Talk:Phil McGraw

I hate Phil

NO offense but he sucks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.219.41 (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I second that. 24.5.151.206 (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Lopsided article?

I was hoping to find informations on the life, career and facts related to McGraw. What I found instead seems very different and unusual: it seems entirely focused,indeed completely dedicated to listing ad exposing "controversies". This person's life and work surely is defined by more than that. My impression is that his show has probably helped a large number of people, who however don't edit Wikipedia articles. Nonetheless, the article should at least be expanded to include the existing positive aspects of the life and work of the person. I want to stress that I am generally very satisfied with the balance of Wikipedia articles, and their usefulness. I think this one fails on both accounts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.147.101 (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Political bias

I remember one show in which Dr. Phil gave "therapy" to two anti-war protesters. Shouldn't there be any mention of this?

Ya, I remember that. My jaw dropped throughout that whole segment. If you can find the episode #, then talk about it in the controvery section.

Maybe they needed it. Don't jump to conclusions without the full context. Wahkeenah 17:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If we wanted to, we could add every bit of controversy we find in the show. Every episode is controversial to someone, I'm sure. I'd focus more on what the national media and tabloids have to say on Dr. Phil, rather than how I or you feel about an episode number. Drumpler 07:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Behavior Modification Therapy

I think that this article is biased against behavior modification as a therapy. it has been proved more effective than psychoanalysis time and time again, and just because it doesn't explicitly discuss past experience in its treatment, it definitly acknowledges and takes it into account.

what about his time as a legal consultant which introduced him to Oprah during her beef lawsuit?

Effective or not, his teachings go against conventional wisdom in the field. This is not POV. SteelyDave 12:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Then a meaningful comparison between Dr. Phil's approaches and the standards in the field is required to deflect the accusation that this is a biased article; as it is now it does seemed biased against behavioral modification rather than a neutral comparison, so a POV is warranted. Kemet 00:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is not biased against behavior modification but rather suggests that it is a controversial and its results have not been substantiated, which is true. There are many experts in the field and many studies published which question the effectiveness of this approach; for example this article and this article

I just wanted to add that I don't understand what this paragraphs is implying overall when it says that McGraw, like Dr. Laura, does not emphasize discovering the cause of emotional distress earlier in life, and Contrary to this is Dr. McGraw's numerous statements of "we need to get to the root of the problem" during his shows.. So what's the bottom line? To what degree and in which cases does he and does he not try to "get to the root of the problem"

Criticism

This article doesn't address the varying criticism that has been levied against Phil McGraw, much less acknowledge any. A good place to start is this rotten article, although it is heavily biased.

EDIT: Anyone noticed how recently Dr. Phil made comments about the Virginia shootings, shoving the usual blame onto video games before realising that he didn't actually own any. Worthy to be in the criticism?

The statement(which is not allowed)in the first criticism of ethical behavior over hiring a 19 year old needs to be cited.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Olthoi (talk • contribs)

Uh...the section has five citations. What's your point? And what "is not allowed": the statement, or hiring a 19 year old? Ward3001 (talk) 17:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Time to include a new crticism section about how he barged into Britney's 7th floor mental hospital room uninvited just to get in on a big story to further his status, career, notoriety. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/browse_thread/thread/802874e53b27f069?hl=en#99122576760c24fe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.63.153 (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a criticism. Next week we have yet another show about older women dating younger men. What is his obsession with this ? Perhaps, a bit threatening for him to think his wife could go looking for a younger more attractive man. That wouldn't be too difficult !  :) I don't see why this is such a big deal, men have been dating younger women forever.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oh,getreal (talk • contribs) 22:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Guest TV Appearances

The following trivia, which I have deleted twice, seems too inconsequential to be included in this article:

He substituted for Larry King as host of Larry King Live for a show about Hurricane Katrina. McGraw also appeared on the Jeff Foxworthy Roast on Comedy Central.

Uncle Phil

The information is irrelevant to this article. They share very little similarity (so they're fat and bald. A lot of people can be compared with that criteria), and no one is going to punch in "Dr. Phil" to expect the Fresh Prince character. And about this edit summary? You might want to read this. Mike H 18:38, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

You might want to read my fist smashing your face --Boycottthecaf 23:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Jury Consultant / Courtroom Science Inc.

This article clearly needs to address Dr. McGraw's decidedly non-cuddly earlier career as a jury consultant and founder of Courtroom Science, Inc. PRiis 16:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.. Mike H 16:49, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not the noob you seem to think I am. I just don't care enough about Dr. Phil to do the necessary research to nail down the details, dates, documentation, etc. to make a meaningful addition to the article. The point of making a suggestion is that someone who has more interest and knowledge in the subject can consider it. If every suggestion just gets a "sofixit" slapped on it, then there is no point making suggestions. PRiis 17:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

If you're not interested in writing about Dr. Phil, perhaps you should pass the torch to someone who is. A suggestion only for the interest of readers. Details are of major importance if anyone bothers to look it up, there lies interest in the subject.

THAT'S WHAT HE WAS DOING, you silly sausage. --195.92.168.170 14:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ph.D.

Does anybody know what discipline (or major) his degrees are in? 4.236.78.217 20:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

some quick googling and I have added information about his education to the article. The entire article could have alot more information added. However, I don't care enough about dr. phil to do it myself. Rizla 04:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

His official bio states: "Dr. Phil has a B.A., 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 is a licensed clinical psychologist in the great state of Texas." --Donn Edwards 15:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Rotten.com says that: let's remember that the "doctor" in Dr. Phil references a degree in psychology. He's not a physician, he's not academically qualified to prescribe medication. While he does have a Ph.D., he is not an M.D. like is commonly believed. Cacophony 04:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A Ph.D. is a real doctor, existing before M.D. was invented. And a clinical psychologist would be better to have a Ph.D. in Psychology than an M.D., alhtough people may assume that he is an MD (which would not necessarilly make him more qualified to give the advice that he does - probably less qualified). At least he's not like Dr Laura, whose Ph.D. is not in Psychology, althought she acts like a counsellor.

However, he has a Ph.D. in psychology, he is not a doctor of medicine yet seems to think he give analyze and give advice on things which sometimes require medical expertise. For example, I came across an article, I don't have the link, which discussed Dr Phil's views on obesity and weightloss and basically argued that many people cannot lose weight due to medical issues, like glandular problems, while Dr Phil has scoffed at such notions arguing that anyone can lose weight and you cannot go around stamped with your specific medical problems as an excuse for being overweight. In this case, Dr Phil goes beyond his qualifications in psychology and tries to make a medical diagnosis.

The difference between a doctor of medicine (M.D.) and a clinical psychologist (Ph.D.)

A doctor of medicine who titles him or herself with the creditation of Dr. before their surname is not defining his or her medical status within academia, that is university, instead they are showing that they have achieved at least 7 years of education that ends in a Ph.D. All Ph.D.s are called Doctors of Philosophy because philosophy underpins the exam, unlike medicine which tests a person's knowlege and understanding of the human body and its functions. Beware, medical students are only asked several questions regarding the human mind, behaviour and a persons actions, because they only have to read 3 hours worth of book knowledge at university. Instead, the M.D. exam tests the students knowledge on how well they understood the nervous structure, organs, nervous blood system and other bodily functions as opposed to the psyche. The medical knowledge is just that, medical knowledge, such as drugs knowledge and administration of drugs associated with outcomes on the human body and brain structure.

Importantly, knowledge using the psycho-analytical approach, tends to be favoured before a doctor of medicine, interested in specialising in the study of the mind becomes a pscyhiatrist. All psychiatrists learn and tend to favour the first psychiatrist Sigmund Freud who developed the psycho-analytical approach as one grand theory to diagnose all manor of problems. Freud's theory cannot be disproved and fell out of favour as a credible study in university so those interested carved a new path and went in the direction of psychology. For example, Freud said all psychiatrists should know that the mind is controlled by three entities, th id the ego and the superego all taken from greek literature this is why the theory cannot be disproved because how can you summon an entity into a labaoratory, the theory is largley regarded as fantasy and psychiatrists still use it sadly to explain impulsivity within behaviours like anger or gambling. In becoming a member of a team of mental health workers, the psychiatrist will work with many psychologists who have also specialised in different fields for example biopsychology or cognitive. Clinical and medical work together, alternating knowledges to get the best outcome for the patient in a national health programme, private companies use who they want to use. I hope people understand that psychological knowledge is not less important just different.

A doctor of medicine has four years of professional education, if she or he wants to go on to specialise away from general practice within a community, for example becoming a child psychiatrist, that person will have to study more or less for another seven years. These seven years of study are devoted to the same and additional psychoanalylitical subject matter as the psychologist except the location of work is different. For example psychiatrists work on research and for universities and in mental hospitals. The psychologist also works in universities but tends to work in general hospitals and private practice or with a team made up of social workers, psychologists and psychiatrists.

Moreover the same drugs knowledge that is taught to a doctor of medicine wanting to become a psychiatrist is the exact same knowledge that Dr. Phil has (Clinical psychologist,) the exception is the additonal medical knowledge gained during the first five years in medical school when the student was learning about the human body and its organs, this knoweldge is not really useful to a psychologist who is trying to treat and prevent mental and behavioral illness without drugs, although a fully qualified clinical psychologist can proscribe drugs but he or she cannot inject them because of a lack in medical knowlege and training. A psychiatrist prefers to treat patients with drugs if the diagnosis fits in with his or her approach for example, depression or ADHD, whereas a psychologist may want to seek out alternative measures with behavioural therapy. Don't get confused and forget that when a liver is unwell one sees a liver specialist and when the brain is unwell one sees a psychologist if the part that is unwell is the mind and not the brain tissue. The mind in this sense is seen as an organ like the liver, heart or lungs.

Finaly behaviour is very misunderstood, remember that when a person can't do something that is requried within normal human functioning, that person is usually regarded as mentally ill, whereas when a person won't do something that is within normal human functining, then it assumed that person is behaviorally lacking in control. If a child is disturbed then the parents or other primary caregives are called in for examination too, they may need treatment or guidence in parenting because they may have contributed to the disturbance and created a lack of psychological control. Mental illness is assmumed or theorized to be a disturbance from within the person being treated, whereas behavioural problems are assumed to be created by a disturbance from within or a disturbance from outside. For example, from a parent with poor caregiver skills or a parent who has a form of psycholgical unwellness. Again at the initial consultation the psychologist does not know when and how the behaviour originated and can only speculate if it arose from within the parent or developed during their upbringing, analysis and introspection can be used as tools to inspect the persons mind for answers to reveal the history and in addition the behaviour that is a problem can be measured and tested in a laboratory or in a home setting. Solutions tend to be found using cognitive therapy in which the clinician may want to recreate events in a laboratory setting in order to reteach the parent and correct what is wrong in the child being treated, psychiatrists if they have decided it is mental will not go to these lengths instead they may opt for drugs. If a parent of a child who has development problems was maltreated also as a child then yes it stands that the parent may also have behavioural problems.

Importantly, this has been documented over the centuries and many societies have reported this to be the case through literature that problems have a tendency to be generational. Before psychiatry and psychology, lay people articulated this in error or bias, in general, folk used to say the sins of the father are visited on the son. Today, we see this as typically unrefined knowledge; formulated without experiments and measures to say if it was a valid assumption. Psychology has uncovered a working truth behind this lay knowledge, that was often projected from followers of the bible. Intelligence and rational thought has shown lay people how their behaviour impacts on their children and grandchildren and so on. This is why clinical psychologists see problem behaviours within families.

Unfortunately, some parents try to manipulate the clinician informing him or her that the child is mentally ill, this is a defence mechaninism and a way of deflecting worrying truths away from themselves so the child is the focus not them, in effect the parent hides behind the innocent child. Guilt and ignorance play a big role in why parents claim their child is mentally ill when they are not. In the case of ADHD all of these issues are raised and sometimes even today are not questioned enough, for example now that you know this much about behaviour can you see how problematic a diagnosis of ADHD is and how it should never be treated at speed or at the will of a parent with drugs. Now that we have psychologists in schools and hospitals, parents are less able to tell these lies to themselves and others so thank goodness for Dr. Phil.

FYI, the preceding 7 paragraphs contain many falsehoods regarding the training of doctors of medicine. I can comment on this as I recently went through this training. seems to have a very limited understanding of general medical training and psychiatric residency training in particular. For example: "Beware, medical students are only asked several questions regarding the human mind, behaviour and a persons actions, because they only have to read 3 hours worth of book knowledge at university." This seems to have been written for its impact on the reader, presumably to highlight the supremacy of psychologist training over psychiatric training and therefore to support Dr. Phil's credentials. In truth though, many, many questions on these topics are posed on medical school exams and I can assure you more than 3 hours worth of knowledge was necessary to answer them. (How did the author arrive at this number anyways?) This is the kind of rash generalization that should be avoided not only on Wikipedia but in everyday life as well. Here's another example: "All psychiatrists learn and tend to favour the first psychiatrist Sigmund Freud who..." How can you suddenly speak for all psychiatrists regarding which methods they favour? The author is either omniscient or has a tendency towards hyperbole. There are also numerous minor errors re: required length of training, etc. that I needn't go into. I'm sorry I haven't the time or the inclination to lead a proper discussion of differences between M.D./Ph.D. I have no opinion regarding the "one being better than the other to treat mental illness" debate. Just wanted you to know that the previous author is not to be trusted as his/her grasp of medical training is tenuous at best. A good life lesson to take from this one is that in general, people who make rash generalizations probably haven't thought things through and/or are pretending to have expertise in an effort to convince others.72.138.233.226 21:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, like Karl Popper and Richard Feynman, one could consider psychiatrists "witch doctors" and the whole mental health enterprise a load of superstitious hooey. Nicmart (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Phil Wrong

My mom worked at a law office and she says he gave bad advice propably arising form his not understanding Canadian Law.

Dr Phil has been wrong on many occasions. Phil even encouraged a wife whose husband wore her clothes to leave her husband because he's only interested in masturbating while wearing her clothes Apparently, though, this couple's sex life was not in trouble and was not even the issue; they even had 3 kids.

shouldnt it be Dr. Phillip Mcgraw???

Since he has a doctorate, hes entitled to that tittle, much like the brittish sirs, wouldnt it?... should be?

The Wikipedia convenstion seems to be Phillip C McGraw, Ph.D. See Richard_Day, Ph.D. and Richard Morris, Ph.D. but since the article already has a title that is easy to find, I vote we leave it as it is.--Donn Edwards 15:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The man who dressed as a female was trying to overthrow his wife and become the female in the house. One may ask why, for this is a big why! Well, Dr. Phil could not go into detail it would take to long, this man had a mental illness called transvestism and it kills the human spirit in the wife, who grievs the loss of her male companion and who feels tortured into accepting the new persona of a female into her bed. Dr. Phil was being kind, he was trying to give her a strong wake up call to show her what was ahead of her, pain and heartache and depression at not being treated as a heterosexual woman; this husband was abusive and Dr.Phil was correct in saying what he said.

Transvestism isn't a disease. If Dr. Phil were an ACTUAL DOCTOR he would know this.

"Mental illness" != disease. If you even took the time to check the wiki entry on mental illness, you would know this. But I guess you were too fired up at the chance to make a snide remark. Or maybe you're just confused since these days everything from "shopping addiction" to "obesity" is now labeled as a "disease" (with the idiot masses eating it up), so the actual definition has become sufficiently obfuscated that you automatically assume illness and disease are the same thing?

Transvestitism isn't a mental illness, either. It's a sexual fetish and/or a lifestyle choice, depending on the context. If you do it to get off, it's a sexual fetish (parden my rude language) which is NOT the same as a mental illness.

Catchphrases

The list of catchphrases has grown awfully long. Can we trim it down to a few of the most common? -Will Beback 04:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly - but I personaly don't know what the most common ones are. - Matthew238 07:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I reduced it to the most common ones, less than 20.--Donn Edwards 15:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think somebody was confused as to what constitutes a catchphrase. Should be trimmed down to something like three to five. Some of those are more or less "memorable quotes", seemingly chosen for how silly they read. --relaxathon 06:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

And in the same vein... did I miss something? POOKIE?--CokeBear 06:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

His catchphrases don't belong on this webiste, they belong on Wikiquote.[1] The Hybrid Lives 04:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

wiki texas?

Wiki texas? Is everyone ever from Texas on this? Dr Phil doesn't seem to be an important topic in the discussion of the state.

Air dates

On the Phil McGraw page, it says his show will go from now until the 2013-2014 season, but on the show's page, it says until the 2012-2013 season. Which is true? --User:MatthewKeys

A King World press release indicates that their distribution deal for the Dr. Phil show was extended through the 2013-2014 television seasons. (See http://www.kingworld.com/PressRelease.aspx?pressReleaseID=192) In addition, King World announced it has renewed the series on 15 Viacom television stations through the 2010-2011 season. Apparently, the show will be produced through 2013-2014; however, there is no guarantee that it will appear on major market TV stations beyond 2010-2011. Wikeye (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Early Life Biography

Hello, I am a personal friend of Dr. Phil, and about a month ago I had the pleasure of apparantly being in his biography section. Looking at the entry on Nov. 1, I didn't see myself and decided to find where I had been deleted. I looked back in the history of the page to the 24 of September, where an attemptedly humorous edit was made by a user named Hghr. He changed the biography section from something along to lines of "He enjoyed hunting ducks in his backyard with his lifetime friend, Alex McKenna." to "He enjoyed hunting ducks in his backyard with his lifetime friend, now dangerous pedophile, Alex McKenna." I can assure that I am not a dangerous pedophile, and unfortunately it seems that I was deleted from the entire article. The editor must have thought my entire place in that article was a fabrication, not my status as a "dangerous pedophile". You can look back in your history yourself and see this. I will check back this discussion in maybe a week, and if no problems have been found, I am putting myself back in his entry. I am afraid I can't really cite a source for my existence, as he hasn't really had any biographies written on him, but I assure you all that I do in fact exist.

Maybe, "He enjoyed hunting ducks in his backyard with his lifetime friend, now dangerous dr.philophile, Alex McKenna." would be more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.254.212 (talk) 04:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the basis for this accusation? I see nothing on Google about a person named Alex or Alexander McKenna in connection with child molestation. Is this a libel or is there some factual basis? Why is the accusation made anonymously? Why does Alex McKenna feel the need to appear by way of a trivial mention in the McGraw entry? Nicmart (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of pop culture references

I fail to see how a listing of pop culture references that are verifiable and not libelous is somehow "non-encyclopedic". Therefore, the references are restored. Calwatch 00:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Frankly, I fail to see how they're particularly relevant to a biographical article on the man, and that compilation certainly qualifies as original research. If you can dig up an article on the cultural impact of Dr. Phil, then we'd be getting somewhere. Wikipedia isn't a dumping ground for every little tidbit in the world--that which gets entered needs organization, structure, and context. Mackensen (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, as one shot references are not relevant, but something like Dr. Feel is not only culturally significant, but not original research, and culturally relevant. I'd like to see some other editors chime in though. Calwatch 01:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If it can be integrated into the main text then you've my full support. A paragraph with a footnote is always preferable to a bulleted list. Mackensen (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

However, the pop culture list is generally in bulleted format. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Popular_culture and note how most of the articles are in bulleted format. Calwatch 02:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Examples:

The good doctor - The popular TV psychologist brings his show back to post-K New Orleans. (New Orleans Times Picayune, 8/8/2006):

The author of a half-dozen best-selling books and a bona fide TV star -- spoofed by David Letterman and appearing on "Sesame Street" -- McGraw said he reacted to the chaos and destruction he saw in New Orleans during the immediate aftermath of the levee losses by focusing on the therapeutic challenges ahead, both short- and long-term. (i.e., the spoofs were relevant to his notability)

[2] (Movieweb article) Starring 'Scary Movie' regular ANNA FARIS, the new one, in theaters next April, marks Dr. Phil's big-screen debut -- spoofing his own image. "I want people to know I don't take myself too seriously as it might seem when I am into a heavy issue," says Dr. Phil. "I always try to work with humor as much as I can because it diffuses a lot of [people's] defensiveness. I think it's good to make fun of yourself."

Frasier: [3] Bebe lures Frasier into dark pathways after revealing that she is also agent to Dr. Phil McGraw.

I could cite the others, but you get the idea. Calwatch 02:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I do indeed. Note that the Manual of Style encourages that articles *not* be formatted in such a way. I note that you've re-added the section on your own initiative. If you really think that this betters the article I suppose there's no arguing with you, but I'm disappointed. Mackensen (talk) 04:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Now take those articles and construct a paragraph. Mackensen (talk) 04:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Different Article for Robin McGraw

She has also gained celebrity status and I think she should have a different article rathern than redirect here. She written some books too. I dunno think about it. Im only a teen dr phil phan lol. --[[User:Storkian|Storkian] 01:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Sexual life with a 19 year old?

I never knew he had sex with a 19 year old!

Please cite this article and tell me on my user talk page.

--[[User:Storkian|Storkian] 01:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It's already cited. Here's the reference: [4]. -Will Beback 02:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Lucky fucker. --195.92.168.170 14:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Having sex is not supported by the reference, which states:

"The most notable of the complaints outlined in the book and in investigative articles predating it come from a former therapy client of McGraw's who claims that he carried on a controlling and sometimes sexually inappropriate relationship with her."

Sexually inappropriate means that you are doing something to someone of the other sex, and has nothing to do with having sex with them. Someone who can fix the article, please delete the following: ", who says their relationship was sexual"

The reference does not say "sexual relations" it says "sexually inappropriate relationship". 199.125.109.138 21:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please change "who says their relationship was sexual" to "who says their relationship was sexually inappropriate".

Done. Thanks.

How about changing it to just "ew"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.15.38 (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Location of high school

Shawnee Mission North is not located in Mission, KS. It is located in Overland Park, KS. I know because I went there. The supporting documentation can be found on the district's page about the school [5].

Weasel Words

The section in his biography regarding his advice and critics' response has no citation, and therefore, could be construed as loaded with weasel words. I want to tag this part of the article, but I don't know if this is appropriate. However, I do feel that until a citation is found, or the sentence is properly written, that it should be tagged as a possible weasel word and should be corrected. Hope someone else has 2 cents to give on this! WiiAlbanyGirl 05:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What about porn star guests?

All that needs to be said and seen is summarized on this page: http://drphil.aca.cc

Vcepesh 22:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, there is a lot of credibility to the charge that the web site was altered to cover up the incident. See the NY Daily News article. The irony is that the show was about "evil influences" or something like that, and 3 months later, McGraw's son became engaged to a porn star. We all know how Dr. Phil feels about porn. So I'm proposing an addition to the Criticisms & controversies section.

===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.

[6]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." [7]

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 [8] 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 [9] 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)

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)

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)