Talk:Oprah Winfrey

Changing "Democrats" to "Democratic Party"

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)

Billy Rizzo

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)

Sad though his death may have been, Wikipedia is not a memorial and he would have to be notable in his own right to merit an article here. And articles do not "cost" in a financial sense, since the aim is to provide free content, and all editors are volunteers here. If you think he may qualify for an article, you may register an account and start one, or ask at this page. Rodhullandemu 18:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Strange.

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)

Edit request from CharmyonneBailey, 1 April 2010

{{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)

Tone of the article

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.

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.

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.

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."

Ashmoo (talk) 11:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ashmmo, I think you're half right. The fact that she was promoting the movie certainly subtracts from her credibility, however it's highly cynical to imply that her comments were insincere. Whatever credibility she loses from the promotional context of her comments is negated by the fact that Newton is a gifted actress known for her high intelligence who spent a summer working with Oprah, making her a reliable source on acting skill, smarts, and Oprah. And I disagree that the comment tells us nothing; it gives insight into Oprah's intellect, the relationship between acting and intellect, and the surprising fact that Oprah is a technical actress as I would have assumed her to be a method actress. Still, you are quite correct in asserting that comments made in a promotional context should not be given undue weight, however because of the unique perspective and expertise Newton brings, I think she should be given a tiny amount of weight. That seems like a reasonable compromise. SamanthaG (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. But this isn't about finding compromises, it is about making the best article possible and abiding by WP policy. And the fact that she is a 'gifted actress and known for her high intelligence' in no way makes her a more reliable source. Any intelligent person is going to say the movie they have a financial interest in promoting is good. This is in no way cynical, that is the purpose of promoting a movie. Ordinarily, I'd just let this pass, but this article is so full of weak sources, such as this one. The comment wasn't part of an article she was asked to write where see could think about Winfrey's actress technique, but just an off-the-cuff answer to a Vogue magazine interview. Any uncynical highly intelligent person is going offer vague platitudes to avoid saying something the reporter can use against them.

Anyway, I can accept it staying (although I will add some context) but we need to try to lift the level of source in this article. Ashmoo (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Overreaching the scope of a cite

Inspiring prosocial behavior

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."

What exactly is not supported by the source? They did an actual experiment where they showed a clip from her show & found it increased prosocial behavior. That's a pretty amazing and important result that should be documented. Actual scientific data of this quality is hard to come by so when we have it, we should include it, especially in an encyclopedia. SamanthaG (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

But if you read the sources, the authors of the studies never claim that Oprah or her show are the cause of the prosocial behaviour. It just happens that they needed a clip of someone thanking someone else and used an episode of the show. There is no indication that it is anything specifically related to Oprah's show. And at any rate, it is about the show, not Winfrey herself, so should be argued over in that article. Ashmoo (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes the study does claim that Oprah's show CAUSED the prosocial behavior. It was an experimental design and the point of expiermental designs are to allow one to conclude causation. And it is specific to Oprah to the extent that the prosocial effect was not observed from watching other broadcasts (i.e. British comedy, nature documentary). And this is relevant to Oprah herself to the extent that an article about her should document her impact on the culture & this is one of the few examples where that impact is documented by real experimental research. SamanthaG (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere in the sources does anyone state that Oprah's show specifically caused the effect. In all mentions of causality, they use the generic term 'uplifting clip'. The fact that it is a clip from Oprah is only mentioned once, in parentheses. The researchers only ever make a link between viewing uplifting behaviour and prosociality, and when citing sources we can only use what other researchers say. The most we could say from these sources is that Oprahs show was used in a study linking viewing uplifting behaviour to prosociality. Making a link directly from Oprah to prosociality is not supported by the cite and verges on WP:OR or WP:SYNTH Ashmoo (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC).

The study very clearly showed that the uplifting clip caused the prosocial behavior. That uplifting clip was from an episode of Oprah's show. Thus the study provides clear scientific experimental data that a scene from Oprah's show causes prosocial behavior while scenes from other broadcasts they studied do not. SamanthaG (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be going around in circles. The fact that the clip is from Oprah is incidental. The other clips were from British TV shows, while the uplifting clip was from a US show. Does this prove that US shows cause prosocial behaviour over British shows? Of course not. We can't start taking minor details of scientific studies and start developing our own casual relationships, we have to base it on what the authors of the study itself say. And the authors never state that Oprah is linked to prosocial behaviour, just uplifting clips (which they say many times). Making the link is WP:OR on your part. Ashmoo (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It proves that this U.S. show (Oprah) caused prosocial behavior. Obviously that conclusion can't be generalized to all U.S. shows, but this article is just about Oprah. I understand that the study was not about Oprah per se & that the researchers were not interested in Oprah or her show, but because her clip was used in the study, the study provided very strong empirical evidence that what she broadcast causes prosocial behavior. SamanthaG (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It proved that watching a specific clip from a specific episode of Oprah's show was correlated with prosocial behavior. It did not prove that Oprah's show in general causes prosocial behavior, which is what you are arguing. The other poster is right. You are overgeneralizing the results of the study. It would be misleading to imply that just watching any episode of Oprah's show is a scientifically proven way of increasing prosocial behavior, which is how the article read before. The way the quoted section of the article was phrased, it sounded as though watching any uplifting clip, as long as it was from the Oprah show, would increase altruism. But that was not proven to be true.72.66.78.33 (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I just saw the request for a third opinion, so I came and checked it out. I've read both the sources listed above. [1] and [2]. 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 [3] has more indepth and a link to the full study at [4]. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your time AliveFreeHappy. Would you have any time to make the edit to the article? It would be nice to have text written by a 3rd party, so that we don't enter another impasse. Ashmoo (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Size of the article

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)

Ashmoo, the 40kb is just a general guide line and doesn't apply to extreme cases when you're dealing with a figure as influential as Winfrey. Look at Bill Clinton's article, that's 125kb. I was already unhappy about some of the other content you removed but I decided not to object but this time I feel strongly that the senate seat consideration is significant enough for the intro. I respect the fact that you disagree & there are valid arguments on both sides, but this article has been very stable for a very long time and if it ain't broke, don't fix it. SamanthaG (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Just because Bill Clinton's article also violates the guideline doesn't mean this should too. She may well be influential, but unfortunately most of the article doesn't document the things she has done to influence, but is mostly magazine articles making general comments about her and things she has thought and said. Yes, the article has been this way a long time, but unfortunately, I think it is broken. There is far too much repetition (including the last thing I removed) and the most of the article is spent just saying how great she is and not documenting the things she has done which are so great. Honestly, if someone who knew little about her came and read this article, they wouldn't leave knowing a lot about her as much as knowing that there is a wikipedia editor who thinks she is wonderful.

I'm sorry if I'm sounding rude, I don't mean to. I think Oprah is an amazing woman, but the undiscriminating way the article currently documents this really needs to be brought to Wikipedia's high standards. If you have any problems with my other edits, I'm happy to discuss them. Ashmoo (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Specifically regarding my last edit. The info is in the article further down, it is about something that NEVER HAPPENED. And the man who claimed it might have happened is currently under federal prosecution for fraud, not exactly a reliable source. Ashmoo (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into your general criticism of the article as general discussions are not productive here. With respect to the senate seat consideration, you keep describing it as something that never happened but what did happen is that the sitting governor of the state CLAIMED he considered Oprah for the seat. It's the claim itself that is of historical significance and we have tons of reliable sources as well volumes of video tape showing that he did make the claim over and over again. You think this is not important enough to be in the intro. I strongly disagree. And so we have a difference of opinion. SamanthaG (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you are not interesting in discussing the article, maybe wikipedia is not for you, as that is one of the foundations of the endevour. We can't just say we have a difference of opinion, editors are obligated to try to reach a consensus.

Specifically regarding the senate thing. I'm not totally against it's inclusion, it's just that it appears in the lede, and takes up about 20 lines further on too, which is mostly just long quotes of people saying that would be cool. Ashmoo (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Intro: Generally admired reasons

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)

Animal Rights

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)

World Influence

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)

Don't confuse influence with fame. Influential means that you've changed the world, not that people know who you are. Many of the most influential people in history are completely unknown. SamanthaG (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

86.174.170.24, wikipedia expects all assertions in the article to be supported with reliable sources, so unfortunately, your general impression of her influence doesn't count. Are there any parts of the article do you think are inaccurate and have no supporting sources? Ashmoo (talk) 09:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous now. Practically nobody knows her in continental Europe as her shows are neither translated/synched/subtitled into local languages nor broadcasted anywhere. Being a purely American media phenomenon, she is neither influential nor even famous anywhere in Europe (and I am pretty sure in all other Non-English speaking parts of the world). Germany, just for example, has a female head of state who has moved things (to the better or worse I will not evaluate) with effects on the world. Even Jaqui Smith MP of Britain has had a bigger impact nationwide and more than Europe-wide than this American TV show presenter. Obviously, the writer above lives within the TV reality of the United States without access to international journalistic media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.158.206.120 (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Most influential woman in the world does not mean she has influence all over the world, it only means that no other woman in the world has been as influential. And just as Oprah would go unrecognized in Europe, the European women you mention would go unrecognized in North America. And unlike the women you mention, Oprah has a following in countries as diverse as South Africa and Saudia Arabia. As for global influence, for the first time in history we have a black leader of the free world (Obama) and that's largely because of Oprah's endorsement. SamanthaG (talk) 10:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Where in the article exactly do you feel the problem is? The assertion of her being 'the most influential woman' has three non-US sources, and although the sources aren't extremely strong, I still feel they qualify to support the assertion. Ashmoo (talk) 10:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Aug 10 2010 -- Death Hoax currently underway

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)

Cars & taxes

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)

I never heard of any controversy on all the free cars given away on the "Price is Right" SamanthaG (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Those cars are not given away. Joepnl (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Joepnl, it doesn't seem POV to me, but a statement of fact. As long as the assertion that it was controversial is properly sourced, WP allows it. Ashmoo (talk) 10:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind the fact that it was controversial to be included (it should be), but I doubt the causation "much media attention" -> "taxes became controversial", which is not properly sourced. It might very well be the other way around, "The show received much media attention, and even more when it was found out that the winners had to pay up to $ 7000 in taxes", which is the sole reason for media attention like this. Joepnl (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy for you to edit the statement in a way that is supported by the cite. Ashmoo (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure which cite you're referring to, but is this edit acceptable to you? Joepnl (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That look fine. The cite I was referring to was the CNNMoney cite that you mentioned in your previous post. Ashmoo (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Odd article

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)

From my perspective: I've been trying to get it into better shape, but SamG is very protective of it in its current form (see Tone... and Overreaching... talk sections), and I haven't the time or energy to argue. Please note, this is no slight on SamG as an editor or person, just how I see the situation regarding editing this page.

If you would like to add another perspective to the existing debates or make edits, that would be great. Ashmoo (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I thought it must be something like that. 'Too tired to argue'. I know how that goes. I (belatedly) saw your clean up notice from April, Ashmoo. Best of luck. Spanglej (talk) 12:45, 2 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)

Australia Giveaway

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)