Talk:Priscilla Chan

Pretty Shitty Article

Discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.220.138.4 (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

ya 50.38.38.181 (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I note that there is zero mention of the $419 million they donated to election offices in 2020, which debatably flipped the election in Joe Bidens favor due to the extreme biases in how the money was disbursed. Articles covering the controversy are pretty much the main reason most people are likely to encounter her name. OTOH, the story is absent from Zuckerbergs page, so it might just be a feature of Wikipedias political engineering efforts. Ghostwo 14:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move

For your information, see Talk:Priscilla Chan#Requested move.
Peco Wikau (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC).

Should be moved to Priscilla Chan (physician) 22:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosorrytohear (talk • contribs)

Chinese name of Priscilla Chan

CAUTION: Please note that Chan's Chinese name is NOT "陳慧嫻" (transliteration: "Chan Wai Han"). That is the name of a Hong Kong singer with the same English name. Germanomaniac (talk) 08:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Chan wai han Thinh nguyen (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Infobox could use a better photograph of Priscilla Chan

A portrait photograph of a person is usually taken in a full frontal position and not as a profile. I don't understand why the Infobox contains a profile photo of Chan. Did the photographer want to be discreet when the picture was taken? It's illogical to photograph and identify someone when only half of the person's face is showing. Anthony22 (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The photograph doesn't look like it was taken with consent either judging on the their faces in the original photo. Are there any policies about consensual photos? Jdlrobson (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Jdlrobson: WP:MUG immediately comes to mind, specifically Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for . . . situations where the subject did not expect to be photographed. For that reason, I'm going to go ahead and semi-boldly remove the image from the article, until we can find a suitable replacement for inclusion into the article. OhKayeSierra (talk) 05:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Romanisation of Maxima's Chinese name

A pinyin transliteration of 陳明宇 was first included by CharlieOQ when the Chinese name was originally added in February 2016. S099001 added a Jyutping transliteration in November that year when correcting the pinyin. The original maker of the page, Zanhe, got rid of the Jyutping in July of the next year to simplify the writing. Citobun changed the pinyin to Jyutping in March this year, stating the mother is Cantonese. Zanhe reverted the transliteration back to pinyin this month, saying that Jyutping is hardly ever used.

I just changed it to Yale—before seeing the long history of edits! I think the transliteration should remain in Cantonese Yale, because Hanyu pinyin is inappropriate on the page of a person who primarily speaks Cantonese rather than Mandarin, and because while Jyutping is more popular on Wikipedia, Yale is more friendly to English speakers who are not familiar with Chinese romanisation systems. It would be too cluttered to have more than one transliteration.

What are your thoughts?

—A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 16:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's WP:OR. The cited Fortune article uses the pinyin spelling Chen Mingyu, and that's what we should follow. I support adding the Cantonese spelling if it's actually known, but Jyutping and Yale don't work because virtually nobody uses them to spell their names. (who spells Chan as Can or Chahn?) There's no universally accepted standard in Cantonese romanization, and we should not invent the spelling ourselves. -Zanhe (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Zanhe, using a romanisation system is as much original research as using a language is. In fact, as romanisation systems are far more systematic than language, their use is even less original. There are thousands of Wikipedia articles with uncited romanisations, because no citation is necessary. The purpose of romanisation systems on Wikipedia is primarily for pronunciations. There doesn't have to be a standard for it to be legitimate.

I also don't consider it in good faith to revert my edits before the conversation here is concluded, but I've left it as is, although would appreciate you changing it back until then.

—A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 17:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I see your point and agree adding romanization is probably not OR. I've restored Yale for now, though I don't think it adds much value for the extra clutter to the page. Cheers, -Zanhe (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Seeing as how the mother is Cantonese, why would you consider the Cantonese romanisation the "extra clutter" and not the Mandarin Pinyin? Secondly, the purpose of a romanisation system is to systematically represent how to pronounce the characters, not necessarily as a spelling for someone's personal name. That's why we would provide Jyutping or Yale rather than the often-inconsistent customary spellings that are used for peoples' official names. Citobun (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

As I already stated above, for the simple reason that the cited source (Fortune.com) only uses the pinyin spelling, not Jyutping or Yale. -Zanhe (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Zanhe, I do appreciate you restoring the Yale for now. Thank you for that gesture. Unlike Citobun, I'm unsure how relevant having any romanisation of the daughter's name is in this article. It's not a hugely important detail. If we do keep it though, I think it makes most sense to have a romanisation of the Cantonese. Another option would be to have a sentence about the LNY video announcement of the Chinese name, saying that it was in a second language and in that language the name is pronounced Chen Mingyu. That might be more relevant for the article (it's pretty interesting that she and Zuckerberg are learning Mandarin), but perhaps a bit of a crazy amount of explaining? I'm not sure.—A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 08:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the daughter's Chinese name is hardly relevant to the article (we don't even know what her own Chinese name is). The best approach is probably to relegate the whole thing to a footnote. There people can add as many romanization schemes as they like without cluttering the page. -Zanhe (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Priscilla Chan which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Priscilla Chan (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)