Jump to content

Talk:Phil McGraw/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Views as a doctor

I notice that this article is mostly contraversies and his rise to being a TV star of sorts. I was wondering why there isn't maybe more on his personal views of psychiatry and what not. 69.207.32.143 (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

BLP Edits

Adhering to BLP Standards, the following edits have been made to Dr. Phil's article. Based on official Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists documents, many of the speculative claims have definitive answers now and I updated the article as appropriate.//Brycetom (talk) 11:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit 1: As written, the paragraph re: Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologist was wholly incorrect and did not belong in the Career section of the article as it did not directly impact McGraw's career path. The previous content based its claim on an unauthorized contentious biography. The official document sent by the Texas State Board of Examiners directly refutes the incorrect information, and outlines the incident as follows. It is reflected in a new section, entitled: Texas State Board of Examiners and Psychologists, located in the Controversies section.

The Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists determined on October 21, 1988 that McGraw had hired a former patient for "part-time temporary employment" (link). Specifically the Board cited "a possible failure to provide proper separation between termination of therapy and the initiation of employment (link). and issued a letter of reprimand and imposed administrative penalties (link). The Board also investigated claims made by the patient of inappropriate contact initiated by McGraw, but the "Findings of Fact" document issued by the Board on October 21, 1988, at the end of its investigation, includes no reference to any physical contact of any kind. It specifically identified the "the therapeutic and business relationships" as constituting McGraw's sole issue with the Board (link). McGraw fulfilled all terms of the Board's requirements, and the Board closed its complaint file in June, 1990 (link).


Edit2: Corrected the chronological order of the paragraphs in the Career Section. Moved the Courtroom Sciences Inc. paragraph above the one preceding it. I did not change the contents of the paragraphs, I merely added the citation which states when McGraw officially retired his license. It now reads as follows. //Brycetom (talk) 11:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

In 1990, McGraw joined lawyer Gary Dobbs in co-founding Courtroom Sciences Inc. (CSI), a trial consulting firm through which McGraw later came into contact with Oprah Winfrey.[1] Eventually, CSI became a profitable enterprise, advising Fortune 500 companies and injured plaintiffs alike in achieving settlements. McGraw is no longer an officer or director of the company.[1]
After starting CSI, McGraw ceased the practice of Psychology. He maintained his license current and in good standing until he elected to retire it 15 years later in 2006(link). Appearing on the Today Show in January 2008, McGraw said that he has made it "very clear" that his current work does not involve the practice of psychology. He also said that he had "retired from psychology."[2] According to the Today Show, the California Board of Psychology determined in 2002 that he did not require a license because his show involves "entertainment," rather than psychology.[3]

Britney Spears "intervention" (2008)

I changed the reference to the reports about the complaint ostensibly filed with the Board of Psychology (BOP). There is no way to actually know if any complaint was actually filed, and therefore, it's just an unsubstantiated report that somebody filed a complaint. All we know is that someone got a form, filled it out, redacted their name and got it posted on the web and picked up by the media. The Fox News report is better than the citation that was here before; it makes clear that "it has been reported," rather than saying that it actually happened. I was at a dinner the other night with two former Presidents of the BOP. The meeting was about the BOP complaint process. They both made clear that this information cannot be released by the BOP until there is formal action on a complaint. I also took out the stuff about a petition to get Phil off the air being circulated. It's entirely irrelevant to a licensing board complaint, and who knows if it's of any substance or significance. Finally, this article had referred to the complaint as having been filed by "he" ... the published complaint form, the person reported to be a psychologist identified herself as "Mrs." Pgm8693 (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Controversy Section Bias

The layout of this section (with every point bold-faced and spread out in separate paragraphs) is probably not intentional but breaks from the layout of the rest of the article in a way that creates bias.

All of these points could be handled in one or two paragraphs.

Also there are no counterpoints-- (no properly-cited alternative points of view to balance the criticisms).

I have no affiliation with Doctor Phil, but I do sincerely feel that this section is unbalanced and biased.

69.171.160.214 (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


Also his personal life section looks biased. Its says "he started dating" a woman when she was 19 years old (in 1973). Which creates the impression that he must have been far older than her. In fact, if you do the math, he was only 24 years old at the time.

That's not an outrageous or unheard of age difference, and yet the wording of the section emphasizes that she was "19" without mentioning his age for no apparent reason. It also said that he started dating her a week after she graduated from High school, doesn't seem to be a relevant fact.

At the same time it leaves out that he was only 23 or 24 at the time which is not an outrageous age difference. The point about her being newly graduated from high school also fails to point out that she graduated a year late from high school. These omissions make the section look so blatantly negative that any reasonable person would suspect that they were made maliciously.

All of those points and they way they were presented would seem, to any reasonable person, to be arranged for maximum negative impact. I have corrected these acts of malicious bias by simply adding Dr. Phil's age at the time of these events and also pointing out that his second wife was a year late in graduating from high school.

I also ask Wikipedia administrators to watch the individuals doing these obviously malicious edits for any additional signs of harassment and vandalism.

There are also criticisms written about his first marriage (that he was domineering). If true, it would have been fair to note his age during that marriage he would have been only 20 years of age at the time.

To me this is more bias. It's OK to print criticisms, but they should be presented fairly and in context.

69.171.160.214 (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Use of the terms "patient" and "doctor-patient privilege"

The terms patient and doctor-patient privilege are being used erroneously in this article, ("doctor-patient privilege" is used once in Britney Spears "intervention" (2008), and "patient" is used twice in Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists). In the case of psychologists, those receiving therapy/treatment are referred to as clients, not as patients. Medical Doctor's have patients, psychologists have clients. Even if an individual is seeing both a psychiatrist and a psychologist for the exact same problem, they would be the psychiatrist's patient, and the psychologist's client. likewise, a doctor-patient relationship, and hence doctor-patient privilege would exist between a medical doctor (such as a psychiatrist) and their patient, but not between a psychologist and their client. The correct terms in this case would be therapist-client relationship (or therapeutic relationship) and therapist-client privilege respectively. It would be beneficial to the article if someone could correct the terminology here (I am unable as the article is semi-protected and I am unregistered). 79.97.166.36 (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Having checked the references, it looks like the info in the Britney Spears "intervention" (2008) section does match the references cited, wherein fox news erroneously used the term doctor-patient privilege. However, following a link from foxnews to tmz.com where a copy of the complaint is hosted, it can be seen that only the general term "violating HIPAA" [read: violating The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 Privacy Rule] is used in the original complaint. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please replace "patient" with "client" and "doctor-patient" with "therapist-client" 79.97.166.36 (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with "doctor-patient"? -- Ϫ 14:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Wups, sorry I dunno how I missed the explanation given above. -- Ϫ 23:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Not done: The doctor-patient terminology may or may not be technically correct, but it matches the source and that is what really matters. Celestra (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the source used by fox you can see that it does not use the term doctor-patient, this was inserted by fox themselves. If we were to use their primary source there would be no need to stick to their inaccurate terminology 79.97.166.36 (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but we aren't supposed to use primary sources, especially not to contradict secondary sources. How is this important to the article? Is there something about this technical distinction that improves the readers understanding of the event? Or of McGraw? I get that you feel that this is inaccurate and I'll assume for now you are technically correct, but so what? The term inaccurately used by Fox captures the gist without confusing the reader - which is probably why they used it in the first place. Celestra (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not change from violating doctor-patient privilege to violating HIPAA? This is in keeping with WP:PRIMARY and doesn't contradict the secondary source, while being technically correct. I feel that maintaining such a technical distinction is important as failing to do so leads people to confuse psychiatry and psychology (e.g. section 46 on this talk page where someone mentions dr phil's views on psychiatry) 79.97.166.36 (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be some kind of conflict of interest here. This is an article on Phil McGraw; please focus on what improves this article and do not use this as a forum for educating people about the difference between psychiatry and psychology. I think it is clear that "violating HIPAA" would not get the idea across to the reader as clearly as "violating the doctor-patient priviledge". Most people outside the health care profession would not be familiar with HIPAA, nor with the fact that the relationship one has with respect to one's psychologist isn't technically 'patient'. Those details do not improve this article. Celestra (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest? How so? Eh, I'm fairly certain accuracy improves any article. Dr Phil is not a medical doctor, and I think that as far as possible the impression should not be given that he is. However, if consensus is to leave it as is, so be it. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please replace "patient" with "client" and "doctor-patient" with "therapist-client" 79.97.166.36 (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Didn't you just ask for this to be done a few days ago? Why should the situation have changed in a few days? Ks0stm (T•C•G) 22:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Not done: It hasn't. GrooveDog FOREVER 20:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please replace references to violation of doctor-patient privilege with references to violation of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act as per WP:BLP:

"Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially: Wikipedia policy Principles Five pillars What Wikipedia is not Ignore all rules Disputed content Neutral point of view Verifiability No original research Biographies of living persons Naming conventions Working with others Civility No personal attacks Harassment No legal threats Consensus Dispute resolution More List of policies List of guidelines Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability No original research We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2]"

It does not matter whether or not material implying that dr phil is a medical doctor "improves the article", it only matters that such material is contentious. I originally suggested a replacement with the term "violation of therapist-client privilege". However, I am more than willing to accept use of the term "violation of HIPAA". This term is verifiable. This term is right. I replaced the template, not as I believed that the situation had changed, but as I believed that one editor had made an incorrect, unilateral, decision. If the term is not changed I will pursue dispute resolution79.97.166.36 (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not done: This has been discussed above, and I see nothing in your last argument that would indicate that such a change is required. You are, of course, welcome to take up WP:DR if you feel the need to do so. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 13:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

section 4.5

section 4.5 of dr. phil mcgraw's page refers to "fellow psychotherapists". psychotherapy is specifically a branch of psychiatry (that following freud's school). as dr. phil is a psychologist, not a psychiatrist, the usage of "psychotherapist" to define his peers is incorrect. it should read instead "fellow psychologists" or "fellow therapists".

159.178.248.90 (talk) 09:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

As a psychologist, I'd like to note that psychotherapy is a very broad term that includes both psychiatrists, psychologists and other mental health professionals trained in therapy. It does not necessarily imply that someone is a psychiatrist OR a psychologist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.253.149.130 (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

As another psychologist, I'd like to note that psychotherapy is indeed a very broad term so correct in the context of Phil McGraw. What the first person is referring to is psychoanalysis a.k.a. Freudian psychology, which is but one version of psychotherapy available. More importantly, Freudian psychology is a branch of psychology, not psychiatry, since it's not a medical endeavor but part of the social sciences. Psychiatrists are specialized doctors who may subscribe medication to patients. Having a bachelor/master in psychology does NOT entitle you to do this (although you can follow additional education to this end, but I doubt that's relevant here). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.148.225.175 (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

regarding the doctor-patient/"client" and "fellow psychotherapists" discussions above

First, McGraw is in California, and that's where this issue came up.

"Doctor-patient privilege" is a term commonly used to refer to the "physician-patient privilege" that is established in California Evidence Code Section 990-1007.

What McGraw was ostensibly alleged to have violated was the "psychotherapist-patient privilege" that is defined in CA Evidence Code 1010-1027. Under CA law, the "client" of any psychotherapist is specifically defined as a "patient." In common usage, this separate psychotherapist-patient privilege (the legal term) is commonly referred to as the "doctor-patient privilege."

HIPAA is a federal law and has nothing to do with this situation. The State BOP doesn't investigate complaints about HIPAA violations.

As to the the statement that "psychotherapy is specifically a branch of psychiatry," that is not how the term is defined under California law. The CA Business and Professions Code Section 2902 specifically indicates that the term "psychotherapist" refers to a psychologist. In practice, the term is also widely used by social workers and marriage family therapists. The use of the terms by those professions follows from an opinion written by the CA Attorney General some twenty years ago. Physicians can also call themselves "psychotherapist" under the exceptions to the psychology licensing law.

In sum: the client of a psychologist is a patient. In this situation, "doctor-patient" is an ok usage. Technically, Dr. Phil is not a "psychotherapist," and therefore, if you want to change "fellow psychotherapists," it should be changed to indicate that he was criticized by "professional psychologists" or just "psychologists." For this section of the article, it's not really all that important. Pgm8693 (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2010 (UT

I was just in the process of writing a reply similar to the above (but perhaps not as succinctly and eloquently), when I noticed the link to this page.

Myself, and approximately 75% of the psychologists I know refer to those with whom they work as "patients." If an individual receiving services objected, I am certain their request for an alternative designation would be honored. Many patients express that the term makes them feel more cared-for, and denotes that they are receiving a high level of services. After all, manicurists, interior decorators, pet groomers, and the like have "clients." Those are honorable occupations, but they are distinctly different from diagnostic and healing professions.

California psychologists have long been able to admit their patients to hospitals independently, including involuntary admissions, and to treat them while hospitalized. Among other privileges, California psychologists with appropriate training can advise their patients independently regarding psychotropic medications.

I have not been able to locate a professional license in any state under which Phil McGraw, Ph.D., is permitted to practice psychology.

[Not sure what was the motivation for the semi-literate profanity tacked on to the end of the above post, by “wurd”] Ariadanos (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Phil's father

On a recent Dr. Phil show, Dr. Phil stated that his father died young due to obesity and heart attack. Now, Dr. Phil is almost 60, which means if his father died young than it would have been many years ago. This article states that they had business problems and rarely speak. Well, if his father is dead than of course they don't speak. This makes me question other "facts" in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.124.255 (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Joe McGraw, Dr. Phil's father is DEAD, as the above correspondent noted. (And, as the correspondent remarked, that is, no doubt, the reason why father and son do not speak.) The trouble is, I can't find a death date for Joe McGraw. Phil McGraw says his father died "in the early 90s" some time before Phil McGraw met Oprah Winfrey in 1995. This is noted in some remarks Phil McGraw made in an autobiographical piece in Parade Magazine. I cannot find a more precise date. http://www.parade.com/health/2009/06/dr-phil-fathers-day.html According to an Interview with Phil McGraw in Addictioninfo.org Joe McGraw was 69 years old at the time of his death. http://www.addictioninfo.org/articles/2201/1/Dr-Phil-on-living-with-alcoholic-father/Page1.html 99.135.92.107 (talk) 11:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC) OdilonRedon

Some follow-up. I went ahead and deleted the reference to Phil McGraw and his father Joe McGraw "seldom speaking". Given that Joe McGraw has been dead for over 15 years, the reference made no sense. I also read through the source cited to support this claim. I could not find any reference to the reported estrangement in the source. Mark Donald (2000). "Analyze This". Dallas Observer. http://www.dallasobserver.com/2000-04-13/news/analyze-this/full. Retrieved January 13, 2008 The closest thing I could find to an assertion that Phil McGraw and his father seldom spoke was an account of problems in their joint psychotherapy practice. As Joe McGraw aged, he became difficult to deal with. As a result, he and his son hardly spoke during group sessions with clients. This is nothing like the estrangement the Wikipedia article's statement implied and involves a situation that existed many years ago. OdilonRedon (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC) OdilonRedon

Ephebiphobia

Okay, this guy is so paranoid about teenagers it has to be mentioned. What is even more notable is that he has devoted entire episodes to telling parents that teenagers should be allowed to have sex, yet left his first wife for a girl fresh out of high school. This is to ironic and hypicritical to not be noted. I added it before, but it was removed. We have to mention it. He is the best example that I know of of Americans' extreme paranoia of young people (which is, by the way, mostly an American thing). I mean this guy is the most ephebiphobic person sine Judge Judy. So, we must mention it, right? Sbrianhicks (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

While it is interesting, unless you have a cite from a notable commentator who has made this observation, it can't be included in a Wikipedia article. WP is not a place to publish your own thoughts on subjects. Ashmoo (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article says that Phil McGraw was 23 when he met Robin Jameson and she was 19. I don't see any big scandal in that. And when people talk about whether or not "teenagers" should have sex, they usually aren't talking about "teenagers" 18 or older. 99.135.92.107 (talk) 11:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC) OdilonRedon

Post-nominals

The article lists several post-nominals: "Phillip Calvin McGraw, B.A., M.A., Ph.D". It is unusual to list lesser academic titles once someone achieves a doctorate (not to mention, BA is not even used as a post-nominal). Convention dictates that it should be "Phillip Calvin McGraw, Ph.D.", as the doctorate becomes the dominant title that defines him and it effectively supersedes prior non-doctorate degrees. I'm going to make the appropriate edits. Jigen III (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

ALTERATION

The introduction to Phil McGraw states he is amongst other things, a psychologist. This implies he is a trained professional, which is untrue. I suggest this be changed to 'amateur psychologist'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.16.193 (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length several times here, never with a consensus to remove the descriptor "psychologist". See the archives. He certainly isn't an "amateur psychologist". He has a Ph.D. in clinical psychology. "Amateur" suggests he has no formal training or experience. Cresix (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 184.36.135.95, 31 December 2010

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

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

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

Kalpoe lawsuit

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


Clinical psychologist licence revoked

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phil and "Lie" Detectors

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

Wildly biased (which I have mixed feelings about)

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

I think the problem is, that the reasons why he is popular are very hard to verify. Things like amazon.com reviews do not count as reliable sources, so unless we can find some academic that has investigated his popularity, we will have to stick simply stating his ratings figures and book sales. Ashmoo (talk) 08:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I actually visited this talk page to suggest addition of some views on Dr. Phil's potential bias against men due to his audience. I feel that this is a very sensitive topic, and I, too, was unable to locate reliable sources to cite, probably due to the speculative nature of any such accusations. It would be excellent for an expert Wikipedia editor/researcher who is very interested/motivated to look into this, though.--Jackson Peebles (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Dr Phil will always be entitled to that designation because he has a PhD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.21.55 (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Wonder Woman

In the filmography section, Dr. Phil's cameo role from the unaired Wonder Woman pilot is missing. Shouldn't that be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.172.129 (talk) 11:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I WAS LOOK AT YOUR SHOW TO DAY JULY 18,2013, AND YOUR WIFE SAID THAT THE FOSTER CARE IS BROKEN, I AM A FOSTER PARNT WE OPEN OUR DOOR TO THE CHILDREN WE LOVE THEM LIKE THEY ARE OUR CHILDREN THE COURTS IS BROKEN ,I GO TO COURT WITH ALL OF MY CHILDREN AND I CAN TELL YOU AND YOUR WIFE THEY DONT GIVE A DAME ABOUT THE CHILREN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.202.34.236 (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

It is my understanding after reading the instructions at the top of this page that this is no place for discussion of one's opinion of the content of Dr. Phil's television show or his appearances on other shows. It is in that spirit that I believe the paragraph above (that is being improperly yelled at the Wikipedia community and that is barely literate) should be removed from this page. However, I certainly don't claim to know all of the rules here. It just seems inappropriate on several levels. MarydaleEd (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2014

" could pursue and obtain a lifelong goal" >

" could pursue and reach a lifelong goal" 71.35.17.26 (talk) 04:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Changing that word adds no benefit to the reader. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 11:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Article quality

Please forgive me if adding another section to this page is inappropriate. I just don't see a logical place to put what I am going to discuss, and I can easily see where there might be more discussion on this topic now that someone has brought it up.

First, I don't understand the priority levels that are assigned to these articles, as referenced in reports above. However, I think that since Dr. Phil is such a prominent figure in the realms of television, pop culture, late-night talk shows and the self-help community that the priority of this subject should be high.

Now to the reason I am writing today. This Dr. Phil article is so poorly written and includes many dead links (that were marked with alerts long ago; plenty of time for the author to have corrected them), and comments stated as fact but not cited by any reference, much less a credible reference, that I think an administrator or someone in greater authority than me should go through this with a fine-toothed comb and dump all elements that violate Wikipedia rules. I did correct much of the poor grammar, improper punctuation and capitalization, but those edits aren't as important as the abundance of opinion in this article or statements presented as fact that have no citations. This is the kind of article that perpetuates the unfair accusation that Wikipedia is an unreliable source for anything. MarydaleEd (talk) 15:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I would think that typing Dr. Phill with double lls would redirect to Dr. Phillip McGraw. 173.225.148.173 (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

personal life

I came to this talk page because I'd seen the "Dr Phil" interview of Zachary Davis.

After the interview I hoped to find some insight into severe Psychiatric pathology, and had been confused by the superficial approach "Dr Phil" had taken on television, referring to Zachary as "watching a film" which "no one else can see."

I came to this article to try to understand what education "Dr Phil" has had, what school of thought he would subcribe to, and how one could begin reading enough background to make sense of the types of things he says.

I was surprised by the shallowness of the article about his academic side, saying only that he received a PhD in clinical Psychology related to the psychiatric state of people with Arthritis, then he seemed to have been involved in various types of self-help organizations, or expert witness types of situations.

I think that Wikipedia editors are perhaps attempting to temper what may be the uncritical admiration that a television "doctor" receives with some negative counterbalancing criticism, and there is some that is relevant and intelligent.

However, it is really beyond the pale to put in critical comments about his former relationship with his ex wife -- these are of course not coming from a neutral point of view, and are irrelvant to the notability of the character too.

It was relevant that "Dr. Phil" conjectured various psychiatric disorders in Zach Davis while not having any academic qualification or experience as a psychiatrist. It is not relevant that his ex wife remembers him as having been abusive to her.

In conclusion, the personal life section hits this guy below the belt; yet the sections discussing his expertise and competence as a "doctor" perhaps need to take a legitimately more critical stance.

Createangelos (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You do understand that someone with a Ph.D. is clinical psychology does not need "academic qualification or experience as a psychiatrist" to understand psychopatholgy?
Second point: if you think that Wikipedia editors are "attempting to temper what may be the uncritical admiration that a television 'doctor' receives with some negative counterbalancing criticism", please be aware that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. So feel free to try your hand at editing the article. But first please familiarize yourself with some core policies and principles that all editors must abide by: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:WEIGHT, for starters. But since you've edited here for six years, all of that may already be very familiar to you. Sundayclose (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi SundayClose,
Thx for the invitation -- makes me feel sad that I don't watch TV and so am too unfamiliar to work on this myself. I hope someone will pick up the gauntlet which you've had the time and patience to throw down here, and help replace some of the gut-level criticism about the personal life with some balanced sources about the trustworthiness of the guidance he gives to the public.
Createangelos (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Lede

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

This has been discussed at length on this talk page, now in the archives. Please read the archives before fighting this battle again. The term "psychologist" is not limited to those with a license; just a term similar to "practicing psychologist" or "licensed psychologist". The Texas Board of Psychologists has no jurisdiction over Wikipedia, and their actions do not determine the content of Wikipedia; the editors of Wikipedia determine its content. Many academics without licenses are referred to as psychologists, without any violation of the law. One example among many is Albert Bandura. The article does not state that he practices as a psychologist. He has a Ph.D. in psychology, making him a psychologist. Cresix (talk) 02:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between a "non-practicing psychologist" which should always be used instead because it is more accurate, and "ex-psychologist". http://everydaypsychology.com/2008/01/is-dr-phil-actually-psychologist.html "He was in fact disciplined by the Texas Board of Psychology in 1989, and it appears that he may have 'retired' his license, rather than responding to their disciplinary requirements. We don't know for sure, but it may have been a little bit different than an ordinary retirement." You can refer to him as an ex-psychologist, non-practicing psychologist, or remove this title. But calling him a psychologist is deceptive. Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

As noted above, Wikipedia content is not determined by the rules of a psychology board, nor by the website of the psychologist that you link. Other "non-practicing psychologists" are referred to as psychologists on Wikipedia. Did your bother to click the link above your edit? McGraw has a Ph.D. in psychology. As with all other articles on "non-practicing psychologists" with Ph.D.s in psychology, McGraw is described as a psychologist in his Wikipedia article. And AGAIN as noted above, I also refer you to the archives of this talk page, where this issue has been discussed at length with no consensus to describe him as anything other than a psychologist. Sundayclose (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Not a psychologist

It is illegal to have the title of psychologist when you do not have current license. Why does this wiki page state he is a psychologist? It is illegal and misleading to the public. He is unlicensed to practice psychology and his TV show is meant to be for entertainment purposes only. Please correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.149.140.138 (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not familiar with American law, but are you sure you are not thinking of 'psychiatrist'? Ashmoo (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Not to mention if he was openly breaking the law on nation television for over a decade he would have been sued or arrested by now.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 02:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Dr Phil has a Ph.D in Psychology but has not been licensed to practice since he was disciplined by the Texas Board of Psychology in 1989. He's careful not to call himself a Psychologist, but he also won't correct someone if they address him as such.69.165.222.133 (talk) 02:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Anonymous contributor 69.165.222.133- If you read the article you would be aware that Dr. Phil's licence was active and in good standing until he requested to retire it in 2006. The Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists granted his request and his licence was officially retired 9/3/2006. http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3468/3750482552_6024990f7b_b.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbs527 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Jcmcowen (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Salary should say 'Net Worth'

It is not illegal in any U.S. state to have the title psychologist under some circumstances in which the person does not attempt to practice psychology. For example, thousands of academic psychologists use the title even though they are not licensed to practice psychology. Furthermore (and more importantly), Wikipedia is not required to comply with any psychology board's rules for the title of psychologist. McGraw has a Ph.D. in psychology and can be accurately described as a psychologist, just not a practicing psychologist. This has been discussed to death on this talk page. See the archives before rehashing all of the arguments. Sundayclose (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

If you used to be a fireman, and you no longer do it, and now instead talk on TV shows about fire safety, you are an ex-fireman. You are not doing the job any more. Legality has nothing to do with it. He is not doing the job anymore. Ergo, he is not a psychologist anymore. Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

A former firefighter does not have a Ph.D. in firefighting. When McGraw uses his knowledge from his Ph.D. in psychology, he is "doing it", just as academic psychologists who don't practice are "doing it." M.D.s who don't practice are still physicians and are "doing it" if they host a TV program. See my response to your comments above. Sundayclose (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Needs a separate "Controversies" section

Many of the parts of the "Education and career" section really belong in a separate "Controversies" section. That would make the article consistent with other biographic articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.121.64 (talk) 04:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Phil McGraw. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2015

Dr. Phil McGraw is not a psychologist and should not be referred to as one in the article. He was previously licensed as one but is not currently.

FWAJMB (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done This has been discussed numerous times. Wikipedia does not require McGraw or any other unlicensed psychologists with Ph.D.s in psychology to have a license to indicate that they are psychologists. Read this entire talk page and the archives for the talk page before arguing with this so that you don't repeat the same arguments that have been presented again and again and again. To change the article on this point would require a clear consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Phil McGraw. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Phil McGraw. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Phil McGraw. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Phil McGraw. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Robin McGraw

Hello,

I think Robin is notable enough (Robin McGraw Revelation, Aspire Initiative, etc.) to have her own page. She is technically known as an author/cosmetics designer and her notability is based on her Cosmetics Design career for Revelation (with her foundation, Aspire Initiative, her best selling books, and her works with Dr. Phil only as side jobs).

What do you guys think?

Sincerely,

Tibbydibby (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me, exporting info on her to a new page would help de-clutter the article too. Ranze (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

2009 Sara Morrison accusations

Several reliable sources reported this issue:

"Dr. Phil accused of sexual assault". LA Times. 5 August 2009.
""DR. PHIL SEXUALLY ABUSED ME!"". National Enquirer. 5 August 2009. Archived from the original on 13 March 2012.
"Dr. Phil Accused Of Sexual Abuse!!!". Perezhilton.com. 6 August 2009. Archived from the original on 30 July 2013.

Later negative coverage a couple weeks later by someone with same name but not sure if it's the same woman:

Morrison, Sara (21 August 2013). "Dr. Phil Responds to Drunk Sex Tweet Backlash: It Was for a Show". TheWrap.

I'm thinking possibly different because pics I've seen on Twitter of journalist look much younger than the woman who was 44 in 2009 (would be 51 now I think) so it might just be a strange coincidence.

Basically I see no mention of this at all in the article and I'm wondering why we don't include mention of the accusations when the Enquirer and LA Times both considered it notable enough to report on.

There also appear to be several People Magazine articles about other legal battles he's been in that got a lot of media exposure:

"Wrongful Death Lawsuit in Natalee Holloway Case". 14 December 2006. Deepak, 22, and Satish, 19, brought a defamation suit against Dr. Phil
"Dr. Phil Slapped with Bizarre Brainwashing Lawsuit". 8 October 2009. Shirley Rae Dieu, 56, of Irvine, Calif., claims she was seeking therapy from Dr. Phil in his Hollywood office in 2007 when she allegedly was held captive

I'm not sure what the end result of these 3 cases was but they all seem to have gotten enough exposure to report on the event of the accusations happening. Doing so does not lend them credibility or anything. Ranze (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2016

These two links don't work:

Dallas Observer article details much of Dr. Phil's life, including many critical views. Scholarly article in which authors claim that the narrative arc of Dr. Phil's show is comparable to the religious conversion story

83.166.4.73 (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. Have updated links. Cannolis (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2016


"During McGraw's childhood, his family moved so his father could pursue a lifelong goal of becoming a psychologist."

This sentence does not make sense. What does the moving of his family have to do with his father's pursuit of becoming a psychologist?


208.106.59.48 (talk) 07:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC) Gary

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. MediaKill13 (talk) 06:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2016

Bull TV Show, semi auto biographical story of a Young Dr. Phil

CBS has ordered a TV show pilot for Bull. The drama is based on the early years of Dr. Phil McGraw‘s career as a trial consultant.

Homicide creator Paul Attanasio is writing with McGraw. Jay McGraw, Justin Falvey, and Darryl Frank will executive produce.

From The Hollywood Reporter: 

   Paul Attanasio (House, Showtime‘s failed The Vatican pilot) will pen the script with McGraw. The duo also will executive produce alongside McGraw’s Stage 29 Productions and the talk-show host’s son, Jay McGraw, as well as Amblin Television’s Justin Falvey and Darryl Frank.

   The McGraw pilot expands his relationship with CBS. He renewed his talk-show deal with CBS Television Distribution for an additional three years back in the fall, taking it through at least 2020. Dr. Phil has been the No. 1 daytime talk show since Oprah Winfrey‘s retirement.

66.241.32.168 (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 15:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2017

Please subtitle the second paragraph of the section on the unauthorized biography something else, how about just 2005, as that paragraph is not related to the unauthorized biography.

The Making of Dr. Phil unauthorized biography (2003)

Blah blah blah about the biography.

2005

About the two things in 2005.

Thanks. 2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:97 (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Your request makes no sense. The majority of the section is about the biography. Sundayclose (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

You're kidding me? The title of the section is "The Making of Dr. Phil unauthorized biography (2003)" and the last paragraph has nothing to do with that. This is the problem with not allowing articles to be edited--power mongering over trivial edits. You wind up discussing the most basic pointless concepts with people who deny edit requests because they want to click a box (Check! Denied! you unsigned in editor buffoon!) but can't be bothered to read. The second paragraph is MISTAKENLY written in that section. The entire section is TWO PARAGRAPHS. Only one paragraph has anything to do with the section title. If I title a section of an article "Green Army Men," then write a large paragraph about green army men followed by a small paragraph about Coca Cola you wouldn't come back and say, "Well the two paragraphs together contain more information about Green Army Men." Well, you probably would.

The section title is "2003," the second paragraph is about "2005," the title is the title of a specific book, written in 2003, the second paragraph is about a different book with a different title written in a different year. It's not a "majority" case.

Your answer made no sense. But, that's it with edit requests and the army of prevention on Wikipedia. God forbid somebody read an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.24.81 (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Phil McGraw. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Phil McGraw. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Ph.D in Psychology, not a Psychologist

Dr. Phil has a pH. D. In Psychology but that does not make him a Psychologist. Which is the medical doctor and requires medical training. Mintcali (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Please see psychiatrist, which I believe you are confusing with psychologist. Psychiatrists are required to be M.D.s or D.O.s; psychologists need not be. General Ization Talk 17:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The article is partly written as if Dr Phil is still a psychotherapists

Language usage such as "McGraw's advice and methods have drawn criticism from some fellow psychotherapists as well as from some laymen" suggest that Dr Phil is a psychotherapists, while he isn't. Otter3 (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

What Did He Do About the Draft?

As a football player, a good athlete, and a person who went to college, Phil was physically fit and mentally fit, so how did he dodge the draft? This is the entire backdrop of his youth for a person his age, and it was almost the only thing boys his age talked about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.216.213 (talk) 02:09, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2019

The fourth paragraph of the page has a type stating "He has not help a medical license to practice psychology since 2006." Could someone please fix this typo, stating "He has not held a medical license to practice psychology since 2006." Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.195.50 (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done My bad in the first place! PrairieKid (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Domestic duties and lifting weights

The article reads:

She [first wife Debbie Higgins McCall] claimed that she was confined to domestic duties, which included lifting weights to improve her bustline.

This sentence is awkward and should be re-written, because lifting weights is not normally considered a domestic duty.

Karl gregory jones (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

List of current lawsuits

Here is a list of current lawsuits McGraw is involved in

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

non-physical?!

He was brought up on ethics charges for having an inappropriate relationship with a patient in Texas in January 1989. ToddGrande (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your edit summary ("physical or non-physical is irrelevant"), whether it's physical is quite relevant. Psychologists' professional ethics are very clear on one point: Inappropriate touching of a patient is far more egregious than most non-physical dual relationships. That's not to say that some unethical psychologists don't take advantage of their patients in nonphysical ways, but inappropriate physical relationships make up the vast majority of ethical violations that are disciplined. His behavior was a violation of professional ethics because he hired a patient, apparently while she was still a patient or soon after termination of her treatment, and he was properly disciplined for that boundary violation. There is no evidence that he "gaslighted" the patient, and certainly no evidence that he had a physical relationship with the patient. There are varying degrees of inappropriateness of dual relationships. Sometimes the ethical guidelines are murky. For example, in a small town a psychologist might attend the same church that a patient attends. If it doesn't go beyond that, it is not generally considered an inappropriate dual relationship. On the other hand, if the psychologist makes a point of sitting with this patient in church, or if the psychologist intentionally seeks out this patient to discuss religious matters outside of treatment, that is inappropriate. Other situations are more ambiguous. What if the psychologist buys a much needed over-the-counter medication from the patient because the patient owns the only store within 200 miles that sells it (remember, it's a small town)? That is a more difficult ethical dilemma to resolve. Dual relationships are not necessarily ethical violations. Some clearly are. Some are much more ambiguous. McGraw's licensing board apparently determined that he had violated ethics, not simply because he hired a former patient (under some circumstances that would have been OK), but because there was "a possible failure to provide proper separation between termination of therapy and the initiation of employment". There are many volumes written on ethical dilemmas in the practice of psychology, and well-trained psychologists take at least one course on these issues in their university training, and they are required to continue this training to maintain their license to practice. What McGraw did was wrong, but to jump to the conclusion that there is no difference between a physical and nonphysical relationship is far too simplistic for such a complex issue.
In any event, this talk page should focus on important changes to the article, and I see no reason to make any changes regarding McGraw's ethical violation. Sundayclose (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Dr Phil being Dr Phil had an unfair advantage over his patient, punishment was handed down to him without investigating the nature of their relationship. Emphasizing a "non-physical" relationship conveniently serves Dr Phil Ego-Fortress. The technical emphasis on a non-physical relationship leaves him room to avoid no-contact sexual relationship i.e. mutual masturbation. ToddGrande (talk) 04:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia requires reliable sources to support any claims, especially about a living person. Could you provide a reliable source that "punishment was handed down to him without investigating the nature of their relationship", or that there was any "mutual masturbation"? I ask this because the purpose of an article's talk page is to discuss changes related to improvement of the article. It is not a forum or soapbox for general discussion of the topic, or for promoting one's personal point of view, or for righting great wrongs. If your intent here is to make verifiable changes to the article, please provide the source. Otherwise, this talk page is not the appropriate venue for your comments. Sundayclose (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
This is not the Dr. Phill show, you don't get to shutdown everybody with the outdated narcissistic arguments, Dr Phil violated his patients & lost his license over it. The depth & nature of his Narcissistic injury is his own problem. ToddGrande (talk) 07:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2020

CHANGE: Comments about the coronavirus lockdown McGraw was widely criticized after claiming that quarantines should not be in place on Fox News. He falsely claimed that 360,000 Americans die in "swimming pool deaths". Figures like Bill Kristol responded by attacking his credentials.[70][71]

TO:

Comments about the coronavirus lockdown McGraw was widely criticized after claiming that quarantines should not be in place on Fox News. He falsely claimed that 360,000 Americans die in "swimming pool deaths". [71]


Or, change to:

Comments about the coronavirus lockdown McGraw was widely criticized after claiming that quarantines should not be in place on Fox News. He falsely claimed that 360,000 Americans die in "swimming pool deaths". Many critics were quick to point out that Dr. McGraw does not hold a degree in epidemiology, and is not currently licensed to practice in the field of psychology. [71][72]

2601:280:C200:A4C0:319D:1531:5836:7F0 (talk) 04:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC) 2601:280:C200:A4C0:319D:1531:5836:7F0 (talk) 04:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: That just seems like an "aggressive presentation of a particular point of view" otherwise known as POV-pushing. Likewise, the connection between his academic credentials and his comments is more newsy than encyclopedic. Don Spencertalk-to-me⛅ 15:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Badly in need of reorganization

This article is in dire need of re-organization. Because of the poor organization there are many redundancies and content in wrong places. I am getting started on this. ARainbowofHues (talk) 09:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts (2008). "Franchise Tax Certification of Account Status". Texas Comptroller. Retrieved January 7 2008. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |dateformat= ignored (help)
  2. ^ Today Show interview "Dr. Phil defends intentions with Britney Spears." Retrieved February 5, 2009.
  3. ^ Today Show interview[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22901694/page/2/ "Dr. Phil defends intentions with Britney Spears." Retrieved February 5, 2009.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Phil_McGraw/Archive_3&oldid=1146634268"