Talk:Michelle Kwan

Chinese Characters

Why is her name translated into Chinese characters? She is a natural born US citizen.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It's been well discussed. She's ethnic Chinese with Chinese-speaking parents. She's given a Chinese name at birth--in fact that's the origin of her legal middle name. Chinese is not an alphabetical language. Her Chinese name is not derivable from English, hence the relevance. HkCaGu (talk) 06:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Well discussed? Do you mean that 5 year old discussion up top? Hardly reason not to research this topic again. Just about all Americans derive from some other place in the world. I understand that her last name is Chinese, but everybody has a last name that comes from some other country. My point being is that if she is an American, she should be American, not treated as if she is just part American because of her name.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Unwillingly repeating stuff from the old discussion: How does a Chinese name inclusion make her less American? How does the Chinese language (the third most used language in the United States and Canada) conflict with being "American"? And most importantly, one must understand that usages of most other immigrant languages (Hebrew, European languages, SE Asian lanugages and more) do not require the need and distinctness of a separate name like the Chinese language. And by the way, if she only has a Chinese last name but not given a Chinese first name, nobody would think of including Chinese characters and romanizations AT ALL. For each Chinese surname spelling, there are mostly one, sometimes two, rarely three or more, actual corresponding Chinese surnames. (End result: disambiguation belongs to the Chinese Wikipedias.) However, first name/given name possibilities are endless, therefore the relevance. HkCaGu (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully, all Americans have foreign names, and many have names that derive from alternate alphabets. Although this is much bigger than just this page as it appears that a vast number of biographies do the same thing, even among non Asian alphabets. Seems very very odd to do this. Seems to be giving undo prominence to the foreign spelling in the lead.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully, you are wrong that "all Americans have foreign names". Most Americans DON'T. A foreign derived name is not a foreign name. An American's name ADAPTED into a foreign language by those speakers is not intrinsically that American's name. Michelle's father and grandfather are legally 關 (Kwan) and named Michelle "穎珊" (pronounced Wing Shan and subsequently registered as middle name Wingshan), and years later the family informed the Chinese-language media here (U.S.) and abroad of those three characters being Michelle's name. Unless one understands how Chinese is not based on alphabet but ideographs and homonyms are plenty, and how Chinese and non-Chinese names are used and/or derived in Chinese-language publications, one cannot understand a Chinese name's relevance in English Wikipedia. (As one of many examples, a newspaper in Mexico will gladly accept a Mexican-American named Michael without a need to convert to Miguel. However, Chinese-language press anywhere will not convert Michelle to any combination of characters sounding like Mi-xue-er once she and/or her family confirms she's 穎珊.) HkCaGu (talk) 23:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how you are defining "foreign", but last time I checked, its anything not derived or native to the United States (at least for this argument it is). Even the popular surname Smith is not native to the United States. I was ready to accept that this is the way most of these articles are written, but then I just get crapped on. Nice! Of course if this type of discussion ever came up again in a more formal setting, say at WP:MOS, I would be emphatically against keeping these non English spellings, for American born biographies.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Case in point: zh:关颖珊 (Guan Yingshan); while Tara Lipinski's article is zh:塔拉·利平斯基 (transliterated, "Tala Lipingsiji"). I agree with HkCaGu, Chinese characters should be retained here. TJRC (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm no longer convinced of my comment above, and am now striking it. TJRC (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

OK, kids, if her parents gave her a Chinese middle name it is part of name -- regardless of her citizenship. If you do a minimal amount of research you will find that many people of Chinese ancestry born in the United States have Chinese middle names. You will also find that many people of Japanese ancestry born in the United States have Japanese middle names. You will probably also find many European-Americans who have middle names that reflect their ancestry and/or ethnicity. In cases where a person's is not originally spelled in Roman lettering -- be the original script Chinese characters, Japanese characters, Greek, Cyrilic, Arabic, Hindi, Thai, Mongolian or whatever -- it is useful to spell it in the original script/characters as well as in English. {71.22.47.232 (talk) 07:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)}

The original name/script/characters would be on her birth certificate or birth records. It is not "adapted". She may bot be commonly known as her legal name in foreign language sources, but that is irrelevant because we use her common names in English in the English Wikipedia as well as list her birth and legal names. 174.252.5.15 (talk) 07:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You simply do not have a case to EXCLUDE that information, which is encyclopedic because of the subject's descent. We are not arguing the naming of this article, or what to call her. The Chinese name of a typical Chinese American is intrinsically part of that person, whether given at birth or self-adopted at a later stage of life. Widespread use of it makes it encyclopedic, and non-usage in the English world does not make it otherwise. HkCaGu (talk) 08:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Do not use stereotypes or original research to justify the creation of a manual of style. Being a Chinese American does not make a Chinese name important and your use of the word "typical" indicates you are stereotyping. This must be taken on a case by case basis, and this article on Kwan does not warrant the inclusion of Chinese names.174.252.5.15 (talk) 13:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to point out that WP:BLP comes into this. The use of the Chinese characters certainly has been contested, which means it needs to be sourced. In order to include the data, someone needs to provide a source showing that it is a name she has used in some way.—Kww(talk) 11:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

We're not talking about an obscured middle name. This is a name that is so widely used that a simple internet search will produce millions of results. HkCaGu (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Which would be enough to say something like "Kwan is frequently referred to in Chinese media as 關穎珊." It's even enough to create a redirect at 關穎珊 that points to Michelle Kwan, because the standard for that is simply that Michelle Kwan be the likeliest target of an editor searching for 關穎珊. If you want to make the statement that it is her name, and include it in the infobox as such, you need to have a source that directly indicates that Michelle Kwan uses those characters as her name.—Kww(talk) 20:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. That is her name, period. Chinese media could not have "figured out" her Chinese given name without asking her parents or herself. I can't see any reasonable grounds for a BLP challenge. So far all the cases have been from people who do not understand the Chinese language or its usage in America (or any Western country). To add a reference for such a widely-known figure is beyond WP:POINT, but for the sake of BLP "burden", I'll reference two versions of the same press release by the Committee of 100 (United States), a "by invitation only" group of prominent Chinese Americans. If you can't trust the million media outlets or what the Kwan family told the press decades ago, there should be no reason to argue against an elite organization, at least in the BLP sense. HkCaGu (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry ... that source simply shows that Chinese media and press releases use that as her name. Do you have any sources that verify your assertion that that is "what the Kwan family told the press decades ago"? Remember: WP:BLP prevents the inclusion of controversial material, and the very fact that the insertion has been challenged by multiple editors makes it controversial. If you have an issue with this, take it up at WP:BLP/N.—Kww(talk) 23:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You know well that family telling a name is not news that would be documented, just like a cop spelling his name at a press conference, but the secondary evidence is unquestionable. An announcement from an elite, bilingual organization of her joining as member is also unquestionable--they have 100-odd members and they're not super-careful on names? Your demand is simply feeding the troll. HkCaGu (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Please read up on WP:3RR, WP:BLP (and WP:OR, which is what comparing an English and Chinese version of the same press release is). If you make that edit again, you will undoubtedly be blocked from editing.—Kww(talk) 00:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, HkCaGu is doing original research. 174.252.31.243 (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Calling that "OR" is a pure and simple disruption of Wikipedia. I'm simply providing a non-media, reliable (and highly respected) source as you requested. Should I instead post a link to a Google search of 關穎珊 which shows images of her and millions of links about her and links with the name in both languages? Wikipedia is a place where everyone contributes his knowledge, not a place where everyone challenges about things he does not know. BLP challenges have no legs to stand on, and the only argument is whether the information is encyclopedic. HkCaGu (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I asked you to provide a source that indicates that Michelle Kwan herself uses those characters as her name. To my understanding (and feel free to point at a source correcting me), the type of source you provided would have used a phonetic transliteration of any Western name: if Robert Redford had been mentioned, his name would have been written 勞勃瑞福. That would in no way indicate that Redford used that transliteration or that the transliteration was in any way relevant to him. I'm certain that the distinction can be made: I'm not debating that. I'm saying that using your expertise and knowledge is WP:OR. Again, we have a whole noticeboard devoted to this: WP:BLP/N. If you want to include it, go there and make your argument. I'll abide by the consensus.—Kww(talk) 02:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination as ambassador to Belize

Several editors are modifying this article to claim Kwan as a diplomat based on Biden's announcement of his intent to nominate her as ambassador to Belize. There are a few things to keep in mind here, though.

She's not ambassador until Senate confirmation and swearing. I expect that some of the editors here are coming from the figure-skating side of her career and may not be up on the requirements to become an ambassador, but the person must first be nominated; then the nomination must be confirmed in the US Senate; and then, finally, she must take the oath of office. Until all three of those are done, she does not have the position.

First, she has not yet been nominated. The announcement is of Biden's intent to nominate her. He still needs to make the nomination formal, i.e., put it in writing and formally transmit that to the Senate. There have been cases in the past where the intent to make a particular nomination has been announced, but the nomination actually never happens. And in any case it can be weeks or months between the announcement of the intent to nominate and the formal nomination itself.

This is accurately reflected in the article as I type this:

On December 15, 2021, President Joe Biden announced that he intended to nominate Kwan to be United States Ambassador to Belize.

More to the point, as of now, the following statement, and others like it, that have been added to the article is false:

In December 2021, President Joe Biden nominated Kwan to serve as the United States Ambassador to Belize.

Biden has not yet nominated her; he has announced his intent to nominate her.

Second, unless and until the Senate confirms her, she cannot take the position. This normally takes a month or two.

Finally, once the Senate confirms her, she must be sworn into the office. This is usually (but not always) a short time after confirmation; often on the same day. Still, it's not official until sworn. Unlikely as it would be, it's possible for a nominee to be confirmed, and then despite that not take the job (though I don't know of any such cases offhand, at least other than in the early days of the republic).

For comparison, consider the nomination of Michelle K. Lee to be head of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Obama announced his intent to nominate her on October 17, 2014. He did not actually nominate her until November 11, more than three weeks later. Her confirmation did not come about until March 9, three months after that. In fact, because of a change in Congress (which is not going to happen at the end of an odd-numbered year like 2021), Obama had to re-nominate her, but even accounting for that, there was a six-week gap between that renomination and her confirmation. Finally, Lee did not take the office for another week: she was sworn in on February 12.

So please, let's not jump the gun here. Do not edit the article to say Kwan has been nominated until she has been nominated. Do not edit the article to say she has taken office until she has taken office. It's certainly worthwhile to mention some of the intermediate steps: her appearance at her confirmation hearing; a vote and recommendation for confirmation by the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations; and of course, any confirmation by the Senate herself. But let's not put her down for being nominated until she's nominated; or for having the job before she has the job. TJRC (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it is too early to describe Kwan as a "diplomat" in the lede, but describing her nomination as "potential" after it was announced on Whitehouse.gov seems odd to me. KidAd • SPEAK 19:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Except the point above is that her nomination has not been announced; only the intent to nominate, so it is still only potential (or maybe "likely"?) at this point. "Today, President Joe Biden announced his intent to nominate the following individuals..." TJRC (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Update: Kwan was officially nominated on January 7; I've updated the article accordingly.

The cautions about updating the article to say she actually is ambassador continue to apply: the steps still remaining are: the Committee on Foreign Relations needs to hold its hearings; the Committee needs to vote to advance it to consideration of the full Senate; the Senate needs to vote to confirm; and then finally, Kwan has to be sworn in. All of these need to happen before we can say she is the Ambassador. As she advances through each of these steps, the advancement can be noted, but let's continue to refrain from saying she is ambassador until she actually is. TJRC (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Two more down, two to go.

• "actually nominated": as noted above, done (Jan. 7)
• "the Committee on Foreign Relations needs to hold its hearings": Done (May 18)
• "the Committee needs to vote to advance it to consideration of the full Senate": Done (June 9)
• "the Senate needs to vote to confirm": still pending; it's on the Senate Executive Calendar, item no. 981 Done (September 29).
• "Kwan has to be sworn in": presumably shortly after confirmation.

TJRC (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

OrangeLTE has added her Senate confirmation with source. (Thanks!). Now all that's needed is her being sworn, and we can document her as having the position.

(By the way, style points for CNN for its phrasing that "Kwan... skated through the chamber’s confirmation process with a voice vote," and kudos to OrangeLTE for their restraint declining to replicate the pun.) TJRC (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Update (Dec. 2, 2022). Surprisingly, it's been a little more than two months, and there's still no indication that Kwan has taken the position. I'm not sure why this would be (except maybe the logistics of pulling up stakes and physically moving to Belize, maybe).

• There have been no news stories (that I can find) showing Kwan having taken office.
• There is no announcement on the State department saying she's taken office.
• There is a transcript of a relatively informal talk given by State Deputy Secretary Wendy R. Sherman at a "Reception for the Diplomatic Corps in Honor of the World Cup" on Nov. 21, where she referred to "...Olympic champions like Michelle Kwan, who once served as a public diplomacy representative at the State Department and now serves as our ambassador to Belize." But that's a little too tangent to serve as a WP:RS for Kwan having actually taken office.
• On the State Department's Belize mission website, the "Key Officers" page continues to list the ambassador position as "vacant" and Chargé d’Affaires, Leyla Moses-Ones as the person in charge in the absence of an ambassador.
• The Belize mission's "Ambassador" page, which until recently previously listed Moses-Ones in lieu of an ambassador now generates a 404-Not Found error.
• The Belize mission's "our relationship" page also continues to list Moses-Ones as the person in charge, with no mention of Kwan.

I think what we need to reliably report that Kwan has taken office we need either a news report showing she's taken office; some release or similar from the State Department saying she's taken the office; or an update to something on bz.usembassy.gov showing Kwan as ambassador (even if no actual announcement is made). TJRC (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

One day later, it's now official: Kwan is now listed on the State department's "our ambassador" Belize page as ambassador.

A couple other things I was able to find:

• She received her official appointment following her September 9 confirmation on October 7;
• She was sworn in (i.e., officially took office) on October 10.

I'll make these updates in the next few days if no one beats me to it. TJRC (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Ambassadorship on infobox

Why isn't information about her being ambassador on her infobox? Normally if she were a nominee, that'd still be listed on the infobox. Now that she's been confirmed, I think it's a little overdue to add her ambassadorship to her infobox. 38.106.246.199 (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Because she's not ambassador, at least not yet. See #Nomination as ambassador to Belize, above. TLDR: she's been nominated and confirmed; once she's sworn, she's ambassador, and that has not yet happened; as of the time I write this, the U.S. State Department's Belize page still shows the ambassadorship as "vacant" and Leyla Moses-Ones as running the show as Chargé d'affaires; that will change if/when Kwan takes the oath of office and actually becomes ambassador. (I say "if/when" only out of an abundance of caution; I see no reason to think she won't be sworn.) TJRC (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)