Talk:Oprah Winfrey/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Find Another Fool

I will continue to edit the Oprah page with neutral unlibelous content; I'm just waited for the 24 hour revert rule to expire. You can read my arguments further on the talk page.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Joe, I encourage you to edit the article, it seems you have some good contributions to make, but I would ask you to please read the the wikipedia policies of Assume good faith and Gaming the system and No personal attacks. It will make your time here more enjoyable, and save you from falling afoul of wikipedia banning policy. Ashmoo (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Oprah the person vs. Oprah the show

Part of the reason this article is so large is because it contains lots of information on the Oprah Winfrey Show as well as Oprah Winfrey the person. I realise that in many ways Oprah the person is an integral part of the show and what makes it so successful, but I think we need to start farming some of the details that are solely related to the Show over to that article. Doing this will both improve the Oprah Winfrey Show article and make this article less confusing and easier to read. Ashmoo (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Philanthropy

The whole first paragraph of the philanthropy section lists things that have been given by sponsors, how is this philanthropy? (BigTurnip (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC))

Indeed, these examples are no more philanthropy than the prizes on The Price Is Right. I think it should either be moved to the section on her TV show, or just deleted. Ashmoo (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Not only how can this be philanthropy, but she is always blaming individual people through "human nature" or genetics (i.e. show on movie director that give up everything). I find it hard to take advice from Oprah, a billionaire, on how to target materialism. Perhaps she could include other counter arguments that argue against the system that creates poverty and wealth; instead of the minds and genes of 7 billion people. That is responsible journalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.139.0.55 (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact is we live in a Capitalist world that creates materialism, not the other way around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.139.0.55 (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Seriously?

this is garbage, its just sucks up far too much —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.107.19 (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It does still read much like a hagiography, but it's much tighter than six months ago, so thanks to all who've worked to hone it. Best wishes Span (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

truth about Oprah's claim on being raped

Hi, I'm not a wiki pro but please also provide this link that has interviews with Oprah's relatives about her claim. They simply don't confirm that.


thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.195.1.136 (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Obviously some family members are going to deny that a family member raped her. And this is already mentioned in the article and has already been discussed many times on the talk page. Denial is very common in families where sexual abuse is alleged. And sadly some people do not even consider it rape when an adult has relations with a minor unless the minor was physically forced. Saturdayseven (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is it worded in wikipedia in a way that seems to dispute it? Typical wikipedia misogynist crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.68.156 (talk) 08:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

article about her dogs

There's enough info, that we could make an article about her dogs, or famous celebrity pets in general.70.26.151.169 (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Why, what would we say? —Mike Allen 00:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

manipulation

"She is also, according to some assessments, the most influential woman in the world."

What, please?

An American entertainer is the most influential woman in the world? Plain ridiculous statement, obviously straight from the PR desk of the lady. Also, according to the Korean Central News Agency, Mr Kim Jong Il is the greatest leader in the world.

This article is unbearable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.88.122.175 (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The statement about her being the most influential woman in the world is sourced. The Guardian and Telegraph (both UK newspapers) certainly seem to qualify as reliable sources for this sort of statement. Despite the fact that you or I may not like such claims, if they are verifiable they are acceptable. Sunray (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the article is full of this sort of statement. While they are indeed sourced, most of the sources are of the newspaper editorial quality, which is considered much weaker than a thorough academic assessment of her influence or power. Ashmoo (talk) 09:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
academic sources are even more extreme. There's a professor who says oprah qualifies as a religious figure. Calling her the most influential woman in the world is if anything a huge understatement70.26.151.169 (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Great. Could you please supply a citation to this unnamed academic? These are the sorts of sources that the article needs. Ashmoo (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
It's not just editorials, it's opinions from major figures in American society that are cited in the article: Obama, Maureen Dowd, Bill O'reilly. And it's the entire editorial team at highly respected publications like Time magazine and Life magazine. It will always be an arguable point; no academic will ever be able to prove that Oprah or anyone else was super influential anymore than they can prove Tom Hanks is a great actor or that Faulkner was a great author. But what is notable and worth citing is that she was regarded as super influential by sources of note. Zomputer (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Well that is the whole point. Wikipedia demands 'Verifiability not truth', so things that can't be verified should just not be in the article. Note, I'm not against having a few quotes from commentators, it is just that most of the text detailing her influence is from professional opinion makers, who churn out opinions on all sorts of topics every day, and often with an eye to more controversial/readable opinions, rather than considered opinions. There is real verifiable info about her influence (ratings, quotes from other notable folks who she has influenced) which is much better than vague statements that she is very influential. Ashmoo ([[Uhistorians would be very interested to know that a black girl born in the segregated South of the 1950s grew up to be regarded at extremely influential by the elite media of her day. Obviously it's very difficult to verify precisely how much influence one person really had, however it's easy to verify that Oprah was regarded as a major influence by top opinion makers. Obviously not all media sources are important or credible enough to be our job to tell readers what to think, but it is our job to explain why the media elite thought Oprah was so influential. , so being considered influential actually makes you influential to a large extent. It's the power of prestige. Similarly people do what the president of the United States says, not because he really has the power to force them, but because of the perception of power he has. SamanthaG (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
how is it ridiculous to say oprah's the most influential woman in the world? She's been the most influential media figure in the history of the most influential country in the history of the wold for a quarter century. Even presidents only influence the world for 4 or 8, years. Oprah,s dominated for 25. She tells people what to read, what to watch on tv, who to vote for, and she's created a culture of confession and public emotion that was taboo before she hit the scene. And her success has inspired countless others to get talk shows. Shes far more than just an entertainer. Not only is she the number one talk show in America, but her show airs in 145 countries. Add it all up and she's reached tens of millions of people around the world for an hour a day, five days a week since 1986. plus she has a hit magazine and owns several hit talk shows. And on top of that she's a multibillionaire. She made time magazines influential list an astonishing 8 times, far more than any other human on the planet. You could actually make a very strong case that she's the most influential person in the world, man or woman. She's easily the most influential woman in the world as there are very few women with lasting influence and most are in countries far less significant than America at it's peak, which is when oprah was most dominant. 70.26.151.169 (talk) 14:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Now just find a respectable 3rd party that has made this argument and we can include it in the article. Our opinions on her influence do not belong in the article. Ashmoo (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
And our opinions of her influence are not in the article. Time mgazine and Life magazine gave her that honor, as did countless other sources we cite. Zomputer (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Oprahfirst.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Oprahfirst.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calinerd (talk • contribs) 05:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

How come there is no 'criticism' section in this article?

The lack of a Criticism section makes this article look like a fan page not an encyclopedia entry. Considering the effects this mass media franchise has in society, there have been many if not constant criticisms from many different fields of expertise: by feminists, politicians, religious figures, academics, sociologists and other social scientists, and so on, not to mention from other (rival) media franchises. So how come no contribs made on this expected component of any biographical article? I have not looked at the history, so maybe they were deleted? -- Scriber (talk) 05:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

There section. The criticisms are there, if you read the article. If you have any specific notable, reliably sources criticism that you feel is missing, please be bold and add it. Ashmoo (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
The second ¶ in "Oprafication" is all you're likely to get. Doubtless has been tried before. Not worth the bother, not like there were uniformly enforced standards in wiki that made this worth an especial effort. Lycurgus (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Didn't mean to denigrate the efforts of the editors above, or the success of the social process evident therein, but stand by my statement of the value of such efforts. Lycurgus (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Section about OWN and her role in the network. I didn't come here to read an article about oprah, I wanted to learn about OWN and couldn't find the link here. Maybe its on the page and maybe it isn't. Not easy to find. I'm not sure but since its her current project there needs to be a
I'm not exactly sure what you are saying, but if you type 'Oprah Winfrey Network' into the search box of Wikipedia, it will take you to the article on the OWN. Ashmoo (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

What I learned about Oprah here is..nothing in her life..all the problems..were her fault. NONE. And her 28 year engagement to Stedman is still on!!..lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.116.55 (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

So fix it. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Oprah's name, from the biblical character

The biblical character in the bible that Oprah was named for was "Orpha" and this article mistakenly has "Orpah." The error appears down under Early Life.

likes pancakes (Hmmm, doesn't that sound like a Sousaphone? OOM-pa-pa, OR-pa-pa...but I digress. <smile>

--Shsh38 (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Shsh38

Low quality image

The image of Oprah at the rankings subsection is quite bad and I think it should be removed. Thoughts? Acoma Magic (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Oprah declined to endorse Barak Obama for president- OPEN FOR EDIT

According to the New York Post, Oprah declined to endorse Barak Obama for president in 2012 because ratings might go down on her OWN network. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.209.139.148 (talk) 06:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

[citation needed] --Orange Mike | Talk 23:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Possible troll?

Sorry I'm not familiar with Wikipedia guidelines, but I noticed an unusual sentence towards the end of the article. In the section about her personal life and romantic relationships, the second to last paragraph mentions a Haitian who she had a relationship, but then mentions baths with Michael Jordan which I thought was a bit odd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.91.84 (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Oprah Winfrey Donations of Her Own Money

I've noticed an imbalance in this article. There are numerous solicitations for donations, but nobody has written anything about Oprah donating her money to charitable causes. Does anyone have information to share about this topic? Twillisjr (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

international

i - being from europe - had until about a year ago never heard of oprah winfrey (and i'm sure i'm not the only one here). yes, we have tv and yes, we have us-shows, but oprah's show has never been broadcast here. what i want to say is that a (short) section about her popularity in other parts of the world (not only the americas) would be quite an additon! --193.175.206.234 (talk) 10:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Improve a sentence?

The following sentence does not read well. Can it be improved? --Mortense (talk) 09:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Winfrey's syndicated show brought in double Donahue's national audience

Quotation mark missing at end of this sentence:

... Even Condi has had to play the protegé with Bush. None of this happened to Oprah – she is a straight ahead success story.

Misspelled Oprah Winfrey's Article

Hi,

The Article about Oprah Winfrey has a minor typo.

The name after her image is showing "Orpah", it should be "Oprah".

Appreciate if someone correct it as I am newbie here and does not have access to update it.

Thanks, Forumfinder — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forumfinder (talk • contribs) 08:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

"Orpah" is not a typo. The spelling is next to "Born". Click the little number to read the footnote which links to [1], or see Oprah Winfrey#Early life. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 April 2013

Oprah in the side box is spelt wrong i one spot only the rest is right!Oprah not Orpah! Please change Orpah to Oprah 173.202.142.116 (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Asked and answered above. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 May 2013

Please fix the spelling of Oprah's name underneath her picture on the right column of the article. It currently reads "ORPah" instead of OPRah.

Thanks!

WHIMPEYD (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Check the reference attached to both instances of the word "Orpah" in the article - according to Oprah herself, her birth certificate reads "Orpah". The article is correct as written - she was born Orpah Winfrey. --ElHef (Meep?) 00:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, since I was just about to reply, and have this on my clipboard, from the reference, here it is in case it is hard to find:
Hope it helps. Begoon talk 00:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Oprah Winfrey promotes every pseudoscience. The articles should deal with it more thoroughly. To her estimated total audience of 100 million, many of whom uncritically accept every word the world's wealthiest celebrity says, she promotes the paranormal, psychic powers, new age spiritualism, conspiracy theories, quack celebrity diets, past life regression, angels, ghosts, alternative therapies like acupuncture and homeopathy, anti-vaccination, detoxification, vitamin megadosing, and virtually everything that will distract a human being from making useful progress and informed decisions in life.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.222.204.33 (talk • contribs) 14:19, July 9, 2013‎

While I share your opinion that much of this is bunk, to discuss it in this article we would need a reliable source discussing it as such in the context of it being on Winfrey's show. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
See User:Ret.Prof to discuss it in this article. 70.27.27.162 (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Alleged racism incident in Switzerland

It could be included that Oprah was in Zurich, Switzerland, when an assistant at an upscale handbag shop told her the purse she was looking at (worth over $35,000) was “too expensive” for her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.60.168.87 (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a bit much that this is being assumed to have been racism. I was bum-rushed out of a jewelry shop in Switzerland... Told I was wasting their time. I hadn't spoken to anyone in the shop, but they were hovering over me constantly, as If I were going to pull out a high-powered laser and cut through the 5cm thick plexiglas showcase. I'm white. Of course, I am also American, which is reason enough for them to be suspicious... Apparently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The democrats are playing the race card again. Here is the source where the saleswoman explained herself: Original source: http://www.schweizer-illustrierte.ch/stars/schweiz/oprah-winfrey-rassismus-vorwurf-zuerich-handtaschen-verkaeuferin-interview and translated by Google: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.schweizer-illustrierte.ch%2Fstars%2Fschweiz%2Foprah-winfrey-rassismus-vorwurf-zuerich-handtaschen-verkaeuferin-interview I am so sick of democrats playing the race card.

The Swiss newspaper interview with the Swiss saleswoman has not appeared anywhere in the U.S. media nor even been noticed that it has taken place. In her own interview with the U.S. media Mrs. Winfrey has accused the Swiss saleswoman of racism and has put words in the mouth of the saleswoman which are denied by the saleswoman herself in her own interview. If Mrs. Winfrey can't prove her accusations, she is a liar and is slandering the saleswoman. As a matter of fact, the Winfrey TV show is largely unknown in most of Europe; it is not broadcasted anywhere as the TV show is heavily americocentric and thus not of interest to European viewers. Also, the Swiss saleswoman is an Italian citizen and as such more familiar with speaking Italian, German and French than English. She was addressed in American English by Mrs. Winfrey. Mrs. Winfrey should, like all touritst, try to learn to communicate in the language of the country she visits and make herself familiar with the local customs and manners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.247.112.124 (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The BBC reported the sales associate as having said (lifting directly from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23633768 here, bold is mine):

Speaking to US TV show Entertainment Tonight, she said: "I go into a store and I say to the woman, 'Excuse me, may I see the bag right above your head?' and she says to me, 'No. It's too expensive.'"
When Winfrey insisted, the shop assistant allegedly replied: "No, no you don't want to see that one, you want to see this one because that one will cost too much. You will not be able to afford that."

Blatant racism to me, and I am not a Democrat. 85.53.130.166 (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

As stated before it would be helpful to learn a foreign language - if not to communicate perfectly, to learn about empathy in relation to a possible missunderstanding. The bag was behind glass and it probably made sense to look at the same model in a different material. For the going on I have big problems to believe the rather ridiculous, mentioned here "You will not be able to afford that" (that was added at the end of the interview phrase and seems to be an interpretation). No one will say this in a shop like this with customers from all around the world spending really big amounts and certainly not all of them dressed-up like her. (Oprah stated herself; “I washed my hair and I put on my Donna Karan skirt because I know the people in those stores can be very snooty pooty, so I thought let me dress so I don’t get turned away, and it happened anyway, so I guess I didn’t get dressed up enough,” she said.) No, sorry, it certainly isn't about dressing up, I'm astonished about such a - to my opinion - naive statement. As also mentioned here, giving statements such as about "the people in those stores" leaves an aftertaste for all service professionals.--Caumasee (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

ridiculous

One of the most ridiculous inclusions in the article is "She is also, according to some assessments, the most influential woman in the world." Dead wrong! In the U.S. she maybe is, and nowhere else in the world for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.249.76 (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

"most influential"

FORBES magazine states that German Chancellor Angela Merkel is the world's most influential woman. FORBES is a trustworthy source for Wikipedia, gossip press is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.131.78.216 (talk) 10:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm assuming you are referring to the mention in the lead. This is merely a summary of the later section Oprah_Winfrey#Rankings, which is well sourced. Maybe a tweak to the wording there? - SummerPhD (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Forbes says merkel is the most POWERFUL woman in the world. Oprah is the most INFLUENTIAL. Power means nothing unless you can turn it into influence, and oprah proved that she could by electing the first black president.65.92.198.135 (talk) 05:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Different sources will have different opinions about who is the most "powerful", "influential", etc. They are opinions, not facts. As such we report what reliable sources say as opinions of the sources: "According to an article in the New York Times, Jane Smith is the most powerful person on the planet.<ref>Doe, John. April 1, 2075, New York Times.<ref>" NOT: "Jane Smith is the most powerful person on the planet.<ref>Doe, John. April 1, 2075, New York Times.<ref>". - SummerPhD (talk) 17:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Most influential possibly within the U.S. The world includes the area outside of the U.S., too. English is not only read and spoken in the U.S. but in England, Wales, Scotland, Australia and Canada, for example. She is not influential outside of the U.S., especially not in countries where they have their own language. This article is clearly tailored by Americans for American readers only which is no NPOV. Much of it reads like a PR campaign anyway.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.157.54.175 (talk • contribs) 08:13, October 29, 2013‎
Do you have suggestions as to what might be done to improve the article? - SummerPhD (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
saying she's only influential in the U.S. is a huge understatement. Here in Canada she's extremely influential too, not to mention we have sources even documenting her influence in the Arab world. But that's not the point. Even if she were only influential in her house, she could still be the most influential in the world, if everyone else is only influences their bedroom. The article does not even say she influenced the world (though clearly she has through her impact on American culture and politics) it says she's the most influential woman in the world, meaning no other living woman has had more impact. No one is influential in every country...just influencing one country is enough to make you the most influential woman in the world, particularly if that country is/was as influential as America. And calling someone influential is not praising them. Hitler and Bin Laden were both hugely influential when you examine their impact on history, but that influence is considered evil. Oprah's biggest critics are the first to acknowledge her influence but argue that her new age spiritual influence is sending millions to hell or her role in electing Obama has destroyed the world. So calling someone influential, especially when so well sourced, is not POV, it's extremely neutral. Catsoccer (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2013

Please change the misspelling of Oprah Winfrey's name in the box of personal info on the right of her Wikipedia page. It says Orpah Gail Winfrey, and that is wrong from what I know and have heard. Change it to her real name, which is Oprah Gail Winfrey. Thank you.

I do not have any reliable sources to provide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.34.117.115 (talk • contribs) 20:19, December 27, 2013‎

Not done. "Orpah" is correct. Please see Oprah_Winfrey#Early_life for an explanation. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Oprah is now 60

Please change the page to list Oprah's age as 60, not 59. She turned 60 2 days ago and it still has not updated.--71.79.43.204 (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Just for future reference, that should update automatically. No need to request it, although sometimes it may take a couple of days ———Digital Jedi Master (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

First Name

So we know that she was born "Orpah", but goes by "Oprah" because that's what everyone calls her. However, does anyone know if she's legally changed her name, or if Oprah would be considered a stage name? -- 24.212.139.102 (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Controversy and POV issues

This article has a very American slant and a very positive slant toward Oprah. She is represented as having "emerged as an influential spiritual leader" and quite a lot of space is given over to this.

She has also created controversy and I think her visit to India should not be left out of the conversation, since it was seen as quite offensive there. From the BBC article, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18967127:

Winfrey, 58, drew particular criticism for remarking on the Indian tradition of eating with one's hands. "I heard some Indian people eat with their hands still?" she is seen asking a Mumbai family she joins for dinner.

The middle class Indian family handled Oprah's comments quite gracefully at the dinner table, but it was widely condemned in India as implying that their lack of cutlery made them backward.

Later, she went into a modest family's 10' by 10' single room home and asked the children, “Don’t you feel it’s too cramped?”. She went on to ask questions that made the head of the household cry, making it clear throughout that she was quite surprised about the poverty they lived in. Oprah, in http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/oprah-winfrey-defends-criticism-indian-viewers/story?id=16846172: "When I stepped in the door I was thinking, 'OK, where is the house? Where's the rest of the house?' And then I realized I was already in it," Winfrey says in the episode.

This article does not objectively represent its subject. 85.53.130.166 (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

There is virtually no criticism of Ms. Winfrey, when she isn't quite as popular as it may seem. Her "mad cow" and other incidents should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.9.224 (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

There should be a controversy section. Her false allegation of racism in Switzerland - to promote a movie - and disparaging remarks about people - should be noted. The article at present reads rather like a hagiography, and needs balance.Royalcourtier (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

While I agree that the article is currently too hagiographic, please do not make a controversy section as it is specifically against the WP manual of style. Any criticisms or controversies should be included in the article in the appropriate section. Please feel free to do so. Ashmoo (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
If added, any info like that should use neutral language, and should only be added if it's notable and improves the article. Remember, just because an article lacks criticism, doesn't mean any and all should be added in attempt to be "balanced". That's not being neutral. Remember the recommended proportionality. ———Digital Jedi Master (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmph

Yet another article putting the word normal in quotation marks. Still maintaining the pretense that Wiikipedia is neutral or is someone finally going to admit that it has a postmodern existentialist hivemind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.69.59 (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Also "deviant". It's almost like we're quoting someone using words to have specific meanings defined by their context. Would it be some how less bending to the conformation of the postmodern existentialist hivemind hegemonic paradigm to ignore solipsistic contextualization? - SummerPhD (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2014

165.155.212.74 (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. NiciVampireHeart 17:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
See [2] 216.249.56.22 (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2014

I wish to add content about Hilary Swank and Oprah's episode where Hilary Swank allowed Oprah to cut off her hair for Women wigs for Cancer patients Kulkarni Ashwini (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights. If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request. - Arjayay (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Chip Babcock

I'm looking for help to resolve an Orphan tag issue with the recently created Chip Babcock article and would like to suggest adding Chip's name into this article as he is the lawyer who represented Oprah in the lawsuit discussed in the second paragraph of "The Oprah Effect" section. Here is the relevant text that currently appears in this section:

During a show about mad cow disease with Howard Lyman (aired on April 16, 1996), Winfrey said she was stopped cold from eating another burger. Texas cattlemen sued her and Lyman in early 1998 for "false defamation of perishable food" and "business disparagement", claiming that Winfrey's remarks sent cattle prices tumbling, costing beef producers $11 million. On February 26, after a two-month trial in an Amarillo, Texas court, a jury found Winfrey and Lyman were not liable for damages.[1]

References

  1. ^ "Oprah: 'Free speech rocks'". CNN. February 26, 1998. Archived from the original on October 6, 2009.

Here is how I would like to suggest revising this text. I have highlighted the new text in green.:

Revision to "The Oprah Effect" section
During a show about mad cow disease with Howard Lyman (aired on April 16, 1996), Winfrey said she was stopped cold from eating another burger. Texas cattlemen sued her and Lyman in early 1998 for "false defamation of perishable food" and "business disparagement", claiming that Winfrey's remarks sent cattle prices tumbling, costing beef producers $11 million. Winfrey was represented by attorney Chip Babcock and, on February 26, after a two-month trial in an Amarillo, Texas court, a jury found Winfrey and Lyman were not liable for damages.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ "Oprah: 'Free speech rocks'". CNN. February 26, 1998. Archived from the original on October 6, 2009.
  2. ^ Susan Snyder (June 9, 2012). "Sandusky jury has strong Penn State ties". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved 7 July 2014. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Markup
During a show about [[mad cow disease]] with [[Howard Lyman]] (aired on April 16, 1996), Winfrey said she was stopped cold from eating another burger. Texas cattlemen sued her and Lyman in early 1998 for "false defamation of perishable food" and "business disparagement", claiming that Winfrey's remarks sent cattle prices tumbling, costing beef producers $11 million. Winfrey was represented by attorney [[Chip Babcock]] and, on February 26, after a two-month trial in an [[Amarillo, Texas|Amarillo]], Texas court, a jury found Winfrey and Lyman were not liable for damages.<ref>{{cite news|title=Oprah: 'Free speech rocks'|url=http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/26/oprah.verdict/|publisher=CNN|date=February 26, 1998|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20091006060345/http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/26/oprah.verdict/|archivedate=October 6, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Sandusky jury has strong Penn State ties |author=Susan Snyder |coauthor=Jeremy Roebuck |url=http://articles.philly.com/2012-06-09/news/32125098_1_judge-john-m-cleland-jury-room-sandusky-jury |work=[[The Philadelphia Inquirer]] |date=June 9, 2012 |accessdate=7 July 2014}}</ref>

A note: as the CNN article currently cited in the section does not mention Chip Babcock by name, I have added in this article from The Philadelphia Inquirer which verifies that Chip Babcock represented Oprah.

Are other editors agreeable to including Chip's name in this section? If so, is someone able to update "The Oprah Effect" section with the mark up above? My involvement with the creation of the Chip Babcock article (via AfC), as well as my request here, are on behalf of Chip. For this reason I will refrain from making any mainspace edits related to Chip.

Thanks, Morzabeth (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done If only all conflict of interest edits were this simple. Tutelary (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick help! Morzabeth (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

BLP vios

No sources are given for her birth date, readily citable from TV Guide (http://www.tvguide.com/celebrities/oprah-winfrey/bio/168611) and elsewhere, nor for the "c. 1935" claim for her mother. Where did that year come from? And if we can't give a credible cite for it, why is it there? --209.122.114.237 (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

spelling mistake

caption on the top photo mispells Oprah as Orpah...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.11.15.11 (talk • contribs) 17:56, September 3, 2014‎

Please see the source cited there. That is not a mistake. (Also explained at Oprah_Winfrey#Early_life.) - SummerPhD (talk) 05:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Oprah Winfrey Sold Harpo Studios For $30.5 Million

Oprah Winfrey Sold Harpo Studios For $30.5 Million

Oprah Winfrey sold Harpo Studioshttp://creditcardloaninsurancemoney.com/big-money-oprah-winfrey-sold-harpo-studios/, according to EurWeb. The Oprah Winfrey Network is on the move .Mrs Winfrey’s three-year-old cable channel has signed a multi year lease for new office space on The Lot in West Hollywood. OWN employees will move into three floors of a newly constructed five-story building on the storied property, which will serve as the network’s Los Angeles-based headquarters, at the end of this year.

While Winfrey’s company Harpo Inc. will remain intact, they will soon no longer occupy their studio in Chicago.

Fast-growing Chicago-based real estate developer Sterling Bay Cos. recently closed on its acquisition of the four-building West Side facility of the production company founded by Oprah Winfrey, paying a combined $30.5 million in five different land transactions for about 170,000 square feet of space. Back in October, representatives of Winfrey’s Oprah Winfrey Network confirmed that the onetime talk-show queen’s Harpo Productions had hired a real estate firm to evaluate selling some of the 3.48-acre Harpo Studios campus.Sterling Bay Managing Principal Andy Gloor told the Tribune that his firm hasn’t yet decided any redevelopment plans for the campus. Stephen Livaditis of Eastdil Secured represented Harpo in the deal.

Harpo Studios has been based on that property since 1988, when Winfrey moved her talk show to the then-struggling city neighborhood, setting up camp in what then was an 88,000-square-foot facility. With a small team of investors, she bought the facility and later expanded it. In the years since, the neighborhood has developed into a dining, shopping and residential spot, with Winfrey’s presence credited for helping the renaissance.

Harpo Studios employs over 200 people in the Chicago area. This was Winfrey’s last remaining commercial real estate property in Chicago, which she left three years ago to create the Oprah Winfrey Network (OWN) in Los Angeles.


  • Oprah to sell Harpo Studios March 16,2014 Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).for $32 million after 25 years
  • Oprah Winfrey’s Harpo Studio will be sold to a developer
  • The studio, which employs 200 workers, is expected to go for about $32 million

[1]


Her Black Culture and Origins are Ignored

The fact that she had emerged from within Afro-American Film and Culture isn't being discussed and will be included.shiznaw (talk) 03:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC) A female author who wrote a parody of Uncle Tom`s Cabin was born to a mother who was also named Oprah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.169.121.10 (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2015

she is 61 today 78.145.17.71 (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2015 (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. Stickee (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2015

oprah winfrey is an american atress she host videos shows and movies ....................... thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.22.226 (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Oprah has had a string of controversy.

Oprah has had many controversies, some very serious. The Wikipedia page shows almost none of them. Last fall she gave an interview concerning racism in America and proposed that to end racism the death of a large number of older whites would be desired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:5C00:B45:B187:736D:B1BD:70A2 (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Religion

No mention of her religion? http://www.charismanews.com/us/33290-oprah-winfrey-i-am-a-christian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.240.85 (talk) 11:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Author

Oprah Winfrey is also an author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.255.224 (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

"Orpah"

Hi all, I can't be the only one who saw "Orpah" in the infobox and went to change it, only to see an editorial note. We shouldn't be forcing readers and editors to navigate away from the page to learn this—while they can read the information in the "Early life" section, it's not immediately apparent to people that they should just scroll down. Can we include a link (example) or a explanatory footnote? Best, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I've boldly added an explanation in the footnote. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
A great lady! Sitembele Mzamane — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.16.230.126 (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The Life You Want forthcoming Oprah memoir

Started article on Memoir forthcoming in 2017. Didn't see an obvious placement for it in article, so I came here to ask someone more familiar with her life/career and this page to add it to the page. Thanks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

PR

This is an PR article of the worst kind, and nothing else! Where has the criticism section gone? Glorification to the hilt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:46:1A08:5207:B069:67FF:1E03:165E (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Adding name of premature son

I noticed that this Daily Mail article from December 2, 2015 reports that Oprah named her premature son "Canaan." I can't add this myself since her bio is locked for editing, but here is the citation if someone else would like to update the page: [2] Jzimjohnson (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://creditcardloaninsurancemoney.com/big-money-oprah-winfrey-sold-harpo-studios/
  2. ^ Ojomu, Nola. "'I had a son, I named him Canaan': Oprah Winfrey reveals the name she chose for the premature baby she lost aged 14... while sharing her words of wisdom in Melbourne". Daily Mail. Retrieved 24 January 2016.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Too Positive

It seems as if it is an ad campaign. Where are the controversies? There is no controversy. Oprah is God on Earth. Don't hate on a sister.

You do have a point! 129.97.58.107 (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Billionaire update

in the overall description of the article, it is stated " and is currently (2015) North America's only black billionaire.". This changed in 2015 with the 2 billion dollar acquisition of the Clippers by Steve Ballmer, which increased the overall appraised value of Michael Jordan's majority share in the then-Charlotte bobcats, currently Charlotte-Hornets, to five hundred million dollars. This, combined with his lucrative deals with Nike, Gatorade, etc., has placed his net worth at 1.1 billion dollars, making him the second african american billionaire. [1] Therefore, the text should be changed to "and is currently one of only two black billionaires in North America." Or something to that effect

Done EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.forbes.com/sites/mfonobongnsehe/2015/03/02/the-black-billionaires-2015/4/#694428da1489

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Dish

Why doesn't someone dish the dirt on this woman? 109.157.12.18 (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Race card

Where are the events in France and Switzerland where she tried to pull the race card? These are probably the only reasons why Winfrey has become known to some of the local populations outside of America. With the exception of some British TV audience, she is virtually unknown in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:46:1A08:52DD:A0D3:4F53:FE53:7771 (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Weight Watchers

Dear Oprah,

I have been a member of WW and own the stock! Great idea for new CEO: Michelle Obama. She has great knowledge and could expand WW for children.

A great fan of yours!! Sue Ann Haesloop — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.168.151.176 (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

[Sic] after inaccurate quote

Someone quotes Oprah in the article as saying, "You cannot be my friend and use that word around me. ... I always think of the millions of people who heard that as their last word as they were hanging from a tree." This is extremely inaccurate since according to the very wikipedia page on lynching in the United States a "five-year study published in 2015 by the Equal Justice Initiative found that nearly 3,959 black men, women, and children were lynched in the twelve Southern states between 1877 and 1950." The Equal Justice Initiative is a very pro-African organization, with its executive director being Bryan Stevenson, a man who has made it his life's work to advancing African people's rights. They have no reason to lie. Someone please add a [sic] after "millions". If Oprah had said "I always think of the two million Jews who died in the Holocaust..." we would add a [sic] because everyone knows six million, not two died. I'd revise the quote myself, but someone keeps reverting my correct edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PUNk Limited (talk • contribs) 03:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, since nobody is against this very small edit, I'll make the change PUNk Limited (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

But if someone had said tens of millions of Jews, would anybody add a [sic]. Zomputer (talk) 11:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

reverse disinformation "most influential woman in the world"

"most influential woman in the world" is a ridiculous claim. German Merkel maybe would be a better candidate for that position. Maybe Winfrey is the most influential woman in the United States. Outside of Northern America, Winfrey is virtually unknown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:46:1A12:95D8:F04F:60BE:C69F:A063 (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

For the record, "most influential woman" was a title given by the sources cited. Not by Wikipedia editors. So it's not disinformation, as you suggest. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

"and is currently North America's first and only multi-billionaire black person."

Conflicts with Michael Jordan#Media figure and business interests ("As of November 2015, his current net worth is estimated at $1.1 billion by Forbes.") and Robert F. Smith (investor) ("He was #688 on Forbes 2016 list of the world's billionaires, with a net worth of US$3 billion.") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.215.86 (talk) 08:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

typo in birth name

In the leed section, it says "orpah" instead of "oprah"


thanks



Eric Ramus

That is the correct spelling. See references in early life section.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 15:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Oprah Winfrey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Oprah Winfrey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Category:Critics of Islamophobia from this article and removal of this category by User: Cpt.a.haddock

This article is in the category "Critics of Islamophobia", but there seems to be no source to this.

I have removed it, but it was reverted. Yes, she made Islam friendly statements, but that is not the same as criticism of Islamophobia for which there is no source.

There is a discussion about the inclusion of articles that are in this category at category "Critics of Islamophobia".

I am trying to understand if a source is needed to categorize it also for this and all other articles. There are many articles where the article is categorized and it is sourced to a published article.

User:Cpt.a.haddock is removing this category from several pages even though it is sourced to published article. He says it is not enough for categorization. (For example, at Vinay Lal the categorization is sourced to this article: V. Lal: Implications of American Islamophobia, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 50, Issue No. 51, 19 Dec, 2015. But even then, the category was removed by User Cpt.a.Haddock.)

See his contributions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cpt.a.haddock

The question is, is this enough for categorization? If this source is not good enough, I do not understand how this article is categorized in the category without sources. --Sebastianmaali (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2017

119.194.235.58 (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2017 (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. nihlus kryik (talk) 06:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Philanthropy

The cited article does not mention the stated amount of $400 million to education institutions. It only mentions a figure of $105 million in the year 2010 as it pertains to a single educational program. The article was written in 2012. Therefore, 2 inaccuracies. 76.69.79.238 (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2017

CHANGE "Judge Bumbleden" to "Judge Bumbleton" thanks 65.174.45.82 (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Done —MRD2014 Happy Holidays! 18:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Should there not a small section on Jerry Turner and Lance Armstrong?

Hello all,

Should there not be a small section on the fact that she cp-anchored with Jerry Turner and he was the reason she got fired that first year? There is enough information out there that she felt extremely humiliated by him?

I am also missing a part on the Lance Armstrong interview. This was rather big and the first time he admitted to taking doping. Lance Armstrong is a big name so not sure why this interview is not mentioned here? Garnhami (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Link to "Oprah’s ugly secret" is incorrect

The link to Peter Birkenhead's Salon article "Oprah’s ugly secret" (http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2007/03/05/the_secret/) is incorrect and results in a 404, it should be changed to https://www.salon.com/2007/03/05/the_secret/

Unuphrio Muralto (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Presidential aspirations

What would be the correct action?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Until and unless she advises she has such aspirations, we have to assume she has none. No matter what others may say. No matter what. So, the answer is: do nothing. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 05:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Oprah 2020! And you get a car, and you get a car!Ernio48 (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
There sure is a lot of news coverage of speculation that she will run. Once she says she will, if she does, shouldn't that be documented?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Fun Facts

Once Oprah gave everyone in her audience a car. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.234.88 (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2018

Under the section heading 'Oprahfication' there currently appears this sentence:

"Winfrey's disclosures about her weight (which peaked at 238 lbs (108 kg)) also paved the way for other plus-sized women in media[citation needed] such as Roseanne Barr, Rosie O'Donnell and Star Jones. "

I request that the above sentence be removed, or at a minimum that Roseanne Barr's and Rosie O'Donnell's names be removed. There is no evidence whatsoever that Oprah's comments paved the way for these women to succeed in their chosen careers. I have studied the careers of female comedians and the reason for their success has a lot to do with their courage in a male-dominated field, their inner qualities such as hardiness, their unique perspectives, and the quality of their comedy. The comedy field has never needed a person to be glossy and conventionally attractive in order to succeed. Quite the opposite in fact. A talk show host talking about their weight has not magically enabled each of these gutsy talented comedians to have a career. The comedians' persistence and talent resulted in their careers. It is unfair and inaccurate to give the credit for the careers of Roseanne Barr and Rosie O'Donnell to Oprah Winfrey. 115.187.249.163 (talk) 03:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done: I removed the sentence, which had been tagged as unreferenced since 2013. RivertorchFIREWATER 05:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2018

With a 2000 net worth of $800 million, Winfrey is believed to be the richest African American of the 20th century.

Please change "believed to be" to "believed to have been" because the 20th century is over. Or, please change the end to "21st century." The statement is not sourced (the next citation doesn't mention anything about her being the richest African American), so if you're uncomfortable changing this without a citation, please add {­{citation needed}­} instead. 208.95.51.38 (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2018

71.187.204.213 (talk) 00:42, 28 August 2018 (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. NiciVampireHeart 10:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2018

PLEASE CORRECT: Part 2 is the 23rd episode in Season 4. It is not the 22nd, which is only the Part 1 episode.

Section: Filmography > Subsection: As actress

"The Puppy Episode: Part 1" (#4.22)
"The Puppy Episode: Part 2" (#4.23) 69.209.225.209 (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2019

Please change dead url http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/win0int-1 to https://www.achievement.org/achiever/oprah-winfrey/#interview

Please change "Oprah Winfrey Interview". Academy of Achievement. January 21, 1991. Archived from the original on January 19, 2016. Retrieved August 25, 2008. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)</ref>

to "Oprah Winfrey Biography and Interview". www.achievement.org. American Academy of Achievement. PippaDiggs (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done @PippaDiggs: Thank you for contributions to Wikipedia. Also letting you know that you can now edit semi protected pages Breawycker (talk to me!) 18:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Name?

Should the sentence begin with Oprah Gail Winfrey (born Orpah Gail Winfrey, January 29, 1954) or Oprah Gail Winfrey (originally spelled Orpah, born January 29, 1954), the latter like the one in Farrah Fawcett article? I'm not sure. What do you think? Lemonreader (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2019

For the below section, please include this link to source: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/business/media/oprah-signs-deal-with-xm-satellite-radio.html

"On February 9, 2006, it was announced that Winfrey had signed a three-year, $55-million contract with XM Satellite Radio to establish a new radio channel. The channel, Oprah Radio, features popular contributors to The Oprah Winfrey Show and O, The Oprah Magazine including Nate Berkus, Dr. Mehmet Oz, Bob Greene, Dr. Robin Smith, and Marianne Williamson. Oprah & Friends began broadcasting at 11:00 am ET, September 25, 2006, from a new studio at Winfrey's Chicago headquarters. The channel broadcasts 24 hours a day, seven days a week on XM Radio Channel 156. Winfrey's contract requires her to be on the air 30 minutes a week, 39 weeks a year."

Which section would you like it in? Interstellarity (talk) 12:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: This appears to be actually a request to use the offered source to replace the "citation needed" tag in the last sentence of the Other media - Radio section, which matches the text in the request already. Unfortunately, the NYT article does not mention the requirements for airtime. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2020

change "Orpah Gail Winfrey" to "Oprah Gail Winfrey" in the right side summary box. Randy8891 (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The note mentions that this spelling is her birth name. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Name

Why does the "Early Life" section begin with "Born Oprah Gail Winfrey..." when everything else in the article indicates she was born "Orpah" (after the Biblical person etc etc), but the mispronunciation stuck? Surely it should match the other statements in the article on the matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.65.76 (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2020

The name Oprah is misspelled to Orpah in the right corner of the page. "Born Orpah Gail Winfrey[1]" Adleras (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The note mentions that this spelling is her birth name. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Friends from Past!

Oprah had a lot of close friends some she still talks to today. Oprah had a friend back when she was in Uni named Jacob and Grace. She said I quote in an interview with "The Project" 'I always love hanging out with my friends in Uni we always got some tea and sat and just talked for hours.' Sadly Oprah fell out of touch with Jacob and Grace due to them getting a job overseas. Oprah has said that they have jobs over in Australia but travel across the world for other businesses. Oprah said back in 2012 was the last she saw them while they were getting tea and a fellow person that Jacob disliked pushed him over. So Oprah had to say her word. Oprah wants to see them again in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakeyTea2507 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Oprah Winfrey responsible for mainstream acceptance of LGBT people

Hi @SamanthaG:, in this edit[3], I removed the section because it makes the extraordinary claim that Oprah Winfrey is responsible for the mainstream acceptance of LGBT people. This is based on original research and the opinion of a single academic. Such a claim of Oprah Winfrey's effect of mainstream culture requires more reliable sourcing, otherwise the section gives too much weight to a single opinion, rather than a biographical fact. Perhaps some text about Oprah's support of gay rights in the mid-90s could be included elsewhere in the article. Cjhard (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and that paragraph you removed was written very unencyclopedically. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

There are entire articles based on a single reference. This section happens to quote an extremely scholarly reference. And it doesn't claim she alone is responsible; only that she played a pivotal part. It was Donahue who was the father of gay media media visibility but the success of Oprah transformed his one show into an entire industry & all the talk shows that followed played a part too. Keep in mind that TV talk shows were incredibly influential in those days with just Oprah averaging 9 to 14 million viewers a day in America alone. If the section is so bad, why did it take 10 years for anyone to object to it? SamanthaG (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Presidential Speculation

Is there a reason the 2019 speculation around Winfrey running for President is not mentioned in the "Politics" section? While nothing came of it, it was a relatively serious and intense period of brief media speculation which included quotes from Winfrey herself about it. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 05:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Adele interview

Since this is protected - may I suggest at some time in the future that a mention of the Adele interview be added, roughly where the Harry/Meghan interview is mentioned? This format/style of interview seems to be a trend - something she may continue to do and not a one time thing. A possible reference: https://www.oprahdaily.com/entertainment/a38278186/oprah-adele-behind-the-scenes/ 2603:8001:2A00:7428:2074:2E8C:EBC6:BC78 (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2022

My mane doesn't need to be credited but I notice in the "early life" portion at the beginning where you write about Oprah's name and how she got that name. She spoke about this on her episode of "who do you think you are". She stated that she was from a poor uneducated family and her grandmother wanted to name her Orpah, but because she was fairly illiterate she accidently spelt it Oprah on the both certificate. 97.123.186.88 (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2022 (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. The two footnotes already go into quite a bit of detail about this, what exactly are you requesting be changed/added? Cannolis (talk) 05:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Mononymous?

Hi, shouldn't the lead mention that she is usually just called Oprah? She is literally an example of a mononymous person in our article on the subject. Also, the short name redirects here already and is popular. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

From what I've discovered on WP BLP style for mononymous names, it seems like her name could be presented in the lede as, Oprah Gail "Oprah" WinfreyKerdooskis (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Point taken. 76.66.120.69 (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Is it seriously supposed to be called a lede instead of a lead? A Tree In A Box (talk) 12:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Either "lead" or "lede" works, both are correct. 92.0.185.52 (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, both work 2607:FEA8:1FDF:9500:D948:3C6:9DCE:FADA (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Family

People fail to mention that Oprah is cousins to Elvis Presley. She has stated that her grand mother was a Presley. 47.216.167.7 (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

influencial?

she has had no influence on me or anyone i know. she lost credibility with the harry and megan show. 2.100.194.8 (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2023

I would like the "born Orpah Gail Winfrey" thing in brackets at the beginning removed. We obviously know she was born with this name. 2604:3D08:9476:BE00:CCBB:CBDF:D78B:C079 (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Her name was different at birth then it is now, so standard practice is to leave the article as is. Bestagon ⬡ 06:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Crime Fighters of Timothy'valley port Elizabeth we need your help help Mrs

We want to open a game centre ,a library ,we want our children to be active in all sports etc program as part of rehabilitation and part of change we request for your assistance mrs 154.117.148.182 (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe you have the wrong address. — Toast for Teddy (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2023

I request to edit part of Oprah Winfrey's page about her successful career. NickValid (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. NotAGenious (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

"Oprah's Last Chapter" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Oprah's Last Chapter has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 2 § Oprah's Last Chapter until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

"Harpo Winfrey" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Harpo Winfrey has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 2 § Harpo Winfrey until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oprah_Winfrey/Archive_6&oldid=1211061381"