Talk:Eugene Gu

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) --CranberryMuffin (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC) Eugene Gu is actively discussed in multiple media publications including Science Friday on NPR, Nature, Huffington Post, and has been subpoenaed by Congress for his fetal tissue research. This is a current, ongoing, and active issue of importance both politically and scientifically.

@CranberryMuffin: The article needs to make that clear, then. —C.Fred (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I am in the middle of putting this down but it keeps getting flagged for deletion. Maybe others should actually Google who Eugene Gu is because more than a billion links about him pop up including from the New York Times, Washington Post, and like every major newspaper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CranberryMuffin (talk • contribs) 20:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree that speedy deletion is not warranted given Eugene Gu's established notability, especially with regard to his research and being subpoenaed to Congress. Frontierjustice (talk) 05:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment about prior AfD

The major complaint in the last AfD was the lack of reliable sources. The coverage in CBS News cited in the article, plus the other sources mentioned above, show that there is a significant change in this article since the last AfD—not to mention that Gu has been involved in events during the last few years that would add to his notability. So, CSD G4 cannot apply to this article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Moreover, the last AfD was 11 years ago, may or may not have been a different Eugene Gu given the timeframe, and is otherwise irrelevant now. Agree with @C.Fred Frontierjustice (talk) 05:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Blocked by Trump?

How can he be blocked if he's still spamming his twitter? To my knowledge blocked people can't reply to their posts. Alex of Canada (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC) Alex of Canada

Notability?

So there's an anon that has been going around other pages questioning the notability of this person lately. Does anyone find anything that would warrant an AfD? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 02:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of the media section

Gu has been a writer and contributor to various large, national news sources - he is on staff for some of them. The rationale for the deletion of this section was, "this is not his resume". Obviously it's not his resume but it's part of his work. Why should this not be included? I agree that it needs clean up, but deletion of this seem over the top. Jooojay (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Question

When did he get fired by Vanderbilt? Ladholyman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.85.224.34 (talk) 05:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Reason for terminating residency

IP, this edit is poor because it only gives the hospital's POV. Gu has his explanation, and it is UNDUE to get into the he said/she said of it. The source is there for anybody who wants the details. But giving only the one side is a WP:BLP issue, please stop edit warring over this. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog: Hospital's POV is not given unopposed, since the prior citation reflects Dr. Gu's POV ("Gu said this was due to his tweets opposing white supremacy; Vanderbilt was unable to comment on personnel matters but stated that the leave was based on Vanderbilt's policies, including those concerning use of social media"). For the sake of "UNDUE" as you apply it, should that sentence be cleaned up due to similar he said/she said issues?

I don't personally agree with the inaccurate representation of my edits as "edit warring". Rather, I am simply placing edits with current to-date information as provided with cited material. I am willing to discuss with you to reach a reasonable conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.201.44 (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

You made an edit, it was contested, and you repeatedly restored it without any attempt to discuss it on the talk page. That's edit warring. Meters (talk) 04:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Disagreed, but thanks for your input. Efforts made to communicate were present, and led to here.

The sentence about his suspension is difficult. For that we have "Gu said b/c of my tweets, Vanderbilt said violation of policy but we cannot say more". So... we have both views there. I would not be opposed to taking both those views out, but what i think would be UNDUE would be another round of that. Others may think differently but it should be discussed. But we should not give one side in any place. (especially with the Duke sources which are so, so biased in favor of Gu...) Jytdog (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems well reasoned enough to me, thanks for your perspective. Maybe worth a wait to see if Gu writes anything regarding the termination to update further. There is a video that addresses his POV on AJ+, but doesn't seem to be a very suitable thing to cite. The "the fourth year would have started on July 1, 2018" reads sort of awkwardly because there is still an off-chance he might find a fourth-year position in another program.

thanks for talking. i ~think~ it is clear enough that the would-be fourth year at vanderbilt would have started on july 1... Jytdog (talk) 06:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Lead - physician part

So this used to say "resident physician" which is accurate until the end of June, and may become accurate again.

Seeking to keep this encyclopedic and avoid needing to "update" this constantly, I changed this to "physician in training".

It was changed here to just "physician" (as part of other useful improvements to the lead) and I changed this part back in this edit, noting that he is a not a physician yet.

An IP has changed this back to "physician" with an edit note "Eugene Gu earned his MD from Duke University School of Medicine and is in fact a physician, not a physician in training which would be a medical student.". This edit is incorrect. Physicians are people who are licensed to practice medicine, per physician. Gu is not licensed to practice medicine - he is training to be a physician. See resident physician and physician in training.

We cannot say he is a "physician" at this time. (there is no source to support that, in any case) Jytdog (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Being an MD should be enough to refer to him as a "physician", but it may be misleading since without completing a residency he will never be a board-certified attending physician. However, after completing three years of surgical training he will still have opportunity to work in a clinical capacity in some states, with some functioning in urgent care for example. Referring to him as a "resident physician" is probably the most accurate as of today. "Former resident physician" will probably be the most accurate description after June 30, when his contract should be up. Where he goes from there should determine how it's best described. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.201.44 (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

No, physician means you can practice medicine. If/when he is actually practicing, sure we can say that. Unclear what his next steps are going to be and one reason to kick this to a more abstract level is so we don't have to act like a newsletter and tweak this endlessly. High level and encyclopedic is what we aim for. Jytdog (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The term "physician" does not mean you have to practice medicine. There are many physicians who do consulting, work for pharmaceutical industries, become involved in politics as Senators or Representatives, or work purely in an academic capacity as researchers or professors. They are still considered physicians who have an MD degree. Moreover, it appears that Dr. Gu is still employed at Vanderbilt hospital which is not renewing his contract in July. If Dr. Gu does not continue his residency, then how can he be considered a "physician-in-training" if he is not training anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceForeverLife (talk • contribs) 07:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

time to do the dictionary thing: Merriam Webster: "a person skilled in the art of healing; specifically : one educated, clinically experienced, and licensed to practice medicine as usually distinguished from surgery". Emphasis on and licensed. That happens after you finish residence and pass your boards. Not there yet. Hence "in training".

Perhaps we can say "person with a medical degree"? Awkward but it gets there. MMm. Better, perhaps, I will change it back to resident physician for now and we can just change it to "for resident physician on July 1. Jytdog (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Resident physician seems to be the most accurate description currently, with "physician-in-training" or "person with a medical degree" being unnecessary parsing. If he moves on to another residency program next year, it'll remain accurate until he graduates. If he doesn't find a residency, it can be changed to "former resident physician" and remain accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.188.220.58 (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

If you are the "scienceforever" person please state that. If you are not, please say so. Please be aware that acting like you are multiple people when there is a dispute will get you indefinitely blocked. Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

You seem to lay out threats a little too freely, Jytdog. Reading through your talk page, it doesn't seem like I'm the first to notice that. Maybe you should tone it down a little bit. I am not "ScienceForeverLife", but I am putting in my two cents on the matter. Is that against the rules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.201.44 (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Returning to this aspect of the page. It's a new academic year for resident physicians, and per several sources (, , ) his contract was not renewed at Vanderbilt. It will be more accurate to update the intro to "former resident physician".

References

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.201.44 (talk) 00:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

That works. Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead - businessman part

So the lead kind of overplays the "businessman" thing, I think. He started this company, Ganogen, in 2012 with another guy and by 2015 had pretty much closed it down. It is not clear if the company ever did much (I don't know) and per the Stat article he was thinking about converting the backburned company to a nonprofit, when the congressional committee shone a light on him as its CEO. So I am not sure we want to highlight "businessman".

It seems to me the first sentence should read something like "Eugene Gu is an American physician training who is active on social media, and has been the subject of public attention due to his research on fetal tissue transplants"

Or the like...

Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

That reads well to me. Meters (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump Jr. tweet

About this diff: yes The Tennessean reported on the tweet. The other source provided was a blank form. The blank form is not a valid source and is some kind of WP:OR to cite that.

someone subsequently came along and added further content based on a low quality gossip site.

There is no source about what actually happened; the Tennessean reported that it could not verify the tweet and said that expunged records cannot be found. Gu had said the record was expunged.

Please see WP:BLPCRIME with regard to this being discussed in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The individual should not be covered by WP:BLPCRIME. The individual has actively chosen and participated in becoming a public figure from his Twitter account, interviews, political columns and lawsuit against President Donald Trump. This man is a public figure and chooses to live in the limelight. To say any different shows implicit bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.61.23.75 (talk) 02:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC) 73.61.23.75 (talk) 03:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The facts of what happened other than the courts final decision are not in dispute. It is of public knowledge and garnered much media attention. As far as whether or not his record was expunged due to dismissal, is a general assumption based solely on his personal POV. There are many ways a record can be expunged which can include a plea bargain or pretrial diversion. Without adequate cause, no facts on the courts actual decision are provided nor should they be assumed based on a Tennessean article which does not state he was not guilty or that the case was dismissed. Besides his POV, all we know is that he was arrested, he has admitted to this, and that Donald Trump Jr Tweeted out this information. Once again, those facts are not disputed. The final edit with all included information should be restored. ne could state that Eugene himself states that the case was dismissed, but no evidence could be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.61.23.75 (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC) 73.61.23.75 (talk) 03:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure, and we err on the side of caution. We are in no hurry here. WP is not a newspaper. I will post at BLPN to get some feedback. Jytdog (talk) 03:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done here. We'll see what kind of feedback we get. Jytdog (talk) 03:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Came here from BLPN. Just from reading the sources listed, I think the best thing to do would be to just leave out any mention of Trump Jr's accusations regarding these crimes. Mainly, this is a very recent and minor twitter controversy and just doesn't seem likely to have any long-term notability. Maybe at some point there will be more sources discussing the issue in detail, or there will be larger impacts from Trump Jr's tweet, and it will make sense to add it. But right now it just seems like a bad idea to put accusations of a crime in someone's article when the charges were dismissed and the arrest records expunged. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, full support for Red Rock Canyon's position - recent and minor twitter controversy and the charges were dismissed and the arrest records expunged - leave it out wp:blp requests caution. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

so cite it was expunged. the person in question has admitted he was arrested for it. Do we not talk about anyone else's arrest now ? if so we have a bunch of purging to do on many pages. He was issued a restraining order is that not relevant ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webrats (talk • contribs) 10:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Omitting it once again shows complicit bias. The information is true and public. The accused admits to this. If this information is omitted than it must be done with all WP pages. Also, once again, there is NO information on the end of the charges. To simply say that they ere dismissed and expunged without evidence based on a POV is against everything you have said previously. This information should be re=added unless of course, there is political bias being positioned here in order to protect a certain individual. I was unaware that was the position of WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.61.23.141 (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC) I am going to begin purging all "minor Twitter spats" from the likes of other pages including Donald Trump and his son, since WP pages must be treated equally without bias. I will also be deleting any and all minor arrest information from any page I come across. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.61.23.141 (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

What I am seeing on this page is abhorrent. This is absolutely direct political bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.61.23.141 (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• my OP was changed in this diff by the IP. I removed that here. I am seeking to have this talk page protected. Jytdog (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

It is insane that this article is now protected because of one persons subjective point of view. JyTog has openly chosen to compromise and restrict the FACTUAL information which as noted above shows incredible bias. This is why Wikipedia is garbage. It's selective propaganda put together by people based on their personal feelings. It is absolutely shameful. 73.61.23.27 (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

seems the majority agrees they assault charges should be added adding back — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webrats (talk • contribs) 20:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

WP isn't a "majority rule" kind of place. See WP:NOTVOTE. We go by WP:CONSENSUS and that is very divided here. Jytdog (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

you are the only one making a big deal about this information. So yes we have a consensus

Unbelievable.73.61.23.230 (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The consensus here is that Jytdog is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.61.23.192 (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal re marriage

I just did this, creating a personal life section.

If we are going to discuss this (and I am not sure we should) I propose we add there:

Gu was married, and the marriage ended in divorce in October 2015. His wife requested a one-month restraining order against him which was granted in February 2015, based on four allegations of domestic violence going back to 2013, the last of which involved the police being called and Gu being arrested in February 2015. His ex-wife allowed the restraining order to lapse and the court records were eventually expunged.

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I am for this, but I also believe it may be worth adding that he was accused of sexual assault by a former partner, who he confirmed in his own Tweets as being a former partner. These aren't things to be taken lightly, and a few outlets have covered it and it has received significant attention. Lesslikely (talk) 02:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

draft RfC

We should probably do an RfC.

Here is proposed content for the "personal life" section:

Gu was married, and the marriage ended in divorce in October 2015. His wife requested a one-month restraining order against him which was granted in February 2015, based on four allegations of domestic violence going back to 2013, the last of which involved the police being called and Gu being arrested in February 2015. His ex-wife allowed the restraining order to lapse and the court records were eventually expunged. In 2018 a woman he had been dating said that he had sexually assaulted her and used a fake twitter account to harass her.

References

I am somewhat sure the first paragraph will be accepted by the community; must less about the second...

Any suggestions to change the content or sourcing? Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't look like there've been any more stories published about this in the past few days. Those two paragraphs look fine for an RFC. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC:Eugene Gu personal life

Shall we add one or both of the paragraphs below to the "personal life" section? If you would like changes please say so, of course. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed content

Gu was married, and the marriage ended in divorce in October 2015. His wife requested a one-month restraining order against him which was granted in February 2015, based on four allegations of domestic violence going back to 2013, the last of which involved the police being called and Gu being arrested in February 2015. His ex-wife allowed the restraining order to lapse and the court records were eventually expunged.

In 2018 a woman he had been dating said that he had sexually assaulted her and used a fake twitter account to harass her.

References

!votes

• Oppose inclusion of both due to privacy concerns per WP:BLP. Only convictions recorded by a court of law are acceptable. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC).
• support first paragraph per WP:PUBLICFIGURE (the above !vote clearly misreads BLP). Am less sure about the second paragraph per that bit of BLP, as the sources are more bloggish, but people have been wanting to add it, so it needs testing via an RfC. #metoo has moved the goalposts pretty much everywhere for this sort of issue. Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• first paragraph (Summoned by bot) per jytdog. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• first paragraph (Summoned by bot) seems like enough. Even if sourced, allegations like this are a bit much. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• first paragraph (Summoned by bot) per Jytdog. I'd expect stronger sourcing for the second paragraph in a BLP, even for a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Layzner (Talk) 09:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Besides a tweet from the accuser, the second paragraph is POV and without evidence holds no merit.73.61.23.252 (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

I think if you're interested in getting people to consider the two parts of this text separately, it might be good to indicate that in the RFC, perhaps by breaking the paragraph or offering several options. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I think Shall we add one or both of the paragraphs below covers that... Jytdog (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Note, I just checked to see if the 2nd paragraph has gotten coverage in any higher-quality refs. It hasn't. Remains a social media/blog thing. Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Tweet, sourced to Inquisitr

So several IPs and a couple of named accounts have been attempting to add content about a tweet, source to Inquisitr:

• diff 17:55, 29 July by 73.61.23.236
• diff 20:45, 29 July 2018 by 73.61.23.236
• diff 22:23, 29 July 2018 by 73.61.23.236
• diff 01:20, 30 July 2018 by 73.61.23.236
• diff 02:04, 30 July 2018 by 73.61.23.236
• diff 02:10, 30 July 2018 by 73.61.23.236
• diff 19:11, 1 August 2018 by User:Marcus.savage.0

This is about a tweet, sourced to a tabloid. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTGOSSIP, and there are no high quality RS showing that this tweet matters outside of the world of social media. WP is in the real world; it is not an extension of the blogosphere/social media. I do not believe this edit will be supported by the community, but hey I have opened this on behalf of the IP and Marcus.savage.0 Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

There are more than enough news sources besides the inquisitr to confirm this information.73.61.23.140 (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

It is a question of due/undue. WP:V is the minimum standard for inclusion; we have NOT, NPOV, BLP etc on top of that. Especially WP:NOT, as in NOTGOSSIP, NOTNEWS, etc. Jytdog (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)