Talk:Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	A response section needs to be added to this article, or the current one needs to be expanded. This section should be well cited using neutral and reliable sources that discuss the reaction of both critics and the viewing audience to the show. Additionally, document any impact the show has had on society, and merchandise that may have resulted from the show, such as toys, games, etc.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Hitting Bottom: "Is Dr. Drew Pinsky's Show Therapy or Tabloid Voyeurism?" The New York Times. December 30, 2009.

Seth Binzer

Should we list him under Seth Binzer, as opposed to Shifty Shellshock? He's referred to as Seth on the show.

They are all referred to as their real names during the course of their treatment. Mary Ellen Cook should probably be referred to under her real name if that's the way they will be listed. Either way, but they should be internally consistent. 68.63.165.28 (talk) 12:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addictions

It might be useful if a list of what said celebrities were being "treated" for was included in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.40.63 (talk) 09:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree that there should be a column added to the cast list that states what addiction they are being treated for. I find this piece of information to be the number one question that everyone has when they watch the show. The show does not always disclose the reason each cast member is in admittance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshawnz64 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It also might be a good idea to point out that the show documents actual physician run treatment in a hospital and an established treatment center, a la other medical shows that cover medical procedures such as surgeries. The irony quotes above seem to indicate that it isn't clear as written that the treatment is real, and the network and genre does have a potential implication that it is fake "game show" entertainment. 68.63.165.28 (talk) 12:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is not simple tv, therefor i have removed that template. cheers--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 03:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am a critic of this show, I do believe that the treatment is real, for every celebrity that has been treated on the show has never said otherwise. Mdriver1981 (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Show Genre - Reality?

I don't really think that this show should be categorized as "reality" TV. If anything, it is more of a documentary. Cricket boy4 (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Documentary" is a word usually used with films. "Reality" is the term used for non-fiction television. Nightscream (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 11th for Season 4

Is it really premiering? It isn't showing on my VH1 schedule. Plus, I think that article confirming it said it was going to be airing with Bret Michaels's new show, so wouldn't that make the premiere the next week? 24.88.86.28 (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disproportionate Criticism

The article states that "While the series has won praise from both former addicts and other addiction specialists, many take issue with Pinsky's methods." However, in its current state, the article only covers the criticism rather than praise from addiction specialists. Does anyone else feel that undue weight has been given to the critics of this show? Do the vast majority of addiction specialists really disagree with the methods used on the show? I think that it might be beneficial to replace the "Criticism" section with something such as "Reception" or "Reaction from Addiction Specialists" that would cover both negative and positive opinions of the show in a manner that is reasonably proportional to the actual response from experts in this field. JohnnyGrungetta (talk) 05:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the section title per your suggestion, and added some material from the Pinsky article that for some reason, I neglected to add previously. But beyond that, the proportion of criticism to praise in the section is determined by the available sources that we come across. Nightscream (talk) 05:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, but all the sources provided currently are either "pop press" (Salon.com, The Daily Beast) or otherwise are from what are clearly non-clinician sources. A large portion towards the end of that section is devoted the pure opinions of a rock guitarist and drummer. So, where exactly did Cantrell and Kinney go to medical school? I must have missed that part of their biographies.

I also noted the NYTimes article by Norris is duplicated several times as though it were multiple sources, and furthermore, it is not a very strong source in and of itself. The only parts of real value are the comments by Foote and Mariani, and both of these seem a tad uninformed (that is to say, if they knew more about the show they certainly wouldn't have said those things.)

I think these articles are worth added as sources: Part 1 and Part 2. Don't mistake them as mere blog posts at first glance; they are written by Dr. Mary Oxford specifically representing the Menninger Clinic.

156.40.31.173 (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Adler

I am curious why the editor listed his addiction as marijuana. Putting aside the debate about the addictive nature of marijuana, he was shown on screen after having smoked heroin in a makeshift aluminum foil pipe, and virtually crippled from drug withdrawal (clearly not indicative of marijuana). In interviews he has even referenced cocaine and heroin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.228.143 (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was treated for Valium, alcohol, heroin, and cocaine addiction in Season 2, which is indicated in that cast table for that season. In episode 2 of this season, however, he indicated during his intake interview with Drew and in the Process Group that he was at the PRC this time to get off marijuana. Nightscream (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eminem

Eminem claims this and discovery channel are the only tv he watches, is this notable enough to include in the 'Reception' section? http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1644231/eminem-weighs-on-kanye-westtaylor-swift-vma-incident.jhtml 174.99.54.167 (talk) 04:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. Reception should only contain material from critics, and not just notable fans of the show. Eminem is not reliable in that area. Nightscream (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confused at definition of painkiller? Jeffy Conaway, Amber Smith

In the table that lists their addictions, both make a mistake and list many types of drugs as 'painkillers' or 'opiats'... for example: Amber Smith, Depressants and opiates (Adderall, Dexadrine, Valium, Xanax, Klonopin, Suboxone)[44] The only drug that is actually an opiate, and a semi synthetic one at that, is suboxone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coxquinn (talk • contribs) 05:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 20 August 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the section about Bob Forrest, it says that Bob is a "former addict." Please change "former addict" to "addict" or "recovering addict," as an addict never becomes a former addict, but is always an addict. 67.168.164.128 (talk) 04:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. IMO, if an addict overcomes his addiction, he is no longer addicted, therefore he is not an addict anymore. I've left the request open so that other editors can weigh in. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 12:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that in the popular understanding, "recovering" may be understood to mean that the person is still in the initial stages of recovery. "Former" seems to convey more accurately that they are many years into their recovery. While "recovering" may a jargon common to the medical and treatment communities, I think "former" is more generally common to the public. Nightscream (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The current wording conveys the concept clearly, and the word "former" doesn't generally imply a permanent state of affairs. (Grover Cleveland was a former U.S. president and then a current president and then a former president again.) If the preponderance of reliable sources make this an exception, the question may need to be revisited. Rivertorch (talk) 10:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The person asking for the change was correct. If the "popular understanding" is otherwise, that's all the more reason this article needs to be correct in order to help correct popular misconceptions. Thanks to the person who made the change. 24.1.161.208 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Typo correction.
In the 'Reception' section, second paragraph, fourth sentence, change "... recurring themes, he aid, ..." to "... recurring themes, he said, ...".
Gracal (talk) 02:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rivertorch (talk) 10:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 13 November 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

NO of seasons should read '6' 24.69.38.0 (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Source? And why 6? gwickwire | Leave a message 01:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Because the show is currently broadcasting its sixth season. Thanks for pointing that out, 24.69.38.0. I've fixed it. Nightscream (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporate Outcome into Cast Table

I suggest that the Outcome sections for each season be incorporated into the Cast tables. This will make it easier to read and keeps all content about a particular cast member in the same area. A column can be added to the Cast table and labeled "Outcome" and the content currently in the Outcome text area can be moved there. --Crunch (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How would you incorporate that first paragraphs of the Season 1 and Season 2 outcome sections into the table? Nightscream (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I propose something like this. The text in the outcome cells needs additional cleaning up, as it did before this proposed formatting change, but this should be much easier with the outcome section incorporated into the overall cast table. --Crunch (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you make the Outcome sections longer than in the proposed version? Because placing that lengthy type of information in such small cells would not make it look good or as easily readable as it would be if it merely remained in plain text form. Nightscream (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Outcome text can, and probably should, be shortened. --Crunch (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's anything in the Outcome text that is unnecessary, and can be shortened, since it's not the type of information that can easily be presented in summary-list style like in an Infobox or table, but maybe you can show what it would look like in your proposed table? Nightscream (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A little copyediting is all that's needed. In any case, shortening is a separate issue from incorporating outcome section to the cast table. --Crunch (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

As of February 19, 2013 five of the participants of the show have died from overdose, suicide, or complications from their addictions. This unusually high number of fatalities has again raised questions, and called for greater scrutiny, of the methods used on the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.230.160.11 (talk) 03:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rate is well under normal limits and ignorant comments like this represent one of the major problems with media coverage of addiction. It would be like saying that the methods of an oncology clinic need to be investigated because 75% of their glioblastoma patients die within 5 years. To spell that out for you that don't want to read, GBMs are extremely lethal, with only 17% living past 5 years in the best of circumstances. Likewise, NIDA estimates that relapse after drug rehab occurs in 40-60% of patients, with the variability due to many factors including preferred drug and co-morbid mental illness, and between 3-10% die after treatment within 10 years, with the highest death rate in the first month following release. Thus, no legal consequences were ever leveled against the clinic because the outcomes are within the limits of what is considered reasonable expectations based on our current medical technology. No medical treatment is a magic wand with a 100% cure rate and anyone claiming such a thing for addiction is a liar.Legitimus (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

67.230.160.11, what is your source that the fatalities are "unusually high", or has "raised questions"? Nightscream (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Drug information

Some of the information about the drugs the participants were addicted to are not accurate in the "Addiction" column for each season.

For instance: In Season 1, Jeff Conaway is listed as being addicted to the painkillers Vicodin, Oxycodone, Xanax, Zoloft, and Ambien. Only two of those drugs are painkillers. Xanax and Zoloft are anxiolytic (treatment for anxiety) and Ambien is a sleep aid.

Another example states that Amber Smith, in Season 2, was in treatment for the depressants and opiates Adderall, Dexedrine, Valium, Xanax, Klonopin, and Suboxone. Two of these drugs are definitely not opiates nor depressant; in fact they are quite the opposite. Adderall and Dexedrine are stimulant amphetamines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cozymonk (talk • contribs) 06:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just went by what the episodes or other sources said; I've fixed it. In the case of Conaway, a closing parenthesis fixes it. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 13:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew. 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) 01:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100129133014/http://www.tvguidemagazine.com/feature/addicted-to-rehab-3861.html to http://www.tvguidemagazine.com/feature/addicted-to-rehab-3861.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718073219/http://www.wmmr.com/music/news/story.aspx?ID=1198068 to http://www.wmmr.com/music/news/story.aspx?ID=1198068
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vh1realityworld.com/2009/09/03/vh1-announces-many-new-premiere-dates
Corrected formatting/usage for http://tvguidemagazine.com/is-it-just-me/heading-to-rehab-4301.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.celebrityrehab5.com/

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) 18:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090228180856/http://laist.com/2009/02/04/meet_jennifer_gimenez.php to http://laist.com/2009/02/04/meet_jennifer_gimenez.php

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) 22:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on June 27, 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

On the end of the "Reception" section, change "As of June, 2024, twelve alumni of the show have passed." to "As of June 2024, twelve alumni of the show have died:" per MOS:EUPHEMISM and MOS:DATECOMMA, also remove the references sourced for the celebrities of their Wikipedia articles (except for Frankie Lons, who doesn't have a Wikipedia article) and Wikilink them. 2603:6081:893D:13AC:79CF:ABB1:FDC2:75CE (talk) 05:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC) Done PianoDan (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]