Talk:Tonya Harding

Undue weight

It appears to me that it is undue weight to give an entire section called "series of incidents." These incidents usually happened in the context of her competitions, which she usually won. I think these should be integrated into the larger body of the article. It seems unfair to give them an entire section of their own. Skatefan2014 (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of removing the section titled "series of incidences." As Tonya and Nancy are forever linked, it seems only fair to me that their pages be used as comparisons for one another. While Nancy's page does have a section about controversy she endured after the Olympics [1], there is no section in her article to match the "series of incidences" section in Tonya's article. And the post-Olympics controversy in Tonya's life is covered very well in the article already, integrated into the body of the section about the controversy in 1994 (as well as the "later celebrity" section: [2]). It just seems to be on the verge of defamation of character to have a section which consists of nothing more than a list of every misdeed in Tonya's career. We need to remember that this is a biography of a living person! Skatefan2014 (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Lede needs trimming

I think the lede 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.

Attack on Kerrigan subsection: more undue weight

I believe another instance of undue weight is the subsection "Attack on Kerrigan." I'm not arguing that the attack shouldn't be mentioned. Obviously, it should be mentioned. I'm arguing that it is mentioned in the wrong section. The subsection "Attack on Kerrigan" is under the main header titled "Skating career," giving the false impression that the attack on Kerrigan was a part of Tonya's career -- which seems to imply that Tonya herself attacked Kerrigan! (Sarah Marshall writes that this is a new morph of the 1994 attack, some people believing Tonya did it herself. [3]) Kerrigan's page devotes an entire main section to the attack, with the general title of "January 1994 attack": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Kerrigan#January_1994_attack . I propose a similarly neutral section on this Tonya Harding page. Skatefan2014 (talk) 02:27, 19 November 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)