Talk:Phil McGraw/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Burying the lede: McGraw no longer holds a license to practice psychology

If somebody goes by "Dr." but is not a medical doctor (as commonly understood), one would expect that a Wikipedia article about that person helps avoid that near-inevitable misunderstanding from the beginning, without requiring casual visitors to read the whole article. In this case, not only is "Dr. Phil" a psychologist rather than a psychiatrist (medical doctors allowed to prescribe medicine), but he does not even hold a license to practice. When I read the article, I found that it said simply "but he is not licensed to practice", which struck me as odd: did he just get his degree but not his license? Why not? Is that like having failed the bar examination for somebody who wants to be a lawyer? Why do I have to click on a link before finding out that he once did have a license, but not anymore? Let me improve that, I thought: "but he is not licensed to practice anymore", i.e., just adding one word at the end. But that was not the easy fix I thought it was, because it was immediately reverted by someone who vigorously came to the defence of Dr. Phil against my vicious attack and ended up substituting "but he no longer practices psychology". Now, if I had initially read this, I might have overlooked it. But by now I had seen some other sources (Streisand effect by proxy...), and it seems to be a just-so narrative: "I retired my license ... I don't need a license ... I’ve chosen instead to pursue another course and use of my education." It stretches credulity that somebody would simply forget or not bother or be too cheap to renew a license underpinning his or her credibility, especially somebody making tens of millions per year from a TV show called "Dr. [insert nickname]". I could speculate, or I could simply quote someone else rushing to the aid of Dr. Phil: "By 2006 his TV show was taking off, and recognizing that any slip up on air could result in further sanctions from the Texas board, he retired his license and rebranded himself as an entertainer." I have no way of knowing whether this is the real explanation, so it is not suitable for inclusion in the article, but it is certainly a lot more plausible.

I now propose to rephrase this to something like "He holds a doctorate in clinical psychology ("Dr." refers to his Ph.D., not to the M.D. of a medical doctor, including in psychiatry), but he no longer holds a license to practice psychology." This sentence is all about credentials (doctorate, but no license), and it should at least frame the chronology of not holding said license, here intentionally by using the exact same words as in the section being linked to.

First let me correct a lie stated by user RFST in the post above, directly and by innuendo. I was not "defending" McGraw. I personally do not like McGraw and some of the things he has done. And I didn't claim that you made a "vicious attack" against McGraw. I was trying to keep accuracy and balance in the article because I care about whether Wikipedia articles are accurate and balanced. Now, here is a response that I earlier posted on user RFST's talk page:

Let's look at your edit history and edit summaries for this article. First you added "anymore" to "he is not licensed to practice". I reverted this because of WP:LEAD's directive: "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject". The lead is very brief and can't include superfluous details that are covered adequately later in the article. For much of his career (and for the entirety of the last 22 years) he has been a TV personality and talk show host, which does not require a license. In fact, he wouldn't even have a Wikipedia article without his celebrity that did not exist when he was a practicing psychologist.

Thereafter you reverted me two times [now three times since my original post] instead of raising the issue here, the first time with no edit summary. You decided to ignore WP:BRD despite the fact you have edited almost 13 years and should have been familiar with WP:BRD.

In your first revert [1], you made matters worse by adding blatantly false and libelous information in violation of WP:BLP by claiming that McGraw "lost his license" to practice psychology; you did this without a scintilla of evidence and a complete absence of support for such a claim in the article.

Then in your next revert [2], your edit summary states: "this is more than significant enough not to be buried further down, even if the license was tactically abandoned rather than revoked" First of all, the information is not "buried"; it is quite clearly stated in the article; in fact, there is a section header in bold "Lack of license to practice". There is no evidence whatsoever that McGraw "tactically abandoned" his license rather than having it revoked. In discussing his discipline by the Texas Psychology Board there is no mention in the article that his license was revoked or that he gave up his license rather than it being revoked. In describing McGraw's discipline for an ethical violation, the article states: "McGraw fulfilled all terms of the board's requirements, and the board closed its complaint file in June 1990", several years before he no longer needed a license because he was not practicing as a psychologist. In fact, he maintained his license until 2006, about eight years after he stopped practicing psychology. Did you read these details before making your edits and reverts and claiming that his license was revoked and then claiming that his license was "tactically abandoned rather than revoked"?

McGraw committed an ethical violation. He was sanctioned by his psychology board, but his license was not revoked or "tactically abandoned rather than revoked". A psychologist doesn't maintain his license for several years after it is no longer needed in order to "tactically abandon rather than [have the license] revoked". It is not unusual for psychologists to not renew their license for a variety of reasons. Sometimes they stop practicing because of retirement or (as in McGraw's case) they move to a different career that doesn't require a license.

So please address specifically, why is it of such great importance (important enough to include in the lead) to state that he doesn't have a license "anymore" rather than simply stating that he doesn't have a license? Is your goal to insinuate that he "lost his license" or that his license was "tactically abandoned rather than revoked", both of which are complete fabrications on your part?

End of the post to RFST's talk page. RFST continues to distort the facts both directly and through innuendo. The title "doctor" is not used exclusively by physicians; and even the article you link does not identify that as "commonly understood". As for McGraw, like most psychologists, he has never claimed to be an MD or a psychiatrist. More innuendo with no basis in reality. As for your comment " somebody would simply forget or not bother or be too cheap to renew a license", as I requested on your talk page, give us the evidence (not your innuendo) that McGraw "tactically abandoned" his license since it is incredulous that he "forgot" or was "too cheap" to renew his license; give us the evidence that he didn't renew for any reason other than the fact that he had not needed a license for several years. Give us the evidence that his license was in jeopardy for eight years after he no longer needed it. You can't do that because there is no evidence. As I stated, McGraw had a full and unrestricted license in 1990, several years before he no longer needed a license because he was not practicing as a psychologist; and he maintained his license until 2006, about eight years after he stopped practicing psychology. His license was never in jeopardy for the 16 years between 1990 and 2006, despite your attempts to suggest otherwise. Psychologists who move to a different career that doesn't require a license often don't renew the license because they don't need it. More innuendo with no basis in reality.

I don't have a problem with the phrase "he no longer holds a license to practice psychology". The extraneous comments about MD and psychiatrist are unnecessary (as is the case with most articles about psychologists), because those matters have nothing to do with McGraw's notability or any false claims or ethical issues related to McGraw. The article, especially the lead, doesn't need that innuendo. Attempting to mislead through both blatantly incorrect statements ("lost his license") and then through innuendo does a disservice to Wikipedia's standards. This is not about defending McGraw. It's about maintaining the integrity of a Wikipedia article.

Sundayclose (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Just a bit of hyperbole to make light of the situation (I didn't even quote "vicious attack", except here), but I do contest that Sundayclose's actions were entirely appropriate "to keep accuracy and balance in the article" (except once where I overreacted without having done the research, as already acknowledged) even if that were the motivation. — RFST (talk) 08:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

If anyone is reading this quote from my talk page, probably better to read it there, together with my reply that was omitted here. (I didn't check whether the replication here is accurate.) — RFST (talk) 08:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Please be fair and ask even 5 random people "What is a doctor?" Few would volunteer additional interpretations other than medical doctor, even if they already know about them in the first place, unless of course if they happen to read a cue that this might be a trick question (a nonverbal cue, or just the fact that it's a weird question coming from you). The article I linked to is relevant for the following, and I quote:

The American Medical Association calls for non-physicians (those not holding an M.D. or D.O.) who use the title "Doctor" and are in direct contact with patients to clarify that they are not physicians and to "define the nature of their doctorate degree", while the American Osteopathic Association opposes the use of the title by non-physicians in clinical settings absolutely as (in their view) "such use deceives the public".

A Wikipedia page should always, always have the reader in mind and so avoid near-inevitable misinterpretation by clarifying the distinction as the AMS calls for, especially in a situation where the first contact with the subject already included an unqualified "Dr." title that would have anchored the colloquial interpretation. It is inappropriate to argue that the reader should just have done the work of reading the rest of the article. That's either lazy, or the editor appears to want to hide something. Also, I don't even have to provide evidence of why Dr. Phil no longer has a license just to add this fact, I'm just questioning the motivation of wanting to hide it: why so persistently defensive of somebody whose brand is so objectively misleading? It is just preposterous to say that he has moved "to a different career" if his brand is "Dr.": how many other TV personalities do you know who go by "Dr." and have "retired" their license because "don't need" it anymore? Dr. Drew? Dr. Gupta (there's two of those, it seems)? Dr. Oz perhaps? That's just the ones I've seen from outside the USA, so please educate me if this is a common phenomenon. — RFST (talk) 08:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

These are not "extraneous comments", and it is not "innuendo". The inevitable interpretation of "Dr.", unless specified otherwise, is "medical doctor", and the kind of medical doctor who deals with mental issues is a psychiatrist. It is highly relevant to clear this up from the outset, and an editor would be negligent otherwise. Sundayclose pretends to wear the mantle of integrity, but behaves rather like a sock puppet. — RFST (talk) 08:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Please stop refactoring my comments by changing the paragraphs and inserting your comments in the middle; read WP:INDENT and WP:TPO. We don't need your "hyperbole" here. And if you weren't referencing me in your "vicious attack" comment, then I suppose you are accusing yourself of making a vicious attack. You've expressed your opinion about the "doctor" issue. 5 random people don't determine the content of Wikipedia, nor does the American Medical Association (or the American Psychological Association for that matter), nor do your opinions alone. Get consensus for that addition to the article, as well as any change to statements about McGraw's license. And keep in mind, there is no consensus of one editor, and WP:BRD applies, as it has applied since my first revert and your numerous other reverts. You've failed to address most of my criticisms of your edits, so unless you have something new to say, I'm finished here until someone else weighs in. Sundayclose (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

And by the way, watch your accusations of sockpuppetry. The appropriate way to investigate sockpuppetry is at WP:SPI (and by all means feel free to do so), not your wild speculations. Do that again and we'll be discussing it at WP:ANI. Sundayclose (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Sigh... Let me summarise the situation as it appears to me: if anybody wants to change anything anywhere on Wikipedia and you don't like it, you feel entitled to just keep reverting it and/or substituting your preferred version, while quoting all kinds of rules to justify getting it your way, selectively interpreted to your advantage of course (who cares about the second condition in "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement.", right? and even if that means you are always ahead in the number of reverts, it's still the other person whom you accuse of edit warring... also very convenient for you that it's the other person who is forced to retreat to the talk page waiting for somebody else to maybe finally add their opinion while the article is stuck with your preferred version). BTW, although you don't have to believe me, I actually came back here with the intention of removing that sentence about "like a sock puppet", but only because it wasn't very nice and rather crude, not because it has some specific meaning that I don't really care about enough to know. I know of myself that I'm still here in this ridiculous protracted bickering because I refuse to give in to bullying, but what motivates you? Do you even have a life besides playing chief editor on Wikipedia? Please, by all means, get an adult in here, because I get the feeling that you already know where they hang out. — RFST (talk) 08:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I repeat: If you have nothing new to say, I'm finished here until someone else weighs in. WP:BRD and WP:CON apply; you can believe that or not, but violate it and we have a serious problem. And you are getting dangerously close to violating WP:NPA so this is your warning to stop that. Sundayclose (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm a rando here, so take my words with a grain of salt. I agree with you for the most part. I think calling him a "doctor" is as ridiculous as "Dr. Dre". However, this is how people refer to him as, just like Dr. Dre, like it or not. So my opinion is that, since is what he is known as, the name should stay. It's no different from Judge Judy. She is not a judge, but that's the TV nomenclature she goes by. The reason I came to the talk page is because on the main page the anchor "McGraw no longer holds a license to practice psychology", in the title of your post, is dead. Someone should at least fix this, although I am not sure how. 2601:183:8300:5BCE:41D3:94BD:ED21:6215 (talk) 07:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Apparently the wording was changed on 12 July 2020, and the owner and president for life of this article apparently did not revert that change for some reason that may or may not soon be revealed and rationalised (unless a reversal is still pending, of course). I'm fine with having more of the facts up front, but Mr. Weaponised Rulebook started his edit war that he later accused me of for my merely adding a single time qualifier word, so I would probably have been immediately hauled before an execution squad for so bold a change. As for "Dr.", it never even occurred to me to question whether "the name should stay", but I do (still) think that it is entirely appropriate to document the options for what "Dr." might mean (which cannot be assumed to be universal background knowledge), and also which it is in this case (since it is different from the most widespread assumption). But alas, revealing such forbidden knowledge was thwarted by higher powers... — RFST (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2020

Change the contents 7.9 covid-19 lockdown comment(2020) from "In 2020, McGraw was criticized for saying on Fox News that quarantines can have damaging psychological effects. In reciting a host of numbers, he misquoted the number of swimming pool deaths as 360,000, when the correct number is about 36,000" to "In 2020, McGraw was criticized for saying on Fox News that quarantines can have damaging psychological effects. In reciting a host of numbers, he misquoted the number of swimming pool deaths as 360,000, when the correct number is about 3,600" Here is my source: https://www.google.com/search?q=number+of+swimming+pool+deaths+a+year&rlz=1CAWDAV_enUS922&oq=number+of+swimming+pool+deaths&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57j0l3.12735j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on Edits55566 (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Whoever made the edit miscalculated. Thanks for pointing this out. Sundayclose (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

College Admissions Scandal

I disagree with the inclusion in this article of McGraw‘s comments about the 2019 college admission scandal. His comments are incidental and unimportant. They simply have no place in an encyclopedia article. McGraw will probably say many other things for which he has to post clarifications in public. This article has the potential of being extremely unwieldy if we include every verbal slip up this man has. I propose this section be removed in its entirety. MarydaleEd (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I just saw this post, and I agree completely. It's not terribly unusual for a celebrity to make a verbal faux pas and then apologize for it. If he had said something that resulted in serious harm to someone, that might be worthy of inclusion. But not unintentionally insulting a college and then apologizing for it. Sundayclose (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree, its just not very interesting or noteworthy. DevonLevin (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Polk County, Florida, bail controversy

I believe the Polk County bail controversy fits better over at Dr. Phil (talk show). The incident doesn't involve McGraw directly, but it did involve producers of the talk show. I've already moved it there, and will remove it from this article if there are no objections.DevonLevin (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Unauthorized biography (2003)

The section on Sophia Dembling's unauthorized biography looks awfully useless. The only two sources are an article by the book's author and the book itself. It also just doesn't seem particularly noteworthy in and of itself. If the book had generated notable controversy it would be one thing, but the current section just reads like a dust jacket:

"The Making of Dr. Phil is an unauthorized biography by Sophia Dembling, a reporter from The Dallas Morning News, and Lisa Gutierrez, a reporter from The Kansas City Star.[2] The book probes McGraw's history, with interviews of his childhood friends and former classmates. The book received no promotional help from McGraw or his associates."

If there are no objections, I am going to remove it myself. I can't imagine there being many arguments to keep it.DevonLevin (talk) 01:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Editrequest

Dr. Phil redirects here. Please add a hatnote leading to the disambiguation page Dr. Phil (disambiguation). -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Add:

"Dr. Phil" redirects here. For other uses, see Dr. Phil (disambiguation).

{{redirect|Dr. Phil}}

Seems legit, done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Is drphil.com considered an acceptable/citable source with attribution?

May not be the best place to ask, but I was wondering what users here think of his reliability...Donkey Hot-day (talk) 06:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2021

Dr. Phil had his license revoked by the APA for a breach of ethics 147.31.189.245 (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2021 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: APA does not revoke a license. APA is not a regulatory body that issues or revokes licenses. Read the article. McGraw has never had his licensed revoked. Sundayclose (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid edits

I have added an {{undisclosed paid}} tag to this article because of extensive editing by a UPE sockfarm, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Changingguardsatbuckinghampalace for evidence. Users relevant to this page include: ARainbowofHues (talk · contribs) The article will need a thorough review ensuring due weight, neutral language, and use of reliable sources before the tag is removed. MarioGom (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Removing the "Unauthorized biography" again

Please don't add it again if it's going to be the same section, with a reference to the book itself and to an article by the author. IF you find a better source for it then discuss it here, but even then I think it would be better to include the information FROM the book, instead of just including the book's dustjacket taglines (My personal favorite might be "he overcame adversity through setting goals" for sheer genericness). DevonLevin (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

What does "IF you find a better source for it" mean? A better source for what?? Sundayclose (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2020: Listed current occupations not accurate.

Change:

{{Infobox person | name = Phil McGraw | image = | caption = McGraw in 2013 | birth_name = Phillip Calvin McGraw | birth_date = (1950-09-01) September 1, 1950 | birth_place = Vinita, Oklahoma, U.S.

| alma_mater =

• Midwestern State University (BA)
• University of North Texas (MA, PhD)

| occupation =

• Television host
• author
• psychologist

to:

{{Infobox person | name = Phil McGraw | image = | caption = McGraw in 2013 | birth_name = Phillip Calvin McGraw | birth_date = (1950-09-01) September 1, 1950 | birth_place = Vinita, Oklahoma, U.S.

| alma_mater =

• Midwestern State University (BA)
• University of North Texas (MA, PhD)

| occupation =

• Television host
• author

Phil McGraw has not had a license to practice psychology since 2006 , and so it is inaccurate to have "Psychologist" listed as his current occupation. JohnAlexINL (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times on this talk page with no consensus to change the title of psychologist. For details see Talk:Phil McGraw/Archive 2 and Talk:Phil McGraw/Archive 3. To summarize briefly, Wikipedia is not bound by any decision by a state psychology board in determining its content. Equally important, state psychology boards recognize the appropriate use of the "psychologist" title without a license in some circumstances, including academic psychologists, industrial/organizational psychologist, research psychologists, and others. There are many examples, such as B.F. Skinner. Sundayclose (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Sundayclose, the discussion you cite is over 12 years old. The example you give is literally irrelevant -- Dr Skinner is world-renowned for his research into human behavior, while Phil McGraw is famous for his abilities as a television presenter. McGraw is emphatically not a psychologist, by any possible definition. The only thing you could proffer is that he appears to practice some form of therapy on his television show, but this example simply cannot be used, because he and his team would most certainly deny that they are "practicing psychology" on his show. They do and will absolutely insist that his show is purely for entertainment value. He does not practice psychology, he is not "a person who specializes in the study of mind and behavior or in the treatment of mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders" (per Mirriam-Webster), and he is not regarded in any circles whatever for his research or writings on the subject. Imo, it is literally deceptive to refer to Phil McGraw as a "psychologist". Let's test your idea of consensus, shall we? Eaglizard (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Eaglizard: Look at the article again, shall we? You make a very moot point. You removed "psychologist" from the infobox, but it was removed from the body of the article long ago. Your other arguments, moot though they may be, distort what I said and make little sense. I have more important things to do here than bicker about something that has already been done. By the way, the acceptable procedure on Wikipedia is to establish consensus before making a change to the article. Sundayclose (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: I am sorry for wasting so much of your time. You'll have to bear with me, I'm new at this. I only started editing in 2005 or something. In my day, the "acceptable procedure" on Wikipedia was to discuss the edits, and not the editor. Moot tho I may have been, I see my "non-consensus" edit remains in the article. I shall assume we all agree on the point. Eaglizard (talk) 01:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Eaglizard: Classic case of pot calling the kettle black. When one makes a useless comment, the knee-jerk defense when called out on it is to drag up the old "don't make personal attacks on me" retort. That's not to mention that you entirely missed the point -- and that's twice so far. I think it's time to move on. I certainly have better things to do, even if you don't. Sundayclose (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: You've made a good point. In brief defense, "in my day", we didn't actually have this notifications feature. It might be some time before another editor saw comments in talk. I genuinely did not realize how much this "ping", which I've only just used for the first time, appears to be calling a person out. It honestly didn't seem the same 10 years ago. I apologize, and point taken. I will adjust my usage, because I certainly didn't intend to be confrontational about it, just snarky. Eaglizard (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

He has a university qualification in psychology; that makes him a psychologist for eternity in my book. It's his area of expertise. (124.171.66.85 (talk) 07:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC))

Unauthorized biography

@DevonLevin: You removed two sentences about the unauthorized biography by Dembling and Gutierrez with an edit summary that doesn't make a lot of sense as it is written: "removing 'unauthorized biography' that makes no claims to notability". Are you stating the the book itself needs to make a claim to notability, because that's the way you've worded it? If you intend to express your own opinion that the book is not notable, you're going to have to give us more than your opinion. The book was written by two professional reporters affiliated with reputable newspapers. What is not notable about the book, other than the fact that you and McGraw don't like it? The section at one time had more detail, but that was whitewashed by an editor who is now blocked for making edits as undisclosed paid editor (see notice at the top of the article and the report above), whittling it down to the remaining two sentences in edits here and here. Then you removed what was left of it, with no justification other than your personal opinion. OK, feel free to remove "while noting that he overcame adversity through setting goals and was persistent in achieving success", but that is no rationale for removing all mention of the book. You've removed the two sentences twice. Please give a reasonable explanation as to why the book "makes no claims to notability". Sundayclose (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@SundayClose: I never said I don't like the book, I haven't even read it. Whether McGraw likes it or not isn't really my concern, because being either his favorite or least favorite book doesn't matter here. But the section that I keep seeing is not great. The only source is to what looks like a press release written by the book's own author. It doesn't have to have a huge amount of press coverage, but every other controversy is better sourced than that. If there is a going to be a dedicated section about the book in "Lawsuits and controversies" than it would be nice to have something about its actual reception or some y'know controversy that it generated. Otherwise it doesn't seem important enough to warrant a standalone section, just by virtue of existing. Besides that, it's really written like a dustjacket. I know I'm repeating myself, but I don't know if you actually closely read it. If the section used to be better before a paid editor altered it, then the older, better version should be restored instead of the one I keep seeing. Or someone could rewrite to be more encyclopedic. Either would be fine with me, but not leaving it as it is just because. DevonLevin (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

After looking at the diffs you shared I'm still not seeing whatever you're seeing in it. At most there's half a sentence worth saving, and that should probably be incorporated in other parts of the page. His treatment of his first wife is already discussed in much better detail in the "Personal life" section, and if there's substantial information about unethical practices at a gym business early in his career it should probably be in "Early career". DevonLevin (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@DevonLevin: The section on the book was less flattering to McGraw before the paid editor reworded it, which makes sense because the editor was being paid to make McGraw look better. My plan is to mention the book, but leave out the information from the author or publisher, instead briefly presenting information from reviews of the book, specifically https://www.salon.com/2003/11/24/phil/ and https://metapsychology.net/index.php/book-review/the-making-of-dr-phil/. The book is notable enough for at least a couple of sentences based on external reviews. (By the way, if you don't capitalize a user name the way the user does, they don't get a ping). Sundayclose (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: You don't need to keep saying that the section was better before it was edited. I read what you said and I looked at the diffs, but the older version still looked pretty badly written to me. We might disagree on that, and that's fine. I'm sure whatever you write will be an improvement on what was there. The Salon article is definitely better than the author's own account of what writing the book was like. I'm still inclined to agree with the Salon writer that the most interesting scandals the book mentions have already been covered elsewhere. Though that might just be because of what the article focuses on, since I don't know what it's leaving out. The Metapsychology.net review is interesting, I've never read a review written in poetic verse before but it's a funny twist (I think I prefer it to normal reviews which are usually bland). DevonLevin (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@DevonLevin: If I ever said the section was better before the edits, please give me the diffs. I said it was whitewashed by a UPE, and I said it was less flattering to McGraw before the whitewash. I also never said I planned to restore the section in its entirety as it existed before the whitewash. I said that one editor's opinion that the book is not notable is an inadequate reason for removal of all mention of the book. We have a communication problem here. In any event, I'm glad you don't object to my sources. When I get a chance I'll add a couple of sentences about the book. Incidentally, I'm not sure if the Metapsychology review is actually poetic or just careless formatting. Sundayclose (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: When you said the section was less flattering and more detailed before being edited, I assumed you meant that as being better. The only reason I asked not to have the section restored in its entirety was because I noticed it already had been. I guess it doesn't really matter since its being rewritten. About the Metapsychology review, I really do think it's intentional. The other reviews on the website have normal formatting, and apparently the writer of that review also writes poetry. It's also a bit too good at being a poem to be an accident IMO, it doesn't seem random to me. DevonLevin (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@DevonLevin: and @Sundayclose: just chiming in to say that notability guidelines apply to creating pages, not everything that's included on them. Salon.com is considered a reliable source and Metapsychology.net also looks fine. The book was also published by John Wiley and Sons so it's probably pretty reputable. I added a placeholder section since it seems like there's consensus to include. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)