ecollar" (or "E-collar") is more common in professional use among established dog trainers both for and against them, should the article title be changed? 
(*Ecollar is not my preferred term either, to be clear, but it is the most typical one in specialist sources. I know this topic can become very heated.)
In addition, possibly a note should be added that "remote collar" can refer to multiple types of collar - e.g. vibrating or tone as well as shock. (While all of these are electronic, "electronic collar" is used specifically for shock and "remote collar" is used broadly.) SkrikerandTrash (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Manufacturers of shock collars and dog trainers who use shock collars both have financial incentive to use new terms, but “shock collar” is the term most used in peer-reviewed scholarly studies. Zipster969 (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Experienced non-commercial dog trainers, e.g. sports competitors and service dog handlers, also do not typically use "shock collar", but I agree that we should defer to the term used by peer-reviewed studies. SkrikerandTrash (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page title ( Which term? ) 

message: This article does not read as an encyclopedic article and is biased in its approach and terminology, using words that are not part of scientific vernacular, nor necessarily accurate. In particular, it refers to these collars as inducing pain, when this is subjective and not verified. In many cases, the collars provide a stimulus that is not perceived by human testers as pain, and thus likely not perceived by dogs as "pain". This terminology should be removed due to its subjective nature, the article currently reads as a PETA opinion piece with few sources that are verified with peer review. Where we have haptic feedback on many devices today, the level of electrical stimulus provided to a dog through a shock collar is more often akin to this sensation, as is evidenced by the lack of pain or stress response by most dogs when initiated to these collars. Pain itself would present with a pain response. Sources that indicate that pain responses are seen need to be cited for the word to be used, otherwise a word such as "response" should be used in place. E.g. "Shock collars induce a response in the form of an electrical stimulus" rather than saying "Shock collars cause pain". 83.227.1.160 (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree whole heartedly. I have made 3 attempts so far to edit the page to use the term stimulus instead of pain, as well as made edit to equally present the pro and con of shock collar. The admin however, kept reverting my edit stating that my edits weren’t useful. It am starting to think the admin either didn’t read my edit or is bias rather than neutral.  G2bfunky (talk) 04:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia doesn't do WP:FALSEBALANCE and does not misrepresent the content of the cited sources by using euphemisms - this is what the WP:NPOV policy requires. Rewriting the article in the way you have been attempting is not constructive. MrOllie (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The way I wrote it is not considered euphemisms by your definition. The word stimulus should be used where appropriate. Pain is caused only when the dog is overstimulated. Various articles included in the reference sections already mentioned this.) Just as pain can be caused by shinning an intense bright light to the pupil of eyes for prolong period of time. By revert my edits, you are not giving this article an unbiased view and doing a great disservice to the Wikipedia community. G2bfunky (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits plainly misrepresented the content of the cited sources. Wikipedia is biased - towards the views of the reliable sources. We do not falsely balance our articles based on personal views such as the ones you are expressing here. MrOllie (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias and use of word "pain"