Talk:Oprah Winfrey#Request for comments: Image issues

According to the links:

http://ethnicelebs.com/oprah-winfrey

www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw43kWEKjn8

Oprah Winfery has both Liberian and Zambian ancestry. She comes from the Nkoya people, a tribe in Southern Zambia.

Sorry if I’m doing this wrong! But I find it extremely concerning that this page doesn’t contain any factual content that is not flattering to this woman. There are plenty of issues for a “controversy” section, at least.

:the preceding comment was posted by IP 2601:8C0:84:AE60:2C86:BE4A:97BD:3E76 01:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Bogger (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:While there do seem to be criticisms included on this page, so I do not agree with the claim "this page doesn't contain any [...] content that is not flattering", I do agree that it seems misleading for so much criticism to be buried deep in other sections. It also seems that this article suffers from bias, as seems blatant in the following phrasing by starting outright with "Though" as if to say "discount everything that follows".. {{blockquote|Though she has been criticized for unleashing a confession culture, promoting controversial self-help ideas, and having an emotion-centered approach, she has also been praised for overcoming adversity to become a benefactor to others.}} Wallby (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:The above sentence actually contains more criticism than praise so it's arguably biased in the opposite direction from which you suggest. I do agree the word "though" creates bias, so perhaps get rid of that.SamanthaG (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:Apparently a controversies section is opposed according to official policy WP:STRUCTURE. However, I think the introduction should mention the criticisms of Oprah that have had huge impacts, specifically "The later years of the show faced accusations that Winfrey was promoting junk science" and that neither Dr. Phil nor Dr. Oz were actually doctors that studied for practicing medicine. Wallby (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::Apparently I was wrong about Dr. Oz having no medical license, apparently he is unethical (COVID conspiracies, pyramid schemes, providing a platform for conversion therapy, and vaccine conspiraces) without having had his license revoked. Wallby (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:I added a section to this page's introduction with some of the most widely controversial subjects related to TV programs Winfrey created. Wallby (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:@SamanthaG please discuss why you undid my revision here instead of on a revision note. As to your argument "if we add criticism of everyone she's ever endorsed, the article will be 10 million words long; should we add all the criticism of Obama too?" can you put this in terms of official policy? I'd argue that significant criticism of Obama should be covered too, yes. Wallby (talk) 07:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::Also endorsed is not what I wrote, she didn't "endorse" Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz, she created their shows. Perhaps this could be mentioned more explicitly, putting it in words that are more directed at her like "the show Dr. Phil Winfrey created has been criticized" instead of the person Dr. Phil. Wallby (talk) 07:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::I have undone the revert. Please discuss any proposed change here first to achieve WP:CONSENSUS. Wallby (talk) 07:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The criticism of Dr.Phil & Dr. Oz belongs in their articles, not in Oprah's, and certainly not in the lead and not with such specificity from dubious sources like blogs. It would be like putting a bunch of criticism of Biden in the lead of Obama's article because Obama picked him as VP. That would never pass muster in Wikipedia. SamanthaG (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I have listed this discussion WP:THIRD, requesting a third opinion. Reverting my edit and going on to rewrite large parts of this article is not adhering to dispute resolution policy. Claiming my sources are "dubious" is nonsense. I copied them from other Wikipedia articles, but they are not "blogs", they include The Washington Post, NyTimes and Business Insider.

::::Your comparison with Obama and Biden is not at an accurate analogy. This is not politics, this is business. Obama doesn't "own" the White house. Oprah does own her TV shows, and those of Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil. Wallby (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::See WP:DISPUTE for how to handle disputes, specificially WP:NEGOTIATE. Wallby (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::If you are going to make claims aboht "what passes muster on Wikipedia", you'd better be able to back that up by referring to actual policies. Wallby (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Obama doesn't own the white house and Oprah doesn't own the public airwaves, but both delegating authority. I called your source Science-Based Medicine a blog because it's own Wikipedia page describes it as such in the intro: Science-Based Medicine is a website and blog with articles covering issues in science and medicine, especially medical scams and practices. It might be a questionable source, especially for such scathing, one-sided and subjective criticism of a living person Dr. Oz of whom they wrote: No other show on television can top The Dr. Oz Show for the sheer magnitude of bad health advice it consistently offers,. See WP:BLP And then what happens when someone wants to balance it with praise for Dr. Oz? Should we let that in the lede too? Nonetheless out of respect for you and your research, I kept all your content but moved it per WP:BoldSamanthaG (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::"what happens when someone wants to balance it with praise for Dr. Oz" would be a violation of WP:DUE given that the vast majority of scientists seem to condemn Dr. Oz's behaviour/actions. I don't feel "respected", I feel handled. I have created a post on the NPOV noticeboard as I am unsatisfied with @EducatedRedneck's conclusion. If that also yields the same result I'll step away. Wallby (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you so much for the constructive feedback and thank you too Wallby for making the article more balanced. SamanthaG (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{blockquote|Many organizations and corporations are involved in well-documented controversies or may be subject to significant criticism. If reliable sources – other than the critics themselves – provide substantial coverage devoted to the controversies or criticisms, then sections and subarticles about them may be justified, but only within the limitations of WP:BLPGROUPS. Example: [...] a subarticle Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics, while a summary overview of the controversies is retained in the main article.|WP:CORG}}

:Is Oprah Winfrey an organisation/corporation under the definition of WP:BLPGROUPS?

:{{blockquote|''when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group}}

:The criticism has been merged into the history section if this article, which is not actually what official policy WP:CRITS recommends in cases of heavy criticism. I'd consider John Oliver a high quality source as WP:BLPGROUPS requires, though perhaps lacking in quantity of sources. Wallby (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Someone registered needs to fix the fact that her name is currently changed to Orpah Gall Winfrey, It can't be that hard to spell. Who even did it ? RadleyThomasx] (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Oprah Winfrey|answered=yes}}

"supportive and encouraging than her grandmother had been" makes no sense considering the previous reference to her, also ref only says her mother wasn't supportive, not that her gran was, so that line seems to be some editor's interpretation... 80.40.178.173 (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 05:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::Remove the mention of the granny, there, and, as mentioned, the ref already there actually doesn't mention her at all like the article does, so it's the original editor who needs to provide the ref that makes the quoted claim... 80.40.178.173 (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I removed the part you requested per our policy that requires material in biographies of living people to be well-sourced. If that editor comes up with a new source, they are free to reintroduce the comparison. {{Done}} Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Oprah Winfrey#CITEREFMoore2003 and Oprah Winfrey#CITEREFMair1999 are used repeatedly in the references, but are not in the sources. I haven't found them in the article history. -Bogger (talk) 09:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:Mair 1999 was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oprah_Winfrey&diff=385370290&oldid=385365763 updated from Mair 1995], so I'll change it back. -Bogger (talk) 10:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

A public image section could be justified under the following reasoning..

{{blockquote|best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section. For example, if a politician received significant criticism about their public image, create a section entitled "Public image" or "Public profile", and include all related information—positive and negative—within that section|WP:CRITS}}

Or, given that Oprah Winfrey is a heavily branded name that is often indistinguishable from her company, a structure like this..

{{blockquote|Many organizations and corporations are involved in well-documented controversies or may be subject to significant criticism. If reliable sources – other than the critics themselves – provide substantial coverage devoted to the controversies or criticisms, then sections and subarticles about them may be justified, but only within the limitations of WP:BLPGROUPS. Example: [...] a subarticle Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics, while a summary overview of the controversies is retained in the main article.|WP:CORG}}

Is Oprah Winfrey an organisation/corporation under the definition of WP:BLPGROUPS?

{{blockquote|when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group|WP:BLPGROUPS}} Wallby (talk) 10:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)