Talk:O, The Oprah Magazine

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the O, The Oprah Magazine article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Magazines Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

United States

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Excerpt from Nerve Magazine

The neutrality of this article is compromised by placing undue weight on an excerpt from a biased article. There is no explanation behind the excerpt, there's no context provided, and provides no additional information to the article beyond one person's opinion of the magazine. Jennifer Simon is not notable, and there's no explanation as to why an excerpt from Nerve, likely a competing product, adds value or information. Two separate editors have found the excerpt to lack a neutral point of view and to provide no redeemable value being in the article, but those edits were reverted without explanation. If you'd like to discuss how we can make this part of the article fit within the standards of Wikipedia, please do it here and do not revert until there is a consensus reached. GregChant (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that we all agree that good articles should present criticisms of the topic, it is simply absurd to expect a criticism or a reaction to be neutral. Furthermore, Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view gets misinterpreted to mean neutral to all sides of an issue. In actuality, we only represent viewpoints published by sources and in proportion to the number of reliable sources that express this view. If the majority of sources on a topic are critically positive or negative, then Wikipedia should accurately reflect this viewpoint. That being said, I will work on making giving Jennifer Simon less weight by paraphrasing her (instead of quoting her) and including reactions from other critics whether they are positive or negative. --Loremaster (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O: The Oprah Magazine is not a biographical article about Ophrah Winfrey. It is an article about Oprah's magazine. Nerve (website) is a reliable enough source for a section dedicated to different public reactions to Oprah's magazine. If this section was expanded to include more positive reactions, I doubt anyone would complain about Jennifer Simon's criticism. So instead of engaging in an edit war, can we all simply collaborate on expanding the Reactions section of the article? --Loremaster (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've finally restored balance to the Reactions section by mentioning of the many positive opinions expressed by Noreen O'Leary in her article. Is everyone happy now? --Loremaster (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New source

This looks useful:

"First I should tell you that when I worked for Oprah Winfrey -- I was consulting executive editor on the launch of her magazine, which debuted 10 years ago -- I signed a non-disclosure agreement. Everybody who works for Oprah does. But since it was widely reported (accurately) at the time that the magazine's launch was, uh, difficult -- Oprah and her publishing partner, Hearst, had very different ideas about the platonic ideal of a mass-market women's magazine -- I'm not violating my NDA in restating that common knowledge here.

That said, because I don't want Oprah's goons (as David Letterman used to call her people) to come after me, I should probably not tell you that Oprah herself was a delight: a charming, funny, sensitive, straight-shooter of a boss. (One of the best bosses or consulting clients I've ever had, actually.) And because of my NDA, I can neither confirm nor deny that after we shipped the first issue of O: The Oprah Magazine to the printer, Oprah, worried about her stressed-out staff, flew all of us down to Miami on a private jet. I can neither confirm nor deny that she put everybody -- including the magazine's intern -- up at a fancy hotel, where hand-written thank-you notes from Oprah awaited each of us in our rooms. I can neither confirm nor deny that she threw a dinner party for us at her home (at the time Oprah had a sprawling condo on Fisher Island, a private enclave just off the coast of Miami). I can neither confirm nor deny that..."

Source: "Who really killed media? Craig 'Craigslist' Newmark? Jimmy 'Wikipedia' Wales? Oprah?" by Simon Dumenco, Advertising Age, vol. 81 issue 18 (May 3, 2010), page 106 Ottre 15:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Website Clearly Says The Circulation Number And Not the Number of Paid Subsrciptions As of August 9, 2010

This vandalism has got to stop. Wikipedia is not a fan page.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, please do not refer to reliably sourced edits as "vandalism". You can educate yourself about actual vandalism here. Secondly, the cited sources say:

Paid subscriptions – which make up the bulk of the industry’s circulation revenue -- fell about 2 percent.

and they note that O, The Oprah Magazine had an overall circulation of 2,415,336 (that's their subscriber base) and 583,457 issues sold from retail outlets such as newsstands. You appear to be confusing the paid subscriber numbers with the single issue retail sales numbers.

Lastly, I don't understand your "fan page" reference. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, but I'm sure it has many fans. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. No opposition after two weeks. Jenks24 (talk) 06:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O: The Oprah Magazine → O, The Oprah Magazine – The proper styling of the magazine's name is O, The Oprah Magazine as seen on the official website Oprah.com/omagazine. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Justinboyer (talk) 04:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Official names are irrelevant. Per Wikipedia:Article titles, I'd like to know which one is the most common name or styling used by most reliable sources. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While both stylings are used frequently, I've found that the styling "O, The Oprah Magazine" is used more often when referencing the magazine. Examples: The New York Times, CNN Living, PC Magazine, Hearst Corporation, Amazon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinboyer (talk • contribs) 07:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on O, The Oprah Magazine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050209072542/http://saarf.co.za:80/topmags.htm to http://www.saarf.co.za/topmags.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]