Talk:Oprah Winfrey/Archive 2

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: The Good article nomination for  has failed    
: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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Good articles|Good Article]] [[Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations|nomination]] has failed 

message: 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)
thread_title: Question for Harro5

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Harro 5 is editing too much

message: 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)
thread_title: constructive criticism for Getcrunk

message: 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)
thread_title: Please be respectful of very elderly users

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)
replies: text: 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  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)
replies: text: Well; I got lazy. If anyone wants to work on the references, be my guest. — getcrunk what?! 19:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thank you Getcrunk for polite message

message: # :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.
# :Image:Oprah.PNG :Image:Oprah with dogs.jpg — both these images have no source
# :Image:Oprah as a young reporter.jpg — it is a screenshot? What station? — getcrunk what?! 21:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Request for comments: Image issues 

message: 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)
thread_title: Can someone explain to Harro5 that I'm not a troll

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Bill Clinton article

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Legends Weekend should be its own article

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Getcrunk, why did you add a copyedit tag to this article?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Ready to declare the fair use issue for this article over? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I see it now. Lemme go find the image. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Fair use images 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Weight 

message: 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)
thread_title: Irrelevant Asides

message: I'm  not sure about the claim that Oprah is the world's only black billionaire. Robert and Sheila Johnson preceded her, no? Thoughts? 
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Billionaire

message: 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)
thread_title: Host for 9/11 event

message: *Why should we cite http://www.prsecretstore.com/inside-oprah-book.html?  It is being used to source something said by Vanity Fair, could someone find the actual Vanity Fair issue please?
*http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/listmania/fullview/1LY2OX563TBPA/104-1584641-3903953?%5Fencoding=UTF8 Some random guy's amazon list?  
*http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/l/x/lxm7/oprah.html Is this trying to cite this page, or the study?  
*http://news.elitestv.com/pub/2004/Aug/EEN41246835e91bd.html Is this really a reliable source?
*http://www.promedmail.org/pls/promed/f?p=2400:1202:13604868928517184621::NO::F2400_P1202_CHECK_DISPLAY,F2400_P1202_PUB_MAIL_ID:X,29472 A mailing list post?  It seems to just be a repeat of the USDA statement anyways, so why not cite the USDA? 
Not to mention the lack of citation information on most of the links. Kotepho 21:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: 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)
thread_title: Archiving

message: 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)
thread_title: What's happening with the references?

message: I'm removing, again, a number of uncited assertions:
- , and placed second in the nation in dramatic interpretation. 
- 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. 
- 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. The Wall Street Journal' coined the term "Oprahfication" which means public confession as a form of therapy. 
-  especially consisting of stay at home moms. 
- 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. 
- 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. 
Fact check 16:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited Assertions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Request / Suggestion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  oprah presidential bid 

message: 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.  —Preceding unsigned comment 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)
thread_title:  What about Star Trek? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jimmy Kimmel Live 

message: 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)
thread_title:  PSAT/NMSQT 

message: 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)
thread_title: trivia

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article Size 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Oprah fanclub.  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chappelle Theory?