Talk:Oprah Winfrey/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Nate Burkas

In this article is states that Nate Burkas is Oprah's hairdresser, makeup artist, and decorator. He is only her decorator, and does not perform any hairdresser/makeup artist duties. Timwstone (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

church

i just read that oprah left trinity in the 90's. which church does she go to ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.96.75 (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Oprah? Democrat...or Republican?

VIRIDIANA OCHOA' UP TO DATE HUSBAND IS MICHAEL JACKSON"creation", AKA, that fake doctor Dr. Phil (Yeah, right; he isn't even a real doctor) ^{not true, he has a Ph.D in Psycology according to the article Udonknome (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)} is a right-wing republican who--churlishly, though understandably, considering who and what he trulyis--supports George W. Bush. Barack Obama, on the other hand, (in my own opinion, at least, is a very competent, intelligent, Democratic--LIBERAL--Presidential Candidate--basically, standing for the exact opposite of what that quack doctor, Dr. Phil, the non-P.H.D., uneducated fat diet selling quack from Texas stands for. Anyway, what should Oprah Winfrey's shawnna is her best friend political party association be?

Is Oprah a right-wing conservative Republican, or is she a Democrat?

Oprah's political contributions have been 95% Democrat. Don't know if Dr. Phil is a republican or a democrat. SamanthaG (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

But she should be a republican!! Go mike Huckabee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.50.194 (talk)

White Folks Controvery

I didn't see this in the controversy page, although I was quite a buzz in our area for some days. During her XM radio broadcast in September of 2006 she said (with Gayle King) the following: (following is my transcript as I didn't find any anywhere)

Oprah: I never ever did Cocain or any other drug

Gayle: I hope you get some good white folks like I did, cause I worked for some good white folk.

Oprah: i love chris brown!!! he's soo sweet!!!!!

Gayle: They give you clothes, and they give you food to take home. They give you good clothes too, not all worn out.

Oprah: That's what my grandmother used to say. And I now say, that I wished she would have lived to see that I did grow up to get some good white folks... working for me.

Gayle: Working for you!..i love you so much baby

Oprah: Working for me! Look around here. Please. Good white folks.

Gayle: There's white people everywhere!

Oprah: Everywhere! One black man in here.

Gayle: (Laughter)

Oprah: There's one. Everywhere you look. There's George. More white folks thumbing up.

Gayle: Now George is giving the thumbs up.

Oprah (maybe Gayle): I'm a good white folk!

Audio location: http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_audio/0925_oprah_radio.mp3

This became quite the controversy as she seemed to imply that she had 'turned the tables' on white folk. Don't know why this isn't mentioned in the controversy section...

Agreed. This above exchange is either blatant racism, or just gross insensitivity. And, it's been discussed enough to merit inclusion here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynot4tony (talk • contribs) 21:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

College

The article says she attended TSU, but it doesn't say what her degree is in, or when (or if) she graduated. Anyone? Can someone please address why "Dr." is used at the start of her name. This should have a cite. Furthermore if a Honorous Degree this title is just that. Thanks

Suggestion

Oprahs Best friend was Miranda Case..... she loved her but she passed away..RIP Miranda

I sugest that we should make a new headline called "Charity" where we should write about Oprah's charity gifts and also we shoud write about the new launched "Oprah Leadership Academy for Girls". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Studios (talk • contribs) 16:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Oprah was gifted in helping others.

Oprah was a very likable Child and loved to kiss and talk to people but that was not possible. Only because her grandmothers philosophy was that children should be seen not heard. When company was over Oprah was told to sit in the corner and keep her mouth shut. Please add this^ I think a child should know their place that what mostly all black kids were taught back them. I am in that age group and it didnt hurt me much. I think we as mother give kids to much lead way. that why we cant control them now. Most kids have no respect for their parents.instead the kids tell the parent what to do.

ARTICLE ERROR

Winfrey was born in 1954, not 1944. Will an established user please correct this? Thank you. Ekokosin 04:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Miranda case was Oprahs best friend but passed away and she misses her lots..RIP Miranda

This Change must Occur ASAP!

(Oprah no longer has 3 White-haired Golden Retrievers. On May 26, Gracie choked to death on a plastic ball that belonged to Sophie, Winfrey's 12-year-old cockel spaniel, while out with her dog walker and two other golden retrievers, Winfrey says.

"I ran barefoot out of the house and found the dog walker and one of my security guys pumping her chest," Winfrey, 53, recalls. "Just as I reached them, the security guy looked up and said, `I'm sorry, ma'am. We tried everything. I'm sorry. She's gone."'

Winfrey -- who "stood there dazed, stunned, crying" as Gracie was placed in a golf cart -- says she learned this lesson: Enjoy life but remember to slow down, too.

"She never stopped moving. Was energy in motion. ... I have never seen a being, human or animal, always so full of joy," Winfrey says of Gracie, who ran amok and gulped food and treats. )

Oprahs Best Friend

She had lots of friends but one that she mostly loved and her name was Melaina Harsy. She is 13 years old and she is the cutest girl in the world as Oprah said. Miranda Case's soul will live on. - 'Oprah Winfrey' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.34.72.1 (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

vandalism

first photo caption is vandalized and needs to be edited Veronica is the best !!! i am doing a project on oprah!!!

Criticism Section

Since the idea of moving the Kitty Kelley quote was reverted, I've deleted it from the criticism section entirely. It's inappropriate in the criticism section: if you wish to note the characterization of Oprah as being scandal free, then that is something to mention in a discussion of her celebrity status. It is not appropriate to use it to imply a conclusion in a section that notes the major controversies she has been involved in. I also don't see how being slightly more specific about what the Secret is is out of line. The revert you keep making is written so as to obscure exactly what is considered so questionable about "The Secret": the fact that it asserts that thoughts cause "vibrations" that then cause good things to happen. Plunge 22:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove the Kitty Kelley quote as she's an extremely notable source who's job is to look for controversy and some would even say invent it if she can't find any. So the fact that she couldn't find any dirt on Oprah is especially notable, especially in the controversy section of all places. As for the Secret, I agree it's a lot of nonsense, but it's a pretty big topic and has millions of defenders and detractors who can argue it from both sides. Not sure if a quick sound bite based on one readers interpretation in a section criticizing Oprah will do the topic justice or represent it fairly. If people want to know more about what wrong with the Secret they can consult that article (that's what wiki links are for). Oprah's promoted all kinds of wacky stuff over the years. Hardly enough room to dissect it all in detail Coatchecker 02:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The point of an encyclopedia article is not to defend or attack Oprah. The point is to be descriptive. The controversy/criticism section describes these complaints: it doesn't give a final ruling on them. And that is what the Kitty Kelley quote is all about: it is something someone put in there to "conclude" that these criticisms are of little merit and that there is nothing much scandalous anyone can say about Oprah. In short, the section is for NOTABLE CONTROVERSIES, not for noting what YOU feel is an important lack of controversy. If you want to include the Kelley quote, work it into a section about her public image being seen as squeaky clean or something. As to the Secret, my beef with what is written is that it does not actually describe what the Secret is. The point of these articles is to inform readers, no to deceive them. I'm not expanding the text any, I'm replacing it with an actual description of what the Secret is.Plunge 05:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

By an amazing coincidence, "The Secret" is the name of Oprah's Swiss bank. Wahkeenah 10:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

We’re not going to create an entirely separate section just for the Kitty Kelley quote when we already have a section devoted to criticism and controversy-2 subjects Kitty Kelley has devoted her entire career to. Kelley has built an empire off of controversial criticism so the fact that she claims to be unable to find any on Winfrey is the type of broad useful information encyclopedia’s note in their criticism section. If you want to inform readers and not deceive them you should have no problem informing them that a prominent investigative journalist who practically invented the controversial biography genre and has an entire staff to help her was unable to find anything critical on Oprah. The criticism/controversy section is simply there to describe notable information regarding criticism/controversy about Oprah Winfrey and the fact that the inventor of critical controversial biographies was unable to unearth anything critical and controversial is just about the single most important thing you could add to that section. It’s not us who are dismissing criticism, it’s Kelley; we are simply quoting her. SamanthaG 12:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You are just reinforcing my point. Me and Oprah are next door neighbors. We have lunch together everysing morningpedia article, you are attempting to editorialize your views via the selective use of a quote you think is especially significant in defending that view. Again, the section is noting controversies in her career. It is NOT about noting that a tabloid journalist doesn't feel there is any dirt worth playing with (the section is not even about sex/drugs/corruption scandals in any case, which is what Kelley specializes in, so it's of dubious relevance even used as an argument): that is not a controversy, but what YOU think is a valid defense against the idea that there is anything of controversy in her career. The fact that you can cite a quote to some effect does not mean that you can employ it in lieu of your own opinion to editorialize. I also didn't advocate "creating a whole new section." I suggested working it into the appropriate place in the article: the section about her public image, which the Kelley quote IS relevant to. All in all, your conduct is cookie-cutter POV. I note you that you also keep reverting the article to include a spelling mistake. :) Plunge 23:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The two don't belong together, never mind the POV issue: just because Kitty has not found anything illegal or immoral in Oprah's background doesn't make Oprah's public statements and viewpoints any less controversial. The two factors are unrelated. Wahkeenah 23:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The section is criticism and controversy. Kitty Kelley despite her considerable resources, skills, and tabloid tactics, can't find anyone who actually knows Oprah who has anything critical to say about her. Despite the fact that she interviews people who are anonymous and probably a lot of disgruntled ex-employees, jealous neighbors, or relatives who resent not getting more money. Kitty Kelley, the queen of the negative biography can’t find anything negative to report on Oprah, and this is not relevant to a section dealing with criticism and controversy? I think it’s the most relevant because it comes from a high powered expert who has actually done real research specifically looking for criticism of Oprah from people who actually know her. SamanthaG 01:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Kitty Kelley is an expert on controversy and is being paid millions of dollars to write a controversial book on Oprah and has actually done months of researching interviewing hundreds of sources looking for juicy criticism (from people who actually know Oprah!) and has been unable to unearth any controversy or criticism, and you wish to withhold this highly relevant information from the criticism/controversy section, and yet you accuse me of POV pushing. This is a section noting criticism and controversy about Oprah period, so it’s highly relevant to point out that a high powered investigative journalist, who’s done actual research and interviewed people who actually know Oprah, was not able to find anything critical or controversial to report about her. Media controversies are a dime a dozen. A multimillion-dollar investigation form a professional journalist (legendary for generating criticism about the most unlikely of people) that turns up no controversy and criticism, who’s done independent research is a real gem. But instead you wish to withhold this from the relevant section and flood the reader with guilty by association criticism about the secret because Oprah did 2 shows out of thousands about it and today even criticized some of it. And yet I’m the one POV pushing? SamanthaG 01:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Try finding hangers-on of any wealthy person and see if they have any criticism about their "friend". Wahkeenah 02:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Kitty Kelley already has tried and has uncovered volumes of criticism about the rich and powerful to the point where she's produced one controversial best seller after another. That's what makes her comment on Oprah so notable. For Oprah to have climbed to the level that she has without having pissed off anyone to the point that they have something critical they wish to feed to a tabloid journalist legendary for getting folks in the know to unleash the most shocking of criticism, is extremely relevant SamanthaG 02:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yet she still has critics. They just don't happen to be buddies of hers. Wahkeenah 02:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And we note the criticism (even the obscure criticism from unknown psychic skeptics whose criticism of Oprah represents an extreme minority POV that is technically not allowed in a living bio); other celebrity articles (i.e. Angelina Jolie) don't allow any criticism at all even though she was recently the subject of a scathing analysis by the New York Times (widely discussed in the media). Even articles on politicians running for president Barack Obama, don't have criticism. But we note plenty of criticism about Oprah, even though she's an entertainer/philanthropist, and thus is not in a controversial area of public life. But while the article does contain a lot of guilty by association criticism by obscure people who object to various cultural trends promoted by Oprah, it's also helpful to include voices from notable people like Kitty Kelley who actually have the skills, resources, experience and access to inside sources to describe criticism of Oprah from those who actually know her SamanthaG 02:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"Actually knowing her" renders their objectivity questionable. Wahkeenah 11:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And not knowing her renders the relevance of an opinion questionable. How can one intelligently criticize that which they are not familiar with? And knowing Oprah doesn’t necessarily make one a friend, it just makes you someone who is familiar with Oprah the person instead of the persona (i.e. neighbors, employees, business associates). Indeed it’s unlikely that any true friend of Oprah would cooperate with Kitty Kelley in the first place given that Oprah herself has refused to do so. In short, your assertion that people who personally know celebrities are biased towards giving positive opinions to Kitty Kelley is empirically contradicted by every scathing biography Kitty Kelley has ever written. If anything the people who talk to her tend to have an axe to grind. SamanthaG 15:of Oprah's opinions and activities. Wahkeenah 22:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The section's not called criticisms of Oprah's opinions and activities, it's simply called Criticisms and controversies SamanthaG 23:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that her pals like her does not render her immune from criticism and/or controversy. Wahkeenah 23:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Her pals by definition like her, and her pals by definition are not the ones who spoke to Kitty Kelley. No one is suggesting that Oprah is immune to criticism and controversy. All I'm suggesting is that if a legendary investigative journalist with a multimillion dollar budget interviewed hundreds of people who have actually met Oprah and failed to find anything critical, then that's far more notable than the random complaining of a few isolated and highly obscure critics, especially since that same investigative journalist has a proven track record of unearthing the most controversial criticism that any celebrity she's looked into has ever experienced. SamanthaG 00:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how Kitty's conclusions have any bearing on the criticisms detailed in that section. Wahkeenah 00:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The section is about criticism and controversy. Kitty Kelley is an authority on both and she's been given millions of dollars to investigate both in Oprah and has actually done real research. If you don't see how that's relevant I don't know what to tell you SamanthaG 00:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Kitty's comments fail to address the criticisms in the section. Evidently her research was not all that thorough after all. Wahkeenah 00:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Kitty's more interested in criticism from people who actually know Oprah, criticism of her show, and criticism of talk shows/self-help in general is not particularly interesting SamanthaG 00:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That's your subjective opinion. Mine is that the viewpoints of yes-women and kissups are not particularly interesting. Wahkeenah 01:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, if they're yes-women and kissups they'd be following Oprah's lead in not cooperating with Kelley. SamanthaG 01:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thus, Kitty is dealing with a biased sample, i.e. only those who were willing to talk with her. To put it another way, of the various names listed among her critics, how many did Kitty talk to? Wahkeenah 01:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

None of the names listed among Oprah's critics actually know Oprah and thus are of no use to Kitty and hence would not be granted permission to speak to Kitty. If you're doing research on Oprah why would you speak to obscure critics who have never even met Oprah? That wouldn't make much sense now would it? Now I agree that among the people who do know Oprah, only those who dislike Oprah the most would be willing to gossip to someone known for writting scandalous biographies. So given a sample that was biased AGAINST Oprah, and given the financial incentive Kelley has to uncover controversial material, and given her success in doing so on many other celebrities, it's all the more notable that Kelley couldn't find anything negative on Oprah SamanthaG 02:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether someone critical of things Oprah has done "knows" Oprah or not has no relevance. Wahkeenah 02:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It may not be of any relevance to you but this is an encyclopedia so we prefer to quote people who have some knowledge or research on the subject in which they speak SamanthaG 02:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"Knowing" her makes their judgment suspect. The criticisms are about stuff she has done. Knowing her has nothing to do with their right or obligation to criticize stuff they don't agree with. Wahkeenah 03:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don’t think it makes any sense at all to argue that people who know nothing about a subject have better judgment than people who have done actual research on the subject or have firsthand experience. In fact I think it’s exactly the opposite. And of course every one of us has a right to criticize anyone we want, but people who are speaking outside their area of expertise are not especially reliable sources. I think it would be horribly POV to remove Kitty Kelley’s researched conclusions simply because she’s come to the opposite conclusion of obscure critics who don’t even know Oprah. Kitty Kelley is the most notable source in the entire section, and as an expert at creating controversy and as someone who has been paid millions of dollars to focus her career on extracting criticism from people who actually know Oprah, her conclusions carry more encyclopedic weight than anyone else quoted in that section. So for us to arbitrarily remove them just because they don’t conform to the POV that Oprah’s a horrible person would demonstrate an extreme anti-Oprah bias on our part SamanthaG 12:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Samantha, it's time for this farce to end. Your every word only shows that you see this matter as a emotionalized question of attacking or defending Oprah. But it is not extreme anti-Oprah bias to have a section listing her major critics and the major controversies in her career: we list them and describe what they are. We don't take sides on whether those criticisms are legitimate or not: it is supposed to simply a factual accounting. That is NOT what you are doing with the quote: you are trying to use one of her friends (I didn't know this to begin, and it makes your case WAY WAY worse) as a means of conclusion to the section. That is not appropriate in an encyclopedia article, which is supposed to be objective: listing and describing things, not arguing for this or that. Why can't you see that? What if I went into an article on Stalin and ended the criticism section with a quotation from a party official saying that he was a saint and innocent of all charges? That's simply ridiculous behavior. We've already offered to simply move the quote to another section where it makes more sense, and you've refused. We're being reasonable here. You are not. You are trying, instead, to treat an encyclopedia article as if it were a running argument between critics and defenders. That's NOT what an article is supposed to be like! (and besides, Kitty Kelley specializes in SEX SCANDALS, none of which are even a subject of any of the criticisms, so the quote is highly dishonest in any case when used in that context)Plunge 19:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I would have no problem with you going to the Stalin article and adding such a quotation if it came from an independent source that did actual research. Indeed if some notable independent high profile person did do research on Stalin and came to that conclusion, it would be of such monumental importance that removing it from the relevant section of his article would be nothing short of extreme POV censorship. Now if I were quoting Oprah's publicist saying there was nothing negative on Oprah than I would agree it would be inappropriate, but instead we're quoting Oprah's worst nightmare, an investigative journalist whose made millions exposing the most scathing and controversial of criticism on even the most beloved of celebrities, and no, not just sex scandals, but all kinds of unflattering details about celebrities from how they treat their staff to their lack of honesty. If the section is just a list of major controversies then why the comment from an obscure psychic skeptic no one has ever heard of complaining about a show no one even remembers Oprah doing. I'm the one being reasonable by allowing in this content even though extreme minority view points, especially when making negative assertions about living people is against wikipedia policy. The subject is criticism and controversy, Kitty Kelley is an independent source (a very notable and successful source who is the queen of her field) who has done research on both so I see no valid reason whatsoever why you wish to remove her comment, other than the fact that it contradicts an anti-Oprah POV some would like to push. I don't think you can argue that just because Kitty Kelley is expressing an opinion that you don't happen to agree with, that therefore she should be removed or marginalized to a less relevant section. Her quote is directly on topic, she's the most notable person in the entire section, she's has a proven track record of getting people to spill criticism of the worst kind, and she's done ten times as much research as anyone else being quoted. What kind of encyclopedia removes conclusions from people who have done research and replaces them with obscure nobodies who only know the subject from an hour of watching TV? SamanthaG 22:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If you really wouldn't see a problem with that conduct, then you really don't understand wikipedia and the NPOV ideal. We're not trying to fight a war with selective quotes from people we think prove our points. Kelley is not Oprah's worst nightmare. She's a personal friend who happens to focus on SEX SCANDALS (which no one has ever brought up in the first place as a controversy and is thus irrelevant to the section even AS a conclusion!) and doesn't go after her. But that's beside the point. Randi is not an obscure skeptic: he's a regular figure on talk shows and in popular culture. That you haven't heard of him is your problem. And the problem here is that Kelley is neither independent, nor is her opinion relevant to the section at all. At this point, you've simply dug your hole pretty deep, because you keep arguing that the quote SHOULD be use to sum up the section. That's classic POV. Wikipedia articles are NOT the place for debate, and they are NOT the place for editorializing or concluding this or that about things like criticism. This isn't a fan site nor an anti-Oprah site.Plunge 03:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Kitty Kelley is most certainly NOT a personal friend of Oprah's, in fact no one who wants to stay in Oprah's good books dares to be seen talking to her, and Kitty Kelley most certainly does not confine her focus to sex scandals.SamanthaG 05:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course she does, but that's really not even the point. The point is that the Kelley quote isn't even about any of the things raised in the controversy seciton, nor SHOULD there be any editorializing concluding "response" to any of those controversies, whether styled as a quote or not. You have simply dodged all of the criticisms made, and have rejected a perfectly reasonable proposal for how to retain the quote. You are treating this article as if it were a fansite rather than an encyolopedia, which is supposed to be objective. At this point, the next step is to report your POV actions and then call for a vote. It's too bad that you could not listen to reason.Plunge 21:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine, if you wish to remove the objective reporting of an independent journalist just because she reached the broad conclusion that that there's nothing critical you can say about Oprah, then I wont stand in the way. But please don't accuse me of being the one who is POV pushing, and don't even bother trying to work the quote into a section where it doesn't belong. Just remove it from the article so we can both stop this discussion. Not all battles are worth going to war over, so I'm just going to let you win this one. SamanthaG 22:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

We have here a logical paradox, if both items are retained: (1) Kitty says there is no possible criticism of Oprah; and yet (2) there is verifiable criticism of Oprah. The second fact contradicts the first. Therefore, the first conclusion is false. Q.E.D. Wahkeenah 21:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Kitty Kelley is making a distinction between Oprah the public persona and Oprah the private person. I’m sure Kitty Kelley is well aware of the fact that Oprah, like most celebrities, have received enormous praise and criticism for how she has behaved publicly, but Kelley is interested in unmasking the real woman behind the image (and is a master of revealing the secret negative side of lionized icons), so she rightfully ignores media praise and media controversies when drawing her conclusion and investigates how Oprah behaves when the cameras are turned off. As I said, if you guys feel strongly that Kelley’s search for criticism of Oprah’s behind the scenes behavior and private conduct is an inappropriate contrast with public criticisms, then I can respect that view point. SamanthaG 23:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like Oprah and Norman Vincent Peale would have got along fine. Maybe Kitty should look into whether Oprah is getting a kickback for endorsing this "Secret" stuff. Wahkeenah 02:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

woah what are they talking bout???

Host of "Dialing for Dollars" on WJZ-TV in the 1970's?

What is the source for the statement, "She also hosted the local version of Dialing for Dollars there as well" (referring to her time at WJZ-TV in Baltimore beginning in 1976)?

Her own website bio doesn't mention this and according to a Baltimore Sun article dated July 18, 1994, Stu Kerr hosted Dialing for Dollars on another Baltimore station, WMAR-TV, until it "left the air in 1977".

I've tagged this {{cn}} before removing it. JGHowes ^talk - 20:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Spiritual icon??????

This should be added:

• What Would God Say to Oprah?

Mcorral 22:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

God would say go yo hell bitch

American bias: most influential woman

The first paragraph currently contains the following sentence: She is also, according to several assessments, the most influential woman in the world.[8] The source for that statement is an article which does not cite any sources itself, making that a mere opinion. I'd like to remind the predominantly American readers and authors of this article that Oprah Winfrey's status as a cultural icon is mostly restricted to the U.S., different from movie stars like Tom Cruise or Julia Roberts. Ask people around the world, especially outside of English-speaking countries, and they will have no idea who Oprah Winfrey is. So while her accomplishments are very impressive and she continues to touch many lives on a daily basis, calling her "the most influential woman in the world" is at best questionable. Some female politicians like German chancellor Angela Merkel, currently president of the European council, influence world affairs a lot more than Oprah Winfrey. Consequently, the sentence should be removed or be given sources that deserve the name; "according to several assessments" is just too weasel-y.--134.130.4.46 10:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Time magazine, arguabley the most influential magazine in the world, considers her the most influential PERSON (male or female) in the world so calling her the most influential woman is arguabley an understatement. Is she really so influential? Who knows, but remember the standard for wikipedia is not truth but verifiability. We have a reliable source claiming she is considered the most influential woman in the world by several assessments, and if you read the influence section there are many sources claiming she is stratospherically influential. Do these sources have an American bias? Probably but all assessments of influence have a bias because influence is impossible to quantify. It's always going to be a matter of opinion and debate and there's no true answer. But the important point is that several major sources consider her the most influential woman in the world. The reason she's considered so influential is because she has a larger audience than any talk show in global TV history. Her show is seen in over a hundred countries and is even popular in the Arab world. Her audience is extremely loyal and does what she tells them. She has a hit magazine which is even popular in South Africa. She's extremely wealthy which right away makes her influential. She is most popular in the U.S. which many believe is by far the richest, most influential, and most powerful country. She's on TV for hundreds of hours a year. Her audience is soccer moms which is believed to be the most crucial swing voting block in the world's most powerful country. And in the early years an overweight black woman who would confess intimate secrets on TV was quite quite a novelty and set a lot of cultural trends which Time magazine believes changed the world. There's even an article in the New York Times (the most influential newspaper) discussing whether she's influential enough to put Barack Obama in the White House. Anyone influential enough to decide who the leader of the free world is would easily be more influential than any other woman I can think of. SamanthaG 14:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The major problem here is Time's list. It's extremely biased and contradicts itself (C. Rice being mentioned more often than her boss). It picks 20 politicians and 20 entertainers/artists, which is a flaw in itself. Time magazine also made Giuliani Man of the Year in 2001, when obviously Bin Laden had been the most important figure, whatever we might think of him. Besides, in the Time 100 article I can't see where she's named "most influential". She's just mentioned most often as influential. That's a big difference. If there are several major sources as you say, please include them. The Time list is only one, and it's not really major and very flawed. Not a good combination. The NYT's speculation about OW's influence on electing the next President doesn't count, by the way, that's just one person's opinion on what might happen.--134.130.4.46 11:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarless of how much you disagree with some of Time's assessments (and I do too a lot of the time) Time is not only a major source, but probably the most influential magazine in the entire world. Not only do they list her as changing the world more times than anyone else on the planet, but she was called "arguably the world's most powerful woman" by not only Time.com but CNN and arguabley the most influential woman in the world by the American Spectator. You have Bill O'reilly (the number one talk show on cable news) saying I mean this is a woman that came from nothing to rise up to be the most powerful woman, I think, in the world. I think Oprah Winfrey is the most powerful woman in the world, not just in America. That's — anybody who goes on her program immediately benefits through the roof. I mean, she has a loyal following; she has credibility; she has talent; and she's done it on her own to become fabulously wealthy and fabulously powerful. You have the Chicago Sun Times writing I'm talking about Oprah Winfrey, the world's most powerful woman.[[1]]You have this quote from Salon.com That's why what Oprah does matters, and stinks. If you reach more people than Bill O'Reilly, if you have better name recognition than Nelson Mandela, if the books you endorse sell more than Stephen King's, you should take some responsibility for your effect on the culture. The most powerful woman in the world is taking advantage of people who are desperate for meaning, by passionately championing a product that mocks the very idea of a meaningful life[[2]] So not only do we have the Guardian (a reliable and non-American source) claiming several assessments find she is the world's most influential woman, but we have specific quotes to that effect from Time (the most famous magazine in the world) CNN (a huge international news organization), and Bill O'reilly (the top show on cable news), the Chicago Sun Times, Salon.com. So in addition to all those sources calling her the most influential woman in the world we have top celebrity biographer Kitty Kelley calling her the "most powerful woman in our society" and saying no other 20th century figure's values has so impacted America. We have additional sources calling her the most powerful/influential woman in the world's most powerful country: Barack Obama, Life magazine, Ladies Home Journal, Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd saying She is the top alpha female in this country. She has more credibility than the president. Other successful women, such as Hillary Clinton and Martha Stewart, had to be publicly slapped down before they could move forward. Even Condi has had to play the protegé with Bush. None of this happened to Oprah — she is a straight ahead success story., Ben Shapiro of Townhall.com saying Oprah Winfrey is the most powerful woman in America. She decides what makes the New York Times best-seller lists. Her touchy-feely style sucks in audiences at the rate of 14 million viewers per day. But Oprah is far more than a cultural force -- she's a dangerous political force as well, a woman with unpredictable and mercurial attitudes toward the major issues of the day. Her ignorant views and wacky reasoning shape the views of millions. [[3]], the list goes on and on. You have Vanity Fair saying she's had a greater influence on the culture that anyone except the pope. We have the American public themselves voting her the Greatest American woman of all time. We have the beef industry suing her because the think she's powerful enough to sink the price of beef to its lowest point in 10 years with a single comment. So I think we're on fairly safe ground in reporting that Winfrey is regarded as the world's most influential woman by several assessments. SamanthaG 17:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

...and all those assessments are US-centric. Notice a pattern here? And you've called TIME "arguably the world's most influential magazine" which is in itself a fallacy - it may be read outside the US, but nowhere near to the same level, and nowhere near with the same kind of household-name-ness which other, more regional specific magazines have. What's happened here is that US sources have listed her as "the most influential woman in the world". Nobody outside the US has (so far) been shown to agree. That's like Wikipedia saying that Cliff Richard was the most successful recording artist of the 1960s and then quoting sale figures only in the UK - it's entirely biased. Whilst I'd say it's more than valid to call her the most influential and 'powerful' woman in the US, it is madness to consider that influence extends beyond the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.138.138 (talk) 22:57, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

But the U.S. itself is so globally influential that anyone who shapes America shapes the world, whether the rest of the world realizes it or not. And there are non-U.S. sources that describe her as the world's most influential woman[4][5]

Zomputer 17:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

please delete those "most powerful" or "most inflential" woman in the world. this is stupid. angela merkel has more power - just one example. no one one outside the us knows her - not everyone is american who is interrested in wikipedia articles LizzzardKing 10:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm outside the U.S. and I know her. Her show even gets record setting ratings in Saudi Arabia. She's also a hundred times richer than Angela Merkel SamanthaG 14:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

i know her too, but thats not the point, and i know that she is richer but the text says powerful and influential. thats a difference LizzzardKing 14:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The text doesn't say she *is* influential, it says she's been ranked as influential which she has. You may disagree, but it's a matter of opinion, because there's no clear way to measure power and influence. Should power be defined by money, political office, media visibility, popularity? But the fact remains that many, many people of note consider Oprah to be obscenely influential/powerful and that should be documented. As the saying goes "power percieved is power achieved". Also keep in mind that Angela Merkel only came in to power very recently, and hasn't at all demonstrated the "staying power" that Oprah, who has has been around for 21 years demonstrates. And there's a huge difference between power and influence. Oprah's changed the world. SamanthaG 14:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it could be stated that she has been ranked as "most influential" woman in the world by some *american* medias. I confirm that she is totally unknown in most european countries and reading that a completely unknown might be the most influencial person worldwide looks very strange. Marder01 13:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't confuse influential with famous. Some of the most influential people to ever live are unknown to most of the public. Even if most Europeans don't know who she is (which I find hard to believe) that doesn't mean she doesn't affect their lives. The confession culture Oprah has created has certainly spread to Europe, as could be seen from Princess Diana discussing intimate details with the media. Trash TV which Oprah popularized during the 1980s has spread to Europe and almost certainly affected the culture. Many believe that realty TV grew out out of the tabloid talk show format Oprah used to do, and that to has spread to Europe. Zomputer 17:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

The "Fan Base" subsection in the article has a dubious assertion, saying that some of the biggest audiences for Oprah are Gay males. It might be true that some gay males idolize oprah, or are her fans, but I believe females are generally the biggest audience group for The Oprah Winfrey Show and fans.

Oprah does have a huge gay male following, but you're right. Her primary audience is women. I made some additions to reflect this fact. SamanthaG 21:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti-war Oprah?

Bill Moyers Journal opening broadcast disputes that claim. From the transcript:

BILL MOYERS: Even Oprah got in on the act, featuring in October 2002 NEW YORK TIMES reporter Judith Miller.

JUDITH MILLER: (OPRAH 10/9/02) The US intelligence community believes that Saddam Hussein has deadly stocks of anthrax, of botulinium toxin, which is one of the most virulent poisons known to man.

BILL MOYERS: Liberal hawk Kenneth Pollak.

KENNETH POLLAK: And what we know for a fact from a number of defectors who've come out of Iraq over the years is that Saddam Hussein is absolutely determined to acquire nuclear weapons and is building them as fast as he can.

BILL MOYERS: And the right hand man to Ahmed Chalabi.

OPRAH: And so do the Iraqi people want the American people to liberate them?

QUANBAR: Absolutely. In 1991 the Iraqi people were....

WOMAN: I hope it doesn't offend you...

BILL MOYERS: When one guest dared to express doubt Oprah would have none of it

WOMAN: I just don't know what to believe with the media and..

OPRAH: Oh, we're not trying to propaganda -show you propaganda. ..We're just showing you what is.

WOMAN: I understand that, I understand that.

OPRAH: OK, but Ok. You have a right to your opinion.

BILL MOYERS: Contrary opinions weren't very popular in Washington either, as ambitious democrats embraced the now conventional but unconfirmed wisdom.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html

She took a huge amount of heat for doing her show "Is war the only answer?" and "Islam 101" so she balanced it by doing one show where she allowed a few prowar arguments to be heard. But after the woman in her audience dismissed it as all propoganda all her following shows were antiwar, including one show on the eve of the war where antiwar activist Michael Moore appeared. There was also a show that was so antiwar that some people accused the president of holding a press conference to interrupt it[[6]]. In the book Dude Where's My Country Michael Moore mentions that Oprah was the only American media to show footage of Donald Rumsfelf and Sadam Hussein shaking hands and he ended up endorsing Oprah for president in his book. SamanthaG 19:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's an interesting article about her most important antiwar show:

Understanding What Just Happened on The Oprah Winfrey Show

Today, Oprah Winfrey started a two-part series focusing on the impending U.S. war on Iraq. About halfway through the show the broadcast was pre-empted by coverage of Pres. George Bush, with Colin Powell at his side, reading a prepared statement on Iraq. The coincidental timing of this pre-emptive press statement raised immediate questions about the motives of the White House war strategists. Students of the Civil Rights Movement will recall an incident in 1964 when activist Fannie Lou Hamer sat before a live television audience and gave a riveting account of the oppression she and other Blacks faced in the South. President Lyndon Johnson was so convinced of the power of her appeal to undermine his own political/racial agenda, that he hastily called a press conference to pull cameras away from Hamer’s impassioned revelations. Though the networks pre- empted Hamer’s testimony to cover the president, the newscasts later showed her entire presentation.

The pre-emption of Winfrey’s show today should be seen in the same light. Oprah’s audience is a vast and powerful—but largely apolitical—force of middle-class white women. It is likely that most did not watch Colin Powell’s live testimony at the U.N. yesterday. In fact, it is likely that this huge audience was being oriented to the issues of the Iraq war for the first time. Bush and his handlers are also aware that powerful Republican voices, including Rush Limbaugh’s, credit Bush’s pre-election appearance on the Oprah Show with “turning the tide” in his favor. It is unlikely that they treated this show with anything but intense propaganda interest. The first 30 minutes of the show was decidedly anti-war and highlighted not only worldwide unanimity in opposition to the war but presented many of the heretofore unheard voices of ordinary people speaking forcefully against Bush’s motives. CNN assisted the Oprah Show by presenting overseas confirmation of this from Great Britain and Iraq. For instance, the British correspondent said at one point that it was hard to find anyone in Britain EXCEPT TONY BLAIR that supported the war. Other voices repeated their conclusion that the war is “for oil,” not “against terrorism.” Those familiar with the Bush administration’s network cheerleaders at ABC, NBC, and CBS would, no doubt, view this expose’ with raised eyebrows. Then, without warning or introduction, Bush is seen at the podium reiterating Powell’s statement at the U.N. yesterday! One immediately had to assume that Bush was actually declaring war on Iraq, given the urgency of this interruption. Soon, however, it became clear that OPRAH herself was the target of this sabre-rattling and not Saddam Hussein. Bush simply summarized Powell’s presentation for Oprah’s audience, hitting key emotional points for this afternoon women’s gathering. He said nothing more of any import at all. Returning to the show, 15 or so minutes later, found still more impassioned, but reasoned, anti-war input from members of Oprah’s audience. There was indeed a balance of pro-war input but the net effect of the show—in spite of Bush’s strategic Johnsonian interruption—was to embolden the anti-war voices and to make opposition to the war as “patriotic” a position as that of the warmongers. What we just saw was a replay of an old propaganda ploy of an ol’ Texas politician, Lyndon Baines Johnson, against the scarecropper’s daughter from Mississippi, Fannie Lou Hamer. In 1964, enough of Hamer’s message was heard to force Johnson into acting against his own political desires. Bush’s ploy in 2003 may have backfired as well.[[7]] SamanthaG 19:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Oprah recently featured as herself in Oceans Thirteen.

No mention of her repeated racial comments?

She has at least twice on her show said, more or less, white people can't dance. Additionally, she has made borderline racise remarks when questioned why all the girls in her south african school were black. KillerPlasmodium 10:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Who ever wrote that Oprah was a lesbian and a whore that could suck a donkeys dick should change that, Oprah is a beautiful woman that helps all the neddy children. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.165.79.119 (talk • contribs) 07:09, July 14, 2007 (UTC)

That was vandalism and was reverted at 8:38 July 14, 2007 by user:Iamunknown. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Mis-placed comment

I'm not sure where this was meant to be in the discussion -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

- Beauty is subjective, and has no bearing in an encyclopedia article. Mindraker 12:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Real Name Orpah!

I swear it is. She legally changed it because people mixed up her name. If you don't know, get a five-day free trial on BrainPOP and search "Oprah Winfrey" Emma Megan :) 21:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Incest

Where Oprah is listed under the category 'Incest victims',there is no mention of this on this page, argueably apart from a brief statement claiming that she was sexually abused as a child. Is there any confirmation as to whether or not this is true? 24.24.81.237 05:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As I recall she mentioned this on the African American Lives program.--Pharos 23:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Small Update requested.

In the sentence, second paragraph of Influence: Fan Base,

"For example, one of the stars of the reality TV show The Benefactor was a gay African American man named Kevin who was so obsessed with Winfrey that he would ask "What would Oprah do?" before making any strategic decision."

There needs to be a second space behind the Italicized link, The Benefactor, due to known formatting issues with italics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.10.215.96 (talk) 00:21, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

The CIA has been editing Oprah's page. Is that relevant?

I added a section detailing the fact that the United States CIA has edited Oprah's Wikipedia article. This well-sourced (citing BBC) addition was promptly reverted and called "Tangentially relevant" by the user Jakew. The fact that the CIA has deemed it necessary to alter Wikipedia pages is a frightening testament to the extent of their "oversight." The fact that this page has been edited by the CIA (and the fact that my well-sourced addition pointing that out was promptly removed) calls into question the very authenticity of this page. I would like to see if there is a consensus that this is relevant information that should be included in this article. Any input?--Bodybagger 06:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The subject of this article is Oprah, not Wikipedia's article about Oprah, and not the CIA. As such, the addition tells the reader nothing whatsoever about the subject of the article. It is a self-reference. Jakew 11:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, articles are about their subjects:

“ Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so our articles are about their subjects; they are not about the articles themselves. If publicity regarding an article is significant enough to include in Wikipedia, the information would not be included in that article unless it was relevant to the topic of the article itself. ”

So, while it may be quite interesting, editing by anyone, CIA, or other persons, to the article itself, (Or any other article for that matter, assuming no WP:COI) has nothing to do with the subject of the article, in this case, Oprah Winfrey. Now, the only caveat to this would be if it was proven that Oprah (or her staff) were editing the article, then it would become relevant. Hope that helps clear up the issue! ^Ariel♥Gold 19:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Oprah was actually the second female African-American billionaire.

For those who would revert my edit stating this in the article, here’s my response with sources.

First, the Forbes list is not definitive. Even Forbes does not presume the list is definitive, therefore neither should Wiki editors. In fact Forbes calls its list “our estimates”, and writes in its Methodology, “Are there really exactly 400 billionaires in America? No. By our count there are a few more.”

http://www.forbes.com/2006/09/21/forbes-400-methodology-biz_cz_mm_06rich400_0921methodology.html

So Forbes is an excellent source, but not the only excellent source. The Forbes methodology also focuses on individuals and does not really acknowledge couples. But there are multiple other published sources stating not only that the Johnsons were the first, but specifically stating that Sheila Johnson achieved the distinction of being the first African-American female billionaire before Winfrey. Even Forbes acknowledges the distinction of "first African-American billionaire" as attributed not to Winfrey, but to the Johnsons:

Forbes.com – “Robert L. Johnson”. 2005.

“Founder of Black Entertainment Television became the nation's first African-American billionaire after selling the cable channel to Viacom for $3 billion in 2001. Still in 10 digits even after paying estimated $400 million divorce settlement to ex-wife Sheila in 2002.”

http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists/54/2003/LIR.jhtml?passListId=54&passYear=2003&passListType=Person&uniqueId=VYCO&datatype=Person

In 2003, the Forbes 400 ranked Johnson at 179 with 1.3 billion, and Winfrey at 224 with 1.1 billion.

[8]

Multiple other sources list Johnson as the “co-founder” of BET with his wife, Sheila Johnson and also note her status as the first female African-American billionaire. I have included 26 of the many diverse and reputable sources below that state this point. And as long as the list is, even it is not exhaustive:

1) The Washington Post – “Sheila Johnson, Marrying Well” – Sept. 25, 2005 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/24/AR2005092401710_pf.html

2) The Washington Business Journal – “A conversation with BET Co-founder Sheila Johnson - 1/21/05 http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2005/01/24/story8.html

3) Ebony Magazine – “Sheila Johnson: America’s first Black female billionaire – Biography” - Sept. 1, 2003 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1077/is_11_58/ai_106700553

4) HotelChatter.com – “BET Co-Founder Sheila Johnson is Keeping Busy in the Hospitality World” - 8/10/2007 http://www.hotelchatter.com/tag/Sheila%20Johnson

5) Interview in Cosmo Girl. A Hearst Communications Publication. “Billion dollar lady” - 5/6/2007 http://www.cosmogirl.com/lifeadvice/project-2024/sheila-johnson-may06

6) Essence Magazine - “Sheila Johnson, BET’s Other Billionaire” – 2005 http://www.essence.com/essence/workandwealth/atwork/0,16109,1045632,00.html

7) USA Today – “BET billionaire Sheila Johnson: Hillary's terrific, but Obama's her man” - 6/12/07 http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/06/bet_billionaire.html

8) The Washingtonian – “Sheila Johnson Transports Violins to Illinois” – 12/1/06 http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/2905.html

9) National Public Radio – “American Billionaire Tackles Global Poverty” – June 14, 2007 – http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11044100

10) AOL Black Voices – “Move Over Oprah: Meet the Other Black Woman Billionaire” – 9/14/05 http://blackvoices.aol.com/workmonmain/workmonmain_canv/wmart/_a/move-over-oprah-meet-the-other-black/20050803171309990001

11) PRN Newswire – USNewswire – “Sheila C. Johnson Honored for Role in 'Breaking Barriers' at Special USTA Opening Night Celebration” – Aug. 23, 2007. http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=ind_focus.story&STORY=/www/story/08-23-2007/0004650404&EDATE=THU+Aug+23+2007,+10:07+AM

12) Black Athlete Sports Network – “Sheila Johnson, Robert’s Ex” – 7/22/05. http://www.blackathlete.net/Blackbox/blackbox072205.html

13) American University Radio – “Sheila Johnson” – 6/23/05. http://wamu.org/programs/kn/05/06/23.php

14) Old Town Crier. “Sheila Johnson”. http://www.oldtowncrier.com/feb07/personalityprofile.cfm

15) University of Illinois Alumni Assn. “Alumni Profile.” Nov/Dec 2004. http://www.uiaa.org/Urbana/illinoisalumni/utxt0406e.html

16) Black Digital Network – “African American Women Leading World Philanthropy” - 9/3/07 http://blackdigitalnetwork.com/articles.asp?id=4&art=752

17) ESPN. “Mystics Owner Gives Back” – 2/22/07. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blackhistory2007/news/story?id=2775013

18) BlackGivesBack.com – “Q & A with Sheila Johnson” – 9/9/07. http://blackgivesback.blogspot.com/2007/08/q-with-sheila-johnson.html

19) Biography.com – “Sheila Crump Johnson Biography - Concentrated on Music, Co-founded BET, Turned to Equestrian Lifestyle, Generously Gave Away Millions” – 2007. http://biography.jrank.org/pages/2418/Johnson-Sheila-Crump.html

20) Black Enterprise – “Keeping Up with the Johnsons” – 7/31/07. http://www.blackenterprise.com/cms/exclusivesopen.aspx?id=3332

21) Associated Press – “Sorensen Inst. For Political Leadership. University of Virginia”. 1/9/06. http://blog.sorenseninstitute.org/blog/StateandRegionalBoards/BoardMemberProfiles/_archives/2006/1/9/1632989.html

22) Cornell University School of Hotel Administration – “Dean’s Distinguished Lecture Series”. Aug. 25, 2006. http://www.hotelschool.cornell.edu/academics/lectureseries.html

23) Tennis Magazine. – “Gibson’s impact measured by those she inspired.” – 8/24/07. http://www.tennis.com/news/news.aspx?id=100430

24) Women’s Leadership Exchange. – “Atlanta Conference”. 9/19/06. http://www.womensleadershipexchange.com/index.php?pagename=atlanta2006

25) CBS Sports – “Tennis trailblazer Althea Gibson's impact measured by those she inspired.” 8/25/07. http://www.sportsline.com/tennis/story/10317860

26) Hire Strategy. “Richest Residents” 8/14/07. http://www.hirestrategy.com/articles/feature_content.asp?id=513

If someone can find a quote from Winfrey claiming she is the first, please post it here. Or even a source that says she achieved the distinction before the Johnsons. It is not a claim that I’ve found that she or any other reputable source has ever made. And again, every source stating that she is the lone or first, or first female African-American billionaire appear to be extracted solely from the Forbes methodology which again, appears to exclude equal partner couples from its estimates.

Second, even with Forbes Winfrey was not listed as a billionaire until 2003. However Robert L. Johnson and his then wife Sheila Johnson became billionaires with the sale of BET to Viacom in 2001 for $3 billion. Again even Forbes acknowledges this. But Sheila Johson was not simply "the wife”. She was an equal equity partner in the business with Johnson, and a corporate executive officer. Additionally according to several of the sources above, it was her bank loan of $500,000 that financed the start up that became BET. The articles all suggest they were equal business partners not just a married couple where he did built the business and she was some inactive agent in the success of the business.

So to be accurate - with the 2001 sale, they both became the first male and female African-American billionaires respectively. Then with the equal division of their assets following their divorce in 2002, both briefly dropped off the list of billionaires, but that does not change the fact that before the divorce divided their assets, united they were still the first African-American billionaires. And Winfrey joined them in 2003.

Third, according to the sources above, Sheila Jackson quickly diversified her portfolio with numerous holdings after her divorce, and not only restored her position as a billionaire in her own right, but again did so predating Winfrey’s 2003 entry the following year. Therefore, despite Winfrey's substantial notoriety as an African-American female billionaire, ultimately she was not the first to achieve this distinction. End of story.

So please let’s stop any nasty edit war before they begin. And if anyone is inclined for whatever reason, to still not accept these findings, kindly do your own research and post your own results here before arbitrarily doing a revert. And then we can discuss them, and if necessary, submit the results of both findings to consensus according to WP:CON. X4n6 11:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually Oprah was the first and only black woman billionaire

Sheila Johnson has never been a billionaire. She was described as a billionaire only loosely by the media because she was married to a billionaire but Oprah is the first black woman to actually have an individual net worth in the 10 figures:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2003-02-27-forbes-billionaires_x.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9712069/site/newsweek/

No credible business magazine has calculated Sheila Johnson’s personal net worth as being in the 10 figure range.

The fact that Bob Johnson (Robert L. Johnson) has been called the first African American billionaire does not prove his wife was a billionaire before Oprah was. In fact it proves just the opposite. If the sale of BET had made both Johnsons billionaires at the same time Johnson would have been described as the first African American male billionaire instead of the first African American billionaire outright. Instead the billion plus he acquired from BET qualified him and him alone as the first African American billionaire and he retained his billionaire status until his divorce from Shiela in which case his billion was divided and he was dropped from Forbes billionaire list:

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/harrypotter/11614

And your argument that Forbes does not acknowledge couples is also false. Dorris and Donald Fisher, owners of the gap were both listed as billionaires by Forbes. The reason was that the wealth was credited to both of them while in the case of the Johnson’s the BET fortune was credited to Bob only. In addition, the Gap fortune was large enough that both could qualify as billionaires individually. The Johnson 63% stake in the BET fortune by contrast was worth $1.3-$1.6 billion (not enough for two people to be billionaires) so when Sheila claimed her chunk of it in divorce, Bob was dropped from Forbes billionaire list, and didn’t make it back on the list until he invested what he had left into realestate. If Sheila does the same, she too may one day qualify for Forbes list as the second black woman billionaire, but so far she hasn’t done so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacingcar (talk • contribs) 13:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As of 7th of March 2008, Oprah winfrey is no longer the "only" black billionare. Aliko Dangote (Nigeria): http://www.forbes.com/2008/03/05/new-billionaires-rich-billionaires08-cx_lk_0305new_slide_4.html?thisSpeed=20000 Patrice Motsepe (South Africa): http://www.forbes.com/2008/03/05/new-billionaires-rich-billionaires08-cx_lk_0305new_slide_9.html?thisSpeed=30000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.99.95 (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Where are the sources?

Your contention that Sheila Jackson has never been a billionaire, and is "described as a billionaire only loosely because she was married to billionaire" is nothing but your own unsourced speculation. It is certainly not supported by either link you submitted. Your USA Today article only cites the Forbes list and does not offer independent analysis. It certainly does nothing to refute all the sources I provided. Nor does it even address or contradict the USA Today source which I cited. In fact, my source is actually 2007 while yours was back in February of 2003! The MSNBC link also simply states that Winfrey is the first but offers no sourcing at all, nor a date of reference to review. Also your argument that no credible business magazine calculated Sheila Johnson's net worth in the billions suggests that you did not read the Washington Business Journal, Black Enterprise, NPR, Ebony, Essence and Washington Post articles, all of which call her a billionaire in her own right, and several which specifically reference that she predated Winfrey in becoming one. Those sources, in addition to the AP, CBS, ESPN, Cornell University, the University of Illinois and the University of Virginia are each independently and collectively unquestionably credible sources. And since you categorically state that Winfrey was the "first and only black woman billionaire", you need to source that claim. Because you haven't so far. You've given just two sources that reference "first", but neither ever mentioned "only". Or how about a source that specifically addresses and dispels Sheila Johnson's "claim" of her billionaire status?

Furthermore, your argument regarding the Johnson billions ignores logic, and is also unsourced. If they were equal partners, as all the sources I provided indicate, then if he was a billionaire, so must she be as well. You can't co-own something equally with another partner with one partner taking 100% benefit and the other taking zero, but that's what you seem to suggest. And especially in this case, where they shared equally the profits and proceeds of the Viacom sale, as all my sources indicate. However, prior to the distribution of the assets, your own figures, which are basically accurate that they received between $1.3 & $1.5 Billion suggests that if they both shared that amount then they were both billionaires. It was only in the divorce the following year that the assets had to be divided and they both lost billionaire status. But having it and losing it is very different than never having it at all - and before the divorce, they were togther both billionaires, there really is no way around that fact. Plus I quoted Forbes directly which said that he eventually recovered his billionaire status after the divorce and holds that position today - with the additional sources beyond Forbes that say she did exactly the same. Her diversified holdings today, far exceed the amount she acquired in the division of the marital assets. She owns a stake in three sports franchises, a resort that she just acquired valued at over a quarter billion dollars and other holdings, all completely sourced by the links I provided.

As to the question of Forbes acknowledging Johnson alone where you say they acknowledged the GAP co-founders, that's also unsourced, so I don't know where you got that from. Provide the link and I'll look at it. But I also go back to my original Forbes links, and Forbes own admissions that their list is only "our estimate", and that it also omits several billionaires. That Forbes credits Johnson alone but offers no basis in fact for that conclusion renders it nothing more than an editorial call on their part, with no weight of substance or proof in fact. And again, every other credible source disagrees with their bias.

In addition to the many mainstream sources I referenced I would especially recommend that you take note of the many legitimate African-American business sources which credit Johnson and not Winfrey as the first African-American female billionaire. The major ones include Black Enterprises, Ebony & Essence. Each one is long and well established as reputable publications of record in the African-American community. It seems highly unlikely they would each and independently make the exact same claim and reach the exact same conclusion, especially over the iconic Winfrey, on a whim.

But since you are clearly interested in Forbes re: the Johnsons, you may find the link below interesting. It is about a Forbes senior writer who wrote a book about the Johnsons back in 2004, and discloses among other things:

Brett Pulley, a senior editor at Forbes magazine, says that "black businesses are not used to being scrutinized like this," and that it is "extremely tough to do these tough stories on African American businesses." I'm not sure what that means really, but it seems to suggest some admission that it is quite likely that Forbes got this one wrong - or at minimum, less than completely right. Also in the Q & A that accompanies it, he notes that each had "individual fortunes in the neighborhood" of approximately $750 million after the division of the BET assets in the divorce. So with their additional holdings since then, a billion really doesn't appear to be much of a logical stretch at all. And again, that estimate was back in 2004!

http://www.forbes.com/ceonetwork/2004/04/08/0408chat_transcript.html

In the interim, I recommend that you review the sources I posted, and perhaps even do more research on your own. If we cannot agree as I said, I have no problem with submitting the issue for consensus. But since you seem intent on reverting my edits and then discussing them after the fact, it appears a consensus finding per WP:CON is imminent. X4n6 15:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

X4n6 Ebony and Essence are not reliable sources when it comes to business. Also you seem to be missing the point. If Bob and Sheila were both equal partners in the $1.5 billion BET fortune then that would mean neither of them were billionaires before Oprah, but rather both were worth $750 million. That would make Oprah not only the first African American female billionaire when she was first listed as a billionaire in 2003 but the first African American billionaire (male or female). The only way you can justify claiming Bob Johnson was a billionaire before Oprah is by claiming that he originally owned 100% of the $1.5 billion but Sheila took her chunk after divorce. But there's no way to claim both Bob Johnson and Sheila Johnson were both billionaires because that would require both to have 100% ownership of the asset which equals 200% which is more than what's there. It's basic math. Globeclotter 17:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

In addition this article from one of your sources totally contradicts you and claim that Sheila Johnso was a billionaire before Oprah, saying there are only 3 confirmed black billionaires in the U.S. (they count Michael Lee-Chin as black) and Oprah's the only woman:

With 90% ownership of AIC Limited, the 11th largest mutual fund and financial services company in Canada, Lee-Chin has a reported net worth of $1.1 billion. His wealth makes him one of the world's richest men and one of three confirmed black billionaires in North America (the other two are Robert Johnson of BET and talk show doyenne Oprah Winfrey).

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1365/is_1_33/ai_89648488

So there are all kinds of different sources, but it seems to me Forbes by far the most authoritative source we have. Indeed it's the only source where the numbers add up Globeclotter

So in addition to Forbes (the most authoritative business magazine) ranking Oprah as the first black woman billionaire, you also have Juliet E.K. Walker, described here as the the country's foremost expert on black business history, also considering Oprah to be the first black woman billionaire, and creating an entire course to honor that fact:

http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/history/news/archives/walkeronuthomepage/

Globeclotter 19:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Globeclotter, Ebony and Essence are certainly reliable sources when it comes to African-American achievement. In fact Ebony has been the publication of record in that regard for over a half century. Just as Black Enterprise is the publication of record for African-American business. Speaking of Black Enterprise, where's the alleged contradiction you spoke of? Johnson was the CEO of BET so he's mentioned with Winfrey. The article wasn't about Johnson so it did not mention his wife. An omission maybe, but certainly not a contradiction. Plus it's a Sept. 2002 article, which would have been after the divorce, so no Sheila Johnson would not have been a billionaire at that time, as I've already pointed out. She was first on the list, dropped off it altogether, then returned. That's not my argument. That's the argument and consensus timeline of all the sources I listed.

And while you may believe that Forbes is the most authoritative, I refer you to Forbes own disclaimer that they have omitted billionaires from their list, and their numbers are only estimates, and that for some reason that senior editor found researching African-American corporations confounding. But regardless, how do you account for the Associated Press, ESPN, CBS, the Washington Post, the Hearst Corporation, USA Today, National Public Radio, AOL etc. all drawing the same conclusion that Sheila Johnson is a billionaire? Separately and independently drawing that conclusion?

But actually, since you mentioned what you believed to be the contradiction in the Black Enterprise article, I've found the same apparent contradiction in Forbes!

http://www.forbes.com/prnewswire/feeds/prnewswire/2007/08/23/prnewswire200708231007PR_NEWS_USPR_____LATH012.html

The article printed in Forbes says:

"The Opening Night tribute includes a celebration of noted African American women who have broken barriers in the worlds of sports, entertainment, politics and the arts. Sheila C. Johnson is a founder of Black Entertainment Television (BET) as well as the first woman to have a stake in three professional sports teams including the WNBA's Washington Mystics, the NBA's Washington Wizards, and the Washington Capitals (NHL). Most recently, she is the first African American woman to have sole ownership of a PGA Tour Championship Golf Course with the purchase of the Innisbrook Resort and Golf Club. She will also be recognized as the first African American woman to build and acquire a portfolio of luxury resorts. Additionally, Johnson holds the distinction of being America's first African American female billionaire."

"Sheila Johnson embodies the spirit of Althea Gibson," said Jane Brown Grimes, President and Chairman of the Board, USTA. "She is a pioneer whose accomplishments and achievements continue to pave the road for women and girls."

So maybe Forbes has reviewed the record, and finally gotten it right.

But to answer your other points, your basic math is also flawed. If I give you and Pacingcar a dollar, you share ownership of that dollar, unless and until you decide to divide it. Consider filing taxes under a joint return. You have combined or shared assets, not assets divided by two. As a joint filer trying telling the IRS that you're only going to pay taxes on one-half of your taxable income, and your spouse alone has to worry about the rest. Then promise to write me back from federal prison. That is because the law assumes you are "jointly and severally" liable because you share joint and several liability of the benefit of the assets. That is also completely consistent with the laws regarding Community property. Therefore if Johnson was a billionaire at anytime during the marriage, Forbes notwithstanding, the law says that at that time, he and his wife were "jointly and severally" billionaires, as the asset (BET) was community property during the marriage, even without her significant contribution to the success of the business, which I have already repeatedly sourced.

And its obviously hyperbole that a University of Texas at Austin publication would call one of its own professors the foremost expert on something. Curiously the "foremost expert" doesn't even have an article here! But I would simply respond that the Cornell University Distinguished Lecture Series, University of Illinois alumni profile, and University of Virginia Sorenson Institute for Political Leadership which has Sheila Johnson on its Board all easily trump a subjective UTA article about one of its own professors with a book to sell and a class to hype. Incidentally, I Googled that professor, and the only other immediate reference I found that wasn't about her selling her book was a reference to something called the "Free Frank New Philadelphia", which lists her as its founder/director, and elsewhere on another of its pages calls her its "foremost scholar". So it seems she's "foremost" at everything she appears to do, as long as it relates to a book she's selling or a group she runs. I didn't find any independent source that verified her credentials as being so exceptional.

But listen, we can go round and round on this one, and it seems there really is no source that everyone will find definitive - and especially under these circumstances Forbes obviously is not. So I suggest as it relates to this article and others that are involved, we do the responsible thing here and formulate a compromise. X4n6 21:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, my source for the fact that Sheila Johnson has never been a billionaire is the fact that she’s never once appeared on Forbes international billionaire list or on Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans which is widely respected enormous data base that goes back decades, and is available on-line if you wish to confirm Sheila’s repeated absense from the list. True the 2006 Forbes 400 admitted that not every billionaire in America made the list that year, but that was because for the first time in the history of the magazine that number of billionaires exceeded 400 so even some billionaires were too poor to qualify as one of the 400 richest Americans (not so in previous years, and Forbes international rich list provides an exhaustive list of all the billionaires they can reliabley confirm) and Sheila has never appeared on that list either (yet Bob has done so several times!).

Further you complain that my MSNBC link provides no source or explanation for why Oprah is the first black woman billionaire but your sources can be criticised for the same defect. Indeed the only source which provides an anaylytical methodology based on a huge historical data base is Forbes, and unlike virtually all of your sources, Forbes is a reliable source because it’s not speaking outside its area of expertise (wealth valuations). One of the few sources you provide that is even a business source is Black Enterprise however they reveal an amazing lack of sophistication when they claim Sheila’s net worth as $1.5 billion (with no source), immediately after mentioning she was co-owner of BET which sold for $3 billion. It’s completely obvious that the $1.5 billion net worth estimate was based on the simplistic assumption that her net worth was equal to half of BET’s value. Even assuming both Johnson’s split the profits equally from the get go (and Forbes claims they didn’t), Black Enterprise seems to ignore the fact that they only had a 63% stake, and that’s before you deduct the taxes!

And you are the one ignoring logic because according to Forbes the Johnson 63% stake in BET was worth $1.3 billion after taxes (as of 2001). If you are suggesting both owned this equally then both would be worth $650 million and neither would have been a billionaire. If you’re now trying to suggest that two people can be billionaires at the same time even though the joint asset is less than $2 billion then you are redefining what a billionaire is in ways that are inconsistent with a financially authority as well recognized as Forbes. As for precident on how Forbes handles husbands and wives, check out this list of the Forbes 400 where gap owners Dorris and Donald Fisher are both listed:

http://www.namebase.org/sources/gW.html

And of course Forbes numbers are only estimates but Forbes is a financial magazine that specializes in wealth valuations to the point where other financial magazines like Candadian Business look to Forbes for guidance and scholarly texts like Wealth and Democracy describes the Forbes 400 as “an excellent resource”. It is the most well recognized authority on billionaires, and even quoted by people like Bill Gates and Donald Trump. Unlike your sources, Forbes has a clear worldwide historical data base of thousands of names and business portfolios in their computer. None of your sources have the resources to know if Sheila is a billionaire, let alone the resources to know when Oprah crossed the billion mark, and few of your sources even qualify as reliable sources at all because most are speaking about complex finances which are outside their field of expertise. You've also provided no evidence that your source arrived at the same conclusion independently since virtually none of them cite their source, let alone a methodology. Pacingcar 22:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Your Forbes article calling Sheila Johnson a billionaire was a press release from Sheila Johnson. Pacingcar 22:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

One thing is certain, your entire position hinges on Forbes. While you've said some mighty nice things about that publication, none of them equals an infallable or definitive measurement. And despite your exclusive over-reliance on Forbes, you appear to completely ignore the fact that Forbes itself never claims accuracy to the degree that you do - in fact they wisely choose to specifically defer on this point. You also completely and conveniently chose to ignore the laws and links I cited regarding community property and joint and several liability regarding communal assets. You are however correct that the press release published by Forbes about Sheila Johnson was relesed by Sheila Johnson's Foundation. However, Forbes elected to publish it, and did so without an asterisk, footnote, codocil or exception. Additionally the press release simply accurately relays information about a ceremony organized by an outside unbiased group not affiliated with Sheila Johnson, the USTA, that acknowledged the "first" achievements of several African-American women of distinction in connection with the 50th anniversary of the "first" achievement of Althea Gibson.

http://www.usta.com/news/fullstory.sps?inewsid=463531

The USTA acknowledged 18 other accomplished and distinguished African-American women, not just Sheila Jackson - and acknowledged her in a public ceremony as the first African-American female billionaire, on the center court of Louis Armstrong Stadium at the start of this year's U.S. Open. A pretty remarkable, and public screw up if they had gotten it wrong, wouldn't you say? On live national and international television, in front of international media, and a packed and sold out arena, and in the company of other honorees like, according to their (meaning the USTA) press release:

• Yolanda Adams - First to receive the Contemporary/Inspirational Artist Award, the American Music Awards
• Ella Bully-Cummings - First to be appointed Chief of Police, Detroit Police Department
• Cynthia Cooper - First to score 2500 career points in WNBA history
• Sheila Crump Johnson - First to achieve billionaire status and to have a stake in 3 professional sports franchises
• Roberta Flack - First to student teach in a predominately all-white school in the 1950s
• Vonetta Flowers - First to win a gold medal, Winter Olympics
• Zina Garrison - First to win an Olympic tennis medal
• Nikki Giovanni - First to receive the Rosa Parks Woman of Courage Award
• Traci Green - First head coach at Harvard University
• Dr. Mae Jemison - First to become an astronaut, Space Shuttle Endeavour
• Jackie Joyner-Kersee - First to win back-to-back gold medals in the heptathlon event
• Carol Moseley Braun - First to be elected to U.S. Senate (Democrat, Illinois)
• Hazel O'Leary - First to be appointed Secretary of Energy
• Sharon Pratt - First to be elected Mayor of large U.S. city (Washington D.C.)
• Phylicia Rashad - First to win a Tony, Best Performance Leading Actress, Play
• Susan L. Taylor - First to receive the Henry Johnson Fisher Award
• Dr. Debi Thomas - First to win a Winter Olympic medal, Figure Skating
• Lynette Woodard - First to join the Harlem Globetrotters
• Loretta Claiborne - First to win the Arthur Ashe Award for Courage, ESPYs

Also your suggestion that Forbes is relied upon my the billionaires themselves as a definitive benchmark is itself disputed by a recent ABC 20/20 television news segment, where even the Forbes editor Matt Miller who compiles the list, concedes that every year there are complaints about its accuracy from the billionaires themselves. Of course in fairness one could argue that many of those objections are ego-driven, as the article suggests, but in equal fairness one must assume that a reasonable number may also be based on information unreported or underreported by Forbes.

"We have 50 or 60 people who call up regularly every single year, saying 'You are absolutely wrong, and I am worth double what you say.'"

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682042&page=1

Simple math indicates that if the list is only 400 names and 50-60 a year dispute the findings, there is some level of discrepancy in over 10% of their annual reports. Because of their own caveats and all the controversy, which they concede exists, your steadfast refusal to acknowledge a multiplicity of legitimate sources over this one admittedly flawed source, continues to confound me.

But one thing is undeniable. And that is that there clearly exists varying and opposing opinions from credible sources. The only definitive source I can think of would be an SEC filing, which is certified under legal penalties of perjury and fraud. While I am almost tempted to look for those sources as they do involve public documents, although they are rarely published in their entirety on the internet without charging some manner of access fee, that would itself constitute a violation of Wiki policy WP:NOR.

So in the alternative, I would simply remind you that it is not Wikipedia's job nor policy to cherry pick the sources an editor might prefer, but to accurately reflect any obvious disagreement among legitimate public sources as they plainly exist. While you may not personally like that there is a disagreement, that is the reality here, and one you cannot ignore or deny. As a result, this article and all relating articles, should reflect the state of that disagreement, and not make blanket pronouncements or assertions while pretending as though no disagreement or opposing points of view exist.

That is not only a Wiki policy, see WP:NOT#OPINION, and a guideline, see WP:RS - but especially in this case, it seems that a strict application of Wiki policies and guidelines is the only reasonable resolution. X4n6 01:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The crux of the problem here is that you’re assuming all sources are equal. However wikipedia’s WP:RS states that The reliability of a source depends on the context: A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source about biology. Similarly magazines like Ebony may be excellent sources when it comes to African American culture but they are not reliable sources on wealth valuations. Similarly Forbes would be a useless source in a debate over fashion. Wikipedia states: Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand and the fact that Sheila has not only failed to make the Forbes list before Oprah, but has failed to ever make it at all is a huge red flag to me. If there’s not enough evidence to convince Forbes that Sheila Johnson is a billionaire at all, let alone a billionaire before Oprah was, then why should wikipedia be convinced?

Further, the fact Sheila has been called the first black woman billionaire in high profile settings means little given the abysmal record the media has in getting facts right outside their area of expertise. Do you really want to see wikipedia become a megaphone for every publicly made assertion, comment made in passing, or catchy talking point, regardless of whether the statement was made by someone qualified in the subject matter? Have you any idea how many articles would have to be rewritten if we were to adopt such a policy and how cluttered they would become in the process? I’d much rather see wikipedia stick to its policy of questioning its sources, and demanding only people who are recognized authorities in a particular area be used especially when in the case of Forbes, they’ve been chronicaling the wealth of billionaires for decades, have a clear consistent methodology for identifying and measuring billionaires and measure all rich people by the same standard. That’s not a matter of cherry picking sources, but maintaining quality standards. Does that mean Forbes is never wrong? Of course not, but the publication contradicting it should at the very least have a source and have similar authority when it comes to wealth valuations (something like Fortune magazine, or Business Week). Your approach to writing articles opens up a pandora’s box. What happens if People magazine decides tommorow that Janet Jackson actually hit the billion dollar mark in 1995? Do we have to add her to the article too? And isn’t this article supposed to be about Oprah and statements about her?

As for your comments about community property, I think that’s a legal abstraction that has little relevance to how net worth is actually evaluated and it's practical significance, and it borders on original research. It’s absurd to calculate wealth that way because it would make the net worth of married and single people completely uncomparable and Forbes explicitly rejects your methodology. Do you plan to rewrite Warren Buffet’s article and downgrade him from the world’s third richest person to the fifth richest person on the grounds that the two men richer than he have wives? Pacingcar 02:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In a curious way, the first line of your last response hits the nail on the head. You write, "The crux of the problem here is that you’re assuming all sources are equal." To the contrary, I think the problem here is that you think all sources on wealth are subservient to Forbes. I believe you confuse the term "an excellent source" with "a definitive source", a point I have made countless times, each time illiciting no response from you other than a repetition of your mantra that all wealth wisdom springs forth from Forbes. African-American business publications are incompetent to guage African-American wealth, African-American mainstream publications are incompetent as African-American cultural barometers, and the Washington Post, CBS, National Public Radio, AOL/Time Warner, the Hearst Corporation, and a galaxy of other sources great and small, must all genuflect at the altar of Forbes when they talk dollars and sense. Why should they? Good grief, when he ran for president Malcolm Jr., excuse me, "Steve" Forbes advocated a flat tax, and Malcolm Sr., with all that wealth and power, died in the closet! Not the sharpest tools in the shed, let's be honest. But if you are not on the Forbes PR machine payroll, just show them your responses here - because you certainly should be! You are that transparently an apologist and advocate for them. Perhaps I should even seriously inquire if you are? Because your motives have seriously become that suspect.

As regards your interpretation of WP:RS, once again I believe you clearly cherry picked your way through the guideline to suit your purposes, but I think the result fails. I'll quote the relevant sections without editing them and highlight the more crucial areas:

"In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view.

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers."

I really don't see any confusion whatsoever. But to answer your rhetorical question of why Wikipedia would believe Sheila Johnson's claims if Forbes does not? Very simple. Because Wikipedia's clear policy is to not be reliant on any single source. Including Sheila Johnson. And while it may be heresy to you, this also includes Forbes. At this point, it is just abundantly clear that you would have Wikipedia regurgitate "All Forbes, all the time." Wikipedia is not Forbes. Nor is it as beholden to Forbes as you would obviously like to make it. Forbes has an online website and a print publication. If people want an "All Forbes, all the time" interpretation, let them go to that website or subscribe to that print publication. That is not our function here.

And to respond to your rather interesting challenge, if People Magazine placed Janet Jackson on a billionaire list, would I publish it? Of course I would! In the appropriate and relevant articles. Just as I publish their Most Beautiful People List, or whatever other curious list they concoct that survives to becomes a recognized and recognizable part of the zeitgeist. And I would source it as coming from People magazine. And you know what would happen? Nothing. The world would not collapse onto itself. The reader would draw his/her own conclusion about the credibility of the People magazine claim, and all would be right with the world. Because inexplicably People can be considered a credible source. By contrast, the National Enquirer is not. Perhaps it has something to do the frequency of articles you publish about space aliens and two-headed Brazilian dog boys impregnated by Bigfoot or Fabio.

And as regards Buffett, no I wouldn't downgrade him simply because those before him had wives. I might pity him but that is downgrade enough, because any more than that goes against that "legal abstraction", as you call it of community property. Although surprise, given the circumstances I may elect to upgrade their wives. Because fundamentally if you have carte blanche access to a billion dollar bank account, guess what - you're a de facto billionaire! Ask any billionaire. Or his wife. Or their divorce counsel. Or the courts. And community property is actually not a "legal abstraction" at all. It is a law. In fact a series of them. A theory is a theory. A law has the force and weight of enforceability behind it. It is a distinction with an enormous difference. But back to your Buffett hypothetical - actually I would downgrade him because he gave so much of his wealth to the Gates Foundation that he is no longer second wealthiest. That's an easy call and elementary subtraction. But by contrast, using your rather circular logic, I would also not upgrade him, simply based upon the untimely passing of his wife Susie a few years ago. Their assets were already communal, so his wealth experienced no change, other than the reality of there being one less person with carte blanche access to it.

So let me try and put a nice bow on this so we can move on to other things. This encyclopedia does not, and should not, try to spoonfeed narrowly defined points of view in its articles. That is not its mission or its purpose. It should not presume that kind of agenda. Virtually every Wiki policy or guideline establishes and/or supports this position. It should simply provide appropriate and notable information, and in cases of dispute, present the issues in an unbiased and appropriately sourced manner and move the hell out of the way and allow the reader the right to decide. That is what it should do, and that is what I, and I believe most of its editors, and I would also argue most of its readers, expect it to do.

So here's what's going to happen next. When I have the time, because I do have a real life, I'm going to review each of the articles on African-American billionaires, alleged or otherwise. I believe it is an important enough topic that we should make every effort to provide as much unbiased information as possible. I will review these articles with an eye toward fairly respecting all points of view, then do my Solomonic best to make revisions that reflect no bias. If you would like to join me in this regard, I would welcome your input. If on the other hand, you elect to wholesale revert my work as regards these changes, based upon your Forbes bias, as you have already repeatedly done, I will no longer assume that you are acting in good faith, and will immediately submit each article directly to mediation with the request that they also review the record of both your actions and mine throughout this entire sordid affair, and if necessary forward their findings directly to arbitration for whatever actions might be deemed appropriate. Consider this my best olive branch, which I believe is consistent with all Wiki policies, not only as regards the ones we've already discussed ad nauseum, but especially regarding the guidelines WP:AGF governing good faith. X4n6 05:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Race

Does the article need so many references to the subject's race? If the subject were white then race would, most likely, not be mentioned at all. EdX20 00:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Kind of the point. I don't think that a wealthy white person would have as much focus or would be recognized for doing the same thing she has done. The point is that she is a "minority" in the misused sense of the word (black female, there are places where this is a majority) and obviously her accomplishments are looked upon as being the first for her given gender and race. Being the "first black news anchor" of a news station and attending a "historically black college" wouldn't make sense if you removed them - she wasn't the "first news anchor" and didn't attend a "historically college". Do you think Barack Obama would have nearly as much attention if he was white? This is where race stands out and separates. Alan Keyes, on the other hand, doesn't have as much focus because he doesn't emphasize race and it is not usually looked upon as a "high point" (as in Obama, if elected, would be the first minority president). Zchris87v 05:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Length of the intro

Per WP:LEAD the intro to this article should be roughly three paragraphs, maybe even four. If you continue to remove my expansion of the intro without replacing it with your own expansion, I will have to ask for outside help. Shii (tock) 01:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this fan site or a Wikipedia entry

This reads like it was written by Oprah's publicist. As a tiny example, if you're going to write (twice) about her school in South Africa, shouldn't there be a mention about the fact that there was a well-publicised child abuse scandal there a couple of months ago? I have nothing at all against Ms. Winfrey, but the glowing tone of this article belongs on a fan club page, not in Wikipedia.

I agree with the previous writer. This is a hagiography, not an encyclopedia entry. Also, I remember hearing that Oprah had revealed she was a prostitute in her younger days, but there seems to be no mention of this here. I doubt many billionaire media entrepreneurs have such a background, so it seems like it should be mentioned somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirokuma1 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this article is quite balanced. It concludes with a huge criticism section. Feature article on Angelina Jolie have no criticism section at all. This article even discusses tabloid rumors about Oprah being a lesbian (such rumors are unheard of in other articles). This article even discusses Oprah's promiscuous years as a teen. There's no evidence Oprah ever worked as a prostitute so why mention that? As for the abuse scandal at her school; that's a complex situation which has been covered extensively in the article devoted to her South African school. Zomputer (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• 24-Jan-2008: I also feel the article is a hagiography ("biography of a saint; worshipful or idealizing biography"). I initiated a formal "NPOV dispute" (WP:NPOVD) to get 2 sources confirming Oprah "revolutionized" talk-show format, but simply got reverted by 2 editors within hours. (A Wikipedia NPOV-dispute tag must remain in an article until concensus is reached, at least for 1 day, not reverted within hours.) The article seems to be controlled by fans, using single hopeful sources, denying that Sally Jesse Raphael (year before Oprah) or Geraldo Rivera (years earlier +1987) need mention in the Oprah "revolution". -Wikid77 (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Oprahandgayle2.JPG

Image:Oprahandgayle2.JPG is being used on this article. yada yada yada. BetacommandBot (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, whatever. The image is gone now. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikiwarping of Internet pages

24-Jan-2008: When trying to find sources to support the dubious claim that Oprah "revolutionized" the concept (of the "tabloid talk show"), I found dozens of webpages just regurgitating the same outrageous claim from the Wikipedia text. Huh, what part of "Geraldo" did they fail to understand? I have changed the lede section to note that "Sally Jesse Raphael" preceded Oprah by one year, and "Geraldo" came a year after Oprah. Who else remembers that Sally Jesse Raphael became so tired of her own tabloid show that you could see the disgust in her facial expressions on every episode? Among the dozens of related webpages, I found only a couple that noted how Sally or Geraldo were there during all those "Oprah-revolutionized" years. It's another example of how wiki-trash talk, left inside an article for months, can get propagated as the most common viewpoint about the subject. Please quickly remove any bogus text from the Oprah article to avoid future wiki-warping of the propagated Internet mirror webpages. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No one is disputing that Sally and Geraldo were there in the early years with Oprah. The point of books like "Coming After Oprah" is that Oprah's show generated so much money and publicity that it transformed tabloid talk shows into a giant industry. Also, the point of Time magazine listing Oprah as one of the 100 most influential people of the 20th century is that she really personalized the genre by confessing intimate details from her own past, rather than just being a voyerur like most hosts. SamanthaG (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And just so you know, the sources we cite for Oprah popularizing and revolutioning the genre are quite scholary. Sociologist Vicki Abt criticised tabloid talk shows for redefining social norms. In her book Coming After Oprah: Cultural Fallout in the Age of the TV talk show, Abt warned that the media revolution that followed Oprah's success was blurring the lines between normal and deviant behavior. TV critic Jeff Jarvis agreed saying "Oprah was the one that trashed daytime TV. She took the Donahue format and then brought on the whiny misfits and losers and screamers and shouters, and then everyone, including Donahue, followed her, until it went overboard. Then finally she came back and recanted and said, no, no, now I'm the queen of quality on TV."[9] Also, in the scholarly text Freaks Talk Back[10], Yale sociology professor Joshua Gamson credits the tabloid talk show genre with providing much needed high impact media visibility for gays, bisexuals, transsexuals, and transgender people and doing more to make them mainstream and socially acceptable than any other development of the 20th century. In the book's editorial review Michael Bronski wrote "In the recent past, lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transgendered people had almost no presence on television. With the invention and propagation of tabloid talk shows such as Jerry Springer, Jenny Jones, Oprah, and Geraldo, people outside the sexual mainstream now appear in living rooms across America almost every day of the week."[11]Gamson credits the tabloid talk show fad with making alternative sexual orientations and identities more acceptable in mainstream society. 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 feature films like the Oscar-nominated Brokeback Mountain.SamanthaG (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Please take the time to read the sources before asserting claims aren't sourced. You claimed we had no source for Donahue pioneering and Oprah revolutionizing the genre, but we do: Although Phil Donahue pioneered the format she uses (mike-holding host moves among an audience whose members question guests), his show was mostly what I call "report-talk," which often typifies men's conversation. The overt focus is on information. Winfrey transformed the format into what I call "rapport-talk," the back-and-forth conversation that is the basis of female friendship, with its emphasis on self-revealing intimacies. She turned the focus from experts to ordinary people talking about personal issues. Girls' and women's friendships are often built on trading secrets. Winfrey's power is that she tells her own, divulging that she once ate a package of hot-dog buns drenched in maple syrup, that she had smoked cocaine, even that she had been raped as a child. With Winfrey, the talk show became more immediate, more confessional, more personal. When a guest's story moves her, she cries and spreads her arms for a hug.[12] SamanthaG (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute January 2008

24-Jan-2008: The section being disputed is a complex 4-part sentence (in the intro) that joins 4 issues into conclusions not supported by the source documents cited: some cited sources don't even contain the word "Oprah" at all:

Credited with creating a more intimate confessional form of media communication, she is thought to have popularized and revolutionized ^{[conclusions not supported by sources]} the tabloid talk show genre pioneered by Phil Donahue, which a Yale study claimed broke 20th century taboos and allowed gays, transsexuals, and transgender people to enter the mainstream.

Perhaps that section should be moved under the "Controversies" subheader, with room to expand the 4-part sentence into separate statements, each backed by multiple reliable sources. I'm not sure the term "tabloid talk show" really applies to Oprah, as separate from talk shows by Morton Downey, Jr., Sally Jesse Raphael (1985), Geraldo Rivera (1987), etc. Prior wording noted that the Oprah show was different from tabloid talk shows, as Oprah did not use on-stage body guards, guest brawls, secret-lover reveals, or weekly paternity tests (or did she?). The issue cannot be a collection of opinions targeting Oprah, but must treat the issue from a neutral viewpoint, including opinions about Downey, SJR, Geraldo, Riki, etc. The situation is similar to claiming "Andrew Jackson revolutionized the US Presidency" while not mentioning several other US presidents in comparison. For that reason, the situation is being considered an NPOV dispute to be resolved by using neutral, comparative wording and reliable sources. It is simply too complex an issue to handle by using one-sentence coverage. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oprah sources analyzed

There is not sufficient evidence stated within the cited sources, for the claim: "she is thought to have popularized and revolutionized the tabloid talk show genre pioneered by Phil Donahue".

• The source about the Frey fabricated memoir has only one man's opinion: that Oprah had trashed the quality of talk-shows and then she recanted: http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0601/29/rs.01.html.
• The source with "Freaks Talk Back" contains no mention of "Oprah" or "Winfrey": http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/280640.html

Extreme claims such as "popularized" (across America) or "revolutionized" require more than one source, preferably using a variation of those words (popularized/revolutionized) within the document text.

Temporary Footnotes: NPOV dispute January 2008

[Please remove this section when no longer current.]

The book "Coming after Oprah: Cultural fallout in the age of the TV talk show" is sufficient evidence that Oprah popularized the tabloid talk show genre. The quotes from Time magazine and the TV critic in the James Frey scandal are sufficient references to show that she revolutionized it. I'm not sure what the big deal is. Tabloid talk shows were just a late 20th century fad that had a major impact on the culture, I think for the better Globeclotter (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And another thing, have you read Joshua Gamson's book FREAKS TALK BACK? Half the book is about Oprah. Here's the official description from Amazon.com:

In the recent past, lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transgendered people had almost no presence on television. With the invention and propagation of tabloid talk shows such as Jerry Springer, Jenny Jones, Oprah, and Geraldo, people outside the sexual mainstream now appear in living rooms across America almost every day of the week. Often these appearances are rambunctious, ugly, and exploitative, with the "action" of the show predicated upon homophobic responses from the audience. Most gay media watchers question the worth of appearing on such programs: at what price, they ask, visibility? This view is startlingly revised in Joshua Gamson's Freaks Talk Back, an analysis of how tabloid TV may be the best--well, certainly the most engaging on a grassroots level--visibility that sex outsiders have ever garnered. Using surveys, news analysis, discussions of race and class differences, and readings from the shows themselves, Gamson argues that the endless yelling, bickering, and outright displays of homophobia--so different from the pre-packaged, insincere tolerance that passes for discourse in much of the media--give rise to discussions about people's genuine feelings and beliefs. Questioning the very precepts of how we think about media coverage, Freaks Talk Back is as provocative and disturbing as tabloid television itself. --Michael Bronski --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.[13] Globeclotter (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

not sure how, but someone oughta fix that picture, stat! Jordanr (talk) 04:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

African Echo references

I removed the African Echo reference (currently ref #4) because the link does not go to an article about Oprah. Instead it goes to the current Business news articles. The ref states it is from volume 43. I checked the website's archive section from archives 42 through 45, but could not find the Oprah article in question. Since the statement this reference supports (see the lead paragraph) is already supported by three other references, we should remove this reference.
On a related note, I did find a different news story at African Echo about Oprah and her Academy if someone wants to find a home for it in the article.

<ref name="African Echo 52">{{cite web | publisher = African Echo News | title = Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls Opens | date = [[2007-01-19]] | accessdate = 2008-02-10 | url = http://www.africanecho.co.uk/africanechonews5-jan19.html }}</ref>

--fmmarianicolon | Talk 16:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC) oprah is like totally fat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.85.37 (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oprah's Generosity

Oprah has given great gifts away on her show and alot of the people appreciate it(all apreciate it). She also making an school academy for black girls student in africa. The school also contain saloon that is very useful for the girls. Everytime she got something that she like in her talkshow, she will share it with all the audience. The perfect nickname for oprah is santa oprah.

How do you justify a show that shows the good meaning of life when you know the extra millions in you pocket will do more help by distributing it? Do one really need 200 mil in their net?

Oprah Court Case

It should be mentioned here the court case that Oprah was involved with. She was a co-defendant of Howard Lyman. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Amarillo Division was in charge of this case. The ruling and case can be found at http://www.cspinet.org/foodspeak/oprah/court.htm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.63.109.36 (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It is mentioned, in the influence section Globeclotter (talk) 01:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Oprah's membership at Rev. Wright's Church

I think in the section on Controversies, it is important to mention that Oprah is (or was) a member of Rev. Wright's church. I wonder if this was a major factor of her endorsement of Barack Obama. I also think she should speak to the press concerning her endorsement and her involvement at that church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.251.213 (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia rules WP:V and WP:OR, it's not a controversy until a reliable source discusses it and describes it as such (in other words a well-known and credible news source (like CNN) or something has to bring it up - someone bringing it up on Wikipedia or some forum or blog doesn't count). Cigraphix (talk) 03:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Read this: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/28/obama.pastor/ toward the end of the article you will see this "Another bulletin, from June 10, 2007, contains on the "Pastor's Page" an "Open Letter to Oprah" by Ali Baghdadi, an Arab-American activist. He refers to "Israeli death squads" in a letter urging Oprah Winfrey to explore Palestinian suffering on a trip to the Middle East." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.147.241.132 (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

h —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.206.249.99 (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Spiritual notoriety

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW4LLwkgmqA&feature=related This looks really interesting. It's contents should be evaluated and integrated in the controversy section. P.S. Why is this article protected? Censorship? Because Heaven forbid if someone would criticize Oprah Winfrey, who is always right and, of course, cannot fail because she is, in her own words, holy. sarcasm

User:Working for Him (sorry, I'm not signed in) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.136.26.26 (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Gay male fan base

The section about her fan base notes that some of her fan base is made up of gay males...duh, aren't all shows? Are there any data or articles that show that they are more numerous as a percent versus other shows? The use of "some" is not helpful at all, and the "evidence" of a reality show star who is is also not helpful. I suggest removing this if it is untrue or altering it to make it more logical (along with citation) if it is true. Asphatasawhale (talk) 09:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Raped

Winfrey was raped at the age of nine, and at fourteen, gave birth to a son who died in infancy.

The presentation seems a bit awkward -- unless she possesses the powers of superfecundity, how did she give birth 5 years after being raped. Unless this should state that she began being raped at 9, and by 14, she had conceived. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, right at the beginning, seems to cheery then RAPE hits you like a brick. Thats a TERRIBLE way to start someones biographical page. "Born in rural Mississippi to a poor unwed teenaged mother, and later raised in an inner city Milwaukee neighborhood, Winfrey was raped at the age of nine, and at fourteen, gave birth to a son who died in infancy." I literally laughed from the shock of its placement. It should really be moved far from the opening sentences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.54.143 (talk) 02:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Political advocacy section needs updating

The section on political advocacy says that the crowd of 30,000 that saw Oprah and Obama in Columbia SC was the largest of the campaign so far. Obama's crowd of 75,000 in Portland later surpassed it. Could someone please update this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uwhoff (talk • contribs) 16:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Should Vegan experiment be added ?

The recent news said she was starting a 21-day vegan makeover. She is probably serious about this. Statistically there are much more lacto-ovo vegetarians than vegans, although veganism is more logical. The success rate of people who experiment with lacto-ovo vegetariansm is a lot more than those who go vegan, possibly because of some claimed differences in hair loss, energy, whatever. It will be interesting to hear her opinions on this in the near future, and to see if she sticks with veganism, changes to lacto-ovo, or goes back to eating meat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.93.228 (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

she does stuff this this every episode —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.54.143 (talk) 02:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Cattle Industry Lawsuit

This is a complaint. I came to the article because I heard about this in the news and saw it mentioned in another article, and couldn't find the information here. Could you please make sure it there, and if it is, that it at least gets its own small paragraph in the controversies section. Ill go back and try to find it, its probly mentioned somewhere. But, I just found it odd that something that was all over the news isnt easily locatable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.54.143 (talk) 02:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I dont see it mentioned anywhere, but I did find "In June 2005, Winfrey was denied access to the Hermès company's flagship store in Paris, France. Winfrey arrived fifteen minutes after the store's formal closing time". I would edit the article, but I'm rather jaded by the users and lower level admins here recently, and expect whoever is preventing that information from being added will just revert me and have a gang of fellow low-level admins agree with their decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.54.143 (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

oh there it is, in the influence section. took forever to find, very camoflaged. nevermind then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.54.143 (talk) 02:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Political advocacy section (certainly) needs updating

There's turmoil at the Oprah show concerning Sarah Palin and Oprah's not wanting to have her on her show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.251.213 (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sara Palin ban issue

In recent days there has been a major controversy in the news media regarding Sara Palin's appearance or lack thereof on Oprah's page. I have added info regarding this issue in the Controversy section. One editor (who has a problematic history of pov issues with this article) has reverted the entire entry with the claim that in includes weasel words. The editor could have edited and fixed the weasel words, but instead just removed the whole entire section. Therefore, I have a hard time assuming good faith on the part of this editor.

Unrelated to the Sara Palin controversy, I have also removed a few redundant references throughout the article. The redundant references were in areas were the information in the article had at least three references (at one point 5) covering the information. However, I don't feel that strongly about the references. If someone thinks that its important that there be multiple references for certain facts, then fine, reinsert them. However, the removal of this Sara Palin issue would result in a gross violation of WP:NPOV. If anyone thinks that the its too "weasely" then edit the article with the cited source, but please don't remove it. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important to keep the references so I added them back in. Out of respect for your feelings about the sarah palin controversy I added that back in too, but made some minor edits for clarity and tone. SamanthaG (talk) 08:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)