Talk:Oprah Winfrey/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Protection

See discussion here about why the article has been protected. Thanks. Harro5 09:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review

Oprah rules the world. I believe Oprah's early life needs clarification. The 'speech contest' she won that gained her the scholarship was actually the National Forensic League's National Tournament. In the competition, she won first place in Original Oratory and second place in Dramatic Interpretation. There is evidence on the NFL's website. 4:15 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for peer review, and would like to ask all fellow editors that continually edit and watch over this article to please give your opinions on what is right, and what is wrong with it. I believe this article is an excellent candidate for Good article status. Thank you all of you. Myrockstar 11:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Oprah Winfrey/Archive 2 has failed, for the following reason(s):

There are too many "fair use" images. Having one image at the top to identify her is fine, the other seven are unnecessary and should be removed. User:Angr 11:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. Any good encyclopedia should include as many relevant photographs as possible because photos communicate information far more efficiently than language can. Haven't you heard the expression "a picture's worth a thousand words?". Look at all the photos on the Michael Jackson and Madonna articles. This article is actually far behind in terms of photos. Especially needed are photos from her early life. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cardriver (talk • contribs) .

Actually, any good encyclopedia should strive to describe a topic in brilliant prose rather than relying on copyright violations. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but that doesn't give us the right to use pictures that don't belong to us. And the fact Michael Jackson and Madonna are even worse articles than this one doesn't mean this article has to follow that precedent. User:Angr 11:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, photos are far more NEUTRAL than text. Instead of saying Oprah was beautiful or ugly, thin or fat, etc one simply shows a photo and allows readers to draw their own conclusions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cardriver (talk • contribs) .

Also, the new black and white photos I added are from her early years and are EXTREMELY authentic and informative about the time period, hair styles, peace earings, and add badly needed rich visual diversity to the page. The photo I just added to the influence section is extremely informative because it includes 2 photos of her in one, and so apropo to her World's most Influential woman rankings because it shows the cover of Newsweek with the title "how woman lead". We couldn't have found a more relevant photo if we had taken it ourselves. Who would have thought you could find a photo that describes a concept as abstract as influence, but I found one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cardriver (talk • contribs) .

Please read Wikipedia:Image use policy, Wikipedia:Fair use, Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and Wikipedia:Image syntax. — getcrunk what?! 17:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Getcrunk cardriver really did a great job finding photos that were especially relevant to this article. Sometimes new users don't always know the correct Image syntax etc, (there's so much to read). But I would rather keep the photos in since they can always be changed later. Old photos of Oprah are extremely rare. In fact, prior to coming to Wikipedia I never even saw one, and I've really been impressed by all the unique information you can find in Wikipedia.Zorklift 00:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It's important to read the policies and instructions before you do things. Edits that don't comply with WP policies will be reverted or removed. See Wikipedia:Image use policy. — getcrunk what?! 01:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

In all due respect Getgrunk, you also claimed that mentioning that Oprah's an Emmy winning host in the intro violated wikipedia rules so your credibility on these issues is a little shaky. Perhaps you need to revert less and discuss more?Vexel 01:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question for Harro5

I really appreciate all the work you do in Wikipedia trying to raise articles to higher standards so I'm curious. Why do you feel the media counterculture sections requires a neutality label? I think the section is quite well written and sources extremely credible people like a sociology professor from one of America's top 3 universities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cardriver (talk • contribs) .

  • Most statements are unsourced. For example: "the warmth, intimacy and personal confession Oprah brought to the format both popularized and revolutionized it", "One of Winfrey's most taboo-breaking shows", "While having changed with the times from her tabloid talk show roots, Winfrey continues to empower the gay community...", "Winfrey's intimate therapeutic hosting style and the tabloid talk show genre she popularized has been credited or blamed for leading the media counterculture of the 1980s and 1990s which broke 20th century taboos, led to America's self-help obsession, and created confession culture". Unfortunately, this is one of the last remaining sections left by User:Editingoprah, which overlooks every one of Wikipedia's editing policies and guidelines in order to create a hagiography of Winfrey. Thanks. Harro5 21:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it was editingoprah that added that paragraph. It's actually been there for months now. There are sources for most of it. For example Time magazine credits Winfrey with adding intimacy to the format. Mark Stein credits Winfrey with introducing sexual confession indeed the word Oprahfication has been defined as confession culture so that's pretty well sourced. And sociologist Vicki Abt wrote a whole book called "Coming After Oprah: Cultural fallout in the age of the TV talk show" where she blamed Winfrey for popularizing the genre.Zorklift 00:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oprah, Baptist?

Why is Oprah listed as a Baptist at the bottom of the page??? I don't think you could say she is a Baptist.

[edit] Harro 5 is editing too much

Harro 5, based on your edits, comments on the discussion page, and the personal information you've provided, you don't appear to know anything about Oprah Winfrey. Instead your interests appear to be sports and football. I feel very strongly that wikipedia works best when people only edit subjects they have knowledge of Everyone respects you for the previous good work you've done on wikipedia. Don't ruin it by marching authoritatively into topics you know nothing about and by childishly fighting over which picture of Oprah to use in the intro. Thanks for your help with this article but it was doing fine before you got here, and your services are no longer required. Thank you.Kittykash 16:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comparing the edits made by you to those of Vexel and Zorklift, it's a little obvious you're just another sock puppet of Cardriver. Please stop wasting everyone's (and your own) time. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  17:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because I was the first to upload the new photos does not mean those that followed are sock puppets. I think you'd be surprised to learn how many people in the world love photographs. Based on the amount of controversy this has generated, you would think I downloaded pornography. If you actually compare the photos to the text you will see how relevant they are. Let's choose our battles wisely and not destabalize this page over something so harmless as a few nice pictures. I would like to add references to the sections that have requested them but first this article must stabalizeCardriver 19:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't pretend that the other accounts are not sock/meatpuppets. It is obvious by comparing the edits (even the ones on this talk page — the signature directly after text?); a CheckUser case has been filed. Also, please provide the exact source for the images (ending in "/example.jpg"; instead of simply Google search pages). Copyright violations are not tolerated on Wikipedia: sources are needed to verify the status of images. — getcrunk what?! 19:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for signing right next to the text. A bunch of us are new here and just following the form most recently seen. And as for the photos, I'll improve the sourcing later but right now I need to go to work. I'm actually quite surprised by the backlash. I really think the photos are relevant and am shocked by the controversy. I'm sure if I had uploaded them during a calmer period they would have been fine. Anyway thank you so much for not impulsively reverting.-Cardriver 21:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] constructive criticism for Getcrunk

Dear Getcrunk, I'm not sure why you are so frustrated with the inexpereinced newbies at the Oprah article for including relevant early-life images you consider unsourced, when you as an experienced editor endorsed the use of this Janet Jackson image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Janetjacksonnew.jpg The only source info provided is speculation on where the photo came from and the link provided does not even work. It's very difficult for newbies to follow the correct standards and procedures of wikipedia when they are applied so inconsistently by the very people endorsing said standards. I understand that you are acting in good faith and do not mean to be creating double standards or confusion, and thus I offer this as the most constructive of criticism. Cardriver 19:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please be respectful of very elderly users

A bunch of us are very elderly so we're new to this whole wikipedia thing. I really feel as though we're being picked on by more experienced users of the technological age. I would really hate to think that any administrators of such a wonderful place as wikipedia would be abusing their power. When I first arrived at Wikipedia I loved it and found everyone welcoming, but once I incorrectly uploaded some beautiful Oprah photos people have been not at all helpful. I've really never felt so bullied in my life. Please show some compassion. Cardriver 20:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you Getcrunk for polite message

Getcrunk was kind enough to send me a polite message enquiring about my relationship with some new users and so because this subject is of general interest and in order to thank Getcrunk publicly, I've decided to respond here.

My relationship with new users is as follows: I was spending the day with a large group of people who live in a retirement community and we decided to surf the web. One of them suggested we check out the Oprah article since we frequently watch her show. We began comparing the Oprah article with those of many other celebrities like Madonna and Michael Jackson and we felt the Oprah article needed more photos to look more like those articles. Not knowing all the procedures of wikipedia, I uploaded some photos that I felt nicely complemented the text already written. We all agreed that the photos were wonderful. Some of them later told me that the hard work I had done had been reverted. "Well that's strange," I thought. "Don't worry" they joked "we'll put them back in. They can't ignore all of us". Some of these people were very upset that the Oprah article was being so seriously scrutinized and held to such a high standard. They felt this refelected an anti-Oprah bias of the "young straight white males" who dominate the web and were just "harassing and bullying anyone who wants to make Oprah's page look nice". Anyway, I didn't think these people were serious enough to actually put those photos back in so I can't say for certain whether the new users are who I think they are, but it would make sense. Cardriver 18:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I am going to assume good faith and move on from that. I think that yourself and the other users should read Wikipedia:How to edit a page. It is a good introduction to Wikipedia syntax. I'm going to place a {{inuse}} tag on the article as I am going to convert the external links in the text to references. — getcrunk what?! 19:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Well; I got lazy. If anyone wants to work on the references, be my guest. — getcrunk what?! 19:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comments: Image issues

  1. Image:Daveoprah.jpg and Image:Dave promotes Oprah.jpg — Daveoprah.jpg is larger and actually shows Oprah & Dave speaking. Also it's used on The Late Show article.
  2. Image:Oprah.PNG Image:Oprah with dogs.jpg — both these images have no source
  3. Image:Oprah as a young reporter.jpg — it is a screenshot? What station? — getcrunk what?! 21:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Well I personally prefer the Image:Dave promotes Oprah.jpg mainly because it provides a much clearer image of Oprah who is the subject of the article. The other image of Oprah is kind of fuzzy. Also, there are so many images of Oprah with her curly hair style so I thought showing some different hair styles would be appropriate. And as for the image of Oprah with her dogs, the previous image of Oprah had no source info either. So I'm not sure why people are holding the images I download to such a high standard unless somebody only wants bad images of Oprah in the article. I personally think the previous image is really undignified and poorly colored, and the one I uploaded looks far more professional. As for the screenshot image, it's from the station she worked on in Nashville. I'll look up the infor on the web. Anyways, it would really make me happy if we could use these image. Any help you can provide Getcrunk would be greatly appreciated.Zorklift 22:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I've listed this article for a request for comment over these image issues. There comes a point when good editors get sick of having to war with newbie trolls over what they know to be 100% set Wikipedia policies. This must end. Harro5 03:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I propose moving forward by deciding to limit the article to say three or four fair use images, as at present there are far too many and users continue to upload more. See Image:Oprah as a young reporter.jpg and Image:Aftershowlogo.jpg for an example of how I propose to clean up a few pics to us, and delete the rest as unneeded. This idea was first raised by Zscout370 here. Thank you for your co-operation. Harro5 04:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I propose to use these images:

  1. Image:Aftershowlogo.jpg - a fully fair use press packet image.
  2. Image:Oprahfirst.jpg - a fair use screenshot of historical significance as first show.
  3. Image:Daveoprah.jpg - a large fair use image also used on the Late Show with David Letterman article.
  4. Image:The color purple oprah winfrey.jpg] - fair use (the most questionable, as it sort of fits "identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents"; Lindsay Lohan, a featured article, uses shots like this).
  5. Image:O Magazine cover.jpg - a fair use image of the magazine which has a reliable copyright source.

That would mean deleting the others as excess fair use pics (eg. image with no official source, poor quality screenshot that qualifies as non-notable, an unsourced shot and the other unused images of Oprah). Can we agree that this is a solution which might not please the argument of making the article "visually appealing" and so on? Thanks in advance. Harro5 04:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that Image:Cargiveaway.JPG should be used; it was a major point in her show (and is used in other articles). I've given a source. I agree with your points on all the other images. — getcrunk what?! 18:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, do television screenshot images necessarily need a web source if they are screengrabs from the show? — getcrunk what?! 18:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to have uploaded photos. It's just that as has been mentioned above, there are so many photos in the articles of celebrities like Madonna and Michael Jackson and some are not well sourced. My mother is very frustrated that only the photos in the Oprah article are under attack. Why aren't administrators baby-sitting those articles too? The fact that only this article is under attack makes us feel as though wikipedia does not respect the stay at home moms and older ladies that find inspiration from Oprah. Now if you must get rid of photos (I wish you wouldn't) I think it's essential that the photo with Nate Berkus be kept in. The reason is the influence section is extremely long and it looks good to have at least one photo in the middle of such a long span of text. Also, this photo is very illustrative of the text. The aerly life photo is the onlyblack and white and perhaps the most interesting. I suppose my least favorite photos are Oprah in the Color Purple and Oprah's car give away (just because it's so small) But can you please explain Harro5 why you're so worried about photos in this article and not all the photos in Madonna, Michael Jackson, Janet Jackson articles?

I just counted. The Madonna article has about 13 photos. The Oprah article has only 8. So I aska again, why is only this article being attacked? Also, the photos in this article are of a wide variety of copyrights. Some are logos, some are screen shots, some magazine covers. I think 8 is a reasonable number considering how long the article is. You already removed the photos of James Frey and Oprah's best friend Gayle.

Michael Jackson aticle also has 13 photos. More than 50% more than Oprah's has. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vexelsdaughter (talk • contribs).

One of Michael Jackson's photos is a mug shot. What about the other 11? I agree with Harro5 that we shouldn't be following the example of bad articles, but based on the fact that administrators haven't targeted that article for clean-up, I have no choice but to conclude that it must be quite good. To believe otherwise is to assume that administrators are biased and play favorites with articles, but administrators of all people need to be models when it comes to objectivity and neutrality because they are wikipedia's leading representatives. If they are not interested in being objective and neutral but instead wish to engage in cat-fights over an Oprah article, they should resign from administrative duties because a lack of neutrality damages the reputation of all administrators and indeed all of wikipedia. Cardriver 16:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone explain to Harro5 that I'm not a troll

Harro5 seems to be biased against me for some strange reason, calling my attempts to add photos junk. Yes I understand that there are certain procedures we must follow but I get confused when these standards are only applied to my photos. Maybe Harro5 is just having a bad week so I wont take it personally. Getcrunk seems to be making an effort to communicate with the new users and apply consistent standards. I still wish he would use the Letterman image I uploaded though :-) The point is I am not a troll. I am simply someone who wishes to improve the look of this page.Zorklift 00:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Clinton article

Why is it okay for a white male like Bill Clinton to have 18 photos but a black female like Oprah is having trouble getting only 8? Now I'm not suggesting we increase the number of photos, but we certainly don't need to decrease the number. And George W. Bush has about 14 photos and he's only been famous since the year 2000. Oprah's been famous since 1986. Hillary Clinton has 11 photos. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vexelsdaughter (talk • contribs) .

  • Any work by the federal government of the United States is entered into the public domain. Thus these examples have no bearing on the key principle regarding this article, which is having too many copyrighted images. Harro5 06:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Race has nothing to do with it: we have public domain photos of Powell, Condi Rice, because they work for the goverment and goverment works are the public domain. Maybe we should check the White House website for some PD photos for Oprah, but I am getting tired of yall trying to get circular points across. Bill Clinton is not Oprah, Jon Stewart is not Opera, Jacko is not Oprah. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the argument can be dismissed as circular. The argument is a clear one: Wikipedia should have a very specific photo policy and it should apply to all articles equally. Administrators should not just be selectively picking on only one article because this leads to the perception of bias and causes administrators to lose credibility in the eyes of some new users. If administrators wish to appear fair, they should prioritize the articles they decide to clean up based on objective criteria. A bunch of us are getting frustrated by the fact that this aricle is being so selectively targeted for clean-up when there are so many worse offenders out there. There's a lot more than just the Oprah article on the line here. There is the very perception of wikipedia as a place where rules are enforced without bias. Now I'll take a look at the Bill Clinton article. I don't believe all those photos were created by the government. Cardriver 15:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I took a look at the Bill Clinton article and many of the photos are indeed in the public domain. But many of the photos in the Michael Jackson article are not, and indeed some of the album covers don't even say who created them. Again it is essential for the credibility of wikipedia that administrators of all people not play favorites but rather prioritize articles for clean-up based upon the degree to which an article has violated standards and procedures. It's only fair Cardriver 16:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand what administrators here do. Please read WP:ADMIN; Administrators are Wikipedians who have access to technical features that help with maintenance. Those include protecting and deleting pages, blocking other editors, and undoing these actions as well. That has nothing to do with editing articles. If you think that the Michael Jackson article needs help, be bold. — getcrunk what?! 18:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The article also says that administrators are trusted members of the wikipedia community. Administrators on this page are in danger of losing the trust of new group of users if they appear to be biased against cetain articles and abusing their powers. The central question is why have we had to go to all out war to get only fraction of the photos that Madonna and Michael Jackson pages get despite the fact that their photos are generally less sourced than the Oprah ones are? Why do users on those pages not face such administrative opposition? With power comes responsibility, and with the power of being an administrator one has the responsibility to not bully users who are acting in good faith and not to hold different articles to different standards. And when administrators use their power fairly, they will find that their power grows because more people will respect them, support them, and will be less likely to oppose them in the future. I sense we're all starting to get along much better now and I hope this trend continues. You all have a great opportunity to show a new group of users just how fair and unbiased you can be. I encourage you all to take advantage of it. We're not asking for special treatment. We just want this article to have the same rights as other wikipedia articles have._Kittykashsbestfriend 00:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

While we, the admins, are indeed the trusted members of this community, we can only do so much. And the reason why most of us are here is that someone, or some persons, editing this article, are bringing issues to our attention that require our assistance. The Madonna article and the Jacko article, of course might have more fair use pics, but this is the one that has many people fighting over it, not at those other two. I remmeber the Jacko article had the same issues months and months ago, but those were resolved. Not sure about the Madonna one. Remember, we administrators are just normal editors with a few extra buttons. Yall can do the same thing and see any fair use problems, report them or remove them from the article and explain. No matter what article, pretty much fair use is a battle that we are still fighting. We are still defining what "fair use" is to us, and we go above and beyond what the US law states. The Wikipedia culture has to change a lot before every single article gets in line with copyright issues. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
As for the CD albums, we are currently debating about that right now. I personally feel that a source should still be provided if you did not scan the CD album cover yourself, but most of the community does not feel that way. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

What's up with these new accounts? User:Vexelsdaughter and User:Kittykashsbestfriend? By the way, I will point out that Wikipedia is not a democracy. — getcrunk what?! 01:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC) WP:MEAT, unfortunately. But the community consensus for my proposal seems strong. Harro5 02:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legends Weekend should be its own article

I noticed the Legends Weekend section keeps growing. I really think this should be its own article. It doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the Oprah article to have this huge list of celebrity names right in the middle. Also the weekend was not about Oprah. Yes it was Oprah's idea and she hosted it, but it was to honor the legends not Oprah. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Editingoprah (talk • contribs) .

Go right ahead. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I vote against making Legends Weekend it's own article. It was already seperate, and was merged into the main Oprah article. There is really nothing else that can be added to that section at this point, and it really doesn't warrant it's own page. Ckessler 18:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't really warrant its own page, but wikipedia is full of articles that don't warrant their own pages. In a way that's one of the stengths of wikipedia is that you find articles you wouldn't find in a normal encyclopedia. At least if it has its own page it's not harming this page :-) Maybe it's just me, but it just seems a little tacky to have a huge list of names in the middle on this page. I certainly don't think it should be deleted though or any of the information lost. Maybe I can find some other article where it fits in better. An article about black women or award shows perhaps? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Editingoprah (talk • contribs) .

I don't think the list of names should be in this article, and I'm inclined to remove it. When I merged the Legends Weekend article, I only merged a small number of the attendee names, but it has ballooned since then, and now all the names are listed. I think it's sufficient just to say that it was a gathering of famous African-American women in entertainment, literature, etc. Ckessler 19:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with you but I'm still a little conflicted. On the one hand it provides info about Oprah's friends and heroes. On the other hand I agree with you that it could just be reduced to a couple of sentences much like the David Letterman discussion. Giving it its own heading almost seems to blow it out of proportion. On the other hand I'm sure it was very important to a lot of black women to see their heroes honored which is why it was its own article in the first place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Editingoprah (talk • contribs) .

Maybe what yall can do is create a small paragraph explaining the whole thing, then create a sub-article expanding on the subject. I bet this was done too when Oprah did her car giveaway, since so many damn people just made fun of it, made a lot of news, and lots of other parodies of it too. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I scaled it down to a couple sentences and only mentioned Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King since those are arguabley the 2 most important legends and also the two who lived just long enough to be honored. I'm not against it being its own article and I have more info I could add if someone wants to make one. But I'm not going to create such an article myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Editingoprah (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Getcrunk, why did you add a copyedit tag to this article?

I personally don't feel it's needed now that I removed the superfluous adjectives from the opening that were recently added but I'm eager to hear your opinion. Editingoprah 22:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The text may seem alright to the untrained eye, but it has to conform to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, which most of the article doesn't. Examples: constant use of informal "Oprah", the "Online" section reads like an advertisement, redlinks (especially the book club section), also poorly formatted external links. See Help:Editing for more information. — getcrunk what?! 00:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Good points. I noticed some inconsistency in that some parts refer to her as Oprah and other parts refer to her as Winfrey which sounds more professional. Tomorrow if I have time I'll change all the informal "Oprah"s in the text and the captions to the more formal "Winfrey". Zorkliftsgrandson 01:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kylie Minogue article

The Kylie Minogue article is a feature article so I just wanted to point out that it has 10 photos. Earlier some of you were arguing that we shouldn't pattern this article after Madonna and Michael Jackson articles because they're bad articles. Well Kylie Minogue is a feature article so I think if there are any more disputes about the number of photos in this or any other celebrity article, we need only refer to the feature celebrity article as precident. And Getcrunk, you of all people should agree with me on this because I found that article by reading about the articles you hold in high regard. Zorkliftsgrandson 01:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of the photos at the Kylie article are under a free license, such as GFDL, and the others have pointed out on why they are/should be fair use. That is one of the requirements that a featured article has. So, maybe 7 or 8 photos are probably fair use, but could be reduced if someone complains about it. Plus, most of the fair use photos there have a source, which some of these photos here at Oprah do not have. So they came from her TV show; which website took the screenshot? Did a Wikipedian take the screenshot? That is some of the issues we are facing at many other articles, but as I said before, we are here because many people from here are complaining about fair use in this article and we are here to sort it out. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually I believe that 8 of the photos on the Kylie Minogue featured article are screenshots and they don't seem to conatin any more source info than the Oprah photos have. In fact the Oprah screenshots often contain the actual dates when the photos were created. In fact I would argue that the use of photos in the Oprah article is actually far more responsible than even the Kylie Minogue featured article because the Oprah article not only has 2 fewer photos overall, but also does not have as many fair use photos of all one copyright type, but instead contains a mix of copyrights including a logo and a magazine cover. Also, with the exception of the GFDL and the wikipedian created Kylie Minogue photos, the remaining 8 fair use Kylie Minogue photos (all screenshots) generally have less source info than the 8 fair use Oprah photos (of a variety of copyright types).
Now the reason there is controversy on this board is because an editing war took place on another board and an administrator followed the person he was fighting with to this article and then began to watch this article like a hawk with a touch of paranoia. My Grandmother's community got caught in the crossfire when all they wanted to do was add photos. Had they uploaded the photos at any other time there would have been no controversy. But the existence of controversy is no reason to hold those photos to a higher standard. On the contrary, it is during the most heated disputes that rules must be applied most fairly, just as the first ammendment exists to protect the least popular ideas. Now in my opinion, the most intelligent way to settle disputes in wikipedia is to cite featured articles (i.e. Kylie Minogue) as relevant precident because featured articles represent the highest standards of the wikipedia community and by doing this we can maintain some consistency in wikipedia. And this is also what's done in law when borderline cases are to be settled. Similar cases and rulings are cited as precident. Thank you Zscout370 for taking the time to read and intelligently respond to my Grandmother's concerns. Zorkliftsgrandson 19:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
And it is good that you choose our best articles, since I been through the FA process and that is pretty tough stuff. But, as always, the time that Kylie became featured, a lot of things happened, including her fight with cancer, so many pics were added long after the FA Candidate period was over, so the number of fair use could have easily jumpped. Now only if we have poses with her and either Clinton or Bush. Are we trying to be evil, no, but our we going to touch every single article. We can't, because there are a lot of people on Wikipedia that think of the lines of "free speech" instead of "free beer." And since many people think that, since we are an encyclopedia, we can use anything and call it fair use. What most do not realize is that Wikipedia's content can be copied by anyone, include those out to making a buck or trying to sell drugs (yes, the same ones that your grandparents could take, have takken or took before). So, we look out not only for those who wish to copy of our content, but also looking to cover ourselves before something happens. I really would not like to get sued over something that we could prevent, and copyright issues are one of them. I am no attorney, few of us are, but I feel that we have to make fair use tighter on this article. But, here is a good thing; you will be better than most of the articles. Most of the pics have sources, which is pretty nice. Most screencaps from Madonna's articles, and some of our other articles, just have a pic and a "blanket license." We can do better, and with Oprah as a start, we are doing better. I don't mind helping yall out, but all I ask is that you and the others watching the article keep in mind that not every photo from Google Images can and should be used on Wikipedia. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use images

The crux of a fair use claim is using a small amount of the copyrighted material. Flooding the article with fair use images means that it is very much not a small amount. The people involved in the above discussion should not be playing the race card, and should be aware that it is not the number of pictures, but their copyright status about which we are concerned. Remember, with fair use, less is more. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

We are using a small amount of copyrighted material. Many photos have been removed and this article has much less than a featured celebrity article discussed above, and has roughly half the number used by standard celebrity articles like Michael Jackson and Madonna. In fact the reporter photo was just deleted since this discussion started. And I certainly don't endorse the use of the race card but there's obviously some kind of bias against this article or the edlerly women who edit it. There must be, since only the relatively small number of photos in this article have become controversial while others get a free pass. If you're really concerned about copyright status, instead of just fixating so obsessively on this one article out of hundreds of thousands, you would instead being writing up some general wikipedia photo rules and organizing a team of administrators who are willing to police the most serious offenders. It doesn't make any sense to put all your effort into policing one article with only 7 well sourced fair use photos of a variety of types. I understand elderly editors may seem like an easy target, but start with the worst offenders, don't start with us. Don't punish this article simply because our editors are more cooperative and reasonable than other editors who would give you a harder time. Cardriver 16:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in your fellow editors. I say that not having studied Stifle's past behaviour, but I think I should point out that when articles get nominated as "good articles" or "featured articles", they will undergo a review of its quality and its adherence to policies. The images in this article are being questioned for lacking fair use rationales because it is a notable article and a potential future featured article. That is a compliment. But it can't pass review without fair use rationales on the images. As to the amount of images, I find it to be just right. All the images are relevant (at the time I write this). --GunnarRene 18:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
We been through this many times; we administrators and other editors were brought here to this article because there was a dispute over the fair use photos. Michael Jackson and Madonna are not having any disputes, so that is why we are here. Is every single article on Wikipedia following the copyright laws of the US, let alone Wikipedia? No way, but we have to start somewhere. We already have the policy in place, at Wikipedia:Fair Use (see the criteria section). We got people enforcing this with great fervor, myself included. However, many administrators are vandal-whacking, so our numbers are few. I personally have no issue with this article now, since as GunnarRene says, it looks just about right. And already, this article is a lot better than many other articles we have, even better than Madonna's or Jacko's. While it ain't got as much photos as the other too, photos can only do so much before it becomes more of a gallery, which Wikipedia is not really supposed to be. There are still more issues facing us in the copyright department, since right now, we are figruing out what to do with "article lists" that have nothing but fair use photos. IMHO, Wikipedia should try to swear off the fair use crack pipe, but like our addiction to oil, it is one crack pipe that will be hard to drop. Are we trying to target the article because of its' editors or the subject matter; no way. I personally do not know who I am dealing with every day, but it is a cross section of the world, regardless of race, color, age, gender or creed. Just work with us, and we will be out of your hair very shortly. And already, I am satisified with the article, but just remain civil and Oprah's article does not have to be like the others. As it was said earlier, less is more, and that is a good thing for fair use. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm glad you guys have no problem with the number of photos right now. I'm certainly not planning on uploading any more photos because I feel too many photos will make the page look like a fan page and I'd much rather this page be seen as a credible resource for those looking for information. As long as the current 7 stay (no more, no less) it looks like we'll all be happy Cardriver 22:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ready to declare the fair use issue for this article over? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
As soon as all images used have a fair use rationale. Then they can move toward "good article" status.--GunnarRene 15:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Harro5 just edited out the photo from the communication section despite the fact that the consensus on this discussion board is that all 7 photos were reasonable. That was the single most important photo in the entire article because her communication style is largely nonverbal so a photo was especially well-suited for that section. It's just really discouraging when people work hard to negotiate a community consensus and someone just ignores it and does what they want. I could just go ahead and put the photo back but I think it would have more crediblity if Stifle or Zscout did so, in light of the fact that they expressed support for the 7 photo compromise. If becoming a good article or a featured aticle means the article must be stripped of this much content for such arbitrary reasons, I'm not sure if I want this to be a featured article. Cardriver 19:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at the edit and I personally feel it is legitmate. While yes, it was showing the kinda of styles that Oprah does when she talks to people and to console people, nothing much was said about that particular photo, which runs afowl of WP:FUC. So, we are down to 6 photos. I'm fine with it. As for sending this to featured article, I would say no, but I would try out Peer Review first. More content will be added during those processes, but a lot more will be stripped, if it sounds like a promo ad or completely prhasing her. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
But Zscout, you just said yesterday that you had no problem with the article as it was but you are now allowing your personal friendship with Harro5 to cloud your objectivity at my grandmother's expense. And as for WP:FUC it says "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." and that photo specifically illustrated the communication style discussed. In addition Nate Berkus is discussed in the media counterculture section directly above and the photo breaks up the text. In any event, since you don't feel this article is worthy of being a featured article and since we have no desire to make it a feautured article, there's no reason to hold us to these undefined high standards that no one else has to follow. We've already sacrificed several photos but our good faith efforts to form compromise are getting us nowhere. Zorkliftsgrandson 21:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I see it now. Lemme go find the image. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no personal friendship with Harro5, but I did add the photo back in. Probably what happened is that while the discussion of the photo was there, but the photo was in another section of the article, so that was what Harro thought, and that was what I guess. I moved the photo to the section where the picture was talked about, so we could have a stronger fair use case. So now, we are back to the previously agreed 7. Now, let's make sure all have sources and this should be the end of it. I also have no plans to make this a featured article, since I do not know much about the lady to make significant edits, but as before, we brought the images to high standards because there was a dispute that was needed to be settled and we are at the home stretch. Do not let other articles bring you down, or just better yet, with the knowledge you all just earned from me, Harro and others, come join us in solving fair use issues. You do not need the admin buttons to help, and there is always room for more. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Zscout, thank you so much for much putting the photo back. The fact that you were willing to listen to our concerns and respect them enough to take action demonstrates considerable intelligence and maturity on your part, and it's great to see such an objective, open minded, and flexible person in a position of power in wikipedia. I would most certainly support you getting even more authority around here since you're not the type to abuse it. I personally think the photo was better placed in the communication section, but it works in either section (or in between both) and if you prefer it to be higher than I'll respect that. And I'll most certainly be keeping an eye on this article to make sure no additional photos are included and as I get involved with other articles, I'll be certain to oppose unneeded photos. One thing that would help us police this is a specific rule on the number of photos allowed per article (i.e. no wikipedia article should have more than 7 fair use photos under any circumstances) but perhaps that's not realistic. Again, thank you so much for offering this article your fair and intelligent conflict mediation Zorkliftsgrandson 00:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I am already an administrator, but thanks for your kind support. As for a hard number for fair use photos, there is usually not hard number, since short articles will have less photos, and larger articles will have more. But I will also watch this article too. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I too am very pleased with how zscout handled all this. As an administrator he has enough power to do whatever he wants so the fact that he was willing to listen to and respect opposing views is very impressive. Very few people would have done the same if they had his power. Are there not positions higher than administrator that zscout would be interested in pursuing? If so, I nominate him for them. Cardriver 19:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. While, of course, there are higher positions, but I choose not to want them. I tried to get them before, but didn't work out. I like what I am doing; I can do admin stuff now and then and focus on my true love, drawing SVG images for yall. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weight

Shouldn't there be a bit about her weight/dieting?

Her weight problems are mentioned in the communication style subsection of influence. I think the show about pulling out a wagon of fat is also mentioned in the television section. Zorkliftsgrandson 01:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irrelevant Asides

I was thinking that the following sentences are irrelevant to the article (see below).

As someone who is unconcerned about Oprah (and who has a flimsy knowledge of her, at best), I consulted this article as a "layperson-reader" looking for some information, and these bits felt quite out of place in her biography:

o "In June 2005 the first case of mad cow disease in a cow native to the United States was detected in Texas. The USDA concluded that it was most likely infected in Texas prior to 1997."

o "Gamson credits the tabloid talk show fad with making society more socially progressive towards sexual nonconformists. Examples include a recent Time magazine article describing early 21st century gays coming out of the closet younger and younger and gay suicide rates plummeting. Gamson also believes that tabloid talk shows caused gays to be embraced on more traditional forms of media. Examples include sitcoms like Will & Grace, primetime shows like Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and Oscar nomianted feature films like Brokeback Mountain."83.132.98.149 12:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any of them are irrelevant. Remember this is an encyclopedia so we have to discuss her influence in the context of the world at large, and people coming here to do academic research on Oprah are especially interested why so many people consider her important and influential. This is not just a biography. It's a total article about Oprah and the effect she's had on the world over the last 20 years. Broad info of a scloarly and factual nature is most useful Zorklift 01:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Billionaire

I'm not sure about the claim that Oprah is the world's only black billionaire. Robert and Sheila Johnson preceded her, no? Thoughts? [1]

Forbes magazine never listed Shiela Johnson as a billionaire. Some people assumed she was a billionaire because she was married to Bob Johnson who Forbes briefly listed as a billionaire however she personally was never a billionaire. However following his divorce from Shiela Johnson, Forbes concluded that Bob's fortune was split with Shiela, so he no longer had enough for them to list him as a billionaire. Thus in 2004, 2005, and 2006, Oprah was listed as the world's only black billionaire. Cardriver 14:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my edit summary got cut off for some reason. This is a very small point, but the word "by" in this context is misleading, inaccurate, and poor grammar. IronDuke 19:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

By the time she was 50 she had been ranked as the world's only black billionaire by Forbes. Saying "as of" is misleading because it implies she only held the title that one year, when in fact she's held the title every year since. Zorklift 19:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oprah is the worlds richest African American, but not the World's Richest nor is she the World's only black billionare. Mr Mohamed Al Amoudi a Saudi Arabian citizen, Ethiopian in origin is the world's richest black person. This fact is unknown because there are very few pictures avaliable for Mr Al Amoudi. [2][3] [4]--Eltanu 11:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There ARE Black billioniares, they are not as public as Oprah. Please remove this erroneous statement. It is NOT true. Africa has black billionaires, Canada, etc. I do believe that Sheila Johnson was said to be the first Black American female billionaire: [[5]]

America-Sheila Johnson Photo: [[6]]

Canada-Michael Lee-Chin: [[7]]

Sudan-Mo Ibrahim: [[8]]

(NitaReads 05:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Host for 9/11 event

I remember her acting as host or master of ceremonies for some kind of big inter-religious event right after the terrorist attack of 9/11/2001. This might be something worth adding to the article but I don't remember the details.Steve Dufour 17:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] References

Not to mention the lack of citation information on most of the links. Kotepho 21:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Stereotypes of Gays?

"Many of Winfrey's biggest fans are gay males, and she has been described as a gay icon. Many gay men are attracted to Oprah's theatrical touchy-feely personality, her over the top facial expressions, her flamboyant body language, her church-free spirituality, her broadway musical The Color Purple, her enthusiastic support for the Oscars and share her admiration for Mary Tyler Moore, Barbra Streisand and Meryl Streep."

That appears in the article and it seems like a giant list of gay stereotypes that Oprah apparently has which would supposedly attract gay males. While it may be true that she has a large gay fan-base, is that list necessary in any way (and it doesn't have citation anyway)--24.96.242.143 23:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Media counterculture

"She is, of course, therapist to an entire nation. If only it weren't so hard for the rest of us to get an appointment. "

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! When/if I ever stop laughing I'll come back to remove that

[edit] Archiving

This talk page was archived by User:Getcrunk on July 9, 06, but there was no archive link provided. Shouldn't there be an archive link ? Jay 05:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's happening with the references?

Why do they start at something like number 10? And where are all of the references in the text? I noticed this after adding a reference to "channel surving with the Mujahideen." I realized in the list of references there's supposed to be an earlier allusion to this Jill Caroll episode (ref. 9), but I don't see it anywhere. What's going on. Am I missing something? deeceevoice 09:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uncited Assertions

I'm removing, again, a number of uncited assertions:

- , and placed second in the nation in dramatic interpretation.[citation needed] - Through Oprah.com Winfrey raised over 3 million dollars for Katrina victims and helped to capture 4 accused child predators. Oprah.com averages more than 100 million page views and more than three million users per month.[citation needed] - Winfrey's "therapeutic" hosting style and the tabloid talk show genre has been credited or blamed for leading the media counterculture of the 1980s and 1990s which some believe broke 20th century taboos, led to America's self-help obsession, and created confession culture.[citation needed] The Wall Street Journal' coined the term "Oprahfication" which means public confession as a form of therapy. - especially consisting of stay at home moms.[citation needed] - Many of Winfrey's biggest fans are gay males[citation needed], and she has been described as a gay icon[citation needed]. Many gay men are attracted to Oprah's theatrical touchy-feely personality, her over the top facial expressions, her flamboyant body language, her church-free spirituality, her broadway musical The Color Purple, her enthusiastic support for the Oscars and share her admiration for Mary Tyler Moore, Barbra Streisand and Meryl Streep.[citation needed] - She said she spoke with Ludracris backstage after his appearance to explain her position and said she understood that his music was for entertainment purposes, but that some of his listeners might take it literally.[citation needed]

Fact check 16:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I know a lot about Oprah and happen to know that all those things are true. I already found citations for some of them and others are already cited in the article and don't require citations. Editingoprah 18:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The Oprah article seems to be severely defaced by a scripted replacement of Oprah with Fat Woman. I'm not a Wikipedia op or anything and I couldn't find where to flag this as a problem to others so I'm leaving this here. Fbz 14:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This article implies a direct cause-effect relationship between Oprah putting Elie Wiesel's book on her reading list and his being named to Time's 100 most influential people. While her list may have influenced Time's list, Mr. Wiesel was influential and world-reknowned before Oprah even had a TV show, in fact Mr. Wiesel was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize the year that her show started. At the very least this passage should either cite a source that explicitly shows Time included him due to Oprah's list, or this passage should be reworded and/or moved to a section other than Influence.

[edit] Request / Suggestion

I don't really know much about oprah i was wondering what her politics are, For a powerful person like her (with rumours of future political involvement) i wanted to know what her political views are? can anyone add this information? thank you.Anon-o-man 02:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know much about Oprah, but since i'm doing a research on her, i need to know everything i can about her. She sounds like a very confident and original woman, the way she cares about other people,and how to help them. Well you probaby think my opinion doesn't matter since i'm only 14 years old, but i atleast wanted some of my 2 cents in. Thanks—

Well if you read the whole article you get a sense of her politics. She's a pacifict and quite socially progressive. Cardriver 18:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] oprah presidential bid

what you think?should this website be included in the article?http://www.dreamagic.com/oprah/Felisberto23:30,27 september 2006(UTC).

No. --ElKevbo 21:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What about Star Trek?

I noticed Oprah's list of television appearances/roles doesn't include Star Trek. If I remember correctly...she was a "therapist" type on that show as well. I don't have the skills of http, so if anyone wants to add it... fine...otherwise, just a little tab of info that is just as meaningless. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.196.109.8 (talk • contribs) 10:03, October 7, 2006.

You're thinking of Whoopie Goldberg (sp?). --ElKevbo 15:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimmy Kimmel Live

Was just watching Jimmy Kimmel Live and couldn't stop laughing over his roast of Oprah asking the audience on a recent episode where exrement goes when its flushed. If anybody could figure out an encyclopedia way of adding this, I'd be eternally grateful. lol thadius856talk 07:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PSAT/NMSQT

I just tookt he PSAT/NMSQT today (I came back less than 7 hours ago), and there was a question involving Oprah Winfrey and her Book Club in the Writing Skills section. Just thought it could be useful in this article.

For those who are about to take the test in the USA (or somewhere else) and who are reading this, you get an info about the upcoming test.

--Zouavman Le Zouave 15:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ranking as world's most influential woman

Hello to that old familiar American confusion between 'America' and 'the world' in this section. Lots of the refs cited are American and refer only to her position in that country. Here in Europe she's just another chat show host, not influential at all. I really don't see her influence stretching beyond the US. Sure, she's watched in lots of other countries, but where's the influence? Jasper33 13:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Life magazine, Time magazine, etc say so - personally I agree with you wholeheartedly. It's a fairly hyperbolic assertion and hugely US-centric. It certainly doesn't seem to have been arrived at after any objective, empirical analysis - but that's journalism for you. Nevertheless, if they have made the claim (and it is properly sourced) then there isn't much that can be done, other than perhaps to find people who dispute the extent of her influence - quote their views in the article as a counterbalance.
Xdamrtalk 16:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If Oprah's not the most influential woman in the world than who is? True, she primarily influences only North American culture, but America has a huge impact on the world and is the most inluential country by far, so whoever shapes America shapes the world.

Can somebody tell me if that's with books like : "Make the Connection : Ten Steps to a Better Body and a Better Life" or "In The Kitchen With Rosie: Oprah's Favorite Recipes" that Oprah shapes the world...? In my opinion the idea of giving someone the title of "most influential women in the USA/World/Universe" is just plain stupid and do not add anything interesting to the article. (Same thing for "the most philanthropic African American of all time", knowing that she has given more than $50 million should be enough)
29 January 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.229.152.241 (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] trivia

the trivia here was absolutle stupidity.it was has if some one was askin a question! i've removed it cuz it was irrelaventChildishknack 18:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Just please do not add anyhthing because your grammer is completly atrocious. Brandonhard 03:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] They get a lot of mileage out of her

Every time that I switch my television set on, Oprah Winfrey is on it. She is mentioned every day in newscasts, in advertisements, and in shows related to Hollywood's movie stars, and in various other manners. Enough, already! I am sick and tired of the horsing around surrounding Oprah Winfrey. She has no real power. Only a delusional person believes that Oprah Winfrey is powerful. She is not even well-educated, let alone "powerful." GhostofSuperslum 05:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well just the fact that she's worth a billion and a half dollars makes her extremely powerful. Then you add to that the the fact that she dictates the best-seller lists, dictates who who will be the next successful talk show host (Dr. Phil, Rachael Ray), dictates which political candidates will take off (look what's happened to Barack Obama since Oprah endorsed him), dictates entire markets (the beef industry blamed her for sinking the market to its lowest point in 10 years), has a show that's seen in hundreds of countries, and is treated like royalty everywhere she goes, and top of that, she has no corporate boss telling her what to do, and I'd say she's easily the most powerful woman on Earth. Editingoprah 17:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
How many soldiers does she command? Where is her army? Where is her navy? Where is her air force? She has none of the equipment that makes people powerful. Queen II of England has an army, a navy, and an air force. Her military forces make her the most powerful woman on earth. The only thing that Oprah Winfrey commands is her big mouth. Power does not arise from talk. Powerful people humor her. She is popular, but she has no power. GhostofSuperslum 02:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The Queen can only command her military if there is public will to do so. It's ultimately the people who have the power in a democracy, and Oprah is more powerful because she is popular with the people, and Oprah wields influence in a far more powerful and important country than the Queen does. Power is the ability to change the world, and to my kowledge the Queen has not done so. Oprah on the other hand was listed by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people of the 20th century because she's been credited with popularizing and revolutionizing the tabloid talk show genre which provided much needed high impact media visibility for sexual non-conformists. She's also been credited with making literature more accessible to the masses. Oprah is powerful to turn unknown nobodies into big time celebrities. The Queen can not do that. Put it this way. More people would rather have Oprah's life than the Queen's. More people would rather be endorsed by Oprah than be kighted by the Queen. Public opinion polls show that more people admire Oprah than admire the Queen. That's power.
You appear to be extremely enthusiastic, but you also seem, if you will excuse me, somewhat blinkered. Oprah Winfrey might have a great deal of currency in the US as a social commentator/television personality, but she has comparitively little in the rest of the world. At the end of the day she is simply a television personality - popularity of that sort does not equate to world power. All nations have their popular personalities, by whose reccomendation a book becomes a best-seller, or an issue the next hot topic of public debate. But you must not confuse this with the actual ability to affect the the world itself in any deep physical/social way.
Outside the English-speaking world she has little appeal (that's quite a portion of the world straight off). Within the English-speaking world (except the US) she is just another talk-show host. Take the UK for instance - surely prime ground for her message? In the UK her programme is shown on out-of-the-way, low viewing figure, tv channels - she most certainly isn't any sort of cult figure. How do you reconcile this with being 'the most powerful woman in the world'? An appeal to mass culture does not equate to true world power, such as comes from elected office.
Xdamrtalk 02:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Well her popularity is obviously going to vary from one country to another, but she's stratospherically influential in the most powerful country on Earth, and overall, she has the highest rated talk show on Earth (she's #1 all over North America and is even a hit in the middle east). I never said she was the master of the universe. Of course there are going to be limits to her power. I just can't think of another powerful woman anywhere in the world who can rival her. I also think it's quite naive of you to assume that true power comes from elected office. In fact it is billionaires like Oprah that fund elected politicians, and elected officials are beholden to not only their constinuents, but more importantly their contributors. Editingoprah 03:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course I fully accept that 'power' lies with money and influence as well as with elected office. Fundamentally though, I think that it's difficult to identify 'the most powerful woman on earth'. Women are still significantly under-represented at the top of buisness, the military, in politics and in government. With so few at the top levels (comparatively speaking) I don't really think that identifying power by gender serves much purpose. Therefore Oprah Winfrey really needs to be compared with those who actually have that power - for the most part, men.
Xdamrtalk 03:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can Someone...?

I just happened to access this page and was reading the first few lines when I saw this:

Oprah Winfrey "is cannible and anEmmy Award winning host of The Oprah Winfrey Show, the crack-shack favorite of the lower east side where the show is taped. it features drug adicts and hookers, and tells about their everday life."

Another grand example of the problems with public editing...

Oh, well.

Will someone please fix that?

My IP address won't let me.

Thanks.

[edit] Article Size

Wikipedia is yelling at us that this article is too long. I can't say I'm one for cutting info, but at the very least I noticed that there is a "early Life' and 'Personal Life' section. Perhaps merging these/slimming them down? David Fuchs 01:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oprah fanclub.

Does anyone know if Oprah has an official fanclub? I can't seem to find it. Thanks in advance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.175.100.2 (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Chappelle Theory?

Why has nothing been said about the "Chappelle theory" and Oprah's role within this theory? Are comments like these considered to be libelous? There is much criticism of this theory but it is much more believeable than many of the other various theories published on wikipedia. Any real criticism of Oprah is completely ignored in this article! I used to think Wikipedia was an open and unbiased source of information.... but i now realise this is not the case when it concerns influential and powerful people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.178.32.101 (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/p/r/Talk%7EOprah_Winfrey_Archive_2_bd44.html"