Talk:Eugene Gu

Discussion on Gu's controversies

Should the article include a section on Gu's controversies, in particular the Mary Laury story? There are others too. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• Sections marked "Controversies" are discouraged by the MOS, and for that particular one I do not think you have the sourcing. It was a few years ago, but it is not clear what all came out of "a series of tweets" by an ex-girlfriend? No, that's not OK. If you were to find rigorous sourcing that helps tell the bigger story as alleged in the Verge article, that's entirely different. But for now, no, BLPs should not have sections that go "subject was accused in tweets of something by ex-girlfriend", because a. that's really a BLP violation in my book, and b. it actually trivializes the the situation. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
  • That's fair enough– but writing nothing seems like a problem too. There is the sourcing to write about Gu's controversies, which aren't discountable. A singular sentence about Mary Laury is definitely a problem (although I didn't really think NPOV was the correct guideline to throw in my face there) but there should be. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

What is the evidence of any controversies other than tweets from an "ex-girlfriend" used to smear a living person's name? Is there a conviction in a court of law? Is there any official action taken against Eugene Gu? Tabloid journalism where the primary sources come from disgruntled social media users without any underlying evidence is extremely problematic, especially given the history that Donald Trump Jr. accusing Eugene Gu of domestic violence in a series of tweets that started the ball rolling on many other accusations. Wikipedia should not be a place where living persons are smeared with accusations and no evidence even after many years when the alleged incidents occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:6E40:C3:F116:604B:7019:35E5 (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• The Verge does not do tabloid journalism. The question is how much weight, if any, that one article should have, and whether there's more sourcing available, over a period of time--that will decide whether some stuff goes in or not. Trump or Trump jr have nothing to do with it, and doing away with that article as "tabloid journalism" only weakens your argument. Drmies (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• And Ars Technica adds credence to the Verge story, albeit briefly. theleekycauldron, I can't really say yet that I'm convinced it should be in there. I searched but just couldn't find more. GorillaWarfare, how high is the bar? One article, and a mention that supports the source, is that enough? Drmies (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the delay, I got waylaid by a different wiki discussion and this slipped my mind. I'm torn on this one -- The Verge piece is quite detailed coverage, but everything else is pretty minimal. WP:RSP has The Verge listed as generally reliable for "technology, science, and automobiles" but I'm not sure what the general consensus is on its use for contentious BLP claims. I'm a little surprised there isn't more spinoff reporting after the piece from The Verge, though perhaps Gu has kept a lower profile the past few years? If it is to be included, I agree with leekycauldron that it should not be in a "controversies" section, but folded in to a section like "Personal life". GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Any publication, whether it is the The Verge, Daily Caller, Breitbart, or anyone else can engage in "tabloid journalism." Immediately trusting the veracity of an article simply because of the brand name of the media company that publishes it rather than examining the underlying evidence backing the claims of the article sets a dangerous precedent. The fact remains that the entirety of the all sources for all articles are self-referential. They all point to the same "series of viral tweets" on Twitter that are actually nowhere to be found on Twitter since both the accuser and the accused have deleted their accounts three years ago. If the bar for a Controversies section on a biography for a living person is what an ex-girlfriend or ex-boyfriend says about them on social media, then that is problematic to say the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:6E40:C3:C52D:CEC0:9DC3:C5C1 (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

What the ex said is the primary source. The Verge and The Daily Dot are secondary sources, and they are, by consensus on Wikipedia, reliable. "Series of viral tweets" is sensational text that should be changed, but whether or not this section should be included isn't as clear-cut as you make it seem. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. IP, you are misunderstand the matter. There are secondary sources, and how good they are, how comprehensive, how reliable, that determines what goes in or not. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the discussion here from Drmies and Theleekycauldron and the various opinions. My understanding is that there are always two sides to anything that occurs within a freewheeling place like social media. There is also a growing understanding of the unique phenomenon of social media cyberbullying. I read through the various court documents in the New York County Supreme Court (Eugene Gu vs. The Verge et al) Index Number 152394/2020 from both the plaintiff and the defendants. There is evidence of anonymous and not so anonymous physicians on Twitter asking Eugene Gu to commit suicide and donate his organs to them for medical study. That side is not reflected in a "series of viral posts" from an ex. This matter is before a Judge in a court of law. It seems to me that from an encyclopedia's perspective, the facts and evidence should emerge not higher quality sources. And the wait may not be long. The Judge will have to issue a ruling which is certainly fair game for Wikipedia to cover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:6E40:C3:6402:508E:79B4:8C41 (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to do my best to straighten you out on this, but if you've got a horse in this race this may be a bit more difficult.

While there usually *are* two sides to every story, I think that if you read WP:NPOV it would state that we are not required to give equal weight to both sides of every story. We cover the way reliable sources tell us.

As for the death threats, I'm very sorry to Dr. Gu for that. That's indefensible and wrong. However, unless you can point me to some sources covering the death threats, it doesn't necessarily warrant inclusion–a lot of people, especially relatively public figures like Dr. Gu, are going to get death threats due to their existence. It's unfortunate, but not necessarily remarkable.

For the lawsuit, unless, again, the lawsuit carries some secondary sources (like the first amendment case), there's really not much reason to include it. We can only include what's verifiable and notable.

Look, for the overarching point here, I think you need to read WP:Wikipedia is wrong, and read WP:NPOV and WP:BLP in its entirety. "If you've got the law on your side, argue the law, and if you've got the facts on your side, argue the facts, and if you can't, pound the your fist on the table and yell as loud as you can." It seems like you've got a good handle on your facts– learn our policies and you'll see how they apply. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused why including material about this is even at dispute here. The accusations of fake twitter accounts and sexual assault are covered sufficiently widely in reliable sources (Verge, Daily Dot, Ars Technica, Vice can be borderline but I'd be okay with it here), and a cursory google search of Gu's name indicates that this is a large part of his notability (as measured by weight in coverage by RS, this controversy seems to be mostly what reliable sources have to say about Gu in recent years along with the trump lawsuit stuff). Why should this not go in the article? It's not our job to manage how good or how bad we make BLP subjects look to the world, it's our job to reflect what is published in reliable sources, which this stuff is.

Regarding WP:NPOV, as Theleekycauldron said, we aim to reflect fairly the viewpoints published in reliable sources, not viewpoints that individual people have. Regarding the court documents referenced above, we shouldn't take anything they say into account as per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Regarding the nextshark source removed from the article:[1], it is indeed a bit suspect. They are a news website that covers Asian American news, with a small editorial team:[2]. They mightn't be completely bad regarding what's factual and what's not, but I wouldn't trust them for a controversial issue on a BLP, and they look to be a horrible source for determining noteworthiness/what is WP:DUE as they are just covering things relevant only to their specific niche. I don't, however, like the "controversy" header (really I loathe it almost everywhere), and would prefer this going under a "personal life" section. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

respectfully, y'all have got to be kidding me. You're telling me I thought i was just a dumb person who couldn't read the guidelines right for weeks and all I had to do was not call it "controversy"? :l theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 11:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't part of the discussions above, but that's just the advice given at WP:CSECTION. I don't think you said anything dumb at all :) ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 11:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks :) this article is singlehandedly exhausting my energy for wikipedia imma need a break from here soon theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Trump Jr. attacks

The internet is but an amalgamation of toddlers with access to keyboards. Can we please have a discussion about the sourcing we need for the Trump Jr. story? In my opinion, the Tennessean alone does not cut it but I'm willing to change with consensus. @AsianAmericanAdvocate:, stop engaging in edit wars. Actually, if we could all just take it down several notches because I have finals in two days and absolutely no mental energy for another floor fight about a twitter physician.

Here's the text, as requested to be added by an IP and backed up by AsianAmericanAdvocate (talk · contribs):

In 2018, President Trump's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., accused Dr. Gu of being a "wife beater" in a succession of tweets and asked Gu's hospital to fire him. Gu responded by saying Trump Jr. was “making false accusations” and “promoting libel” to millions of followers online. Gu said he had received tens of thousands of harassing tweets in the hours after being "targeted" by the president's son.

pinging @GorillaWarfare, Volteer1, and Drmies: someone please help. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed that the edit war is out of control. I've fully-protected the page for two days for y'all to sort this out on the talk page rather than warring about it in mainspace. @AsianAmericanAdvocate and 47.150.243.192: I have left both of you 3RR warnings on your user talk pages, and I was tempted to block both of you. I will block you if you continue this edit war after protection expires. Please have a civil conversation here to achieve consensus before making changes to the article. If you achieve consensus before two days is up, feel free to ping me and I'll remove the protection. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: It'd probably be better for my health if we just all agreed to never touch this page again, but oh well :). Thanks a bunch for the time-stop, and I very much appreciate the use of "y'all". theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 09:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I was trying to fix blatant vandalism from a user who explicitly stated that he or she wanted to include The Verge article to contaminate Eugene Gu's Google searches of his name and his Wikipedia page. I was also being accused of being Eugene Gu's sockpuppet account as an ad hominem attack on my personal character. I believe this shows how Gu is subjected to massive online cyberbullying from questionable sources which must be placed in context for a living person's biography. AsianAmericanAdvocate (talk)

@AsianAmericanAdvocate: Disciplinary action against the IP, and their motives, are not within the scope of this conversation. I do understand it hurts, and I'm sorry. But we're not talking about that here. Also, we are not discussing the inclusion of the Mary Laury story–that question is essentially settled. Your role here, advocating for the inclusion of the Trump Jr. story, is to present a case of why the Tennessean alone is enough to warrant inclusion. Go through WP:BLP and WP:RSP, and feel free to call in WP:RS experts to give opinions on whether the Tennessean cuts it. Alternatively, you can present a WP:IAR reason why it benefits the encyclopedia to include this story, but I'd recommend just sticking to policies.

Pinging @BubbaJoe123456, Little green rosetta, and Mz7:–One source from the Tennessean about a twitter feud between the subject and Donald Trump Jr. resulting in death threats, does that come anywhere close to making the cut for a BLP? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 09:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

References

@Theleekycauldron: The vandalism by the IP is not about my "hurt" feelings. My feelings are not hurt since my role here is as a neutral, unbiased contributor (well my only bias is to remove bias against Asian Americans as my Wikipedia username not so subtly signals). My role here about the inclusion of the Trump Jr. attack is that it indeed factually occurred, has been documented not just by The Tennessean (which is a USA Today publication) but also the various news articles you cited, and the Wayback machine clearly shows archived screenshots of the attack. Moreover, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a media outlet or opinion forum. It stands to reason that if it were not for the Trump Jr. attack nobody would care at all about Eugene Gu's personal history or whatever he chooses to do with his social media accounts. He is barely a public figure and, if we were to call him one, he is definitely a minor one at that. In fact, it appears that he was simply a general surgery resident at Vanderbilt University Medical Center who was addicted to Twitter and then got fired for incompetence and performance issues. Look at the timeline of events here. The Donald Trump Jr. tweets calling Eugene Gu a "wife beater" and rapist occurred on June 26, 2018. Vanderbilt officially terminated his position on July 1, 2018. The sexual assault accusations from an ex-girlfriend occurred in mid-July 2018. While it's not up to Wikipedia or any of us to assign meaning to this timeline, it's not up to Wikipedia to censor this timeline either. I believe the timeline of events must be shown and documented so that each individual reader can come up with his or her own conclusion. This is what I believe to be Wikipedia's unbiased mission to document the truth based on evidence. AsianAmericanAdvocate (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Ignoring the cruft, the Vice source does mention it. I'm not suuuuper comfortable with it, but if The Tennessean does indeed inherit reliability from USA Today, then I'd call for inclusion. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@AsianAmericanAdvocate Vandalism? You mean undoing your deletions of content from the article that Theleekycauldron had to add back in? If anything that's you vandalizing (Redacted) I am just undoing your deletions. This is yet another one of your accounts you've created (Redacted), you made some slight adjustments to the page on George Takei and then wrote a little about Star Trek and put up a banner on your user-page to try and legitimize your 3 day old account. (Personal attack removed) 47.150.243.192 (talk) 05:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I think this convinces me that there is a concerted effort to vandalize Gu's Wikipedia page from bad faith actors. AsianAmericanAdvocate (talk) 06:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

If you two can't maintain civility, I'm calling back the admins and asking them to ban you both so we can have a civil discussion without you. Stick to policy. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@47.150.243.192: I asked for a civil discussion. Maintain it or I call back the admins. Make a policy-based argument on why this section does not belong. It can be modified. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I have been nothing but civil throughout this discussion, and have tolerated baseless ad hominem attacks on me. AsianAmericanAdvocate (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Oof... well, I've been a bit busy lately and see this has spiralled out of hand a little bit. To drop my two cents here, the second paragraph I do think makes sense to include for the reasons I mentioned in the section above. For the first paragraph, it is very briefly mentioned in the Vice and Daily Dot sources already in the article, and is discussed in The Tennessean (a local Nashville newspaper) linked above. The Tennessean is probably reliable enough, but I think I probably lean slightly against including it, but I wouldn't object too much if it was left in. Local newspapers can often not be the greatest source of determining what is WP:DUE - Gu is from Nashville too, so naturally they would find there to be a lot more noteworthy about him than other publications would. I think I prefer to defer to the judgement of The Verge (who didn't mention it at all in the article about a similar subject matter), and Vice and Daily Dot, who only found it relevant to mention very briefly in much larger articles about the same subject matter. If we're just going to include a short few sentences about all this stuff, I'm not sure the Trump Jr. tweet should be what makes it in, just going off the judgement of RS. Not too fussed though, as I said I probably wouldn't complain that much if it was left in.

Either way, there are definitely some problems with the current text as it stands. Firstly, Gu responded by saying Trump Jr. was “making false accusations” and “promoting libel” to millions of followers online. Gu said he had received tens of thousands of harassing tweets in the hours after being "targeted" by the president's son is lifted straight from the article, so it probably constitutes copyvio, and would need to be reworded. Secondly, the actual phrase "wife beater" is used in the brief mentions from Vice and Daily Dot, but is actually not used in the article from The Tennesean, so you'd need to add a source. Also as an aside to AsianAmericanAdvocate: there is no vandalism, or anything even close to it, coming from people here adding this material. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Volteer1: agreed on the spiral and on the no-fuss, this is a call by a hair either way. Let's get an actual RfC up and running, and we can deal with the two separately. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 09:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The Trump Jr. paragraph makes sense to be included because it is mentioned in multiple news articles and explains why there is so much online hatred against Eugene Gu. Seems to be a classic pile on of accusations and media articles immediately after the Trump Jr. tweet and it persists to this day even in this talk page discussion. HawaiianHulaLog (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@AsianAmericanAdvocate:: I'm starting an RfC. Do not make any further edits to the page without consensus. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Trump Jr. attacks

Should the article include the following text:

In 2018, President Trump's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., accused Dr. Gu of being a "wife beater" in a succession of tweets and asked Gu's hospital to fire him. Gu responded by saying Trump Jr. was “making false accusations” and “promoting libel” to millions of followers online. Gu said he had received tens of thousands of harassing tweets in the hours after being "targeted" by the president's son.

Two other sources, in Vice and The Daily Dot, also briefly mention the incident. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• No - per WP:BLP, it's contentious material, and honestly, I would support removing that whole personal life section, it seemingly exists to portray Gu in a negative light, and WP:BLPCRIME comes to mind as well, accusations, insinuations and allegations don't equal convicted of any crime, which exactly what is being implied here, that a crime was committed based on unfounded allegations. And the sourcing doesn't inspire confidence either, I'm not saying they are unreliable, I just don't consider them high-quality sources for serious allegations of this nature for the subject of a BLP. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

  Comment re @Isaidnoway:–as a neutral question, if we omit the entire section, does what's left over guarantee non-regional notability? Not saying that means we should include it, but that is a question that pops up. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

That entire section only consists of a few sentences, and if that's all we know about his personal life, then it shouldn't exist, and likewise, if we are using that section to somehow determine notability of the subject, then this article shouldn't exist. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• No - In addition to Isaidnoway's arguments above, there just doesn't seem to be enough sources for this. It is definitely not something that was widely reported. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• Question - Why does it state "President Trump's eldest son"?Yousef Raz (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The person who added it wasn't really familiar with Wikipedia-speak, for lack of a better word. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm neutral. But "President Trump's eldest son" is unnecessary phrase.Yousef Raz (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• No - Agree with Isaidnoway's reasoning. In fact, the first paragraph about the Trump Jr. attack is not nearly as problematic as the second paragraph regarding accusations of sexual assault and using a fake Twitter account for purposes of sexual harassment. This whole section seems to exist solely to paint Gu in a negative light, contrary to WP:BLP. Without arguing the reliability of the sourcing, I agree that they are not high quality for the serious accusations made without any action or verdict in a court of law. Gu is a limited public figure not at the level of a celebrity or politician so even more care must be taken in this context. Most of everything here seemed to have spawned from Twitter rather than a larger discussion that was widely publicized. I vote towards removing this whole section.--CranberryMuffin (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
• No - Fold the last line of his past sexual-assault accusations by former girlfriends/patients into his career section those accusations are well sourced and should be included in the rest of the article. AsianAmericanAdvocate tried to delete that last line before settling on adding in this Trump Jr. stuff - it would seem to muddy the waters and get the exact reaction CranberryMuffin just gave. 69.38.139.167 (talk) 08:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)