Talk:Oprah Winfrey
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
Oprah Winfrey was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.
Date of review: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}} |
 |
Oprah Winfrey has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Contents |
[edit] DNA Tests?
Surprised no one has written about her ancestry explorations at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.98.195.88 (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Her Minge
An entire south park episode was devoted to her minge.
[edit] What about her family?
What happened to her mom and half sibblings? Did i miss it?
[edit] Top Rated TV show?
Would someone with edit ability be able to change this to top rated US talk show. Remember not everyone is american.
[edit] College
The article says she attended TSU, but it doesn't say what her degree is in, or when (or if) she graduated. Anyone?
[edit] Suggestion
Oprahs Best friend was Miranda Case..... she loved her but she passed away..RIP Miranda
I sugest that we should make a new headline called "Charity" where we should write about Oprah's charity gifts and also we shoud write about the new launched "Oprah Leadership Academy for Girls". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Studios (talk • contribs) 16:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC).
Oprah was gifted in helping others.
[edit] ARTICLE ERROR
Winfrey was born in 1954, not 1944. Will an established user please correct this? Thank you. Ekokosin 04:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Miranda case was Oprahs best friend but passed away and she misses her lots..RIP Miranda
[edit] Oprahs Best Friend
She had lots of friends but one that she mostly loved and her name was Miranda Case. She is 13 years old and she is the cuttest girl in the world as Oprah said. Miranda Case's soul will live on. - 'Oprah Winfrey' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.34.72.1 (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] vandalism
first photo caption is vandalized and needs to be edited
[edit] Criticism Section
Since the idea of moving the Kitty Kelley quote was reverted, I've deleted it from the criticism section entirely. It's inappropriate in the criticism section: if you wish to note the characterization of Oprah as being scandal free, then that is something to mention in a discussion of her celebrity status. It is not appropriate to use it to imply a conclusion in a section that notes the major controversies she has been involved in. I also don't see how being slightly more specific about what the Secret is is out of line. The revert you keep making is written so as to obscure exactly what is considered so questionable about "The Secret": the fact that it asserts that thoughts cause "vibrations" that then cause good things to happen. Plunge 22:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't remove the Kitty Kelley quote as she's an extremely notable source who's job is to look for controversy and some would even say invent it if she can't find any. So the fact that she couldn't find any dirt on Oprah is especially notable, especially in the controversy section of all places. As for the Secret, I agree it's a lot of nonsense, but it's a pretty big topic and has millions of defenders and detractors who can argue it from both sides. Not sure if a quick sound bite based on one readers interpretation in a section criticizing Oprah will do the topic justice or represent it fairly. If people want to know more about what wrong with the Secret they can consult that article (that's what wiki links are for). Oprah's promoted all kinds of wacky stuff over the years. Hardly enough room to dissect it all in detail Coatchecker 02:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- The point of an encyclopedia article is not to defend or attack Oprah. The point is to be descriptive. The controversy/criticism section describes these complaints: it doesn't give a final ruling on them. And that is what the Kitty Kelley quote is all about: it is something someone put in there to "conclude" that these criticisms are of little merit and that there is nothing much scandalous anyone can say about Oprah. In short, the section is for NOTABLE CONTROVERSIES, not for noting what YOU feel is an important lack of controversy. If you want to include the Kelley quote, work it into a section about her public image being seen as squeaky clean or something. As to the Secret, my beef with what is written is that it does not actually describe what the Secret is. The point of these articles is to inform readers, no to deceive them. I'm not expanding the text any, I'm replacing it with an actual description of what the Secret is.Plunge 05:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- By an amazing coincidence, "The Secret" is the name of Oprah's Swiss bank. Wahkeenah 10:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- We’re not going to create an entirely separate section just for the Kitty Kelley quote when we already have a section devoted to criticism and controversy-2 subjects Kitty Kelley has devoted her entire career to. Kelley has built an empire off of controversial criticism so the fact that she claims to be unable to find any on Winfrey is the type of broad useful information encyclopedia’s note in their criticism section. If you want to inform readers and not deceive them you should have no problem informing them that a prominent investigative journalist who practically invented the controversial biography genre and has an entire staff to help her was unable to find anything critical on Oprah. The criticism/controversy section is simply there to describe notable information regarding criticism/controversy about Oprah Winfrey and the fact that the inventor of critical controversial biographies was unable to unearth anything critical and controversial is just about the single most important thing you could add to that section. It’s not us who are dismissing criticism, it’s Kelley; we are simply quoting her. SamanthaG 12:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- You are just reinforcing my point. You are not attempting to write an encyclopedia article, you are attempting to editorialize your views via the selective use of a quote you think is especially significant in defending that view. Again, the section is noting controversies in her career. It is NOT about noting that a tabloid journalist doesn't feel there is any dirt worth playing with (the section is not even about sex/drugs/corruption scandals in any case, which is what Kelley specializes in, so it's of dubious relevance even used as an argument): that is not a controversy, but what YOU think is a valid defense against the idea that there is anything of controversy in her career. The fact that you can cite a quote to some effect does not mean that you can employ it in lieu of your own opinion to editorialize. I also didn't advocate "creating a whole new section." I suggested working it into the appropriate place in the article: the section about her public image, which the Kelley quote IS relevant to. All in all, your conduct is cookie-cutter POV. I note you that you also keep reverting the article to include a spelling mistake. :) Plunge 23:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- The two don't belong together, never mind the POV issue: just because Kitty has not found anything illegal or immoral in Oprah's background doesn't make Oprah's public statements and viewpoints any less controversial. The two factors are unrelated. Wahkeenah 23:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- The section is criticism and controversy. Kitty Kelley despite her considerable resources, skills, and tabloid tactics, can't find anyone who actually knows Oprah who has anything critical to say about her. Despite the fact that she interviews people who are anonymous and probably a lot of disgruntled ex-employees, jealous neighbors, or relatives who resent not getting more money. Kitty Kelley, the queen of the negative biography can’t find anything negative to report on Oprah, and this is not relevant to a section dealing with criticism and controversy? I think it’s the most relevant because it comes from a high powered expert who has actually done real research specifically looking for criticism of Oprah from people who actually know her. SamanthaG 01:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Kitty Kelley is an expert on controversy and is being paid millions of dollars to write a controversial book on Oprah and has actually done months of researching interviewing hundreds of sources looking for juicy criticism (from people who actually know Oprah!) and has been unable to unearth any controversy or criticism, and you wish to withhold this highly relevant information from the criticism/controversy section, and yet you accuse me of POV pushing. This is a section noting criticism and controversy about Oprah period, so it’s highly relevant to point out that a high powered investigative journalist, who’s done actual research and interviewed people who actually know Oprah, was not able to find anything critical or controversial to report about her. Media controversies are a dime a dozen. A multimillion-dollar investigation form a professional journalist (legendary for generating criticism about the most unlikely of people) that turns up no controversy and criticism, who’s done independent research is a real gem. But instead you wish to withhold this from the relevant section and flood the reader with guilty by association criticism about the secret because Oprah did 2 shows out of thousands about it and today even criticized some of it. And yet I’m the one POV pushing? SamanthaG 01:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Try finding hangers-on of any wealthy person and see if they have any criticism about their "friend". Wahkeenah 02:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Kitty Kelley already has tried and has uncovered volumes of criticism about the rich and powerful to the point where she's produced one controversial best seller after another. That's what makes her comment on Oprah so notable. For Oprah to have climbed to the level that she has without having pissed off anyone to the point that they have something critical they wish to feed to a tabloid journalist legendary for getting folks in the know to unleash the most shocking of criticism, is extremely relevant SamanthaG 02:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yet she still has critics. They just don't happen to be buddies of hers. Wahkeenah 02:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- And we note the criticism (even the obscure criticism from unknown psychic skeptics whose criticism of Oprah represents an extreme minority POV that is technically not allowed in a living bio); other celebrity articles (i.e. Angelina Jolie) don't allow any criticism at all even though she was recently the subject of a scathing analysis by the New York Times (widely discussed in the media). Even articles on politicians running for president Barack Obama, don't have criticism. But we note plenty of criticism about Oprah, even though she's an entertainer/philanthropist, and thus is not in a controversial area of public life. But while the article does contain a lot of guilty by association criticism by obscure people who object to various cultural trends promoted by Oprah, it's also helpful to include voices from notable people like Kitty Kelley who actually have the skills, resources, experience and access to inside sources to describe criticism of Oprah from those who actually know her SamanthaG 02:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- "Actually knowing her" renders their objectivity questionable. Wahkeenah 11:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- And not knowing her renders the relevance of an opinion questionable. How can one intelligently criticize that which they are not familiar with? And knowing Oprah doesn’t necessarily make one a friend, it just makes you someone who is familiar with Oprah the person instead of the persona (i.e. neighbors, employees, business associates). Indeed it’s unlikely that any true friend of Oprah would cooperate with Kitty Kelley in the first place given that Oprah herself has refused to do so. In short, your assertion that people who personally know celebrities are biased towards giving positive opinions to Kitty Kelley is empirically contradicted by every scathing biography Kitty Kelley has ever written. If anything the people who talk to her tend to have an axe to grind. SamanthaG 15:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- None of which has anything to do with criticisms of Oprah's opinions and activities. Wahkeenah 22:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- The section's not called criticisms of Oprah's opinions and activities, it's simply called Criticisms and controversies SamanthaG 23:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that her pals like her does not render her immune from criticism and/or controversy. Wahkeenah 23:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Her pals by definition like her, and her pals by definition are not the ones who spoke to Kitty Kelley. No one is suggesting that Oprah is immune to criticism and controversy. All I'm suggesting is that if a legendary investigative journalist with a multimillion dollar budget interviewed hundreds of people who have actually met Oprah and failed to find anything critical, then that's far more notable than the random complaining of a few isolated and highly obscure critics, especially since that same investigative journalist has a proven track record of unearthing the most controversial criticism that any celebrity she's looked into has ever experienced. SamanthaG 00:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I fail to see how Kitty's conclusions have any bearing on the criticisms detailed in that section. Wahkeenah 00:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- The section is about criticism and controversy. Kitty Kelley is an authority on both and she's been given millions of dollars to investigate both in Oprah and has actually done real research. If you don't see how that's relevant I don't know what to tell you SamanthaG 00:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Kitty's comments fail to address the criticisms in the section. Evidently her research was not all that thorough after all. Wahkeenah 00:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Kitty's more interested in criticism from people who actually know Oprah, criticism of her show, and criticism of talk shows/self-help in general is not particularly interesting SamanthaG 00:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's your subjective opinion. Mine is that the viewpoints of yes-women and kissups are not particularly interesting. Wahkeenah 01:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Again, if they're yes-women and kissups they'd be following Oprah's lead in not cooperating with Kelley. SamanthaG 01:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thus, Kitty is dealing with a biased sample, i.e. only those who were willing to talk with her. To put it another way, of the various names listed among her critics, how many did Kitty talk to? Wahkeenah 01:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- None of the names listed among Oprah's critics actually know Oprah and thus are of no use to Kitty and hence would not be granted permission to speak to Kitty. If you're doing research on Oprah why would you speak to obscure critics who have never even met Oprah? That wouldn't make much sense now would it? Now I agree that among the people who do know Oprah, only those who dislike Oprah the most would be willing to gossip to someone known for writting scandalous biographies. So given a sample that was biased AGAINST Oprah, and given the financial incentive Kelley has to uncover controversial material, and given her success in doing so on many other celebrities, it's all the more notable that Kelley couldn't find anything negative on Oprah SamanthaG 02:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Whether someone critical of things Oprah has done "knows" Oprah or not has no relevance. Wahkeenah 02:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- It may not be of any relevance to you but this is an encyclopedia so we prefer to quote people who have some knowledge or research on the subject in which they speak SamanthaG 02:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- "Knowing" her makes their judgment suspect. The criticisms are about stuff she has done. Knowing her has nothing to do with their right or obligation to criticize stuff they don't agree with. Wahkeenah 03:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don’t think it makes any sense at all to argue that people who know nothing about a subject have better judgment than people who have done actual research on the subject or have firsthand experience. In fact I think it’s exactly the opposite. And of course every one of us has a right to criticize anyone we want, but people who are speaking outside their area of expertise are not especially reliable sources. I think it would be horribly POV to remove Kitty Kelley’s researched conclusions simply because she’s come to the opposite conclusion of obscure critics who don’t even know Oprah. Kitty Kelley is the most notable source in the entire section, and as an expert at creating controversy and as someone who has been paid millions of dollars to focus her career on extracting criticism from people who actually know Oprah, her conclusions carry more encyclopedic weight than anyone else quoted in that section. So for us to arbitrarily remove them just because they don’t conform to the POV that Oprah’s a horrible person would demonstrate an extreme anti-Oprah bias on our part SamanthaG 12:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- "Knowing" her makes their judgment suspect. The criticisms are about stuff she has done. Knowing her has nothing to do with their right or obligation to criticize stuff they don't agree with. Wahkeenah 03:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- It may not be of any relevance to you but this is an encyclopedia so we prefer to quote people who have some knowledge or research on the subject in which they speak SamanthaG 02:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Whether someone critical of things Oprah has done "knows" Oprah or not has no relevance. Wahkeenah 02:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- None of the names listed among Oprah's critics actually know Oprah and thus are of no use to Kitty and hence would not be granted permission to speak to Kitty. If you're doing research on Oprah why would you speak to obscure critics who have never even met Oprah? That wouldn't make much sense now would it? Now I agree that among the people who do know Oprah, only those who dislike Oprah the most would be willing to gossip to someone known for writting scandalous biographies. So given a sample that was biased AGAINST Oprah, and given the financial incentive Kelley has to uncover controversial material, and given her success in doing so on many other celebrities, it's all the more notable that Kelley couldn't find anything negative on Oprah SamanthaG 02:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thus, Kitty is dealing with a biased sample, i.e. only those who were willing to talk with her. To put it another way, of the various names listed among her critics, how many did Kitty talk to? Wahkeenah 01:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Again, if they're yes-women and kissups they'd be following Oprah's lead in not cooperating with Kelley. SamanthaG 01:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's your subjective opinion. Mine is that the viewpoints of yes-women and kissups are not particularly interesting. Wahkeenah 01:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Kitty's more interested in criticism from people who actually know Oprah, criticism of her show, and criticism of talk shows/self-help in general is not particularly interesting SamanthaG 00:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Kitty's comments fail to address the criticisms in the section. Evidently her research was not all that thorough after all. Wahkeenah 00:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- The section is about criticism and controversy. Kitty Kelley is an authority on both and she's been given millions of dollars to investigate both in Oprah and has actually done real research. If you don't see how that's relevant I don't know what to tell you SamanthaG 00:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I fail to see how Kitty's conclusions have any bearing on the criticisms detailed in that section. Wahkeenah 00:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Her pals by definition like her, and her pals by definition are not the ones who spoke to Kitty Kelley. No one is suggesting that Oprah is immune to criticism and controversy. All I'm suggesting is that if a legendary investigative journalist with a multimillion dollar budget interviewed hundreds of people who have actually met Oprah and failed to find anything critical, then that's far more notable than the random complaining of a few isolated and highly obscure critics, especially since that same investigative journalist has a proven track record of unearthing the most controversial criticism that any celebrity she's looked into has ever experienced. SamanthaG 00:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that her pals like her does not render her immune from criticism and/or controversy. Wahkeenah 23:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- The section's not called criticisms of Oprah's opinions and activities, it's simply called Criticisms and controversies SamanthaG 23:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- None of which has anything to do with criticisms of Oprah's opinions and activities. Wahkeenah 22:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Samantha, it's time for this farce to end. Your every word only shows that you see this matter as a emotionalized question of attacking or defending Oprah. But it is not extreme anti-Oprah bias to have a section listing her major critics and the major controversies in her career: we list them and describe what they are. We don't take sides on whether those criticisms are legitimate or not: it is supposed to simply a factual accounting. That is NOT what you are doing with the quote: you are trying to use one of her friends (I didn't know this to begin, and it makes your case WAY WAY worse) as a means of conclusion to the section. That is not appropriate in an encyclopedia article, which is supposed to be objective: listing and describing things, not arguing for this or that. Why can't you see that? What if I went into an article on Stalin and ended the criticism section with a quotation from a party official saying that he was a saint and innocent of all charges? That's simply ridiculous behavior. We've already offered to simply move the quote to another section where it makes more sense, and you've refused. We're being reasonable here. You are not. You are trying, instead, to treat an encyclopedia article as if it were a running argument between critics and defenders. That's NOT what an article is supposed to be like! (and besides, Kitty Kelley specializes in SEX SCANDALS, none of which are even a subject of any of the criticisms, so the quote is highly dishonest in any case when used in that context)Plunge 19:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would have no problem with you going to the Stalin article and adding such a quotation if it came from an independent source that did actual research. Indeed if some notable independent high profile person did do research on Stalin and came to that conclusion, it would be of such monumental importance that removing it from the relevant section of his article would be nothing short of extreme POV censorship. Now if I were quoting Oprah's publicist saying there was nothing negative on Oprah than I would agree it would be inappropriate, but instead we're quoting Oprah's worst nightmare, an investigative journalist whose made millions exposing the most scathing and controversial of criticism on even the most beloved of celebrities, and no, not just sex scandals, but all kinds of unflattering details about celebrities from how they treat their staff to their lack of honesty. If the section is just a list of major controversies then why the comment from an obscure psychic skeptic no one has ever heard of complaining about a show no one even remembers Oprah doing. I'm the one being reasonable by allowing in this content even though extreme minority view points, especially when making negative assertions about living people is against wikipedia policy. The subject is criticism and controversy, Kitty Kelley is an independent source (a very notable and successful source who is the queen of her field) who has done research on both so I see no valid reason whatsoever why you wish to remove her comment, other than the fact that it contradicts an anti-Oprah POV some would like to push. I don't think you can argue that just because Kitty Kelley is expressing an opinion that you don't happen to agree with, that therefore she should be removed or marginalized to a less relevant section. Her quote is directly on topic, she's the most notable person in the entire section, she's has a proven track record of getting people to spill criticism of the worst kind, and she's done ten times as much research as anyone else being quoted. What kind of encyclopedia removes conclusions from people who have done research and replaces them with obscure nobodies who only know the subject from an hour of watching TV? SamanthaG 22:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you really wouldn't see a problem with that conduct, then you really don't understand wikipedia and the NPOV ideal. We're not trying to fight a war with selective quotes from people we think prove our points. Kelley is not Oprah's worst nightmare. She's a personal friend who happens to focus on SEX SCANDALS (which no one has ever brought up in the first place as a controversy and is thus irrelevant to the section even AS a conclusion!) and doesn't go after her. But that's beside the point. Randi is not an obscure skeptic: he's a regular figure on talk shows and in popular culture. That you haven't heard of him is your problem. And the problem here is that Kelley is neither independent, nor is her opinion relevant to the section at all. At this point, you've simply dug your hole pretty deep, because you keep arguing that the quote SHOULD be use to sum up the section. That's classic POV. Wikipedia articles are NOT the place for debate, and they are NOT the place for editorializing or concluding this or that about things like criticism. This isn't a fan site nor an anti-Oprah site.Plunge 03:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Kitty Kelley is most certainly NOT a personal friend of Oprah's, in fact no one who wants to stay in Oprah's good books dares to be seen talking to her, and Kitty Kelley most certainly does not confine her focus to sex scandals.SamanthaG 05:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Of course she does, but that's really not even the point. The point is that the Kelley quote isn't even about any of the things raised in the controversy seciton, nor SHOULD there be any editorializing concluding "response" to any of those controversies, whether styled as a quote or not. You have simply dodged all of the criticisms made, and have rejected a perfectly reasonable proposal for how to retain the quote. You are treating this article as if it were a fansite rather than an encyolopedia, which is supposed to be objective. At this point, the next step is to report your POV actions and then call for a vote. It's too bad that you could not listen to reason.Plunge 21:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Fine, if you wish to remove the objective reporting of an independent journalist just because she reached the broad conclusion that that there's nothing critical you can say about Oprah, then I wont stand in the way. But please don't accuse me of being the one who is POV pushing, and don't even bother trying to work the quote into a section where it doesn't belong. Just remove it from the article so we can both stop this discussion. Not all battles are worth going to war over, so I'm just going to let you win this one. SamanthaG 22:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- We have here a logical paradox, if both items are retained: (1) Kitty says there is no possible criticism of Oprah; and yet (2) there is verifiable criticism of Oprah. The second fact contradicts the first. Therefore, the first conclusion is false. Q.E.D. Wahkeenah 21:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think Kitty Kelley is making a distinction between Oprah the public persona and Oprah the private person. I’m sure Kitty Kelley is well aware of the fact that Oprah, like most celebrities, have received enormous praise and criticism for how she has behaved publicly, but Kelley is interested in unmasking the real woman behind the image (and is a master of revealing the secret negative side of lionized icons), so she rightfully ignores media praise and media controversies when drawing her conclusion and investigates how Oprah behaves when the cameras are turned off. As I said, if you guys feel strongly that Kelley’s search for criticism of Oprah’s behind the scenes behavior and private conduct is an inappropriate contrast with public criticisms, then I can respect that view point. SamanthaG 23:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- We have here a logical paradox, if both items are retained: (1) Kitty says there is no possible criticism of Oprah; and yet (2) there is verifiable criticism of Oprah. The second fact contradicts the first. Therefore, the first conclusion is false. Q.E.D. Wahkeenah 21:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Fine, if you wish to remove the objective reporting of an independent journalist just because she reached the broad conclusion that that there's nothing critical you can say about Oprah, then I wont stand in the way. But please don't accuse me of being the one who is POV pushing, and don't even bother trying to work the quote into a section where it doesn't belong. Just remove it from the article so we can both stop this discussion. Not all battles are worth going to war over, so I'm just going to let you win this one. SamanthaG 22:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Of course she does, but that's really not even the point. The point is that the Kelley quote isn't even about any of the things raised in the controversy seciton, nor SHOULD there be any editorializing concluding "response" to any of those controversies, whether styled as a quote or not. You have simply dodged all of the criticisms made, and have rejected a perfectly reasonable proposal for how to retain the quote. You are treating this article as if it were a fansite rather than an encyolopedia, which is supposed to be objective. At this point, the next step is to report your POV actions and then call for a vote. It's too bad that you could not listen to reason.Plunge 21:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Kitty Kelley is most certainly NOT a personal friend of Oprah's, in fact no one who wants to stay in Oprah's good books dares to be seen talking to her, and Kitty Kelley most certainly does not confine her focus to sex scandals.SamanthaG 05:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you really wouldn't see a problem with that conduct, then you really don't understand wikipedia and the NPOV ideal. We're not trying to fight a war with selective quotes from people we think prove our points. Kelley is not Oprah's worst nightmare. She's a personal friend who happens to focus on SEX SCANDALS (which no one has ever brought up in the first place as a controversy and is thus irrelevant to the section even AS a conclusion!) and doesn't go after her. But that's beside the point. Randi is not an obscure skeptic: he's a regular figure on talk shows and in popular culture. That you haven't heard of him is your problem. And the problem here is that Kelley is neither independent, nor is her opinion relevant to the section at all. At this point, you've simply dug your hole pretty deep, because you keep arguing that the quote SHOULD be use to sum up the section. That's classic POV. Wikipedia articles are NOT the place for debate, and they are NOT the place for editorializing or concluding this or that about things like criticism. This isn't a fan site nor an anti-Oprah site.Plunge 03:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would have no problem with you going to the Stalin article and adding such a quotation if it came from an independent source that did actual research. Indeed if some notable independent high profile person did do research on Stalin and came to that conclusion, it would be of such monumental importance that removing it from the relevant section of his article would be nothing short of extreme POV censorship. Now if I were quoting Oprah's publicist saying there was nothing negative on Oprah than I would agree it would be inappropriate, but instead we're quoting Oprah's worst nightmare, an investigative journalist whose made millions exposing the most scathing and controversial of criticism on even the most beloved of celebrities, and no, not just sex scandals, but all kinds of unflattering details about celebrities from how they treat their staff to their lack of honesty. If the section is just a list of major controversies then why the comment from an obscure psychic skeptic no one has ever heard of complaining about a show no one even remembers Oprah doing. I'm the one being reasonable by allowing in this content even though extreme minority view points, especially when making negative assertions about living people is against wikipedia policy. The subject is criticism and controversy, Kitty Kelley is an independent source (a very notable and successful source who is the queen of her field) who has done research on both so I see no valid reason whatsoever why you wish to remove her comment, other than the fact that it contradicts an anti-Oprah POV some would like to push. I don't think you can argue that just because Kitty Kelley is expressing an opinion that you don't happen to agree with, that therefore she should be removed or marginalized to a less relevant section. Her quote is directly on topic, she's the most notable person in the entire section, she's has a proven track record of getting people to spill criticism of the worst kind, and she's done ten times as much research as anyone else being quoted. What kind of encyclopedia removes conclusions from people who have done research and replaces them with obscure nobodies who only know the subject from an hour of watching TV? SamanthaG 22:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- And not knowing her renders the relevance of an opinion questionable. How can one intelligently criticize that which they are not familiar with? And knowing Oprah doesn’t necessarily make one a friend, it just makes you someone who is familiar with Oprah the person instead of the persona (i.e. neighbors, employees, business associates). Indeed it’s unlikely that any true friend of Oprah would cooperate with Kitty Kelley in the first place given that Oprah herself has refused to do so. In short, your assertion that people who personally know celebrities are biased towards giving positive opinions to Kitty Kelley is empirically contradicted by every scathing biography Kitty Kelley has ever written. If anything the people who talk to her tend to have an axe to grind. SamanthaG 15:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- "Actually knowing her" renders their objectivity questionable. Wahkeenah 11:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- And we note the criticism (even the obscure criticism from unknown psychic skeptics whose criticism of Oprah represents an extreme minority POV that is technically not allowed in a living bio); other celebrity articles (i.e. Angelina Jolie) don't allow any criticism at all even though she was recently the subject of a scathing analysis by the New York Times (widely discussed in the media). Even articles on politicians running for president Barack Obama, don't have criticism. But we note plenty of criticism about Oprah, even though she's an entertainer/philanthropist, and thus is not in a controversial area of public life. But while the article does contain a lot of guilty by association criticism by obscure people who object to various cultural trends promoted by Oprah, it's also helpful to include voices from notable people like Kitty Kelley who actually have the skills, resources, experience and access to inside sources to describe criticism of Oprah from those who actually know her SamanthaG 02:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yet she still has critics. They just don't happen to be buddies of hers. Wahkeenah 02:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Kitty Kelley already has tried and has uncovered volumes of criticism about the rich and powerful to the point where she's produced one controversial best seller after another. That's what makes her comment on Oprah so notable. For Oprah to have climbed to the level that she has without having pissed off anyone to the point that they have something critical they wish to feed to a tabloid journalist legendary for getting folks in the know to unleash the most shocking of criticism, is extremely relevant SamanthaG 02:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Try finding hangers-on of any wealthy person and see if they have any criticism about their "friend". Wahkeenah 02:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- The two don't belong together, never mind the POV issue: just because Kitty has not found anything illegal or immoral in Oprah's background doesn't make Oprah's public statements and viewpoints any less controversial. The two factors are unrelated. Wahkeenah 23:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- You are just reinforcing my point. You are not attempting to write an encyclopedia article, you are attempting to editorialize your views via the selective use of a quote you think is especially significant in defending that view. Again, the section is noting controversies in her career. It is NOT about noting that a tabloid journalist doesn't feel there is any dirt worth playing with (the section is not even about sex/drugs/corruption scandals in any case, which is what Kelley specializes in, so it's of dubious relevance even used as an argument): that is not a controversy, but what YOU think is a valid defense against the idea that there is anything of controversy in her career. The fact that you can cite a quote to some effect does not mean that you can employ it in lieu of your own opinion to editorialize. I also didn't advocate "creating a whole new section." I suggested working it into the appropriate place in the article: the section about her public image, which the Kelley quote IS relevant to. All in all, your conduct is cookie-cutter POV. I note you that you also keep reverting the article to include a spelling mistake. :) Plunge 23:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- The point of an encyclopedia article is not to defend or attack Oprah. The point is to be descriptive. The controversy/criticism section describes these complaints: it doesn't give a final ruling on them. And that is what the Kitty Kelley quote is all about: it is something someone put in there to "conclude" that these criticisms are of little merit and that there is nothing much scandalous anyone can say about Oprah. In short, the section is for NOTABLE CONTROVERSIES, not for noting what YOU feel is an important lack of controversy. If you want to include the Kelley quote, work it into a section about her public image being seen as squeaky clean or something. As to the Secret, my beef with what is written is that it does not actually describe what the Secret is. The point of these articles is to inform readers, no to deceive them. I'm not expanding the text any, I'm replacing it with an actual description of what the Secret is.Plunge 05:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like Oprah and Norman Vincent Peale would have got along fine. Maybe Kitty should look into whether Oprah is getting a kickback for endorsing this "Secret" stuff. Wahkeenah 02:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Host of "Dialing for Dollars" on WJZ-TV in the 1970's?
What is the source for the statement, "She also hosted the local version of Dialing for Dollars there as well" (referring to her time at WJZ-TV in Baltimore beginning in 1976)?
Her own website bio doesn't mention this and according to a Baltimore Sun article dated July 18, 1994, Stu Kerr hosted Dialing for Dollars on another Baltimore station, WMAR-TV, until it "left the air in 1977".
I've tagged this {{cn}} before removing it. JGHowes talk - 20:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Spiritual icon??????
This should be added:
Mcorral 22:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
