Talk:Tara Lipinski

Biography assessment rating comment
WikiProject Biography Assessment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 18:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
Little Problem --

I disagree she was the youngest ever to medal at the winter games a Finnish boy of 14 won for ski jump. I am a big fan of Tara and this is in no way meant to be rude, just factualsigned aggiebean


 * According to this page, Toni Nieminen is the youngest male Olympic champion, and he was 16, not 14. Sonja Henie competed in the 1924 Olympics at the age of 11, but did not win.  I'm restoring the sentence about Lipinski being the youngest, and adding a reference.  Dr.frog (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Tedcoombs 00:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Ted 20 February 2007


 * Nadia Comăneci was only 14 when she won 5 gold medals. So, Tara is not the youngest as stated. And Fu Mingxia was only 14 when she received the gold medal for diving in 1992 becoming the second youngest. Tedcoombs 00:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Tedcoombs

Very obvious. -- Pelladon 05:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think that the way to deal with a perceived NPOV problem is to delete a whole bunch of factual material which can be verified by consulting contemporary press reports and other sources. Lipinski's decision to turn pro and the statements and actions of her agent and family were all highly controversial at the time.  Wikipedia's usual policy for dealing with such controversies is to report the facts and to cover both sides of the dispute equally, not to pretend that no controversy exists.  In other words, whitewashing the story to only give the side that presents Lipinski in a favorable or sympathetic way is not NPOV, either.  Dr.frog 21:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think deleting material is right without a discussion. All I did was put up a request for NPOV dispute. No one said anything or responded on how this should be handled. Then again, maybe no one cares... I didn't see any controversies, just way too much on personal issues instead of skating info. If you want to put it in, go ahead, but it would have been easier just to add those press reports as External links. And who said anything about whitewashing??? Don't start accusing someone until they've done something first. --Pelladon 08:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

How about we simplify the article by simply stating "Tara sucked".
 * Oh GREAT, a vandal on the talk page. Now I've seen everything. --Pelladon 07:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Question: from Professional Career On April 7, 1998, Lipinski announced her intention to turn professional in an interview with Katie Couric on the Today Show. She cited a desire to spend more time with her family, to have time for school, and to compete professionally against other Olympic champions. However, rather than spending time at home, Lipinski immediately embarked on full schedule of touring, publicity appearances, and acting engagements which required constant travel; she never attended a regular high school or college; and in the years following she seemed to avoid the more elite professional competitions. was that important? --Pelladon 23:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Lipinski's retirement from competitive skating was controversial for two main reasons: first, because she was so young and had such a short career at the elite level, and second, because so many of her statements (and/or those of her agent) about her motivations for turning pro were more or less immediately contradicted by her own actions.  And then later on she changed her whole story and said she turned pro because of her hip injury, which she had never previously mentioned as being a factor at all.  Personally, I don't know what to think the true story might be, or why she felt it necessary to make excuses for her decision at all.  And, FWIW, I don't really blame Lipinski herself for any of this, and actually feel quite sorry for her.  She was just a kid at the time, and I think she and her parents were getting a lot of bad advice from her agent, Mike Burg, who was more concerned about making a quick buck off Lipinski's Olympic medal rather than what was in the best interests of his client's long-term career.  Dr.frog 13:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm pointing out the paragraph because it doesn't add anything new that wasn't shown from other paragraphs. Reading the statements in the Professional career heading, you only get bits of info that it's impossible to make sense of any of this. More like sound bites. Doesn't help in understanding at all what happened. Not having direct references makes this even more tedious. I don't know anything about Lipinski, and reading all this doesn't help. The only certain thing was the hip injury, which gave out in the end. Maybe that's the real focus in all of this. Because of this, I can't figure out how to improve this section. --Pelladon 15:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

More References
The Lexis-Nexis news database turned up these additional references.


 * On Mike Burg and Tara tarnishing her medal: "Lipinski eyeing repeat at Worlds", The Houston Chronicle, Feb 23, 1998.  Quote:  "Lipinski had indicated she was not committed to defending the world title she won last year in Lausanne, Switzerland. Her agent, Mike Burg, suggested the timing was bad, because a loss could tarnish what Lipinski had accomplished in Japan."


 * On the White House jacket presentation issue: Also mentioned in an AP article "Lipinski's mom cries snub at White House", April 29, 1998; a followup article by Mike Spence in the Colorado Springs Gazette on May 9, 1998; "Thin Ice at the White House", by Amy Shipley in the Washington Post on April 30, 1998; "Olympic champions pass torch to youth", by Gary Mihoces in USA Today on April 30, 1998; and by several other papers that picked up either the AP story or the original Gazette story by the KRT wire.


 * On the USFSA contract issue: "After Kwan's Victory, Only Sure Thing is Change", by Jere Longman in the New York Times, Aug 2, 1998.  Quote:  "Lipinski is committed to an exclusive prime-time deal with CBS this season for two professional competitions.  Both she and Kwan are under contract to compete in a pro-am in Daytona, Fla., in October."  Lipinski refusing to compete in that event and her subsequent contract termination with the USFSA was reported by Mike Spence in the Colorado Springs Gazette on Oct 10, 1998, and by John Powers in the Boston Globe, Oct 18, 1998.  Dr.frog 15:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

About References
Wikipedia:Cite sources When you add content [...] Just because a statement is referenced does not mean that it is appropriate or conveys an accurate impression. As implicitly described in the official NPOV policy, even if a citation is from a reputable source, it should provide the reader the gist of the research on a certain subject and not merely carefully selected or out-of-context quotes to support a certain point of view.

Remember that Wikipedia is not for your opinions or for original research. --Pelladon 04:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Lipinski's statements and actions around the time she turned pro, and the actions and statements of others on her "team" including her agent and parents, were highly controversial at the time. You can get a sense of this if you wade through the gazillions of archived Usenet postings from rec.sport.skating.ice.figure in 1998. There were also many published editorials and stories in the press either criticizing or defending her. Because there has already been some major revisionist history by Lipinski and/or her team about what really happened -- notably, changing the supposed date of her hip injury long after the fact -- I thought the best approach was to present a detailed chronology of the contradictory statements and actions that were so controversial. If people want to compact or rephrase this material, that's fine. But denying that these things happened, or pretending that there was never any controversy at all, or presenting only the revisionist history or only material that is flattering to Lipinski, is not NPOV, either. The controversy played a significant role in shaping Lipinski's public image and pro career, after all. Dr.frog 05:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Dr Frog, if you going to respond to people, it helps to respond to what the person is saying, or trying to say. I'm not asking about denying or defending Lipinski. I'm not asking about presenting only the revisionist history. I'm not asking about the controversy about Lipinski. Your the one who keeps bringing this up. And I truly don't care. It's obvious you don't know or want to understand what someone else is trying to say. You just go into auto-mode with your I have Usenet postings this and that. That's an extremist view, and I don't subscribe to that. Peace. --Pelladon 06:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Pelladon, maybe you are not the same person who has been repeatedly deleting this material and adding edit summary notes that they've "proved" these things never happened? Whether or not that is the intent, the deletions *do* have the effect of only presenting the revisionist history and not the full story.  Dr.frog 13:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Dr Frog, what evidence do you have that I've deleted anything??? False accusations are not a way of gaining trust or credibility. Is this part of your rebuttal or methodology? I don't have the words to describe a person who resorts to such tactics or falsehoods. Okay, slander might be one. --Pelladon 14:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Pelladon, please calm down and stop assuming that everything I say in this thread is directed at you personally. Take a look at the history page -- the latest deletions I was taking issue with were made anonymously.  Maybe that is you, maybe it isn't -- I don't know.  Maybe the person who claims he/she has "proven" this stuff never happened would like to identify him/herself?  Dr.frog 15:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * And that gives you the right to point fingers? Guilty until proven innocent? You use weasel-words like maybe to link me or anyone else to your statements. Either make a claim and back it up or don't say it. I don't care about those deletions, that's not my problem. Take it up the admins or something. And stop reminding me of your shortcomings in your thinking or logic. --Pelladon 17:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If the deletions are not your problem, why do you keep responding to my comments about them as if they were personal attacks on you? Even when I tried to point out that my comments were not directed at you, you responded to that as a personal attack, as well.  My concern is only about improving the article to make it more accurate and complete, not whether you are "guilty" of some crime that seems to exist only in your own imagination.  Can we please try to channel this discussion into something more productive?  For example, if you think the article as it currently is written omits critical facts and references that are necessary to present a more balanced view, can you try to fill them in, or at least be more specific in indicating what you think is missing so that others can help track down the necessary details?  Dr.frog 01:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Your the one who made the comment "Maybe that is you, maybe it isn't -- I don't know." I'm just responding. Oh, and care to explain why you deleted facts from the Nancy Kerrigan page. The facts that showed her comments made during the award ceremonies? And you talk about omitting critical facts!!! --Pelladon 02:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no clue what deletions you are talking about on the Nancy Kerrigan page, but if you have particular problems with the content there, please bring them up on its own talk page, not here. In the meantime, let me ask you again:  do you have specific suggestions about what additional facts or references need to be included on the Tara Lipinski page to make the presentation more neutral?  Dr.frog 20:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think made a mistake about the changes on Nancy Kerrigan. I apologize for that. But you need to understand you have been linking me with deletes and changes, which I have not done ever. I don't want to see my name attached to the words maybe to something that I supposedly did. Fair? Thank You, and now I'll put comments on Lipinski to the NPOV section on top. --Pelladon 21:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Iniminimagimo's take
Hi, I'm the first one who did take some lines out. Sorry, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia so, my apologies, I should have discussed it here before taking any action. That's my mea culpa. That is said, taking references, quotes from reliable sources do not mean it gives a NPOV to the article. All the quotes you included in are all 'negatives'. Dr.Frog, just because you did select some quotes over others is a bias. Bias = not neutral. Iniminimagimo 07:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem, as long as it wasn't intentional. I take back my vandal accusation. --Pelladon 07:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If people think I have left out quotes and references that are more favorable to Lipinski, please go ahead and add them to the article. But, as I keep pointing out, simply deleting all references to anything controversial or unflattering leaves the article biased in the other direction.  I think it is also unhelpful to people who come to Wikipedia hoping to clear up some of the confusion and misinformation surrounding the events of 1998; by this time, people's memories are beginning to fail, some people now have forgotten that the decision to withdraw from Worlds came some time before she announced she was turning pro, etc.  My intent in coming up with a timeline of these events was to provide a repository of factual information that could be used for reference purposes.  Again, if you think I have omitted crucial facts, go ahead and add them.  But it's not reasonable to claim these other things never happened.  Dr.frog 13:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not remember the level of negativity towards Tara you seem to believe existed. I do remember there was some discussion over whether turning pro was keeping her from additional major amateur events. In any case, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a news article reference file. How about summarizing the news items into one or two short paragraphs? A lot of the information in Tara's article is slanted. You say there was a controversy. Fine, but please show both sides of it if you truly believe there was one. Tara had/has many fans who probably don't subscribe to the negative opinions. In my personal view, the information about her turning pro should be edited heavily. It is mostly opinionated speculation, regardless of what sources it came from. -- BL, Oct 1, 2005

NPOV and references, take 23
I'm trying to add references and eliminate some of the bias from this article. I also added the small section "Early life". --F a ng Aili talk 16:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Gods, I think one of the reasons this article is so biased is because it is so annoying to get information from Lipinski's official website . It continually flashes pictures at you, and you can't even copy and paste the text elsewhere. I can't read the text without being constantly distracted by overly-flowery pictures on the left. Gah. Does anyone know how to get around this? I've tried "view source" but it's a frames page so that doesn't work. --F a ng Aili talk 17:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Tara in Context
I think NPOV of this article should be looked at in context of skating in general. Kristi Yamiguchi turned pro after not long after her Gold Medal in 1992. Yamaguchi was never critcized for her decision to turn pro. The Kerrigan-Harding circus put skating in the spotlight as it never was before. Oksana Baiul was only sixteen when she won in 1994. Oksana was not chided for her decision to turn pro. If you look at the articles on these three skaters you will find that they do not have the scrutiny and questioning of the events of their lives that the Lipinski article contains.

The Author of the Lipinski article fails to mention a very important fact when talking about her 1998 Nagano victory. He states, "both Lipinski and Kwan skated excellent programs, with Lipinski winning a narrow victory. Some believe that Lipinski was aided by the fact that she skated near the end of the last group, while Kwan skated first." Lipinski skated a technically superior program to Kwan. He mentions her Triple Loop, Triple Loop above in the article but glosses over her skating a technically superior program at Nagano compared to Kwan.

In general I believe the article is unbalanced and gives too much attention to the negative. Compare the treatment of Tara's professional career to the troubles of Oksana Baiul's professional troubles on this site. If you look at all the articles of female gold medal winners you will see that this articles spends an inordinate amount of time sniping at Tara Lipinski.

Here is an article that gives a different view of things. http://www.post-gazette.com/sports_headlines/19990220shontz5.asp

Michael95 07:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

We Desperately Need a Good Picture of Tara
I hope someone can find something we can use. I have tried contacting her and a photographer who's shot her, but no luck so far. Nleobold 16:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Nicolas Leobold

Deletion of link per reason: spam
Hello -- Today I saw a link to a documentary that was just removed (reason given: "blatant spam") and I added it because I've seen that documentary which contains good footage of Tara Lipinski and didn't think it was spam. I guess some other poster could change the link to the actual footage so that it's not mistaken for "advertising," but being relatively new here, the quick judgment just struck me as odd. I wonder if it would be considered spam if the poster had used a direct video link itself? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arch23 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no direct link to the video. The link given is to an online store to purchase the video from A&E. I don't see how that link could be anything but an advertisement to buy that video. Kolindigo 19:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, thank you Kolindigo and Arch23 for bringing this up. I'll make a link directly to one that's available online.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.222.227 (talk) 06:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tara Lipinski spin.jpg
Image:Tara Lipinski spin.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Tara Lipinski. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.taralipinski.com/index3.htm
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.taralipinski.com/index3.htm
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.taralipinski.com/index3.htm
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.skatetoday.com/articles0506/040506_1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

New public domain pic added
Just an FYI. I talked to a person with a Flickr account and he released a photo into the public domain. A much more modern photo of Lipinski doing what she does now in the broadcast booth. Thank you by the way. This was put into the infobox and the Olympic period photo from 18 years ago was moved into that time period. With her and Johnny Weir going to be plastered all over our tv's during the summer Olympics, I thought it would be nice to polish up this article. It really needs some inline sourcing help. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Tara Lipinski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101202035238/http://goldenskate.com/competitions/proam/rock.shtml to http://www.goldenskate.com/competitions/proam/rock.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060827162213/http://www.goldenskate.com/competitions/proam/icewars.shtml to http://www.goldenskate.com/competitions/proam/icewars.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100427042231/http://www.goldenskate.com/competitions/proam/legends.shtml to http://www.goldenskate.com/competitions/proam/legends.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070813135756/http://www.goldenskate.com/competitions/proam/otherpros.shtml to http://www.goldenskate.com/competitions/proam/otherpros.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100102104103/http://goldenskate.com/competitions/proam/otherproam.shtml to http://www.goldenskate.com/competitions/proam/otherproam.shtml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.taralipinski.com/index3.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.taralipinski.com/index3.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.taralipinski.com/index3.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.skatetoday.com/articles0506/040506_1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Question re References section
Hey everyone, I'd like to work on this article, to remove the additional citations template, give it more of a NPOV (which I agree with the talk from years ago stating that it suffers from that), and get it to at least GA-status. I'd also like to change the format of the references from the current list-defined format to the in-line format. The in-line format is easier to manage, IMO, but I'm willing to use whatever format consensus agrees upon. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean with the format. Right now there is a reference section below which is required. You can't just link to an outside website with links in prose. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to this: WP:CITEVAR, which states that it doesn't matter if you use in-line citations or list-defined citations, as long as you're consistent and that the consensus is followed. Currently, I'm assuming that that the current list-defined format is consensus, so I'm asking if we can change it to the in-line format, which is what I personally prefer.  However, I'm willing to follow the current format if folks want to stay with it.  Hopefully, my explanation isn't too confusing. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So you would rather do it in a form like the Actuary article? I guess to each his own and maybe others like it, but I really dislike that style. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Noooo, I hate that style, too. That's the first article I've ever seen that formats the refs that way.  My preference is another one of the articles I've worked on, Compulsory figures.  I should've given you an example in the first place. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Try Irish phonology, it's just as bad. Your example refs at Compulsory figures is just fine from my end. On a skating note, I do miss seeing those school figures. Yeah, the judging was horrific and because there was little tv, cheating was rampant, but it gave the skater a certain balance and glide that is often missing today in a jump-fest. I always felt it should be a requirement in US skating that each member should show at least minimal proficiency in the art before advancing to to the US Championships. And certainly the word "figure" should be taken out of Figure Skating. But hat's just me rambling on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no clear evidence, but I suspect that it's best for more academic topics, although I've worked on academic topics and been mentored in WP by academics, so I dunno. The U.S. was one of the last hold-outs of figures, and included figures in tests, but eventually even they removed figures.  My feeling is that it was a good development.  Skaters hated them, and one of the reason they stayed for so long after jumps and other elements were developed was financial and elitist.  The real reason richer nations (like the U.S.) were opposed to removing figures was they didn't want to give up rink and coaching time, which put poorer nations at a disadvantage.  (Although that ended up being a moot point, since it takes just as much training to develop jumping ability.)  I also think that skaters need to have the same skills in jumping, footwork, and spins (precision, discipline, body control) as they had to have in figures, although that's from a non-skater's perspective.  Does that mean that we need to change the name of the sport?  No, because it recognizes the historical importance of compulsory figures.  It was fun working on the article, though; I learned a lot and am proud that it's the first figure skating FA because it's appropriate from a historical perspective.  I'm a little weary of focusing on technical aspects of figure skating, so I'm looking forward to working on Tara's article 'cause she's so much fun.  I'll wait a little while, though, to see if anyone else chimes in. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * FSR Team flag (2021 Wch).png

Still broadcasting?
Is she still NBC's female figure skating reporter? Google seems to think so. I was trying to figure out whose voices I am hearing on the YouTube videos for the European 2022 figure skating championships. Is it Weir & Lipinski? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysong263 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)