Talk:Tonya Harding/Archive 1

Did her entire family have asthma?
The summary at the beginning of the article makes it sound like her entire family had asthma. Was that intentional, or just a case of a misplaced modifier?

After a tough childhood in an unstable lower-class family, plagued by asthma, she went on to win the U.S. Figure Skating Championships twice and place second in the 1991 World Championships.

Aesculapius75 14:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Allegedly
Why does it say "allegedly"? Wasn't she convicted because she confessed? AxelBoldt


 * She confessed to hindering the investigation, but has always maintained that she wasn't involved in the conspiracy. (The conspirators, however, said otherwise. :-) As part of her plea bargain, the authorities agreed not to prosecute her further. So she was guilty, yes, but we can't say she was guilty of the conspiracy/attack without crossing a defamatory line. - Rootbeer 2002-04-07


 * I see, thanks. Why not add this to the main page? Not much else interesting to say about here anyway... :-) AxelBoldt

Porn description
I don't think a description of the porn movie adds anything to the article. It does not "help explain reactions" to the event. It's obvious that she would be "fully nude". Certainly it is not appropriate to add an oral sex link, as this is an biographical article about a person most notable as a figure skater. I'm not a prude; I simply believe that we don't need porn descriptions. Wiki is not a porn site. Fang Aili 16:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The description doesn't add anything to the article because it applies to 99.999% of all pornographic movies out there. Guess what a pornographic movie is?  The vast majority of the time, it's a movie of a woman fully nude (with the possible exception of high-heeled shoes) having sex, including oral sex, with a man. --Carnildo 18:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Fang Aili 18:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Psychology
Someone with a psych degree needs to step in here. There is a certain type of personality that seems to adopt a "me against the world" attitude, and consequently seems to attract trouble like an electronmagnet. Tonya could be the poster child for that syndrome. I just don't know how to label it. "Paranoid" and "narcissistic" seem inadequate to cover it. Wahkeenah 12:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that making psychological diagnoses of celebrities is part of what Wikipedia is about. - AdelaMa e (talk - contribs) 16:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's usually called "self-defeatism."66.108.4.183 23:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

I still think she's adorable and root for her to find stability. I'd hire her in a second as an office worker, celebrity greeter, retail employee or any other respectable job. 141.155.155.188 (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably Borderline personality disorder and she missed a perfect opportunity on Oprah to educate people about it. 24.241.69.99 (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Skate blades
Something should probably be mentioned about the distinctive gold-coloured blades on her skates. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 05:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC) At some point, AFTER her Olympic scandal, Harding had - and may have organized - a fan club called (IIRC) the Golden Skates. Circa 2001, when she had delusions of starting a new career (I think as a boxer), she ordered all the chapters of the fan club to send her their club treasuries, to finance her new non-skating venture. There was momentary resistance to this demand, and then the chapters caved in, and the organization vanished (and, probably, so did her fans). Perhaps someone could address this. Sussmanbern (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Unverified tag
All the verification for the article is in the External link articles, therefore, I made the section into a References section. Still up to someone to link them into the appropriate places. Ans e ll 12:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Competition table
I added the competition table, though it's incomplete. I was unable to find sources for the U.S. Nationals, or Worlds results beyond the medal finishers. --Fang Aili talk 14:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Pictures
I got rid of a lot of the pictures in the article. They were cluttering it and were of poor quality. I don't think they contributed anything to the article. The Time cover is significant, as is the triple axle, but pictures of her having trouble with her costume? Come on. --24.163.161.47 01:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've restored the pictures for now. Her crying to the referee at the Olympics, in particular, is one of the most famous incidents in her career and an image that is strongly associated with her in popular culture.  The other photos serve as references to document the other incidents and point out that her boot lace problem at the Olympics was like deja vu all over again.  (It's really weird, in particular, to compare the TV coverage of the loose blade incident at the previous fall's Skate America to that of the Olympic boot lace incident.)  If the consensus of other people is that the pictures are not relevant to documenting Harding's career, then of course they can be deleted.  Just don't think they should be trashed because one person doesn't see the point of them.  Dr.frog 02:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think they're relevant and should stay. --Fang Aili talk 13:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. While I think the pictures are of low quality, they're not libelous or defamatory; they're depictions of well-known events in Harding's life. --Nonstopdrivel 23:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Michael G. Halle image
In regards to this deletion with the comment (Image with fan links back to fan's website for photography business in violation of wikipedia guidelines. Photo its I.E.elf is clearly self promoting. Poster also wents self not to be cropped.)

It is quite right that the image with Michael Halle is not ideal because it has Halle in it, and he doesn't have much to do with Harding; however, other than that, it is a good depiction of Harding at roughly the time she gained her fame as a skater, and it is the best we can do. The image is free, and the article is far better with a picture of Harding than without it. If and when we can find a better image that only has Harding in it, we will use it. Until then, we should use the best we can.

However, it is completely incorrect that "links back to fan's website for photography business in violation of wikipedia guidelines." That's categorically wrong, linking back to the author is the whole idea behind the free content with attribution licenses we use. We do our best to link back to the author with each and every image we have, the same way we try to link to the website of every news article we use, of every book we use, and so forth. Read our article on Attribution (copyright): "Attribution is often considered the most basic of requirements made by a license, as it allows an author to accumulate a positive reputation that partially repays their work and prevents others from claiming fraudulently to have produced the work. It is also regarded a decent sign of respect to acknowledge the creator and thus give him/her credit for the work."

--AnonEMouse (squeak) 23:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The name in the caption is totally irrelevant and the absurd links back to this man's business website are a clear violation of wikipedia policy and self promoting. If the picture remains, his name should be removed as well as all links on the image page that link to his business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.238.113 (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * please note related discussion, late December 2007, on User talk:AnonEMouse. -Pete (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Why don't we just crop the man out of the image? It's still within fair use, and happens all the time in other Wikipedia bios. I'm not one to ramble on about self-promotion and other stuff, but he is irrelevant to the subject at hand. What we want is an image of Harding. Van Tucky  talk 22:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * VanTucky, check the discussion linked above. (Maybe we should just copy it over here.) Long story short, the photographer requested specifically that the photo NOT be cropped, even though the license technically permits it. That request was made of AnonEMouse, I'm going to email the photographer (right now, actually) and ask him to reconsider, but out of respect for Anon's efforts it's probably best to take it slow and get it right. If you think removing the image entirely from the article in the meantime would be best, I'm fine with that. -Pete (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So, I just had a quick email exchange with the owner of the photo, which I'll paste below. Friendly fellow, but adamant that he does not want the photo cropped. So, this presents an interesting choice: do we go by the "letter" of the license, or the "spirit"of the communications with the owner? It seems the best answer is to honor the owner's wishes; that's certainly the best way to not biting the newcomers, and representing Wikipedia in a positive way to the world at large. So, I was probably in error in my initial cropping. However, if that's how we're going to treat it, then we're treating the image as non-free. If we cannot modify the image to suit the encyclopedia, whether due to legal restrictions or to our own desire to be friendly, then I would contend that the image does not belong on the Wikimedia servers, and should be deleted. Thoughts? -Pete (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

(email exchange quoted below) Hi Michael,

I'm a regular contributor to Wikipedia. I ran across your photo on the Tonya Harding article. I see that, while the license you released it under allows further modification (i.e. cropping), you have requested that the photo not be cropped.

I'm wondering if I can prevail upon you to change your mind. The Tonya Harding article really should have a good photo of her, but there does not appear to be much in the way of free photos available. But of course, it's not very encyclopedic to have a photo at the top of the article with a random person (no offense intended, I feel pretty random myself sometimes!) (Here's a link to the version I'd like to use on the article: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/d/da/20071227171728%21Michael_G._Halle_and_Tonya_Harding.jpg )

I don't see any problem with your request to have the image link back to your blog.

If you feel strongly about the photo not being cropped, I'd urge you to change the license to disallow it; this sort of "gray area" between technical permission and general preferences can be kind of hard on a volunteer-driven web site, where everybody has their own interpretation.

If we need to, I'm sure it will be possible to find a photo that we can use as fair use, or perhaps another free one. So, I would be happiest if you would allow a basic crop to the photo, but if that's simply not acceptable to you, I'm willing to look for another photo.

Please note, though, that I'm expressing only my own opinion; since the license published with the image does allow modification, it's possible that another editor will come along and crop anyway. Just so that's clear; I can't make a commitment on behalf of the whole project.

All that said, it's a fun story, I enjoyed reading about it on your blog!

Best, Pete Michael G. Halle to Pete Pete,

Thanks for the thoughtful email. I do not want the photo cropped. If you feel a burning need to do so-which you seem to- please let me know asap so you can begin your search for another.

Cheers,

Michael
 * I say crop away. Looks like an attempt at self promotion, if the license allows cropping, that is the original uploader's problem for not reading the license carefully.  I don't see any harm in removing someone from an image, if it turns into a big uproar (which it wont) then we can do away with the image entirely as it stands it is highly encyclopedic and takes away more from the article then it adds. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Having had the contact I did with the photo's owner, I feel some responsibility to represent his desire, and I will not be cropping the photo. I don't think it's out of bounds for somebody else to do it if they think that's the best course, but I won't be doing it. I would be happy to nominate the photo for deletion, and summarize the situation in the nomination. It will be unfortunate if we're unable to use such a high quality shot of Harding in the article, but I fully agree with Daniel: in its uncropped state, it is more damaging than beneficial to the article. -Pete (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * One other point: I don't think the owner's motives are relevant to the discussion at hand. Whether self-promotional or otherwise. We don't know what his motives are, and they really don't matter to this decision; the only issues, as far as I'm concerned, are "what's best for the encyclopedia's content" and "what's best for public perception of the encyclopedia as an organization." -Pete (talk) 01:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I just heard back from Michael, he has changed the license to "no derivative works." While I understand that it's still technically possible to use/crop the photo under the original license, I think that course is inadvisable. Photo licensing is a complicated subject, and I would prefer to see Wikipedia, as a community, take the high ground and show some compassion for a simple mistake. I think the photo shouldb be treated as non-free, removed from the servers. I may try to contact Harding to see if we can get a shot of her released under a free license. -Pete (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Moral high ground has nothing to do with it. I have no sympathy for someone who isn't smart enough to understand what their photo license does and doesn't allow. If he didn't want it modified, then he should have specified. If my memory is correct, there is no license, not even fair use, that prohibits cropping. To be honest Pete, we probably could've cropped it and there would be no fuss if people hadn't gone about asking the permission of the photographer. When people release their photos with a license that permits modification, as he did, then it is harmful to the project to go about putting it into their heads that they have a say. Once you release an image to the public, then that's that. You can't change your mind because you object to how it's used. That totally defeats the purpose of free licensing, don't you think? Anyway, I agree with you that we should try and get a real free image of Harding. She would probably jump at it, considering she's lately been selling signed photos for $10. Search The Columbian's issue from today (Thursday). If you like Pete, I would be willing to go out to Yacolt where she lives or meet her in Vancouver, as I'm a Clark County boy. Van Tucky  talk 03:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Image nominated for deletion here:

VanTucky, I don't see "free licensing" as the overriding concern here. You and I as individuals care a lot about a vibrant commons, but that is not the unifying principle of this project. We're trying to build an encyclopedia, and we're trying to develop a community around that project. I think we, as a group, have a unique opportunity. It's unlikely that anybody else took advantage of the image's CC-by-SA license during the brief time that it was available; if that's the case, then it is no longer available under that license anywhere but on the Wikimedia servers. It is clear that the owner never intended that license, and was in error by selecting it to begin with; the license was never an accurate reflection of his desires regarding his work. So, we are in the unique opportunity to allow a mistake to be just that -- just a mistake. To insist on the letter of the license strikes me as opportunistic in a way that would reflect very poorly on our project. -Pete (talk) 04:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

And on fair use: we could certainly crop it and use it under fair use, which is preferable to keeping it in its CC-by-SA state. Used under fair use, we would not be perpetuating this erroneous license. -Pete (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right Pete, I just get pissed off when we have to take time out to get jerked around by people who don't understand what a license they chose entails. Van Tucky  talk 21:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like we should delete it. :-( I'm the original uploader, and the person who asked Mr. Halle for the image, and it seems he didn't mean to put it under a free editing license, and we shouldn't trap him into it. Unfortunately, we can't crop and use it under fair use, our Fair use policy is much stricter than just fair use law, we can't use a fair use image just to show what someone looks like, or looked like, it needs to be a unique and unreproducible image important in itself, and surely we can't claim that there aren't any other photographs anywhere in the world of Ms. Harding looking much like that. So it goes. :-( --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Vantucky, I really don't feel jerked around…it was my choice to communicate with Mr. Halle, and AnonEMous's choice before me. And I don't regard claiming copyright as an inherently selfish act; the guy took the photo, and if he doesn't want to share it, so be it. AnonEMous, I'm very disappointed to hear you see this as a net negative. I see it differently: we helped the image owner do what he wanted to with his property, and helped him learn something; and we got what I consider a very un-encyclopedic image off the top of a prominent article. (I understand you disagree on that, and I do think the Tonya part is excellent, but I think having some thumbs-up wiseguy on the top of a biography of someone else is very problematic.) I applaud your attempts to get this image into Wikipedia, and share your regret that it didn't work out. I do think it's important to have a photo of Harding, and will follow up on that, maybe with Steven's help. I may have been a bit of a bull in a china shop on this issue, and I regret that too; I may have moved too quickly to proposing deletion on commons. Although I'm satisfied with the result, I do regret that you are disappointed with the outcome and/or process. If it's any consolation, I will be keeping this in mind if I encounter similar situations in the future. -Pete (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Pete, I wasn't saying you felt anything. I was speaking of the collective we of the project. I think it's a pain in the behind having to deal with people who flip-flop on photo licensing decisions. That doesn't have anything to do with whether they have the right to make copyright choices or not, or whether it's "selfish". More importantly, I don't think you've been "a bull in a china shop" on this. Assertive and abrasive are not the same thing. Van Tucky  talk 23:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Photos of Tonya Harding
I just wanted to mention that I was living in Portland during the whole Tonya Harding/Nancy Kerrigan scandal, and I happened to take a few pictures of Tonya that may perhaps be of use to this article. I'm not sure if other editors will like them or feel they were be useful, and I'm not sure where they would be of best use, so I'll just give thumb nails here and allow others to decide whether these belong in the article or not. (I have a few more pictures which I will scan and upload later.) -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A heads-up. I inserted a crop of one of the above pictures into the introductory paragraphs. I think it's a better picture than the other picture, and more historically important because it depicts Tonya Harding at the peak of her fame and notoriety. If anyone else removes this picture, I won't contest it, however. I'm just trying to help. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 05:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Middle Name
I believe her middle name is spelled Maxene. This is the way it appears everywhere I have tried to verify it.


 * Hmmm, you are right. I've added a reference to the article.  Dr.frog (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Blind revert of the in popular culture section
An editor just reverted a number of changes of mine with the edit comment "why was this cited instance removed when the others werent" -- If the person in question had even bothered to look at the edit he reverted he'd see that plenty of instances of nonnotable trivia were removed. DreamGuy (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added fact tags to the uncited references. If some time goes by and they remain unreferenced, I'd have no objection to their removal. Dlabtot (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you'd like a fact reference on the Loudon Wainwright section. Just click on the two album links within the section and you'll find the song is clearly listed on both albums...David T Tokyo (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I was just responding to the deletion of cited references by another editor. If you feel some of the fact tags I added were spurious, go ahead and be WP:BOLD. Dlabtot (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. David T Tokyo (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not enough to have cited references, the material in question must be notable for inclusion in the first place. The material I removed clearly did not come close to being encyclopedic. Your response ignored the actual problem and set up a straw man argument. Uncited references have nothing to do with the edits that you blind reverted. Since you have given no justification for undoing my edits, I will restore them again. DreamGuy (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your stated intention to edit-war over this is noted. Dlabtot (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm on DreamGuy's side, here -- we all know by now that Harding's alleged involvement in the knee-capping incident has become a cliché in popular culture. Trivial mentions of Harding in such contexts are not encyclopedic; they're just trivia.  Harding is plenty notable for other things than for being mentioned in passing in TV shows, popular songs, and the like.  I think we should draw the line at portrayals of Harding herself as the primary focus of the fictional work, not just a passing mention.  However, I have no familiarity with the song in question and do not know which category it falls into.  What exactly does "Harding is featured" in this song mean?  Is the entire song about her?  The addition to the article says the song is really about lost innocence, not about Harding's story.  So why is it encyclopedic in connection with Harding?  Dr.frog (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no clue what you are talking about. This isn't about some song, it's about this edit, concerning an episode of Seinfeld, one of the most popular TV shows of all time, which was entirely based on the Harding/Kerrigan incident. Hardly trivial, and not a case of 'being mentioned'. Dlabtot (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I see people arguing about a Loudon Wainwright song above. As far as the TV show episode is concerned, the plot summary at the page linked to above doesn't even mention Tonya Harding; how can the episode be entirely about her?  And, how does this TV episode contribute any encyclopedic information about Harding's life or career?  Dr.frog (talk) 23:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't sound like you've viewed the episode or read the citation. Dlabtot (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ESPN: WHEN IT COMES TO THE BEST POP CULTURE REFERENCES TO TONYA HARDING, WE'LL GO WITH ROCHELLE, ROCHELLE Dlabtot (talk) 04:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this would be a RS for use in an article, but he does give a good synopsis of the episode, if you haven't seen it. Certainly better than the synopsis in the Wikipedia article, which is  anyway a copyright violation taken verbatim from the DVD case. Dlabtot (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, I have never seen any episode of this TV series. Why don't you work on improving the wiki page for that episode to explain why it's about Tonya Harding, instead of trying hack up the Tonya Harding page to explain what she has to do with this TV episode?  Given that there is a whole page specially devoted to that episode, that seems like a more logical place to put detailed explanations about it.  Dr.frog (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All I've done here is add references and fact tags to text that already existed. Your accusation that I'm not trying to help improve the wiki page is received in the spirit it was given. Did you even look at the ESPN link I just provided? I look forward to the RfC responses. Dlabtot (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did look at the ESPN link above. It looks like some sort of unscientific popularity poll.  I couldn't find any information that explained exactly why this TV show episode is about Tonya Harding, much less why this is encyclopedic information that sheds light on Harding's own life or career.  Given that the Wikipedia page for the episode doesn't even mention Harding, it doesn't seem to me like the episode can indeed be entirely about her, as you claimed above.  Was Harding herself portrayed in the episode, for instance?  Dr.frog (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you are having such trouble understanding this. I blame myself. Explaining it to you is obviously beyond my limited ability, as I've already tried, at length.  Since the multiple cited references have also not been sufficient, perhaps, if you want to make an informed comment, you should just rent the video and watch it.  Dlabtot (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Is the Seinfeld episode The Understudy appropriate for inclusion in the Popular culture references section?
Should the material deleted in this edit be included in the Popular culture references section? 02:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment that edit was sound. Trivia sections are discouraged and material that can count as "trivia" should be relevant to the subject of the article.  For example, the mention in Seinfeld has no relevance to the subject of this article.  Conversly, Tonya Harding has relevance to the episode of Seinfeld and the link to this page from that one would aid in understanding the episode.  Them  From  Space  01:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no trivia section in this article. Dlabtot (talk) 02:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To me, "In popular culture" = trivia. They are both miscellaneous sections that fall under WP:TRIVIA more often than not.  The material deleted here definitly did.  Them  From  Space  02:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, "In popular culture" != trivia. At least not in the English language.  The two terms refer to different things. But anyway that is irrelevant to the discussion. the question is not "Are popular culture sections appropriate for inclusion in Wikipeda?", nor is the question "Is a popular culture section appropriate for inclusion in this article?"  If one of those were the question, your answer would be on-topic. Dlabtot (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That mention has nothing to due with the subject of this article therefore it is trivial.  Them From  Space  01:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That mention has nothing to due with the subject of this article - that simply is not true. Your comment bears no relation to reality. Dlabtot (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Harding and 1994 US Championships
Harding did place first at the 1994 US Championships, according to the official results for that event published in the USFSA's official publication, "Skating" magazine, in March 1994. As reported in the August 1994 issue, a USFSA hearing panel later stripped her of the 1994 title. However, they chose to leave the title vacant, rather than move all the other medalists up. The article says that changing the competition results would require a vote of the Executive Committee, and there's no record of that happening in the USFSA's annual Report of Action for that period (published in the July 1995 issue of Skating). Also, no corrected results of the competition were ever published. So, best as I can figure, Harding is still considered to have placed first at the 1994 US Championships; she simply no longer has the title of US Champion for that year. Dr.frog (talk) 03:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the maths for me ;-)
''She married Jeff Gillooly in 1990, when she was 19 years old. Their tumultuous marriage ended in divorce in 1993, when she was 22 years old.[4]'' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.181.6.163 (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

CPR?
I have a memory of Harding being on the news, maybe around 1997-2003, for saving somebody with CPR. This should maybe be in the article. Does anybody recall more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.97.214 (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not exactly a valid source, and it doesn't give a date, but it does indicate you didn't dream it. It sounds vaguely familiar anyway. Have you looked in Google at all? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This while another questionable source, says it was 1996. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This narrows it down to late October of 1996. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Land Speed Record
I just removed the following

"On August 12, 2009, Harding set a new land speed record for a vintage gas coupe with a speed of 97.177 MPH driving a 1931 Ford Model A named Lickity - Split, owned by author Hurley Johnson, on the Bonneville Salt Flats."(http://www.scta-bni.org/Bonneville/Speed%20Week%2009/records_12.htm, http://www.charliesweb.com/tonya/whatsnew/whatsnew.html)

After looking at this reference, I concluded that she holds the record within the Southern California Timing Association for a narrowly defined class of cars (V4F) defined by the same club to consist of coupes and sedans with pre-1935 American-made 4-cylinder engine of less than 220ci displacement and forced induction. In other words, she has the fastest modified Model A ford or similar car that has been timed by this particular club. That she holds a world record for any gas car of this era is quite inconceivable considering that the fastest road cars of this era (such as the Duesenberg J and SJ) were capable of 120 mph or more from the factory.

I don't think this is terribly significant to the article. However, if anyone disagrees and wants to put it back, I don't have any problem with the record as long as its very limited scope is acknowledged, as to remove the implication that this is the fastest car of its era in the world. -- Bdentremont (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I did add the paragraph, but I can't make heads or tails yet of how to add a reference. Bobbyknightmare (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You clearly aren't familiar with world-class speed events. The SCTA isn't just a "particular club". They are the rule-making body for speed records at the Bonneville Salt Flats. If you want to be the fastest person on wheels, and make the attempt at the Bonneville Salt Flats, the SCTA is probably going to operate the traps. Also, this is not an article about significant events in automotive history. It's an article about a person and what they have done. Her achievement is no less significant than Burt Munro's record, which is the only reason he warrants an article at all. I agree that this would not belong in the article about the Bonneville Salt Flats or in an article about land speed records. However, it is significant that an Olympic-class figure skater also holds an officially-sanctioned land speed record. Even if it was on the short track. Rsduhamel (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Triple Axel
"She was the second woman, and the first American woman, to complete a triple axel jump in competition."

Wouldnt she be the first woman then? and not be the second? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZgokE (talk • contribs) 07:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The first woman to land the jump was Midori Ito, who was not American. Dr.frog (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Pregnancy
This article states: "On February 11, 2011, it was announced that she is pregnant with her first child.[7] Harding gave birth to a son on February 19, 2011 in Washington State." One week pregnancy is pretty impressive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.164.201 (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It does not state she got pregnant on that date. Though it is oddly late announcement, if it actually was only 8 days before the birth. Strangely, the cite [7] has the date February 14, not February 11, making the difference only five days. 85.217.14.140 (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Is Tonya Harding's middle name spelled Maxine or Maxene?
There seems to be some confusion concerning the spelling of Tony Harding's middle name. I always thought that the name was spelled Maxine, but other people think that it is spelled Maxene. I have never seen the name spelled Maxene until I looked at Harding's biography on Wikipedia. I changed it from Maxene to Maxine twice, but somebody keeps changing it back to Maxene. If you will click on the following links, you will see that at least two reputable Internet sources spell Harding's middle name as Maxine:

http://www.infoplease.com/biography/var/tonyaharding.html

http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/athletes/ha/tonya-harding-1.html

I'm certain that you've heard of Maxine Nightingale. Nobody would be silly enough to change her name to Maxene. I know that Maxine is a legitimate name, but I don't think that Maxene is a legitimate name.

I am not going to revert the name back to Maxine a third time. Once again, the only way to positively verify the correct spelling of Tonya Harding's middle name is to get the information firsthand from Tonya Harding herself. If you believe the information in the above links, the name should be changed back to Maxine.

Anthony22 (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Claim that Harding's mother sexually abused her
"She claims that her mother sexually abused her, a claim her mother denies.[7]"

The article cited in support of this claim is at http://www.today.com/id/24645352

In fact, the cited article does not state or claim that Harding's mother sexually abused her. This is what it says:

"After a “roller-coaster life” that she says includes a childhood of abuse at the hands of her mother and a rape at gunpoint by her husband and two other men — a roller coaster that took her from the pinnacle of sports stardom to turmoil and ignominy — Tonya Harding says she’s at peace."

and

Harding’s parents had slender financial means, and saw her as a way to success and a comfortable life. Her mother, LaVona Harding Golden, used physical punishment as a motivational tool, Harding said.

“There were so many times when my mother would be upset with me because I didn't skate good and drag me off the ice by my hair, take me to the bathroom, and beat my butt until it was black and blue,” Harding wrote.

Golden told NBC that her daughter’s allegations are false and that she struck her only once — lightly — on the arm with a hairbrush. “I did the very best I could as a mother. I still love her. I always will,” Golden said.

The two don’t talk, and Harding said they never will. “I gave her the opportunity to be a mother and it did not happen. I have forgiven her for everything she had done to me as a child, but I’m OK. I’m all right.”

No mention of sexual abuse of Harding by her mother anywhere in the article. Abuse, yes, but not sexual abuse. I am adding, therefore, to the sentence. If after seven days from today, no editor has found a reliable source to verify the claim, then it should be removed because it is defamatory.124.186.93.5 (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Location of the attack
Having only ever read about the attack and not seen the footage myself, after reading that section it was not made clear as to whereabouts around the rink it actually happened. For all I knew, it could've happened on the rink itself or outdoors. So only after watching it on YouTube did I find out that it took place somewhere in the corridors behind the curtain. I don't know whether it's an oversight, but this really should be added to the article (as well as Kerrigan's) for clarity. If there are no objections, I'll do it myself in a few days. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Attack motive/purpose
If Tonya was involved in the attack before-hand, the motive seems fairly obvious. But if she was not then we have to wonder about her relationships at the time with the various perpetrators and what their motives were. We are not in a position to know if she was involved before-hand. What are the best theories/explanations/speculations about the motives, if they did carry out this plot without her? -71.174.188.43 (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Very poorly written article
In addition to the fact that it is unclear when exactly her's and her ex-husband sex tape was recorded, there is NO mention of the incident of the skate shoelace issue in Lillehammer (more details here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms5Xk2vobiM). I understand a lot of people hate this woman, but even the worst serial killers have hell of a great wiki article and yet this "poor" girl who was a victim before she consented to what those thugs did to Kerrigan (her ex-husband was thinking about the good sum of the money he would get if she had won and perhaps would've gotten her murdered in future to keep it all). Some speculations here, but even though she knew about her ex planning an attack she was probably scared to stop it. I personally would've called the police to alert them of their plans, but I guess she was stupid and afraid. Opinions here again, bottom line; this article is incomplete. --Molokaicreeper (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The more I read this article the more I see there is too much information about the scandal (it should have its own article) and too little information about Tonya Harding herself. --Molokaicreeper (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Lead needs trimming
I think the lead needs to be trimmed. It is yet another example of undue weight, because about half of the lede pertains to the attack on Nancy Kerrigan. By contrast, Kerrigan's intro contains only one brief, vague reference to Tonya: "She's also noted for conflict with Tonya Harding." Skatefan2014 (talk) 05:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the lede said before it was trimmed, but the vague reference to the 1994 incident that remains is a travesty. I'd say the same of the reference in the Kerrigan article, which mirrors this word for word. The attack defined Harding's skating career - ended it - and in fact the incident eclipsed both of their careers. The issue is notability and nothing in either of their backgrounds, not even Nancy's silver medal, comes close in terms of general, enduring interest, however sleazy the entire matter was. Allreet (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The role of the lede is to succinctly summarize what is covered in greater detail in the body of the article. Due to the fact that Tonya herself did not perform the attack, nor was the attack on Tonya herself, the entire affair becomes extremely convoluted to an extent that is impossible to encapsulate in-depth in the lede -- while still remaining neutral. The whole affair is, however, covered in exhaustive detail in the body of the article.


 * Tonya's connection to the attack is not as straightforward and linear as you present it to be: the attack did not define Tonya's skating career (her skating ability did that); the attack was not performed against Tonya; Tonya did not perform the attack herself; no one has ever proven she was involved in the conspiracy from the start, and Tonya maintains to this day that she was not involved. The only thing she ever pled guilty to was "hindering prosecution" by not coming forward as soon as she learned -- after the fact -- that her ex-husband had masterminded the plot. (She has claimed she didn't come forward when she learned her ex-husband planned the attack because she feared her ex-husband would attack her in retaliation, a claim not too unreasonable given that others corroborate that he had been physically abusive to her, and given the fact that by his own admission he masterminded the attack on a woman, Kerrigan. In other words, he had a history of violence against women.) Tonya was never charged with, and never pled guilty to, planning or aiding the attack itself.


 * The only thing the attack defined was Tonya's reputation in the public imagination. But it doesn't follow that an encyclopedic article should follow the dictates of popular imagination. This isn't TMZ.


 * In order to have a Wikipedia entry, one must be notable within one's field -- and Tonya became notable in 1991 when she was the first US woman to land the triple axle, thus becoming the US female figure skating champion. And her notability was enhanced in 1992 when she came in fourth at the Olympics. (Simply making it to the Olympics makes one "an Olympian," and thus notable.) She became notable in her field three years before the attack. Had the attack never occurred, Tonya would still have been notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry. Though the attack is undeniably the most sensational aspect of her life, Tonya is not a case of someone famous for only one thing. Had the attack never occurred, she would not have become so famous, but she still would've left her mark on the skating world. (Jeff Gillooly, by contrast, is notable only for the attack. Prior to the attack, his cultural contribution was as that of a forklift operator in a warehouse. If he deserved a Wikipedia entry, which he doesn't, then his role in the attack would be covered in greater detail in his lede. But he has no lede, because he has no Wikipedia entry.…)


 * The recent ESPN documentary says that Tonya and Nancy were rivals prior to the attack, and the attack -- which Tonya's ex-husband pled guilty to (and has acknowledged was his idea from the start) -- was a response to that rivalry. He has said it was his attempt to "level the playing field" with regard to the rivalry. It therefore is accurate and necessarily succinct to say that she is "noted for conflict with Nancy Kerrigan," and vice versa. That's the most succinct way to sum up in the lede what is ultimately a very convoluted and complicated matter, which is covered in-depth in the body of the article already -- which is where it SHOULD be covered in-depth.
 * Don't be absurd. The attack may not have defined her career, but it certainly redefined it. It is the main thing for which she's known, and not mentioning it in the opening section can be taken as nothing else but an attempt to hide it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.77.208.74 (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
I'm starting to get the feeling that user:Andrew Parodi might have a slight conflict of interest in regards to this article. Andrew, I'm only saying might, because good faith is really important here, but you really do seem to be interested in whitewashing this article, when the whole world knows Tonya Harding for her part in her rival getting attacked. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

was she "involved" in the attack?
I would suggest that her involvement was pretty clear cut, seeing as she pled guilty and was banned by the USFSA for having prior knowledge. Obviously, she wasn't physically involved, and it would be going too far to say that she organized the assault. However the assault is what she is most notable for. (I hate figure skating, but she is just about the only skater who I can name offhand, and that is due to her fame in regards to the attack) So I see no reason to whitewash anything, and no reason to keep it out of the lead. Later in the article, it states clearly what happened, so it's not as if the lead is misleading anyone and it's most certainly what she is notable for. If it wasn't for the assault, she would have been long forgotten by all apart from the most diehard figure skating fans. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * She pled guilty to hindering prosecution, which means she admits that she did not come forward as soon as she learned what had happened -- after it had happened. She maintains to this day that she did not know the attack was planned, that she was not part of the planning of the attack, and everyone agrees that she herself did not perform the attack. She never pled guilty to helping plan the attack. She was not involved in the attack itself. If you want to include reference to the attack in the lede, then it would be preferable to word it as delicately as possible. Perhaps something such as: "she pled guilty to hindering prosecution and was banned for life as a result." But to say that she was involved in the attack is incorrect and would therefore be in violation of a biography of a living person. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * She was involved before or after the fact. Involvement is involvement. She wasn't banned for life for hindering the prosecution, she was banned for life for having prior knowledge of the assault. But nevermind, as you are determined to whitewash the article, I will spell it out in the lead, so that everything is nice and clear. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * She struck a plea bargain and as a result of the plea bargain she agreed to the stipulation of being banned for life. In order to adhere to the standards of a biography of a living person you must be factually accurate to the letter of the law with regard to a criminal case. The legal reality is that in a court of law she pled guilty simply to hindering prosecution, and all that means is that she didn't come forward as soon as she learned what had happened after-the-fact. No one has ever proven that she was involved from the start, and she was not charged with being involved from the start. She was charged simply with not coming forward as soon as she learned what had happened, after it had already happened. This is not whitewashing history. This is the historical reality. Andrew Parodi (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Biography of a living person

 * Main article: Biographies of living persons

Spacecowboy420: I am simply trying to ensure that this page adheres to the standards put forth by Wikipedia with regard to articles about living people. Please see the very top of this page with its notification about how biographies of living people must be handled. You cannot give undo weight to certain items in a biography of a living person, and you have to be very careful when addressing an issue of a criminal situation in the life of a living person. Just because the mainstream media gave undue weight to this situation when it happened does not mean this article should. I repeat for about the millionth time and now: it is not factually accurate to say she was involved in the attack. It is factually accurate to say that she pled guilty to hindering prosecution, which means she did not come forward as soon as she learned what had happened after it had already happened. You may personally believe that she knew about it from the start, but that doesn't change the fact that that is not what she pled guilty to. Andrew Parodi (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC) http://www.believermag.com/issues/201401/?read=article_marshall


 * My opinion regarding prior knowledge is unimportant. It was the USFSA that stated she had prior knowledge of the assault, and that is why she got a lifetime ban. I think you are letting your personal feelings cloud your judgement. Is there a conflict of interest regarding you editing this article? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Well then that is what needs to be written, and is exactly HOW it needs to be written: that the USFSA decided that she had prior knowledge. On Wikipedia you have to cite your sources. You can't just write it without saying where it comes from. Doing so gives the impression that a Wikipedia editor is presenting his own opinion; and on Wikipedia that is referred to as "original research" -- which is not allowed. These are not my "personal feelings"; this is Wikipedia policy. The Multnomah County Court is a higher authority than USFSA, and therefore the Multnomah County Court has precedent as a source with regard to whether or not she had prior knowledge. And then we're right back to the fact that all she ever pled guilty to was hindering prosecution, and all that means is that she had no prior knowledge of the attack and was not personally involved in the attack itself. The perspective of the USFSA is already mentioned in the body of the article, and is too in-depth to mention in the lede -- which is supposed to be a brief summary of the article. Lastly, referring to the honeymoon video in the lede is entirely unnecessary and, again, is something that is already mentioned in the body of the article. The lede is not intended to mention everything the person has ever done; the lede is intended as a brief summary of the body of the article to follow. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy and standards. Andrew Parodi (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The ban was not because she plea bargained. The ban was from the USFSA who concluded that she had prior knowledge.

The community service/fine/probation were because of the plea bargain. And actually, I think her (brief) porn career is highly relevant and deserves to be in the lead. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The ban was because the USFSA concluded in their own independent investigation that she had prior knowledge of the attack. That is not the same as being found guilty of hindering prosecution in a court of law in the state of Oregon. Two different bodies (only one being of the U.S. government) with two different conclusions. Please do not synthesize these two conclusions. Such synthesis is another example of original research: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
 * Further, it is undo weight and in violation of a biography of a living person to allow the majority of the lede of an article to pertain to one negative situation in a person's life. It is understandable and logical to want to refer to the events of 1994 in the lede, but to allow it to be more than half of the lead is undo weight: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_and_undue_weight

There is no need for this to become an attack page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attack_page Andrew Parodi (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Homemade tape does not belong in lede

 * Main article: Celebrity sex tape

An editor on this page has attempted to include mention of Tonya Harding's sex tape in the very lede of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tonya_Harding&oldid=691366581

Many celebrities have had homemade sex tapes, but very few have that tape mentioned in the lede. A notable exception being Paris Hilton, likely because said tape was integral in making her famous. (Note that most celebrities listed on the Celebrity sex tape page do not have their respective tapes mentioned in the lede of their respective pages.) Tonya, on the other hand, became famous in 1991 (three years before the tape was released), and her fame increased hugely as a result of the Winter Olympics -- months before the tape was release.

The sex tape is a footnote in her life, and is actually already mentioned in the article, in the section titled "later celebrity." There really is no need for it to be in the lede: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonya_Harding#Later_celebrity Andrew Parodi (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Addendum: said editor didn't even bother to spell-check. Apparently she wasn't "starring" in a sex tape, but merely "staring" at one: She is also noted for her involvement in the assault on her skating rival Nancy Kerrigan, a brief boxing career and staring in a celebrity sex tape.[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tonya_Harding&type=revision&diff=691366581&oldid=691347026 And this edit was made with the following sarcastic edit summary: "wow...she's done so much in such a short life !!." It is quite evident that said editor is attempting to turn this into an attack page. Andrew Parodi (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Spelling based insults? really? Andy, this isn't some forum flame war, it's an article on wikipedia. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well then edit it like it's a Wikipedia article. The juxtaposition of your spelling error and sarcastic edit summary demonstrate that you haven't really put much thought into this and are just trying to create an attack article. If you aren't interested enough in your contributions to this article to make sure that they are spelled correctly, and summarize your contributions in sarcastic and degrading comments to the subject (which is a violation of biography of living person articles), then maybe go find an article that you actually are interested in. Further, as I've already mentioned, the porn tape is already mentioned in the body of the article. In fact, every contribution you have attempted to make to this article is already in the article. I'm not trying to keep any specific information from the article. I'm trying to place information in the appropriate section of the article and keep said information from being synthesized. As a Wikipedia editor, that's my job (volunteer though it may be). Lastly, no one calls me "Andy." Maybe my mother did when I was five…. But I'm a grown man now. Thank you. Andrew Parodi (talk) 06:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

conflict of interest
Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

that's why I'm more qualified to edit this article. I don't care either way about Tonya Harding. If your edits are based on an emotional connection to a subject, you should excuse yourself and let others edit. If you want to be a fanboy, start a Facebook group. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have never denied that she was found guilty of hindering prosecution, or that the USFSA concluded that she knew about the attack before it happened. Nor have I denied the existence of the sex tape. These things are all mentioned in the article, and had been long before you even started editing this article. What I have attempted to do is not allow you to conduct original research, synthesis of information, and make this into an attack page by giving undo weight to one particular incident in her life. There is no conflict of interest as it stands because she is not a part of my life and I have no financial stake in the matter. I am not interested in making her out to be a saint. I am interested in maintaining this article as a neutral article as per: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Andrew Parodi (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Andrew, please do not remove my edits from this page again.

I wished to show that you have a blatant conflict of interest, so please do not touch my posts again.

I think that you have a web address "tonyahardingisinnocent" and you stating your love for her, is enough to show that there might be a conflict of interest. I don't care what you do in your private life & I will agree that a couple of decades ago, she was kinda cute, if you like her type...But when you are editing her article on wikipedia, blogs uploaded in 2015 are highly relevant to a possible conflict of interest. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a violation of Wikipedia policy to post personal information of a fellow editor on a talk page. And it is covered in many places on Wikipedia that a personal blog by anyone does not belong on Wikipedia.  What I wrote on my personal blog has no relevance to this article about Tonya Harding because I never included anything from my personal blog on this Wikipedia article about Tonya Harding, because as a Wikipedia editor I know better.  Fact remains that there's no conflict of interest on my part because she is not personally a part of my life and I have no financial stake in the matter.  Everything I have posted to this article is historically and factually accurate from a neutral point of view.  I request that you acknowledge that I have not argued the factual accuracy of what you have attempted to contribute to this article.  What I have argued is that you should adhere to Wikipedia policy by citing your sources, prioritizing information by placing it in the correct area of the article ( not every salacious a detail of her life deserves to be in the lede),  not committing original research by synthesizing information (the independent findings of two independent organizations cannot be synthesized to make one general conclusion).  I request that you cease posting my personal creative writing on the talk page of an article that isn't about me; you are not supposed to even be link personal blogs of fellow editors to Wikipedia anyway.  If you were as familiar with Wikipedia policy as you claim to be you would know that this kind of behavior is in violation of Wikipedia policy.  You're not supposed to post personal information about fellow editors in an attempt to call them out.   The only reason you were doing this is because you were upset that I'm not allowing you to refer to her porn tape in the lede of the article. Andrew Parodi (talk) 06:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * and yet again, you should not touch my posts, Andy

the blog posts are a good demonstration of your conflict of interest. It's not personal information, your wikipedia ID is the same name as your blog, so it reveals nothing. Actually your wikipedia user page is written like a biography, that gives more personal information than your blog does.

the facts are the you have a blog stating that Tonya Harding is innocent, and that you love her. That's a pretty clear conflict of interest and it is also abundantly clear that you have an emotional stake in this article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * First of all, my name is Andrew. I'm a grown man and no one calls me "Andy." I have only removed something that is not supposed to be on the talk page: a blog of a fellow editor which does not pertain to the article the talk page is supposed to be discussing. I have in effect only removed a link to something that I myself wrote. I have not removed your own words. Yes, people can find my blog if they go to my own profile page on Wikipedia, but that's the exact difference. Talk page of an article is vastly different from the personal page of an editor on Wikipedia. You should not combine or mixup the two. What I wrote on my personal blog is a creative writing piece regarding an incident that happened over 20 years ago when I was a teenager. I have not attempted to include anything from my personal blog in this article (you are the one attempting to do that), and I have no financial stake in the issue. There is no conflict of interest. The title of my blog is hyperbole and is only a working title -- is of no relevance to the Wikipedia article about her. As I have stated many times, I am fully aware that she was found guilty of hindering prosecution and I myself am the one who included that fact in the very lede after you became so adamant that it should be included in the lede. Now please stop violating Wikipedia policy by posting a fellow editor's blog to a talk page of an article that is not even about the fellow editor. Andrew Parodi (talk) 07:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Removing undue quote
Whatever Jesse Jackson thought or didn't think about her in January 1994 is utterly irrelevant. He had no involvement with her nor is he connected in any way to the story. Of course we could have a section of quotes about her (she's also been called a "monster" and "worst cheater in the history or sports") but I don't see the point in that either, as any selection of quotes would be undue. Jeppiz (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Total lack of understanding.
Let me make this as clear as possible, because right now I feel I am talking to someone who is not understanding what I am saying.

She was banned from skating by the USFSA, this was because they concluded that she had prior knowledge of the attack.

She was fined, put on probation and given community service, because she made a plea bargain, which led to her pleading guilty to hindering the prosecution.

She was not fined, put on probation and given community service by the USFSA. She was not banned from skating by the US legal system.

The decision made by the court was separate from the decision made by the USFSA. The court made their choice, the USFSA made theirs. Two choices, one based on a plea bargain, one based on a conclusion.

Is it possible for me to make that any clearer or easier to understand? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's very clear. But you have to consistently represent these as the different conclusions of two different institutions. One (non-government) institution believes she was involved from the start.  Another (government) institution found that she was guilty solely  of hindering prosecution,  which regards her actions after the fact.  Really not that complicated.  The standard of proof and the reach of authority of these two different organizations is vastly different.  You cannot say that the US court found her guilty of being involved in the attack. Andrew Parodi (talk) 07:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * " In 1994, she received three years probation, 500 hours of community service, and a $160,000 fine after pleading guilty to hindering prosecution regarding the attack on fellow skater Nancy Kerrigan.[6] She was also banned for life by the USFSA who concluded that she was involved prior to the assault on Kerrigan.[7]"  and what exactly was factually incorrect or misleading about that edit? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing is inaccurate about it. Everything you wrote here is already in the article. But that is far too much detail for just the lede. The lede is only about four or five sentences. It is giving undo weight to make more than half the lede pertain to only one incident in her life. Andrew Parodi (talk) 07:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The incident that she is most well known for. To say she is known for having a "conflict" with someone is whitewashing the article.

You're not concerned with BLP issues. You're concerned with whitewashing the article of the skater who you gave flowers to, followed to the airport, wrote blogs about (proclaiming her innocence), stated you loved, took photos of, and spent almost a decade in wikipedia editing her article. Seems like blatant COI to me. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Dude, I was invited to the airport to meet with her. She sent me a picture of herself. I was a teenager and that was over 20 years ago.  Everyone from Portland, Oregon has had some kind of encounter with Tonya Harding.  You are attempting to use this as leverage in an argument to include synthesis of original research.  And I'm going to have to drop the subject now because we're just going in circles.  For last time, everything you have attempted to include in this article is already mentioned in the article and I have not attempted to remove any of these things; I have simply attempted to put them in the correct area of the article and not allow them to be synthesized.  Beyond that, this is actually getting kind of funny…. 😎 Andrew Parodi (talk) 07:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't care what she did. I think she's hot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:7CC5:D700:ECD5:9098:9C4A:4FB4 (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Confusion
So the section says she pleaded guilty to obstructing the investigation, but does not explain how she did so. It says that the committee felt she knew of the attack, and some organizations report this as fact, and yet a people article reports: "Meanwhile, Harding maintains her innocence. “I have apologized so many times, she is not worthy of my time anymore,” Harding tells NBC’s Mary Carillo, according to the Post. “I proved my innocence, yet people still think I was involved.” - a Daily Mail article reports: "To this day Harding has denied knowing about Gillooly's scheme prior to the assault - although she received probation after pleading guilty to conspiracy to hinder the prosecution - admitting she was told afterwards but didn't tell the police." This section needs to be made clearer. Sephiroth storm (talk) 07:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what exactly you're confused about. Like all unrepentant criminals, she maintained her innocence.  So what?  So did Richard Nixon, Al Capone, etc.   What is the confusion here? Dlabtot (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your tone makes it sound like you have a stake or opinion on this issue. Our job is to present the facts in a clear and impartial manner and not to assume. I can dig up the articles I sourced the information from. I marked it as a minor edit because I saw the edit as minor. Would you like to discuss the sources and adding the material to the article? Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course if you have sources that support your edits you should provide them so they can be discussed. WP:NPOV does not require us to pretend that we do not have opinions, instead, if refers to editing articles. I suggest you review that policy. You should also review WP:MINOR, as your edit definitely did not meet the criteria of a minor edit. Finally, could you please address my question?  What is the confusion here?  What is it that you find confusing? Dlabtot (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

"Bootlace incident"?
The allusion to a "bootlace incident" in a Seinfeld episode makes no sense as there is nothing in the article itself about any bootlace incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.51.85.183 (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)