Talk:Phil McGraw

Edit request from 184.36.135.95, 31 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change the heading for the "Personal life" section from =Personal life== to ==Personal life== because there is a equal sign missing.

184.36.135.95 (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Already Y Done by Cresix (talk · contribs) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 18:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Kalpoe lawsuit

interesting new info from his lawyer about who he thinks is funding the lawsuit in this article: http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/16/is-dr-phil-winning-or-losing-the-natalee-holloway-case-battle/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.39.205 (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Wildly biased (which I have mixed feelings about)

I somewhat hesitate to say this because the truth is this article is interesting, I learned from it, and I have no reason to be a huge Dr. Phil fan myself. If anything I'd like to see him knocked down another peg. However, this article (as of 24 March 2011) barely even delves into the common perceptons of Dr. Phil, why he has become successful, his main accomplishments or a true outline of his advice. He clearly connects with a lot of people, and Amazon.com reviews for instance suggest that many people have found his advice helpful (others not so much). An alien from Mars who reads only Wikipedia might be forgiven for thinking that Dr. Phil will go down in history above Hitler but slightly below Bernard Madoff. Yes, the general perception of Dr. Phil by the Oprah multitudes has been too forgiving, so a more cynical take on him is fully appropriate. (Speaking of cynicism, it's hard not to speculate why the core of the Oprah demographic, the daytime TV watching housewives, might be overly embracing this stern father-figure-like dispenser of advice. "I said DO IT." OK, dad.) But this article is not very encyclopedic; it is basically a hit piece. Now having said that, while I think it would make sense for a Dr. Phil aficionado to come along and add some texture to this article, I actually hope that the Dr. Phil countersquad on Wikipedia does keep the juicy incriminating tidbits coming, because I think that's a legitimate and necessary role for Wikipedia to play. One of the truly invaluable services of this magnificent website. Although I'm sure there would have been more of a defense of Mister Phil (didn't he let his license expire?) if the page wasn't semi-protected, I shudder to think what vapid, impulsive defenses might have appeared by now if it wasn't. Albeit without Mr. Phil urging them to MAKE THE EDIT it's not entirely clear they would take the initiative themselves. And thus, another great irony of the man -- be assertive, because I COMMAND you to be! (Yes, sir.) On second thought, maybe we should keep the page as it is. If martians can find this site, I'm sure they are aware of Oprah's legions, or at least Mr. Phil's blog. One specific item I did wonder about though was the "Kalpoe lawsuit" as it only says the suit was filed in 2006. So I thought that perhaps it had been dismissed but not updated here. But I do see that a recent article on Daily Beast shows shows it's still going as of March 2011. Very much like his unctuous business ventures, Mr. Phil's lawsuits seem to accumulate far faster than they dissipate. "With three active lawsuits against Dr. Phil McGraw, Tricia Romano delves into the current and past scandals surrounding the controversial TV shrink." So, in short, all you wide eyed throngs of Mr. Phil adulators, come and be heard, don't make excuses, just step right up and do it darn it, cause I said so. (But all you other editors, please don't let them take over.) --96.228.102.110 (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is, that the reasons why he is popular are very hard to verify. Things like amazon.com reviews do not count as reliable sources, so unless we can find some academic that has investigated his popularity, we will have to stick simply stating his ratings figures and book sales. Ashmoo (talk) 08:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Clinical psychologist licence revoked

As far as I remember, his license was revoked or suspended due to an unethical relationship with a patient. It used to appear in this article. This kind of license is not retired because you had enough of it. It is a spin to make him look clean. Whoever gave him that letter from the Texas Board may have helped him save-face, but it's an important fact that he was reprimanded and punished on ethical charges. 93.172.36.181 (talk) 04:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Can someone with an account add back this bit from the article's history:

Suspension of License to Practice

The Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists imposed disciplinary sanctions on McGraw on January 27, 1989 for an inappropriate "dual relationship" reported in 1988 by a therapy client/employee from 1984. McGraw was ordered by the Board to take an ethics class, pass a jurisprudence exam, complete a physical evaluation, undergo a psychological evaluation and have his practice supervised for one year in order to continue his private practice in Texas. McGraw admits to giving the client a "job" at his office (which is not allowed), but denied carrying on a sexual relationship with the 19 year old, who says their relationship was "sexually inappropriate."[7][2][8] As of 2008, McGraw is still not licensed to practice psychology. 93.172.36.181 (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, can someone remove the "retired" bit. "Retired" is a laundered term with no place in wikipedia. You don't "retire" clinical psychologist license. 93.172.36.181 (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This line: "He maintained his license current and in good standing until he elected to retire it 15 years later in 2006." is an outright lie. Why would anyone insist his license is in good standing if it wasn't disputed? This side of the story was erased from the article. 93.172.36.181 (talk) 04:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no "outright lie", and you need to provide evidence that his license was revoked before claiming such. This is a talk page about a living person, and all the rules of WP:BLP apply on this talk page as well as the article, including unsourced and possibly libelous claims. He simply did not renew his license. That's not to say that he wasn't investigated for ethical problems, or that he wasn't reprimanded (as indicated in the official document from the Texas Board that is sourced in the article), but his license was never revoked. I'm not sure what you mean by "This kind of license is not retired because you had enough of it", but if you mean that a psychologist's license does not expire unless revoked by the Board, that's simply untrue. In every state, licenses must be renewed on a regular basis; Texas is no exception. Once his license expired and he did not renew, the Texas Psychology Board had no legal authority over him unless he misrepresented himself as a licensed psychologist. This was discussed some time ago on this talk page. See the archives. I'm not defending McGraw, but I am defending Wikipedia policies. Please don't make further unfounded statements about any living person on this or any other talk page or article. Cresix (talk) 04:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Phil and "Lie" Detectors

Perhaps mention should be made of Phil's naive faith in the validity of so-called "lie detector" or polygraph tests. No one without a vested interest in polygraphy believes that they can reliable detect deception. Stress? Yes. Fear? Yes. Lies? Not in the least. Surely Phil has faced scrutiny for embracing this pseudoscience.172.190.235.115 (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Lede

{{Edit semi-protected}} The lede presently reads "Phillip Calvin McGraw (born September 1, 1950) best known as Dr. Phil, is an American television personality, author, psychologist, and the host of the television show Dr. Phil, which debuted in 2002". This should be changed to "Phillip Calvin McGraw (born September 1, 1950) best known as Dr. Phil, is an American television personality, author, former psychologist, and the host of the television show Dr. Phil, which debuted in 2002". "Psychologist" is a protected title, limited to licensed individuals and he is no longer licensed. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Y Done  Chzz  ►  04:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)