Talk:Phil McGraw/Archive 1

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

---

Jay McGraw Wikipedia entry

Given that Jay McGraw has a Wikipedia page, could someone with editing rights make the Wikipedia link for Jay McGraw as he is mentioned in this article (in the "Personal life" section). Just put those [[ and ]] around Jay McGraw. 213.243.137.56 (talk) 09:21, 25 June 2009 (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.

these are important to include and must be added back to the article. btw, was he ever on Scrubs? i saw an episode last night and i swear there was a patient who looked an talked just like him, but with a wig —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.165.218 (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

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.

Pft! "State."207.238.52.162 (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

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.

---

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