Talk:Phil McGraw/Archive 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Porn star problems (2005)

In May, 2005, McGraw, who has been an outspoken critic of pornography, was scammed on his "Bad Influences" show by the infamous twin porn stars, Crystal and Jocelyn Potter. The Dr. Phil web site was subsequently altered to cover up the embarrassment. http://web.archive.org/web/20051231052936/http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/313967p-268580c.html and http://drphil.aca.cc/ Three months later, Jay McGraw became engaged to Erica Dahm, one of the famous Playboy triplets. http://news.softpedia.com/news/Dr-Phil-s-Son-Engaged-to-Triplet-Playboy-Playmate-7413.shtml Dr. Phil was Best Man at the wedding, which was held at his home in Beverly Hills. http://www.drphil.com/shows/page/jayericawedding/

Comments?

Wikeye (talk) 04:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Poor Richard's Behavior Modificiation Therapy

[[Image:Example.jpg]

Why not check into some behavior modification therapy that's been working pretty well for 250 years? Anyone who wants to quote Ben Franklin or a modern update, feel free to help yourself. No copyright sweat -- it's on Creative Commons, which cuts out most the hassle. The website is www.benandverse.com, and it's got a search engine.

Do just quote it. Do it.

PS The author is a McCall, but not the McCall or any relation. He is from Dallas, but no kin to the Dallas Observer.

63.3.2.129 21:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Author Confesses

I. the author. planted the story above about my own website. There now. That feels better. Consider my behavior modified. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.72.129 (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Poor Intro

Waving his fingure at wife doesn't really need to be in the introduction.

Trivia

To continue with the previous discussion of "Pop culture references," whether you call it "Miscellaneous," "Pop culture references,"Additional information," or any of a variety of terms, all of these terms are used to avoid the word TRIVIA. And that's because Wikipedia's guidelines state that a trivia section is only an intermediate step. Trivia should be integrated into the rest of the article, and if it can't, should be deleted. I don't think much of it CAN be integrated, especially the lengthy item about the Flash soundboards. Printing those quotes leaves them completely devoid of humor without Dr. Phil's voice and style behind them. I'm giving that item another week or two; if a strong sentiment to keep the item is not indicated here, I'm deleting it. And I suggest that other editors try to integrate the remaining "Miscellaneous" or delete it. Ward3001 00:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Deepak Kalpoe suit

this should be there too. It was edited out as controversial. why protect these guys? It is all true and sourced, mpst;u pff his own show. who is arie gold?

<removed unsourced content per WP:BLP..> Dreadstar † 05:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the core policies of Wikipedia is verfiability, and if you cannot provide a reliable, third-party source to cite your negative statements, the information cannot be added, per the Biographies of living persons policy. Additionally, please see the copyright policy which forbids You Tube videos of copyrighted material, and those you added are copyrighted. See the external links policy for details. Please review all these pages (click on all the blue links) provided to you to understand the legal issues surrounding the information you are attempting to add. Ariel♥Gold 04:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

And I might add, the information was not "edited out as controversial," and the only thing we're trying to "protect" is Wikipedia. Wikipedia has many articles containing controversial information, but as ArielGold stated, all information on Wikipedia must be verifiable, especially information about living persons. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid or outlet for the rumor mill. Ward3001 04:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

additional information requested

I have heard that Dr. Phil's license to practice was revoked, but I do not know how to find out if this is true or false. Would someone please find out what happened with his license? 71.180.120.148 02:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, start by actually reading the article. Reprimanded, not revoked. Ward3001 02:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The article you linked cites activity 20 years ago, and I was asking about current data.

[1]This source says that with the reprimand, he was required to take ethics courses, which he did not complete.

The following source says his license is inactive and that it specifies that he "may not provide psychological services." [2]

Again, the information does not look up to date - but both of these sources seem to indicate that more than just a reprimand is in play here.71.180.120.148 19:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that "more than just a reprimand is in play here". He doesn't need a license to host TV shows and write books. He may have simply let his license lapse. He wasn't doing diagnosis or treatment even before he became well-known. He had shifted into business and legal consulting, which does not require a license. Not having a license doesn't necessarily indicate that he has had his license revoked or suspended. For example, Dr. Robert Jarvik, inventor of the artificial heart and now seen on TV commercials, has never been licensed to practice medicine even though he has a medical degree. Ward3001 20:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the second source you cite above reads like a tabloid and provides no sources to back up its claims, and looks like it might be self-published. Probably very unreliable. Ward3001 00:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'm making a huge jump here. If you get a speeding ticket you may be required to pay a fine and take some classes, but your driver's license would not necessarily be revoked. If you only pay part of the fine or only go to some of the classes, further penalties up to or including the revocation of your driver's license would be incurred. It's not a huge leap to conclude that the board governing psychologist's licenses would also do more than just mutter to themselves "Gosh darn, he did not comply with the stipulations in his reprimand. Oh well."

If you want to conclude that his licensed has been suspended or revoked (and especially if you include it in the article, per WP:V) you need to get it directly from the Texas Psychology Board. Most boards have that information on their websites, or at the very least can provide it by phone. That's their job, to keep the public informed. Don't put it in article unless you get it from them. Ward3001 16:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It is true that you don't need a license to do what he is doing, and he has called himself an applied behavioral scientist, which does not require a license - but he has also built his reputation on being a clinical psychologist - and the wiki article lists him as a psychologist - and that would be misleading if it is not clarified whether or not he has a license to practice. If Wikipedia is to be accurate, it must state the whole relevant truth. 71.180.120.148 15:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The term "psychologist" is not clearly defined in many cases. Even psychology licensing boards recognize exceptions to use of the title without a license. The title is used in Wikipedia for many academics who likely don't have licenses. Without more sourced details, it should not be removed from the article. Ward3001 16:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should not be removed. As the title of this discussion suggests, I am requesting additional information. Perhaps once a conclusive and verifiable answer is found, it can be added to the Criticisms and controversies section. 71.180.120.148 17:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, thank you for directing me to the Texas Psychology Board.71.180.120.148 17:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel very strongly that the title of psychologist should be removed from this article. A close reading of Phil McGraw's biography on his Dr. Phil website [3] reveals that he does not refer to himself as a psychologist, which is proper, because he is not licensed. One cannot advertise one's self as a "psychologist" without being licensed, even after attaining a PhD.ClatieK (talk) 05:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an advertisement; it is an encyclopedia. It does not have to conform to licensing boards' regulations about use of the title "psychologist". And, as I stated above, even licensing boards have notable exceptions. What McGraw calls himself and what is in Wikipedia don't have to be the same. Here is a sample of people with articles in Wikipedia who are identified as psychologists, but who do/did not have licenses, and who may not have referred to themselves as psychologists: B.F. Skinner, John B. Watson, Edward Thorndike, Clark L. Hull, Edward C. Tolman, Albert Bandura, Donald Olding Hebb, Lewis Goldberg, Clark L. Hull, Jerome Kagan. There are many others. Ward3001 (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to point out tha everyone you referenced as not being lisceneced and who may not have refered to themselves as psychologists are either people with a Ph.D in psychology, or people who's research defines the fields of study today. I find it hard to believe that anyone could equate the credentials of Dr. Phil to B.F. Skinner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.51.217.226 (talk • contribs)

You completely missed the point. I never intended to equate McGraw with Skinner. The issue is whether Wikipedia should state that McGraw is a psychologist given that he is not licensed as a psychologist. The people that I pointed out are simply examples of people who are/were not licensed but are referred to as psychologists in their Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia does not have to refrain from identifying someone as a psychologist simply because that person is not licensed. And by the way, McGraw also has a Ph.D. in psychology. Ward3001 (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms and controversies: Ethical violation

The paragraph on McGraw's ethical violation incorrectly states that McGraw was "reprimanded" and "required to take ethics classes" by the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists (TSBEP) in "1988" for an "inappropriate dual relationship".

However, a document from the TSBEP called "Disciplinary Sanctions Updated August 2007" indicates that the "Disciplinary Action" was not "Reprimand", but "Supervised Practice (1 yr); Satisfactory Completion of Professional Ethics Course and Board's Jurisprudence Exam; Physical and Psychological Evaluations". The "Nature/Infraction" was "Dual relationship; Violation of Code of Ethics"--not "inappropriate dual relationship". Also, the sanctions were imposed "01/27/89", rather than "1988" (see page 25/41 at http://www.tsbep.state.tx.us/documents/BOARD_DISCIPLINARY_ACTIONS.pdf).

The paragraph might correctly state the following:

The Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists imposed disciplinary sanctions on McGraw on January 27, 1989 for a "Dual relationship; Violation of Code of Ethics" 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." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikeye (talk • contribs) 20:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the change, except "Dual relationship; Violation of Code of Ethics" is awkward and wordy, and "inappropriate dual relationship" is identical in meaning (any inappropriate dual relationship is a violation of the ethics code; and any dual relationship that violates the ethics code is considered inappropriate). That's the only thing I would change. Ward3001 (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, except that the word inappropriate might be left outside of the double-quotes, or it could appear that the entire phrase is a quote from the TSBEP or some other authority. So it might say:

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. Wikeye (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Ward3001 (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) OK, who changed section # 3.2 heading from "Ethical Violation" to "Suspension of License to Practice"? Where's your source?

Good point. No license suspension, just a reprimand and conditions to practice. I reverted.Ward3001 (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The TSBEP web site indicates that the good "doctor" isn't currently licensed; however, there's nothing about a suspension. McGraw was sanctioned in 1989, shortly before he left private practice and got into trial consulting, and it sure looks like he left the profession rather than complete the terms of the sanction, but we really need some documentation from the TSBEP or a statement from the Dr. Phil camp (other than "no comment").75.25.17.225 (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC) That's my comment above. Forgot to sign in. Wikeye (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

CORRECTION: McGraw was sanctioned January 27, 1989; Courtroom Sciences, Inc. was incorporated in Texas January 29, 1990, more than a year later (see Texas Comptroller Web Site at http://ecpa.cpa.state.tx.us/coa/servlet/cpa.app.coa.CoaGetTp?Pg=tpid&Search_Nm=Courtroom%20Sciences%20&Button=search&Search_ID=17523143273) Wikeye (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone changed the last line of section # 3.2 to read: "As of 2008, McGraw has not completed the conditions imposed by the Board of Examiners of Psychologists and he is not licensed to practice psychology." Please tell me you have a cite for the first part of that sentence. If not, it must go. McGraw may have completed the conditions, regained his license and then simply left his practice for CSI and let his license lapse. Wikeye (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Texas Observer cite in the previous section clearly states he did not fufill his requirements before moving on to CSI. The Board of Examiners of Psychologists in the sentence above it shows his status as of 2007. I will change it to 2007 and add that cite.--Travelingman (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It's easy to find out if he's licensed in Texas: To verify that an individual is licensed with the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists, an individual may call the Board: 512-305-7700. By phone, the staff can verify a maximum of three names, with the following information: if the licensee is current, delinquent, void, retired, deceased and the type of licensure. Additionally, by phone the investigative staff may provide if a licensee has any disciplinary action. By law, information concerning current complaint status, current investigation status, or previously dismissed complaints may not be provided. Eeekster (talk) 00:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Er ... Eeekster, we already know he's not licensed. The issue is whether he fulfilled conditions imposed by the Texas Psychology Board. Ward3001 (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistent "official" biography (proposed addition)

McGraw's biography on the official Dr. Phil web site has changed over time as McGraw's claimed credentials have come into question. The original bio posted August 1, 2005 stated:

"In concert with his books and television work, Dr. Phil provides strategic guidance for millions of Americans through his monthly column in O, The Oprah Magazine. He is also one of the world’s most sought-after public speakers. As a professional psychologist, he has published numerous scholarly articles and has practiced in the many fields of clinical psychology and behavioral medicine. Dr. Phil has a B.S, M.A. and Ph.D. in clinical psychology from North Texas State University with a dual area of emphasis in clinical and behavioral medicine. He has been a board-certified and licensed clinical psychologist since 1978." (See Internet Archive Wayback Machine for http://www.drphil.com/shows/page/bio/ on August 1, 2005).

On February 3, 2006, the last line was replaced with the following to reflect the fact that McGraw was never board-certified (most mdoctors of medicine are board-certified and McGraw has never been a doctor of medicine) and was not licensed since 1978:

"He is a licensed clinical psychologist in the great state of Texas." (See Internet Archive Wayback Machine for http://www.drphil.com/shows/page/bio/ on February 3, 2006).

On October 12, 2006, that line was deleted to reflect the fact that McGraw was not, in fact, licensed to practice in Texas or anywhere else in the country. (See Internet Archive Wayback Machine for http://www.drphil.com/shows/page/bio/ on October 12, 2006). Apparently, McGraw forfeited his license to practice rather than complete the terms of the disciplinary sanctions imposed on January 27, 1989 by The Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists (See Wikipedia, Criticisms and controversies, # 3.2 Ethical violation).

On February 26, 2007, McGraw changed portions of his bio claiming that he is a professional psychologist, that he has published "numerous scholarly articles" and that he has practiced clinical psychology and behavioral "medicine." (See Internet Archive Wayback Machine for http://www.drphil.com/shows/page/bio/ on February 26, 2007). These references to medicine suggest that Dr. Phil is a doctor of medicine. In fact, McGraw is not and has never been a doctor of medicine.

Also, a search of PubMed.gov (See search of PubMed.gov for "McGraw Phillip" [Author]) and Google Scholar (See search of Google Scholar for phillip c mcgraw author:p-mcgraw) indicate that McGraw was co-author of only one scholarly article in June 1981, which was part of his dissertation while in graduate school.

Finally, McGraw's undergraduate school was changed from North Texas State University to Midwestern State University. All of these misstatements and others were deleted from McGraw's bio. Currently (January 6, 2008), the bio reads simply:

"Dr. Phil has a B.A. from Midwestern State University and an M.A. and Ph.D. in clinical psychology from North Texas State University with a dual area of emphasis in clinical and behavioral medicine." (See http://www.drphil.com/shows/page/bio/).

By exaggerating and misstating important parts of his academic degrees, credentials, educational institution affiliations, publications, experience and competence, McGraw is in danger of again being sanctioned by the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists, especially since he claimed to be "a licensed clinical psychologist in the great state of Texas." (See Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Rule §465.6(b)(1)). By deleting two-thirds of the original bio, some clarity has resulted, although McGraw fails to state his undergraduate major, fails to indicate that his Master's degree was in experimental psychology--not clinical psychology, fails to make clear that his expertise was in clinical psychology--not counseling psychology, and he implies some kind of medical expertise, although he is not a medical doctor.

This desire to become recognized as a special doctor of medicine appears to be a long-standing psychological issue with McGraw, who insists that guests and the media refer to him as "Doctor Phil." The groundswell of public criticism and embarrassment for exaggerating his credentials and sidestepping disciplinary sanctions by the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists in 1989 have been a blow to McGraw's ego and caused McGraw to further reinvent himself as a "Super Doctor" who trains and supervises real doctors of medicine in his upcoming Dr. Phil Show extension, "The Doctors," which is set to launch in Fall, 2008. (See 'Dr. Phil' Spinoff in Variety).

The show will be hosted by television personality and ER physician Dr. Travis Stork ("The Bachelor"). Other experts include various personalities who have appeared on the Dr. Phil show over the years. They are Dr. Lisa Masterson, an obstetrician/gynecologist; Dr. Andrew Ordon, a plastic surgeon; Dr. Tara Fields, a licensed marriage and family therapist; and Dr. Jim Sears, a pediatrician.

Jay McGraw (Dr. Phil's oldest son and producer of the new show) said. "Over the past decade I've watched my dad perfect the formula for giving advice to America. It seems like a natural extension to apply that 'gold standard' formula to medical problems." These doctors will make appearances on the Dr. Phil show throughout the 2007-08 season so that McGraw can instruct them on "how to give articulate medical advice while being scrutinized by a studio audience in Los Angeles," thus becoming America's "Super Doctor" (and Super Ego) at last. (See 'Dr. Phil' Spinoff in TV Week).Wikeye (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Although some of your points may be valid, what you have written is loaded with misinformation and POV:

• There is a board certifying body for psychologists: The American Board of Professional Psychology. I don't know if McGraw was board certified, but your assumption that he cannot be board certified because he is not a medical doctor is false.
• PubMed.gov does not include every professional journal in which psychologists might publish.
• "McGraw's undergraduate school was changed from North Texas State University to Midwestern State University": Although this does reflect an error, it might not have been intentionally deceptive. One's highest degree is usually considered most important, and whoever wrote the information may have carelessly stated that all the degrees were from the same university.
• "Behavioral medicine" is a legitimate field of expertise for psychologists. It does not imply that they literally practice medicine (such as surgery). It simply refers to expertise in the psychological aspects of medical practice.
• "McGraw fails to state his undergraduate major, fails to indicate that his Master's degree was in experimental psychology--not clinical psychology": Trivial because his Ph.D. is in clinical psychology.
• "fails to make clear that his expertise was in clinical psychology--not counseling psychology": Why is this important? Has he claimed to have a Ph.D. in "counseling psychology" instead of "clinical psychology"?
• "This desire to become recognized as a special medical doctor appears to be a long-standing psychological issue with McGraw": very POV.
• "who insists that guests and the media refer to him as "Doctor Phil.": That's the name of his show. Do you have a reputable source that indicates his insistence on guests using that title to address him, or have you just assumed that?
• "The groundswell of public criticism and embarrassment for exaggerating his credentials and sidestepping disciplinary sanctions by the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists in 1989 have been a blow to McGraw's ego and caused McGraw to further reinvent himself as a "Super Doctor": very POV.
• "thus becoming America's "Super Doctor" (and Super Ego) at last": very POV.

In short, you may have enough to write one or two sentences at best. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. If you don't do a lot of cleanup on this information, it will be mercilessly edited and whittled down to almost nothing. Ward3001 (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Whittling the proposed section down to almost nothing (much like the section of Dr. Phil's bio that I'm spotlighting) is fine with me. I'm just documenting the bio's changes step by step before attempting a short summary. Any unbaised reader would be interested to know how the official bio went from:

"In concert with his books and television work, Dr. Phil provides strategic guidance for millions of Americans through his monthly column in O, The Oprah Magazine. He is also one of the world’s most sought-after public speakers. As a professional psychologist, he has published numerous scholarly articles and has practiced in the many fields of clinical psychology and behavioral medicine. Dr. Phil has a B.S, M.A. and Ph.D. in clinical psychology from North Texas State University with a dual area of emphasis in clinical and behavioral medicine. He has been a board-certified and licensed clinical psychologist since 1978."

to:

"Dr. Phil has a B.A. from Midwestern State University and an M.A. and Ph.D. in clinical psychology from North Texas State University with a dual area of emphasis in clinical and behavioral medicine."

To dismiss the deleted claims as innocent or trivial errors, while labeling unflattering information as misinformation and POV is disingenuous and misses the forest for the trees. The point is that Dr. Phil's original and subsequent official bios contained many false claims that have now been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikeye (talk • contribs) 23:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Be careful to assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. What I wrote is not disingenuous. Please focus on content and not on the editor, and don't attack the messenger just because you don't like the message. I did not say that what you wrote is 100% wrong. I simply pointed out the problems with your proposed addition according to Wikipedia policies and standards. That's what talk pages are for, and I applaud you for raising the issues on the talk page before immediately putting them in the article. Now, please allow me to try to help you by explaining some things:

• What I identified above as POV is quite obviously POV, and I invite other editors to express their opinions of agreement or disagreement with me. Give us a source, not your opinion, that McGraw wishes to be perceived as a "special medical doctor". Give us a source, not your opinion, that criticisms of McGraw "have been a blow to McGraw's ego". Your wishing it not to be POV does not make it less POV. But I welcome any opinions from other editors.
• I again invite you to elaborate in detail where I pointed out above why you think some of the information is not trivial. Again, why is an error in listing his predoctoral university important since his doctoral university is correctly listed? Why does that make other aspects of his career less legitimate? Why is it important to know his undergraduate major? Would his legitimacy be lessened if his undergrad major were, for example, mathematics? Many people with Ph.D.s in psychology did not have undergraduate psychology majors. I'm not trying to say that there were no errors. I'm simply trying to put things in perspective and separate minor, possibly unintentional errors from serious deception.
• I again invite you to explain whether McGraw has claimed to have a Ph.D. in "counseling psychology" instead of "clinical psychology"?
• I again invite any response you may have regarding the facts about board certification, PubMed.gov, and "behavioral medicine" as a legitimate specialty that I posted above.
• I again invite you to give us a source that McGraw insists that his guests call him "Doctor Phil".

You said, "Any unbaised reader would be interested to know how the official bio went from" one version to another version. You probably are correct. Most readers would be interested, but addressing that interest with misinformation and POV (that most certainly would be removed from the article) serves no purpose. And I think you're assuming (again falsely) that I have some vested, personal interest in defending McGraw. The truth is, for the most part my opinions of McGraw are negative. But the article on him is not the place for my opinions, nor for yours. I simply want a quality encyclopedia article about him. And Wikipedia has some excellent guidelines that I have pointed out to help achieve that goal. I simply ask you to write according to those guidelines, and I welcome (and hope for) opinions from other editors about how to improve what you wrote. Ward3001 (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning. I will try to be more careful, but let's not overreact by personalizing the word "disingenuous." To accuse me of a personal attack is silly. I know nothing about you personally and have not attacked any of your personal qualities or attributes or called you any names. Yes, let's assume good faith, shall we?

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, as you say. But it is also not a criminal court brief. Let's use a little common sense and not get too caught up in hypotheticals as if we were accusing or defending some common criminal.

• There is a board certifying body for psychologists: The American Board of Professional Psychology. I don't know if McGraw was board certified, but your assumption that he cannot be board certified because he is not a medical doctor is false.

http://www.abpp.org/

The American Board of Professional Psychology has not certified McGraw in any of its specialties.

• PubMed.gov does not include every professional journal in which psychologists might publish.

PubMed.gov combined with GoogleScholar cover virtually every professional journal in which a psychologist might publish. GoogleScholar even found McGraw's obscure 1981 co-authored paper on rheumatoid arthritis.

• "McGraw's undergraduate school was changed from North Texas State University to Midwestern State University": Although this does reflect an error, it might not have been intentionally deceptive. One's highest degree is usually considered most important, and whoever wrote the information may have carelessly stated that all the degrees were from the same university.

Let's not assume that McGraw doesn't bother to check his own biography. Midwestern State University is a much higher-ranked institution than North Texas State University. It would be in McGraw's favor to "overlook" attendance at that school, much as he overlooked mention of his first wife, who helped put him through school at Midwestern State.

• "Behavioral medicine" is a legitimate field of expertise for psychologists. It does not imply that they literally practice medicine (such as surgery). It simply refers to expertise in the psychological aspects of medical practice.

The American Board of Professional Psychology has no certification for that claimed "field of expertise."

• "McGraw fails to state his undergraduate major, fails to indicate that his Master's degree was in experimental psychology--not clinical psychology": Trivial because his Ph.D. is in clinical psychology.

A Ph.D. doesn't necessarily enhance the legitimacy of a person's previous education. For example, if McGraw's undergraduate major was sports, his claimed Ph.D. would become suspect and viewed as less than authentic, especially if he were hand-held through his Master's and Ph.D. programs by a family friend.

• "fails to make clear that his expertise was in clinical psychology--not counseling psychology": Why is this important? Has he claimed to have a Ph.D. in "counseling psychology" instead of "clinical psychology"?

We all know that McGraw holds himself out as a counselor of some kind. The American Board of Professional Psychology has separate certifications for clinical, counseling, and couple and family psychology, so yes, this is important.

• "This desire to become recognized as a special medical doctor appears to be a long-standing psychological issue with McGraw": very POV.

See the following.

• "who insists that guests and the media refer to him as "Doctor Phil.": That's the name of his show. Do you have a reputable source that indicates his insistence on guests using that title to address him, or have you just assumed that?

Naming the show "Doctor Phil" rather than "Phil McGraw" or "Phil" is unusual. Talk show hosts usually go by their first and/or last names (i.e. Oprah, Ricki Lake, Geraldo, etc.), unless they have a professional title like Judge Judy, who was a real judge. Calling himself "Doctor" means, to most people, a medical doctor. If you had a Ph.D., you wouldn't call yourself "Doctor" would you? Judge Judy has a J.D. and doesn't call herself "Doctor Judy." Whenever I watch the show, EVERYONE ALWAYS calls him "Doctor Phil"--even his own wife. That's unusual. Maybe he wants to distinguish himself from Phil Donahue.

Reputable source? Maybe the drphil.com web site? I don't see one instance where he is called Phil or Phil McGraw or McGraw. There's always that "Dr." in front of the name.

Wikeye (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) From Wiktionary: disingenuous: "unbecoming true honor or dignity; mean; unworthy; fake or deceptive". You may not have intended it as a personal attack, which is why I said "be careful" and not "stop". I do think you failed to assume good faith, however. All of that is in the past, however, as long as you understand the principles.

• "PubMed.gov combined with GoogleScholar cover virtually every professional journal in which a psychologist might publish.": I disagree. But I made this a moot point by doing some of your research for you. I checked with the American Psychological Association's search engine, which does include everything. McGraw only shows up for the one publication. This does not include his popular books, however, as they may not be considered scholarly works.
• "The American Board of Professional Psychology has not certified McGraw in any of its specialties": ABPP's website only lists current board certified psychologists. You would have to contact them directly to find out if he was board certified in the past, if that information is available.
• "Let's not assume that McGraw doesn't bother to check his own biography": I didn't. I just didn't jump to the conclusion that he was intentionally deceptive (again, that would be my opinion and not necessarily fact).
• "Midwestern State University is a much higher-ranked institution than North Texas State University. ... It would be in McGraw's favor to "overlook" attendance.": That's quite a stretch to assume he intentionally deceived when his highest degree is from the more prestigious school (if you are correct about the prestige factor).
• "The American Board of Professional Psychology has no certification for that claimed "field of expertise." ABPP does not have a certification for every speciality. Such specialties can be claimed without ethical violation if the psychologist does not exaggerate or misrepresent credentials. For example, neuropsychology at one time did not have a board specialty, but psychologists frequently and legitimately claimed the speciality. The ABPP will confirm this. The same has been true of some medical specialties. In short, McGraw is not necessarily violating ethical guidelines by claiming that specialty without board certification. And in case you plan to respond by asking me to provide verification for that, remember that it is up to the editor who wishes to add something to an article to provide a source. You are free to check with ABPP.
• "if McGraw's undergraduate major was sports, his claimed Ph.D. would become suspect and viewed as less than authentic": Completely false. Again, there are many reputable and legitimate psychologists who did not have undergrad degrees in psychology. Sometimes it's even an advantage.
• "especially if he were hand-held through his Master's and Ph.D. programs by a family friend.": A meaningless statement unless you have evidence.
• "We all know that McGraw holds himself out as a counselor of some kind.": Most clinical psychologists claim to do counseling. It's another word for "psychotherapy." There is nothing unusual about it at all. I know hundreds of clinical psychologists who do so.
• "The American Board of Professional Psychology has separate certifications for clinical, counseling, and couple and family psychology, so yes, this is important.": Again, has he claimed a degree or certification in counseling psychology?
• "Naming the show "Doctor Phil" rather than "Phil McGraw" or "Phil" is unusual": Not true. Doctoral level psychologists go by the title Dr. XXX all the time. It's very common. Why do you think college professors are often called Dr. XXX? And Dr. Joyce Brothers is a psychologist. There are other prominent psychologists who go by Dr. XXX. It's not uncommon at all.
• "Talk show hosts usually go by their first and/or last names (i.e. Oprah, Ricki Lake, Geraldo, etc.)": Not true if they legitimately have the "Doctor" title, which doctoral psychologists have. If Joyce Brothers had a show, it certainly might be called "The Dr. Brothers Show" or something similar.
• "Calling himself "Doctor" means, to most people, a medical doctor.": False. I have a Ph.D. in psychology and never ask to be called by the doctor title. But many people do it, and continue to do it if they know I don't have a medical degree.
• "Judge Judy has a J.D. and doesn't call herself "Doctor Judy."": Most lawyers don't. Most psychologists and other Ph.D.s do. That's beside the point.
• "Whenever I watch the show, EVERYONE ALWAYS calls him "Doctor Phil": Again, do you have a source that he insists on it, as you originally stated it? Or have you just assumed that, just as I could assume that they call him Dr. Phil because that's the title of the show and because he has a Ph.D.? Give us a source.

I don't plan to restate some of my above points for a third time. Let me suggest that we wait for other opinions and/or that you rewrite what you would like to add to the article with the above points in mind, then post it here for others to consider. Ward3001 (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikeye (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

So how about something like this:

McGraw's biography on the official Dr. Phil web site has changed over time as McGraw's claimed credentials have come into question. The original bio (posted August 1, 2005) and various updates claimed that McGraw "has been a board-certified and licensed clinical psychologist since 1978", that he "is a licensed clinical psychologist in the great state of Texas", that he has published "numerous scholarly articles", and that he has practiced clinical psychology and behavioral "medicine." On February 26, 2007, McGraw deleted 2/3 of the professional qualifications section of his bio, which now reads simply:

"Dr. Phil has a B.A. from Midwestern State University and an M.A. and Ph.D. in clinical psychology from North Texas State University with a dual area of emphasis in clinical and behavioral medicine." (See http://www.drphil.com/shows/page/bio/).

Wikeye (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that seems to get rid of the POV and inaccurate information. I don't consider what's left to be very notable, but let's see if anyone else has opinions. Ward3001 (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But let's not make the criteria whether the information is "notable", so we don't get into a foo-barred discussion like the one with Proxy User over The Making of Dr. Phil by Sophia Dembling. Let's consider whether the information would be interesting to most readers. Wikeye (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, "notability" is more important than "interesting" in Wikipedia, although obviously the two are not mutually exclusive. And I'm not saying it's not notable; I'll let others decide. Ward3001 (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Another section of the bio states "Dr. Phil is author of six #1 New York Times bestsellers." However, a review of New York Times bestseller number ones listing non-fiction by author indicates that McGraw has never had a #1 title. (See http://www.hawes.com/pastlist.htm). Wikeye (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You may have a point, but be very careful. The NYT has a number of different lists. For example, they have a softcover list that's different from the hardcover list. They also include books that don't make number one in their lists, and I suspect McGraw made the list, although perhaps not number one. Lots of authors claim "#1" if it's number one on any list, and then if it's anywhere on a NYT list they add "New York Times bestseller". It's a marketing gimmick, and McGraw would be among many publishers and authors who make such claims. If you Google "New York Times bestseller" with "McGraw" you'll get many websites that refer to his books as "#1 New York Times bestseller", websites that are just as reputable as the one you cite above. I think the best way to handle it would be to get the exact top position of any of his books (the lists change frequently) directly from the NYT, post it here, and see what everyone thinks. Ward3001 (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm trying to be careful. That's why I refer to McGraw's books as "bestsellers" in my additions to the Wikipedia article. The Dr. Phil website bio says "#1 New York Times bestsellers"--not just bestsellers. And I suspect that the many websites that refer to the books as "#1 New York Times bestseller" may be copying the Dr. Phil bio without verifying the info. However, the following source (http://www.hawes.com/number1s.htm) has NY Times #1 bestseller lists for fiction and nonfiction by author. If you look at nonfiction under the M's (http://www.hawes.com/no1_nf_a.htm#M), there is no McGraw. The listing includes the very first book ever placed on the list back on August 9, 1942 and continues to the present. Wikeye (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Does it include paperbacks? I suspect not; like I said, it's a separate list. I know for a fact that he's been on the paperback list; I'm just not sure what position. Does it include other lists of number ones that are not NYT? And what makes http://www.hawes.com/number1s.htm more reputable than any other website (besides the NYT itself)? It's a bookseller, just like many other sites that state that McGraw's books are #1. Remember, this is a biographical article of a living person. None of this is intended to say that McGraw's website is correct, but we need good source(s) with solid evidence for any statement implying misbehavior. Ward3001 (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors here should be aware of Wikipedia's prohibition against the inclusion of original research. Unless reliable sources have discussed alleged discrepancies in McGraw's official webpage biography, we cannot discuss it in the bio. If McGraw's bio is inaccurate, then simply use the accurate sources in the article. Gamaliel (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Sorry, didn't RTFM. I'm dropping the proposed Inconsistent "official" biography section. Wikeye (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Although Gamaliel is correct, if you find a reputable source that discusses the inconsistencies, then it is quite acceptable to present the information from that source, assuming you cite it. Then it's no longer original research. Ward3001 (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

With regard to my contention that McGraw insists that people call him "doctor," see the following:

"Dr. Phil's Statement about His Visit with Britney Spears," paragraph 8

http://www.drphil.com/page/

"...I don’t need a license. I do, however, still have 30 years of experience, a hard-earned Ph.D in clinical psychology -- so you still have to call me Dr. Phil."

I don't have a source (yet) that highlights the strangeness of his insistence on being called "doctor," but it still seems pretty odd to me.

Wikeye (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Many, many, many other medical professionals and PhDs in non-medical fields insist on similar treatment. It's not at all remarkable or odd. Gamaliel (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't even come close to passing the smell test. Medical professionals, yes; PhDs in non-medical fields, few. Typically, they are practicing mental health professionals who are licensed--not TV "doctors" (except for Dr. Phil and Dr. Joyce Brothers). Even practicing professionals don't INSIST on being called "Doctor." Most go by their first names without the "doctor". Look at scholarly journals with articles published by PhDs: no "Doctor John Doe" in the author listings--just John Doe, PhD or something. And what's this about "similar treatment"? As if Dr. Phil is just a normal little psychologist like the rest of them. Please. Find me another "psychologist" who lost his license and hasn't practiced in over 15 years yet still insists on being called "Doctor" because he helped write a paper on rheumatoid arthritis 30 years ago. "Doctor" Phil obviously has a little self-image problem and so do some PhDs who INSIST on being called "Doctor." I am a little surprised that he doesn't insist on being called "Master Phil" since he has an M.A. Makes as much sense as insisting on "Doctor." Why not "Master Doctor Phil"? Oh wait, he'll be doing that when he trains real doctors on his upcoming TV show, "The Doctors". Wikeye (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not in reference to McGraw, but Wikeye is simply wrong that among "PhDs in non-medical fields, few" go by the doctor title. Apparently you have never spent much time on a university campus. It is quite the opposite. Most Ph.D.s in almost every profession go by the "doctor" title. Whether they insist on it is idiosyncratic to the particular individual. But it is absurd to say that most Ph.D.s don't use that title. And it also is wrong that among practicing professionals that "Most go by their first names without the "doctor"". I know hundreds of Ph.D.s and hundreds of practicing professionals, and it is rare that they are not addressed professionally with the "doctor" title.

All of this underscores the necessity for sourced information. No offense Wikeye, but you don't seem to be getting your day-to-day impressions about these matters from the same place that most of us are getting them. Ward3001 (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What scholarly journals say is of little import since they have a set format and have nothing to do with typical social interaction concerning these kinds of professionals. My experience in academia is not in the medical field, but I have found that the applying the term "doctor" to PhDs is hardly limited to a "few", it is in fact ubiquitous. Dr. Phil's use of it doesn't seem that unusual. Regardless of which of us is correct, this conversation doesn't seem particularly pertinent since we're not adding this to the article given the lack of relevant sources. While I see where you are coming from, we're coming close to violating WP:BLP here if we use this talk page to expound on Dr. Phil's faults in a way that is not relevant to article content. Gamaliel (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You two are a hoot! I've spent enough time on a university campus to know that a couple of college psychology professors are the last people who should be judging what is normal, reasonable or usual here in the real world. Talk about POV. And where are YOUR sources? This "discussion" is pointless. 75.25.17.225 (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikeye (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Career: 11-year gap

The coverage of McGraw's 11-year college career (from 1968 through 1979) is fairly interesting and substantial. However, coverage of the subsequent 11-year period is not.

Between the time that Phillip received his Ph.D. (1979) and the time he co-founded CSI (1990), we have only the following:

"He did one-on-one sessions in private practice in Wichita Falls, Texas and conducted life skills seminars with his father and Thelma Box, before getting out of private practice"

That's pretty skimpy coverage for an 11-year time period. I'm wondering if there is anything more on his private practice, the life skills seminars, business relationships with his father and Thelma Box, and why he left his practice. 75.25.17.225 (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Wikeye (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC) (Sorry, forgot to sign in AGAIN).

• The unoffical biography that appeared in 2003 [4] fills in the gaps. It's a pretty tacky book devoted mainly to digging up dirt and concentrating on rumors where no facts can be found, but at least it fills some holes. Softlavender (talk) 09:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The Making of Dr. Phil by Sophia Dembling

Should article have a section about this book? Ward3001 (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Proxy User (talk · contribs) has begun edit warring about whether a brief description of this book should be included in the article. He first argued that this was an advertisement for the book. Now his argument is that the book is not notable, stating "There are a LOT of books about this guy, this one is not any more special than the others." I asked Proxy User (talk · contribs) to discuss here before reverting to avoid further edit warring, but he refused. So I am setting up this discussion.

My personal opinion is this: The book is notable, more so than other books (if there are "many" other books about McGraw). I also insist that Proxy User (talk · contribs), who claims that there are many books, should list a few of these books, maybe five to ten, that he considers more notable, and to state why each book is more notable. I also am seeking other editors' opinions. Ward3001 (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The unauthorized biography paragraph should stay. It's not an advertisement: there's not even a link to a place where you can buy the book. Is it notable? According to the book description on Amazon.com, The Making of Dr. Phil is "the first biography of Dr. Phil McGraw and his rise to fame." Being first makes it notable.

I like the fact that you can read part of the book online through Google Books or Amazon.com. Too bad it's not the complete book, or it might be useful in filling out the 11-year gap in Dr. Phil's "Career" section here on the Wikipedia. For reader comments on the book, see:

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0471696595/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt/103-2924863-9748614?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

There are not "many" other books about Dr. Phil, but I found the following:

Sham: How the Self-Help Movement Made America Helpless

http://www.amazon.com/Sham-Self-Help-Movement-America-Helpless/dp/1400054109/ref=pd_sim_b_title_3

"Chapters on Dr. Phil McGraw and Tony Robbins, both creators of lucrative SHAM (Self-Help and Actualization Movement) empires by copycatting lesser entrepreneurs' wares."

Amazon.com Sales Rank: #37,242 in Books

The Oprah and Dr. Phil Connection: Their Lives, Career, and Philosophies

http://www.amazon.com/Oprah-Dr-Phil-Connection-Philosophies/dp/0963614681/ref=pd_sim_b_title_7

Dispells the myth that Oprah's former life-partner, Steadman, was Dr. Phil

Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,189,496 in Books

Wikeye (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I most defiantly AM NOT "engaging in an edit war". And in any case, may I point out it takes two parties equally participating to "engage in an edit war"? Good grief! If you all want an obvious POV section that is also an ADVERTISEMENT for a run of the mill book, knock yourself out. I doesn't reflect well on the quality of Wikipedia, though.

And Ward3001, what's with the threatening comments in this matter? You sound like a 10 year old stomping his feet and screaming about telling your daddy on me. Double good grief! Proxy User (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks. You were edit warring because you continued to revert and refused to discuss to reach consensus on the Talk page. Read WP:Edit war. Ward3001 (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid leaving intimidating comments, it's not nice. An since it is you who reverted my edits, than perhaps it is you (and not me) who is "edit warring". In any case, Uber Editor, if you are happy with a POV section, than I guess it's OK... Proxy User (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You tell me which words that I left on your talk page were intimidating. The message I left is from a template approved by Wikipedia about edit warring. Are you accusing Wikipedia of sanctioning intimidating comments? Ward3001 (talk) 04:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to get in a pissing contest with you. As I said, if you're pleased with having a POV section in your article (and it is clear you've taken "ownership"), than so be it. Proxy User (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have had a similar issue with Ward3001. He left some hostile comments on my talk page. When I asked him to behave civilly on his talk page, he deleted my comments. Let's hope he begins to behave more civilly here. --Travelingman (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Travelingman repeatedly vandalized by reverting sourced and adding unsourced info in violation of WP:BLP and WP:V, requiring administrator intervention. Ward3001 (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we just stick to the issue raised: what are the many other Dr. Phil books? Are they more notable and for what reason? Wikeye (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It's NOT an issue of if there are "more notable" books. It's an issue of if THIS ONE is notable. If there are other books that might be "notable", good for them, we're not talking about them or books in general, we're talking about THIS book.

This book is a random non-notable tabloid book that has been included only because it "trash talks" McGraw, and certain Article Owner / Editors (I'm looking Ward3001's direction) have a POV ax to grind that benifit from trash tabloid type inuendo. It adds nothing of value to the article. Proxy User (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Proxy User is changing his argument again (this is his third argument). First, he claimed the section was an advertisement. Then he claimed (and I quote), "There are a LOT of books about this guy, this one is not any more special than the others.". Now that it has been pointed out that there aren't lots of books, he claims that the issue never had anything to do with other books and that the argument is notability. Notability is very much a matter of interpretation, which is why we are trying to reach a consensus. Right now there is no consensus that Dembling's book is not notable. And the book certainly does add valuable information to the article that otherwise was not available. Ward3001 (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind him changing his argument. If he can get one to stick, then fine. So we are back to whether THIS book is a random non-notable tabloid book. OK. I don't think that it's random, since it relates specifically to Dr. Phil and is the only Dr. Phil biography I can find on Amazon.com. In fact, it is the first Dr. Phil biography ever published, so that makes it notable, to me anyhow. The book is published by Wiley, which is a long-established, reputable publisher--not a tabloid. The author is a veteran journalist and former reporter for the Dallas Morning News--not a tabloid. A tabloid is more like the Dallas Observer that was cited in the Career section to show that Phil lost his license to practice in Texas. A tabloid book is more like the one I found on Amazon.com: Sham: How the Self-Help Movement Made America Helpless, which has a chapter on McGraw. Try not to be offended by Ward3001. He pisses off lots of people (myself included) who want their well-researched, sincere comments incorporated immediately. Yes, he has POV; so do I; so do you. Even Jesus had POV, and He was perfect (whoops, that's POV also). Let is rest for a day or two and then go back and see if you feel the same way. Or talk about it with your friends and ask them if they think you are being objective or not. Works for me. Or maybe you can find a review of the book which states that it is tabloid trash and why. Just my 2 cents. Wikeye (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

First, he claimed the section was an advertisement. Then he claimed (and I quote), "There are a LOT of books about this guy, this one is not any more special than the others.". Now that it has been pointed out that there aren't lots of books, he claims that the issue never had anything to do with other books and that the argument is notability.

I haven't "changed" my argument at all, I've added to it. All these things are true: The listing of this book constitutes no more than an advertisement for a non-notable book that contains tabloid quality expose content. The quality of this book is suspect; it's no more than innuendo that could have been pulled from the likes of the National Enquirer. The tabloid-quality content of this book is not well written or researched, and strongly POV.

As to Ward3001 position that there are in fact *not* a lot of books on McGraw, he's entitled to his perception, but that has exactly zero to do with if a particular book is relevent of meets NPOV standards for inclusion. This book is the kind of garbage that the tabs regularly use to sell their cat box liners at the check-out stand. But like I said, if it’s up to Wiki standards, who am I to complain… Proxy User (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think that a tabloid-quality show run by a television doctor deserves tabloid-quality treatment. This book does much better than that. Both the authors and the publisher are reputable and solid. "Doctor" Phil, the "psychologist" is not.

"It was determined what he was doing was more entertainment than psychology," said Russ Heimerich, a spokesman for the California Board of Psychology, explaining why state officials passed on regulating "Dr. Phil." (See http://www.nypost.com/seven/01102008/news/nationalnews/betrayal_580869.htm)

Wikeye (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a POV view. How one feels about Dr. Phill (if in fact he is still actually a doctor someplace) should not be allowed to color the content of the article. Proxy User (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I added an RfC to get opinions from the Wikipedia community. For the sake of the article, I'm no longer commenting on this particular issue because it's obvious some editors are far more interested in personalizing this and making it about me rather the article; and if such comments about me continue, then that conclusion will become even more obvious. So be it. Let's see what others think. Ward3001 (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I would leave in the book controversy. The unauthorized bio by Dembling was newsworthy and controversial. I think we should almost always err on the side of inclusion. --Travelingman (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think the book should just be an External Link (the link to the Amazon page), whilst noting that it is an unauthorized bio. Or, if not an External Link, make a separate section called "References" (and change the current "References" to "Footnotes" or "Notes") and list it there. Softlavender (talk) 09:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Bad links

When you click on Deepak Kalpoe or his brother than Wikipedia links to Nathalee. Can someone just remove that link since there isn't any article about these 2 brothers? When people click on one of these 2 brothers than they don't want to read about Nathalee.

The link should stay, someone might want to write the article. Proxy User (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The current citation link #32, leading to a page entitled "Dr. Phil Under Investigation by State Board" is a dead link. Please find another source or remove relevant citation. Deimos1313 (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms and controversies: Britney Spears "Intervention"

[NOTE: Yes, I know this isn't a tabloid, and I hate to cite tabloids, but Dr. Phil started it when he issued press releases to two tabloids, reporting his "intervention" with Britney Spears. So here goes:]

McGraw attracted criticism by professional psychologists for his botched "intervention" with celebrity Britney Spears. As Spears was preparing to leave Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles on January 5, 2008, McGraw made his way, uninvited, to Britney's room. He tried speaking with her for about 15 minutes, but she left the room and then returned, saying very little to McGraw. Spears left the hospital, unaccompanied by McGraw. (See http://www.tmz.com/2008/01/06/brit-blindsided-by-phil-hospital-acts-curiously/).

McGraw issued "Exclusive Statements" to both 'The Insider' and 'ET', (See http://www.theinsideronline.com/news/2008/01/15019/index.html and http://www.etonline.com/news/2008/01/57024/index.html) claiming that he had a meeting with Spears for about an hour, after which he walked with her to her car.

McGraw attracted criticism for the following:

1. Visiting a patient without her permission 2. Violating "doctor"/patient confidentiality or privacy by discussing her condition in a public press release 3. Inaccurate press release details 4. Attempting to create publicity for his television show through an ill-advised stunt

In addition, the hospital was critized for letting a "television doctor" into a facility unannounced, where mentally and physically fragile patients are receiving treatment from qualified doctors.

McGraw's people justified his actions by stating "Dr. Phil met with Ms. Spears at family members' invitation." Later, McGraw issued a statement indicating that a special show featuring an intervention for Britney Spears by members of her family would not be taped out of "consideration for the family." http://www.showbuzz.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/07/people_hot_water/main3681931.shtml

Dr. Joyce Brothers stated that Dr. Phil acted appropriately. Eight professional psychaitrists said that the actions were "intrusive and inappropriate" and "a total violation of her rights." Jamie and Lynne Spears (Britney's parents) called the actions "a betrayal, inappropriate and a total breach of their trust." (See http://www.tmz.com/category/britney-spears/) Wikeye (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

A few initial reactions:

• "I hate to cite tabloids": I hate it too, and I hope you don't. Tabloids are not exactly what Wikipedia aspires to.
• "Dr. Phil started it when he issued press releases to two tabloids": Dr. Phil's behavior is hardly the standard we should try to live up to.
• "McGraw attracted criticism by professional psychologists": The source you link at the end of that paragraph doesn't confirm this.
• "Violating "doctor"/patient confidentiality": He wasn't and isn't her doctor, or psychologist, or therapist. It's one celebrity visiting another celebrity.

Are there no more reputable sources on this issue? I would especially like to see other mental health professionals' reactions from other sources.

My personal opinion is that this is such a recent event that things need to settle for a while before anyone jumps at adding more than a sentence or two. I'm not saying it should never be included, but Wikipedia doesn't have to have the most up-to-the-minute info that a newspaper (and yes, tabloids) try to print. Ward3001 (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Maybe something like this for now: McGraw attracted criticism for his unannounced visit to fellow celebrity Britney Spear's hospital room in January, 2008. The visit appeared to be part of a misguided attempt at getting Spears and her parents to take part in an "intervention" on the Dr. Phil television show. http://www.showbuzz.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/07/people_hot_water/main3681931.shtml [Although Showbuzz is part of CBS News, it's pretty much a tabloid also. I guess that's who pays attention to Dr. Phil.] 75.25.17.225 (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There is an article in the Toronto Star, which is not a tabloid but a reputable newspaper, that quotes a spokesperson for the Spears' family as saying the Dr. Phil broke the families trust by making public statements regarding Britney. http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/292491 Sherpajohn (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

AP has yet another article on this - focusing mostly on criticism by others in the mental health field (including a defense of his actions and statements from another famous TV psychologist, Dr. Brothers) - http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jCi9IipOCulyedxVUddN3vckzqXgD8U1N89G0 Sherpajohn (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversy regarding Thelma Box partnership

There is another controversy concerning McGraw, Thelma Box and their business in the 1980's. Box said that McGraw conspired to sell his part of the business a year before he said he made the decision. Lots of bitter feelings on her part, and it's been written about in a few places. Unfortunately, I am too busy at the moment to write it. Hopefully someone will take the initiative and create it. The Texas Observer article is a good starting point.--Travelingman (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. This is just one of a number of things I hoped would be discussed in the discussion section "Career: 11-year gap", above. I'm looking for something more on his private practice, the life skills seminars, business relationships with his father and Thelma Box, and why he left his practice. Wikeye (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a psychologist?

"Unless my sources are leading me astray, Dr. Phil currently has no license to practice Psychology in any state in the union. And without a license, you lose the title of 'Psychologist.'" Taken from [ShrinkTalk.net]. Should that be mentioned in the article? SouperAwesome (talk) 06:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thoroughly discussed and resolved above. And the phrase "And without a license, you lose the title of "Psychologist," despite having a doctorate in psychology" is not entirely accurate. You lose the right to use the title in the context of practicing psychology under the regulation of a licensing board. But there are many notable exceptions in use of the title "psychologist". See details above. Ward3001 (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this issue needs further exploration. Contrary to Ward3001's opinon, I don't believe the issue has been resolved.--Travelingman (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree. It is misleading to state in the introduction that he is a psychologist when he cannot practice psychology legally - he is in legal terms no more a psychologist than any random member of the general population. If a psychologist is not someone that can practice psychology then the term is devoid of meaning, IMO. 'Former psychologist' or something along those lines would be more correct. (Brianrusso (talk) 06:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC))

Let me repeat my comment above: Wikipedia does not have to conform to licensing boards' regulations about use of the title "psychologist". Even licensing boards have notable exceptions. Here is a sample of people with articles in Wikipedia who are identified as psychologists, but who do/did not have licenses, and who may not have referred to themselves as psychologists: B.F. Skinner, John B. Watson, Edward Thorndike, Clark L. Hull, Edward C. Tolman, Albert Bandura, Donald Olding Hebb, Lewis Goldberg, Clark L. Hull, Jerome Kagan. There are many others.

So please provide a rationale for referring to other unlicensed psychologists as "psychologist" but not McGraw. Ward3001 (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Phil is not a psychologist. Outside of academia and outside of government service, a psychologist is one with a psychology license. It's as simple as that. What is a Psychologist?. The term is reserved in the same way that the terms "physician" and "attorney" are reserved. Is Dr. Phil Actually a Psychologist? No, actually he is not. But he does play one on TV. Pgm8693 (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No it's not as simple as that. Read my comments above in this section as well as here. The website you cite is not an authorative source. It is up to the Psychology Licensing Board of each state to determine who can use the title psychologist, and your website does not supersede that truism. That website is operated by one psychologist and does not represent the field as a whole. For example, many state boards allow the use of "social psychologist" without a license as long as the person does not engage in practices that the board does not consider as practicing psychology (e.g., doing psychotherapy, conducting psychological tests). Most, if not all, states do not require licensure for industrial-organizational psychologists and allow the use of the title without licensure. And in both of these examples the individual can function in the private sector and is not restricted to academia or government service. So to conclude that McGraw "is not a psychologist", you need to provide the specific wording of the licensure law in the state of his residence (and I mean directly from the law or from the psychology board, not the website you cite) stating that the title is restricted to licensed psychologists, academics, and government workers. Find that information for us and I'll accept that he cannot use the title "psychologist". But until then let's not jump to conclusions from a single website. Ward3001 (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"Currently, all (State) jurisdictions have laws that limit the use of the term psychologist to those who are licensed or who are specifically exempt, as in an exempt setting." (Reference: American Psychological Association (APA) Division 14, Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP)).

In California, where Dr. Phil works, those exempt settings (essentially, academia and government) are described in the California Business and Professions (B&P) Code in Sections 2909 and 2910. If Tolman, Thorndike, Skinner, et al were alive today, they would be exempt and would be referred to as psychologists by virtue of their status as scholars and academicians.

Licensing laws deal with either the practice of psychology, or the title "psychologist," or both title and practice.

"The current law in the overwhelming majority of states, as well as in SIOP and APA licensing policy, is that individuals who want to use the title “psychologist” must be licensed. This is not expected to change in the future. Currently I-O psychologists are not exempt from this requirement in most states and are not expected to be exempt in the future." (Reference: SIOP).

In California, where Dr. Phil works, the law covers both practice and title. The relevant law is to be found in B&P Section 2903: "No person may engage in the practice of psychology, or represent himself or herself to be a psychologist, without a license granted under this chapter, except as otherwise provided in this chapter."

What does it mean to represent yourself as a psychologist? That is to be found under the Definitions in B&P 2902 (c): "A person represents himself or herself to be a psychologist when the person holds himself or herself out to the public by any title or description of services incorporating the words "psychology," "psychological," "psychologist," "psychology consultation," "psychology consultant," "psychometry," "psychometrics" or "psychometrist," "psychotherapy," "psychotherapist," "psychoanalysis," or "psychoanalyst," or when the person holds himself or herself out to be trained, experienced, or an expert in the field of psychology."

In reality, it is very difficult to regulate the actual practice of psychology. Anyone can avoid the laws and ethics simply by calling it something else. But the title is restricted by law. You are not an attorney if you are not admitted to the Bar. You are not a physician unless you are a licensed M.D.

Bottom line: Dr. Phil is not licensed, he's not exempt and he is not a psychologist. In fact, he never says that he is a psychologist, (but he does represent himself in that way.)

My article at everydaypsychology.com is based on good authority. Pgm8693 (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You're probably correct about California, which is all well and good in California. But if McGraw steps foot outside of California, then you have to research the laws for that state. I'm not sure where his show if taped, but if it's not in California, the above may not apply.
I really don't think he himself says he's a psychologist. It's mostly other people who say that, and that could include Wikipedia. Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is not bound by any state law regarding use of titles. Whether his article here identifies him as a psychologist is not subject to state law. It is only subject to WP:V and WP:CON. So if there's a consensus to take out the word "psychologist", that's the way it will be. If there is not a consensus to do so, the word can remain in the article. Ward3001 (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Phil tapes in Hollwood (reference). But as I noted above, it's the same across the States. You're correct. He doesn't say he's a psychologist. Obviously, he knows that's not correct. And it is simply incorrect for him to be called a psychologist here. He's not one in the real world.

A correct term could be "pop-psychologist" ... where "pop-psychologist" is used in quotes. It shouldn't be a matter of consensus. It should be a matter of accuracy. You wouldn't say that Raymond Burr (Perry Mason) is an attorney, just because he played one on TV. Pgm8693 (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, but almost everything on Wikipedia is a matter of consensus. Read WP:CON. As can be seen in this very discussion, what one person describes as "accurate", another person sees as vague, inaccurate, or irrelevant. About the only things that are not governed by consensus are clear vandalism (which this is not) or cases when a consensus cannot be reached after sufficient time. In this case, there is no consensus to remove the term "psychologist", nor to change it to "pop psychologist". If enough people express an opinion one way or the other, that will be the consensus. Ward3001 (talk)

I'm a little confused as to how that works. You said you would agree if I found the relevant documentation, which I did. I provided the specific wording and a specific reference to the relevant law. Pgm8693 (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I said, "I'll accept that he cannot use the title 'psychologist'" (bold added). I don't speak for Wikipedia. Wikipedia operates by consensus. Wait for consensus, if there is one. If you want to pursue further you can read WP:CON for ideas. You've done some good research that might convince other editors to express opinions. My personal opinion is that Wikipedia can call him a psychologist just as easily as we can call Joyce Brothers a psychologist, even though her article does not document that she is licensed. But at this point there is no consensus to remove the title. I'll respect consensus if one develops that the title should be removed from the article. I also oppose "pop psychologist". If the title "psychologist" is not used, the most appropriate title would be something like "business man", or just leave "television personality" and "author". Ward3001 (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It happens to be the case that Dr. Joyce Brothers does have a psychology license. Her article now includes that documentation. Here's a direct link to the verification. Pgm8693 (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I never doubted she was licensed, and I'm glad it's now sourced in the article. Of course, that doesn't change the need for consensus to change McGraw's article. Ward3001 (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• FWIW: This issue seems similar to the dispute over whether Joe the Plumber is really a plumber even though he isn't licensed. The RfC hasn't been resolved, but opinion there seems to favor denying him that title. Talk:Joe the Plumber#RfC: Current Occupation of Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (aka Joe the Plumber).   Will Beback  talk  23:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's actually quite a bit different than that dispute. There are laws that govern plumbing contracting, but as far as I know, no law that controls the use of the title plumber. It's more like whether John Glenn is an astronaut or former astronaut. But whether it is capitalized or not, "psychologist" is a formal title with a specific meaning that is defined in 50 States and the Canadian provinces. It could be said that Dr. Phil is a former psychologist, because he was one once. But he's not one now because that term has a very specific meaning. An inmate can call himself a "jailhouse lawyer" but he can't go out and say he's an attorney, unless he's a member of the Bar. And it would be similarly inaccurate for Wikipedia to describe him as a lawyer. Pgm8693 (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• There is long discussion about this. Only two people have expressed an opinion as to whether the title of psychologist should be removed. I made the change after long discussion. Comment is requested to enable consensus process. Pgm8693 (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

One editor does not a consensus make. And it doesn't matter how "long" the discussion is; there is still no consensus. You jumped the gun, which at this point I'll acknowledge as done in good faith. But please wait for a consensus. There are other procedures on Wikipedia when a small number of editors disagree. Please read WP:CON. Ward3001 (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the rationale for listing his career as psychologist? That is not how he describes himself, and he is not a member of the profession, either by virtue of professional association membership or compliance with State laws. An essential component of actually "being" a psychologist is subscribing to a code of ethics (which you do by joining a professional association or having a license). He does neither. Pgm8693 (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The rationale is that he has a Ph.D. in clinical psychology. It is not necessary for someone to have a license for Wikipedia to identify that person as a psychologist. We have been through this matter over and over. Do you know for a fact that he is not a member of a professional association? Even if he isn't, that does not prevent Wikipedia from calling him a psychologist. Look, let's save both of us all the time and effort of arguing. You and I can repeat the same arguments over and over endlessly (which I do not plan to do), but the bottom line is that consensus is needed to remove "psychologist" from the article. Consensus is not determined by how many times you can repeat an argument. It is determined when more than a couple of editors express an opinion and the weight of the opinions is for a particular point of view. You may not like that, but that's the way it's done on Wikipedia. So rather than you and me disagreeing back and forth again and again, please read WP:CON for other actions you can take. Ward3001 (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It is incorrect to say that I am simply repeating the same argument. I've explained why academicians/scholars can be described as psychologists, absent professional licensure. I've discussed the status of the laws across States. I've provided references for the specific laws that apply in California, as well as the language. I've documented the fact that Dr. Phil works in California. I've documented the fact that Joyce Brothers is a licensed psychologist. I've explained briefly the concept of membership in a professional association as it relates to professional standing, noting that the concept includes subscribing to a code of ethics (See: Peterson, Donald R. Is Psychology a Profession? American Psychologist, August 1976, pp. 572 - 581. ... this article relies significantly on the definitions provided by Abraham Flexner).

Next, you have asked if I know for a fact that he is not a member of a professional association. The relevant bodies would be the American Psychological Association and/or the California Psychological Association. These data are not available to the general public. However, I did check with both. He's not a member.

You say he can be described as a psychologist because he has a Ph.D. in psychology. No, that only allows him to call himself Doctor Phil. An advanced degree in psychology is necessary, but not sufficient to be a psychologist. Many marriage family therapists will obtain doctoral degrees in psychology so that they can call themselves Dr. But they are not psychologists unless they are actually members of the profession, or have right to use that title by virtue of government employment or academic position.

If you would accept the validity of my argument, and the documentation I have provided in response to your objections, we could reach consensus on this. Pgm8693 (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

And the point that I have made over and over and over is that I do not accept your argument, so we don't have consensus. Just as you don't accept the validity of my argument, so we don't have consensus. I understand your argument; you have made it abundantly clear by frequent repetition. But I do not accept you argument. (By the way, I have been a member of APA for 40 years, so you don't have to explain professional ethics to me; Wikipedia does not have to follow APA's professional ethics; if you don't believe me look at the history of Rorschach inkblot test, where psychologists have fought tooth and nail to keep the inkblot image out of the article -- and even pulled the pubisher into it -- to no avail.)
And yes you have repeated the same arguments over and over. There's something on Wikipedia known as "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point". I'm not saying you've done that -- yet. But keep this up and you will have crossed that line. Now PLEASE. Either follow the other suggestions at WP:CON (which I've pointed out about four times now), or wait for consensus to emerge here (if it does), or move on. I'm finished going over this again and again. End of discussion for me; if others want to have an endless debate with you that's between you and them. But remember: Don't edit war. Wait for consensus before changing the article. Ward3001 (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no edit war here, other than what you have declared. I discussed this issue multiple times before editing once, and then continued to discuss it after you made clear that you would attack any edit. You are impeding the mission of wikipedia because you just don't get it (look it up yourself). Your argument is factually exhausted. The time has come to craft reasonable language. Dr. Phil is not a psychologist. If you think he is, please verify that assertion. 69.62.162.161 (talk) 06:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• The preceding comment is mine ... it was in error that I was not logged in. I wasn't at my desk and my dog ate my password. Pgm8693 (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no edit war now. If you change the article without consensus, that will be both edit warring and violation of WP:CON. And you are the one who wishes to change the article. I have no obligation to add any sourcing to the article. The issue is not whether something is adequately sourced. Both sides of this issue are properly sourced. The issue is what are the criteria for calling him a psychologist on Wikipedia. And that is where the consensus to change is needed. Now, this is a warning that you are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I assumed good faith earlier. Now you have crossed the line. If you continue repeating the same information over and over on this talk page without seeking any other resolution of this problem as suggested on WP:CON, I will make a report to WP:ANI for disruptive behavior. I'm serious about this. If you want the article changed you're going about it the wrong way, because if you continue in this manner you will end up being blocked for disruption, which will accomplish nothing in your desire to change the article. Now, I don't intend to comment further on this endless repetition, but note that the absence of any response to the same arguments made over and over in no way implies my acceptance of your position. So I'll repeat for the fifth and last time: Do not edit war. Do not disrupt Wikipedia. Follow WP:CON or move on to something else. Ward3001 (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, please sign in before you edit. Making the same arguments from an anon IP as you do signed in does not bolster consensus. Ward3001 (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment from somebody unconnected (following a request at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests) with the subject I am not an expert but anybody with the revelant degree must be a psychologist. The only alternate would be amateur psychologist which he clearly is not. Not sure that all the stuff about licences is really relevant he is educated and trained as a psychologist but that fact that he may not be licenced or in practice in certain states can be mentioned further down in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Following the same request at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests I would agree with MilborneOne. As long as in the article and possibly in the summary "Dr.Phil" is clearly identified as either a former psychologist or a psychologist by education rather than trade the title remain applicable.

Ghaag (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Texas

I spoke to Brenda Skiff of the Texas Board of Examiners of Psychologists earlier this week. She informed me that McGraw did complete all of the conditions of the disciplinary action. He voluntarily retired his license at some later date, but I wasn't willing to pay $30.00 to write to find out when he retired it. 75.172.29.56 (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This source http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/4369 says he retired his Texas license in 2006. However, this L.A. TV station (http://ktla.trb.com/news/ktla-drphil,0,658228.story?coll=ktla-news-2) says he failed to complete the conditions imposed as disciplinary sanctions by the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists in 1989 and he is now under investigation by the California Board of Psychology for practicing without a license, which may or may not refer the matter to the D.A. for possible felony prosecution. The complaint was filed by a licensed psychologist. I'd pay the $30 to find out if and when he actually retired his Texas license, but I have a feeling we will find out via the media soon enough. Wikeye (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If we find that Dr. Phil completed the conditions, I would like to find out who conducted the psychological exam and get a copy of it, if possible. Wikeye (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No way in hell you're gonna get a copy of the exam. Talk about unethical!! No examiner or licensing board would release such confidential information, especially if it's about a living person. You might get a tidbit from a member of the Texas Psychology Board if you're lucky. Ward3001 (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think we can certainly get confirmation whether he has undergone the examination and whether it was satisfactorily completed.--Travelingman (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Travelingman, you didn't accurately read my comment. I said you're not going to get a copy of the exam. That's altogether different from finding out out whether the exam was completed. As for whether it was "satisfactorily completed", I doubt that you'll get any useful information. If he voluntarily gave up his license the Texas Board did not have to make any further decisions about his license, so probably the most you'll get is that the exam was either completed or not completed. You will not get details, such as test results and interpretations. Ward3001 (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

How Did a Guy Who Played Linebacker in College Avoid the Draft?

His bio makes mention of his football, and one would certainly assume that a guy healthy enough to play college football would be subject to the draft. I was drafted and sent to Vietnam. Almost 3 million American men served in Vietnam. How did Dr. Phil avoid it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.217 (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're correct that he was never in the military. If you're from the Vietnam era, you may recall there were college deferments and a draft lottery back then. I don't know whether he stayed out of the military that way, but it's possible. Ward3001 (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I read somewhere that he claimed to have suffered a football-related head injury that left him blind in one eye, which he later healed through bio-feedback. I can believe it if he says it happened in the 100-6 ass-kicking from the Univ. of Houston. Must have spent the entire game getting knocked on his head and onto his backside, as he was middle linebacker. So it could have been a medical deferment. Wikeye (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Then again, his undergraduate studies lasted from 1968 through 1975, which is when the Vietnam war ended. Only took him a year for his Masters and another three for the Ph.D., so he must have been a decent student. Makes you wonder why the B.S. took 7 years. Wikeye (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

healed his blind eye through bio-feedback? Yes... Sure... Source? Or just bull shit? He doesn't seem like the "bio-feedback" sort of guy. Proxy User (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No bull on my part; maybe on his. Read this: http://www.hollywood.com/celebrity/Phil_McGraw/1421288 and note that his dissertation was on rheumatoid arthritis and bio-feedback healing. give the good "doctor" some credit. Wikeye (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Phil McGraw's lottery number for the Selective Service Lottery held December 1969 was 225. However, the highest lottery number called for this group (men, born from 1944 through 1950) was 195 (see http://www.sss.gov/lotter1.htm). So he never needed a deferment to stay out of the Vietnam War. But young Phil didn't know that in advance and may never have realized that he didn't need to be in school throughout the war in order to avoid the draft. Maybe it's just his uncanny knack for self-preservation that motivated him to re-enroll in school at Midwestern State University after losing his football scholarship at the University of Tulsa just prior to the lottery, and then finally graduate after 7 years, just as the war ended. Or maybe it was just plain old good luck. Wikeye (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

McGraw in Pop Culture

The pop culture section needs to be cleaned up. Currently, there are two different categories of items mentioned in this section: first, we have times when McGraw himself appeared in other media, such as on Fraiser, or where he is parodied by an original character, such as on Seseme Street. Second, we have one line jokes from childrens' programming, such as on The Suite Life of Zach and Cody, Drake & Josh, and Brandy and Mr. Whiskers. Now, I believe it is quite relevent to this article to mention the muppet character on Seseme Street that looks just like McGraw. I do not feel it is relevent to this article to go into explicit detail as to how Shirley was convinced by Zach to convince Darlene to go out on a date with Zach, and during their date, Darlene is having trouble opening up to Zach, to which Zach replies, "Just think of me as Dr. Phil with hair." Excessive plot detail about an unrelated show that merely mentions McGraw once is just totally unencyclopedic and irrelevent to the quality of this article. We need to figure out whether we should include every single mentioning of McGraw's name throughout all of pop culture, or if we're going to include substantive references and appearences. I vote for the former, rather than the latter. Brash (talk) 03:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The former??? Are you sure you said that right? You want to "include every single mentioning of McGraw's name throughout all of pop culture"

My personal opinion is to get rid of the entire pop culture section. They're discouraged by Wikipedia, they're generally unencyclopedic, and they're useless. Ward3001 (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can say that when a HUGE percentage of Wikipedia is exactly no more than "pop culture" and trivia. Proxy User (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"a HUGE percentage of Wikipedia is exactly no more than pop culture and trivia": Sorry, that makes no sense. Please reword. And if you're implying that a lot of Wikipedians like trivia, that doesn't change the fact that trivia (pop culture, and it's other euphemisms) is officially discouraged by Wikipedia. See WP:TRIVIA. Ward3001 (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the Sesame Street mention (and the photo), along with the Frasier and Scary Movie mentions. The other stuff is kinda crappy and must die. Wikeye (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Robin's history

I'm sorry, but I was under the impression that Robyn worked after they were married, and quit her job the day she found out she was pregnant with Jay. She has either written this in her book or said it on the show, or both. I believe it was a job packing medical supplies, or working in a factory where they did so. Appledumplin (talk) 06:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Cite it. Ward3001 (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

House information and link

I removed information about McGraw's house and value because the source doesn't meet WP:RS, and the estimate was based on the site's own calculations. The page also did not ID the house as McGraw's. Flowanda | Talk 23:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Non sourced/non NPOV/incorrectly cited inaccuracies

I work for Rubenstein Communications and Dr. Phil is a client of ours. There are several factual inaccuracies that should be removed per Wikipedia’s policy on WP:BLPs and WP:NPOV. To mitigate any potential conflict of interest, I will vet only instances of factual inaccuracies that are not sourced, incorrectly cited, and/or the citation reference is no longer valid. My intention here is not to rewrite the article in any way, but rather, clean it up per Wiki standards. If there are any questions/concerns/edits to my proposed actions, please discuss on my talk page. // Brycetom (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Since you are an "ardent supporter of Wikipedia" NPOV, etc., and your job is to "monitor relevant Wikipedia pages and...to clarify and/or correct any misinformation", would you mind clarifying a couple of items:

1. Was Dr. Phil's license suspended or revoked by The Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists? There has been some discussion of the matter here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Phil_McGraw#additional_information_requested And did he comply with the terms of his sanctions and have his license reinstated by the Board? If so, when?
2. Was Dr. Phil actually divorced from his first wife? Where and when? Sources indicated that the divorce took place in Texas in 1973. That makes sense, since he was attending Midwestern State University in Wichita Falls, Texas at the time. However, the Texas Department of State Health Services has no record of his divorce in 1973 that I can locate (see http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/vs/marriagedivorce/dindex.shtm). I searched 1972 through 1976 (the year he married his current wife, Robin) and can find no record of divorce for Phil or Phillip McGraw. Perhaps I have overlooked something.Wikeye (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Although we might be curious to see Brycetom's replies to these question, what he says cannot go in the article without the usual process of reliable sourcing. We don't have any proof that he is who he says he is, and even if we did, his opinions here without corroborating sources would be considered original research and could not go in the article. Ward3001 (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In answer to my own question #2 above: Yes, I did overlook something that explains things. According to Sophia Dembling, author of "The Making of Dr. Phil", the marriage was annulled in 1973 (see http://www.sophiadembling.com/2008/07/dr-phil-divorce.html). Hence, no record of divorce. Also, Robin was only 19--not 20 when they met (she was born 12/28/1953, see voter records at http://www.webofdeception.com/drphil.html) and they met one week after she graduated from high school. Dr. Phil was probably married but separated at the time.Wikeye (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

POV

I'm pretty unbiased about Dr. Phil -- can take him or leave him (I watched the complete first season of his main show; watched the other seasons only very very sporadically) -- and I must say this article is one of the most POV I've come across in a long time on Wikipedia. It's very biased towards controversy and criticism and in my humble opinion nearly borders on defamation. Little or nothing is listed to offset the myriad complaints, failures, missteps, controversies, and criticisms. There's also not a mention of Frank Lawlis, his respected mentor. I think this article needs a major overhaul and for every negative listed there needs to be a positive, or at least 2 to 1, eh? For all his biases and idiosyncrasies, he has helped a very great deal of people. I don't personally think there's any question on that. Softlavender (talk) 09:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV doesn't mean that each statement that could be construed as negative in an article needs to be 'balanced' with a positive. All statements just need to be Sourced and without undue weight. Ashmoo (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree with Ashmoo that there does not need to be a 1:1 negative-positive balance, this article is a favorite target of vandals and extremists, and they tend to be especially attracted to a section entitled "Criticisms & Controversies". For example, an anon vandal changed the age of one of the complainants against McGraw for "sexually inappropriate" behavior from 19 to 16. That's a HUGE WP:BLP violation (in effect changing the behavior from unethical to illegal). This vandalism went unnoticed for over two weeks, likely because the article is so heavily vandalized. The information in the "Criticisms & Controversies" section needs to be moved into other sections, and that may very well require the "major overhaul" suggested by Softlavender. If I had time I'd do it right now. I encourage others to try to tackle this task a little at a time because we are talking about serious liability for Wikipedia if this kind of thing continues. Ward3001 (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everthing you've said here. Although I did say there doesn't need to be a 1:1, I do think this article is weighed heavily towards negative info about the subject. It would be good to get more Notable positive (or neutral) info. And I agree the 'Controversy' section should be incorporated into the text. As it stands the section would be better titled 'Come here for dirt on Dr. Phil' :) Ashmoo (talk) 09:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. However, just because Bryce Tom (aka Brycetom, the Director of Online Reputation Management at Rubenstein Communications) is trying to "create, maintain and protect the desired image" (http://www.rubenstein.com/cap_rep.html) for Dr. Phil doesn't mean that this article is 'unbalanced' or 'biased' or 'unfair'. There is plenty to balance out what some consider to be "complaints, failures, missteps, controversies and criticisms." Some might say that the article borders not on "defamation" but on a tribute to Dr. Phil and his ability to succeed in spite of hardships, adversities, etc. Citing the actions of a single "anon vandal" to support a complete rewrite of the article is itself non NPOV. How can a vandal be anonymous anyhow? You have to be signed in to edit the Phil McGraw page. Who are these "extremists" you refer to? Any examples? Let's keep an eye on them, along with any public relations people who are using various media to create a "desired image" for Dr. Phil. Wikeye (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Although I don't disagree regarding edits by Brycetom, this is one of the most vandalized articles I have dealt with (and I have 800 articles on my watchlist). Look at all the reverts in the edit history. Because it is vandalized so much, serious BLP violations can go unnoticed, such as the example I gave above that went unnoticed for more than two weeks. McGraw is a controversial figure; not much doubt about that. That itself attracts vandals. And if you have a section entitled "Criticisms & Controversies", that attracts even more vandals. That's true across Wikipedia, not just this article. That's why Wikipedia encourages placing information contained in such sections in other places in the article. Regarding anon edits, at a particular point in time it might be true that anons cannot edit this article, but most of the time they can edit. All you have to do is simply look at the edit history. Most of the days that signed-in users edit, there also are edits from anon IPs. Prior to Wikeye's lasts edits, the most recent edits were on January 12, and anon IPs edited that day. It is generally not true that anons cannot edit this article. Ward3001 (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Separation / Divorce

I heard from a few friends that Dr. Phil had Divorced or at least separated from Robin Jameson. Couldn't find anything conclusive on the net. Has anyone else heard of or read anything about this? (60.241.156.9 (talk) 08:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC))

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Change to Career Section, Feb 5th 2009

Sorry I forgot to describe the change in the Edit Summary box.

I moved the comment about his not speaking to his father up to where the discussion of his father is. Also, I removed the comment about his father having contempt for him.

More to the point, I clarified the discussion about his being unable to practice psychology. Before, it said that this was the result of the sanctions, rather than being the result of his either not renewing or having retired his license. I also added his comments from the Today Show in which he says he does not practice psychology and had retired from psychology. Also added that the Board of Psychology has cleared him with respect to needing a license to do what he does ... sourced to the Today Show. Please refer to "not a psychologist" above for context of edits. Pgm8693 (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)