Talk:Shannon Miller

Ranking Medals

Please stop ranking the medals by 'worth.' The Olympics are not more prestigious than the World Championships; if anything Worlds is MORE prestigious than the Olympics. Medals need to be shown in chronological order. What sense is it to show that a gymnast received a Gold medal in 1996.... then a bronze in 1992? Don't change it again. Thanks. --The Knowledge 21:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You're well against consensus on both of these ideas. The ranking of medals by color is standard across the board in gymnastics and sports articles on Wiki, not just by myself but by other editors, as well as being commonplace in outside sources about the sport (such as Gymn-forum, which always states the number of medals won by color, rather than year). It also makes it much easier for people referencing the page to immediately see how many gold, silver, etc. medals a gymnast has won.

The standard right now with the medal tables for all sports is 1. Olympics 2. Worlds 3. Largest regional championship (Euros for Europeans; Pan Ams for N. and S. Americans and Asian Games for Asian gymnasts). Whether or not Worlds is considered a more prestigious competition, listing Olympics results first is how it is done for all sports pages on Wiki--you can also check examples in figure skating, swimming, track and field, snowboarding or diving if you don't believe that this is the accepted format across the board for all sports. I've given specific examples but if you click on any diver, swimmer, skater or other sportsperson's article, you will see the medals arranged in that order. Not to mention that USA Gymnastics and other governing bodies list Olympic medals first (here's Shannon's bio--notice that her Olympics medals are before her two WC AA titles [1]) and the World Championships are used as a qualifier to the Olympics.

"the standard right now with the medal tables for all sports is" Not for all sports--tennis has more prestigious title than the Olympics. But yes, for gymnastics that is THE title to win, certainly more prestigious than Worlds (although obviously Worlds is prestigious as well). 69.86.96.214 (talk) 08:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave the medals for this article alone if you feel so strongly about it, but I've put back Pan Ams. Don't be surprised if other editors come along and change it to a more acceptable standard. DanielEng 21:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your input. I feel that too often are the World Championships overshadowed by the Olympics, which are seen as a make-or-break competition. Too many times great gymnasts who underperformed at the Olympics (i.e. Kim Zmeskal) are forgotten in the midst of gymnasts who performed well at only one or two competitions. (i.e. Mary Lou Retton.) All gymnastics fans know that the World Championships provides an unbiased look at a gymnasts career, especially with the boycotts of the 1980 and 1984 Olympics that produced cherry-picked results. Not to mention the disasterous competition at Sydney. I could go on, but I've said enough. --The Knowledge 08:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you know, as a longtime gymnastics fan I do agree with you RE: Worlds, which is why I try to make sure I mention Worlds medals prominently in the articles I write. Like you, I'm annoyed when gymnasts who have one standout competition that happens to be the Olympics get more attention than those with superior skills and a better record at Worlds/Euros/Pan Ams. Let's not even get started on the farce that was Sydney...oy. I try to pretend that competition didn't happen. :) And the same holds true in other sports, like skating. Michelle Kwan holds so many World Championships titles, but because she never won that Olympic gold medal, it's as if she doesn't measure up.

Anyway, yes, I do agree that in the gymnastics world, Worlds is it. Looking at the larger scale, though, the sporting articles are largely for a mainstream audience. Olympics is the world's largest and most major sporting event, it's the one people know, it's the one to which athletes aspire, and it's the one that people reference first and foremost--which is why it's first on Wiki tables. Gymn fans are going to be able to look at the tables and know what those gymnasts accomplished at Worlds, even if it's listed second. DanielEng 14:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

wow. thanks~--The Knowledge 01:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The line "This haul of five Olympic medals in one Games was more than that of any Americans in any sport." is incorrect. Such a "haul" has been repeated several times, by several US athletes (Matt Biondi, Mark Spitz, Michael Phelps, etc.) I suspect the writer meant "in THIS PARTICULAR Games", which would be accurate. Timber72 (talk) 09:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Oklahoma ties

I know Shannon Miller has some strong ties to Oklahoma (specifically Edmond, OK). I think her connections to Oklahoma would be a good thing to add in this article. Here's a couple of things I can think of off the top of my head:

• Shannon Miller Parkway [2]
• Graduated from Edmond North High SchoolMay 1995
• no doubt more than I'm unaware of...

Ash Lux 22:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Children

How many Children in Shannon Miller's nuclear family? I read this article about John Rocco Falconetti http://celebritybabies.people.com/2009/10/30/shannon-miller-welcomes-son-john-rocco/ ; Born 28th October '09, but I am going to forebear updating the wiki until I known how many Children S.L.M. has borne into This World. Please investigate!

p.s. it's all about the Balance Beam Mom & Childto the underlaying unity of all life so that the voice of intuition may guide us closer to our common keeper (talk) 10:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Divorce

her very nasty divorce should be covered in her bio --81.79.229.238 21:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please provide outside references. Is there a link to a newspaper or magazine article? --Elonka 21:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I've pulled the following out of the article. Please cite sources before putting it back: "Miller filed for divorce from her husband Christopher in May 2004, but money disputes dragged the case out more than two years. The divorce is expected to become official in September 2006. Miller's husband Christopher Phillips, an eye surgeon in Boston, alleges that Miller had an affair with a married male athlete and that she threatened to accuse him of abusing prescription drugs if he didn't agree to her demands during the divorce proceedings." Kla'quot ^Sound 05:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

For information regarding shannon's divorce please refer to the July 9, 2006 of the Boston Globe's local section

Cool. Thanks :) Kla'quot ^Sound 04:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

On January 22, 2015, Christopher B. Phillips was arrested by Canadian police. The case is of national interest in Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.213.83 (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Stalking

I removed the sentence which claimed that Miller accused someone of stalking without any basis. From what I was able to Google on this, there was indeed a stalking case, which not only had plenty of evidence but resulted in a court conviction on stalking charges for the perpetrator. [3] The link noted as a reference in the Wiki edit goes to a website by the person convicted of the stalking charges. DanielEng 21:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I put in a request for the link to be put on the metawiki spam blacklist. --Rocksanddirt 19:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much! That's really appreciated. DanielEng 19:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a relevant link to a reliable source on this issue:

• http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page3/story?id=2024413

I don't regularly edit this article but someone may want to use this. The incident sounds relevant to Ms. Miller's biography.

--A. B. ^(talk) 21:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the link! It's good to have reliable sources. And thanks to everyone who has been polishing up this article lately. I'm going to try to think of a way to incorporate this in. Any other editors have input here? DanielEng 02:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Worlds

Questioning this section of the page: It should be noted that her consecutive wins occurred when the World Championships changed its format to an annual event. Prior to 1991, the World Championships were only held every other year. In addition, her two All-Around wins were won without having to compete in a team championships. The events she won at were competitions where only individual events were competed. Further, Shannon is the only female two-time World Champion who did not have to compete in a team competiton in the years she won.).

I don't see why this is even remotely important. It's not Miller's fault how the Worlds were set up, and in addition, it's not really important. Miller competed in two sessions in 1993 and 1994--qualifying and finals. Vanessa Ferrari did the same thing in 2006--she competed in TQ and her team didn't make it to finals, so she had two sessions where she was doing AA, rather than three. Chellsie Memmel in 2005, ditto: Q and F. Others on the podium in recent years didn't compete AA in the TF so it can be argued they didn't do a full 12 sets when they won their medals, either. Not to mention that Miller did compete in a team Worlds in 1994, just not at the same time.

It's also out of touch with what's done in other articles--for instance in Svetlana Khorkina, when it mentions she's won more Worlds medals than anyone else, it doesn't mention that the Worlds were held more often than they were in the past. I think this entire article does need a POV-neutrality check, because there are some things in it that border on fan site content, but this seems like nothing more than trying to somehow discredit or lessen Miller's wins.DanielEng (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Bruno Grandi's constant fiddling with off-year Worlds competitive formats, some bitter fan can always try to mitigate someone else's victory with this sort of nonsense. Very annoying. 69.86.96.214 (talk) 08:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Awards in the infobox

I'm not thrilled about putting all the medals in a hidden section of the infobox. Though it's tidy, it would seem to me that the awards are a major point of notability, so they should be clearly and openly listed. If we were going to "hide" something, I'd say to hide information about her biography or schooling, but not the medals. With music stars or actors, we include prominent lists of their works or performances. Why not do the same for Olympic medalists? --Elonka 17:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing category originators of elements in artistic gymnastics

Miller was included in the category Originators of elements in artistic gymnastics. However, the article does not mention the element or the skill that she is claimed to have invented nor does it include it in the Eponymous skills in the medal table. Moreover the code of points 2009-2012 does not mention a skill named Miller. Until the skill is described and references are given Miller should not appear in the category of Originators. Lulubon (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't it mentioned? The Miller on bars I believe is still in the code of points and even if it isn't it was when she competed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.130.116 (talk) 05:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

divorce

Excerpt from http://newsok.com/article/1907839

I don't want to write anything negative about her so I have not included any of this in the article. User F203 (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

wow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.219.44.58 (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Bias

This article is very biased. praising miller and dramatizing har biography and making her rivals look like antagonists...

it's not encyclopedia class. please improve it.

"...this close result did not quite reflect Miller's utter dominance at the time..." "In 1993, it had all seemed too easy for Miller." "...but disaster struck when Miller injured her ankle..." "...Miller had the chance to finally defeat Zmeskal..." "...in tears, she finished the night with a superb performance on the vault, garnering the only standing ovation of the night from the crowd"

I've removed all the fluffery that you pointed out. I invite you to read through the entire article and remove any more fluffery that you find. If you need help editing, I'll be happy to help. I'll be watching so don't be afraid to mess up any code. I can fix it.

On a side note, all the fluffery sort of makes me want to puke. OlYeller^Talktome 13:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It is, indeed, quite fluffy. It reads like a thrilling spy novel, rather than a Wiki article. Timber72 (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This article has needed work for way too long. I'm starting may way through copyediting it, though it needs a lot of work. If anyone has some free time, I could use a hand in sourcing out some of the many citation tags. Trusilver 06:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)