Talk:Michelle Kwan

Terrible written biography

This is a terrible written biography. She is one of the greatest female figure skaters of all time and arguably the best. I don't know who wrote this article but it sounds like they hate her. I read the last guys comment about the 1st para being written by a pr guy .... you should take a look at Tara Lipinski's page, it's full of self-promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.21.175.225 (talk) 09:48, February 12, 2006 (UTC)

This is supposed to be a nuetral article not to promote her but to provide some objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juaquino (talk • contribs) 04:56, March 15, 2006 (UTC)

huh? how do you get the tone that they hate her? And what sin did she commit??! Everyone sins! She's no exception if she did! 69.235.239.244 (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible copyright problems

• I am not at all certain that the several copyrighted photos on this page are in accordance either with Wikipedia's policy on non-free image content, or with the usage policy on the photographer's web site that is linked. In particular, there is no indication that these photos have been licensed under the GFDL. Can one of the copyright policy gurus straighten this out? Dr.frog 23:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Biography

For the RECORD, the 1994 nat. title was stripped from Harding. You don't win by default. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelladon (talk • contribs) 08:16, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Torrance

She is originally from Torrance, California. And those quotes belong in Wikiquote, with one of those little boxes that says, "Wikiquote has a collection of quotes from or about...", unless the quote can be worked into the article somehow.--Rockero 22:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The Simpsons

I've added in the part where Michelle Kwan is a guest in the Simpsons in the Trivia Section and added a picture. Laska 04:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

the first paragraph

sounds like it was written by her PR guy.

Too many comparisons intended to put her in the best light. Encyclopedias should never provide evaluative comparisons of facts. The reader should evaluate and compare on his own, to form his own point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.148.201 (talk) 06:08, February 12, 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've brought it back to the facts and removed the POV tag. Coffee 16:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The most decorated U.S. Figure skater

Michelle Kwan is not 'one of the most decorated U.S. Figure Skaters in U.S. history. She is "the most decorated figure skater in U.S. history." Check out the U.S. Figure Skating Association's website: http://www.usfigureskating.org/AthleteBio.asp?id=2267 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.21.164.80 (talk) 08:39, February 14, 2006 (UTC)

Categories

The categories listed her as Category:Figure skaters at the 2006 Winter Olympics but not 1994. I added 1994, someone took it right back out. Now I'm taking out 2006. She was at both Olympics, 1994 and 2006. If it was felt that she does not belong in the 1994 cat — presumably because she didn't actually compete — then she does not belong in the 2006 cat. Anything else is inconsistent. (My own opinion, FWIW, is that she was at both.) Bill 19:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Kwan could conceivably belong in the 2006 category since she *was* named to the team and did participate in the opening ceremony and an official practice before she withdrew from the competition. But in 1994, Kwan was present in Norway purely as a spectator. She was not a member of the 1994 Olympic team at any point, was never entered into the competition, was not accredited as an athlete, was not allowed to practice at the event venue, etc. Dr.frog 20:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You can only claim Kwan to be "one" of the most decoreated skaters in U.S skating history because of the notable missing Olympic gold medals that are missing from her resume. Carol Heiss won two Olympic medals one of these 1960 was a gold medal. Also, add Carol's 5 world titles. I also believe Dick Button won two Olympic gold medals and about 4 world titles. Let's not forget 2 world titles dorothy Hamil and Olympic gold, Peggy Flemming 4 world titles, Olympic gold. Kristi Yamaguchi, 2 Olympic golds, 3 world titles 2 of them gold medals, Kristi was a 4 time national champion, one of them for pair skating. A well rounded champion. Brian Boitano 2 world titles Olympic gold, Scott Hamiltion 4 world titles Olympic silver and Olympic gold. There are others I can't name but many skaters would love to have these careers over and above Michelle kwan's. Olympic gold is the grand prize in the career of every figure skater. It is the ultimate standard of skating excellence. This medal is noticeably missing from Kwan's resume. So you cannot claim that she alone is the "greatest" U.S skater of all time is reaching. Granted she is quite accomplished but America has produced a lot of great champion. So to say Kwan is the "greatest" missing the Olympic gold medals is not a realistic assessment of her career nor is it respectful of the achievements in U.S skating history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.136.207 (talk) 15:37, February 21, 2009 (UTC)

Kwan's Chinese name

As far as I know, Kwan doesn't use her Chinese name, so it seems just as irrelevant to an article in English as it would be to include a Cyrillic transliteration of her name. Dr.frog 19:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• You should know better, Kwan's Chinese name is absolutely not a Cyrillic transliteration of her english name. It has nothing to do with Michelle. Most Chinese (Mainland, Hong Kong, Taiwan) people know Kwan by her chinese name. Flycanada 21:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I expect that most Russian people know Kwan by the Cyrillic transliteration of her name. But that doesn't make it the version of her name that she uses herself, or that is used when writing about her in English. Perhaps this could be moved to the "Trivia" section of the article instead? Dr.frog 01:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• • If what you claimed is true and Kwan really doesn't use her Chinese name, then who made up that Chinese name for her. Kwan Wing Shan is definitely not a phonetic transliteration nor literal translation of Michelle Kwan. Check your claim first. If the Chinese media could find out what her Chinese name is, that means she uses her name at least in the Chinese communities. The Cyrillic transliteration adds no additional information because it is just a transliteration good only for the cyrillic version of wikipedia. She is Chinese American and her Chinese name is valid even for the Cyrillic page. Kowloonese 01:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Kwan Wing Shan is Michelle's name in Cantonese. "Guan Yingshan" is how Michelle's Chinese name would be pronounced in Putonghua. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abstrakt (talk • contribs) 22:28, March 14, 2006 (UTC)

• • • Putonghua is irrelevant for Michelle. Her parents were Cantonese immigrants from Hong Kong. According to some publication, Michelle understands spoken Cantonese though she, like most second generation Chinese Americans, does not speak Chinese fluently. I don't recall reading about her ability to speak or understand putonghua. So if she were to say her own name in "Chinese", it would be in Cantonese, not putonghua. Kowloonese 23:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Can you cite some references for Kwan using her Chinese name herself? For example, has she used it to sign autographs? And, last time I looked, Michelle Kwan identifies herself as an American, not as Chinese. Dr.frog 02:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Her Chinese name is used around the world in all Chinese publication, there are millions of references of the use. The key point is that her Chinese name is not a make-up name like the Cyrillic transliteration. Her Chinese name is a given name and one of her identities at least within her own family. Everyone may call her Michelle, but her grandma may call her "Shan". You cannot erase one of her identities just because you don't use it. If Michelle or her PR agent or her family gave out her Chinese name to the Chinese media, that "IS" official usage. You will not see those usages in English publication because the English press doesn't care or unable to print it. Kowloonese 19:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Her chinese name is not made up by Chinese media, it is given by her parents. Most Chinese American have both Chinese name and English name. Kwan as an American skater is clearly stated in the first sentence, nobody intend to identify her as Chinese.FlyCanada 02:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. What about an article that begins "Abraham ( אַבְרָהָם ) Lincoln... --Wetman 07:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh...that does not compute. For one, Lincoln was not ethnically Jewish. For another thing, he did not identify with either the Jewish religion or ethnicity. Finally, that would be a transliteration of the English name (or more precisely, the English name is a transliteration of the Hebrew name). "Wing Shan" is not a Mandarin transliteration of "Michelle". (I don't really care how the article turns out, it just really peeves me to see logical fallacies in use.) Johnleemk | Talk 15:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel that people here in wikipedia don't understand the difference between nationality and ethnicity. These people think that since Michelle Kwan won some medals for the US, then the medals drained all her Chinese blood. She cannot have her Chinese name because she is American. It is so ridiculous that I start to believe all these are just trolling. Kowloonese 19:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful to accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being a troll. In my case, I'm just asking what evidence there is that Kwan refers to herself using her Chinese name, since (a) I've never seen it used in any English articles about her and (b) this article in Wikipedia is in English. As I suggested before, I think the best way to resolve this tempest in a teapot would be to move the bit about her Chinese name to the "Trivia" section instead of including it at the very top of the article. Dr.frog 21:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

In most of the wiki articles, the various identities of the person are either put in the first introductory sentence or in a name INFO box. I don't see why this person's identities must be handled differently as a trivia. Her ethnicity is not trivia. She is a Chinese American, insisting that she is an American is just striping info from the article. If your argument is valid, then no biographical article here should mention any African Americans or Hispanic Americans either. The US is a melting pot of races and ethnicities. Perhaps the only pure Americans are the American Indians. Erasing people ethnicity because of their nationality is bogus. I may add that some people do deny their ethnicity. Perhaps Michael Jackson doesn't want to be classified as African American. For example, when I was in college, I had some Taiwanese classmates who supported an Independent Taiwan and they insisted that Taiwanese were not Chinese. To me, that was another case of confusion of nationality vs. ethnicity to the extreme, perhaps due to a political agenda. As far as I know, Michelle never denies her ethnicity.Kowloonese 23:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to deny that Kwan is of Chinese descent; that's a complete red herring in this discussion. The question is simply whether it is appropriate for her to be identified by a non-English name that she apparently never uses in English contexts, within the context of Wikipedia article in English. Dr.frog 00:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to Chinese_name#Regional_variations, most Chinese-Americans have both an English given name and a Chinese name. I don't see what's the problem here. Every other article here on Wikipedia on a given Chinese-American, Chinese-Australian, Chinese-Canadian, etc. has both the English name and the Chinese name given in it. Abstrakt 22:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Could some of the supporters of including her Chinese name please provide proof that it is in fact one of her given names. The fact that she is ethnically Chinese does not mean it should be included if it was not offically given or assumed by her. Every famous figure is given a Chinese name when reported about in the Chinese press, that doesn't mean it should be in their wikipedia entry. 67.39.179.156 07:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

When the press makes up a name, you will not see any consistency. For example, you can find George Bush's name show up in Chinese publications in at least a dozen variations. It is each paper's creativity that decides how to translate his name. Chinese language is notorous for homonym. One pronunciation can be written in a few dozens Chinese characters. When every Chinese paper in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE writes her name in one and only one way (I didn't count the difference between Tradition and Simplified characters because they represent the same Chinese character even when simplified.), there is only one explanation: -- her PR manager gave out her name in such a way via an official channel. Since she doesn't have an official website, it is not easy to verify unless you know her or her family personally. Likewise, can anyone here provide the proof that Michelle Kwan is her real name and not her stage name? Is anyone here close enough to her to check her passport? Kowloonese 08:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

1. google shows 200 thousands webpages using this name. 2. Every Chinese newspaper writes her name the same way. 3. Undeniably she is of Chinese decent. 4. Most Chinese Americans have Chinese name given by their parents. All evidence indicates that this name is undoubtly her given name. Consensus says it is her given Chinese name. (Is 1.3 billion people enough?). The burden of proof is on the minority. Those who claim this is not should provide proof. It is not hard to do. Just ask her next time you see her perform. Kowloonese 08:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what name Chinese people use for her. But what is the reason for including her Chinese name in non-Chinese Wikipedias? Do we include Hebrew names of Jewish-Americans in their Wikipedia articles? Why must the ancestry of Asian-Americans deserve special emphasis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.135.10 (talk) 01:03, January 22, 2007 (UTC)

Because it is really her Chinese name, her alterate identity. You need Chinese text to show a Chinese name even in a Hebrew wikipedia article. If your Jewish-Americans friend really have a Hebrew name and it is heavily covered by foreign publications by that name, then it may not be a bad idea to add to the entry so that researchers know how to seek additional info from the Hebrew source. Note that common transliteration does not count because there is no ambiguity. I'll bet there is only one way to write Abraham in Hebrew, then including the Hebrew text is really unnecessary. On the contrary, You cannot figure out a Chinese name solely by its transliteration because of large number of homonyms in the Chinese language. See my user page for my opinion on why Native text is important encyclopedic info for wikipedia. Kowloonese 03:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It is only her alternate identity if she herself uses her Chinese name. Since "Michelle Kwan" is the only name she is known under in the English-speaking world, then it should not be emphasized at the top of the article. Look up people like Michael Dukakis (Greek-American) or Albert Einstein, German-American (of Jewish faith). You do not see the Greek/Hebrew versions of their name. I agree with a previous poster, if it must be mentioned, since as you said, it is not a mere transliteration, it can be added in a trivia section. Remember that she is first and foremost an American, and Chinese only as much as what her parents are and how much she feels herself to be.--Canadiano 06:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Where is the proof that she didn't use her Chinese name whenever she faces the Chinese media? All evidences and consistency in the Chinese media and publications indicate the opposite. That is her official name used in her PR with the Chinese community. You are arguing that since she didn't use her Chinese name in front of the English media, then it is not her name. So your ignorance of what you didn't know become your proof. How convenient! The logic does not make sense at all. Regarding the placement of the information, I think it is a matter of consistency and a style issue. Since all other names are handled this way, why do you have to do it differently? Just because you want to reduce her Chinese ethnicity? Please make a distinction between Nationality and Ethnicity. She is not any less American when she has a Chinese name or has Chinese genes. This kind of thinking sent the loyal Japanese Americans to the internment camp during the war. Racism in the US will never end when people cannot tell ethnicity from nationality. Kowloonese 06:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What name is used in the Chinese media is irrelevant. This is the English-language Wikipedia. You can put her Chinese name all you want in the Chinese-language wikipedia. Her Chinese ethnicity is not one of the key points of the article, she is an American first and foremost, therefore this point does not have to be placed at the top of the page. As I said earlier, she is Chinese only as much as what her parents are and how much she feels herself to be. There is no scientific basis for Chinese "genes". Ethnicity is a sociological construct, and to divide people based on these labels as you are doing is itself a form of racism.

In America we have something called E Pluribus Unum, Latin for "from many, one", the basic principle of the melting pot of American society. Without racism, she would be American just like anyone else, notwithstanding people like you who insist on calling her "American-born Chinese". This is exactly what racism is, insisting that people must act different / join a particular culture based on their genes and not on what they feel themselves to be. How is it that that you were born in China and are thus Chinese, but yet insist that someone born in America is necessarily something else. Just read about Ethnogenesis and think to yourself how no set biological criterion and length of history makes a group of people an ethnic group before you come up with a simplistic answer like "because Chinese is both ethnic and national while American is only national". ---Canadiano 08:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It really does not matter who or what Michelle is. If she uses a Greek name, then her Greek name should be included. Transliteration of name does not qualify as alternate name because it is artificially generated per language. Commonly known translation does not count either. However, a person's publicly used alternate name should be included in the article regardless of nationality or language. For example, many Jesuits in China had given themselves Chinese names. e.g. Matteo Ricci was not even Chinese, but his Chinese name uniquely identifies him and the alternate name is valuable to any researchers to extend their research to other sources outside of the en.wikipedia.org and the inclusion of such identity is important information. You won't turn Matteo Ricci into Chinese by including his Chinese name in his article, then why do you think adding Michelle Kwan's Chinese name would make her any less American??? The English wikipedia can be published on paper or on CD ROM. In such form, the users cannot depend on a cross link from en.wikipedia.org to zh.wikipedia.org. Therefore, it is important that en.wikipedia.org can be self-contained in terms of all identities. Kowloonese 07:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand one of the major objections is where the information should be put in the article. It is just a matter of consistent format and syntax. I am all for putting all the names into an info box. Kowloonese 07:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Funny how you accuse others of racism, yet yourself suggest that Michelle Kwan having a Chinese name somehow makes her less American. It does not Nil Einne (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Kowloonese did not suggest that Michelle Kwan using her Chinese name makes her "less American." We are talking about whether or not her Chinese name should be put on the article, and I think it should. On Caroline Zhang's page, the editors have place both the tradition and simplefied forms of her Chinese, why can't we stop the arguement (because that is what it has become) and just happily agree that her Chinese name should belong in the article? Otherwise, you wil have to take down the Chinese names for so many other Chinese-American, Chinese-Canadian... athletes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.13.247 (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm complete agree with Kowloonese here. I'm a bilingual in chinese and english. I wouldn't know who Matteo Ricci is until I saw his chinese name included in his page on en.wikipedia.org. Now I know he was the one that I had read about in chinese history. Given the globalized the env and infomation explosion, more and more ppl speak multiple languages. I think its a good idea to include both given names at main info pages. Make it easy for ppl researching on cross reference in multi language mediase. With busy life nowadays no many ppl have patiantes go through trivial pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.198.146 (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

How many English sources do we have that show Kwan identifying herself using this as a given name (not just as a middle name)? This is certainly not notable in the English Wikipedia. 174.252.23.87 (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Kwan the best ever?

The statement that "michelle is the best skater ever" is subjective and not FACT. Is Michelle Kwan the best skater ever based upon competitve record? No. Skaters like Sonja Henie, Katarina Witt, Soujke Dykstra & Ulrich Salchow have won more world, European and Olympic medals and titles and have longer competitive careers. It can also be argued that skaters who've won the Olympic gold medals (the highest prize in the "sport" of figureskating) are also more accomplished than Michelle Kwan. It makes no difference if their careers were shorter. Achievement can inded be measure by excellence and "quality" of opponents.

Fact: Kwan enjoyed opportunites unavailable to past Olympic champions owing to the rules made to favor her by the ISU allowing her to earn top $$ as a pro while still competing as an amatuer. Past Olympians had to pay the bills and were banned from world & Olympic competition once they went pro to pay the bills. This is the politics which prevented any chance for "real competition" and longevity in the sport for those who weren't born wealthy. Skaters who achieved more longevity and titles in the sport also include pairs skaters,this list will include, skaters like Irina Rodnina,Torvil & Dean,Gordeeva & Grinkov etc. Nobody can claim Michelle Kwan to be the "greatest skater ever." It is a fallacy. As an entertainer Kwan has made less impact on skating than the "much maligned" and "often discredited" Oksana Baiul. Who for a period of 6 years was the top box office attraction in skating.

Furthermore Kwan as an entertainment celebrity has had zero impact on figureskating. It was during the years she was on top that interest in skating shows, exhibitions and skating as entertainment began to drop to its lowest point ever at the box office and in television ratings. This is no coincidence, figureskating is an individual sport built on "stars". Outside of America Kwan aroused no box-office appeal despite, enjoying a juggernaut of publicity and promotion world wide for a decade. Yet with her as "the face of figureskating rinks were closing and interest in the sport and attendance at shows dwindled. She generated no demand for her appearances and performances around the world. Kwan left European and Asian audiences cold. She was never a leading box office draw even in the North American skating world this achievement belongs to the "much maligned" and "often discredited" Oksana Baiul.

Michelle Kwan Never was a champion at the paying box office as an entertainment attraction. Her name on the marquee will not generate big ratings and $$$. Kwan has been a parasite living off the misfortune of others. No U.S champions have been no able to excel at the skating/entertainment box office. Sonja Henie is the greatest skater ever based upon achievemnet in both sport, entertainment celebrity and social impact. The attention she brought to the sport along with the innovations she intoduced are unmatched and will remain so. What innovations has Kwan introduced? None. She simply pirates the skills and movements of other skaters. This is her so-called artistry? Artistically this is parasitism at its worst. Xenophobia in US skating is a cancer which is in denial of the sports history. Sonja Henie is the standard of success & achievement by which all other figureskaters will be measured. No other skater in history has contributed more to, or made a greater impact in figureskating nor have other added more the popularity of the winter Olympic movement. Henie is the reason for the present day success of both the winter Olympics and the modern ice shows. Get the facts straight. Try getting your facts from an "international source" the IOC, and ISU museums will prove invaluable. Try also reading "Wings On My Feet" Henie's biography along with Kwan's the drive & ambition between these two are worlds apart. Henie would have eaten Kwan alive. No contest. Try conducting your research at the International figureskating hall of fame. Getting a bigger perspective beyond the narrow, biased, xenophobic view of the United States FigureSkating community will prove very eye-opening. Kwan's place in the sport must be measured with respect to all those who came before her and those at present, objectively without malice without prejudice.

Skating is a very old and a very "international sport" biased sources from the u.s skating community too often deliberately berate, discredit and malign the contributions of non American skating champions in figureskating. The best must be acknowledged. Michelle kwan is mediocre. Her merit & achivements as a skater & entertainer have often been overrated by biased supporters and crazed fans. A Hype-machine created by the media surrounds and distorts the worth of her achievements. She will face time the ultimate test. I estimate that Kwan will fade in time.

Unlike Henie many of Kwan's titles were earned while "falling on her butt." In a "judging sport" the true test, the best test of excellence is "skating clean" which means not making overt mistakes. Henie had the distinction of never falling during any competition. Today, a skater's power comes from the wealth of her country and sponsors---not her skating or physical body. Contrast her to Sonja Henie who won all of her titles "skating clean" and "technically challenging programs like, adding jumps like the single axle jumps reserved only for men. The arguments which state Henie's generation did easier elements does not hold up. All skating is relative. Today's skaters don't have the stamina required to perform outdoors in the cold, exposed to elements of snow, rain,sleet and extreme cold as past generations. They also cannot master the concentration required to execute the 80 figures skating once demanded.

Even today Henies power and strength a spinner would plough kwan and every other competitor through the ice by the sheer force of torque she generated. Her speed was exponentially more than Kwan covering far more rink than today's skaters. It takes strengh,endurance,stamina real physical power to move around a rink the way henie skated. There were no slow sections to rest in her skating routines. As an entertainer audiences adored her for decades. Mobs became unruly wanting a glimpse of her at public appearances. Riots brokeout, she had a police escort for all public appearances during her Olympic days. This is proof the Olympics are the sports biggest stage--not the pros(entertainment). Sold out world wide engagements & box-office fame these are the measure of a "great" pro career as an entertainer. Pro skating is about being an entertainer. Henie was top of the pack for 4 decades as a performer, movie star and entertainer. She has no peer. But I can think of a lot of other female skaters who have made more impact than Michelle Kwan. She is nothing special —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.220.141 (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Michelle is the best skater ever. She has it all. She has won silver, bronze, 5 worlds, 9 nationals, etc. She deserves a gold medal for everything that she did. She has made an imprint in figure skating history and you will find her in figure skating books along side gold medalists. Maybe she doesn't have a gold medal, but in my opinion she does for all her hard work. She is an excellent skater!!!! As much as I like Sasha Cohen, Michelle is a better skater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.117.194 (talk) 19:24, March 7, 2006 (UTC)

This is not for discussing Michelle Kwan, who is a great skater, but about editing Michelle Kwan's Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.40.221 (talk) 15:09, November 26, 2006 (UTC)

I restored the first posters reply. Although it is unsourced POV, it offers some areas of research on this article that might be explored. Furthermore, I agree with the first poster in questioning declaring her one of the best figure skaters all time. We should include more sources. I think it would be safer to call her the best American skater too perhaps. We might have to remove the line. 5 world titles, tied for second all time (as far as I could check). Tied for most US titles. These facts speak for themselves. Some editors should see WP:NPOV#let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves. On the other hand, I really take issue with the first posters non neutral point of view on what constitutes good skating. To say that skating clean makes you the best is a subjective call. I could argue that being a female skater back in Henie's day lacked difficulty to the point where Henies Olympic long program couldn't win a Novice title today. Skating has changed a lot between the years and this makes calling the best more difficult. It seems silly to call her mediocre when she is tied for second in career world titles and tied for first in US national titles. But, the second poster is equally biased in declaring she should be given a gold medal, and then comparing Kwan to Cohen (who never won a world title)?User:calbear22 (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone is a little creepy with the Trivia section

Okay guys, there's too much information and there's this article. Do we really need to know what Michelle Kwan's high school GPA is? It sounds like a gang of stalkers has written this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CardinalWraith (talk • contribs) 05:03, March 21, 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, do we really need to know any of the items in the trivia list?? What is the definition of the word "trivia" anyway? Kowloonese 03:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article with that specific trivia can be found here. I don't know how reliable it is. 68.248.7.209 22:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Skating may have changed since Henie's day but this is not the skater's fault. You compete under the rules which govern your sport. Just because Henie did a different kind of skating does not weaken or lessen her achievements as you are trying to argue. I can say with confidence today's skaters would not be able to compete the figures. A skater works with the training of her time. Skaters now are doing harder tricks than Michelle kwan who could not continue under these new rules. Does this fact make all of her titles and achievements unimportnant? When 70 years pass will it be fair for any skater to say that Kwan is not a real champion because the skills she competed will be considered easy? No of course not. Skating during the late end of this 21st century will be doing things unheard of today. Greatness is about excelling beyond the set standards to create another level of excellence. Dominance is important, so too is impact. Did Henie push the level of competition in her day? Yes she did the axel, considered a man's jump, she also invented the first back spiral another technical innovation. Artistically she changed choreography, added dance steps, used lighting to highlight performances, studied with ballet dancers, designed, costumes, her own sets, routines, and shows. She was extremely competitive and disciplined. Henie pairs skated too. What men's jump's did Kwan dare to introduce? What new skills did she invent? What improvements or innovations did she bring to the artistic side of skating? This is applying the standard which Henie set. Skating clean shows strenth of mind. Clean skating is a requirement of showing all the skills. Mastery of every skill artistic and technical is how excellence in skating is measured. A champion must be an all around champion capable of mastering most all skills, the more complex the better. What impact did kwan's skating make beyond the skating world? Did she create large international followings of paying audiencess with her skating? Henie was a world phenomenon her skating took the world by storm. Many nationalites and ethinicities enjoyed her skating and went to her shows. She was box office around the world. While kwan's impact was limited only to America where many of her public appearances never filled stadiums were never sold out or required police escorts to contain the rioting mobs, screaming fainting fans. Is Michelle Kwan also number one at the movie box office? Henie was the top box office attraction during her movie career which includes ten films. At her peak Sonja was Henie was like a mega rock star and movie star by todays standards. This was her impact on the culture. Huge, massive cultural icon. NO SKATER has ever come close to this kind of popular appeal. I don't believe any skater or athlete ever will. She was the most successful skater and athlete of the 20th century. People talk about Witt who had a great competitive career with little cultural impact and a sparse fan following. People talk about Oksana Baiul whose career was nothing but a blink. She brought a new spin and style. Her impact limited to the U.S. It lasted only about 3 years at the U.S skating box office as a figure of failure and ridicule. Pathetic. I think Kwan is a wonderful skater and a lovely person. But this is my opionion it has nothing to do with the record of achievement. As for "greatness" it has a defined standard in skating. Excellence in every catagory of career pro and amatuer. Sonja Henie set a very high standard. She was first, the best in every catagory of everything she did. The highest grossing ice shows. Her name carried these shows alone. Every other skater who attempted this has failed needing the help of other big name skaters on the marquee. Henie was the queen of products endorsement whatever she endorsed the public brought. She conquered every arena this is what I mean when I talk about greatness and cultural impact. Henie was the greatest skater of the ages. Until someone in the next century tops her she remains the all time champion of excellence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.136.207 (talk • contribs) 16:38, February 21, 2009 (UTC)

Tone

This could use some tone cleanup. Parts of it read like a Michelle Kwan fansite. Some of the competition description could be pared down, too. --Fang Aili ^talk 20:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Non-encyclopedic content

Just a reminder that this is an encyclopedia, not a Michelle Kwan fan site. Some particular things that are not appropriate to include in this article are:

• General gushing about Kwan and/or her skating
• Links to fan sites and message boards whose purpose is to gush about Kwan and/or her skating
• Quotes gushing about Kwan and/or her skating
• Links to editorials gushing about Kwan and/or her skating

I think the article already makes it clear that Kwan is a very prominent, accomplished, and popular athlete, and it doesn't need to include specific examples of fannishness to make the point. Dr.frog 03:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I second this. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Another thing for contributors to this article to keep in mind: it's an encyclopedia article about Michelle Kwan, and it's not necessary or appropriate to include a blow-by-blow account of what each of her competitors did at any particular competition here. If you want to write up such competition recaps, I suggest you add to or create articles about those specific competitions instead of adding the content here. This article is already longer than the preferred size for Wikipedia. Dr.frog 12:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I feel that you are just picking and choosing what you feel is appropriate for this page. If you feel that the only thing one should include is results without putting them in context, then this page should only have a chart showing her results. Why bother having different sections describing her competitive history if there is no substantial description? You also chose to include the MSNBC headline after the Nagano games and mentioned her 6.0 marks throughout the page, but I do not think that fits in with your strict guidelines on what is encyclopedic content and what isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SDoesn'tKnow (talk • contribs) 20:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

And, while we're at it, since this is the English Wikipedia, it seems especially inappropriate to include links to fan sites that are not in English, given the vast amount of other information that is available about her in English. Dr.frog 17:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Users Not Allowing Edits

• I have to say that I am a bit offended by some of the users who won't let others add on to the article despite how useful the edit may be. Some users deleted a section on qoutes which many people might be interested in reading and a section on articles pertaining to Michelle. It's not the type of editing to gush on Michelle Kwan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.230.12 (talk • contribs) 04:15, July 1, 2006 (UTC)

Please read the section above about "non-encyclopedic content" for the reason why this material was deleted. It's nice that you'd like to contribute to Wikipedia, but please do remember that this is an encyclopedia and not a Michelle Kwan fan site. You might also want to read the official Wikipedia policies on neutral point of view and wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Dr.frog 11:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You might also want to read the pages on Wikiquote and Wikipedia:external links. Dr.frog 19:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Good article?

Is there anything that would prevent this from being a Good article? --Fang Aili ^talk 15:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it could use a lot more references. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Aside from remaining NPOV issues throughout the article, I've noted that the competition results section needs a lot of cleanup and factual correction. E.g., there are copy-editing issues like not capitalizing "Olympic"; "US Nationals" needs to be changed to "U.S. Championships"; "Worlds Championships" should be "World Championships"; the cheesefest Kwan skated in last December was a USFSA event, not an ISU-sanctioned event, and needs to be listed in the cheesefest section rather than with major competitions; cheesefests are not properly referred to as "Championships" -- probably the best name for the cheesefest section is "Made-for-TV and other events", while changing the name of the non-cheesefest section to "Major championships and international competitions", or something like that. Again, need to be careful to distinguish between ISU-sanctioned events and USFSA events, and use the correct names, not things like "Marshalls". Just don't have the time or ambition to work on this right now, but the way it is now is a mess. Dr.frog 16:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Kwan's competitive history

How would people feel about replacing the numerous season breakdown tables with a general table like the one at Irina Slutskaya? This would give the reader a simpler breakdown of information without getting into details like who choreographed her programs. The season breakdowns could be moved to a separate article titled Michelle Kwan competitive record or something like that. Thoughts? --Fang Aili ^talk 18:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• I like the idea of an "at a glance" table. The hidden sections used to be just the one table, but more detail was added. If another page is broken off (and is that really kosher? None of the other skaters have that...) then some serious research into actual scores could be done. I think it would be interesting to see exactly what each program got, but that might be overkill on the information front. Some of the Olympic articles contain detailed info like that, and it is often interesting to read through to see just what happened. Just my thoughts. MaKaM 01:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• I was trying to do some cleanups in these sections earlier today, but it's really a big mess, as some "major" competitions are now listed as cheesefests and some appear in both places. My suggestion is to get rid of the fancy tables for competition results entirely, get rid of all the entries for results for other skaters and for competitions that Kwan didn't even compete in, and simply present a list of her results grouped by season. I guess it's OK to leave the tables with the program info, but right now much of that information is duplicated in the running text of the article; does it really need to be in both places? Also, many of the competitions are still not listed by their correct names; see Kwan's USFSA bio for a canonical list. Basically, I think we ought to be aiming for making the information more accurate and compact, getting rid of duplication and stuff that's not specifically about Kwan. Dr.frog 19:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind moving the tables to a page like Michelle Kwan competitive record, as suggested above; I think the detail is cool, but misplaced. We don't need all that detail in a Kwan's article--there is enough to say about her without going into the nitty gritty of each competition. But people spent a lot of time on those tables; it's encyclopedic information and I'd hate to loose them. I envision a "See main article...", followed by a one-shot table like this one displaying results of the major competitions. --Fang Aili ^talk 23:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I created the separate article Michelle Kwan competitive record and just copied the tables from this main one (I didn't have time to go in and break out the collapsing table if that's even what we want). If people like it, we can trim out the competive section and provide a small "at a glance" table with World, National, Olympic records. (thanks to Fang Aili for the one table and medal icons I used). I have a second one that is more along the lines of the ones in the Sasha Cohen page if we want to have a different look. As for the terminology for the main article, I figure something like: Below is a table listing Kwan's accomplishments at major international competitions. For a more detailed competitive history including scores, music, and choreography, see Michelle Kwan competitive record. Then people can go hog-wild with the break-off page and put in every judge's score if the urge takes them. MaKaM 19:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Expansion of the infobox

I personally much preferred when there was one row for gold medals, one row for silver, and one row for bronze. Expanding it into one row for each individual medal is a little bit over the top, in my opinion. Any thoughts? theProject 16:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

All the other figure skaters with Olympic Medals have a special box above their photos with their Olympic Records. Is there any reason Michelle's are down in with the National and World records? I think we should strive to conform with the general template. MaKaM 01:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The thing about those Olympic infobox is that they always seem to define skaters with their Olympics Records and places an importance of Olympic over Worlds or Nationals which I understand. And plus those infoboxes are actually really messy.Juaquino 11:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Olympic, World, and National Results on the side of the page

I think that it would look much better if the results on the side of the page read "gold," "silver," and "bronze," instead of 1st place, 2nd place, and 3rd place. Every other Olympian has the color of the medal, not 1st, 2nd, or 3rd, which, in my opinion, makes it seem less important. It also makes it seem less important that all NINE of her national gold medals are scrunched up in one little box. why can't they have their own separate "gold" medal rows? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.197 (talk • contribs)

The "1st place" is already in a box that is gold colored; we don't really need to repeat the word "gold" when it's obvious. Also, Kwan is not every other Olympian--she has had a really long career and giving each win its own row would make this already long box even longer. --Fang Aili ^talk 13:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree, but oh well. I don't have to come to wikipedia to learn about Michelle, anyway.Skatekwan6 22:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

GAC

I judged this article on 7 criteria:

1. Well-written: Pass
2. Factually accurate: Pass
3. Broad: Fail
4. Neutrally written: Pass
5. Stable: Fail
6. Well-referenced: Fail
7. Images: Pass

Man, so much work has gone into the competitive scores section, it hurts to fail this. But I am. Stable is a fail- there's about 30-40 edits a day going on now, and there's been at least one edit war in the last day alone. Broad is a fail because there's almost no effort given to her personal biography- I had to go to the trivia section to find out what college she went to. And speaking of Trivia sections- no. A bulleted list of trivia is a big no-no. Pull some stuff out to biography, make a section for appearances in tv shows and the like. And finally, references fail because 9 is far too few for an article like this. Push for 20 or so, focusing on referencing her career to start with. While this article fails, it does however get the coveted ("cough") PresN stamp of approval- clean this up and message me on my talk page, and I'll immediately re-examine it, without having to go thorugh GAC again. --PresN 04:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

I've compiled the trivia into paragraphs. The prose and content placement isn't perfect but I just wanted to get that ugly "misc trivia" section gone. I've completely removed some bits that seemed way too specialized or just non-encyclopedic. --Fang Aili ^talk 23:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Awards and accolades

This section should be removed or converted into meaningful paragraphs. Right now it's a bunch of fanspeak with no context. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and did this. I boiled down this section a lot and left in the awards/accolades that seemed most notable and encyclopedic. I don't think we needed to list each time she got a "Kid's choice" award and the like, or when she was merely a nominee for something. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

GAC Part 2

I'm back! As per the failed criteria from last time:

• Broad - Now passes, the personal biography has been greatly improved. While her competitive biography is much larger than the personal one, it is, after all, the notable and famous part of her life.

• Stable- Pass. There's been a bunch of edits lately, but it's all towards improving the article with refs and such, and vandalism is fairly low.

• References- Pass! I'd love to see more references, but as I said above, I'm looking for 20ish, and 19 is definately 20ish. If the editors working on this article want to push it to FAC, I'd say to keep working on the refs, but it's enough for GAC at the moment.

Result: Pass! Good job, everyone. --PresN 18:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources

I'm not sure what the problem is here regarding the intro section. The 2 sources I put after "greatest figure skater.." support that statement. Only the one Christian Science Monitor source[1] supports the assertion that she's mostly known for her failure to win Olympic gold. The Asian Media Watch source specifically says "regarded as one of the greatest figure skaters of all time"[2]. --Fang Aili ^talk 13:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the right thing to do is to remove all of this stuff about people's opinions about Kwan. Her record speaks for itself. Dr.frog 13:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Streamlining the Article

The article is getting extremely fat. And so many people have put in so much work to it. How can we streamline the article further. Should we create stubs for it to transfer some of the information? Like her competitive records. Should the Competitive Biography section be moved to a different article altogether and then just leave a seasonal summary in the competitive biography?

If we were to portion out the article, what should be left in the main article?

How would these changes affect the article's rating as a GA?

Juaquino 16:06, 24 December 2006

Even though I'm a skating fan, I really don't think Kwan is important enough to justify being the subject of multiple articles! I think what we really need to do is just tighten up the writing some more and be merciless about cutting trivia that is not directly relevant to Kwan's career as a skater. One thing I'd particularly like to see done is to have the results tables put into a more standard format that show only Kwan's results and not those of other skaters. We might also get rid of the cheesefest results entirely since those are not notable competitions. And, do each of Kwan's programs (including exhibitions) really need to be named both in the running text and in tables in the results sections? Dr.frog 01:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

How about seperating programs from results, listing them separately, and changing results tables to look more like the table decided on here? I think mentioning programs in text is good, but having a straight chronological listing as well would be useful for quick reference purposes, even though redundant. Kolindigo 04:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Popular Culture Relationship to Dan Marino

I'ts important to note how in popular culture she has been constantly linked to Dan Marino - Both undeniable masters of their trade - Both failing to reach the pinacle of success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.106.21 (talk) 23:38, April 22, 2007 (UTC)

Does this article look like this article?

I found this [3]. Does anyone agree that they look remarkably similiar? Whom took from whom? Scarian^Talk 20:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As the top of that page says: » Michelle Kwan

Michelle Kwan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, I assume they took from us. Kolindigo 20:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Dang, didn't see that. Well, nevermind. Scarian^Talk 20:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Why MSNBC's report "American beats out Kwan" were edited out?

As someone who knows nothing about skating, it is this reporting made me know of this outstanding skater almost 10 years ago. The report is a historical fact and is relevant to that competition and Michelle. Actually the news headline made such a strong impression on me that I knew something was amiss when I first came across this entry few days ago (i.e. before my addition of this info). I do not quite understand by what criteria this bit of info deem inappropriate... I don't suppose it is still controversial given it happened such a long time ago?! Aka100 (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote the information in a better context. Anyone is welcome to improve it. Remember Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. HkCaGu (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

GA status in question

This article has several major problems that need to be addressed to remain GA.

1. Large parts of the article lack sources.

2. The Introduction does not conform to WP:Lead. It needs to be longer, about twice as long

3. There are a few short sections and headings that need to be consolidated.

I'll allow a few days for comments and improvements before delisting.User:calbear22 (talk) 09:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Name

What is meant by "Cantonese IPA: Gwaan Wingsaan"? Probably Cantonese form or Cantonese spelling. IPA is a special phonetic alphabet using signs like these: ɸ ʃ ʒ ɕ ʑ ʝ ɣ ɲ ŋ ɵ ɤ ə ɚ ɛ ɜ ɝ ʌ ɔ ɐ ɶ ɑ ɒ. Swedish Wikipedia user Wikimiki, 2 June 2009 16:12 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.236.184.81 (talk)

Education

This article should be incorporated into the article: http://www.du.edu/today/stories/2009/06/2009-06-04kwan.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.122.185.212 (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Michelle Kwan

I look up to her because she is not just a grate artist but an even greater Skater.

If you are looking for a role motel ice skater then don't do any thing until you see her skate because you mite of found her right here.

Michelle Kwan just as soon as her toe pick touches the ice she lights up and right when she jumps shes ready to land it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.138.17 (talk) 00:01, August 30, 2009 (UTC)

Ice Castles

Is it worth mentioning that she also has a cameo as herself in the 2010 remake of Ice Castles?66.156.90.250 (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

References and Personal Life Section

I was looking through the links at the bottom and found that both #3 and #5 do not correspond to a website. As they were accessed in 2006, they probably need to be corrected and modified. #7, #8, and #9 lead directly to the Harris Interactive homepage and not the PDF that it should link to. Again, this is probably because it has been a long time since it was added to the page. Additionally, I find the Personal Life section is in need of information. It only talks about her wedding so either the section needs to be renamed or more updated information should be added. Epchdc (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michelle Kwan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110312075359/http://www.chssc.org/NewsNotes/NN_Master.htm to http://www.chssc.org/NewsNotes/NN_Master.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Michelle Kwan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928004106/http://afampointofview.com/POV%20Archives/2007/May%202007/Sports_Sullivan%20Award.htm to http://afampointofview.com/POV%20Archives/2007/May%202007/Sports_Sullivan%20Award.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070216192131/http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/12/D8FNT05G4.html to http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/12/D8FNT05G4.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081230190548/http://camla.org/events/hmbanq9.htm to http://www.camla.org/events/hmbanq9.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628182702/http://www.todayonline.com/Sports/EDC110112-0000197/Michelle-Kwan-tries-out-wobble-board to http://www.todayonline.com/Sports/EDC110112-0000197/Michelle-Kwan-tries-out-wobble-board
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070521221818/http://www.cityofartesia.us/newsArticles/icePalace.html to http://www.cityofartesia.us/newsArticles/icePalace.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060824071652/http://www.asianmediawatch.net/bestapas/ to http://www.asianmediawatch.net/bestapas/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090107/BREAKING02/90107008/-1/RSS01?source=rss_breaking
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://teamusa.org/news/article/8804

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michelle Kwan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050424083301/http://www.usfigureskating.org/AthleteBio.asp?id=2267 to http://www.usfigureskating.org/AthleteBio.asp?id=2267
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120505014312/http://www.svc.edu/pr/index.html?release_id=1021 to http://www.svc.edu/pr/index.html?release_id=1021
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.worldskatingmuseum.org/%5Cdocuments%5CWHOF_Class_of_2012_release.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• MK official.jpeg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• FSR Team flag (2021 Wch).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2021 (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)

References

Queer Eye appearance

She was on an episode of season 4 of Queer Eye (a netflix Show), where she cameoed. Thought it might be worth a mention. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 21:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Would you find a source for that? Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

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)