Talk:Eugene Gu/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Fair enough73.61.23.139 (talk) 02:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC:Eugene Gu personal life

There is a clear consensus that first paragraph should be included and the second paragraph should be excluded.

Cunard (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

• Oppose 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)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bash

User:E.M.Gregory, if you are review the sources you actually cited in

diff

• diff

it does not say Gu was responsible for a false allegation. It does say Several left-leaning Twitter users with large followings believed that Bash was promoting a symbol that means “white power.” Eugene Gu ... tweeted that Bash was.... The WaPo piece (outside of the headline) doesn't say it is a "false allegation"; it does say There is no credible evidence to suggest that Bash was aware of the hand sign’s associations with the alt-right, or the troll campaign that made it popular. One of the reasons the meme might have spread so far without any actual evidence is the fact that white nationalism’s access to power in 2018 is not a completely made-up concern...

There are two sets of DS at play here. Please slow down.

It is not clear to me that this should be in the article at all. Maybe. There is lots of twitter kerfluffle about him (fans and haters). Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• As I was building a paragraph about Wu's role in slandering Zina Bash as a means to oppose the Kavenauigh nomination, the information - sourced to the Washington Post was removed. I was about to add this Vox (website) story: No, a former Kavanaugh clerk didn’t flash a “white power sign.” Here’s what really happened. There are many many reliable sources on Wu's role. He's a high profile activist. This info belongs on his page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Again. two sets of DS. Yes, I understand you believe this should be here. Yes, he amplified it. Yes there is a little media circus. And it is "Gu". Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC re Bash social media matter

The consensus is to exclude the content about the Zina Bash social media matter for being undue weight.

Cunard (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the content below be included in this BLP? Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed content II

According to the Washington Post, Gu was responsible for a false allegation made against Zina Bash, a former law clerk to Judge Brett Kavanaugh. On September 5, 2018, a video taken of the first Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation hearing circulated on social media appearing to display Zina Bash (former clerk of Kavanaugh), sitting behind Kavanaugh, making an OK gesture with her hand. Zina's husband, John, came to her defense, calling the controversy a "vicious conspiracy theory", additionally citing his wife's Mexican and Jewish heritage, as well as her Holocaust-surviving grandparents.

References

Survey II

• nope --with respect to Gu (or as the person who initially added this content called him, "Wu"), this is just another social media kerfluffle that already no one is thinking about today, much less in six months. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip site for "recording" media circuses. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
• No -- per WP:NOTNEWS, there's no indication that this is going to have lasting significance for Gu, Bash, or Kavanaugh. If in a few months this is still somehow relevant, it can be reintroduced (with additional sources clearly demonstrating the lasting significance of this episode). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, but far less (Summoned by bot) A sentence will do. No valid argument for total removal but boiling it down to one sentence would be perfectly appropriate for this article. Coretheapple (talk) 12:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
• No and what is all this bash stuff? (Summoned by bot)^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I am very dense please pardon me. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• No it is very unclear and anyway is undue weight, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
• No per Jytdog and also WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:PROPORTION, WP:COATRACK, and WP:10YT. It doesn't even say what the allegation is, which makes the subsequent stuff about Zina and John Bash extremely confusing. It's unclear what any of this has to do with Gu himself, who is the actual subject of the article. As Jytdog said, we're not here to document every media circus that comes along. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
• No. The worst problem here is that the text is incomprehensible. I had to read a ref to figure out what it was even referring to. But even if the text were improved, this twitter silliness doesn't pass the fifteen-minute-test, much less the Ten year test. Alsee (talk) 07:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion II

Breaking the paragraph down statement-by-statement, it's unclear how any of this is relevant to Gu's notability:

1. According to the Washington Post, Gu was responsible for a false allegation made against Zina Bash ... [1] An allegation of what?
2. On September 5, 2018, a video taken of the first Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation hearing circulated on social media appearing to display Zina Bash (former clerk of Kavanaugh), sitting behind Kavanaugh, making an OK gesture with her hand.[2][3] What does this have to do with Gu?
3. Zina's husband, John, came to her defense, calling the controversy a 'vicious conspiracy theory',[2] What does this have to do with Gu? Also, that should be Bash's husband.
4. ... additionally citing his wife's Mexican and Jewish heritage, as well as her Holocaust-surviving grandparents.[4] What does this have to do with Gu?

More broadly, how does this level of non-biographical detail help readers understand Gu's life and career, and how will it make sense in the article ten years from now? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

"resident physician" is often used to denigrate or other downplay people. Nevertheless, I took out his lack of license. He may have a license. He may not have one. He may be doing urgent care in Virginia for all I know. The point is that there is essentially no connection between completing residency and being licensed. (Guam might be an exception.). Over 30 states only require internship, the first year of residency, to get a license. Hospital privileges are another matter. Dr. Gu can legally cut a patient and it is not assault. It is unlikely any hospital would privilege him to practice.Huckfinne (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Sources

This article seems to be missing some context, specifically about his social media activities. Vice has a good article: "For now, at least 200,000 people are left wondering exactly who Eugene Gu is. Is he a progressive doctor fighting racism, anti-science crusaders, and the Trump administration? Or a Twitter troll who has relentlessly manipulated a woman he dated? The unsatisfying answer is: He could be both." As does The Verge. Incidentally, his Twitter account has been deactivated. It's currently listed in the external links section, so not sure if we should remove it or keep it as he may reactivate. Marquardtika (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Marquardtika: See the recent discussions at Talk:Eugene Gu/Archive 2#RfC: Trump Jr. attacks. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I saw that, but that's about different content, is it not? About an accusation by Donald Trump Jr. I agree with the consensus of that RFC that we shouldn't include that, but we should include something from the Verge and Vice articles about his online behaviors. I'm confused because this content isn't what was being proposed in the recent RFC. Marquardtika (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it's abundantly clear from the RFC that the consensus was that the Trump Jr. accusation and the sexual assault and harassment accusations that followed 13 days after the Trump Jr. accusation are all related and contrary to our policies in WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME. In fact, the summary of the RFC is as follows: "Consensus indicates that the text should not be included within the article, nor should a separate piece of text on a sexual assault allegation be included.” I agree with GorillaWarfare. We must follow the clear consensus here and our policies. CranberryMuffin (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm open to what content we include from them, but the single two most comprehensive available sources on Gu are the Verge and Vice pieces, which are currently included nowhere in the article. We should find a way to include them. There is also an RFC at Talk:Eugene Gu/Archive 1 that established consensus for this content. We need to separate out the various claims of misconduct from anything to do with Trump Jr. Trump Jr.'s comments don't belong, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the reliable sourcing that brings up other issues surrounding his online behavior. Marquardtika (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The RFC specifically discussed The Verge article, the Vice article, and a Daily Dot article as inappropriate for this BLP because they all stem from the root cause of Trump Jr. accusing Gu of domestic violence, which went viral on Twitter. I don't think Gu's online behavior is anywhere near noteworthy enough to be included in a BLP to paint him in a negative light, and the RFC specifically discussed this as well. Furthermore, consensus was pretty clear so it doesn't make sense to me to go against broad consensus because of personal preference or viewpoints. CranberryMuffin (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The closing rationale was "Consensus indicates that the text should not be included within the article, nor should a separate piece of text on a sexual assault allegation be included." (emphasis mine). I think it's pretty clear from the discussion that the content ought to be omitted, but you're certainly welcome to begin a new RfC if you would like to try to establish consensus for its inclusion. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

On Gu's notability

this is honestly just kind of a think-out-loud kind of thing–you're welcome to add your comments. I'm going to go through all the sources on this page, one-by-one, to see if Gu passes a notability test.

1. California birth index to verify birthdate-primary source, not counted
2. Eugene Gu's LinkedIn page is a primary source, not counted
3. Source from Duke on Gu's residency, not relevant towards notability (just his name in a list)
4. Story on Gu being placed on leave, and covering the lawsuit in brief, from the Duke Chronicle–his alma mater's school newspaper. Not sure whether that counts.
5. Second act in previous story, same debate.
6. Third act in previous story, from same source, same debate.
7. Just his name in a list to verify a grant, nothing in-depth.
8. CBS news cites Gu's work and takes a quote- that could be supplemental to WP:NSCHOLAR but I don't see Gu passing that route with current sources

   here's Gu's profile on Google Scholar, is anyone well-learned enough on WP:NSCHOLAR to argue whether or not this is a pass?

9. A paper that Gu published- could go towards WP:NSCHOLAR
10. Honolulu Star-Advertiser piece that takes a quote from gu- again, not really anything towards GNG
11. Gu gives an interview to Science Friday per WP:Interview, this wouldn't be the crux of notability.
12. Article from StatNews about Gu's subpoena- not sure if it counts as reliable
13. Article from The Economist that acknowledges that Gu is part of a lawsuit against Trump but do anything in-depth
14. Same as above, just with The Guardian
15. Same as above, just with ABC News concerning the end of the lawsuit
16. Article in which Gu is not mentioned-?
17. Article from sciencemag in which gu gives a quote
18. Reddit AMA, primary source and not counted
19. Non-scientific article co-written by Gu, published in Nature
20. dead link

It appears that there are two routes that give Gu notability:

• WP:NSCHOLAR, his profile appears to be decent
• Gu's story of being placed on leave provides some notability, but all three of the stories are from the Duke Chronicle, a (admittedly reliable?) source from his old school.

Neither the subpoena story nor the Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump affords Gu a pass on WP:GNG- he was peripherally involved in those stories in the news, they were not centered around him. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm more than a little concerned about using the student newspaper as a source for negative content in a BLP. I don't know where we sit on student newspapers, and it isn't blatantly out it isn't self-published, but if that is the only source for some serious claims then I'm feeling very uncomfortable with its use. - Bilby (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Bilby. It seems like this BLP is somehow geared towards painting Gu in a negative light in every possible manner. The Congressional subpoena story and getting blocked by President Trump on Twitter seem far more notable to me than getting fired by Vanderbilt and then a bunch of accusations that followed getting attacked by Trump Jr. I want to be absolutely neutral here. And from a neutral viewpoint, it seems to me that Gu spoke out against Congressional investigations into fetal tissue research, spoke out against the President of the United States, and then got punished for it pretty severely in response. Why are we as Wikipedia editors helping to do this when we should be neutral and adhere to our policies in WP:BLP? Even after a unanimous consensus from an RFC we are back to portraying Gu in a negative light once again. CranberryMuffin (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Neither the subpoena story nor the getting blocked by Trump actually got so much publicity for Gu, just passing mentions (with the exception of the STAT article)–the school newspaper, however, covered his whole residency story in detail. I'm fine with pitching that under WP:BLP, but what makes Gu notable? He seems to be either 1. on the sidelines of stories where the media focused primarily on Washington or 2. heavily involved in stories that are too negative. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

This is an interesting analysis. Thanks, Theleekycauldron. It looks to me like the only WP:SIGCOV of Gu is in the Verge and Vice articles, which aren't currently even being used in the article. This means the article in its current form isn't reflecting the relative weight of sources about Gu. Based on media coverage of him, it almost seems like he's notable because he's notable...it's a bit circular. Like he's a notable Twitter blue check mark (if he had one, hard to tell since he's deactivated) kind of thing. I think his notability is marginal and that we should seriously consider an AFD. Also, a question on terminology...is he actually a doctor? He completed several years of a medical residency but has never practiced as a credentialed physician. He currently appears to be in business, running a smoking cessation company and getting mad at Krispy Kreme. Marquardtika (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

There are many articles discussing how Gu was subpoenaed by Congress including the Huffington Post (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/eugene-gu-research-congress_n_581a3d79e4b01a82df6460de) and NPR's Science Friday (https://www.sciencefriday.com/person/eugene-gu/). I don't understand the argument that Gu is only notable for bad press that seems to have started from Trump Jr. attacking him. How is anyone only notable for tabloid-like accusations and attacks on their character if they didn't get on the radar in the first place? Also, how do you know he never practiced as a credentialed physician? Do you have an actual reliable source that states this definitively? I am quite uncomfortable and unsettled with the urge to deviate from our WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME policies and from broad consensus right after the unanimous RFC was archived. In fact, if there are actual questions about Gu's notability, that means it is even more imperative not to include contentious material and not engaging in tendentious editing. CranberryMuffin (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@CranberryMuffin: We had the RfC about the allegations, that's done- i really just wanted to talk about notability. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

How come there are no mentions of Gu’s controversies

Gu is know around the internet about his controversies around sexual assault. Some notable publications including Verge, Vice, Chronicle covered him extensively, but all this Wikipedia page mentions is the fact that he started some company that never gotten anywhere. I don’t understand why he is also mentioned on the Duke’s Medicine page as notable person for starting a bogus company which was the level of theranos 2603:7000:9C00:6276:DDC6:8383:CCCA:FA15 (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Consensus is that the allegations should not be mentioned. You can read the talk page archives for more details. —C.Fred (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Gu v. The Verge resolved

Gu has lost the lawsuit [1], with the court finding that some of the claims made in the piece are "substantially true", while others are statements of opinion (The full judgement can be found here). Given this, I think it's time to revisit whether the piece should be included in the article. I am aware of the previous RfC result, but this was several years ago, and Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_can_change, especially in the light of this court result. The original wording mentioned in the RfC was in my opinion (and in those of the RfC participants), bad, and should not be used as basis to include the allegations. Even if there's a consensus to exclude the sexual assault and domestic violence allegations. I still think there's material in the piece worth including, like the allegation that Gu operated sockpuppet accounts. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this issue should be revisited in light of the court opinion. Marquardtika (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

No, there is no significant article discussing that Gu lost his case. It looks like Original Research to infer the status of a court case without significant coverage other than a relatively unknown blog from reason.com that may or may not be politically biased. Furthermore, looking through the past RfC and discussion sections, it appears that this article has been vandalized multiple times. There was discussion about a Donald Trump Jr. attack in USA Today and then all the contentious articles appeared after that attack. If someone is involved in fetal tissue research and attacks from high profile people in politics, it seems that Gu would be especially vulnerable to contentious articles. CommotioCordis (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

None of the new section mentioned the abuse allegations so your point is irrelevant. The Verge is a reliable source according to WP:RSP. There was also precisely zero reason to remove the Trump Twitter lawsuit section, which was not controversial. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

You would need a new RfC to revisit a previous RfC. TarnishedPath^talk 00:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The previous RfC only covered a specific wording, which mentioned sexual abuse allegations, which are not mentioned in this version of the article, so the RfC is not relevant. Also fyi. CommotioCordis is a sock account, likely of someone closely associated with Gu. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't concerned with the sock and their behaviour. The person starting this thread asked whether it was time to include the allegations that the RfC was the subject of. I think there's nothing wrong with the current "Twitter" section given the citations used are reliable according to WP:RS/P and there's nothing WP:UNDUE in the section at present, but anything else beyond that to include Don Jr's accusations would require a new RfC, given the results of the previous RfC. TarnishedPath^talk 00:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that mentioning Don. Jr and the 2011 domestic violence allegation is probably undue, given that the domestic violence record seems to have been expunged. However, I think there is a case that the separate abuse allegation made by a woman that The Verge calls Allison may be due to include. [2]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Would require an RfC I think, in light of previous RfC and particularly given no conviction that would be problematic re: WP:BLP TarnishedPath^talk 01:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the edit and discussion history, this page seemed to have been vandalized multiple times. There are contentious warnings and labels attached here as well. Adding a new section in a BLP that is potentially contentious should not be taken lightly.CommotioCordis (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Reading the RfC at Talk:Eugene_Gu/Archive_2 the question in the RfC is 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. Absolutely none of this is covered in the current section, so pointing to the RfC as if this is relevant is a bad argument. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Something feels quite fishy with the editors involved on this article who are quick to violate BLP policies and overturn previous RfCs with unanimous consensus. If a new controversies section should be added to this article then a new RfC should be held. NihonGoBashi (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Sockstrike. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, per the result at Talk:Eugene_Gu/Archive_2#RfC:_Trump_Jr._attacks for the material in the controversies section to be included a new RfC would need to result in consensus for inclusion. TarnishedPath^talk 04:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the original RFC has no reference to the article in The Verge at all, so it's a bit apples and oranges. Also NihonGoBashi is likely to be a sock of ScienceForeverLife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a sockfarm that has attempted to control Gu's biography over 7 years (see CranberryMuffin for the oldest account) through the manipulative use of multiple accounts. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The original RfC did however cover the accusations and so the RfC binds the same material. TarnishedPath^talk 01:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about socks, they generally get found out. TarnishedPath^talk 01:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)