![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Would someone with edit ability be able to change this to top rated US talk show. Remember not everyone is american. Italic textI HAVE LOOKED EVERYWHERE AND CANNOT FIND ANY MENTION OR PHOTOS OF OPRAHS' MOTHER VERNITA LEE WINFREY>> OTHER THAN SHE GAVE BIRTH TO OPRAH . OPRAH HAS HER FATHER "VERNON" SET UP IN A NICE HOME, AND SHE TALKS ALOT OF HER GRANDMOTHER, BUT WHY THE BIG SNUB REGARDING HER MOTHER~~WHO BY THE WAY~~OPRAH HAS NEVER ONCE MENTIONED HER PUBLICLY** SHE IS STILL HER MOTHER AND WE WOULD LIKE TO READ ABOUT HER AND HER ROUGH LIFE>>EVERYTHING IS ABOUT OPRAHS' ROUGH LIFE, MY GOODNESS.. I AM IN MY MID 40'S AND MY MOM AS WELL HAD TO WEAR OLD SHOES AS A CHILD THAT DIDN'T FIT, THEY HAD TO STUFF PAPER IN THE TOES OF HER SHOES.. MY MOM AND SIBLINGS COULD NOT EAT THE MEAT OUT OF THE DINNER-MEAL SOUP, BECAUSE HER FATHER WAS THE HARD WORKING DAD..WHO MY GRAM SAID NEEDED THE MEAT..WE HAVE ALL HAD SOME NOT SO PRETTY LIVES AND OUR ANCESTORS ALSO..BUT I WOULDN'T SNUB THE WOMAN WHO GAVE BIRTH TO ME. I JUST FIND IT AWFULLY STRANGE SHE HAS NOT ONCE MENTIONED HER MOTHER.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.1.121 ( talk) 18:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Under the heading "Influence" and the subheading "Rankings as world's most influential woman" is the following statement:
The citation has a busted link. Also, the "49 million U.S. viewers" were actually the same 10 million viewers who watched the show 5 days a week. Since that overstatement was made, viewership for the Oprah Winfrey Show has fallen in half. Currently, Nielsen reports that the number of viewers is just over 5 million. See http://nielsen.com/media/toptens_television.html
Exaggerating audience numbers by a factor of 10 is embarrassing to Wikipedia and to Oprah. I'm changing the paragraph if there are no objections.
Wikeye ( talk) 02:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
So that 49 million statistic was probably viewers per week? So basically there were an average of 9.8 million viewers per day. Is the 46 million a current number from the summer or an average from last season? The show's new season just started this week. Kman543210 ( talk) 10:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Here are a couple of more pieces to the puzzle of what happened to Oprah's audience:
A Few Tremors in Oprahland (NY Times, May 2008) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/26/business/media/26oprah.html
Obama numbers up, Oprah ratings down (Chicago Tribune, May 2008) http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/05/obama_numbers_up_oprah_ratings.html
We'll see how the numbers hold up this coming season (2008 - 2009).
As far as Oprah being referred to as "arguably the world's most powerful woman" or "the most influential woman in the world", this piece has some interesting facts:
Obama supporter Oprah takes a big dive (Politico, April 2008) http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9427.html
Not what you would expect if Oprah actually IS the most powerful or influential woman in the world. Quite the opposite.
Also this, from the same source:
And then:
So much for Oprah's claimed popularity, influence and power. Still notable, but not as much as she and her fans claim. Wikeye ( talk) 00:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Reruns? We don't need no stinking reruns. Yes, of course there are reruns in the Summer. Read my previous comment:
"Oprah's audience ranges from 5 million (reruns during the Summer) to 9 million (peak in 2004-2005 season) or 7 million (last season's peak)--not the 46 to 49 million that gushing fans claim."
Yes, let's keep the facts straight and the logic clear. Let me slow down and give it to you one more time:
Oprah's daily (per show) viewership is between 5 million (those Summer reruns) to 7 million (specials like when she hosted dozens of Olympic athletes in a failed bid to piggyback on NBC's promotion of the games and boost her flagging numbers through her own brand of cherrypicking). Those are the numbers. Reuters reported that Oprah "boasts" about an audience of 46 million. It never reported that, in fact, the audience was that large. And for good reason. Read on.
Here is the logic: generally, the same 5 million hard-core viewers watch the show faithfully each day. The other 2 million fluctuate over the season. Therefore, Oprah's audience is generally 5 to 7 million. We don't report an audience of 25 to 35 million because those are cumulative weekly numbers--not her audience for each show. Otherwise, we would report that Oprah's audience is 100 to 140 million (cumulative monthly numbers). Or, we could just as well report that her audience is 1.3 to 1.8 BILLION (cumulative annual numbers). But then we'd have to rename the show McOprah's.
That's a thought. Maybe on Monday, 5 million new people watch the show, are disgusted and never watch it again. Then on Tuesday, another 5 million new people discover the show and so on and so forth. In that case, you could make a McDonald's-like claim of "Billions and Billions Served". However, it seems more straight and logical to report (as Nielsen does) the average audience PER SHOW. That's the number that means something. Unless you're a former auditor for Enron, Tyco or WorldCom or something like that. Wikeye ( talk) 21:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Following your logic, we would have to admit that Marge Simpson is the most influential woman in the world, as she has been reaching a greater percentage of the world for a longer period of time than Oprah. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Simpsons
I appreciate your explanation of the word "boast" but in this case, it is obvious that you and Oprah are literally boasting and boosting the numbers to suit your preconceived notions of what an audience is. I trust Webster over Dictionary.com, but if you want to continue "boasting", that's up to you. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/boast
Now if the issue of UNIQUE weekly viewers is of little interest, why don't we just say that Oprah's audience is 1 1/2 BILLION a year? Other than Nielsen, you can cite no source that has actually measured unique viewers; only a report that echoes the false claim that Oprah "boasts" an audience of 46 million, which is patently absurd.
The only reliable measurement of Oprah's audience is Nielsen, which is in the business of measuring audience size rather than selling newspapers and entertaining people, which is what Reuters and the other "news" papers do for a living. Therefore, we should indicate that according to Nielsen, Oprah's average daily audience ranges from 5 to 7 million, which is only about 2 percent of the U.S. population. Wikeye ( talk) 18:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy that you caught my Simpson allusion and followed up on it. I didn't want to appear disrespectful of Oprah, so I said Marge (a woman) instead of Bart (a brat). But yes, Oprah is right up there with Bart and Sponge Bob Square Pants as far as audience goes.
Too bad you glossed over the article on Oprah http://www.time.com/time/time100/artists/profile/winfrey.html that was part of the Time 100 article that you cited. It states:
That's 14 million daily viewers ten years ago. Now, as I said early in this discussion, her audience is 5 to 7 million, depending on whether we are talking about repeats or specials. So quit whining about the 5 million for heavens sake! Your own source confirms my contention that Oprah has lost 1/2 of her audience over time.
You and the Washington Post are clinging to Oprah's past glory days. As I said before, have a look at more recent numbers.
A Few Tremors in Oprahland (NY Times, May 2008) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/26/business/media/26oprah.html
Obama numbers up, Oprah ratings down (Chicago Tribune, May 2008) http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/05/obama_numbers_up_oprah_ratings.html
The 8.6 million figure you cite is almost 4 years old (2004-2005 season). Her numbers have been dropping every year since then and will probably follow Oprah's recent approval rating dive. We will have to see. For now, the only current, objective assessment is that Oprah's daytime audience is about 7 million or about 2 percent of the country. To suggest that 10 percent of America watches Oprah at least once a week is groundless. There have been no reports of unique weekly, monthly or annual viewers for the Oprah show--only daily audience. The weekly figures that you keep computing are just guesses which are misleading and not supported. You might just as well report monthly or annual numbers that you compute based on incorrect assumptions about unique viewers. I ask again: what is stopping you from claiming 1 1/2 BILLION annual viewers? Wikeye ( talk) 02:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Claiming or implying that Oprah currently averages 7.3 million viewers is misleading. Like all these banks that overstate their assets by refusing to write down their sub-prime loan portfolios. As you point out, even turning to desperate freak-show tricks like the "pregnant man" did nothing to permanently revive Oprah's audience.
Oprah's 2008-2009 season premiere got a rating of 5.0 (just under 6.5 million viewers). http://nielsen.com/media/toptens_television.html
In the second week of the season, Oprah fell 6 percent to a 4.7 rating (about 6.1 million viewers). http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6600716.html?industryid=47171
Really good for an old sub-prime show, but certainly not in the "ratings stratosphere". That would be "Dancing with the Stars" 21 million. Eventually, we're going to have to "write down" the Oprah Show to it's true "market value": about 6 million viewers, which is quite a spectacular one-year drop from the currently-claimed 7.3 million and an even bigger plunge from the 9.36 million that you say were watching her show as recently as April. Apparently, Oprah lost more than 1/3 of her audience in less than 6 months. That's gotta be some kind of a record, don't you think? Wikeye ( talk) 21:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Here's the diff of the edit:
On September 19, 2008, Winfrey was duped into reading a message board post from her site on the subject of child rape which was actually a internet meme was posted by a user from the online community of 4chan.org. The meme originates from a YouTube video from the Japanese animation cartoon "Dragonball Z". Over 9000 fans tuned into this episode.
(undent) The reason I mentioned WP:NOT is because Wikipedia is not a place to gather/collect trivia. This is trivial internet meme fluff. It will be forgotten next year—in fact, it will be forgotten next month. It has no place in an encyclopedia article about Oprah. Thanks Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 06:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Look up "Mohammed Al Amoudi". He is also a big philanthropist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.113.156 ( talk) 12:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)(undent) Excellent! That's an interesting point. However, there are two problems with that article
(undent). No, two of them are newcomers, but one isn't. I found Ibrahim listed as a billionaire in 2007: [21]. He may have been in earlier years too; the article just refers to him as a billionaire, but doesn't say when he became one. We should keep looking, but it's time for me to go to bed. Good night! Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 15:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I've got Johnson as a billionaire in 2003: Forbes, 3/17/2003, Vol. 171 Issue 6, p122-140. "The World's Billionaires." Note that this is AFTER his divorce; apparently it wasn't the divorce that knocked him off the list of 400 wealthiest. So we still need more info, but the most we can possibly say (not proven yet) is that Oprah might have been the only black billionaire for 2 (not 3) years. Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 22:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I found this. Is it true?
Sick pigs....
Matoro3311 | Talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC).
The image Image:O Magazine cover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 07:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Under the subsection "Fanbase" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oprah_Winfrey#Fan_base it says:
Well, if you can believe it, George Bush was named the most admired man in that same poll. His rating was around 20 percent just 2 years prior and was as high as 29 percent at the beginning of 2004. Oprah only caught up with King George in December 2006. That's some pretty sorry company, don't you think?
It is more correct to say that in December 2007, 16 percent of a sample of 1,011 American adults named Oprah as the woman they admired most OR second most (read the fine print at the bottom of the article). Pretty cool that if 161 people say Oprah is their first or second favorite, by the time the info gets to the Wikipedia, she has become the most admired woman in America and you are claiming that 16 percent of Americans named Winfrey the woman they admired most. The real number is 161/220,000,000 but I can't do math with that many decimal places. So much for polls. The point is that virtually no one actually named Oprah anything and that 84 percent of the 1,011 Americans polled did NOT name Winfrey the woman they admired most or second most.
But if you like polls and surveys, why do you ignore the following?:
Obama supporter Oprah takes a big dive (Politico, April 2008) http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9427.html
And then:
Let's try telling the whole truth, like this:
Wikeye ( talk) 17:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
OPRAH WINFREY is RACEST and SEXEST. She only likes black women!!! That's Wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.176.36 ( talk) 05:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The controversy over Oprah falling for a 4chan meme and seriously reporting that there was a paedophile ring with "over nine thousand penises" is getting a bit of traction. Should it be included in this article? -- 121.216.152.150 ( talk) 05:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
It's a great full-body image of Oprah and catches her with a very natural expression. Most free images are usually not that good but in this case wikipedia really got lucky. 99.224.137.2 ( talk) 12:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
In 1989, Winfrey was personally touched by the 1980s AIDS crisis so frequently discussed on her show when her long time aide, Billy Rizzo, became afflicted by the disease. Rizzo was the only man among the four-person production team whom Winfrey relied on in her early years in Chicago long before she had a large staff. “I love Billy like a brother,” she said at the time. “He's a wonderful, funny, talented guy, and it's just heartbreaking to see him so ill.” Winfrey visited him daily during his last days.
But when did Billy Rizzo die and why doe wikipedia.org not tell his tale? He deserves his own page. Somebody make one for him now. How much does it cost? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.199.147 ( talk) 18:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
Oprah Winfrey was also sent to a juvenile detention center after running away at the age of 13 but was denied in because of the overcrowded space and inconvenient amount of beds.
CharmyonneBailey ( talk) 20:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Not done: Please provide a reliable source and the actual text you would like inserted. Thanks,
Celestra (
talk)
21:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I will change the term "Democrats" because Democratic Party is more appropriate plus Democrats isn't a party.-- And Rew 02:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
PETA giving a celebrity an award is to buy publicity. It does not make Oprah an animal right activist.
Exposing poor agriculture and breeding practices also does not mean you're an animal rights activist. These are welfare issues and deal little with animal rights, who's goal is to elevate animal to the legal equal of humans and banning domestication of animals.
A more appropriate term is animal welfare activist. Sorry if it sound nit picky, but welfare vs rights is a big deal to people concerned about animals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.142.103.70 ( talk) 22:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
In a section of the OW article it says "On January 15, 2008, Winfrey and Discovery Communications announced plans to change Discovery Health Channel into a new channel called OWN: The Oprah Winfrey Network. OWN will debut at an unspecified time in 2010." OWN will debut in January 2011. 2010 has to end before OWN can begin. 23:03 31 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.227.26.78 ( talk) ALLAN LOVES ALEXANDRIA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.44.218 ( talk) 22:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Ebaumsworld is currently trying to get "Oprah Winfrey Dead at 56" to the top of Google Trends. Monitor article closely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.219.27.27 ( talk) 16:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Despite the fact that Oprah is famous for her confessional style, we must remember that this is an encyclopedia article and is subject to the normal rules for Notability and Reliable sources. Too much of the article focuses of biographical details that are not significant enough for an encyclopedia, and in many cases the sources are not authoritive enough to support the sweeping statements they are linked to.
I am going to start going through and trying to clean it up. Please discuss here you have a problem with my edits. Ashmoo ( talk) 12:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I removed this because being a vegan for 3 weeks is not notable. If she was vegan for a long period, or the veganism caused some sort of health problem, or fame, maybe... Ashmoo ( talk) 18:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
In 2008 Winfrey decided to become a vegan for three weeks. [1]
I also removed the following, as having a relative who shares a name with someone famous is not really notable. If there was proof, or even the suggestion that they may be closely related, maybe. But just sharing a name is trivia. Ashmoo ( talk) 10:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Winfrey visited Graceland in 2006 while on her cross-country trip with Gayle King. While having dinner with Lisa Marie Presley and her husband Michael Lockwood, she told Presley that her grandmother's last name was also Presley. [2]
I removed this, because it is just one of those Top 20 TV filler shows, VH1 is an MTV station and in the same poll JFK Jr scored 20 points higher than JFK (as an example of how arbitrary the poll was).
In 2003 Winfrey edged out both Superman and Elvis Presley to be named the greatest pop culture icon of all time by VH1. [3]
Ashmoo ( talk) 08:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I also chopped this, because it doesn't really say much, but more importantly it was said, in a Vogue magazie interview, by an actor in the movie Winfrey was producing/directing while they were promoting the film. The vaguely positive words of an actor who is trying to sell their movie is hardly a Reliable Source. I'm going to put the quote in the movie's article.
Working with delicate subjects, Winfrey managed to keep the cast motivated and inspired. "Here we were working on this project with the heavy underbelly of political and social realism, and she managed to lighten things up", said costar Thandie Newton. "I've worked with a lot of good actors, and I know Oprah hasn't made many films. I was stunned. She's a very strong technical actress and it's because she's so smart. She's acute. She's got a mind like a razor blade." [4]
Ashmoo ( talk) 11:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I removed this section because the text is not supported by the sources. The sources describe a study that links viewing positive behaviours to prosocial behaviour. The fact that the short clip was from an Oprah show is incidental. Ashmoo ( talk) 13:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Since the mid 1990s, Winfrey’s show has emphazied uplifting and inspirational topics and themes. A scientific study by psychological scientists at the University of Cambridge, University of Plymouth, and University of California discovered that simply watching an uplifting clip on the Oprah Winfrey show caused subjects in their experiment to become twice as helpful as subjects assigned to watch a British comedy or nature documentary. The authors of the study concluded that "by eliciting elevation, even brief exposure to other individuals’ prosocial behavior motivates altruism, thus potentially providing an avenue for increasing the general level of prosociality in society." [5] [6]
I just saw the request for a third opinion, so I came and checked it out. I've read both the sources listed above. [24] and [25]. While both mention that the clip was part of an episode of the Oprah show, neither draws the conclusion that the show has a positive effect. Rather, both make the point that uplifting material creates prosocial behavior.
For us to draw the conclusion that all Oprah shows are generally proscial would mean we have to accept that someone even checked the weight of material on various episodes (uplifting vs other categories), that this clip is typical of the show, etc. I don't see anything like this in the sources. Such extrapolations are usually considered to be WP:OR. We should only put such information if that is what the sources are writing about.
If positioned properly, I think it would make a very interesting addition to the article about the show itself. Something brief about the research and that they used a clip from Oprah as their "uplifting" clip. Maybe more sources have written about this study. This link [26] has more indepth and a link to the full study at [27]. AliveFreeHappy ( talk) 22:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
SamanthaG, the article is currently over 100kb long, WP:Article size recommends articles be between 30kb and 50kb. When you edit the page, it even says that the article is too long. As such, I'm trying to pare down the repetition in the article to get it to a readable size. Remember, this is an encyclopedia article which is supposed to be a succinct summary of someone's life, not an exhaustive autobiography which documents everything they ever did, everything that almost happened to them and everything anyone said about them.
Anyway, I chopped the senate seat nomination non-event, because it was in the lede, but I don't think anyone, if they had to summarise Oprah's life in 3 paragraphs would include this. The info is still further down in the article, under political influence, so nothing is lost, except repetition. Ashmoo ( talk) 15:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I changed another statement, this time in the intro because the sources do not seem to support the assertion. One source says she scored highly in a poll about 'favourite TV celebrities' the other is Mandela praising her. There is no cite that says she is 'generally admired' for the reasons given in the article, the 1st poll just says she is a favorite TV personality but doesn't include the criteria people used to make the decision (other people on the list include Glenn Beck & Jon Stewart). Ashmoo ( talk) 09:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I noticed the tone of the article [early life section] is negative also and not very professionally written. i'm new to this and don't know how to edit sections which i would do. the last time i was on wiki you just clicked edit and started typing! i agree with your assesment though. Denij2005deejay ( talk) 08:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Denij2005deejay
I don't understand why she is cited as being one of the most influential people in the world. I live in the UK, which, apart from Canada soaks up the most American culture of any country in the world. And I can say as a fact, I have never heard anyone say Oprah's name or mention anything to do with her that isn't American. Oprah is not part of UK culture, nor is it part of our celeb culture (the trash that some people read), and nor does Oprah influence anything that affects any part of my life. AND I live in London, so its not as if I live buried in a sand pit somewhere. 86.174.170.24 ( talk) 23:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
From the article: The show received so much media attention that even the taxes on the cars became controversial. I don't like the inherent POV "of course you have to pay income tax when someone gives you a car". The morality of income tax on gifts is always controversial (which btw also holds for any income tax, and actually for any tax), so this controversy was not caused by media attention. Since this article is semi protected I'd like to hear more opinions. Joepnl ( talk) 22:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, It seems odd to see this article on Oprah in such a ragged state, with 500 watchers. Is it in the midst of a re-write project by a main editor, has there been large content controversy, or is it that nobody has got around to copy-editing? Puzzled best wishes Spanglej ( talk) 20:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:MOS discourages single line paragraphs. Also the use of ccquotes (with the big blue quote marks) is seeming to hinder readability. Don't know if you have gone through for readability edits as yet... Best wishes Spanglej ( talk) 21:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Just seen a newsreport about Oprah giving away holidays to Australia to all of her audience, would add it in, but am unable to log in from Wiki here. http://uk.tv.yahoo.com/news-extra/article/56290/oprah-winfreys-suprise-gift.html < Source. 77.86.115.215 ( talk) 14:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I think this is the place to discuss the senate question, rather than by edit reverts. Spangle ( talk) 15:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I removed this sentence from the Books & Publishing section, as it is not clear why Sara Nelson should be mentioned in Oprah's article. Oprah has hundreds if not thousands of employees, why should this one be mentioned in her article? Ashmoo ( talk) 11:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Winfrey hired former Publishers Weekly editor–in–chief Sara Nelson in 2009 as books editor at O. [7] [8]
While Kitty Kelley is known for not being completely honest, Katherine Esters, Oprah's much older cousin, conceded that she did reveal to Kelley that Oprah lied about her childhood past. 75.72.35.253 ( talk) 01:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
No, read Kitty Kelley's book and her cousin's confirmation. Her cousin was even willing to say that Kelley lied about Oprah having a different father than the one who raised her, but conceded that she did tell Kelley that Oprah lied about the level of poverty she endured while growing up and that she was molested. Oprah lied about this so people would watch her show. It's good business. 75.72.35.253 ( talk) 22:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Here's a source that claims that her cousin confessed that Oprah's sexual abuse was false and that her father Vernon wavered about her claim when asked. [ [28]] While Kelley also claims she believes Oprah's side of the story, it's not 100% believable either. As I typed earlier, she is known for not being completely honest. It's really hard to believe, from a neutral perspective, that Oprah "shows the full scars of sexual abuse;" Kelley is not a psychologist and she does not see Oprah on a regular basis. She might have said she believed Oprah's side of the story so Oprah fans would buy her book. You should also consider the fact that Oprah first made this claim during the first season of her show, and if Oprah's relatives wanted to protect a family relative and deny this to press, why didn't they do so soon after she made this claim public? They sure didn't stand her way when she was using it as a market ploy and even one of Bing Crosby's own sons, Phillip, tried to refute what his brother Gary wrote about Bing's abuse soon after Gary came public about it. [29] 75.72.35.253 ( talk) 23:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me, but the sources are news articles from MSNBC and the San Francisco Gate. They do comply with the reliable resource policy. Also look up the fan page policy. It is also important to type this in the article because her own family has disputed her claim. 75.72.35.253 ( talk) 16:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Before this discussion goes off around the houses, just a reminder that Wikipedia is not interested in 'truth' but in 'verifiability' see Wikipedia:Verifiability. If a consensus is reached it maybe possible to overtly and openly discuss the different biographers and their accounts, not weighting one account in favour of another, although WP:BLP constrains this. The article is not about our opinions, it's not a soapbox or a means of advocacy. Span ( talk) 18:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
In this edit made over four years ago, somebody changed a substub on " Oprah Winfrey's Legends Ball" into something of the length of a regular article by plagiarizing an article on abc.com that advertised a TV program about it. What resulted was of course mere advertising, plagiarized. The perp openly admitted this several months later.
Since that time the article hasn't changed that much, though it did spring an extra section of mere hearsay, which didn't even say where the hearsay was reported (if it was reported and wasn't merely invented by the editor).
My own inclination is to have the entire article deleted as partly based on advertising and partly unsourced, and anyway about a media event of no obvious significance. However, as somebody who rarely watches the telly and has little interest in pop music, I may not appreciate significance that may be obvious to fans of Winfrey. Perhaps somebody here would like to revise the article to a state where it would be less unlikely to survive AfD. -- Hoary ( talk) 08:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding this sequence of edits— 1, 2, and 3: I reverted because the word "purported" carries negative connotations which need to be well sourced in a BLP article. SamanthaG's compromise, leaving Zomputer's revised sentence but omitting "purported," is fine with me in theory, but I want to note for the record that (1) it changes the meaning of the sentence entirely, reassigning qualities to Winfrey's show that were previously applied to the genre in general, and (2) neither of the two cited sources appears to support either version (and, in fact, the "TIME 100" ref is stale and leads to an irrelevant 2010 page). I don't regularly watch this article, so I leave it to the regulars to decide how best to proceed. Rivertorch ( talk) 23:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Oprah is certainly controversial in some quarters. Why not a section on these controversies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.71.197 ( talk) 01:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwGLNbiw1gk&feature=related I think it is horrible that she uses her money to spread such horrible words about another's God.A loving God who will even forgive her for what she said (denying His existence).Never the less It offends me very much!!!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.64.236 ( talk) 21:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Huh? What is this commenter talking about? I watched the video and it makes Oprah look mature,tolerant, and very spiritual. The Christians in her audience are the ones who look bad! (They INSIST that there is only one way - their way - to worship god). Oprah DID NOT say anything terrible about "anyone else's god". It was the Christians in the video who were insisting they had all the answers and by implication said bad things about how others worship. 70.126.98.155 ( talk) 17:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I remember this happening. However, aside from the fact that Wikipedia statements in general must be verified with reliable-source citations, we absolutely cannot make lawsuit claims about a living person without blatantly violating WP:BLP. I've commented out the passage rather than removed it, since editors more familiar with this article might readily find a cite for these claims — plural, since the Roseanne Barr claim probably needs its own cite. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 19:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of her 2 sisters and brother? Thismightbezach ( talk) 16:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
If you want to provide information about her siblings, it would be useful to also state that her brother, Jeffrey, died in 1989 of AIDS. It is on the same page of the biography that is quoted for footnote 34. Would someone please edit this. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.65.208.138 ( talk) 07:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Who she claimed to know nothing about, even though she is 9 years older than her? Considering she had a kid herself at 14, how can she claim with any credibility not to know that her mother gave birth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.48.155.6 ( talk) 05:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Where the article now says:
It may be more correct to say
"...joined her high school speech team at
East Nashville High School, placing second in the nation in dramatic interpretation..."
Question: did the team place second or Winfrey herself? (And since there's no specific citation for this, I can't check.)--
TyrS
chatties
12:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what subsection to put this under (besides Personal Life, of course), but I think it might be worth including: ...in a December 2010 interview with hannah made her go crazy when she sang born this way cuz she is gay, [Winfrey] said, "I have not one regret about not having children." [32] TyrS chatties 05:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}} On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oprah_Winfrey:
Oprah's full name has been spelled as Orpah Gail Winfrey (in bold text) while it should clearly be Oprah Gail Winfrey.
andrewkno@hotmail.com
Andrewkno ( talk) 14:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Among the Categories associated with this article are "American Christians" and "American Congregationalists". However, I've looked around and it looks like Oprah doesn't claim to be a Christian and is not a member of any church. Some background:
Oprah grew up in Progressive Missionary Baptist Church in Nashville and joined that church before age 15. ( http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/april1/1.38.html?start=3)
In the 1980's, Oprah requested to become a member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago according to Trinity's senior pastor Jeremiah Wright. However, she never completed the membership classes and after awhile her attendance dropped off. ( http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/april1/1.38.html?start=7)
Oprah does "spiritual" New Age stuff and calls her show a ministry, but I have not seen anything to indicate that, since the 1980's, Oprah identifies as a Christian or is a member of a church. Therefore, I propose to remove the Categories "American Christians" and "American Congregationalists". Wideangle ( talk) 02:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Saturdayseven, who has made very few edits and appears to be essentially a single-purpose account devoted to Oprah Winfrey, has been making unsubstantiated accusations of libel, essentially, against biography Kitty Kelley — who, no matter what one thinks of her brand of journalism, is a major author at a major publishing house, and whose Oprah biography was vetted by a legion of lawyers and has never been the subject of a lawsuit. For this editor, who has a history of edit-warring, to summarily remove well-cited claims to a major biography seems a clear case of white-washing. I'd like to get others' opinions on this. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 20:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Top of page says she was born "Orpah" Shouldn't that read
" Oprah" or was she really born with the name "Orpah"?
75.22.56.199 ( talk) 20:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
She was indeed born with the name 'Orpah'. Thanks for being diligent, though.
Cdg123 (
talk)
05:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Someone appears to have erased it and now I will put it back in. This is not a fanpage and it needs to be reported that Esters and her is known for not being completely honest; Esters even disputed Kelley's claim that she told Kelley that Oprah had a different biological father, but did not dispute that she told Kelley that Oprah lied about being molested and exaggerated the level of poverty she endured while growing up. Kelley very well may have made this claim about Oprah having the scars of a rape victim to please Oprah fans. I don't really care that Esters and her daughter told this to Kitty Kelley, but I do care that they disputed Oprah's claim.
To also claim that Oprah's family is trying to cover up family abuse doesn't make sense. Oprah first made this claim during the first season of her show and her family never disputed her claim until the Kelley interview nearly a quarter of a century later. I will not deny people try to cover up family abuse, but it's really hard to imagine that they would wait this long to dispute such a claim to protect a family member. Oprah had already humiliated her uncle and cousin by claiming they molested her and waiting nearly a quarter of a century to dispute this doesn't exactly demonstrate that they would be willing to dispute it so they could protect the image of a family member. Even Phillip Crosby tried to dispute his brother Gary's claim that their Bing Crosby abused him greatly, but he disputed it soon after Gary made this claim. JoetheMoe25 ( talk) 23:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to break it to you both, but I am not stupid and I know when somebody is lying and typing in fanpage content. Saturdayseven, I am not violating the BLP at all. The Daily Beast is a big non-tabloid news site that is very reliable. You also have nothing to show that suggests that Esters told this to Kitty Kelley because Oprah refused to promote her biography and since Oprah made her claim of being molesting in the first season of her show, there were many news reporters and even talk show hosts out there whom she could have told this to; she could have even disputed Oprah's claims on tabloid, celebrity-trashing shows like Entertainment Tonight, A Current Affair and Hard Copy, but did not. I will report you further if you continue to type in biased, unneutral fanpage content. JoetheMoe25 ( talk) 21:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC) The news article, in fact, states that Esters concedes that everything Kelley wrote- with the exception that she told Kelley that Oprah had a different biological father- about their conservation was accurate. He's a quote from it: "The 82-year-old Esters, who still lives near the central Mississippi town of Kosciusko—where Oprah spent six years of her childhood—was quoted several times, usually attached to non-flabbergasting statements that, she concedes, Kelley conveyed accurately." JoetheMoe25 ( talk) 22:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC) Read this too: Wikipedia:Fancruft
You're right, we can't hold back revelance. That's why we got to be neutral. Esters hasn't demonstrated she's an unreliable resource. Where she lived doesn't demonstrate this, as Oprah or one of her family members, even possibly her deceased half-brother, could've told her that she was making it up. If Oprah was the one who told her, she couldn't say this because Oprah would likely deny it. You better find another sucker, because I will never buy into your nonsense. Kitty Kelley also argued it was her opinion that she was in denial. She said “I think Oprah’s family is in denial about the sexual abuse” and “her father and her Aunt Katharine are like the families of other sexual abuse victims; they’re in great denial. But I believe Oprah; she’s a woman who shows the scars of sexual abuse.”
The fact the Oprah refused to promote her memoirs also is a vague and unverifable. The source says Esters criticized Kelly and she implied she would never do such an interview with her again and Oprah, believe it or not, lived in the same area as Esters for six whole years; she was also close to Oprah and was known as "Aunt Katherine." Not even Oprah's father, who she did live with, disputed Esters' claim. You better find another sucker to fool, because I will keep standing up to you and edit with the words of truth. 75.72.35.253 ( talk) 03:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I will not waste my time with this. You also have nothing to prove that demonstrates Oprah and her have had such a feud. Refusing to promote a book doesn't indicate a she has a "tumultuous history" with Oprah. I know what the article says, but it does not indicate she would say this to Kelley for that reason. Oprah could very well had lied about being molested so more people would watch her show; it tends to make celebrities-one example being Maya Angelou(not that I'm disputing her rape claim at all)- more money when they claim this, because the public feels sorry for you when make this claim. JoetheMoe25 ( talk) 23:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
This month's issue of O, The Oprah Magazine seemingly snubbed Freedom by leaving it off its "Ten Titles to Pick Up Now" feature, but books editor Sara Nelson declined to comment on the current rumors.
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
Sara Nelson was named books editor;
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Would someone with edit ability be able to change this to top rated US talk show. Remember not everyone is american. Italic textI HAVE LOOKED EVERYWHERE AND CANNOT FIND ANY MENTION OR PHOTOS OF OPRAHS' MOTHER VERNITA LEE WINFREY>> OTHER THAN SHE GAVE BIRTH TO OPRAH . OPRAH HAS HER FATHER "VERNON" SET UP IN A NICE HOME, AND SHE TALKS ALOT OF HER GRANDMOTHER, BUT WHY THE BIG SNUB REGARDING HER MOTHER~~WHO BY THE WAY~~OPRAH HAS NEVER ONCE MENTIONED HER PUBLICLY** SHE IS STILL HER MOTHER AND WE WOULD LIKE TO READ ABOUT HER AND HER ROUGH LIFE>>EVERYTHING IS ABOUT OPRAHS' ROUGH LIFE, MY GOODNESS.. I AM IN MY MID 40'S AND MY MOM AS WELL HAD TO WEAR OLD SHOES AS A CHILD THAT DIDN'T FIT, THEY HAD TO STUFF PAPER IN THE TOES OF HER SHOES.. MY MOM AND SIBLINGS COULD NOT EAT THE MEAT OUT OF THE DINNER-MEAL SOUP, BECAUSE HER FATHER WAS THE HARD WORKING DAD..WHO MY GRAM SAID NEEDED THE MEAT..WE HAVE ALL HAD SOME NOT SO PRETTY LIVES AND OUR ANCESTORS ALSO..BUT I WOULDN'T SNUB THE WOMAN WHO GAVE BIRTH TO ME. I JUST FIND IT AWFULLY STRANGE SHE HAS NOT ONCE MENTIONED HER MOTHER.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.1.121 ( talk) 18:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Under the heading "Influence" and the subheading "Rankings as world's most influential woman" is the following statement:
The citation has a busted link. Also, the "49 million U.S. viewers" were actually the same 10 million viewers who watched the show 5 days a week. Since that overstatement was made, viewership for the Oprah Winfrey Show has fallen in half. Currently, Nielsen reports that the number of viewers is just over 5 million. See http://nielsen.com/media/toptens_television.html
Exaggerating audience numbers by a factor of 10 is embarrassing to Wikipedia and to Oprah. I'm changing the paragraph if there are no objections.
Wikeye ( talk) 02:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
So that 49 million statistic was probably viewers per week? So basically there were an average of 9.8 million viewers per day. Is the 46 million a current number from the summer or an average from last season? The show's new season just started this week. Kman543210 ( talk) 10:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Here are a couple of more pieces to the puzzle of what happened to Oprah's audience:
A Few Tremors in Oprahland (NY Times, May 2008) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/26/business/media/26oprah.html
Obama numbers up, Oprah ratings down (Chicago Tribune, May 2008) http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/05/obama_numbers_up_oprah_ratings.html
We'll see how the numbers hold up this coming season (2008 - 2009).
As far as Oprah being referred to as "arguably the world's most powerful woman" or "the most influential woman in the world", this piece has some interesting facts:
Obama supporter Oprah takes a big dive (Politico, April 2008) http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9427.html
Not what you would expect if Oprah actually IS the most powerful or influential woman in the world. Quite the opposite.
Also this, from the same source:
And then:
So much for Oprah's claimed popularity, influence and power. Still notable, but not as much as she and her fans claim. Wikeye ( talk) 00:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Reruns? We don't need no stinking reruns. Yes, of course there are reruns in the Summer. Read my previous comment:
"Oprah's audience ranges from 5 million (reruns during the Summer) to 9 million (peak in 2004-2005 season) or 7 million (last season's peak)--not the 46 to 49 million that gushing fans claim."
Yes, let's keep the facts straight and the logic clear. Let me slow down and give it to you one more time:
Oprah's daily (per show) viewership is between 5 million (those Summer reruns) to 7 million (specials like when she hosted dozens of Olympic athletes in a failed bid to piggyback on NBC's promotion of the games and boost her flagging numbers through her own brand of cherrypicking). Those are the numbers. Reuters reported that Oprah "boasts" about an audience of 46 million. It never reported that, in fact, the audience was that large. And for good reason. Read on.
Here is the logic: generally, the same 5 million hard-core viewers watch the show faithfully each day. The other 2 million fluctuate over the season. Therefore, Oprah's audience is generally 5 to 7 million. We don't report an audience of 25 to 35 million because those are cumulative weekly numbers--not her audience for each show. Otherwise, we would report that Oprah's audience is 100 to 140 million (cumulative monthly numbers). Or, we could just as well report that her audience is 1.3 to 1.8 BILLION (cumulative annual numbers). But then we'd have to rename the show McOprah's.
That's a thought. Maybe on Monday, 5 million new people watch the show, are disgusted and never watch it again. Then on Tuesday, another 5 million new people discover the show and so on and so forth. In that case, you could make a McDonald's-like claim of "Billions and Billions Served". However, it seems more straight and logical to report (as Nielsen does) the average audience PER SHOW. That's the number that means something. Unless you're a former auditor for Enron, Tyco or WorldCom or something like that. Wikeye ( talk) 21:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Following your logic, we would have to admit that Marge Simpson is the most influential woman in the world, as she has been reaching a greater percentage of the world for a longer period of time than Oprah. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Simpsons
I appreciate your explanation of the word "boast" but in this case, it is obvious that you and Oprah are literally boasting and boosting the numbers to suit your preconceived notions of what an audience is. I trust Webster over Dictionary.com, but if you want to continue "boasting", that's up to you. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/boast
Now if the issue of UNIQUE weekly viewers is of little interest, why don't we just say that Oprah's audience is 1 1/2 BILLION a year? Other than Nielsen, you can cite no source that has actually measured unique viewers; only a report that echoes the false claim that Oprah "boasts" an audience of 46 million, which is patently absurd.
The only reliable measurement of Oprah's audience is Nielsen, which is in the business of measuring audience size rather than selling newspapers and entertaining people, which is what Reuters and the other "news" papers do for a living. Therefore, we should indicate that according to Nielsen, Oprah's average daily audience ranges from 5 to 7 million, which is only about 2 percent of the U.S. population. Wikeye ( talk) 18:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy that you caught my Simpson allusion and followed up on it. I didn't want to appear disrespectful of Oprah, so I said Marge (a woman) instead of Bart (a brat). But yes, Oprah is right up there with Bart and Sponge Bob Square Pants as far as audience goes.
Too bad you glossed over the article on Oprah http://www.time.com/time/time100/artists/profile/winfrey.html that was part of the Time 100 article that you cited. It states:
That's 14 million daily viewers ten years ago. Now, as I said early in this discussion, her audience is 5 to 7 million, depending on whether we are talking about repeats or specials. So quit whining about the 5 million for heavens sake! Your own source confirms my contention that Oprah has lost 1/2 of her audience over time.
You and the Washington Post are clinging to Oprah's past glory days. As I said before, have a look at more recent numbers.
A Few Tremors in Oprahland (NY Times, May 2008) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/26/business/media/26oprah.html
Obama numbers up, Oprah ratings down (Chicago Tribune, May 2008) http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/05/obama_numbers_up_oprah_ratings.html
The 8.6 million figure you cite is almost 4 years old (2004-2005 season). Her numbers have been dropping every year since then and will probably follow Oprah's recent approval rating dive. We will have to see. For now, the only current, objective assessment is that Oprah's daytime audience is about 7 million or about 2 percent of the country. To suggest that 10 percent of America watches Oprah at least once a week is groundless. There have been no reports of unique weekly, monthly or annual viewers for the Oprah show--only daily audience. The weekly figures that you keep computing are just guesses which are misleading and not supported. You might just as well report monthly or annual numbers that you compute based on incorrect assumptions about unique viewers. I ask again: what is stopping you from claiming 1 1/2 BILLION annual viewers? Wikeye ( talk) 02:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Claiming or implying that Oprah currently averages 7.3 million viewers is misleading. Like all these banks that overstate their assets by refusing to write down their sub-prime loan portfolios. As you point out, even turning to desperate freak-show tricks like the "pregnant man" did nothing to permanently revive Oprah's audience.
Oprah's 2008-2009 season premiere got a rating of 5.0 (just under 6.5 million viewers). http://nielsen.com/media/toptens_television.html
In the second week of the season, Oprah fell 6 percent to a 4.7 rating (about 6.1 million viewers). http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6600716.html?industryid=47171
Really good for an old sub-prime show, but certainly not in the "ratings stratosphere". That would be "Dancing with the Stars" 21 million. Eventually, we're going to have to "write down" the Oprah Show to it's true "market value": about 6 million viewers, which is quite a spectacular one-year drop from the currently-claimed 7.3 million and an even bigger plunge from the 9.36 million that you say were watching her show as recently as April. Apparently, Oprah lost more than 1/3 of her audience in less than 6 months. That's gotta be some kind of a record, don't you think? Wikeye ( talk) 21:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Here's the diff of the edit:
On September 19, 2008, Winfrey was duped into reading a message board post from her site on the subject of child rape which was actually a internet meme was posted by a user from the online community of 4chan.org. The meme originates from a YouTube video from the Japanese animation cartoon "Dragonball Z". Over 9000 fans tuned into this episode.
(undent) The reason I mentioned WP:NOT is because Wikipedia is not a place to gather/collect trivia. This is trivial internet meme fluff. It will be forgotten next year—in fact, it will be forgotten next month. It has no place in an encyclopedia article about Oprah. Thanks Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 06:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Look up "Mohammed Al Amoudi". He is also a big philanthropist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.113.156 ( talk) 12:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)(undent) Excellent! That's an interesting point. However, there are two problems with that article
(undent). No, two of them are newcomers, but one isn't. I found Ibrahim listed as a billionaire in 2007: [21]. He may have been in earlier years too; the article just refers to him as a billionaire, but doesn't say when he became one. We should keep looking, but it's time for me to go to bed. Good night! Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 15:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I've got Johnson as a billionaire in 2003: Forbes, 3/17/2003, Vol. 171 Issue 6, p122-140. "The World's Billionaires." Note that this is AFTER his divorce; apparently it wasn't the divorce that knocked him off the list of 400 wealthiest. So we still need more info, but the most we can possibly say (not proven yet) is that Oprah might have been the only black billionaire for 2 (not 3) years. Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 22:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I found this. Is it true?
Sick pigs....
Matoro3311 | Talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC).
The image Image:O Magazine cover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 07:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Under the subsection "Fanbase" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oprah_Winfrey#Fan_base it says:
Well, if you can believe it, George Bush was named the most admired man in that same poll. His rating was around 20 percent just 2 years prior and was as high as 29 percent at the beginning of 2004. Oprah only caught up with King George in December 2006. That's some pretty sorry company, don't you think?
It is more correct to say that in December 2007, 16 percent of a sample of 1,011 American adults named Oprah as the woman they admired most OR second most (read the fine print at the bottom of the article). Pretty cool that if 161 people say Oprah is their first or second favorite, by the time the info gets to the Wikipedia, she has become the most admired woman in America and you are claiming that 16 percent of Americans named Winfrey the woman they admired most. The real number is 161/220,000,000 but I can't do math with that many decimal places. So much for polls. The point is that virtually no one actually named Oprah anything and that 84 percent of the 1,011 Americans polled did NOT name Winfrey the woman they admired most or second most.
But if you like polls and surveys, why do you ignore the following?:
Obama supporter Oprah takes a big dive (Politico, April 2008) http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9427.html
And then:
Let's try telling the whole truth, like this:
Wikeye ( talk) 17:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
OPRAH WINFREY is RACEST and SEXEST. She only likes black women!!! That's Wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.176.36 ( talk) 05:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The controversy over Oprah falling for a 4chan meme and seriously reporting that there was a paedophile ring with "over nine thousand penises" is getting a bit of traction. Should it be included in this article? -- 121.216.152.150 ( talk) 05:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
It's a great full-body image of Oprah and catches her with a very natural expression. Most free images are usually not that good but in this case wikipedia really got lucky. 99.224.137.2 ( talk) 12:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
In 1989, Winfrey was personally touched by the 1980s AIDS crisis so frequently discussed on her show when her long time aide, Billy Rizzo, became afflicted by the disease. Rizzo was the only man among the four-person production team whom Winfrey relied on in her early years in Chicago long before she had a large staff. “I love Billy like a brother,” she said at the time. “He's a wonderful, funny, talented guy, and it's just heartbreaking to see him so ill.” Winfrey visited him daily during his last days.
But when did Billy Rizzo die and why doe wikipedia.org not tell his tale? He deserves his own page. Somebody make one for him now. How much does it cost? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.199.147 ( talk) 18:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
Oprah Winfrey was also sent to a juvenile detention center after running away at the age of 13 but was denied in because of the overcrowded space and inconvenient amount of beds.
CharmyonneBailey ( talk) 20:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Not done: Please provide a reliable source and the actual text you would like inserted. Thanks,
Celestra (
talk)
21:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I will change the term "Democrats" because Democratic Party is more appropriate plus Democrats isn't a party.-- And Rew 02:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
PETA giving a celebrity an award is to buy publicity. It does not make Oprah an animal right activist.
Exposing poor agriculture and breeding practices also does not mean you're an animal rights activist. These are welfare issues and deal little with animal rights, who's goal is to elevate animal to the legal equal of humans and banning domestication of animals.
A more appropriate term is animal welfare activist. Sorry if it sound nit picky, but welfare vs rights is a big deal to people concerned about animals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.142.103.70 ( talk) 22:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
In a section of the OW article it says "On January 15, 2008, Winfrey and Discovery Communications announced plans to change Discovery Health Channel into a new channel called OWN: The Oprah Winfrey Network. OWN will debut at an unspecified time in 2010." OWN will debut in January 2011. 2010 has to end before OWN can begin. 23:03 31 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.227.26.78 ( talk) ALLAN LOVES ALEXANDRIA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.44.218 ( talk) 22:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Ebaumsworld is currently trying to get "Oprah Winfrey Dead at 56" to the top of Google Trends. Monitor article closely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.219.27.27 ( talk) 16:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Despite the fact that Oprah is famous for her confessional style, we must remember that this is an encyclopedia article and is subject to the normal rules for Notability and Reliable sources. Too much of the article focuses of biographical details that are not significant enough for an encyclopedia, and in many cases the sources are not authoritive enough to support the sweeping statements they are linked to.
I am going to start going through and trying to clean it up. Please discuss here you have a problem with my edits. Ashmoo ( talk) 12:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I removed this because being a vegan for 3 weeks is not notable. If she was vegan for a long period, or the veganism caused some sort of health problem, or fame, maybe... Ashmoo ( talk) 18:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
In 2008 Winfrey decided to become a vegan for three weeks. [1]
I also removed the following, as having a relative who shares a name with someone famous is not really notable. If there was proof, or even the suggestion that they may be closely related, maybe. But just sharing a name is trivia. Ashmoo ( talk) 10:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Winfrey visited Graceland in 2006 while on her cross-country trip with Gayle King. While having dinner with Lisa Marie Presley and her husband Michael Lockwood, she told Presley that her grandmother's last name was also Presley. [2]
I removed this, because it is just one of those Top 20 TV filler shows, VH1 is an MTV station and in the same poll JFK Jr scored 20 points higher than JFK (as an example of how arbitrary the poll was).
In 2003 Winfrey edged out both Superman and Elvis Presley to be named the greatest pop culture icon of all time by VH1. [3]
Ashmoo ( talk) 08:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I also chopped this, because it doesn't really say much, but more importantly it was said, in a Vogue magazie interview, by an actor in the movie Winfrey was producing/directing while they were promoting the film. The vaguely positive words of an actor who is trying to sell their movie is hardly a Reliable Source. I'm going to put the quote in the movie's article.
Working with delicate subjects, Winfrey managed to keep the cast motivated and inspired. "Here we were working on this project with the heavy underbelly of political and social realism, and she managed to lighten things up", said costar Thandie Newton. "I've worked with a lot of good actors, and I know Oprah hasn't made many films. I was stunned. She's a very strong technical actress and it's because she's so smart. She's acute. She's got a mind like a razor blade." [4]
Ashmoo ( talk) 11:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I removed this section because the text is not supported by the sources. The sources describe a study that links viewing positive behaviours to prosocial behaviour. The fact that the short clip was from an Oprah show is incidental. Ashmoo ( talk) 13:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Since the mid 1990s, Winfrey’s show has emphazied uplifting and inspirational topics and themes. A scientific study by psychological scientists at the University of Cambridge, University of Plymouth, and University of California discovered that simply watching an uplifting clip on the Oprah Winfrey show caused subjects in their experiment to become twice as helpful as subjects assigned to watch a British comedy or nature documentary. The authors of the study concluded that "by eliciting elevation, even brief exposure to other individuals’ prosocial behavior motivates altruism, thus potentially providing an avenue for increasing the general level of prosociality in society." [5] [6]
I just saw the request for a third opinion, so I came and checked it out. I've read both the sources listed above. [24] and [25]. While both mention that the clip was part of an episode of the Oprah show, neither draws the conclusion that the show has a positive effect. Rather, both make the point that uplifting material creates prosocial behavior.
For us to draw the conclusion that all Oprah shows are generally proscial would mean we have to accept that someone even checked the weight of material on various episodes (uplifting vs other categories), that this clip is typical of the show, etc. I don't see anything like this in the sources. Such extrapolations are usually considered to be WP:OR. We should only put such information if that is what the sources are writing about.
If positioned properly, I think it would make a very interesting addition to the article about the show itself. Something brief about the research and that they used a clip from Oprah as their "uplifting" clip. Maybe more sources have written about this study. This link [26] has more indepth and a link to the full study at [27]. AliveFreeHappy ( talk) 22:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
SamanthaG, the article is currently over 100kb long, WP:Article size recommends articles be between 30kb and 50kb. When you edit the page, it even says that the article is too long. As such, I'm trying to pare down the repetition in the article to get it to a readable size. Remember, this is an encyclopedia article which is supposed to be a succinct summary of someone's life, not an exhaustive autobiography which documents everything they ever did, everything that almost happened to them and everything anyone said about them.
Anyway, I chopped the senate seat nomination non-event, because it was in the lede, but I don't think anyone, if they had to summarise Oprah's life in 3 paragraphs would include this. The info is still further down in the article, under political influence, so nothing is lost, except repetition. Ashmoo ( talk) 15:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I changed another statement, this time in the intro because the sources do not seem to support the assertion. One source says she scored highly in a poll about 'favourite TV celebrities' the other is Mandela praising her. There is no cite that says she is 'generally admired' for the reasons given in the article, the 1st poll just says she is a favorite TV personality but doesn't include the criteria people used to make the decision (other people on the list include Glenn Beck & Jon Stewart). Ashmoo ( talk) 09:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I noticed the tone of the article [early life section] is negative also and not very professionally written. i'm new to this and don't know how to edit sections which i would do. the last time i was on wiki you just clicked edit and started typing! i agree with your assesment though. Denij2005deejay ( talk) 08:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Denij2005deejay
I don't understand why she is cited as being one of the most influential people in the world. I live in the UK, which, apart from Canada soaks up the most American culture of any country in the world. And I can say as a fact, I have never heard anyone say Oprah's name or mention anything to do with her that isn't American. Oprah is not part of UK culture, nor is it part of our celeb culture (the trash that some people read), and nor does Oprah influence anything that affects any part of my life. AND I live in London, so its not as if I live buried in a sand pit somewhere. 86.174.170.24 ( talk) 23:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
From the article: The show received so much media attention that even the taxes on the cars became controversial. I don't like the inherent POV "of course you have to pay income tax when someone gives you a car". The morality of income tax on gifts is always controversial (which btw also holds for any income tax, and actually for any tax), so this controversy was not caused by media attention. Since this article is semi protected I'd like to hear more opinions. Joepnl ( talk) 22:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, It seems odd to see this article on Oprah in such a ragged state, with 500 watchers. Is it in the midst of a re-write project by a main editor, has there been large content controversy, or is it that nobody has got around to copy-editing? Puzzled best wishes Spanglej ( talk) 20:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:MOS discourages single line paragraphs. Also the use of ccquotes (with the big blue quote marks) is seeming to hinder readability. Don't know if you have gone through for readability edits as yet... Best wishes Spanglej ( talk) 21:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Just seen a newsreport about Oprah giving away holidays to Australia to all of her audience, would add it in, but am unable to log in from Wiki here. http://uk.tv.yahoo.com/news-extra/article/56290/oprah-winfreys-suprise-gift.html < Source. 77.86.115.215 ( talk) 14:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I think this is the place to discuss the senate question, rather than by edit reverts. Spangle ( talk) 15:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I removed this sentence from the Books & Publishing section, as it is not clear why Sara Nelson should be mentioned in Oprah's article. Oprah has hundreds if not thousands of employees, why should this one be mentioned in her article? Ashmoo ( talk) 11:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Winfrey hired former Publishers Weekly editor–in–chief Sara Nelson in 2009 as books editor at O. [7] [8]
While Kitty Kelley is known for not being completely honest, Katherine Esters, Oprah's much older cousin, conceded that she did reveal to Kelley that Oprah lied about her childhood past. 75.72.35.253 ( talk) 01:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
No, read Kitty Kelley's book and her cousin's confirmation. Her cousin was even willing to say that Kelley lied about Oprah having a different father than the one who raised her, but conceded that she did tell Kelley that Oprah lied about the level of poverty she endured while growing up and that she was molested. Oprah lied about this so people would watch her show. It's good business. 75.72.35.253 ( talk) 22:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Here's a source that claims that her cousin confessed that Oprah's sexual abuse was false and that her father Vernon wavered about her claim when asked. [ [28]] While Kelley also claims she believes Oprah's side of the story, it's not 100% believable either. As I typed earlier, she is known for not being completely honest. It's really hard to believe, from a neutral perspective, that Oprah "shows the full scars of sexual abuse;" Kelley is not a psychologist and she does not see Oprah on a regular basis. She might have said she believed Oprah's side of the story so Oprah fans would buy her book. You should also consider the fact that Oprah first made this claim during the first season of her show, and if Oprah's relatives wanted to protect a family relative and deny this to press, why didn't they do so soon after she made this claim public? They sure didn't stand her way when she was using it as a market ploy and even one of Bing Crosby's own sons, Phillip, tried to refute what his brother Gary wrote about Bing's abuse soon after Gary came public about it. [29] 75.72.35.253 ( talk) 23:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me, but the sources are news articles from MSNBC and the San Francisco Gate. They do comply with the reliable resource policy. Also look up the fan page policy. It is also important to type this in the article because her own family has disputed her claim. 75.72.35.253 ( talk) 16:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Before this discussion goes off around the houses, just a reminder that Wikipedia is not interested in 'truth' but in 'verifiability' see Wikipedia:Verifiability. If a consensus is reached it maybe possible to overtly and openly discuss the different biographers and their accounts, not weighting one account in favour of another, although WP:BLP constrains this. The article is not about our opinions, it's not a soapbox or a means of advocacy. Span ( talk) 18:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
In this edit made over four years ago, somebody changed a substub on " Oprah Winfrey's Legends Ball" into something of the length of a regular article by plagiarizing an article on abc.com that advertised a TV program about it. What resulted was of course mere advertising, plagiarized. The perp openly admitted this several months later.
Since that time the article hasn't changed that much, though it did spring an extra section of mere hearsay, which didn't even say where the hearsay was reported (if it was reported and wasn't merely invented by the editor).
My own inclination is to have the entire article deleted as partly based on advertising and partly unsourced, and anyway about a media event of no obvious significance. However, as somebody who rarely watches the telly and has little interest in pop music, I may not appreciate significance that may be obvious to fans of Winfrey. Perhaps somebody here would like to revise the article to a state where it would be less unlikely to survive AfD. -- Hoary ( talk) 08:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding this sequence of edits— 1, 2, and 3: I reverted because the word "purported" carries negative connotations which need to be well sourced in a BLP article. SamanthaG's compromise, leaving Zomputer's revised sentence but omitting "purported," is fine with me in theory, but I want to note for the record that (1) it changes the meaning of the sentence entirely, reassigning qualities to Winfrey's show that were previously applied to the genre in general, and (2) neither of the two cited sources appears to support either version (and, in fact, the "TIME 100" ref is stale and leads to an irrelevant 2010 page). I don't regularly watch this article, so I leave it to the regulars to decide how best to proceed. Rivertorch ( talk) 23:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Oprah is certainly controversial in some quarters. Why not a section on these controversies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.71.197 ( talk) 01:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwGLNbiw1gk&feature=related I think it is horrible that she uses her money to spread such horrible words about another's God.A loving God who will even forgive her for what she said (denying His existence).Never the less It offends me very much!!!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.64.236 ( talk) 21:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Huh? What is this commenter talking about? I watched the video and it makes Oprah look mature,tolerant, and very spiritual. The Christians in her audience are the ones who look bad! (They INSIST that there is only one way - their way - to worship god). Oprah DID NOT say anything terrible about "anyone else's god". It was the Christians in the video who were insisting they had all the answers and by implication said bad things about how others worship. 70.126.98.155 ( talk) 17:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I remember this happening. However, aside from the fact that Wikipedia statements in general must be verified with reliable-source citations, we absolutely cannot make lawsuit claims about a living person without blatantly violating WP:BLP. I've commented out the passage rather than removed it, since editors more familiar with this article might readily find a cite for these claims — plural, since the Roseanne Barr claim probably needs its own cite. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 19:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of her 2 sisters and brother? Thismightbezach ( talk) 16:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
If you want to provide information about her siblings, it would be useful to also state that her brother, Jeffrey, died in 1989 of AIDS. It is on the same page of the biography that is quoted for footnote 34. Would someone please edit this. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.65.208.138 ( talk) 07:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Who she claimed to know nothing about, even though she is 9 years older than her? Considering she had a kid herself at 14, how can she claim with any credibility not to know that her mother gave birth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.48.155.6 ( talk) 05:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Where the article now says:
It may be more correct to say
"...joined her high school speech team at
East Nashville High School, placing second in the nation in dramatic interpretation..."
Question: did the team place second or Winfrey herself? (And since there's no specific citation for this, I can't check.)--
TyrS
chatties
12:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what subsection to put this under (besides Personal Life, of course), but I think it might be worth including: ...in a December 2010 interview with hannah made her go crazy when she sang born this way cuz she is gay, [Winfrey] said, "I have not one regret about not having children." [32] TyrS chatties 05:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}} On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oprah_Winfrey:
Oprah's full name has been spelled as Orpah Gail Winfrey (in bold text) while it should clearly be Oprah Gail Winfrey.
andrewkno@hotmail.com
Andrewkno ( talk) 14:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Among the Categories associated with this article are "American Christians" and "American Congregationalists". However, I've looked around and it looks like Oprah doesn't claim to be a Christian and is not a member of any church. Some background:
Oprah grew up in Progressive Missionary Baptist Church in Nashville and joined that church before age 15. ( http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/april1/1.38.html?start=3)
In the 1980's, Oprah requested to become a member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago according to Trinity's senior pastor Jeremiah Wright. However, she never completed the membership classes and after awhile her attendance dropped off. ( http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/april1/1.38.html?start=7)
Oprah does "spiritual" New Age stuff and calls her show a ministry, but I have not seen anything to indicate that, since the 1980's, Oprah identifies as a Christian or is a member of a church. Therefore, I propose to remove the Categories "American Christians" and "American Congregationalists". Wideangle ( talk) 02:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Saturdayseven, who has made very few edits and appears to be essentially a single-purpose account devoted to Oprah Winfrey, has been making unsubstantiated accusations of libel, essentially, against biography Kitty Kelley — who, no matter what one thinks of her brand of journalism, is a major author at a major publishing house, and whose Oprah biography was vetted by a legion of lawyers and has never been the subject of a lawsuit. For this editor, who has a history of edit-warring, to summarily remove well-cited claims to a major biography seems a clear case of white-washing. I'd like to get others' opinions on this. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 20:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Top of page says she was born "Orpah" Shouldn't that read
" Oprah" or was she really born with the name "Orpah"?
75.22.56.199 ( talk) 20:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
She was indeed born with the name 'Orpah'. Thanks for being diligent, though.
Cdg123 (
talk)
05:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Someone appears to have erased it and now I will put it back in. This is not a fanpage and it needs to be reported that Esters and her is known for not being completely honest; Esters even disputed Kelley's claim that she told Kelley that Oprah had a different biological father, but did not dispute that she told Kelley that Oprah lied about being molested and exaggerated the level of poverty she endured while growing up. Kelley very well may have made this claim about Oprah having the scars of a rape victim to please Oprah fans. I don't really care that Esters and her daughter told this to Kitty Kelley, but I do care that they disputed Oprah's claim.
To also claim that Oprah's family is trying to cover up family abuse doesn't make sense. Oprah first made this claim during the first season of her show and her family never disputed her claim until the Kelley interview nearly a quarter of a century later. I will not deny people try to cover up family abuse, but it's really hard to imagine that they would wait this long to dispute such a claim to protect a family member. Oprah had already humiliated her uncle and cousin by claiming they molested her and waiting nearly a quarter of a century to dispute this doesn't exactly demonstrate that they would be willing to dispute it so they could protect the image of a family member. Even Phillip Crosby tried to dispute his brother Gary's claim that their Bing Crosby abused him greatly, but he disputed it soon after Gary made this claim. JoetheMoe25 ( talk) 23:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to break it to you both, but I am not stupid and I know when somebody is lying and typing in fanpage content. Saturdayseven, I am not violating the BLP at all. The Daily Beast is a big non-tabloid news site that is very reliable. You also have nothing to show that suggests that Esters told this to Kitty Kelley because Oprah refused to promote her biography and since Oprah made her claim of being molesting in the first season of her show, there were many news reporters and even talk show hosts out there whom she could have told this to; she could have even disputed Oprah's claims on tabloid, celebrity-trashing shows like Entertainment Tonight, A Current Affair and Hard Copy, but did not. I will report you further if you continue to type in biased, unneutral fanpage content. JoetheMoe25 ( talk) 21:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC) The news article, in fact, states that Esters concedes that everything Kelley wrote- with the exception that she told Kelley that Oprah had a different biological father- about their conservation was accurate. He's a quote from it: "The 82-year-old Esters, who still lives near the central Mississippi town of Kosciusko—where Oprah spent six years of her childhood—was quoted several times, usually attached to non-flabbergasting statements that, she concedes, Kelley conveyed accurately." JoetheMoe25 ( talk) 22:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC) Read this too: Wikipedia:Fancruft
You're right, we can't hold back revelance. That's why we got to be neutral. Esters hasn't demonstrated she's an unreliable resource. Where she lived doesn't demonstrate this, as Oprah or one of her family members, even possibly her deceased half-brother, could've told her that she was making it up. If Oprah was the one who told her, she couldn't say this because Oprah would likely deny it. You better find another sucker, because I will never buy into your nonsense. Kitty Kelley also argued it was her opinion that she was in denial. She said “I think Oprah’s family is in denial about the sexual abuse” and “her father and her Aunt Katharine are like the families of other sexual abuse victims; they’re in great denial. But I believe Oprah; she’s a woman who shows the scars of sexual abuse.”
The fact the Oprah refused to promote her memoirs also is a vague and unverifable. The source says Esters criticized Kelly and she implied she would never do such an interview with her again and Oprah, believe it or not, lived in the same area as Esters for six whole years; she was also close to Oprah and was known as "Aunt Katherine." Not even Oprah's father, who she did live with, disputed Esters' claim. You better find another sucker to fool, because I will keep standing up to you and edit with the words of truth. 75.72.35.253 ( talk) 03:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I will not waste my time with this. You also have nothing to prove that demonstrates Oprah and her have had such a feud. Refusing to promote a book doesn't indicate a she has a "tumultuous history" with Oprah. I know what the article says, but it does not indicate she would say this to Kelley for that reason. Oprah could very well had lied about being molested so more people would watch her show; it tends to make celebrities-one example being Maya Angelou(not that I'm disputing her rape claim at all)- more money when they claim this, because the public feels sorry for you when make this claim. JoetheMoe25 ( talk) 23:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
This month's issue of O, The Oprah Magazine seemingly snubbed Freedom by leaving it off its "Ten Titles to Pick Up Now" feature, but books editor Sara Nelson declined to comment on the current rumors.
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
Sara Nelson was named books editor;
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)