Talk:Eileen Gu

Statement by the Campaign for Uyghurs

I added the statement of the Campaign for Uyghurs criticising Gu's statment per Wikipedia:Reliable sources "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. As the contribution represents the statemnet of CFU, it is condidered reliable for that purpose. Patapsco913 (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

The Campaign for Uyghurs is Washington based and CIA funded through NED and fails WP:RS. Your policy applies to editors or authors for statements attributed to that editor or author. If Gu was an editor or author then her work could be commented by her. 8ZeitundZeit8 (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry that is not what it says. CFU is making its own editorial commentary on Gu's statement. The addition is not being used for an assertion of fact; rather merely giving its postion. CFP is notable as demonstrated by its own wikipedia page and has been regularly been asked to testify before congress. I am restoring the statement. Please strive to reach consensus before reverting again. Patapsco913 (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

You should strive to reach consensus as you're the one adding material... This is not the way it works. You've changed the stable version and I don't agree with your addition. You have no right adding info from a CIA funded group. The policy you're referring to doesn't apply in this case. It says "statements attributed to that editor or author,". Gu is not editor or author. And stop misquoting her 8ZeitundZeit8 (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Why remove text and jumble all the citations together? Where is your evidence that CFU is CIA-funded...and why does it matter? (not to mention you have no citation) She talked about the Uighur and one of the national organizations regarding the Uighur in the US responded to her comment. End of story. Why should I believe you with your 42 total edits? Patapsco913 (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

So what do you disagree

During the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, after the 2021 Atlanta spa shootings and the killing of Vicha Ratanapakdee, Gu spoke out against anti-Asian racism. She supports the Black Lives Matter movement and the right to legal access to abortion. She has largely declined to comment on social and political topics, or human rights abuses, involving China, with critics accusing her of hypocrisy. Gu's agent Tom Yaps told British journal The Economist that Gu's mother feared that "if [Eileen] participates in an article that has two paragraphs critical of China and human rights, that would put her in jeopardy over there. One thing and a career is ruined." Responding to questions regarding the allegations of Chinese government's persecution its Muslim Uighur population, Gu stated "I'm not an expert on this, I haven’t done the research. I don’t think it’s my business"; and as the issue is complex, she remains skeptical and that it would take a "lifelong search" to find the truth. The Washington DC based Campaign for Uyghurs condemned her statement.

I just removed the entire thing about Black Lives Matters, Anti-Asian racism, Uyghur, abortion. I don’t have an opinion on the inclusion as long as you use good sources. The Uyghur issue was featured in TIME magazine’s cover story ahead of the 2026 games for Gu. Wafflefrites (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I am OK with restoring the content as long as the sources are good. If Campaign for Uyghurs fails WP:GRAPEVINE, it should be removed. The Economist and content from TIME’s cover article probably meets notability as the human rights issue is continuously being brought up years later. Wafflefrites (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Also tagging @Zefr and @Endwise Wafflefrites (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

From a previous article version: "She has largely declined to comment on social and political topics." This is WP:OFFTOPIC to the article presentation of the athlete-person. Anything further fuels the nationality issue, which she keeps simple by wisely and neutrally saying she is Chinese when in China, and American when she is in the US. I agree with removing the social and political discussion, as this will perpetuate the offtopic storyline. Zefr (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Wafflefrites I think people forget that we can mention such things but proportionally. If you overload on too much critics, it's overkill and you mislead as if an entire world is against her. RS says it's primarily conservatives and maga group who is particularly heavy on her as if she's a traitor. But she hasn't done anything illegal and it's sensational to regard her as if she is meant to be a politician. She's just an athlete and wiki shouldn't be a tabloid or some hit piece from conservative news. It needs to be appropriate and due. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I don’t think the sources deleted were from MAGA or conservatives. But I thought The Economist gave a good explanation from her agent why she is not allowed to talk about human rights abuses. Since she is representing China and being paid/employed by them, it makes sense that you’re not supposed to speak negatively about your employer in public. Also the Uyghur issue is censored in China and a contentious topic there. China doesn’t have freedom of speech, it’s not that she’s an athlete but she absolutely cannot criticize China. Wafflefrites (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Wafflefrites. The commentary on the Uighurs is also pertinent since it is one political topic she has addressed directly after being questioned by the press. The quotation and text used in the article accurately sums up what she said. The commentary from Campaign for Uyghurs, a notable advocacy organization for Uyghurs, is in direct reponse to her statement and is not being used to state facts but disagreement.Patapsco913 (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

In regard to WP:OFFTOPIC, True, Gu has in the past largely avoided politics although made comments on social movements (e.g. abortion and BLM) but since eary 2026, she has responded to questions on alleged Chinese human rights abuses (Uighurs in particular) and recently clapped back at the VP who commented on her representing China. A wikipedia page on an athlete often includes more than pure sports especially when they enter into political discourse (which is hard for her to avoid given her situation). She seems to have responded quite articulately and her viewpoint was represented fairly in the article. Patapsco913 (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Wafflefrites@Patapsco913 Read blp policy carefully. Firstly that's just your speculation that the reason she doesn't speak up is because she fears the gov. There can be many reasons. One could be not everyone is convinced that the US gov is on this issue without self interests. Perhaps she doubt the us gov actually cares for ughhur Muslims but more motivated to weaponise the issue. But she can't say this out loud. The point is you don't know so you can't actually frame her as afraid of gov or worried about her career as a fact, as that is definitely against blp policy to portray her as deliberately uncaring. Secondly, I said you can add she had critics but proportionally. Meaning don't frame like most of the world is against her by making it overly heavy. Reliable sources consistently describe the criticism of Gu as being largely concentrated among US conservative commentators, whereas other winter athletes tend to support that it's her choice and own business. But attributing motives to Gu for declining to comment such as fear, self-interest, or professional calculation constitutes as speculation and is inappropriate under WP:BLP unless stated directly by the subject herself. The article should be limited to what Gu has said herself and not hit pieces pressuring her to be someone that she has no obligation to be. She is not a researcher or a politician. She's an athlete and Blp (biography of living people) articles focused for athletes are written conservatively for a reason if this is not her field. You should follow that policy. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@JaredMcKenzie @Wafflefrites Seems like the main objection is the inclusion of the statement by the agent referencing Gu's mother's fears. We could leave that out and stick with the remainder (perhaps leave the relevant portion as a quote in the citation). The three sources regarding some making accusations of hypocrisy are BBC, NYT, and Economist so I do not see that as a problem. Patapsco913 (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I am not sure why we need to add the hypocrisy part? Yes, perhaps it could be seen as hypocritical based on whatever motives or lifelong search she needs to be doing, but I don’t think it needs to be pointed out. Wafflefrites (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Basically it seems her answer to Chinese human rights abuses is “I don’t know, it’s not my business, I need to do lifelong research.” I think this can be summarized by saying she largely declines to answer questions on Chinese human rights abuses. There are plenty other topics that do directly talk about China’s history of human rights / political abuses like Peng Shuai, Hu Jia, and Antirightist campaign. Wafflefrites (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I think it's fine to report that some commentators criticized her. But it has to be proportional to rest of the article — a sentence or two at most. As for agent statements about fears : I would agree to exclude it. Since these are secondhand and speculative and high risk for BLP. Per that policy - Anything that could be defamatory or misrepresent a living person must be handled very cautiously. So has to be strong evidence. Hence why Gu's own words counts as safe with proper attribution. So if anyone claims blp violation, it be very difficult to refute since Eileen herself said that. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about the inclusion/exclusion of accusations of hypocrisy. Maybe wait for additional editors to chime in. Wafflefrites (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Example of blp-safe wording is simply mention criticism briefly and Eileen's own documented response -be difficult for anyone to raise blp issues later; Eileen Gu has been the subject of some criticism, particularly from US conservative commentators, who have accused her of being disloyal for representing China and for declining to comment on Chinese government policies, including allegations of human rights abuses against Uyghurs. Gu has stated that she does not comment on issues she is not personally certain about and explained that she needs to review evidence firsthand before forming a judgment, and does not want to serve as a "mouthpiece" for any agenda. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps leave it as follows. It leaves in her advocacy in the US, her lack of advocacy in China, allegations of hypocrisy (from 3 good sources), and leaves the one example of when she has spoken in response to the situation in china which uses her own words. It is pretty concise{

Although Gu has spoken out against anti-Asian racism and publically supported the Black Lives Matter movement and the right to legal access to abortion, she has largely declined to comment on social and political topics, or human rights abuses, involving China, with critics accusing her of hypocrisy. When asked about China's alleged persecution of its Muslim Uighur population, Gu stated "I'm not an expert on this, I haven’t done the research. I don’t think it’s my business"; and that such a complex issue would require a "lifelong search" to find the truth. The Washington DC based Campaign for Uyghurs, an advocate for the democratic rights and freedoms of the Uyghur people, condemned her statement.

I believe she has also received criticism not just from non-conservative US commentators. See this piece by a sports columnist from SF Chronicle.. So I would remove the "particularly from US conservative commentators" part. Wafflefrites (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

No. The way it's framed, it clearly distorts and definitely violates BLP as if she's a hypocrite despite it's different issues. She lives in the US and understand life as an Asian so she can comment on this. Issues about ughhurs are different as she doesn't live in Xinjiang and doesn't have First hand experience. The way it was written before, can definitely be contested on blo grounds and reported for violation. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I don’t know what you’re responding to. The format got messed up Wafflefrites (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I can see that. I was referring to the italic text directly below. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

See my above comment and source from 00:12, 23 February. Am fine I think with the rest of your wording, but you need to provide sources and avoid editorializing. Wafflefrites (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Unsure what happened with talk page. I saw a comment directly below that editorialise and wrongfully over-simplified as if human rights issues in USA is just as easy to witness firsthand as those in China. It's not and a false equivalence. It will definitely be contested on blp grounds if that was added in. However my proposed text above in green italics is supported by Sources fully. And it's not editorialising. It literally cites Eileen on what she says and that's it. Nothing more. With that wording, it doesn't disproportionately give too much wording to criticism. As only one sentence was given in proportion. And it sticks to her own statements. I doubt anyone will raise any blp issues with this.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I would also remove “some” from “some criticism” since there are quite a few critical articles not just from US conservatives, also British sources, and probably even Chinese language sources but I really don’t want to have to try to dig up the foreign language sources and put them through google translate. Wafflefrites (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Idk. It seems standard to say "some" esp when it's not a universal condemnation. Unless everyone is attacking her, then without using "some", it could read as if all conservatives or all commentators share the view, which would be misleading and a potential BLP issue. Hence - …Eileen Gu has been the subject of some criticism, particularly from Us conservative commentators… - is correct, defensible, and an appropriate BLP practice. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

So

Why do you not mention her position on BLM, anti-Asian racism, and access to abortion since the topic includes her social and political views. Patapsco913 (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

We can include that too, although I personally think the whole entire section on political and social views should be deleted if we are supposed to be focusing on her as an athlete. As she herself has said, she is not an expert on these topics. Wafflefrites (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

You can of course mention it. The onou issue was how it was framed. The first word is "Although", and signals a contrast that implies inconsistency or hypocrisy. That is effectively an editorialising judgment, and frames it as if she is fully aware of both issues first hand. What proof do you have that she lives in Xinjiang and seen life there for years and know many people there? Unless she also lived there and seem life firsthand there, it's not the same equivalence and editorialising as if she is an expert on Xinjiang, which is definitely not ok for BLP article. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree we should avoid editorializing. The hypocrisy part I was on the fence because it seemed at some point both of you wanted it included, but maybe I was mistaken. Wafflefrites (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

She is not an expert on most/any of those topics like BLM or the killing of that person and she said she doesn’t know anything about the Uyghur stuff, so her personal opinion on these topics doesn’t seem to matter? She’s not a doctor either so not sure why her opinion on abortion is important. And I don’t think she’s notable for BLM activism, abortion activism, etc. That could change if she decides to pioneer one of these topics in the future but for now, she is not super involved in activism for anything. Wafflefrites (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Gu was raised in the United States and has spoken from personal experience about being Asian in American society. Abortion is also a topic that isn't ambiguous. You know it means to abort an unborn child. There's no uncertainty.

B JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I think she said she supports abortion? But why does her personal opinion on that matter? She does not have a personal experience with BLM or abortion. Wafflefrites (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't really. We can leave it out unless she has spoken on the issue significantly and heaps of RS covers it. There's no Risk of blp violation for stating her direct abortion view. The only Risk is due weight. I think it can be mentioned but only briefly and proportionally. But not at all is fine too. But what you should not do is frame it as a contradiction or hypocrisy. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I didn’t frame it as contradiction or hypocrisy. I am arguing for complete removal. Wafflefrites (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

If you don't want to add it in, I can support it as it's not that important. But I am fine either way in adding it in briefly. It doesn't really matter for this article. (Low priority) Complete omission is fine. A brief neutral mention is also fine. Either approach is acceptable to me. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Also your comment “ The article is about her as an athlete, not a political exposé. “ at 23:08, 22 February 2026, why are we including her political views. You yourself said this is not a political exposé. Why include her long list of political opinions? Wafflefrites (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Well she is one of the top earning female athletes out there and she has publically declared her support for only three positions (abortion rights, BLM and anti-asian racism) so they should be included. She should get the standard celebrity treatment on Wikipedia which includes positions that the subject advocates. She is actually trading barbs with the VP of the USA which seems pretty political. Patapsco913 (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

So maybe - Gu has spoken out in the United States against anti-Asian racism and publically supported the Black Lives Matter movement and the right to legal access to abortion. Regarding social and political topics involving China, she has declined to comment. When asked about China's alleged persecution of its Muslim Uighur population, Gu stated "I'm not an expert on this, I haven’t done the research. I don’t think it’s my business"; and that such a complex issue would require a "lifelong search" to find the truth.Patapsco913 (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Maybe you guys should sign your comments otherwise others like me cannot reply to it. I don't know if it's a bug but your replies are coming out buggy. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I did a manual repair of your comment. In regards to your proposed text. The last part is a bit incohesive and flows like she is speaking fast. I still recommend my wording smoothly for the last part. It directly cites her. Critics accused her of being disloyal for representing China and for declining to comment on Chinese government policies, including allegations of human rights abuses against Uyghurs. Gu has stated that she does not comment on issues she is not personally certain about and explained that she needs to review evidence firsthand before forming a judgment, and that it was "irresponsible" to ask her to be the "mouthpiece for any agenda". JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Well that was some accommodation for someone else who kept reverting unless that language was included. Your language is fine. so it would read

Gu has spoken out in the United States against anti-Asian racism and publically supported the Black Lives Matter movement and the right to legal access to abortion. Critics accused her of being disloyal for representing China and for declining to comment on Chinese government policies, including allegations of human rights abuses against Uyghurs. Gu has stated that she does not comment on issues she is not personally certain about and explained that she needs to review evidence firsthand before forming a judgment, and does not want to serve as a "mouthpiece" for any agenda.

We should include some of the better sources as well (compared to relying on Yahoo Sports). We do have the Economist and Time and BBC. Patapsco913 (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I think JM's version is good. I would support this version. Actually, please remove the part about disloyalty as that is already in the nationality section.

Wafflefrites (talk) 01:47, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

If you're both happy with that above text then I am good to accept that too. No real issues from my pov. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Looks good. Cheers! Patapsco913 (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

References

Edit summary conversion

@8ZeitundZeit8

Just had question about your edit summary “This claim is ridiculous. It originates from https://chinadigitaltimes.net/chinese/716079.htm where the number 4,814.819636 is magically transformed to 48.14 million! It's ridiculous. The correct number is obviously 4,815.”

4815 yuan converted to USD is $696.94. An under $700 training budget for two people.

France24 was reporting $6.6 million USD. The link you provided in your edit summary to China digital times doesn’t show anything about this. Wafflefrites (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

The correct link is https://chinadigitaltimes.net/chinese/716079.html 8ZeitundZeit8 (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

@8ZeitundZeit8 The link is not working for me.Can you paste what the China Digital Times is saying? Wafflefrites (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

The $6.6 million USD training budget for both athletes was also reported by WSJ . Wafflefrites (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Translated from Chinese: "This financial budget information was released on the 21st of this month, from the attached document - the project name "Outstanding Athlete Training Competition Guarantee Funds", the total amount of the project is 4,814.819636 - for a simple description, about 48.14 million!" 8ZeitundZeit8 (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Skiing is an expensive sport, and though it was reported in multiple RS about the $6.6 million budget, since the Chinese source has placed the decimal place weirdly, causing confusion around conversion rates to readers, I am ok with not including the $6.6 million training budget in the Wikipedia article. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

@8ZeitundZeit8 BTW, I was able to access your CDT link. The Chinese article says "4814.819636万元".

万元 translates to 10,000 yuan. 4,814.819636 万元 * 10,000 元 per 万元 = 48.14 million yuan = $6.6 million USD. Wafflefrites (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes you're right. You can include it in the article. My translation didn't mention that. 8ZeitundZeit8 (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Removed entire social and political views section

Regarding this edit by @Zefr, I have just removed the entire social and political views section. BTW, The Economist and TIME magazine do not fall under WP:GRAPEVINE. Wafflefrites (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I just removed the entire thing about Black Lives Matters, Anti-Asian racism, Uyghur, abortion. I don’t have an opinion on the inclusion as long as you use good sources. The Uyghur issue was featured in TIME magazine’s cover story ahead of the 2026 games for Gu. Wafflefrites (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

If it's mentioned, Wikipedia can only report what Gu herself has said, not speculate about her motives. In link she says, I’m just more of a skeptic when it comes to data in general. … So, it’s not like I can read an article and be like, ‘Oh, well, this must be the truth.’ I need to have a ton of evidence. I need to maybe go to the place, maybe talk to 10 primary-source people who are in a location and have experienced life there. Then I need to go see images. I need to listen to recordings. I need to think about how history affects it. Then I need to read books on how politics affects it. This is a lifelong search. So it's safe to say she refers to herself as a skeptic and refuse to be part of anyone's agenda. We can't state that as facts via wikivoice but we can only say that she said that. Hope that helps. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@JaredMcKenzie Sure. The source actually says that it’s her mom that fears the government and end of a career:

Gu's agent Tom Yaps told British journal The Economist that Gu's mother feared that "if [Eileen] participates in an article that has two paragraphs critical of China and human rights, that would put her in jeopardy over there. One thing and a career is ruined." Wafflefrites (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think cannot be added as fact in the article, per the BLP conservative policy, because it’s speculative secondhand attribution. At least not how you phrased it. Neither Gu or her mum actually said that. Even if agent is a reliable source, Wikipedia cannot present their interpretation of Gu's fear as expert fact. Gu's biography is primarily about her athletic achievements. This agent's statement is about a private fear and is peripheral to her notability. The more blp safe way is to quote her directly, but overall - politics is still low priority in an athlete's bio. It's not like she has a duty as researcher or politician. So it's safer to mention her exact words on issues but it still can't overshadow the article and only be proportional per WP:DUE. The page isn't a tabloid. The article is about her as an athlete, not a political exposé. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Attribution and WP:VOICE, it was not presented as fact, and I am not the original author of the edit. Phrase is directly from the source. I included it for wp:balance as Tom Yap's statement directly provides an explanation (his or Yan's) for why Gu largely declines to respond to human rights topics regarding China. Sure, since it's her mothers fears and not attributed to the the subject of the wiki article, I am ok with removing it. I am sure in the future, when reporters continue to question Eileen about China's human rights abuses, Wiki editors can add responses of her own statements instead of her agent's if they would like. Wafflefrites (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

SAT Citation not correct

"She scored 1580 out of 1600 on the SAT." but the citation says nothing about SATs at all. WillingBreadfruit (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

This seems like a high quality source that predates the wikipedia article: https://www.espn.com/olympics/story/_/id/33160624/olympics-2022-freeski-star-eileen-gu-delicate-balancing-act-china-us WillingBreadfruit (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I am the original author of that sentence. Originally I included the sentence about her SATs because it was in her FIS bio when she was starting college so it was relevant to the time as part of her biography. That being said I am not sure if it’s that relevant anymore? SATs generally lose relevance once you get out of high school and once you’re in college, your college GPA and what school you attended matters more. Furthermore, SATs there are inequalities (also see here) related to standardized testing, so I am wondering if it’s still relevant to include in the Wikipedia article now that she is college student nearing graduation, which is probably why it was removed from her official FIS bio. Wafflefrites (talk) 05:44, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Actually looks like FIS completely removed her bio. But here is latest bio for X Games . They stopped reporting the SATs (if they ever did) and instead focused on her college and study abroad. Wafflefrites (talk) 05:52, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Also she attended cram school in China every summer (bu xi ban), if you follow that wiki linked article you will see more info on that and how those prepare you for standardized testing. Wafflefrites (talk) 06:05, 28 February 2026 (UTC)