Talk:Tonya Harding

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, 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 his 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)

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. - AdelaMae ^{(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)

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. Ansell 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. VanTucky ^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. VanTucky ^talk 03:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Image nominated for deletion here: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Michael G. Halle and Tonya Harding.jpg

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. VanTucky ^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 Wikipedia: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. VanTucky ^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)

• 

  Practice session at Clackamas Town Center in preparation for the 1994 Winter Olympics

• 

  Practice session, close-up

• 

  Practice session, landing axle

• 

  World media gathered to film Tonya's practice

• 

  Tonya Harding returning from Norway after the Olympics

• 
• 
• 

  Elaine Stamm, president of the Tonya Harding Fan Club, speaks with reporters at Portland Airport

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. ThemFromSpace 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. ThemFromSpace 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. ThemFromSpace 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[1] 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[2] while another questionable source, says it was 1996. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This[3] narrows it down to late October of 1996. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:06, 15 January 2010 (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)