Jump to content

Talk:Eugene Gu

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RfC: abuse allegations

[edit]
A consensus seems unlikely to emerge in favour of including the specific allegation of sexual abuse/harassment by "Allison", but this does not broadly resolve the issue about whether other negative claims included in Vice and Verge articles against Gu should be included. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Modified. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 abuse allegations by "Allison" against Eugene Gu be included, cited to The Verge and Vice News? Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed addition (to be added to a subsection like personal life):

In 2018 and 2019, news articles in Vice News and The Verge reported on the account of "Allison" (known by the Twitter handle @DoctorMeowskis or @DrMeowskis) a woman who said she had been sexually harassed by Gu after meeting him, and then subsequently manipulated by one of his alleged sockpuppet accounts. Gu denied the allegations.[1][2]

Responses

[edit]
  • Yes The 2021 RfC (see Talk:Eugene_Gu/Archive_2) was specifically about the inclusion of 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., cited to a story in the The Tennessean [1]. As the story in The Verge clarifies [2], the account of "Allison" is a separate allegation involving a different woman than that mentioned in The Tennessean, so therefore to bring this is up is somewhat of a red herring, and the article in The Verge was never mentioned in the RfC at all. This RfC is not suggesting including this text or any text specifically about the allegation mentioned in the 2021 RfC.The Verge is a solidly reliable source as per WP:RSP. Given that Gu has lost a libel lawsuit against The Verge regarding the article, I do not see any major BLP issues with the inclusion. Given the domestic violence allegations against another woman (the subject of the 2021 RfC) has been expunged from court records (see The Verge article for details), I don't think it should be mentioned in this article explicitly. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in the updated RfC notice, there's two sources for this allegations as Allison's account is also mentioned in the Vice News story, where she's just referred to as @DrMeowskis. The Verge story says that Allison is the alias they are using for @DoctorMeowskis. Not sure the reason for the discrepancy in usernames. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Agree that the Don Jr. stuff is a red herring. The Verge is a good source and losing the libel source against it only makes the case for using it stronger. That said, we should avoid the WP:CSECTION used in the example linked above and fold the content into another section such as "Personal life". Marquardtika (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No The proposed material accuse's Gu of a criminal offense and no conviction has ever been obtained. Per WP:BLPCRIME, "For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured". TarnishedPathtalk 01:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The judgement for Gu's lawsuit against The Verge essentially describes Gu as a public figure with a high public profile [3]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To quote the judgement: Here, Dr. Gu has plainly "thrust [him] self into the public spotlight and sought a continuing public interest in [his] activities," by writing; appearing on camera; granting press interviews; and tweeting extensively about his social activism, racial discrimination against Asian Americans, and the retaliation and harassment he claims to have endured in response. Accordingly, Dr. Gu has clearly sought the public spotlight, and is thus a limited purpose public figure as it relates to his activism and the harassment and bullying surrounding it Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:NOR we don't use court transcripts to establish matters like that. TarnishedPathtalk 01:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What's your point? I'm not suggesting citing it to say this in the article. I'm using it to make a point in talkpage discussion that Gu is a public figure when you're asserting that he isn't. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If we don't use primary sources in articles, we shouldn't be using them in our arguments in RfCs. I also write on matters of public interest and on some social media platforms. By the judge's _OPINION_, I must be a public figure. He hasn't been convicted and so we should seriously consider not including the material. TarnishedPathtalk 01:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Looking at the example version link given, I don't think there's enough reliable sources to make these allegations WP:DUE for inclusion. Best to err on the side of caution per the WP:BLP policy. Some1 (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Some1: "Allison" in The Verge story is the same as @DrMeowskis discussed in this Vice News article [4], wherein it is alleged that Gu sexually harassed her. Would the Vice News and The Verge stories together be enough? I've provided an updated version of the RfC proposal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hemiauchenia, you really shouldn't be updating the RfC proposal after people have already cast !votes on it. Please revert to the original proposal. Additionally, do you intend on responding to every editor who votes against the proposal? TarnishedPathtalk 01:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not reverting to the original proposal because my revision is not significantly different to the original version. It's obvious that your opinion wouldn't change on the new version nor would that of Marquardtika. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:BLPSOURCES, When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.
    The Vice News article only includes a paragraph referencing a Twitter user's "string of tweets"/allegations. Per WP:VICE: There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications. And as far as I can see, there are no reliable secondary sources referencing The Verge's expository article either. So I would say my initial comment still stands, that there's not enough high quality reliable sources to make these allegations (and especially allegations as serious as sexual assault and abuse) WP:DUE for inclusion on this WP:BLP. Per WP:BLP: Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources, ...must be written conservatively, ...it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Some1 (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, note to other participants and any closer. Special:Diff/1202497110 is the RfC proposal as it stood before the proposer started modifying it and after 4 !votes had already been caste. TarnishedPathtalk 02:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No I doubt a physician with a popular Twitter account (257,000 followers according to The Verge) qualifies as public figure - I'd be inclined to follow WP:BLPCRIME on this - but even if he were a public figure I find the information UNDUE given the poor coverage - just a couple of articles about unproven sexual harassment allegations. I'd leave this aside without casting a shadow of doubt, perhaps even malicious gossip, on a relatively unknown person.Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No the sourcing is weak, and like others have indicated, BLPCRIME should be followed. These are unproven allegations, and we should stand firm on using high-quality sources for the subject of a BLP. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

WP:RS/N

[edit]

There is a conversation concerning this article which is related to the outcome of this RfC occurring at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Verge. TarnishedPathtalk 05:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

References

  1. ^ Rao, Ankita (2018-07-12). "Who Is Eugene Gu?". Vice. Retrieved 2024-02-02.
  2. ^ Yan, Laura (2019-03-05). "Social justice personality Eugene Gu has a history of abuse". The Verge. Retrieved 2024-02-02.

Proposed additions:

[edit]

Given that the sexual assault/harassment allegations have been firmly resolved with consensus against inclusion, I thought I would propose two additions to the "Twitter" section:

1. Gu's conduct on Twitter made him the target of harassment by Donald Trump supporters as well as brought him into conflict with his employers.

2. Gu was accused of operating several Twitter sockpuppet accounts, including @MaryLauryMD, to defend himself as well as to attack a Twitter user (@NefariousMD) who had been critical of him. Gu admitted having access to @MaryLauryMD account.

Both of these statements are supported by the reporting in Vice and The Verge, and they do not touch upon the allegations which have been rejected from inclusion previously. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia, I'd probably remove mention of the specific Twitter account name as it's not really pertinent, other than to say that he admitted to it. TarnishedPathtalk 07:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemiauchenia "Gu's tweets made him the target of harassment by Donald Trump supporters as well as bringing him into conflict with his employers. He's been accused operating Twitter sockpuppet accounts, to defend himself as well as to attack another Twitter user who had been critical of him. Gu admitted to having access to one sockpuppet account." TarnishedPathtalk 09:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good to me. Thanks for coming to an agreement about this. I'll get around to adding this now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first one seems to me to be the same incident that was rejected for inclusion in the 2021 RFC (see particularly the last sentence there); you don't mention Donald Trump Jr. by name, instead vaguely attributing the harassment to "Gu's conduct", but the underlying issues that were raised in that RFC remain, and if anything the BLP issue is obviously made worse by that framing. I absolutely do not think we can include it without another RFC. The second addition you propose was discussed in the past and rejected, though there wasn't an RFC on it specifically. What has changed since then? More importantly, does either of these have WP:SUSTAINED coverage? The underlying incidents here are something like five years old, yet the only coverage seems to be from when it occurred (and there's very little of that), which suggests that the argument against inclusion is stronger today than it was years ago when this was first proposed. If this is significant enough to include, I'd expect there to have been significant coverage in the years that have passed since the event. --Aquillion (talk) 09:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aquillion, what about what I wrote? Too close? TarnishedPathtalk 11:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If something must be added, I would shorten the proposal to: Gu's use of Twitter made him the target of harassment by Donald Trump supporters as well as brought him into conflict with his employers and other Twitter users. Some1 (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no issue with your suggestion. I was thinking that both what I was wrote and what Hemiauchenia wrote was a little bit too long given what was being written about. With what I wrote I was more concerned with using a different tone than Hemiauchenia, I guess. What you've written has the correct tone and is also shorter, so is more preferable. TarnishedPathtalk 12:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing any consensus in any discussion in Archive 2 regarding the sockpuppetry allegations specifically. (The article has historically had problems with sockpuppetry, so I wouldn't count the views of the IP user in that discussion, nor Cranberry Muffin, who is a checkuser blocked sock). Gu openly admitted to having access to the account in question, so I don't consider it to be a BLP issue. Gu's public profile seems to have significantly tapered off since 2018/2019, which explains the lack of subsequent coverage about Gu at all really, but I don't see that as an argument against inclusion, because we keep articles about BLP subjects that received historical coverage during a particular period of time (which in Gu's case spans 4 years from 2015 to 2019), for better or worse. If the article was taken to AfD I probably wouldn't oppose deletion. I could also see the article being merged into a new plaintiff section of Knight v. Trump. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There could be an argument put for WP:BLP1E. It probably wouldn't be a very strong argument, but it could be put. TarnishedPathtalk 02:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eugene_Gu&oldid=1212827294"