Talk:Oprah Winfrey/Archive 1

message: Some useful biographical info from here 1 may help flesh out the early career bit, looks like she was a reporter in '73, talk show host by early 80's —Hobart 13:15, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info 

message: I believe the article should include criticisms of Oprah Winfrey ..Currently the article seems be a glowing praise...Obviously the other side of the argument has to be included...  Compare this format to other articles on say Bill O Reilly or the New York Times where one full page is devoted for critics views.  The criticism uses the world "allegedly"...So it is NPOV.  Thanks
:If you can provide more than one critic's comments, from a more reliable source than The 700 Club, fine. Also, the quotes you added are a bit lengthy; a summary with a choice quote or two would probably be better. —tregoweth 18:21, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
::Obviously the ex editor of the ladies home journal is a credible source...Please refer the book itself   if you need. I am adding one quote instead of two.  Thanks
:::Once I found that the author was a former Ladies' Home Journal editor, I added it to the article. Previously, there was no indication of who she was, so I had no idea if she should be taken seriously. —tregoweth 19:07, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
::::Can anyone confirm the edit made by 60.228.236.195 on 2 December 2005 regarding steroid use? I can find no such article online. 72.131.44.247 07:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: I dont think the article is at all overly praising of Oprah. I rather like the artical. I feel the syntax and flow might need some work, but I dont feel an overtly liberal bias is present in its presentation. Though, it is important to inculde critisim. But, the criticism seems overly harsh. Oprah never presented herself as anything more then a talk show, so it makes sence she has opinions and the shows follow her interests. And it just so happens her opions resonate with so many Americans, of various back grounds and points of view. The real critisim seems to be at her sucess and popularity. If there is a particular interest that is not represented... that may be because she knows her audience, and knows what they would wish to view. After all... she has contracted to extend her overall tenure to 25 years. And no, I dont watch Operah, but do beleive she is a modern American role modal, not only for women but for many who can take something she says and be inspirid about it. Drachenfyre 03:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My two cents 

message: Why is this noteworthy?  Comedians (especially skit shows like SNL, Chapelle, and madTV) go after damned near everyone, but you don't see an "[x person] has been the subject of humour skits on madTV" paragraph in every notable human being's Wikipedia article.  I'm removing the paragraph. Shem(talk) 05:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... When I think of Oprah, I do remember special targeting by comedians--but mostly regarding her weight. It seems like the comics have moved on lately, though. So I suppose she's only remarkable as a "celebrity-topical" target, sort of the way tabloids ignore celebs unless there's something "juicy" to gossip about--like drug problems or weight gain--and especially if it is a recurring problem for the celeb. Another argument is that Oprah's influence and power make her a more obvious target. Ckamaeleon 23:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Comedy target]] section 

message: I recall watching a news segment about Winfrey's past, and she wore glasses that she didn't like, so she broke them just so her parents could buy her new ones. Just an example, but there is a lot more information that could be said about where she came from. And believe me, it's an interesting thing to know, since she has now become one of the most powerful women in the world.  Gary King 00:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More information for history 

message: Since Legends Weekend appears to have been a mere publicity non-event, since this publicity non-event seems such a minor branch of a subject (Winfrey) that it doesn't deserve its own article, since that article is worsened by its longwindedness and gushing tone, since the request for a greater reason for its importance has gone unanswered since September, and in view of what's written in Wikipedia: Deletion policy, I propose summarizing its substantive content (if any) in much fewer words, and merging this with Oprah Winfrey. -- Hoary 03:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although you can't necessarily tell from the article, what's notable about the event was the gathering of all these notable African American women from different generations in one place.  I agree that it can summed up in a few sentence in the main Oprah Winfrey article. Crunch 03:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Legends Weekend]] 

message: someone added this:
"2004: Harpo Inc. and Oprah were also criticised for organizing an expensive, highly insensitive search involving ex. US marines and amphibious vehicles for the body of Mr. Fernando B. in the Muslim area of Arugam Bay, Sri Lanka. Requests to assist locals were ignored, natives not consulted, self help groups shunned and their work underminded. A successful show about the Tsunami, Mr. Nate & Mr. Fernando at Arugam Bay raised compassion and huge sums in donations. Just one Million was channeled to the actual area, but through locally controversial Charities. Residents in the affected area still fail to see any actual benefits.  "
I couldn't quite follow what this is about - perhaps it is valid and just needs to be written more clearly? Rmhermen 14:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: This page is an big target for vandals and must get vandalized about one every couple of hours or so.  Should this page be protected somehow or is the problem not big enough to warrant protection?--Hypergeometric2F1[a,b,c,x] 21:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection 

message: Was her rapist ever punished for the crime ? Jay 11:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rapist 

message: This needs to be verified with instances or removed.
It has also been noted that the occasions on which various guest celebrities on her show "reach out" and perform charitable acts (such as performing for sick children) seem to nearly always coincide with a release of a project in which they have a prominent role (such as starring in a movie or releasing a music album). Some have said that this trivializes and degrades the various causes they help by turning them into vessels for marketing and have even suggested that it verges on exploitation, especially when children are involved.
:What's the "Some believe" crap?  Some believe the Earth is flat, but that doesn't mean they get space in Oprah's article, either. Rklawton 21:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some believe

message: Even though Many legends honred at Oprahs Ball didnt make it 
like Aretha, Rosa, and more these woman were not even on the ballot of being a legend
EARTHA KITT, ETTA JAMES, RUTH BROWN, and many more there is alot of people OPRAH forgot about.
:She can't invite everyone on the planet, give her a break.
::I watched the Legends Ball and was moved.  But, as my sister pointed out, "I wish she hadn't concentrated so heavily on women in entertainment."  deeceevoice 15:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who should have been honored at the Legends Ball 

message: I'm fairly sure the link in the article is to the wrong Bob Greene. Bob Greene, the "award-winning columnist for the Chicago Tribune newspaper for 24 years," is not Bob Greene, BFA, MFA, fitness expert, probably best-known as Oprah's personal trainer and author of several best-selling books on diet and fitness, including two that he co-authored with Oprah. Perhaps this Bob Greene deserves his own Wikipedia article, and then the link can be changed to point to that article.
72.75.31.210 20:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to wrong Bob Greene?