Talk:Sall Grover

POV

The article contains a huge amount of extremely non-neutral wording. It might need to be gutted per WP:TNT but lets see if it can be saved. DanielRigal (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I have gone over it very quickly. I've tried to address the worst issues with as light a touch as possible. The remaining big problem is the "Responses" section (previously the "Support" section). I don't think that any of the current content is invalid but it is entirely one-sided. The many supportive responses are not balanced by also including the opposing responses in a proportional way, or even at all.

The article is also missing basic biographical details. Maybe these are not known but these should be added insofar as there is any RS coverage of them. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree with you about the tone @DanielRigal. Fix ups look good.

Also think it needs to be in a more regular intro/education/business/personal life structure. Language-wise, I'm keen to keep things as neutral as possible. So if the reliable source says "woman" that's the word that sould be used in the article at that point.

The legal proceedings deserves its own subsection. I think with just a basic dot-point timeline. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I think just about all of the material in the "Support" section has to go. I'll leave it there for a couple of days to see if anyone can find some reliable sources for the various claims, which are certainly interesting, but not "notable" according to Wikipedia's criterion. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel, from my point of view, your initial proposal to TNT appears not founded on WP principles. This is a short bio page of a person who has gained a bit of notability for one or two things in her life. Ideally, I aim for condensing material rather than removal, especially where one might be in a position to claim that the removal is itself a POV position. I suggest that if you and other interested editors want to invest some time on the legal case section, it might be best for us to create a Tickle v Giggle page. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that two articles are likely to be justified unless the case really takes off in media coverage and develops a life of its own. Creating such a page might well lead to this page being merged into it and redirected. I recommend to leave it for now. If things develop then it might be a possibility later but we can't assume that they will. It might fizzle out again.

As regards removal. My first thought was TNT but in the end I barely removed anything. The supportive responses might be slightly overblown but the real POV problem is the lack of any critical responses at all. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Novel

This isn't a huge thing but I am having difficulty verifying the novel. I can't find an ISBN for it. Was it ever actually published? Was it self-published? DanielRigal (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

From the industry press, looks like the story was 'optioned', so before it went to press, the story was taken up by a production company, in this case by Working Title.[1] MatthewDalhousie (talk) 05:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Grover or Giggle

Even though this article is Grover's, it's mostly about Giggle which makes sense as they're the ones in the news and thus much more notable, but it creates a sense of imbalance. So I'm wondering if this should be rebranded as Giggle's article with a section (currently the biography) devoted to the founder? Thoughts? MaskedSinger (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Either way, I will look for more info about her to add to the article. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

As per the thought from @I.am.a.qwerty, I think a separate page on the court case is in order.MatthewDalhousie (talk) 05:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok. So that should be created and most of the content currently here moved to it.

Then the stucture of her page should be - bio, Giggle and link to article about the case.

What do you think? MaskedSinger (talk) 06:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Pretty much. I've never split a page before! But happy to have a go.MatthewDalhousie (talk) 07:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure youll do great! MaskedSinger (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@MaskedSinger I'll give it a go an hour from now. Thanks for the vote of confidence.MatthewDalhousie (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

From my point of view:

• Giggle, the app, does not warrant an article as of now (its only notable due to the case).
• Grover article can remain mostly as is. The section on the app should remain, as well as some paragraph on the case. The combination of her involvement with the app plus the articles on the Medicare incident makes the page notable (her early career is just misc. details that just add a little colour).
• The court case Tickle v Giggle can merit a standalone article, at least in theory. But the article itself may be viewed as a fork (from Grover) unless theres more material written on the topic. At this stage the articles mostly repeat themselves, and many news sites pay little or insufficient attention to it. Having said that, I think we should wait until the decision is handed down and then create the article even if it's a bit short.

I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 10:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we better wait for the court material to build up amongst secondary sources. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense. Thank you for your extremely wise counsel. MaskedSinger (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

who could access giggle

In the lede at the moment it says that access was restricted to women and adults assigned female at birth, because transgender women were explicitly not allowed access this has the side effect of implying in wikivoice that transgender women are not women. Currently tbe source used says they originally intended to include transgender women in development but later (unfortunately not saying before or after launch) the policy was change to be female only.

Because of this I think the lede should say "the app's membership policy restricting access to adults assigned female at birth". LunaHasArrived (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I think your wording is an improvement- I would suggest that “cisgender women” is even more accurate as I think the app excluded AFAB trans men. GraziePrego (talk) 03:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I just went off of what was currently in the lede but the Australian article referenced doesn't seem to mention transgender men being included explicitly. Unfortunately it also is in a confusing place in its use of women and female, not helped by constant quotes from Grover who often forgets the cisgender when discussing cisgender women. LunaHasArrived (talk) 03:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The source material refers to the app being restricted to "women" and "solely for biological women." That's the language that needs to be used in the article here. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I have also looked through the cited article by Scheuerman, Pape and Hanna and, while interesting, it refers to Giggle as being “female social network”, an essentially "female" space where "trans-girls will experience being verified." Unfortunately, the source, which I'm not confident is reliable anyway, does not support the language suggested above, I think we should review it. Incidentally, Business Insider is currently regarded as "marginally reliable" as a source which doesn't inspire confidence. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Which parts of the above quote would you want to change based on this, I can see the current language being clumsy but female certainly seems more supported than women. LunaHasArrived (talk) 02:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

As stated above, in the source currently referenced (the one from the Australian) the only parts about membership or policy state female only or verification that one is female, nothing mentioned about being a women. So for the purpose of the lede where we discuss membership policy, unfortunately all we have to go off is female. LunaHasArrived (talk) 02:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Yep, following your thinking. And I think we're only talking about the second sentence now. If we take The Australian, and the journal article by Scheuerman, Pape and Hanna, to be our sources, then I would say the second sentence should read: The app gained notability when its membership policies made it "a female social network" which, Grover insisted, is "solely for biological women."

That material is certainly found in the article in the Australian and in the journal article mentioned. Must say, I do think we should keep it short in the lede as, after all, this article isn't actually about the app, but about Sall Grover.

(Incidentally, I like how you've called it the "Lede", which is the better descriptor.) MatthewDalhousie (talk) 06:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I do agree with the "keep it short attitude", that's why the change I went with tried to be as simple as possible and just removed a couple of words. I don't see a problem with yours as long as notability (in a Wikipedia sense) backs up that the policy was why giggle was notable and it is not the case that giggle is only notable because of it's legal challenge. I wish I could take credit for the use of lede but it is certainly something I copied from someone else at some point. LunaHasArrived (talk) 08:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Goodo @LunaHasArrived, I'll put in the iteration described above. Thanks for being involved.

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

the list of organisations

In the giggle sections there are 2 times (near the bottom of the first paragraph, and the bottom of responses) where there are lists of organisations. Both times these lists are sourced to these organisations themselves. These lists are verifiable but without any independent source there has to be questions about whether these lists are due. Because of this they currently have no reason to be in the article and I think both sentences containing the lists could be deleted.

LunaHasArrived (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @LunaHasArrived,

Thanks for noticing this issue. I believe I removed all the double up, let me know if you see any remaining. It's true that the primary sources have been used to indicate that these organisation do, in deed, support the defendant here. My understanding of the wikipedia guidelines, is that a primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. In this case, the sources are making straightforward statements, and seem to meet with Wikipedia's expectations regarding citations. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 09:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

It's a matter of due. As you mentioned the primary sources are enough for verification, it's just are these organisations actually notable enough to be mentioned here. LunaHasArrived (talk) 10:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I get your point now. I can see that LGB Alliance Australia is noteworthy and seen to be supporting the defendant, at least in this legal publication, and likewise Women's Agenda, who make their support known directly here. I can add in those references if needs be. As to the group referred to as CoAL, certainly they are notable as a group as per this report but I don't see any secondary source about their support for defendant, we would have to rely on the primary source for that. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The law.com Article seems ok for sourcing both lgb alliance and adf international (I see no reason to include one over the other). The spectator article is still primary, it's written by a member of womens forum Australia and seems to be an opinion peice so little - no editorial oversight would be done. For the third ultimately the only thing that matters is how due a groups support is, not whether the group is notable. Tbh the biggest problems with these lists are the unsourced statements that come along with them, we're describing lgb alliance Australia as a women's group (seems very strange), we are saying that the app generally recieved positive reviews on launch (do we have a rs for this). LunaHasArrived (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)