Talk:Oprah Winfrey

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)

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)

File:Oprahfirst.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

68.40.25.213 (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done. --Six words (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

	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) 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 Edit request on 5 March 2012
1987	Throw Momma from the Train	Herself