text:
Dog training

Dog training is a kind of animal training, the application of behavior analysis which uses the environmental events of antecedents (trigger for a behavior) and consequences to modify the dog behavior, either for it to assist in specific activities or undertake particular tasks, or for it to participate effectively in contemporary domestic life. While training dogs for specific roles dates back to Roman times at least, the training of dogs to be compatible household pets developed with suburbanization in the 1950s.

A dog learns from interactions it has with its environment. This can be through classical conditioning, where it forms an association between two stimuli; non-associative learning, where its behavior is modified through habituation or sensitisation; and operant conditioning, where it forms an association between an antecedent and its consequence.

Most working dogs are now trained using reward-based methods, sometimes referred to as positive reinforcement training. Other reward-based training methods include clicker training, model-rival training, and relationship-based training.

Training methods that emphasize punishment include the Koehler method, electronic (shock collar) training, dominance-based training, and balanced training. The use of punishment is controversial with both the humaneness and effectiveness questioned by many behaviorists. Furthermore, numerous scientific studies have found that reward-based training is more effective and less harmful to the dog-owner relationship than punishment-based methods.

Definition
Dog training is the act of teaching a dog particular skills or behaviors. Dog training includes teaching a dog to react to particular commands and cues as well as to act independently by deliberately changing their natural behavior.

Dogs have been trained to perform a large number of practical functions including search and rescue, herding livestock, guarding, explosive or drug detection, and disability assistance. Dogs have also been trained to perform recreational functions, including companionship and shooting assistance.

Dog training usually involves the basic obedience training to establish control over the animal and can then progress to more advanced specialist training. Basic obedience training includes teaching a dog:
 * Recall – teaching the dog to come on command
 * Sit – teaching the dog to sit on command
 * Heeling – teaching the dog to walk on or off lead with the handler
 * Stay – teaching the dog not to stray on command
 * Socialising – neutrality or excitement when appropriate during a reaction with the outside world

History
Although research into how dogs learn and into cross-species communication has changed the approach to dog training in recent decades, understanding the role of early trainers and scientists contributes to an appreciation of how particular methods and techniques developed.

Before 1900
In around 127-116 B.C., a Roman farmer, Marcus Varro, recorded advice on raising and training puppies for herding livestock. His writings indicate that not only was dog training for specific tasks well established, but that the value of early training was recognized.

In 1848, W. N. Hutchinson published his book Dog Breaking: The Most Expeditious, Certain and Easy Method, Whether Great Excellence or Only Mediocrity Be Required, With Odds and Ends for Those Who Love the Dog and the Gun. Primarily concerned with training hunting dogs such as pointers and setters, the book advocates a form of reward-based training, commenting on men who have "a strong arm and a hard heart to punish, but no temper and no head to instruct" and suggesting "Be to his virtues ever kind. Be to his faults a little blind." Stephen Hammond, a writer for Forest and Stream magazine, advocated in his 1882 book Practical Training that hunting dogs be praised and rewarded with meat for doing the correct behavior.

War years
Konrad Most began training dogs for police work in Germany, and was appointed principal of the State Breeding and Training Establishment for police dogs in Berlin, where he carried out original research into training dogs for a broad range of service tasks. At the outbreak of war in 1914 he was charged with organising and directing the use of dogs to further the war effort. He headed the Experimental Institute for Armed Forces' Dogs during the Second World War, and afterwards ran the German Dog Farm, a centre for the training of working dogs, including assistance dogs for the blind. He played a leading role in the formation of the German Canine Research Society and Society for Animal Psychology. His 1910 publication, Training Dogs: A Manual, emphasized using instinctive behavior such as the prey drive to train desired behaviors, advocated the use of compulsion and inducements, differentiated between primary and secondary reinforcers, and described shaping behaviors, chaining components of an activity, and the importance of timing rewards and punishments. The book demonstrated an understanding of the principles of operant conditioning almost thirty years before they were formally outlined by B.F. Skinner in The Behavior of Organisms. While publishers of the 2001 reprint warn that some of the "compulsive inducements" such as the switch, the spiked collar and the forced compliance are unnecessarily harsh for today's pet dogs, the basic principles of Most's methods are still used in police and military settings.

Marian Breland Bailey played a major role in developing empirically validated and humane animal training methods and in promoting their widespread implementation. Marian was a graduate student under B.F. Skinner. Her first husband Keller Breland also came to study with Skinner and they collaborated with him, training pigeons to guide bombs. The Brelands saw the commercial possibilities of operant training, founding Animal Behavior Enterprises (ABE). In 1955, they opened the "I.Q. Zoo" as both a training facility and a showcase of trained animals. They were among the first to use trained animals in television commercials, and the first to train dolphins and whales as entertainment, as well as for the navy. Keller died in 1965, and in 1976 Marian married Bob Bailey, who had been director of marine mammal training for the navy. They pioneered the use of the clicker as a conditioned reinforcer for training animals at a distance. ABE went on to train thousands of animals of more than 140 species. Their work had significant public exposure through press coverage of ABE-trained animals, bringing the principles of behavior analysis and operant conditioning to a wide audience.

Konrad Lorenz, an Austrian scientist who is regarded as developing the foundations of ethological research, further popularized animal behaviorism with his books, Man Meets Dog and King Solomon's Ring. Lorenz stated that there were three essential commands to teach a dog: "lie down" (stay where you are), "basket" (go over there) and "heel" (come with me).

In 1935, the American Kennel Club began obedience trials, and in the following years popular magazines raised public awareness of the benefits of having a trained pet dog, and of the recreational possibilities of dog training as a hobby. After WWII, the increasing complexities of suburban living demanded that for a pet dog's own protection and its owner's convenience, the dog should be obedient. William Koehler had served as principal trainer at the War Dog Training Center, in California, and after the war became chief trainer for the Orange Empire Dog Club—at the time, the largest dog club in the United States—instructor for a number of breed clubs, and a dog trainer for the Walt Disney Studios.

In 1962, Koehler published The Koehler Method of Dog Training, in which he is highly critical of what he calls "tid-bit training techniques" based in "the prattle of 'dog psychologists'". Amongst the training innovations attributed to Koehler is the use of a long line in conjunction with a complete absence of oral communication as a way of instilling attentiveness prior to any leash training. Koehler insisted that participants in his training classes used "emphatic corrections", including leash jerks and throw chains, explaining that tentative, nagging corrections were cruel in that they caused emotional disturbance to the dog. Vicki Hearne, a disciple of Koehler's, commented on the widespread criticism of his corrections, with the explanation that it was the emotionally loaded language used in the book that led to a number of court cases, and to the book being banned in Arizona for a time. Despite the controversy, his basic method forms the core of many contemporary training systems.

Post WWII
In the 1950s, Blanche Saunders was a staunch advocate of pet-dog training, travelling throughout the U.S. to promote obedience classes. In The Complete Book of Dog Obedience, she said, "Dogs learn by associating their act with a pleasing or displeasing result. They must be disciplined when they do wrong, but they must also be rewarded when they do right." Negative reinforcement procedures played a key part in Saunders' method, primarily the jerking of the choke chain. The mantra taught to students was "Command! Jerk! Praise!" She felt that food should not be an ongoing reward, but that it was acceptable to use "a tidbit now and then to overcome a problem". Saunders perhaps began the shift away from military and police training methods, stressing repeatedly the importance of reinforcement for good behavior in training—a move toward the positive training methods used today.

In 1965, John Paul Scott and John Fuller identified the critical periods for learning and social development in puppies, and published Genetics and the Social Behavior of the Dog, a landmark study of dog behavior.

The 1980 television series Training Dogs the Woodhouse Way made Barbara Woodhouse a household name in the UK, and the first international celebrity dog trainer. Known for her "no bad dogs" philosophy, Woodhouse was highly critical of "bad owners", particularly those she saw as "overly sentimental". She described the "psychoanalyzing of dogs" as "a lot of rubbish". Her no-nonsense style made her a pop-culture icon, with her emphatic "sit" and catch cry of "walkies" becoming part of the popular vernacular.

The monks of New Skete, who were breeders and trainers of German Shepherds in Cambridge, New York, published How to Be Your Dog's Best Friend: A Training Manual for Dog Owners in 1978 and it became an immediate best seller. Despite advocating a philosophy that "understanding is the key to communication and compassion with your dog", they endorsed confrontational punishments which were later shown to elicit dangerously aggressive responses in many dogs.

In the 1980s, veterinarian and animal behaviorist Ian Dunbar discovered that despite evidence on the peak learning periods in animals, few dog trainers worked with puppies before they were six months old. Dunbar founded Sirius Dog Training, the first off-leash training program specifically for puppies, which emphasizes the importance of teaching bite inhibition, sociality, and other basic household manners, to dogs under six months of age. Dunbar has written numerous books, and is known for his international seminar presentations and award-winning videos on puppy and dog behavior and training.

Prior to the 1980s, Karen Pryor was a marine-mammal trainer who used Skinner's operant principles to teach dolphins and develop marine-mammal shows. In 1984, she published her book, Don't Shoot the Dog: The New Art of Teaching and Training, an explanation of operant-conditioning procedures written for the general public. In the book, Pryor explains why punishment as a way to get people to change often fails, and describes specific positive methods for changing the behavior of husbands, children and pets. Pryor's dog training materials and seminars showed how operant procedures can be used to provide training based on positive reinforcement of good behavior. Pryor and Gary Wilkes introduced clicker training to dog trainers with a series of seminars in 1992 and 1993. Wilkes used aversives as well as rewards, and the philosophical differences soon ended the partnership.

21st century
The 21st century has seen a dramatic increase in the adoption of reward-based training. The International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants, the APDT, BC SPCA in Canada, and in the UK the RSPCA, Dogs Trust Blue Cross and the APDT UK, PACT and the Pet Professional Guild now advocate this kind of training exclusively. Veterinarians are also switching to advocating reward-based training, and the 2015 AAHA Canine and Feline Behavior Management Guidelines include guidelines that state that trainers should only use positive methods.

Also, in the 21st century, many countries have adopted laws banning dog training methods using aversives such as the use of shock collars,         prong collars and choke collars. Even where legal, "Organizations advocating against the use of prong and choke collars include: CHS, RSPCA UK, RSPCA Australia, RSPCA South Australia, the Canadian Advisory Council on National Shelter Standards, CVMA, ACVB, ABTC, PACT, APDT UK, and APDT".

The 21st century has seen the proliferation of television programs and accompanying books that feature dog training and rehabilitation. "Unfortunately, if dog owners decide to consult a book, some of the most popular – and enduring – dog training books include erroneous information".

21st century dog training TV shows that are primarily entertainment include Joel Silverman's Good Dog U, Dog Whisperer with Cesar Millan, It's Me or the Dog featuring Victoria Stillwell, The Underdog Show, Dogs in the City, and SuperFetch. The Association of Pet Dog Trainers advises that television programs are produced primarily for entertainment, and while all programs will have good and not-so-good points, the viewer should critically evaluate the information before deciding which training tips to adopt.

Operant conditioning
Operant conditioning (or instrumental conditioning) is a form of learning in which an individual's behavior is modified by its consequences. Two complementary motivations drive instrumental learning: the maximization of positive outcomes and minimization of aversive ones. There are two ways in which behavior is reinforced or strengthened: positive reinforcement occurs when a behavior is strengthened by producing some desirable consequence; negative reinforcement occurs when a behavior is strengthened by avoiding some undesirable consequence. There are two ways in which behavior is decreased or weakened: negative punishment occurs when a behavior is weakened by not producing a reinforcing consequence; and positive punishment occurs when a behavior is weakened by producing a consequence that is a disincentive. In combination, these basic reinforcing and punishing contingencies provide four ways for modifying behavior. Reinforcement increases the relative probability or frequency of the behavior it follows, while punishment decreases the relative probability or frequency of the behavior it follows.

Typical positive reinforcement events will satisfy some physiological or psychological need, so it can be food, a game, or a demonstration of affection. Different dogs will find different things reinforcing. Negative reinforcement occurs when a dog discovers that a particular response ends the presentation of an aversive stimulus. An aversive is anything that the dog does not like, such as verbal admonishment, or a tightened choke chain.

Punishment is operationally defined as an event that lowers the probability of the behavior that it follows. It is not "punishment" in the common sense of the word, and does not mean physical or psychological harm and most certainly does not mean abuse. Punishment simply involves the presentation of an undesired consequence (positive punishment) when the wrong behavior is performed, such as a snap of the leash, or the removal of a desired consequence (negative punishment) when the wrong behavior is performed, such as the trainer eating the cheese that would have been the reward. A behavior that has previously been developed may cease if reinforcement stops; this is called extinction. A dog that paws its owner for attention will eventually stop if it no longer receives attention.

Classical conditioning
Classical conditioning (or Pavlovian conditioning) is a form of learning in which one stimulus, the conditioned stimulus, comes to signal the occurrence of a second stimulus, the unconditioned stimulus. Classical conditioning is when a dog learns to associate things in its environment, or discovers some things just go together. A dog may become afraid of rain through an association with thunder and lightning, or it may respond to the owner putting on a particular pair of shoes by fetching its leash. Classical conditioning is used in dog training to help a dog make specific associations with a particular stimulus, particularly in overcoming fear of people and situations.

Non-associative learning
Non-associative learning is a change in a response to a stimulus that does not involve associating the presented stimulus with another stimulus or event such as reward or punishment. Habituation is non-associative learning. An example is where a dog that reacts excitedly to a door bell is subjected to repeated ringing without accompanying visitors, and stops reacting to the meaningless stimuli. It becomes habituated to the noise. On the other side of habituation is sensitization. Some dogs' reactions to the stimuli become stronger instead of them habituating to the repeated stimuli or event. Desensitization is the process of pairing positive experiences with an object, person, or situation that causes fear or anxiety. Consistent exposure to the feared object in conjunction with rewards allows the animal to become less stressed, thereby becoming desensitized in the process. This type of training can be effective for dogs who are fearful of fireworks.

Learned irrelevance is where dogs that are overexposed to a stimulus or cue learn the cue is irrelevant because the exposure has proven to be uneventful. So a dog owner who continually says "Sit, sit" without response or consequence, inadvertently teaches the dog to ignore the cue.

Learned helplessness occurs when a dog ceases to respond in a situation where it has no option to avoid a negative event. For learned helplessness to occur, the event must be both traumatic and outside the dog's control. Family dogs that are exposed to unpredictable or uncontrolled punishment are at risk of developing disturbances associated with the learned helplessness disorder. Punishment which is poorly coordinated with identifiable avoidance cues or response options, such as when punishment takes place long after the event, meet the criteria of inescapable trauma.

Observational learning
Observational learning is the learning that occurs through observing the behavior of others. This form of learning does not need reinforcement to occur; instead, a model animal is required. While the model may not be intentionally trying to instill any particular behavior, many behaviors that are observed are remembered and imitated. The domestic dog is a social species and its social dependency makes it aware of the behavior of others, which contributes to its own behavior and learning abilities. There is, however, ongoing discussion about how much, and how, dogs can learn by interacting with each other and with people.

The term "observational learning" encompasses several closely related concepts: allelomimetic behavior or mimicking where, for example, puppies follow or copy others of their kind; social facilitation where the presence of another dog causes an increase in the intensity of a behavior; and local enhancement which includes pieces of social facilitation, mimicking, and trial-and-error learning, but is different from true observational learning in that the dog actively participates in the behavior in the presence of the other dog or other environmental cues. Four necessary conditions for observational learning are: attention, retention, motivation, and production. That is, the dog must pay attention to the dog or person performing the modelled behavior; retain the information gathered about the behavior during the observation; be motivated to reproduce the behavior in a time and place removed from the original; and finally, produce the behavior, or some reasonable facsimile thereof.

Pups between the ages of 9–12 weeks who were permitted to observe their narcotics-detecting mothers at work generally proved more capable at learning the same skills at six months of age than control puppies the same age who were not previously allowed to watch their mothers working. A 2001 study recorded the behavior of dogs in detour tests, in which a favorite toy or food was placed behind a V-shaped fence. The demonstration of the detour by humans significantly improved the dogs' performance in the trials. The experiments showed that dogs are able to rely on information provided by human action when confronted with a new task. Significantly, they did not copy the exact path of the human demonstrator, but adopted the detour behavior shown by humans to reach their goal. A 1977 experiment by Adler and Adler found that puppies who watched other puppies learn to pull a food cart into their cages by an attached ribbon proved considerably faster at the task when later given the opportunity themselves. At 38 days of age, the demonstrator puppies took an average of 697 seconds to succeed, while the observers succeeded in an average of 9 seconds.

Cognitive learning
Dogs are capable of cognitive learning, which is distinct from conditioning methods such as operant and classical conditioning. Cognitive learning is a process wherein dogs acquire and process information, rather than develop conditioned responses to stimuli.

One example of cognitive learning in dogs is the fast mapping inferential reasoning demonstrated by Chaser and Rico in controlled research environments. Both Rico and Chaser demonstrated the ability to infer the names of objects without conditioning and remember them indefinitely.

Positive reinforcement
Positive reinforcement training is also known as humane training, force-free training, and reward-based training. Positive reinforcement training employs the use of rewards to reinforce wanted behavior. For unwanted behavior, this training method uses four other techniques: extinction (letting the behavior go away by itself); training an incompatible behavior; putting the behavior on cue (then almost never giving the cue); shaping the absence of the behavior (reinforcing everything that is not the undesired behavior); or changing the environment/motivation. It is based in Thorndike's law of effect, which says that actions that produce rewards tend to increase in frequency and actions that do not produce rewards decrease in frequency.

Positive reinforcement (motivational) training has its roots in marine mammal training, where compulsion and corrections are both difficult and dangerous. Positive reinforcement training requires time and patience to control the rewards the dog receives for behavior, but has no side effects (such as fear or aggression).

Some activities such as jumping up or chasing squirrels are intrinsically rewarding, the activity is its own reward, and with some activities the environment may provide reinforcement such as when the response from a dog next door encourages barking. To change this kind of self-rewarding behavior, since punishment comes with side effects such as "problematic behaviours such as fear and aggression" and extinction does not work in these cases, positive trainers will either train an alternate incompatible behavior, train the opposite behavior (and then not cue it), or change the environment.

"All of the animals used for commercials, TV shows, and movies are trained with positive reinforcement."

The majority of trainers of search-and-rescue dogs prefer to use positive reinforcement and most working dogs are now trained using reward-based methods. These include police dogs, military dogs, guide dogs, and drug detection dogs.

The movement of military dog training to positive reinforcement methods is partly because aversive methods cause "fear or distress and poor performance in military working dogs". Military dogs trained with positive reinforcement "demonstrated increased confidence and overall performance."

Clicker training

Clicker training is a type of positive reinforcement training. Like all positive reinforcement training, clicker training is based on operant conditioning, but it specifically uses a clicker device as a marker and bridge. Clicker training can also be referred to as marker training. The system uses secondary reinforcer (the clicker) as both a marker/signal and a bridge, to let the animal know that s/he performed the desired behavior correctly and therefore a reward is coming, and to avoid inadvertently reinforcing (rewarding) another behavior that may occur after the desired behavior occurs but before the reinforcer is delivered. Primary reinforcers are reinforcers that are required for life, such as food. Secondary reinforcers are things the animal being trained enjoys but that are not required for life, such as toys, praise, etc. The term 'clicker' comes from a small metal cricket adapted from a child's toy that the trainer uses to precisely mark the desired behavior. Positive reinforcement trainers that don't use clickers still usually use some kind of a marker, such as a whistle, a word, or even a light as the secondary reinforcer, which becomes "conditioned" once the animal learns that its arrival signals the chance to earn a primary reinforcer. The trainer delivers a primary reinforcer, such as treat, after the noise or signal.

Critics of clicker training (and positive reinforcement training in general) claim that it is prone to the overjustification effect, although this is a term used in the context of humans, not animal training. It's for this very reason (to prevent this effect) that it's standard practice for trainers do the following: after initial training with a fixed ratio of reinforcement is completed, the reward ratio is switched to a variable ratio, which produces extremely resilient behavior.

Clicker training is so precise that it can be used to "shape" behavior. New trainers have used the precision possible with clickers to introduce techniques that dogs focus calmly, like the "look at that game" and "click to calm".

Model-rival training
Based on the principles of social learning, model-rival training uses a model, or a rival for attention, to demonstrate the desired behavior. The method was used by Irene Pepperberg to train Alex the African Grey Parrot to label a large number of objects. McKinley and Young undertook a pilot study on the applicability of a modified version of the model-rival method to the training of domestic dogs, noting that the dog's origins as a member of large and complex social groups promote observational learning. The model-rival training involved an interaction between the trainer, the dog, and a person acting as a model-rival, that is, a model for desired behavior and a rival for the trainer's attention. In view of the dog, a dialogue concerning a particular toy commenced between the trainer and the model-rival. The trainer praised or scolded the model-rival depending on whether the model-rival had named the toy correctly. It was found that the performance times for completion of the task were similar for dogs trained with either operant conditioning or the model rival method. In addition, the total training time required for task completion was comparable for both methods.

Relationship-based training
Relationship-based training is built upon the ideas of symbolic interactionism. This approach takes advantage of the ways dogs and their trainers communicate, understand each other, and make necessary changes. Building on a positive relationship between them, the method sets out to achieve results that benefit both the dog and the trainer, while at the same time enhancing and strengthening their relationship. The basic principles include ensuring that the dog's basic needs have been met before beginning a training session, finding out what motivates the dog and using it to elicit behaviors, interpreting the dog's body language to improve communication between dog and trainer, using positive reinforcement to encourage desired behavior, training incompatible behaviors to replace unwanted behaviors, and controlling the dog's environment to limit the possibility of unwanted behaviours. A relationship-based approach to dog training is not necessarily reliant on using particular training aids or treats but posits that the connection between dog and trainer is sufficiently powerful to achieve the training goals.

Koehler method
The Koehler method uses primarily punishment and negative reinforcement (the removing of an aversive) to train dogs. The 1962 book, Koehler Method of Dog Training, is the basis of the method taught in both class and private training formats. The method is based in the philosophy that a dog acts on its right to choose its actions and that a dog's learned behavior is an act of choice based on its own learning experience. When those choices are influenced by the expectation of reward, the behavior will most likely be repeated (although the Koehler method uses very few rewards). When a dog's choices are influenced by the anticipation of punishment, they will most likely cease. Once the dog has learned that its choices result in comfort or discomfort it can be taught to make the correct decisions.

In the Koehler method, one example is teaching a dog to lie down. The trainer pulls the dog's front feet forward and pushes down on its back. Once the dog is on the ground, the trainer gives praise. After doing this many times, the dog learns that the trainer wants it to lie down by itself. At that point, of the dog doesn't obey right away, the trainer sharply tugs on the choke collar.

Action→memory→desire encapsulates the learning pattern used by the method; the dog acts, remembers the consequences, and forms the desire to repeat or avoid those consequences. Adherents believe that once the behavior has been correctly taught, it should be performed, thus making any punishing correction, fair, reasonable, and expected.

While the Koehler method has been used since 1962, some (or all) of the punishment procedures described in the book are now considered not necessary, humane, or appropriate by many trainers. These punishers include the use of a throw chain (applying a sharp hit to the rear to surprise the dog without them knowing who hit them), electric shocks, slingshots, and suspending the dog off the ground.

Shock collars (electronic training)
Electronic training involves the use of an electronic device as an aversive, usually shock collars. This type of dog collar can be triggered remotely at the trainers discretion, or are triggered by barking, or fencing that activates when a dog crosses a buried wire. The most common form of electronic training is the shock collar, although there are also collars that use vibration, tone, or a spray of liquid, typically citronella when triggered. The use of electric shock aversives (shock collars) for training dogs is the subject of considerable controversy. Many European countries view shock collars as animal cruelty and have banned their use. Supporters claim that the use of shock collars allows training at a distance and the potential to eliminate self-rewarding behavior, and point out that properly used, they have less risk of stress and injury than mechanical devices, such as choke collars (illegal in some countries  ) or prong collars (prong collars are also illegal in many countries        ). Opponents of shock collars cite the risks of physical and psychological trauma associated with incorrect or abusive use.

A 2017 meta-review of seventeen peer-reviewed studies found that, even when used correctly, "The results show that using aversive training methods (e.g., positive punishment and negative reinforcement) can jeopardize both the physical and mental health of dogs."

Three of the seventeen studies are summarized here:

In a 2007 study, laboratory-bred Beagles were divided into three groups. Group A received an electric shock when the dogs touched the prey (a rabbit dummy fixed to a motion device). Group H received a shock when they did not obey a previously trained recall command during hunting. Dogs in group R received the electric shock arbitrarily, i.e. the shock was administered unpredictably and out of context. Group A did not show a significant rise in stress-indicating salivary cortisol levels, while group R and group H did show a significant rise. This led to the conclusion that animals which were able to clearly associate the electric stimulus with their action, i.e. touching the prey, and consequently were able to predict and control the stressor, did not show considerable or persistent stress indicators, while animals that were not able to control the situation to avoid the shock did show significant stress. The 2017 Ziv meta-review suggested that this 2007 study was flawed. "In the first group, the predictability of the shock could have led to the relatively small increase in cortisol levels, but another explanation is possible. While an increase in the concentration of cortisol can represent an increase in stress", it can also represent the physical activity level of the dog. Indeed, elevation in cortisol concentration can occur as a result of both low-intensity and high-intensity exercise.

In 2004, a study was published that was based on the observation of a variety of breeds trained for protection work using shock collars, which showed that although using shock collars to train guard dogs can work, it can cause side effects of fear and aggression, indicating heightened uncertainty and reactivity. The study summarized by stating "The conclusions, therefore are, that being trained is stressful, that receiving shocks is a painful experience to dogs, and that the S-dogs evidently have learned that the presence of their owner (or his commands) announces reception of shocks, even outside of the normal training context." In 2005, textbook author Stephen R. Lindsay gives his opinion of this study, writing "Schilder and Van der Borg (2004) have published a report of disturbing findings regarding the short-term and long- term effects of shock used in the context of working dogs that is destined to become a source of significant controversy... The absence of reduced drive or behavioral suppression with respect to critical activities associated with shock (e.g., bite work) makes one skeptical about the lasting adverse effects the authors claim to document. Although they offer no substantive evidence of trauma or harm to dogs, they provide loads of speculation, anecdotes, insinuations of gender and educational inadequacies, and derogatory comments regarding the motivation and competence of IPO trainers in its place."

A 2009 study by Herron et al. suggest that aversives such as shock collars, as well as lesser aversives such as yelling, risk side effects of increasing behavior problems including aggression.

Dominance-based training
The concepts of "pack" and "dominance" in relation to dog training originated in the 1940s and were popularized by the Monks of New Skete in the 1970s. The model is based on a theory that "dogs are wolves" and since wolves live in hierarchical packs where an alpha male rules over everyone else, then humans must dominate dogs in order to modify their behavior. However, recent studies have shown that wolves in the wild actually live in nuclear families where the mother and father are both considered the pack leaders, and their offspring's status depends on their birth order which does not involve fighting to attain a higher rank, because the young wolves naturally follow their parents' lead.

Animal behaviorists assert that using dominance to modify a behavior can suppress the behavior without addressing the underlying cause of the problem. It can exacerbate the problem and increase the dog's fear, anxiety, and aggression. Dogs that are subjected to repeated threats and harsh methods such as the alpha roll may react with aggression not because they are trying to be dominant, but because they feel threatened and afraid.

Researchers have described several reasons why the dominance model is a poor choice for dog training. First, a relationship based on dominance is established to gain priority access to scarce resources, not to impose particular behaviors on the less dominant animal, so the dominance model is irrelevant for most of the behaviors that people want from their dogs, such as coming when called or walking calmly on a leash. Second dominance-submission relationships, once established, are constantly tested and must be regularly reinforced. Thus people, particularly children and the elderly, may not be able to retain their rank and are at risk of being injured if they attempt to do so. Third, dominant individuals gain priority access to resources, but only while they are present, establishing dominance over a dog does not guarantee its behavior when the dominant individual is distant or absent.

The idea of dominance is dogs is not disputed in peer-reviews papers, but rather, popular argument is over its definition and implications. " Although dominance is correctly a property of relationships, it has been erroneously used to describe a supposed trait of individual dogs, even though there is little evidence that such a trait exists".

Defenders of dominance-based training argue that critics are motivated by political correctness. Portuguese author on the behavior of animals Roger Abrantes gives this argument and also argues that the term is poorly defined. Colin Tennant, who is the chairman of the Canine and Feline Behaviour Association, said: "It is political correctness. If you treat a dog like a human it will treat you like a dog". Psychologist and dog trainer Stanley Coren in the 2001 book How to Speak Dog wrote, "You are the alpha dog... You must communicate that you are the pack leader and dominant". Mexican-American dog trainer and author Cesar Millan wrote that, "It's essential that the humans be Pack Leaders, with the dog following. If a dog does not have strong pack leadership from its humans, it may become unbalanced, which can lead to confusion, anxiety, or aggression and behavior problems in the dog".

Factors
Training can take as many forms as there are trainers, however a detailed study of animal trainers found common characteristics of successful methods: thoughtful interpretation of what the animal does prior to training, accurate timing, and consistent communication.

Communication
Dogs have become closely associated with humans through domestication and have also become sensitive to human communicative signals. Generally, they have a lot of exposure to human speech, especially during play, and are believed to have a good ability to recognize human speech. Two studies investigated the ability of a single dog that was believed to be exceptional in its understanding of language. Both studies revealed the potential for at least some dogs to develop an understanding of a large number of simple commands on the basis of just the sounds emitted by their owners. However, the studies suggested that visual cues from the owner may be important for the understanding of more complex spoken commands.

Understanding
Consistency of the owner's application, their level of understanding, and training/behavior and level of engagement can influence the effectiveness of any technique.

Innate characteristics
In considering the natural behaviors of specific breeds of dogs, it is possible to train them to perform specialized, highly useful, tasks. For example, Labrador retrievers are the favored breed for the detection of explosives. This is because of a combination of factors including their food drive which enables them to keep focused on a task despite noise and other distractions.

Most working breeds of dogs like Dobermans are able to be trained to find people with their sense of smell (as opposed to their sense of sight).

Cocker Spaniels are able to be trained as part of a termite detection team. Their relatively small size enables them to fit into small spaces, and their light weight allows them to walk on areas of ceiling which would be dangerous to anything heavier. In fact, although unusual, termite detection dogs are much more reliable at detecting termites than humans who rely on a basic system of tapping and listening.

Because of their ability to learn signals by sight and for their energetic and athletic natures, German Shepherds are able to be trained for work alongside search and rescue teams and human apprehension teams.

Individualized or class training
Individualized or one-to-one training is helpful for the trainer to focus on an individual dog's abilities and needs, as well as address a specific owner's preferences and circumstance. Any behaviour problems are best addressed by a dog behaviourist. Class training can be effective in encouraging socialization and play with a peer group. Classes are often offered at a more affordable rate and can cover both problem behaviors and teach new skills. Classes can range from puppy and beginner training to more advanced training and skill training such as performing tricks, preparing for dog sports such as agility or flyball, or therapy work.

Specialized training
Dogs are also trained for special purposes such as CGC Certification; for dog sports, including but not limited to competition obedience, dog agility, herding, tracking, and flyball; and to undertake particular roles such as detection dogs, assistance dogs, hunting dogs, police dogs, SAR (search and rescue dogs) or guard dogs.

title: Dog training


text:
Talk:Dog training

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 9 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ajeffries.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Worldwide view?
I don't want to immediately flag anything, but this article seems very culturally biased towards a European/white perspective. Did Native Americans train dogs? If so, to what extent? I'll be honest, the whole article seems like a mess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 01:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The lead starts "Dog training is the application of behavior analysis." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 14:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Bad sourcing/doesn't fulfill Wiki rules
This article uses Millan (Cesar) as a source, but Millan is in fact not a dog trainer nor a dog behaviorist at all. He is an actor. I find it very disconcerting that content using him as a source is allowed here but content using actual experts is removed. Please consider removing anything related to Cesar Millan as he has no reputable/professional dog training or behavior credentials. 47.7.11.178 (talk) 02:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Someone has just added in Millan references. If you check the references the information cited is not on the pages of the book given as the source. Canis5855 (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I agree that this is bad sourcing. Cesar Millan is not formally trained in dog training or dog behavior and his opinion should not be treated as if he is a reliable source. Moreover, as Canis5855 mentioned, the "source" somebody provided doesn't even contain the quote given in this article. I've added the failed verification tag for now while we sort this out because I'm not sure whether I should remove the entire quote without first discussing it. Glitchhiker (talk) 07:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Ok, I found it in the article after a second look, but my assertion that Millan is not a reliable source still stands. I've changed the tag to reflect that. Glitchhiker (talk) 07:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Stanley Coren "alpha wolf" updated quotation
Stanley Coren is quoted in the dominance-based training section as saying "You are the alpha dog... You must communicate that you are the pack leader and dominant." While this is correctly attributed, in 2010 he wrote in his own column on Psychology Today :

"The first research on wolf behaviors seemed to support the idea of a rigid, military-like canine social hierarchy, usually supported by physical confrontations which ultimately established a leader—the "alpha wolf"—who maintains his leadership through force and intimidation. Unfortunately, later research would show that this is an artificial and erroneous view of canine social organization.

David L. Mech, who is now a senior research scientist for the U.S. Department of the Interior, was one of the first people to study wolf behavior in the wild. In his 1970 book, he was influenced by earlier ideas, including those of Lorenz, and referred to the pack leader as the "alpha wolf." Looking back 40 years later he has come to doubt the usefulness of this concept. He now maintains that the label is wrong because it implies that the wolves fought to determine dominance." ... "The reason that all of this is important is that it tells us, (regardless of concerns about the amount of force used in training) that Cesar Millan's technique, and that of many other trainers who use a military-like concept of canine social hierarchy as the basis of dog training and problem solving, is based on a false premise. It is a holdover from German military service dog training at the turn of the last century, and generalization from outdated wolf research based on artificial packs of captive wolves.

Perhaps it is time to revise our dog training and obedience concepts to something along the ideas proposed by advocates of Positive Training. In that view, controlling the dog's behavior is more a matter of controlling the things that a dog needs and wants, such as food and social interaction, rather than applying force to achieve what the science suggests is an unnatural dominance over the dog."

I think it's important that his modern views should be included as well since they contradict his views from 2001, but I'm told Psychology Today is usually not a reliable source. In this instance, I feel that it is reliable in this context to be sourced and quoted alongside the current 2001 source to give readers the full picture, and that Coren no longer stands by the "alpha wolf" theory. Glitchhiker (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Dog training
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Dog training's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "sciencedirect.com": From Shock collar: Ziv, Gal. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1558787817300357 Journal of Veterinary Behavior. Volume 19, May–June 2017, Pages 50-60. The effects of using aversive training methods in dogs—A review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2017.02.004 From Dog behavior:

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Dog training


text:
Speech community

A speech community is a group of people who share a set of linguistic norms and expectations regarding the use of language. It is a concept mostly associated with sociolinguistics and anthropological linguistics.

Exactly how to define speech community is debated in the literature. Definitions of speech community tend to involve varying degrees of emphasis on the following:
 * Shared community membership
 * Shared linguistic communication

A typical speech community can be a small town, but sociolinguists such as William Labov claim that a large metropolitan area, for example New York City, can also be considered one single speech community.

Early definitions have tended to see speech communities as bounded and localized groups of people who live together and come to share the same linguistic norms because they belong to the same local community. It has also been assumed that within a community a homogeneous set of norms should exist. These assumptions have been challenged by later scholarship that has demonstrated that individuals generally participate in various speech communities simultaneously and at different times in their lives. Each speech community has different norms that they tend to share only partially. Communities may be de-localized and unbounded rather than local, and they often comprise different sub-communities with differing speech norms. With the recognition of the fact that speakers actively use language to construct and manipulate social identities by signalling membership in particular speech communities, the idea of the bounded speech community with homogeneous speech norms has become largely abandoned for a model based on the speech community as a fluid community of practice.

A speech community comes to share a specific set of norms for language use through living and interacting together, and speech communities may therefore emerge among all groups that interact frequently and share certain norms and ideologies. Such groups can be villages, countries, political or professional communities, communities with shared interests, hobbies, or lifestyles, or even just groups of friends. Speech communities may share both particular sets of vocabulary and grammatical conventions, as well as speech styles and genres, and also norms for how and when to speak in particular ways.

History of definitions
The adoption of the concept of the "speech community" as a unit of linguistic analysis emerged in the 1960s.

John Gumperz
John Gumperz described how dialectologists had taken issue with the dominant approach in historical linguistics that saw linguistic communities as homogeneous and localized entities in a way that allowed for drawing neat tree diagrams based on the principle of 'descent with modification' and shared innovations. Dialectologists rather realized that dialect traits spread through diffusion and that social factors were decisive in how this happened. They also realized that traits spread as waves from centers and that often several competing varieties would exist in some communities. This insight prompted Gumperz to problematize the notion of the linguistic community as the community that carries a single speech variant, and instead to seek a definition that could encompass heterogeneity. This could be done by focusing on the interactive aspect of language, because interaction in speech is the path along which diffused linguistic traits travel. Gumperz defined the community of speech:

"Any human aggregate characterized by regular and frequent interaction by means of a shared body of verbal signs and set off from similar aggregates by significant differences in language usage."

- Gumperz (1968)

"Regardless of the linguistic differences among them, the speech varieties employed within a speech community form a system because they are related to a shared set of social norms."

- Gumperz (1968)

Gumperz here identifies two important components of the speech community: members share both a set of linguistics forms and a set of social norms Gumperz also sought to set up a typological framework for describing how linguistic systems can be in use within a single speech community. He introduced the concept of linguistic range, the degree to which the linguistic systems of the community differ so that speech communities can be multilingual, diglossic, multidialectal (including sociolectal stratification), or homogeneous – depending on the degree of difference among the different language systems used in the community. Secondly the notion of compartmentalization described the degree to which the use of different varieties were either set off from each other as discrete systems in interaction (e.g. diglossia where varieties correspond to specific social contexts, or multilingualism where varieties correspond to discrete social groups within the community) or whether they are habitually mixed in interaction (e.g. code-switching, bilingualism, syncretic language).

Noam Chomsky
Gumperz's formulation was however effectively overshadowed by Noam Chomsky's redefinition of the scope of linguistics as being : "concerned primarily with an ideal speaker-listener, in a completely homogeneous speech-community, who knows its language perfectly and is unaffected by such grammatically irrelevant conditions as memory limitations, distractions, shifts of attention and interest, and errors (random or characteristic) in applying his knowledge of the language in actual performance."

- Chomsky (1965:3)

William Labov
Another influential conceptualization of the linguistic community was that of William Labov, which can be seen as a hybrid of the Chomskyan structural homogeneity and Gumperz' focus on shared norms informing variable practices. Labov wrote: "The speech community is not defined by any marked agreement in the use of language elements, so much as by participation in a set of shared norms: these norms may be observed in overt types of evaluative behavior, and by the uniformity of abstract patterns of variation which are invariant in respect to particular levels of usage."

- Labov (1972:120–1)

Like that of Gumperz, Labov's formulation stressed that a speech community was defined more by shared norms than by shared linguistic forms. But like Chomsky, Labov also saw each of the formally distinguished linguistic varieties within a speech community as homogeneous, invariant and uniform. This model worked well for Labov's purpose which was to show that African American Vernacular English could not be seen as structurally degenerate form of English, but rather as a well defined linguistic code with its own particular structure.

Critique
Probably because of their considerable explanatory power, Labov's and Chomsky's understandings of the speech community became widely influential in linguistics. But gradually a number of problems with those models became apparent.

Firstly, it became increasingly clear that the assumption of homogeneity inherent in Chomsky and Labov's models was untenable. The African American speech community which Labov had seen as defined by the shared norms of African American Vernacular English, was shown to be an illusion, as ideological disagreements about the status of AAVE among different groups of speakers attracted public attention.

Secondly, the concept of the speech community was large scale communities. By extending the concept, Gumperz's definition could no longer be evoked.

Thirdly, Chomsky and Labov's models made it clear that intrapersonal variation is common. The choice of linguistic variant is often a choice made within a specific speech context.

The force of these critiques with the concept of "speech communities" appeared due to many contradictions. Some scholars recommended abandoning the concept altogether, instead conceptualizing it as "the product of the communicative activities engaged in by a given group of people." Others acknowledged the community's ad hoc status as "some kind of social group whose speech characteristics are of interest and can be described in a coherent manner".

Practice theory
Practice theory, as developed by social thinkers such as Pierre Bourdieu, Anthony Giddens and Michel de Certeau, and the notion of the community of practice as developed by Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger has been applied to the study of the language community by linguists William Hanks     and Penelope Eckert.

Eckert aimed at an approach to sociolinguistic variation that did not include any social variable (e.g. class, gender, locality). Instead she built a model that was able to locate variables that show significant issue to the group of individuals. For Eckert the crucial defining characteristics of the community is persistent through time to comprehend together.

Hanks' concept of the linguistic community is different from that of Eckert and Gumperz, it studies the ways in shared practice production of linguistic meaning. Hanks studies how linguistic practices are related to a variety that are produced through shared practices.

Language variation
The notion of speech community is most generally used as a tool to define a unit of analysis within which to analyse language variation and change. Stylistic features differ among speech communities based on factors such as the group's ethnicity and social status, common interests and the level of formality expected within the group and by its larger society.

Common interests and the level of formality also result in stylistic differences among speech communities. In Western culture, for example, employees at a law office would likely use more formal language than a group of teenage skateboarders because most Westerners expect more formality and professionalism from practitioners of law than from an informal circle of adolescent friends. This special use of language by certain professions for particular activities is known in linguistics as register; in some analyses, the group of speakers of a register is known as a discourse community, while the phrase "speech community" is reserved for varieties of a language or dialect that speakers inherit by birth or adoption.

title: Speech community


text:
Talk:Online dating

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): VerySirius, FauxNeme.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

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): Dannnleee.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 September 2018 and 7 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kjreinhold. Peer reviewers: Samsamgal96.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

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. Peer reviewers: Agurukar.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 14 March 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: MOVED. Hadal (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Online dating service → Online dating – WP:CONCISE as the article details both the method in general as well as the services. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. This article talks about online dating in general, not the companies that provide the services that facilitate it. Should be moved according to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. 〜 Festucalex • talk • contribs 15:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article is primarily about online matchmaking rather than online dating. The dating service is online, but the dating itself is typically not online. — BarrelProof (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * But that is the overwhelming common name for the concept. "Online matchmaking" (including quotes) only has ~5000 results on Google News compared to >300,000 for "Online dating". -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. As a side note, there's some weird duplication of scope between this article, Online dating application, and Mobile dating. Probably in need of some merging. Colin M (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There is also Timeline of online dating services, which IMO would also be better if the 'services' was dropped from that title, as it is not exclusively about the services either, Comparison of online dating services on the other hand, makes sense as it is. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Harry Benson / Marriage Foundation reference: reliable?
Relative Strangers, Harry Benson 2021

favors the inclusion of this source in the article, but I think it's sketchy. The author has published it through the Marriage Foundation, an marriage counseling company that he is employed by.

CommonKnowledgeCreator says that this is OK because Savanta Comres is the source of the polling data in the article. Edit summary here.

However, Benson is the one who has made the interpretive analysis of the data, and I have no reason to believe his analysis was subject to any kind of peer review, being published by his own employer, a marriage counseling company. I also can't find evidence that Harry Benson has any expertise in data analysis.

From this vantage point, it looks like an unreliable source. Your thoughts? Amaebi-uni (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

 * First, according to his Marriage Foundation website profile, Benson is a doctoral student in social policy at the University of Bristol School for Policy Studies. If true, he probably has some education in statistics. More importantly, it is unclear to me why this article's references would or should require publication in a peer-reviewed academic journal since the subject is not an academic, medical, or scientific topic but is a consumer product. The Pew Research Center and Consumer Reports surveys cited in the article are not subject to peer review and release the results of the surveys they conduct on their own websites, just like most polling and survey organizations do. Per WP:SPS, the references in question are not blog or social media posts and self-published sources can be considered reliable when they are produced by subject-matter experts who have worked in the relevant field. Provided that surveys are done with representative sampling and conducted by professional survey organizations, it is unclear why such surveys would need to be peer reviewed for them to be included in related Wikipedia articles.
 * To argue that they shouldn't would be like saying that election polls polling data should not be included in Wikipedia articles about elections because the polls are not peer reviewed and published on the polling organization's website, or that a government census data should not be included in Wikipedia articles about a country's demographics because the government census agency's surveys are not peer reviewed and are published on the government census agency's website. Pew and CR are professional survey organizations and Savanta ComRes is a professional market research and consulting firm. The Pew and CR references cited as far as I can tell at least meet the WP:SPS standard since they are doing nothing other than surveys with representative sampling and are not experimental studies of some kind. While Benson may not have a PhD, many polls and analysis of them are conducted by people who only have a master's degree. Also, the full results of the poll are also available on Savanta's website if there are questions about the survey data itself. As far as I can tell, the data cited in Benson's analysis do not appear to deviate from the poll results. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also per its website Per its website, the Marriage Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization registered charity in England and Wales rather than a for-profit company, as opposed to eHarmony, which was also founded by a marriage counselor. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is highly speculatory, but even if it were true, it would still fail WP:EXPERTSPS, which says:
 * Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.[g]
 * Possibly having done a class on statistics does not make one an 'expert' in this field. Using Goolge Scholar, I am unable to find evidence that Benson has ever published anything on this field through an independent, reliable source. Most of what he has written consists of self-help books published in Lion Hudson.
 * Lastly, this is not the same thing as election polling results, when released by a reputable publisher, such as Pew Research Center. What we are talking about here is a self-published analysis of data, by Harry Benson.
 * Wikipedia would not want someone like Dr. Phil's analysis of U.S. election data, published through his own website, which is closely approximate to what this is. Wikipedia always gives priority to high quality secondary sources, while discouraging SPS, including for seemingly mundane topics like video games and movies. Amaebi-uni (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia would not want someone like Dr. Phil's analysis of U.S. election data, published through his own website which is closely approximate to what this is. I think this is an inaccurate analogy to Benson's analysis (since Benson supposedly is a doctoral student in a related field). However, considering that Benson has not published anything in a related field, then fine. It can be removed. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In light of this discussion, I've now added a summary of 8 9 studies I found using Google Scholar on associations between online dating, internet access, or mobile phone access and divorce or marriage quality. I searched for meta-analyses but did not find any. This doesn't appear to be as extensively researched of a topic as associations between digital media use and various mental health disorders and other human factors issues. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Your recent contribution was overall quite excellent. Thanks for taking the time to cite these works. Amaebi-uni (talk) 11:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Your recent contribution was overall quite excellent. Thanks for taking the time to cite these works. Amaebi-uni (talk) 11:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Online dating


text:
Farfel the Dog

Farfel the Dog is a hound dog ventriloquist's dummy created by Jimmy Nelson. The Farfel character is best known for television commercials for Nestlé's Quik which ran from 1953 to 1965. An original talking Farfel can be seen at the Chocolate Experience Museum, located in Burlington, Wisconsin.

Creation
In 1950, while working a late show in a Wichita, Kansas nightclub with his human dummy Danny O'Day, ventriloquist Jimmy Nelson picked up a stuffed dog left by a patron on the piano, and improvised a low-pitched voice to make it talk. This gave him the idea for a new character which he commissioned from Chicago dummy maker Frank Marshall. Nelson named it Farfel, after the Jewish pasta dish he had seen on the menu of resorts in the Borscht Belt on his tour route. Farfel was an instant hit, and contributed to the rise in Nelson's popularity as he began to transition from live performance touring to television. Farfel would frequently say: "No, I wouldn't say that", based on the Great Gildersleeve character Peavey the Druggist's drawled catchphrase "Well now I wouldn't say that."

Nestlé commercials
Beginning in 1955, Farfel sang the last word of the Nestlé jingle, after the first two lines were sung by Nelson's human dummy Danny O'Day:

"Danny: 'N-E-S-T-L-E-S, Nestlé's makes the very best... Farfel: Choc'-late"

At the end, Farfel's mouth would close with a distinctive clap, uncharacteristic of proper ventriloquist's technique. The sound was the result of Nelson's nervousness at his audition for the Nestlé executives; his hands sweated, resulting in his finger slipping off of the mouth control. The executives liked the effect so much, they insisted that Nelson keep it in. The commercials ran for 10 years from 1955 to 1965. Farfel made a brief comeback in the mid-1990s for a Nestlé's candy Christmas promo, with a send-in offer for a stuffed Farfel doll.

In popular culture
Archie Bleyer of Cadence Records originally wanted Nelson to appear on the Everly Brothers' 1959 recording of "Bird Dog" and use the voice of Farfel on the choruses, but that idea fell through.

In the WKRP in Cincinnati episode "The Consultant", Bailey Quarters sings the Nestle's jingle, and places her hands together to imitate Farfel when singing the last word. She then says to the consultant, "Farfel. Remember that guy? The dog."

In an episode of Seinfeld, entitled "The Dog", Farfel was also the name of the dog that Jerry ends up "dogsitting" after the dog's owner suffers a heart attack while sitting next to Jerry on an airplane.

In the Curb Your Enthusiasm episode “The Terrorist Attack”, Larry David sings the Nestle's jingle whilst apologizing and ends his song with the distinctive clap.

title: Farfel the Dog


text:
Talk:Tokyo Metropolitan Government Building

Untitled
I just wanted to note that the height of the building is reported as 243m, not 248, on the official site of the Metro. Gov't. Tomos 06:42, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure what you are saying...are you saying that the official government site shows a height of 248m? Perhaps you should give a link. The 243m is confirmed by the architect at the following page: .  Perhaps the 248m figure is to the top of the antenna. --Kcumming (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


text:
Category talk:Computer data storage

Merging of subcategories
I suggest we merge the two subcats Category:Computer storage devices and Category:Computer storage media into one cat Category:Computer storage technology, which would have the subcats "Tape based computer storage", "Rotating disc computer storage", and "Solid-state computer storage". That way we may include the storage devices with the media, which will not lead to confusion as I see it. Rather, it will be a better scheme of categorisation, as it lets us divide the technologies from each other in a simpler and more intuitive way. --Wernher 06:46, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with this recommended merge and change. The current sorting is not very friendly. Music Sorter (talk) 06:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have spent more time understanding categories and how they interact with other categories. The above proposal is not exactly what I would support. Reading through the topic Categorization_and_subcategories I know realize it would be better to have all of the above sub categories exist and report to the main category "Computer Storage." The reason for this is because as was noted many of the articles can cross over between these different categories. It would be better for the individual articles to report up directly to the different subcategories. This way readers can find articles dependent upon what category they start. § Music Sorter §  (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I have removed the merge template from Category:Computer storage devices and Category:Computer storage media because WP:CFD should be used for categories. Mark Hurd (talk) 13:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Computer memory = Computer storage?
I think Category:Computer memory should be merged into Category:Computer storage -- DavidCary 01:00, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I disagree: usage of the terms, at least in the U.S., is fairly clearly divided, with memory for main-memory-like or faster things, and storage for disk-like, slower, usually persistent things. Having two categories is useful, too, because there are many entries in the categories, and thus the things listed in each are more likely to be relevant to someone examining the category contents. -R. S. Shaw 20:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I also disagree with this proposed merger. These categories are different, but certainly related. I believe the current pages reflect changes since this original proposal that help readers understand the difference. § Music Sorter §  (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sort error in sub category for "Computer storage devices"
I noticed there is a sort error in the sub category for "Computer storage:Computer storage devices" as it is sorting under D and not C. I don't know how to fix it.

 * D

 * [+] Computer storage devices (5 C, 92 P)

 * [+] Digital data storage formats (2 C, 1 P)

Music Sorter (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I found the problem. When the Default sort on a page is set to something other than the name of the page, the link for the page will sort to the default sort when displayed on the parent category page. Also if the link to the category pipes to anything, that text is the sort order for that page on its parent. § Music Sorter §  (talk) 05:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Resist adding the category "Computer Memory" as a parent or child of "Computer Storage"
These two categories are different enough that they need to co-exist. The current pages for each of these use the alternate technique of a horizontal reference covered in Categorization_and_subcategories. § Music Sorter §  (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Computer file systems and subcategories here
SNIA Dictionary threats Category:Computer file systems separately from Computer storage.

I will remove parent categories and leave link to file-systems as see also link.

"Computer storage" is about
 * computer hardware
 * networked computer hardware (a NAS, network, anything)

but not a computer file systems. Ushkin N (talk) 03:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Cloud storage and subcategories here
I plan to replace "cloud" as subcategory with "see also" link. I'm going to quote SNIA Dictionary again:

'cloud storage' - is a [service]. 'cloud service' - is a [cloud].

If anyone can provide source that states that "cloud" thing should be included in "Computer storage" I would like to see it. Ushkin N (talk) 04:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Computer data storage


text:
List of Martin B-26 Marauder operators

This is a list of Martin B-26 Marauder operators. The main user of the Martin B-26 Marauder was the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF). During this period the Martin Marauder was also operated by the US Navy, Free French Air Force, the South African Air Force and the Royal Air Force; serving with many units and in many different theaters of conflict on several continents.

France
All six squadrons below were operating under command of 42d Bombardment Wing of the US Twelfth Air Force.
 * French Air Force
 * 31e escadre
 * GBM 1/19 Gascogne
 * GBM 2/20 Bretagne
 * GBM 1/22 Maroc
 * 34e escadre
 * GBM 1/32 Bourgogne
 * GBM 2/52 Franche-Comté
 * GBM 2/63 Sénégal

South Africa

 * South African Air Force
 * 3rd Wing, North African Air Forces
 * 12 Squadron, North African Air Forces
 * 21 Squadron, North African Air Forces
 * 24 Squadron, North African Air Forces
 * 25 Squadron, Balkan Air Force
 * 30 Squadron, North African Air Forces

United Kingdom

 * Royal Air Force
 * No. 14 Squadron RAF from 1942-43 in North Africa.
 * No. 39 Squadron RAF from 1944-46 in Italy and later Sudan.
 * No.70 Operational Training Unit from 1943-1945 at RAF Shandur, Egypt.

United States
Several Eighth Air Force B-26 transferred to the Ninth Air Force in late 1943. The Maurders had been part of VIII Air Support Command and 3rd Bomb Wing. Transferred from Eighth AF. Transferred from Eighth AF. In the South Pacific (POA) the two independent squadrons, formerly of the 38th Bomb Group, USA, were transferred from the Seventh Air Force when the new organization formed. The independent 69th BS & 70BS were assigned layer to the 42nd BG and eventually converted to B-25 aircraft.
 * United States Army Air Corps/Army Air Forces
 * Fifth Air Force
 * 22d Bombardment Group including the 2d, 19th, 33d and 408th Bombardment Squadrons.
 * Seventh Air Force
 * 69th BS & 70th BS, independent. Later assigned to 13th AF, 42nd BG and eventually reequipped with B-25 aircraft.
 * Eighth Air Force
 * 25th Bombardment Group, operated by the 654th Bomb Squadron at RAF Watton, England from 1944-1945.
 * Ninth Air Force
 * First Pathfinder Squadron based in Europe flew last ever B-26 Mission May 3, 1945.
 * 322d Bombardment Group, included the 449th, 450th, 451st and 452nd Bomb Squadrons based in European Theater. Transferred from Eighth AF.
 * 323d Bombardment Group, included the 453d, 454th, 455th and 456th Bomb Squadrons based in European Theater.
 * 344th Bombardment Group, included the 494th, 495th, 496th and 497th Bomb Squadron based in European Theater.
 * 386th Bombardment Group, included the 552d, 553d, 554th and 555th Bomb Squadrons based in European Theater.
 * 387th Bombardment Group, included the 556th, 557th, 558th and 559th Bomb Squadrons based in European Theater.
 * 391st Bombardment Group, includes the 572d, 573d, 574th and 575th Bomb Squadrons based in European Theater.
 * 394th Bombardment Group, included the 584th, 585th, 586th and 587th Bomb Squadrons based in European Theater.
 * 397th Bombardment Group, included the 596th, 597th, 598th and 599th Bomb Squadrons based in European Theater.
 * 410th Bombardment Group, included the 644th, 645th, 646th and 647th Bomb Squadrons based in European Theater.
 * Eleventh Air Force
 * 28th Bombardment Group (Composite) included the 73d and 77th Bomb Squadron based in Alaska and the Aleutians.
 * Twelfth Air Force
 * 17th Bombardment Group, including the 34th, 37th, 95th and 432d Bomb Squadron based in North Africa and Europe.
 * 319th Bombardment Group, including the 437th, 438th, 439th and 440th Bomb Squadron based in North Africa and Europe.
 * 320th Bombardment Group, including the 441st, 442d, 443d and 444th Bomb Squadrons based in North Africa and Europe.
 * Thirteenth Air Force
 * 42d Bombardment Group,

 * 21st Bombardment Group (Operational Training Unit) at MacDill Field, Florida, included the 313th, 314th, 315th, 398th Bomb Squadrons.
 * 38th Bombardment Group (Operational Training Unit) included the 69th, 70th, 71st Bomb Squadrons and the 15th Reconnaissance Squadron based in the United States and South-west Pacific.
 * 40th Bombardment Group (Operational Training Unit) included the 25th, 44th, 45th Bomb Squadrons based in the Caribbean.
 * 335th Bombardment Group (Replacement Training Unit) included the 474th, 475th, 476th, 477th Bomb Squadrons based in California, United States.
 * 336th Bombardment Group (Replacement Training Unit) included the 478th, 479th, 480th, 481st Bomb Squadrons based in Louisiana, United States.
 * Tow target squadrons
 * 1st Tow Target Squadron
 * 2d Tow Target Squadron
 * 6th Tow Target Squadron
 * 7th Tow Target Squadron
 * 12th Tow Target Squadron
 * 13th Tow Target Squadron
 * 15th Tow Target Squadron
 * 17th Tow Target Squadron
 * 19th Tow Target Squadron
 * 20th Tow Target Squadron
 * 21st Tow Target Squadron
 * 23d Tow Target Squadron
 * 27th Tow Target Squadron
 * 28th Tow Target Squadron
 * 29th Tow Target Squadron

 * United States Navy
 * VJ-1
 * VJ-2
 * VJ-4
 * VJ-7
 * VJ-8
 * VJ-9
 * VJ-10
 * VJ-12
 * VJ-13
 * VJ-14
 * VJ-15
 * VJ-16
 * VJ-17
 * VJ-18
 * VJ-19
 * VD-2 – Placed into operation at the U.S. Naval Air Station, Atlantic Fleet Air Base, Norfolk, Virginia late in 1942, Fleet Air Photographic Reconnaissance VD-2 became a photographic training squadron, which did equipment testing and specialized assignments by direct orders from the Director, of the Photography Division, of the Bureau of Aeronautics, Washington, D.C. This photographic squadron operated from the Atlantic Fleet Air Base at Norfolk during World War II, with a hodge-podge collection of airplanes that were not equipped or suited for overseas war time operations.

 * United States Marine Corps
 * VMJ-1 Commissioned 21 March 1945 at Barking Sands, Kauai, Hawaii as VMTD-1 and on 1 May 1945 was redesignated as VMJ-1 and assigned to the 3rd Marine Division, towing targets for Marine AA batteries over the Hawaiian Islands. The squadron was deactivated on Kauai in October 1945.
 * VMJ-2 Commissioned 10 October 1944 at Marine Corps Air Station Ewa, Hawaii as VMTD-2 to train in towing aerial targets and tracking missions for Marine AA batteries. After two months in Hawaii towing for the 5th Marine Division, the entire detachment of 6 JM-1s (Navy Version of the B-26) left 24 November 1944 for Agana, Guam. They daily towed targets and carried out tracking for Army AA units on Guam, Tinian and Saipan. It was redesignated VMJ-2 on 1 May 1945. Following the war, the squadron returned to the West Coast and was deactivated on 6 March 1946.
 * VMJ-3 Commissioned 1 October 1944 at the Marine Corps Air Station Ewa, Hawaii as VMTD-3 to provide towing and tracking for Marine AA battalions which had been formerly performed by Navy Squadrons attached to the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing and operated in practice beach assaults with the 4th Marine Division. The squadron was redesignated VMJ-3 on 1 May 1945 at Ewa. In August 1945 the detachment was sent to Midway to tow for Marine defense battalions. Following the end of the war, the squadron returned to MCAS Ewa and was deactivated in October, 1945.

title: List of Martin B-26 Marauder operators


text:
Talk:Gare Montparnasse

Page move reverted
This page was moved without explanation or discussion on 23 November. I have moved it back per WP:BRD, as the original title remains the common name in English. If there is a good reason to have this at the proposed title it should be discussed via the Requested Move process. Moonraker12 (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The "Train services" section
The "train services departing" needs an  context. Toddst1 (talk) 03:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gare Montparnasse


text:
Pelmorex Radio Network

The Pelmorex Radio Network was a system of Canadian radio stations in Northern Ontario, owned and operated by Pelmorex.

History
In 1989, Pierre Morrissette founded his own communications company, Pelmorex Media Inc., and acquired several French and English-language radio stations that were serving various small and medium-size markets in northern Ontario. Pelmorex acquired the first stations from Mid-Canada Radio in 1990. In 1991, the company created a regional radio network to transmit programs originating from Sudbury to its pelmorex-owned radio stations in northeastern Ontario and the Ottawa Valley.

In 1992, Pelmorex also entered into one of Canada's first local management agreements, taking over day-to-day management, but not formal ownership, of Telemedia's CHAS-FM in Sault Ste. Marie.

Pelmorex became controversial as one of the first radio broadcast groups in Canada to centralize its operations as a cost-saving measure. Almost all local programming on the stations was discontinued, with only local morning shows remaining. This process began slowly in 1991 with a midday program after a satellite uplink was installed at the CHNO-CJMX studios in Sudbury. By 1994, most of the stations' programming was delivered by satellite from a facility in Mississauga, and the stations were reduced to storefronts with just a few staff members.

The controversy came to a head in 1995, when Environment Canada issued a severe weather warning in Sudbury during the Heat Wave of 1995 Derecho Series. The warning, issued barely ten minutes after the stations had switched to the central programming feed, was never broadcast on any of Pelmorex's three stations in the city. Pelmorex, ironically, also owned Canada's Weather Network.

Scott Jackson, a former program director with the company, has written on his website that Pelmorex often neglected necessary equipment and technology upgrades at the stations, and that the company had him simultaneously serve as program director of both the Sudbury and North Bay clusters, spending half of his working week in each city.

Pelmorex subsequently sold CKNR, CJNR and CKNS to North Channel Broadcasting in 1996. All three stations were merged by North Channel into a new FM station on 94.1 MHz in 1997, known as CKNR.

Pelmorex also converted CHVR Pembroke, CHVR-1 Renfrew and CHVR-2 Arnprior to the FM band in 1996. All three stations were merged into a new single FM station on 96.7 MHz, known as CHVR-FM. Pelmorex converted CHUR North Bay to the FM band in 1997.

In 1997 and 1998, staff at the stations in Sudbury were involved in a four-month strike, during which all programming on the stations aired exclusively from the Mississauga facility.

In 1998, after a change in CRTC ownership rules, Pelmorex sold CHUR, CHVR, CJMX in Sudbury and CJQM in Sault Ste. Marie to Telemedia. (Telemedia had previously been limited to one station on each of the AM and FM bands in each market; with the change, it could acquire two in one band and one in the other, so it added second FMs to its existing AM/FM combos in each city.)

The company (Pelmorex) announced in 1998, that it wants to exit the radio business to focus on its multimedia weather-related information services.

Pelmorex sold the remaining stations to Haliburton Broadcasting Group in 1999. The company had received CRTC approval to convert CHNO, CHYC, CKOY, CHYK, CHOH and CKAP to the FM band as well, although the conversions were still in progress when the stations were sold to Haliburton.

title: Pelmorex Radio Network


text:
Talk:Anaerobic

Perhaps the Aerobic and Anaerobic group of topics should be rationalised by merging existing topics into

(An)aerobic (An)aerobic exercise (An)aerobic metabolism (An)aerobic organism

and getting rid of (An)aerobic glycolysis (An)aerobic respiration

title: Talk:Anaerobic


text:
Talk:Aerobic

Perhaps the Aerobic and Anaerobic group of topics should be rationalised by merging existing topics into

(An)aerobic (An)aerobic exercise (An)aerobic metabolism (An)aerobic organism

and getting rid of (An)aerobic glycolysis (An)aerobic respiration

hydrolic of bein foolishness foo!

121 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.230.48.34 (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Aerobic


text:
Category talk:Computer storage media

Merging of categories
Please see the talk page of "Category:Computer storage", regarding merging of the present cat and its sibling "Category:Computer storage devices" into one cat Category:Computer storage technology. --Wernher 06:46, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I have removed the merge template because WP:CFD should be used for categories. Mark Hurd (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Computer storage media


text:
Category talk:Computer storage devices

Merging of categories
Please see the talk page of "Category:Computer storage", regarding merging of the present cat and its sibling "Category:Computer storage media" into one cat Category:Computer storage technology. --Wernher 06:46, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I have removed the merge template because WP:CFD should be used for categories. Mark Hurd (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Computer storage devices


text:
Talk:Banqiao Dam

Untitled
I'm a Chinese and this is the first time I know about Banqiao Dam. I can feel the chill down my spine. It's year 2004, and we're still living in 1984.

Article name
Sould this article be renamed to something like Banqiao Dam Disaster? Since the article is more about the disaster than the dam? I didn't think about this when I created the article. Duk 11:01, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I removed the following paragraph
Some people claimed that The Chinese government tried very hard to suppress information of the catastrophe. The first English reporting of details of the disaster, by Human Rights Watch, did not occur until 1995. Information today is more forthcoming.

The date of reporting in a foreign language is not an evidence of suppression.A suppression should include native language also. After the flood, a summit of National Flood Prevention and Reservoir Security at Zhengzhou, Henan was reported, held by the Department of Water Conservancy and Electricity, and a nationwide reservoir security examination was performed after this meeting.
 * This comes from HRW reference which refers to a decade long news blackout. I added it when first writing the article and defer to any Chinese speaking editors who can better investigate. HRW isn't a neutral source. Duk 05:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Relocate to Nina
I've started the Typhoon Nina (1975) article. Please relocate some of the information in this article to the Typhoon Nina article. Omni ND 22:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Air strikes
The references to air strikes are jarring and should be explained. What was the purpose of bombing the dams? Tempshill 06:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

 * If only the article had sources, we could answer that question... — jdorje (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Presumably air strikes are used if the sluice gates can't release the water fast enough. By breaching particular dams in sequence other areas may have been saved. Lisiate 23:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Is this article http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/ref/banqiao_dam an almost exact copy of Wikipedia's or vice versa? (arrange) 25 April 2006

 * see the end of the page.--Skyfiler 22:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Article lead and River Ru
Both this dam and the River Ru seem most notable for the 1975 collapse, although that's not their only claim to fame by any means. I have created some redirects in the absence of any article on the river as of yet, and added a first paragraph to reflect what most people are likely to be looking for when they come here. Andrewa (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable references
It's been hard to find something reliable on the Web about this, most sites are mirrors of this article or have doubtful provenance. I expect there's a good grey civil engineering journal somewhere that's reviewed the Banqiao disaster in detail, but Google Books isn't giving us a look at it so far. The 18 GW figure seems plucked out of thin air, this dam couldn't have produced more than 400 MW or so based on the flow and head, though I haven't found a reference. Did each of the 62 dams downstream have ca. 300 MW generating capacity? Possible, I suppose, but citation needed. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree - I have had a good look but can't find anthing reliable and yes there seems to be a lot of circular referencing,.,.... .......Engineman (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The best I found that is more than likely not a mirror of the article is the product description in this book. The info in the lead also appears to be copied and pasted from there too.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree -- I checked the math based on the figures for max flow using 1,742 cubic meters/second (from current version of article). The head would need to be many thousands of feet (> 8000 feet) to generate 18 GW. Recommend deleting the capacity until a substantiated number can be found. Ghouse (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that the death count for the dam failure is written in the article as "171,000" when the death toll for the entire typhoon that caused it was around 170,000 (according to Wikipedia's Typhoon Nina article). I have no knowledge on the subject and no sources, so I will not edit anything. However, if someone can find an accurate figure from a reliable source, then please fix the error. The 11 million people figure also seems to encompass more than just the Banqiao Dam, but I may be wrong. --Breakfast221 (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

1975 Flood
Originally read: "In August 1975, however, a once-in-2000-years flood occurred, and poured more than a year's rainfall in 24 hours (new records were set, at 189.5 mm rainfall per hour and 1060 mm per day, exceeding the average annual precipitation of about 800 mm),[3] which weather forecasts failed to predict,[3] China Central Television reports that the typhoon disappeared from radar [4]. According to Xinhua[5], the forecast was a rainfall of 100 mm by the Beijing-based Central Meteorological Observatory. produced by the collision of Super Typhoon Nina and a cold front."

A couple of lines in this para are odd: The last two lines with "based Central Meteorological Observatory. produced by the collision of Super Typhoon Nina and a cold front." I corrected assuming it referenced the precipitation rate earlier in the para. The sentence "China Central Television reports that the typhoon disappeared from radar" I cannot interpret in a meaningful way. Zedshort (talk) 05:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Mistake
I think there is a mistake in the text:

On August 8, 0:30, the smaller Shimantan Dam, designed to survive a 1-in-500-year flood, failed to handle more than twice its capacity and broke upstream of Shimantan Dam, only 10 minutes after Unit 34450 sent a request that would open the Banqiao Dam by air strike. A half hour later, at 1:00, water at the Banqiao crested at the 117.94 m level above sea level, or 0.3 meter higher than the wave protection wall on the dam, and it too failed.

Should it not be "On August 8, 0:30, the smaller Shimantan Dam, designed to survive a 1-in-500-year flood, failed to handle more than twice its capacity and broke upstream of Banqiao dam, only 10 minutes after Unit 34450 sent a request that would open the Banqiao Dam by air strike. A half hour later, at 1:00, water at the Banqiao crested at the 117.94 m level above sea level, or 0.3 meter higher than the wave protection wall on the dam, and it too failed.

So that the Shimantan dam broke upstream of the Banqiao Dam,no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RulerofKnowledge (talk • contribs) 13:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC) I'm pretty sure, looking at Google Earth, that Banquio is not downstream of Shimantan. They are about 30km apart, at about the same elevation,and Shimantan is north of and appears to drain in a northerly direction. Google Earth is my source Bobfinucane (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Banqiao Dam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110613144021/http://www.usbr.gov/ssle/damsafety/Risk/Estimating%20life%20loss.pdf to http://www.usbr.gov/ssle/damsafety/Risk/Estimating%20life%20loss.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130921055232/http://www.hnsl.gov.cn/look0/article.php?L_Type=1&id=297 to http://www.hnsl.gov.cn/look0/article.php?L_Type=1&id=297

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Connection to the fall of the Gang of Four?
It's widely argued that the Chernobyl disaster was a trigger towards the fall of the USSR. It is possible to speculate that this disaster - or pattern of disasters - by similarly demonstrating the failure of the existing elite's wisdom in this area may have sped up the coup that saw their fall from power a year or so later. I admit it's pure speculation, but one that might be worth consideration. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 11:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Banqiao Dam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120809081944/http://gcontent.oeeee.com/1/f4/1f4fe6a4411edc2f/Blog/99e/ca6a16.html to http://gcontent.oeeee.com/1/f4/1f4fe6a4411edc2f/Blog/99e/ca6a16.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

killed an estimated 171,000 to 230,000 people
So I was looking up engineering disasters (long story) and I Googled this article: unbelievable-facts.com/2018/04/worst-engineering-disasters.html. I came to Wikipedia to learn more, cause that was kinda huge. However I found discrepancies in the opening paragraph which only stated the low estimate of 171k, which had a larger estimate of 230k in this very Wikipedia article itself, ignored at the opening, at the end under "Legacy": "Unofficial estimates of the number of people killed by the disaster have run as high as 230,000 people.[14]". Someone reverted the "in 1975 caused more casualties than any other dam failure in history at an estimated 171,000 to 230,000 deaths and 11 million displaced." down to a way oversimplified "in 1975 caused 171,000 deaths." This "reverted" more than I added, just "to 230,000" as covered further down. Because it was reverted (or censored?) I was notified and came back to see why as maybe I was wrong. Turns out the link above cited this Wikipedia article as it's information source - so I couldn't cite it. Also, the [14] in the article leads to an old link at the Toronto Sun website - so maybe history didn't happen. While I encourage others to address this as they see fit, I'm not going to investigate further for many reasons, including that I have no dog in this race, nor any expertise, I don't know if this is too "political" or not and I don't want to be banished again, and I would rather do other stuff - and when I am actually on Wikipedia I'd rather improve articles that interest me more. ~  JasonCarswell   (talk)   00:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Banqiao Dam