Talk:Devocalization/Archive 1

Archive 1

"Poisoning"

Just a short question on the article. Why is the most heavily cited section of the article on dog poisioning. Is it really relevent to an article on de barking? Shouldn't the article contain a discription of the procedure (not proceedure) at the very minimum? Just a small question.--84.166.227.213 (talk) 10:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

this is a vile practice and this article should reflect that fact

..wow. This is the first I've ever heard of this disgusting act and I suspect many other animal lovers are unaware of it either - that is the only reason I can think of for why the article is so unbalanced. Just the very concept makes me feel almost physically ill. It is absolutely unthinkable to me to think that people would even contemplate doing this, and equally despicable that this page tries to support it. I'm guessing these abusers would be ok with "de-crying" a loud baby? "I don't know about you, but baby crying sure does irritate me and my neighbours - let's just mutilate it's larynx, that'll fix it right up! Don't worry, it doesn't hurt it - it will still be able to cry, just with a reduced noise!" Someone please fix this article now! --86.135.176.189 (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you in regards to what a despicable procedure it is, but I don't see how the article is biased. At what point is it supporting debarking? It certainly needs expansion. --Joelmills (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

In the intro it says dog barking is "unpleasant" and leads to neighbours going insane and poisoning dogs. The implicit message being: mutilate your dogs otherwise your neighbours will kill them. I'm sure there are some bizarre isolated cases where this happened, but I don't really see that they're at all notable or relevent here. --86.135.176.189 (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy if we could just figure out a way to shut animals up without cutting em up, like teach them volume control. Especially for cats, who seem to be less trainable and much more inconsiderate about meowing at night. I've often joked I need to get my cat's meow silenced, but I'm kinda disturbed that this kinda surgery actually exists... My mom wanted to prescribe him valium e_e —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree in the strongest possible way. This is NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, a "vile procedure", nor does it have the tiniest element of animal cruelty or abuse to it. I am a fervent supporter of animal welfare and I actively fight against animal abuse. But please realize that a dog simply doesn't care whether its bark is loud or soft. I've met a number of dogs who have had their barks softened, and they do not exhibit pain or distress, and they happily bark away. The difference is that they are far, far less likely to create problems with the neighbors that could easily result in the dog being confiscated by animal control and even put to death. If you think that bark softening is an inhumane practice, then I'm sure you also think that removal of tonsils is inhumane. The surgeries are similar (actually, bark softening is less traumatic to the body than tonsillectomy) and the goal is to help the individual. Look, I recognize that there are very strongly held viewpoints on both sides of the issue. I certainly have a strong view (as my introductory sentence said). I am willing to compromise on this article, however, by agreeing that both points of view be represented equally in the article, an unbiased manner. I would also like for the article to be marked controversial, because the two sides are never doing to agree on this.

SheltieJim (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Not even the tiniest element of animal cruelty to it? I cannot understand how being forced to undergo anesthesia and surgery absent of any medical need, and then having to live the rest of your life with a disability preventing normal communication could not be considered cruel. How exactly is it that you know "a dog simply doesn’t care whether its bark is loud or soft"? You mention that the devocalized dogs you have seen did not exhibit pain or distress. This does not mean they were not experiencing pain or distress, as dog will try to suppress signs of weakness. The article states that "most devocalized dogs have a subdued "husky" bark, audible up to 20 metres". So it does not just soften their voice but also distorts it. This would mean that they would not be able to communicate warnings to other dogs that have strayed near their territory. They would not be able to properly express themselves when they are trying to alert their owner that a stranger has arrived. There is a simple solution to the problem: Don’t get a dog if you can’t tolerate barking or if barking is prohibited where you live. You don’t know exactly how a dog will behave when you get one, and any potential owner needs to realize this, and accept responsibility to care for the dog for its lifetime regardless of their behavioral traits. Situations where a dog could be confiscated and be put to death can easily be avoided by investigating local laws or apartment policies before moving or getting a new dog.

As to your statement "If you think that bark softening is an inhumane practice, then I'm sure you also think that removal of tonsils is inhumane". Tonsillectomy, if determined to be the best treatment option, has indications, and is done for the reason of improving the health of the patient. Devocalization has nothing to do with health. If you are trying to imagine what it is like for a dog, just think about how it would be for a person to be devocalized.

I agree with what someone already stated here: If more people knew that this procedure existed, it probably would already be illegal. It is sad that there are only a few states in the US where it is prohibited.

--76.119.93.37 (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

Where is the specific discussion on the neutrality tag? Would whoever posted it please enumerate their objections so they can be dealt with. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Time for it to go then. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced additions

Requesting sources for the following recent additions:

Veterinarians vary widely in their experience with the surgical procedures used to reduce the volume (loudness) of dogs' vocalizations. Experienced veterinarians are able to significantly reduce vocalization volume without causing the dog any lasting pain or discomfort. There is no evidence that dogs that have undergone such procedures suffer any ill effects or that they demonstrate any distress at having reduced loudness.

Debarking does not significantly reduce an animal's ability to communicate with people and with other animals, except at relatively long distances.

Many dogs are bred specifically to vocalize (for example, to ward off predators and trespassers). Dogs of such breeds are more likely to vocalize excessively. Elimination of the behavior is desirable, but not always successful. Devocalization provides a mechanism for reducing the stress caused by excessive barking and consequently improves the environment in which the dog lives.

-- Whatever404 (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not unwilling to provide sources for those additions (if only we can stop the constant overwriting of everybody's work). However, I think this request illustrates a double standard. In the article as you wrote it, the sentence "Debarking also significantly reduces an animal's ability to communicate with people and with other animals, including their ability to communicate that they are in danger or have been injured." is unsourced, and you are the apparent editor who inserted that statement. Why are your unsourced statements acceptable, but others' are not? SheltieJim (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Not all "work" is suitable for Wikipedia. Galashelties' recent campaign consists of multiple edits with no sources; the "overwriting" in which I have engaged involves reverting these additions until sources are provided. I have also removed the statement that you noted as unsourced, pending more sources. I have added the (moresources) template as well. Whatever404 (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Requesting sources for these recent edits, which are reverted in the meantime:

• "Similar to a laryngectomy": Some versions of the surgery do involve complete removal of the larynx. Removal of part of the larynx does seem to be a reasonable comparison. Why was this removed?
• Removal of "and cats": several humane societies and legal documents mention the procedure in regards to "dogs and cats" or to animals in general. Is this procedure never performed on cats?
• "The procedure involves removing a small amount of tissue from the animal’s vocal cords resulting in a decrease in the volume of the bark but does not render the dog silent.": Sources needed for "a small amount" and "but does not render the dog silent".
• "As with any surgery, the risks and side effects include negative reaction to anesthesia, infection, bleeding, and pain.": Not all surgeries involve anesthesia: many forms of emergency surgery are performed without it. Also, side effects and risks differ with the type of surgery performed: surgery performed in a highly vascular area carries a much greater risk of bleeding than surgery performed in other areas.
• Removal of comment on "scar tissue blocking the throat": I will seek a source for this.
• "However, debarking does not alter a dog's ability to signal distress with whines, yips, groans or howls.": The source provided for this statement does not contain any information about debarking and what it alters.

Please provide sources for these additions. Whatever404 (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

As my previous request went unanswered, and Galashelties instead reinstated the changes (with more), I have temporarily reverted the set of edits, and added the NPOV/accuracy dispute templates to the top of the page, pending discussion. Whatever404 (talk) 04:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

My "recent campaign" included citations.

Requesting sources for these recent edits, which are reverted in the meantime:

• "Similar to a laryngectomy": Some versions of the surgery do involve complete removal of the larynx. Removal of part of the larynx does seem to be a reasonable comparison. Why was this removed? >>

You state, "Medical terms for convenience devocalization include ventriculocordectomy and vocal cordectomy". Saunders Comprehensive Veterinary Dictionary 3rd Edition defines these procedures as "Punch resection of the vocal cords" and " Excision of all or a part of a cord, as of a vocal cord."

Saunders further defines "devocalization" as "Surgical interference with the voice-producing mechanism to prevent annoying noise made by the animal. In the dog and sealion the operation is a resection of the vocal cords. Equine devocalization was an important procedure for mounted units in wartime; it was a ventriculectomy with added cord resection for a greater level of muting. In the peacock devocalization is carried out by scarification of the mucosa of the syrinx."

There is no reference to the removal of any of the cartilage comprising the larynx so your comparison is based on your POV and not fact.

• Removal of "and cats": several humane societies and legal documents mention the procedure in regards to "dogs and cats" or to animals in general. Is this procedure never performed on cats?>>

Cats do not bark so therefore, they cannot be debarked. See above reference from Saunders that lists the animals that this procedure is commonly performed on.

• "The procedure involves removing a small amount of tissue from the animal’s vocal cords resulting in a decrease in the volume of the bark but does not render the dog silent.": Sources needed for "a small amount" http://www.mediarelations.k-state.edu/WEB/News/Webzine/0201/debarking.html

"A skilled surgeon can debark a dog in a very simple procedure using an adenoid punch to make a tiny hole in each vocal chord. This method is virtually bloodless. The dog recovers quickly and is not stressed by the surgery. The dog will not be silent, but his bark will be reduced in pitch and volume."

and "but does not render the dog silent". http://www.mediarelations.k-state.edu/WEB/News/Webzine/0201/debarking.html

In addition, you provided referenced sources that state a debarked dog can up heard at up to "20 meters". Your insistence that additional sources be provided contradicts your own source.

• "As with any surgery, the risks and side effects include negative reaction to anesthesia, infection, bleeding, and pain.": Not all surgeries involve anesthesia: many forms of emergency surgery are performed without it. Also, side effects and risks differ with the type of surgery performed: surgery performed in a highly vascular area carries a much greater risk of bleeding than surgery performed in other areas.>>

http://surgery.about.com/od/beforesurgery/a/RisksSurgery.htm

I am a medical professional with over 26 years of experience, dual Masters degrees that qualifies me in a court of law to provide "expert" testimony.

Perhaps you meant to state that all surgeries do not require "general" anesthesia but local anesthesia still carries the risk of adverse reaction.

• Removal of comment on "scar tissue blocking the throat": I will seek a source for this.
• "However, debarking does not alter a dog's ability to signal distress with whines, yips, groans or howls.": The source provided for this statement does not contain any information about debarking and what it alters.>

Your own reference along with additional sources have already been provided that substantiate the statement that bark softening does not silence a dog; as such, additional vocalizations are not eliminated any more than the bark. (I currently have 8 bark softened shelties who howl, yip and whine all day.)

Here are additional examples:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcKAEVoqrY0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2X82dWg9BQ&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqWP8qgNqbY&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vErxOhOYpic&feature=related (This video has both bark softened and "normal" barks)

You quote Dr. Kathy Gaughan, assistant professor of clinical sciences at Kansas State University’s Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital, as saying "convenience debarking "doesn't take away the motivation to bark or address any underlying behavioral issues." You did not provide a source for this quote. Is it because Dr. Gaughan doesn't refer to this procedure as "convenience devocalization"? Dr. Gaughan also states: "Recently, some animal advocates have asserted this surgery is cruel to the animal; some countries have even outlawed the procedure. I do not believe the surgical procedure is cruel; however, failing to address the underlying factors is inappropriate." http://www.mediarelations.k-state.edu/WEB/News/Webzine/0201/debarking.html.

As SheltieJim stated previously, you continually edit out information (sourced) that you don't agree with. EX: Charlotte Clem McGowan's article on debarking from the NAIA website. Are you deleting this as POV? Someone who has been involved in the dog fancy/dog breeding for the decades Ms. McGowan has, who is also the AKC Legislative Liaison, a published author and an AKC judge, is an expert in this field. I do not believe you are editing without inserting your own bias, ie "NPOV" versus my extensive experience in dealing with several herding breeds (shelties, collies, corgis) for 3 decades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galashelties (talk • contribs) 15:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)<!Galashelties (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to the talk page for discussion. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that additions to Wikipedia must be supported by reliable, verifiable, third-party sources. Editors' personal experiences, however extensive, are not a substitute for sources.

You said:

"You quote Dr. Kathy Gaughan, assistant professor of clinical sciences at Kansas State University’s Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital, as saying "convenience debarking "doesn't take away the motivation to bark or address any underlying behavioral issues." You did not provide a source for this quote.

No, I personally did not quote Gaughan; that content was present in the article, apparently before you or I ever edited it. Similarly, many of the statements that you attributed to me personally were not originally added by me; they simply reappeared as part of the reverts.

Perhaps a way that we can avoid edit-warring is to follow these two steps:

1. Use the {{cn}} (citation needed) template, inline, to indicate that a statement needs sources and to give other editors time to find sources.
2. Make sure that any new content is referenced with sources that meet Wikipedia's content policies, particularly WP:V.

If there are specific changes that you already know that you would like to see made, would you please make a brief, concise, specific list of the key points, including appropriate sources? Thanks. Whatever404 (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to comment on a quote attributed to Jordan Starr: "To take a voice away from an animal is morally wrong." While this quote came from numerous articles R/T Logan's Law, it is still nothing more than Starr's POV which is formed on an incorrect knowledge of this procedure. Thanks for your response above. Galashelties (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It would not be appropriate to add this text to the article as a definitive statement about the morality of the procedure; that indeed would violate WP:NPOV. I think it is perfectly appropriate to include this brief, inline-attributed statement, on the grounds that it illustrates Star's motivation for co-creating the bill, particularly considering that other people have created similar bills for similar reasons in locations worldwide. Whatever404 (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I am omce again going to remove your statement comparing bark softening with a laryngectomy. This is not accurate. A laryngectomy involves the complete removal of the larynx and separation of the airway from the mouth, nose, and esophagus. A dog who has undergone this procedure must have a permanent source for oxygen, such as a trach, to enable it to breathe. The comparison is absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galashelties (talk • contribs) 13:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Reasons for animal relinquishment

An editor recently added this statement:

Research done at the Humane Society of St. Joseph in Indiana compiled information and found that excessive barking was the second highest cause for surrender (41%) related to behavioral issues, surpassed only by hyperactivity (45%. Difficulty with housetraining was a distant third at 21%.

The reference given for this statement was: J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1996 Aug 1;209(3):572-81.

Yet the National Council on Pet Population Study & Policy, of which the American Veterinary Medical Association is a member, maintains a list of the The Top Ten Reasons for Pet Relinquishment to Shelters in the United States. Neither vocalization nor "behavioral problems" make the list. Whatever404 (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, I don't think you can pick and choose specific reserach because it negates your position against bark softening. This is absolutely a valid study and your deleting this shows bias. Please restore or give me contact information for your supervisor. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galashelties (talk • contribs) 17:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Editors are required to provide accurate information. You are presenting a 13-year-old study citing data compiled at the Humane Society of Saint Joseph, a shelter in Indiana; the study was published by the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA). The statistics I provided are from the National Council on Pet Population Study & Policy (NCPPSP), an organization which itself has ten prominent American animal organizations as members. They include:

American Humane Association American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals American Veterinary Medical Association Cat Fanciers' Association The Humane Society of the United States

American Association of Feline Practitioners The American Pet Products Association Association for Veterinary Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine National Animal Control Association Society of Animal Welfare Administrators

The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), publisher of JAVMA (the journal that you cited), is a member of the NCPPSP.

The NCPPSP describes itself thus: "The National Council consists of animal-related organizations brought together to work on mutual goals regarding homeless pets." Their number-one stated goal is "to serve as a national collection point for gathering and evaluating available pet population data and relevant materials". One of the main activities in which the NCPPSP engages is compiling animal shelter statistics. In the NCPPSP's bibliography, the NCPPSP lists many studies from JAVMA. Clearly, the NCPPSP makes it their goal to use the best research available from the AVMA and other sources, in order to compile accurate statistics.

Any organization's professional reputation depends in part on the reputations of the organizations that they join. The AVMA alone represents over 78,000 United States veterinarians. I think it is reasonable to conclude that the AVMA would not remain a member of an which was disseminating inaccurate information and citing their own professional journal. Clearly, the quality of NCPPSP's work has the respect and support of the AVMA, and other major American animal organizations.

Therefore, this is not a matter of NPOV. It is not reasonable to present older, less comprehensive, less accurate data from one small study published in JAVMA that directly conflicts with the newer, more comprehensive, more accurate data that has the support of the organization which published the old data. Clearly, the NCPPSP's data supersedes that of the study you cited. Please read WP:NPOV, and if you still disagree, please provide evidence demonstrating why you think the study you cited should supersede or be given equal weight as the work of the NCPPSP. Thank you. Whatever404 (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)>>

Editors are required to provide accurate UNBIASED information and your instance of removing ANYTHING that contradicts your anti-debark POV should not be allow.

The NCPPSP study you cited was done in 1994-1997, the same range of the info you are providing. Phase two is NOT completed. Secondly, the NCPPSP clearly states. "The reporting shelters may not represent a random sampling of U.S. shelters." so your source clearly admits to skewed statistics.

Again, I find you editing biased and would like to discuss the appropriateness of your edits removing opposing information.

One might note that your edits are biased in favor of convenience devocalization. I would like to discuss your edits involving the introduction of badly-sourced or unsourced information.

Wikipedia policies and guidelines serve as tools to help editors make fair decisions, even when personal opinions come into play. You have failed to demonstrate why one study from Indiana should trump the NCPPSP's Shelter Statistics Survey, which polled over 5,000 shelters.

I also removed the personal opinions of Gary Landsberg and Kathy Gaughan, as I realized that is not clear to me why these individuals, among thousands of vets, should have their personal opinions about this controversial procedure showcased.

Further, I removed the statement about opponents of the MA bill, because it is unsourced. Whatever404 (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, if you are going to remove Gaughan and Landsberg, both licensed veterinarians, then you need to remove NCPPSP's "survey" of shelters, which was NOT direct research but rather garnered from response to postcards sent and which the NCPPSP also CLEARLY states do not represent a random sampling of US shelters.

When I objected to Jordan Starr's statement that "To take an animal's voice away is not moral" you allowed that to stand as his POV. However, you have repeatedly removed POVs from experts who have been involved in the fancy for decades, who have vast experience in dealing with these dogs.

If you are not going to give me the name of your supervisor on Wikipedia, I will be glad to spend the time it takes to find that out. However, I do intend to let it be known that you are essentially editing this article to match your own exacting bias, and THAT needs to stop NOW.

For the LAST time, who is your immediate supervisor on this page? You continuing bias in what you allow is so blatant that you need to be removed from this position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galashelties (talk • contribs) 14:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Gaughan and Landsberg were stating their own personal opinions about whether convenience devocalization should be performed at all. Why should we include these two vets' opinions? Can you demonstrate that their opinions are representative of others in the field? I do not agree with your assertion that removal of these individual, personal opinions necessitates the removal of information obtained from a survey of over 5,000 shelters.

Jordan Star's one-sentence statement specifically supports his reasoning for introducing a piece of legislation related to convenience devocalization. His opinion explains why the bill was introduced. Your reflexive removal of the statements from Dawn Brown, DVM is not reasonable: the statements from Brown only contain medical information about the procedures themselves, not opinions about whether the procedures should be performed. If a better, more central source that describes the procedures could be found, that certainly could take the place of Brown's description.

My... "supervisor" on Wikipedia? What? (Also: why are you saying "for the last time" when this is the first time you have mentioned any such thing?) Whatever404 (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If you scroll up, you will see where I asked for contact info for your supervisor on Aug 12th. Please read more carefully in the future.

Gaughan and Lansberg, as veterinarians, speak as experts on a procedure performed by veterinarians. PETA is certainly not an expert in animal care yet you added their position against bark softening. Could your bias be any more obvious? Secondly, I believe it was you that originally posted Gaughan as a reference and only know, when shown that she clearly states that debarking has a role with dealing with excessive vocalization, you decide to remove it?

The NCSSPC survey was conducted using postcards mailed to shelters. The study was done in the exact same time frame as Patronek's, who utilized direct research via observation, interviews and subsequent assessments of the dogs behavior. NCSSPC admits that their own study is like skewed as it does not represent. Secondly, additional information from the NCSSPC provided a link to a study on reasons for relinquishment at http://www.petpopulation.org/behavioralreasons.pdf which includes excessive barking. Further studies address non-aggressive behavioral issues as a reason for surrender...Dr. Patronek's study, completed in the exact same time frame as those studies completed by the NCSSPC groups, addressed the specific reasons for owner relinquished dogs and correlates with the NCSSPC studies. To negate it shows clear bias, IMO, as you are refusing to acknowledge that excessive barking is a major behavioral issue causing dogs to be surrendered and ultimately eliminated.

The newly-created sections hopefully address the differences between scientific research and personal opinions.

As far as the opinions go, in my opinion, you have not demonstrated that Gaughan's and Lansberg's opinions are representative of the opinions of veterinarians as a group. Yet, PETA is a readily recognizable example of an animal rights organization with a position against convenience devocalization (CD).

As far as the research goes, I do not think that you have demonstrated that the NCPPSP's methodology was flawed: clearly, this organizing body seeks to scrutinize all available data on the topic and to provide the most accurate statistics available. Whatever404 (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced statement: Proponents

The following statement is without a citation. I have moved it here, pending the addition of reliable, verifiable sources.

Some proponents of convenience devocalization claim that their animals are non-responsive to other solutions, pointing out that an excessively noisy dog may, in extreme cases, otherwise face euthanasia.

-- Whatever404 (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

An editor reinstated this statement without a source, so I removed it again, pending the addition of sources. Whatever404 (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Controvery section

I have created a Controversy section which outlines the dispute between those who support and those who oppose the procedure. This section is merely a skeleton, an outline which can be improved with more sources and material. Whatever404 (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Source

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/nyregion/03debark.html?src=twt&twt=nytimes

AniRaptor2001 (talk) 05:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved to devocalization. Feel free to start another RM to move to one of the other titles suggested. Ucucha 00:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Convenience devocalization → Debarking — Current title is obscure and not widely used. Should move to Debarking (or Devocalization if a more inclusive title is warranted) —Dodo bird (talk) 05:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• I thought that "debarking" could also removing the bark from a log in timber processing. Perhaps "devocalization", as cats do not bark. I have heard of mules being devoiced when they are going to be used by men operating secretly behind enemy lines. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• Perhaps Debarking (animal)? Miyagawa (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

POV and sourcing issue

This article should be easy to source to a very high quality. However a major section is virtually unsourced and contains a number of statements that are dubious, personal essay style, or POV.

Attempt to put a simple "fix" on the issues

Latter two paragraphs are still issues. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Devocalisation of equids

A previous comment on this page: "I have heard of mules being devoiced when they are going to be used by men operating secretly behind enemy lines. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)" I too have read of war horses being devocalised. Does anyone have information of this? DrChrissy (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

In accordance to the Wikipedia page on neutrality the following has been identified:

I would like to point out two noticeable problems present in this article:

1. There are few reliable sources present in many sections (these have been marked up with the "citation needed" tag where appropriate).
2. The article comes across as being highly judgmental and therefore may not reflect a neutral perspective for readers.

It can be noted that this article contains information based on a highly sensitive topic though appears to have missing information bordering in some instances on being misleading. Some missing information in my opinion is the fact that the article does not make a distinct enough differentiation between "convenience devocalisation" and devocalisation due to extenuating circumstances such as when a pet may face being euthanized due to being deemed as a barking nuisance, even after extensive training and other interventions.

To keep this article in line with Wikipedia best practices, all contentious statements present in this article should be removed unless properly cited.

Please see the Wikipedia page on "Neutral point of view" for more information.

In addition, as an observation of the talk page in general there seems to be lots of contention regarding a few subjects. Please remember that a talk page is a place for constructive criticism to take place. Please see the Wikipedia page on: "Talk page guidelines". Sweetmat (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

To my mind the POV is not too bad, however, the section on "Context" seems to be the views of only one person and should be deleted. I agree that the term "convenience devocalisation" requires clarification. What is it if it is not for "convenience"? Are there any medical conditions requiring devocalisation? The opening sentences on legal status which I think emphasise POV by being stated so early in the article are largely redundant and could be moved to the lower section on legality.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the POV banner and replaced it with a more suitable one. I think the reason that I was confused with this article was due to the fact that the majority of the article is related to the controversy of the subject and not based on the subject itself (which is a veterinary medical procedure). To help reduce the amount of contentious statements I have added a section called "less invasive interventions" that may help provide more balance to the article and help keep avid animal rights enthusiasts happy. Sweetmat (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

YIKES! It now looks as if this article is advocating the use of shock collars. These are highly controversial (banned in some countries) and some people would argue less ethical because they involve pain whereas devocalisation does not. I'm not sure that the existing POV is really addressed by this approach, and infact might be raising another POV__DrChrissy (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I have since updated the section on shock collars to represent a more worldly view of the subject as the majority of countries world-wide have not outlawed the use of electrostatic shock collars. After reviewing quite a few articles on the subject, there was insufficient evidence (in my opinion) to not include the use of the collars as an option. To help prevent a POV problem and make the subject more acceptable to publish in this page, I have placed an obvious warning next to the shock collar option as well as a link to the shock collar page for readers wanting to investigate the option more. FYI, I am a supporter of animal rights and should you disagree with my opinion on the matter, please feel free to make any necessary changes.Sweetmat (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I have made a few tweaks which I hope give slightly more NPOV but without changing the message. I deleted the sentence relating to relative humaneness because this statement requires robust verification, which to my knowledge does not exist. Hope these changes are OK.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Your changes read well and seem balanced to me. I agree with your assessment regarding the relative humaneness of the various collars (must admit that I hesitated when adding that line). I can only hope that the addition of the various new sections help the community at large to build this page with more factual information regarding the procedure and help prevent additional POV problems.Sweetmat (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Devocalization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070523000336/http://www.mediarelations.k-state.edu:80/WEB/News/Webzine/0201/debarking.html to http://www.mediarelations.k-state.edu/WEB/News/Webzine/0201/debarking.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)