Talk:Shock collar

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): J Bedrosian.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Editing this page

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)

References

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)

Klein Comments

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)

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)

Stats for word use "shock collar"

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)

Frame of Reference Section

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)

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)

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)

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)

IT IS JUST AN ADVERT. I pity you if this and Lindsay's book are the only things you can find that support your position.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.31.243.217 (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

The origin of the differences in the energy levels you quoted in this section are from Radio Systems misrepresenting information. They take the individual impulses of each shock waveform, and calculate the energy, in Joules, per impulse. This is apparent in their quote from Dr Klein, that typical impulses are less than one millisecond in duration. When the button is pressed, dogs do not get a single 1 millisecond pulse, they get a train of impulses that lasts for about 0.25 to 1 second (or longer, if the collar is being used in a continuous mode for negative reinforcement). So, the actual energy "per correction" should be presented, not the individual impulse energy. This is why it is important not to cite electrical information from this particular document, because it is deliberately misleading. In addition, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the volt and amp measures do not accurately reflect the shock's impact. Companies like Radio Systems try to have it both ways; on the one hand they say "volts and amps aren't important, we use pulsed waveforms", and then they say "look at how low the current and voltage are in our shock collars". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rondoggy (talk • contribs) 11:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

The recently published papers for DEFRA would offer a better basis for this frame of reference section, as they are peer-reviewed, were done with industry cooperation and are freel available online. I will do this shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vectronn (talk • contribs) 16:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Technical Considerations

I suggest that the second sentence of first entry in this section (emboldened here for emphasis) be deleted. "Electric shock can be characterised in terms of voltage, current, waveform, frequency (of waveform), pulse rate and duration. In experimental studies using shock collars, voltage, current and duration applied have typically been 3000 volts, 0.4 Amps and 1 second.[1]" It may have been stated by Christiansen but he's either wrong or perhaps just outdated. Many studies don't tell us the brand of Ecollar used, much less the technical information on them. One study just tells us the setting on the collar and there's no way of knowing what the values are. One study used variable settings for various dogs, based on what the handler did. In any case, these values have no meaning for the average person reading this since they don't have a frame of reference. High voltage values are sometimes used by anti Ecollar people to scare people away from using the Ecollar. Beanyandcecil (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see why that can't be removed as a blatant overgeneralization. Anna ^talk 19:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not a generalisation. In most of the papers, high intensity shocks were used (authors deliberately chose to use maximum settings). I am happyy to change it, but I think it is pretty cheeky to suggest that the author was wrong of outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rondoggy (talk • contribs) 10:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hardly "cheeky." Lindsay thinks he was wrong too and provides quite a bit of evidence for his belief. I'll put his comments into the section shortly. Beanyandcecil (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you want to mess with this reference when it broadly supports the use of shock collars for stopping sheep chasing? Lindsay may not agree with Christansen...but he didn't do any reasrch on this, and there aren't any other papers to use as a reference. YOU haven't read it yourself, you are just parroting someone else's interpretation of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.239.203 (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Contrary to your opinion that I only want pro Ecollar articles here, I'm interested in the purpose of Wiki, to provide accurate information. Lindsay's disagreement (and mine) are not about the findings of the study, they're about the statement as to the strength of the shock that was used. I'll assume the best and say that Christiansen was probably just in error in his measurement. It's not conceivable that the power he claims was actually in use. As to whether or not I've read the study, as with another editor, you're guessing. Actually you have no idea. Please try to stick to what you do know, rather than make assumptions about me. Beanyandcecil (talk) 04:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The best evidence that you haven't read any of the full papers is that you never cite anything beyond the abstract, and if anyone inserts anything from within a paper, you dispute it or deface it. For example, the Norwegian Council statement is in the Christiansen paper; that authors make a very specific point of commenting on it. If you read the paper you would see how prominent this is. Another example is the way you keep trying to remove details of the Christiansen paper, so that it simply says "18 dogs out of 24 dogs improved", when the truth is that out of those 18 dogs, only ONE had ever been given a shock. Its fine that you haven't read the papers, because most people can't access them unless they pay extortionate fees. But, if you don't have access to that information then you are not in a position to edit those sections. Another indicator is that almost all of your content is taken from a Radio Systems brochure or is a citation from Lindsay.

Interesting evidence gather technique you use there Rondoggy; you can tell that I haven't read a study because I usually cite others? That's hilarious! For an article in Wiki, it's rarely necessary to read anything beyond an abstract. But as in the past, you're wrong. I have read the study. I paid the "extortionate fee" quite some time ago. I reread it when you deleted my summary and inserted yours. I just haven't memorized it. I've commented on the statement from the Norwegian Council elsewhere, no need to be redundant. It will be removed until and unless you can post the original citation from them. Beanyandcecil (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Rondoggy wrote, "It is recommended that those considering the use of a shock collar should only purchase branded products that are manufactured by reputable companies that provide complete support." Excellent point (There's your cookie! lol) Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Which is what I am getting at; I do try to add things like this, and not "don't ever use a shock collar" type comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rondoggy (talk • contribs) 07:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears that a quotation from Lindsay has been purposefully modified to change the meaning that the author intended. His wording was changed from "many e−collars" to "Modern shock collars sold in the US . . . " making it appear as if ALL Ecollars sold in the US use such as system. This is not the case. I'll change the quotation and provide additional information. Beanyandcecil (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Christiansen Study

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

I've been saying for quite some time that the reason that the reason that some like to mention the "no load" voltages of Ecollars is because they're very high numbers and they tend to scare people. I've asked several times that the reference to "3000V, 0.4A, duration 1 second" be deleted and the request has been refused. I know that it's the figure that Christiansen claims, but he's either wrong or letting his bias show. In the interest of maintaining communication I'll wait for comments for a couple of days. Unless there is some logical reason not to, I plan to post this (the material in italics) to counter the "3000V, 0.4A" comment right after appears in the topic. Of course, if the reference is removed there will be no reason to post this. Lindsay, referring to claims of high levels of voltage, states, "When authors make statements about radio−controlled stimulators delivering shocks at a level of 3000 V, the reader may picture an event quite different than what actually occurs. . . . The open circuit voltage is expressed as the difference in charge, electrical potential, or electromotive force between the electrodes. Without knowing other variables, however, such as the total impedance of the electrode−skin circuit, the amperage of the current, and the duration of the electrical event, the open-circuit voltage of the collar is not very meaningful information with respect to estimating the intensity of the e−stimulus reaching a dog . . . Referencing the open−circuit voltage may lead to unjustified connotations of severity. Christiansen and colleagues (2001a). for example, have claimed that the e-collar they used to suppress predatory behavior delivered an astounding 3000-V shock at 0.4 A. The notion that electronic training collars generate a 3000-V shock at 400 mA is misleading and must be wrong, since doing so for a 1-second period, as reported, would generate an astounding 1200 J of electrical energy−enough energy to light twelve 100 watt (W) light bulbs for 1 second. The authors appear to confuse the electrical potential between electrodes of an open circuit with the voltage between electrodes establishing a closed circuit−only a closed circuit can produce a flow of current capable of producing electrical power. With the current density localized around the small−diameter steel electrodes, such level of shock as described by Christiansen and colleagues would likely seriously damage the skin. Finally, even though a particular e-collar may generate an open circuit electrical potential of 3000 V, the actual operational voltage driving the current through the electrode−skin circuit is far less According to Ohm's law, an e-collar set to produce a current of 12.8 mA through a 100−ohm load would require a voltage of 1.28 V. The same current flowing through a 1000−ohm load requires 12.8 V." Beanyandcecil (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup: Academic articles

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)

---

I am a little confused about the supportive material. It seems the most credible looking article (The PDF) dates back to 2004. In technology age that's like 100 years. How about those collars with vibration and tones etc. Can someone please clean things up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turkakbay (talk • contribs) 18:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

---

The "Harvard Research" part in "Physiological and psychological implications" is taken from here http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/05.30/01-fear.html This article has nothing to do with e-collars - the main idea is not the effect of e-shock on animals but brain changes that may underlie learning and memory. I remived the part about Harvard Research.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.200.0.89 (talk) 10:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

---

I've tried to clean up a few of the references, but more needs to be done.

When including academic articles, please read them before summarising them. Reading the abstract is not enough.Rondoggy (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The article by Dr. Klein is in the trade magazine "Official Veterinary Service and Food Control". This is an opinion piece based on technical characterisation of the operating parameters of a piece of equipment. In essence, it indicates that at low settings, some collars are not painful. This duplicates comments elsewhere. The article is not the output of an academic institution or published in a peer reviewed journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rondoggy (talk • contribs) 11:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

POV tag

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)

Cites to manufacturers

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)

There should also be limits on outside links to dog trainers. I have just removed links to three web pages which were all pointing to the same dog training school, or one of its operators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rondoggy (talk • contribs) 14:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Negative vs. Positive reinforcement

I just reverted a change by someone who was confused with respect to the four quadrants of operant conditioning. Positive reinforcement is when the addition of a stimulus makes the behavior more likely. Positive punishment is when the addition of a stimulus makes the behavior less likely. Negative reinforcement is when the removal of a stimulus makes the behavior more likely. Negative punishment is when the removal of a stimulus makes the behavior less likely.

The old shock collars were designed to keep dogs from chasing livestock. When the dog started to chase an animal, he'd receive a shock. This is positive punishment. Modern electronic collars are sometimes used in this mode, to teach a dog not to bark, not to dig in the garbage, etc. But when you're trying to train a dog to do something, rather than to not do something, positive punishment is of limited use.

The most common training technique using electronic collars is negative reinforcement. This is when the stimulus is applied until the dog responds. The dog learns that sitting, heeling, coming, or whatever, will make the stimulus end. The removal of the stimulus makes the behavior more likely - which is negative reinforcement.

--jdege (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments regarding operant conditioning. However, it is not true to say that negative reinforcement is the most common training technique using electronic collars. Most sales of collars are as a component of fencing systems. In this application positive punishment is the prominent effect, because the animal is shocked on entry to the boundary area. An audible warning is given, then a shock. The shock is not continuous, so it cannot fit into the paradigm of negative reinforcement that jdege describes. In fact, reinforcement and punishment are present in all learning situations, they merely alter the expression of alternative behaviors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rondoggy (talk • contribs) 13:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Every fencing system I've ever seen used marked the boundaries with flags, during the initial training period, and had receivers that gave off a tone as the dog approached the line. The intent, I think, is to teach the dog that by leaving the area when he hears the tone he will avoid the stim. And avoidance training is generally considered to be a form of negative reinforcement.

Personally, I'm not so sure. My sister used an electronic fencing system, and her dog developed a significant fear of those little flags. (Which are exactly like the ones that underground utilities use to mark their facilities when someone calls in a dig.) Whatever the intent, her dog responded as if it were positive punishment.

That's exactly why I'm cautiously in favor of electronic training collars, given proper training, and very much opposed to electronic fences. You have to watch the dog, and adjust your training (including, but not limited to, the use of the collar) to the dog's responses. That takes education, and care. It's not all that complicated, but it's easy to screw up.

Setting up a system to shock the dog based on some programmed criteria, when you aren't even there? It's hard enough to figure out what associations a dog might make to any given stimulus when you are watching. Submitting a dog to aversive stimuli when you aren't watching just strikes me as a really bad idea.

jdege (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Funnily enough, your reasoning is why I am not in favour of shock collars for training, but am less concerned with electric fences. Human beings are very poor at timing punishment, and applying training. The evidence is that this is the main source of stress related to collar use. A fixed electric fence which delivers a shock when touched is probably the least stressful; the animal can see, and hear, the wire that is going to deliver the aversive stimulus. With a collar and buried perimeter wire, the connection is less clear, and the use of flags and other visual cues may not help because they may not be adequately salient to the animal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rondoggy (talk • contribs) 10:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Legality

I have heard from several sources that this device is illegal to be imported into at least the EU, can anyone confirm this and possibly add this to the article? Arienh4^(Talk) 17:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I edited this shock collar entry to remove the section saying shock collars are illegal to import into Australia. This was true until 2008. The law has been repealed as evidence to customs suggests shock collars are not harmful to dogs, and are readily available in most areas of Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.155.250 (talk) 04:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

They are legal everywhere in the UK until midnight (GMT) tonight. As of then, they become unlawful in Wales following a vote by the Welsh Assembly. See this BBC News page. Loganberry (Talk) 21:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I have done some editing in the "Legal status" secton. "On the Article page, under the heading "Legal Status" it says "The use of shock collars is banned in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Slovenia, and Germany,[28] …" The link in the footnote, does not support the claim made. It is a page on The Kennel Club's website that is headed, "Electric Shock Collars." Under the heading "Legislation" it discusses the state of these laws in each of the parts of the UK, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Of the four, ONLY WALES has passed legislation banning shock collars. The other headings say things like, "… not prohibited in England" or "… are currently legal in Scotland." Or "… no legal restrictions." There is nothing in that link to support the claim that shock collars have been banned in any other countries/areas.

I've modified the statement to accurately reflect the facts supported by the link. The unsubstantiated material regarding Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Slovenia, and Germany has been deleted.

The rest of that paragraph says, "… and in some territories of Australia, including New South Wales and South Australia.[29]"

That link takes us to a chart on the "RSPCA knowledgebase" website. It shows that of the eight territories in Australia, half of them have banned shock collars. Technically the information for the Northern Territories says that they are legal there. But a note in the chart says that shock collars that use a "remote control device" to activate them are banned, so I've noted that in the final count.

I've also moved mention made that the ban in Wales was unsuccessfully challenged and of a case in Wales where a man was fined for having a shock collar on his dog, since both of them belonged under a discussion of the heading "Legal cases involving shock collars" rather than under the heading "Legal status."

The 2018 "announcement" that further shock collar legislation would be forthcoming in England has not occurred in three years. It has no place in "Legal status." I've deleted it. If and when it actually occurs, it can be noted. Until then, it's just propaganda. Beanyandcecil (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC) Beanyandcecil (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Versna I have reverted a couple of your edits for the following reasons. Wiki policy requires that statements of fact be supported by primary sources rather than secondary. In this case a primary source would be the statue from the Code under discussion. In short, a citation of the law from a government website. An example of a secondary source is a news story, as you've shown us a couple of times.

Instead of citing an entire code as you've done in at least one instance, could you please just cite the specific section and the name of the code that bans shock collars, or guide us to the appropriate section with a page or statute number. Per Wiki guidelines, the page number should be included in a citation where applicable. In multi-thousand word documents, such as you've posted, it's certainly "applicable."

Some of the sources cited are from 2018 and 2019 and predict that a law banning shock collars will go into effect "next year" (2019 and 2020). We have no way of knowing if the law took effect, if it's been modified, or if it's been repealed. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Beanyandcecil, That is backwards. WP:SECONDARY secondary sources are preferred to primary sources. MrOllie (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, Wiki defines "Primary sources" in a limited way. "… an artifact, document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study. It serves as an original source of information about the topic. Similar definitions can be used in library science, and other areas of scholarship, although different fields have somewhat different definitions …"

Wiki says, "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources." Here, there is no need for such thinking, "based on primary sources." News reports often contain errors, particularly when they originate from biased news sources. The question is simple. "Does a given law exist or not?" The final answer to that question comes from law books, not news sources.

Here, I'm using the phrase "Primary Source" to indicate the BEST and MOST RELIABLE source of information as to whether a law exists or not. That source is NOT news accounts, or newsletters, or the like. Rather it is a citation of the law from the law book.

Wiki goes on, "Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, which cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources." The news stories that Versna has cited, do not "build up [the] primary sources," instead they merely report that it has (or will) occur. The problem is that news sources are often wrong. At one point they reported that "England" was going to ban shock collars, but that did not happen, except in Wales. Yet, that news story was used here to show that "England" had banned them when, in fact, that had never happened.

it appears that a more accurate and less confusing phrase would have been "Original source," given that Wiki uses an unusual definition for "primary source." Beanyandcecil (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Beanyandcecil, Again, this is backwards. The laws themselves are clearly primary sources. Since we do not expect our readers to be lawyers and to interpret laws to verify our content, secondary sources are preferred. You should never, ever revert content just because it is cited to secondary sources. MrOllie (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, I'll disagree that "the laws themselves" are "primary sources" as Wiki defines the terms. Laws do not require "an author's own thinking" to report if they exist or not. IN FACT, several of the news sources were in error.

It does not require a law degree to interpret, "Devices that pass an electrical current through a dog's body, are not permitted." And that's the basic language of most these laws.

I reverted those edits because they did not present an accurate picture of which countries ban shock collars and which do not. So called "facts" reported in them, for example, predicting (to the effect) that "England would soon ban shock collars" were false.

I suggest a read of the section here "Quebec, Canada Law on Ecollars." A statement appeared in the article that Quebec had banned shock collars, when they had not. After the law was passed governing animal welfare, a guide to the law was distributed. It contained the statement (to the effect) "shock collars are banned." That was in complete error. It's a case of what I'm saying is going on at this moment, in this article. A secondary source is incorrect. The only true and correct source of information is the original source, the law as it appears in the law book. Beanyandcecil (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Beanyandcecil, I have raised this at WP:RSN#Primary_vs_Secondary_sources for further input. MrOllie (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Versna, I have reverted your removal of this passage, "None of the other 192 countries (universally recognized by the United Nations) have banned the use of the shock collar," in order to show how wide is the regulation of shock collars. Wiki requires fairness and balance when there are such differences, and this statement provides it. If we're going to show how many countries ban shock collars, we should also show how many countries do not regulate them. Beanyandcecil (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Beanyandcecil, It is unsourced and you should not have restored it. MrOllie (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, Would you be happier with something like, "There is no evidence to support that any of the other 192 countries, (universally recognized by the United Nations) have banned the use of the shock collar." I'm willing to compromise. Beanyandcecil (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Beanyandcecil, Do you have a reliable source that says that? I'll be happy following whatever a reliable source states. MrOllie (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:RS are assumed to at least be able to check their facts as we are. Can anyone produceany sources that contradict the claim they have been banned, not claims there are, actual sources?Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Miscellaneous edits

This page must stick to the subject. It is good to have more references to papers and studies, but not lists of applications. There is a link to "training" in this article, and so there is no need to list things that collars can be used to train. Please make constructive additions or leave the page aloneRondoggy (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This makes sense. Can you direct me to the link to "training" in the article please? I can't find it. Beanyandcecil (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

16th word on line one! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.239.203 (talk) 09:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Please can we see an end to euphemism in this article. The title is "Shock collar", and that name should be used throughout the article. It is no appropriate to switch from the title term to "electronic collar" and other euphemisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.239.203 (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The term is "electronic training collar". "Shock collar" is used by no one in the industry. It's a term of art invented for polemic effect.

jdege (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The term is NOT electronic collar. "electronic collar" could refer to any kind of collar that includes an electronic element (flashing lights, a siren, anything). It is therefore too imprecise. The page is about collars that deliver an electric shock in order to modify behaviour. "Shock" is not a pejorative term; it describes a specific type of electrical event. I am not interested in "the industry"; this is not a promotional page, it is supposed to be informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rondoggy (talk • contribs) 09:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The suggestion was NOT to change the term to "electronic collar." It was to change it to "electronic training collar." That term is NOT "imprecise" and could not apply to "flashing lights or a siren." I propose that the name of this article be changed from "Shock Collar" to "Electronic Training Collar." I further propose that outside of quotations, where the original language should be retained, that in the text, the term "shock collar" be changed to either "Ecollar, e-collar" or "remote training collar." I further propose that the term shock (again, outside of quotations where the original term should be retained) be changed to either "stim" (short for stimulation) or "ES" (electrical stimulation). The term shock is not only emotion laden and misleading as to what modern versions of Ecollars do, but it is not descriptive of many devices that are discussed. Collars that emit Citronella, air, water or other materials are used for many of the same things and in many of the same ways as collars that emit electronic stimulation are, yet they do not emit electric shock. But they are discussed in this article. The term "stim" would encompass use of these devices. The term ES would not. Much the same can be said for collars that emit only vibration or for those that emit only tones or tones that are inaudible to humans. The term "stim" would encompass these devices as well. One version of an electronic training collar has a microphone so that the dog can be given commands when out of "earshot" of the handler. What all those devices DO have in common is that they are powered by electricity, making the proposed title completely inclusive. Such a change will also support the Wikipedia policy of neutrality. The term "shock" does not. Lindsay says, "First, at low levels, the term shock is hardly fitting to describe the effect produced by electronic training collars, since there is virtually no effect beyond a pulsing tingling or tickling sensation on the surface of the skin. Second, the word shock is loaded with biased connotations, images of convulsions spasms and burns, and implications associated with extreme physical pain, emotional trauma, physiological collapse, and laboratory abuses. Third, the e−stimulus or signal generated by most modern devices is highly controlled and present to produce a specific set of behavior and motivational responses to it. In general. The terms e−stimulus, e−signal, and ES have been decided on FOR THE SAKE OF NEUTRALITY and because they more accurately describe the low to medium electrical events produced by radio−controlled and behavior activated e−collars." [Emphases added to the Lindsay quotation] Comments? Beanyandcecil (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to make generally constructive contributions, although I admit that my general view is that collars need to be used with great care, according to evidence and not for general training. I can see that beanyandcecil is generally not happy about the changes, but I think it is important that the details of research, and statements from organisations and prominent individuals are included If beanyandcecil has a beef with HSUS, then I suggest that the page about them is modified, rather than this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rondoggy (talk • contribs) 19:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments about Lindsay

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)

Criticism section

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)

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)

I tried to repair a broken link in the AVSAB comments but I was unable to do so. Could someone please fix it. It says "Error: no |title= specified when using". I inserted a title but it didn't work. Beanyandcecil (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

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

The comments from Karen Overall in the Criticism Sections should be removed. Per Wiki guidelines she is a "Self−Published Source." Wiki States, "Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications . . ." The statement from Ms. Overall is an opinion piece published in a journal that she is Editor−in−Chief of. It is not peer reviewed and her expertise is not in the use of Ecollars or in dog training. She is a Vet and a behaviorist. In the US the latter title is not the same as it is in the UK. Beanyandcecil (talk) 04:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

The anonymous ebay review of a 3 collar purchase needs to go. It cheapens the article and makes the editors look like idiots. I appreciate why someone wanted to include it, but it has no place in a serious encyclopedia article.

Several years ago I wrote that "the comments from Karen Overall should be removed." As I said then, "Per Wiki guidelines she is a "Self−Published Source." Wiki States, "Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications . . ." The statement from Ms. Overall is an opinion piece published in a journal that she is Editor−in−Chief of. It is not peer reviewed and her expertise is not in the use of Ecollars or in dog training. She is a Vet and a behaviorist. In the US the latter title is not the same as it is in the UK. Beanyandcecil (talk)" Since there has been no objection to my reasons for removing this information, I'm now removing it for the reasons stated therein. — Preceding undated comment added 22:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Important bit: locking article down?

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)

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)

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)

I made a modification to the Christiansen paper in good faith (In fact, I just copied the text from the paper out of laziness!), in response to an earlier request for the correct citation. But the contents have been moved to the criticism section and now appear out of context. The comment beginning " In order to ensure no negative effects, we recommend ..." was made by Christiansen in the paper. If anything, moving the two quotes has emphasised the statement by the Norwegian council, which is unfortunate. Can we come to a better solution? Also, in the spirit of cooperating on this article, as suggested by Anna, could we try discussing changes here first?Harrumpher (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I removed the added comment about harm done. I understand the need to point this out, but the way this is worded is too "absolute"; it is very hard to prove a negative, and there really is not enough evidence to make a comment of this kind at the moment. I would prefer not to get into directly editing the pages like this before discussing changes, is there any chance we can work on changes here, before implementing them? That was what you were asking for. Harrumpher (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

203 you said in an edit comment that you were going to move the information from Klein. But then I was unable to find it anywhere in the text. Did you forget and merely do a delete instead? Beanyandcecil (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

Placing it there is a good compromise. Beanyandcecil (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Praise Section

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)

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)

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)

I removed the section from NICE, in like with previous comments by beanyandcecil: "Per Wiki guidelines she is a "Self−Published Source." Wiki States, "Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". there is no information on that site to say who NICE is, or what basis it has for its opinions.

Polsky Study

The Polsky study should be deleted. It was not conducted with any method approved by scientists. Rather, court depositions and transcripts in personal injury lawsuits were reviewed. This information was not gathered scientifically, instead lawyers asked questions of witnesses without any scientific basis or guide. There is not even any way to prove, except by assumption, that the dogs were ever truly shocked by the collars they were wearing. There is ample evidence to support other reasons for their aggression. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand your points, but this is a peer reviewed article from a journal, so it does carry some weight. I don't think it should be removed.Harrumpher (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It is no less valid than the Radio Systems white paper that is cited extensively elsewhere Vectronn (talk)

The White Paper is not masquerading as a scientific study, as is the case with the Polsky Study. The White Paper is under the heading "Praise." The Polsky Study is under the heading "Scientific Studies." The only thing "scientific" about it is that the information was collated using approved scientific methods. There was no "study" done. It was merely a review of questions asked by lawyers who were gathering opinions of dog owners for lawsuits. Such statements are likely to be highly inflammatory to influence the outcome of the lawsuits. Beanyandcecil (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Shock collar

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Quebec, Canada Law on Ecollars

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)

Blacklisted Links Found on Shock collar

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Shock collar

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Shock collar

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Using Foreign Language Sources

Wiki User IP 89.236.52.237 has undone a couple of my edits, stating that they were done "Just because it was in Swedish." Actually, some were in Swedish and some in German. Other foreign language sources may have been used as well. Here are a few comments from the Wikipedia Project Page on "Attribution," stating the Wikipedia policy requirements for citing foreign language sources.

• The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source ...
• Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers '''English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources''', provided they are otherwise of equal suitability, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly.
• Citations to non-English sources are allowed on English Wikipedia. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. As with sources in English, '''if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided''', either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page.

If user 89.236.52.237 wants to use such statements in the article, I suggest that he either go to the Swedish or German version of Wikipedia and post them there. Or, that he abide by the Wiki policy requirements. I doubt that the statements are as he's made them. They sound more like paraphrases or interpretations of statements made, some of them, perhaps, in official documents. And so, if 89.236.52.237, insists on using them, I'm requesting that he does as Wikipedia policy requires and provide "a quotation of relevant portions of the original source ..., either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page." Few English speaking Wiki users will have the knowledge or skills to translate the source provided .

I'm going to undo those edits until this is done. Beanyandcecil (talk) 09:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Beanyandcecil (talk) has a long history of removing content from the shock collar page that does not suit his/hers opinions. Removing only the foreign sources that criticise the use of shock collars is clearly not done in good faith. As to the three points made above by Beanyandcecil (talk):

1. Yes, all material posted was attributable to a reliable source.

2. The quotation signs are misplaced to exclude "provided they are otherwise of equal suitability" which is the most important part regarding this case. If you have English sources of equal suitability, please provide them.

3. As a dispute seems to have arisen regarding a citation to a non-English source, so if you are unsure of any citations please request a quotation and I will provide a quotation of the relevant portion of the original source.

The fact that Beanyandcecil (talk) doubts the European laws regarding animal abuse does not justify him/her to blatantly remove content. If Beanyandcecil (talk) wants a constructive discussion regarding sources in the article he/she should specify what sources he doubts before vandalising others work. 89.236.52.237 (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Let me start by repeating that I dispute all of Wiki user 89.236.52.237's additions to this topic. All of his source information is provided in foreign languages. In compliance with Wiki Policy, I hereby request that he supply English translations for those sources. The link to one of his sources is dead so I have deleted that material until he can repair the link. But I dispute that information as well and if his repaired link is in a foreign language, I ask him to provide an English translation for it.

Wiki user 89.236.52.237 wrote here "Removing only the foreign sources that criticise the use of shock collars is clearly not done in good faith." Accusing another editor of acting in bad faith, is a clear violation of a fundamental principle on Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines. I have tried to reach consensus, as required by Wiki Policy by asking him to post English translations of his source material in the past, but he has refused to do so.

Wiki user 89.236.52.237's statements may be attributed to reliable sources, but posting those sources in foreign languages, and then refusing to provide English translations when requested, makes this impossible to determine. Therefore it's proper and appropriate to remove them, until such translations in English are supplied. This is the English language version of Wikipedia and the reason to place sources in English is so that users and editors can verify that the statements have been cited accurately. It's also so that researchers can access the sources cited for themselves, if they want more information. Wiki user 89.236.52.237 has made this all but impossible by citing foreign language sources and not providing a translation. I made it clear that I questioned ALL of his claims and he has chosen not to provide the requested translations, as Wiki Policy demands.

Wiki user 89.236.52.237 wrote, here "If you have English sources of equal suitability, please provide them." Conveniently he ignores the fact that the burden of providing such a translation rests with the editor placing the questioned material on the site, not other editors. This is an absurd line of thinking, that someone else should provide support for an editor's statements. If an editor claims something exists, it's his burden to prove it.

I have already requested, and now do so again, that you provide translations for ALL of your statements that are supported by foreign sources. For specifics, read on.

Wiki user 89.236.52.237 wrote here, "Note that shock collars are forbidden and/or regulated in most European countries." The first link he gives to support this claim is the German language Wiki page on shock collars. That statement on that version of the site does not appear to be supported by any source! The second link he gives to support this statement is the aforementioned law suit from Germany, NOT a primary source that clearly gives us the law. As mentioned above, it's completely inappropriate to cite a secondary source if, in fact, a primary source exists, as it would if the statement was true. The next source he cites appears to be another link to the same lawsuit, suffering identical weaknesses as the first citation. The next source he cites, appears to be yet ANOTHER link to the same lawsuit! The next source he cites is to a Legal News Gazette, YET ANOTHER secondary source. The next link he supplies to support this statement does appear to be a primary source. The problem is that it's nearly 500 pages long and contains about 41,000 words. The proper and appropriate citation for even a high school paper would be to cite the page number and/or section of the law under consideration. Citing a huge document in this fashion is often times done to conceal, rather than to reveal information, as should a citation in Wikipedia. No one should have to read through 500 pages to verify a citation. The final citation is to another secondary source. This one appears to be some kind of magazine published by an anti shock collar group.

Note that NONE of these citations is in English. Anyone wishing to verify the sources to see if the quotation is accurate has the choice of either learning the language of the source with great fluency, or use one of the translation sites on the Net. NONE of those sites are sufficient to translate the complexity of legal language that would be necessary to support a claim made by Wiki user 89.236.52.237 in his initial statement that certain laws are in place. Note that no other citations in this section, are in foreign language. Note that those other citations give page numbers so that anyone who is looking to verify the sources, can easily do so.

Wiki user 89.236.52.237 mentions several European countries specifically, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and Sweden as having "forbidden and/or regulated" shock collars. He omits mention of Wales, but that's already been mentioned in other references. Per Wikipedia, there are, "~50 countries (and ~5 with limited recognition), " 46 more than the four that Wiki user 89.236.52.237 mentions. And nowhere near the "most European countries" that he claims forbid and/or regulate shock collars. Even if his claims are correct about the various European countries he mentions, the statement is simply false.

However, to be absolutely precise, Shock collars are basically a combination of a radio transmitter and a radio receiver. Since they use the public airwaves, and virtually every modern country regulates the airwaves to some extent, in a very general way his statement is true. But to claim that this is the meaning of his statement is disingenuous at best. It's simply not accurate, as it pertains to this discussion. Those countries aren't regulating shock collars as they're used on dogs, they're regulating them since they use the public airwaves. That regulation has to do with the frequencies that can be used and the radio power output of the units (nothing to do with the current applied to any animals). It has nothing to do with the welfare of the animals, alleged cruelty, potential for injury/damage to dogs, or anything of that ilk. To call this "regulation" in the context of this discussion is to beg the question and results in the misleading of Wiki users.

Wiki user 89.236.52.237 states, "In Germany the use of shock collars is in violation of the animal protection act and can result in a fine up to €25,000." He then supports that statement by citing a secondary source, a lawsuit rather than simply citing the primary source, the law as stated in German law books and/or government code. No reasonable debate can be supported by such a tactic. For example, in California it's a violation of the law to break into a home with the intent to commit a theft. That crime is "burglary." The appropriate source to support that statement would be to cite the pertinent parts California Penal Code as here, "§459 − Every person who enters any house, room, apartment ..., with intent to commit ... larceny ... is guilty of burglary." It would be INAPPROPRIATE to cite a lawsuit claiming that a person suffered injuries during the commission of a burglary and was suing the homeowner. This is analogous to what Wiki user 89.236.52.237 does here. And apparently, he expects that other editors will find this acceptable. I do not, and neither should anyone else. If it is a violation of the law in Germany, it would be a simple matter to simply post the law, and a translation of it, to support such a statement. Instead, Wiki user 89.236.52.237 posts links to a secondary source, a lawsuit, in a foreign language, making it virtually impossible to either verify or to research the veracity of the statements.

For those who need more support for the use of primary, rather than secondary sources, refer to my discussion regarding the claim of the banning of shock collars in "Quebec, Canada Law on Ecollars", a few headings above. Basically, the claim was made that shock collars had been banned in Quebec and a secondary source was cited by a Wiki editor to support that statement. The secondary source was wrong. Then, as now, citing the appropriate section of the law from the Canadian law books, would be the appropriate argument to make.

Wiki user 89.236.52.237 writes "In Germany, as well as in other countries, shock collars are classified as weapons." A claim that is difficult to comprehend, even given the vagaries of different languages, and various translations, the tool is hardly a "weapon" by any common definition of the term. In any case, the link that he supplies in support of this specious claim, is dead. http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/waffg_2002/anlage_1_82.html. Therefore the claim is completely unsupported.

I will give Wiki user 89.236.52.237 several days to supply English translations to support his claims that are now supported by foreign language references. If he does not comply with Wiki policy requirements on this, I will delete his edits. Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Beanyandcecil wrote: "Let me start by repeating that I dispute all of Wiki user 89.236.52.237's additions to this topic. All of his source information is provided in foreign languages."

Again, this is not how Wikipedia works. You do not dispute or remove valid contributions just because you only understand one language. However, "As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page."

Beanyandcecil has multiple times misquoted the Wikipedia policy that "English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, provided they are otherwise of equal suitability" to only focus on the "English-language sources should be used" part. Since he used this as an excuse to delete all of my contributions to the page including the foreign sources I clarified the "provided they are otherwise of equal suitability" part in the discussion above.

If Beanyandcecil thinks English-language sources are in place of the foreign ones, he must believe there are "English-language sources (...) of equal suitability". That is why I asked him to provide these sources after he deleted the foreign ones. He is now trying to make it seem like I am shifting the burden of providing sources to him which is simply not true. I have provided sources, if Beanyandcecil has English-language sources of equal suitability, he should provide them.

Beanyandcecil also called labelling shock collars as a weapon "A claim that is difficult to comprehend, even given the vagaries of different languages, and various translations the tool is hardly a "weapon" by any common definition of the term." I do not find this difficult to comprehend, especially not in English given a common (Wikipedias) definition of the term: "A weapon, arm, or armament is any device used with intent to inflict damage or harm to living beings, structures, or systems." If Beanyandcecil still has his doubts, I have also added a Germany's weapon legislation in a source which specifically states that such devices are regarded as weapons in Germany, so that Beanyandcecil does not have to worry about his own definitions as Germany was the country in question in this case.

I am not aware of any Wiki policy stating that I must provide full text translations of all foreign language sources, if so please quote that policy and I will adhere to it in the future. It would be unreasonably time consuming, especially since many of the sources are lengthy legal documents. However, if Beanyandcecil or anyone else is interested in translations of shorter passages I would be happy to provide them.

Lastly I agree with Beanyandcecil that 5 countries is not enough to justify a claim that most European countries have such legislation. As I do not have the time to verify 50 different countries legislations at this time I would suggest that the phrasing is changed to several instead of most.

89.236.52.237 (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Wiki user 89.236.52.237 continues to misstate my position and Wiki's policies on his submissions. He shows bad faith by his continual personal attacks in my attempts to improve this entry.

His contention that I "only understand one language" is presumptive and makes an assumption that he has absolutely no knowledge about.

As Wiki policy states, "... if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portion of the original source be provided ..." It is obvious that "a dispute has arise[n] and I have requested appropriate translations. He seems to think that the burden to provide those translations is mine. Of course, it is not. Such a burden is his, since he's making the claim that they support his statements. I do not think, as he states, that he is trying to shift the burden of "providing sources" to me. It is clear though, that he thinks that I am required to provide the translations. This is, of course, absurd. He's making the claims, the burden to source them, and to provide translations, if they are in foreign languages, is his.

I have never stated that I think that "there are 'English-language sources ... of equal suitability." In fact, I do not think that there are. That is why I have asked him to provide such translations.

I have done Google translations of Wiki user 89.236.52.237's sources wherein he claims that shock collars are "classified as weapons" It does not appear that either of his sources makes such a statement. His definition of a shock collar as a weapon, is tenuous at best. If he could prove that tens of thousands of dog trainers intend to "inflict damage or harm to living beings ..." through the use of a shock collar, he might have a point. But in reality there is nothing but his opinion to support such a claim and his assessment just displays his ignorance of how such tools are used. He imputes ghastly motives and malice to all users of a shock collar, an obviously questionable and politically driven agenda. Rather than "inflict damage or harm" to their dogs, dog trainers who use shock collars, just as dog trainers who use other methods, want to train their dogs. I’m sure that no shock collar user would agree with his opinion.

NOWHERE in "Germany's weapon legislation" is there a statement that a shock collar is regarded as "a weapon." The devices are not mentioned at all. Instead of simply giving us the section of German law where such a statement is specifically made Wiki user 89.236.52.237 refers us to two web pages. One appears to be a document from someone purporting to be a lawyer that seems to contain his opinions, not legislation. We have no idea who this man is, his qualifications, nor his standing. This document is eight pages long. NOWHERE is the topic of "shock collar as a weapon" specifically addressed. The second reference appears to be German legal statutes but I could find no mention of "shock collars." It is about 20 pages long, making it extremely difficult for an editor or user to find the specific section that Wiki user 89.236.52.237 refers to. It appears that rather than specifically naming the shock collar as a weapon on either site, this is merely Wiki user 89.236.52.237's interpretation.

Wiki user 89.236.52.237 is correct that Wiki does not require that he "must provide full text translations of all foreign language sources," and I have not asked for this. IN FACT, I have asked that instead of providing complete sections of law that he provide ONLY the pertinent sections of those laws. Translations of these pertinent sections would not be "unreasonably time consuming" (his words) since they would not be "lengthy legal documents," but merely a few paragraphs from those legal documents. Wiki user 89.236.52.237's complaint that his translations would be "lengthy" is due to his own decision to use such "lengthy" sources (making it very difficult, if not impossible, for an editor or user to check those sources). If he would shorten them to ONLY the pertinent statements, his task load would be minimal, and the job of an editor or user to look at those sources would be far easier.

Wiki policy on verifiability clearly states, "When quoting a non-English source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should always accompany the quote. " Wiki user 89.236.52.237 has repeatedly failed to provide such translations.

There is obviously a dispute over the veracity of Wiki user 89.236.52.237's claims. Per Wikipedia Policy, "Citing non-English sources - ... if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page" Wiki user 89.236.52.237 has failed to provide to supply such "relevant portions of the original source," instead, supplying ONLY links to vast sources, making it impossible to see what portion of the source he's referring to.

References in articles on Wiki are provided so that editors and readers can easily go to those sources and verify statements made in the articles. But Wiki user 89.236.52.237 has made this all-but-impossible by providing links to "lengthy legal documents" that are in foreign languages. Editors and users who do not speak the languages he provides the links to, are required to do these translations for themselves, completely defeating the user-friendly purpose of Wikipedia.

Wiki user 89.236.52.237 uses many secondary sources. Such sources may not accurately state the law in the respective countries and the heading of this section is "Public Control." Again, for an example of how this can lead editors and users down the wrong road, refer to my discussion regarding the claim of the banning of shock collars in "Quebec, Canada Law on Ecollars", a few headings above. The ONLY appropriate source here is the law for the given countries stating that shock collars are banned, not some secondary source, not some handbook provided by a third party, and not some random lawyer's (if, in fact, he is a lawyer) opinion that they are. IF shock collars are banned there is legislation that says so, and it will be codified in the law. It should be a simple matter to post that legislation and a translation of it.

Wiki user 89.236.52.237 has been given ample opportunity to provide primary (not secondary) sources for his claims, to provide "relevant portions" of his sources, and to provide translations for pertinent statements he's made, yet he has chosen not to do so. Many of his sources DO NOT INCLUDE the statements that he says they contain.

I'll give Wiki user 89.236.52.237 some time to provide the correct information, "relevant portions" and translations. But if he does not, I'll delete the material under discussion. Beanyandcecil (talk) 00:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Page title ( Which term? )

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)

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)

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)

Bias and use of word "pain"

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)