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)

I think "assigned female at birth" is better than "cisgender women" because we don't have a source that supports the claim that transgender men were excluded from the app. And it's probably not accurate. Sall Grover herself has said in interviews that trans men were permitted (she considers them women). Curious georgianna (talk) 18:52, 26 August 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)

First paragraph

We need to say what the issue with Giggle is in the first paragraph. I know we need to keep it simple but we do need to say something that is actually meaningful. I've put it back to the way it was before but if anybody has any better suggestions then please say. DanielRigal (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the language that appears in the lead should come from a reliable source. At the moment, the linked the sources use language that is very different to that used in the lead.Jay S. Garric (talk) 03:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources describe the subject's product as being for "women only." That's the terminology that should be used in the article. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Right, but that terminology is self-evidently incorrect. And some of the sources whose language we're reflecting to come to that incorrect terminology are partisan and clearly unreliable. This one is an opinion piece titled "This case may force law to recognise women’s biological reality". AntiDionysius (talk) 11:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

And while some sources do indeed describe it as a "woman only" or "female only" app, they do not support the new text in the lead, gained notability for its membership policy practically restricting access to women. None of them say that. And I would go so far as to say it's not true - it gained notability for excluding trans women and being sued. AntiDionysius (talk) 11:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I've changed it to "gained notability for its membership policy restricting access to women but excluding trans women", which seems like a step in the right direction, as it gets the main point about the exclusion into the lede. I also removed "practically" as that was just vague and confusing without imparting any actual information. This is not intended to be the last word on the topic. I wanted to make a minimal change that wasn't open to challenge.

Here is my proposal for an improved version: "was subject to legal challenge for its membership policy purporting to restrict access to women while excluding trans women"

How do we feel about that? I think it gets all the key points in, in their most concise forms, without bloating the lede or becoming confusing. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

That proposal sounds workable, I'd be happy with it. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

When copied over to the lede "purporting to restrict" was changed to "restricting". I've rectified that assuming it was a simple error.

Also if possible could one of you look at the above section (titled "lists of organisations") . LunaHasArrived (talk) 07:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

At @DanielRigal, yes that formula "was subject to..." works pretty well. MatthewDalhousie (talk) MatthewDalhousie (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

“purporting” is a very strange word to use in this context: the body of the article is very clear that the membership policy *did* restrict membership to cis women. This version is a modest adjustment that fixes this problem; it was reverted without a substantive reason and should not have been. This version is even better, because it avoids the redundancy of the sentence (“restricts to X, by forbidding non-X”). I am open to other versions that remove the completely unsupported “purport”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.106.199 (talk) 10:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The language is used deliberately because it was originally branded as for women, it did this whilst excluding trans women. It could be worth a review given the recent result, I haven't read through rs about the result but we might be able to summarise something the judge said to come to something neater. LunaHasArrived (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

"Purporting" was my suggestion and, yes, this reasoning is correct. The app claimed (purported) to be for women while it was actually excluding some women and possibly allowing some men. We needed a way to report the claim without endorsing it and "purporting" seemed like an easy way to achieve that. If anybody has any better suggestions then that's fine but we need some way to explain that it was pitched as being for women but that that was not the actual access policy. In the meantime, I'm going to change it into the past tense. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that "excluding trans women" is not in contradiction with "restricting access to women". The contradiction is between being open to women and not being open to trans women; but "restricting access to women" and "being open to [all] women" don't mean the same thing. "Purported" would be appropriate if, say, it purported to be restricted to women but actually was open to cis people of any gender; to choose a different (made-up) example, an organization that restricts access to Christians does actually restrict access to religious people, it doesn't purport to restrict access to religious people (it does that, and then even further restricts). 100.36.106.199 (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I’ve edited the first paragraph for accuracy and clarity. The previous edit described the legal challenge as a policy exclusion of trans women, but the challenge was specifically Tickle V Giggle – a single trans woman made a human rights complaint based on personal exclusion. I also removed the previous citation, as this was not directly related to the case, and replaced it with the summary judgement and ABC article. Jay S. Garric (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

"failure to identify women of color as female"

Can somebody do their research and add to the article that the women of WHITE color were the ones having the most trouble getting a picture across? Grover specifically states herself in interviews that very very pale women on white backgrounds have the most issues with image verification. This article really tries to paint it as a black women's problem, which is frankly Orwellian. 124.169.159.2 (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

if sall grover actually mentioned that then it's possible it was more notable than i thought, but it would be worth including sall grover's response to it as it kind of seems biased to include it without that response she gave 2.100.206.55 (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide sources that say this, prefably secondary rs. LunaHasArrived (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

What is the established rules on naming the location of individuals

I changed the Location from a more specific location to just Queensland, but someone changed it back before the article was protected, someone like Sall who is liable more than most people to have her privacy invaded may deserve a bit more privacy, i don't really know why the name of her city or just queensland is not sufficient enough, but remember this article claims that sall claimed to experience a lot of abuse and threats online, sall should be given probably as much privacy wikipedia guidelines allow 2.100.206.55 (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Normally it is OK to say what town somebody lives in but as this is only 4,000 people maybe we could be a bit less specific. DanielRigal (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

South East Queensland should suffice. There is a lot of hate being currently flung on the internet so privacy and safety is paramount. Theroxyepoch (talk) 06:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I cut it back to Gold Coast. That is a city of 600K people. I don't think that is a problem. DanielRigal (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I think this would be fair enough if we were advertising her location when it wasn't already found in other public sources. However, that is very much not the case.

• (Link doesn't work but) There is an article from The Australian that quite literally uses a photo of her ON the beach.
• This article from the Australian from 2022 describes her as "Sally Grover, from Main Beach on the Gold Coast, developed an app called Giggle".
• This article from the Gold Coast Bulletin describes her several times as "Main Beach's Sall Grover".
• Grover's own media release following the recent court decision gives her PO box as being on Main Beach.

Pretty plainly, this information is not secret and Grover has been perfectly happy for it to be widely broadcasted. We don't need to censor it here. GraziePrego (talk) 07:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I have occasionally looked at this page since seeing a protection request at WP:RFPP. I don't have an opinion on the topic but I do have an opinion about WP:NOTCENSORED. Whether or not to include the location of a subject's home is nothing to do with censorship—it's just editorial judgment in applying policies such as WP:DUE and WP:BLP. WP:DUE concerns whether the home location adds any significant information about the life of the subject. For example, I looked at three articles in Category:Australian women business executives and none of them showed where the subject lived. Johnuniq (talk) 08:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

As a counterpoint, I was able to find several prominent Australian political women who have where they live mentioned; Carina Garland, Kylea Tink, Allegra Spender, Monique Ryan, and Sophie Scamps. GraziePrego (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I see that they are all politicians who presumably represent certain geographic regions. That might make mention of where they live relevant? Anyway, my point is that standard policies apply and the issue has nothing to do with censorship. Johnuniq (talk) 09:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Sall has never gone beyond mentioning just Gold Coast in her twitter account, the fact that RS go into greater detail does not mean they are speaking for her, they can't speak for her own wishes, I am not 100% sure if Sall has ever said her location beyond Gold Coast, but there's no question about the fact that it's true, just whether or not it's an unneccecery amount of detail that in the case of a minimally known online personality like sall who is specifically at risk of antisocial behaviour because of her views, the fact that Sall may have at some point prior to this controversy indicated her own location should also not be a reason to include that level of detail, Sall also isn't a politician, the media should not be the example we follow in this instance as they can publish things without permission, sall should be, as long as what we do say about her is backed up by a RS, but remember who sall is and why this is particularly a concern around her. 2.100.206.55 (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

i didn't realise it had already been changed, good 2.100.206.55 (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Jessica Yaniv in see also

I have removed the Jessica Yaniv waxing case from see also. I do not think that the two cases are similar enough to make them worth cross linking. This one was a good faith complaint about access to an on-line service. The other was, as far as I can tell, at least in part, a trolling operation. There does not seem to be any real overlap of law or other circumstances beyond a trans person making a complaint. I don't think it is fair to Grover, Tickle or to our readers to compare this genuine dispute to that unedifying trainwreck. Does anybody think otherwise? DanielRigal (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree, I had a look at that other case and completely agree with your assessment! GraziePrego (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Extreme Bias

Sall Grover once used to acronym "TERF" to describe herself on twitter, then an article claimed she called herself a "trans exclusionary radical feminist", what sall actually meant was that she is someone who simply holds views that are often described as "anti-trans" or "gender critical", she has said many times she isn't sure she is a feminist, many non-feminists including Kellie-Jay Keen have used the term TERF to describe themselves in a joking way because often so many people who even hold views even slightly similar to hers are accused of being that, it has just become a way people use to describe an "gender critical" feminist or even just any woman who is "gender critical", but it's important to remember she used the acronym and not the full term, if this was in the body of an article that would be one thing, but it is in the opening segment which is extremely misleading about what Sall Grover actually believes, it's also based on one reference, and since it wasn't there before, seems like an attempt to discredit her. 2.100.206.55 (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

We have a reliable source saying that Grover is a TERF. We can’t change what her article says based on what we think Grover meant to say. If there’s a reliable source saying she isn’t, then maybe there’s an argument for removing it. GraziePrego (talk) 22:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

if there is an argument for removing it, the person who added it is constantly editing pages related to transgender issues in order to add negative or discrediting information about people they disagree with, there are over two thousand edits from this person dedicated to this specific goal 2.100.206.55 (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

another user who has over 47k edits seems to be largely dedicated to this goal as well although not in as much of an obviously biased way, i may be terf adjacent but i don't edit wikipedia that much and don't dedicate it so much to one topic 2.100.206.55 (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Please don't cast WP:Aspersions, even if they are vague enough that it is not immediately obvious who you are talking about. If you really think an editor is seriously problematic then you can report them at the Administrators Noticeboard appropriate to their (perceived) infractions. Just remember that the WP:BOOMERANG can be very real.

Anyway, getting back on topic, the article says "began self-identifying as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist,". Unlike our anonymous friend, who would seem to be on first name terms with Grover, we are not privy to what she might or might not mean if she uses language in a way that departs from its actual meaning. That said, it is true that there are people, with no roots in any sort of Radical Feminism at all, who declare themselves to be "TERFs" seemingly without any idea what that implies beyond holding a prejudice against trans people, which is what they are trying to communicate. If she said "TERF" rather than "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" then we should probably say "TERF" too. If nothing else it forecloses kvetching like this. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

i don't know sall grover at all, you dont need to to be able to see her tweets, the point is, it is largely a joke, i also don't think it's a well defined or very proper term especially since it has mainly been used as an insult, even i sometimes say it in an informal way 2.100.206.55 (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

but thank you anyway for changing her location 2.100.206.55 (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Topic of page

Currently, Tickle v Giggle is a redirect to Sall Grover. However, the article is overwhelmingly about the lawsuit Tickle v Giggle, not Sall Grover as a person. To align the topic of the page with the actual content, I'm about to move the Tickle v Giggle content to the page with that name. Eievie (talk) 18:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that is necessary. The case is the only thing she is notable for and so the likelyhood is that, without that coverage, this article would either get deleted or redirected to that article, making the whole exercise a bit of a waste of time.

I reverted the removal of the content here before realised what you were doing, so now it is in both places.

I think there are three options here:

1. Revert my revert and let the split stand.
2. Revert Tickle v Giggle back into being a redirect.
3. Copy a bit more over and then make this into a redirect to that.

What do we think? I'd rather keep it as a BLP. If nothing else, it is easier to keep bad content out of a BLP. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I think Sall Grover and Roxanne Tickle should both redirect to Tickle v Giggle. Apart from the case, they're both private citizens who don't warrant Wikipedia biographies. Eievie (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

My vote would be for option 2, I agree keeping it as a BLP is the best approach, we have a fair chunk of content about Grover that wouldn't be included on an article exclusively about Tickle v Giggle, whereas we can include everything about Tickle v Giggle on a page dedicated to Grover. To preserve the most content, I think redirecting Tickle v Giggle to Grover is the best option. Grover is definitely notable enough for her own page. GraziePrego (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Grover is definitely notable enough for her own page., can you explain that further? What is notable about Grover aside from the case?

My position is simply that the bulk of the page is about the case, not the person. In the name of being clear and on-topic, page names should reflect what a page is actually about. If it were to be kept under Grover's name, I think there needs to be an argument made that the discussion of the case really is more about Grover than about the case. Eievie (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

There's a number of statements in the article with references that discuss Grover outside of the case specifically; talking about the app before the main controversy and legal processes had begun, but also talking about how she influenced the decision of Bill Shorten (in the personal life section). This information would all be chopped if we made Tickle v Giggle the main page and redirected Grover. GraziePrego (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The way I see it, there are four potential topics: Sall Grover. Giggle (app) (or the company). Tickle v Giggle. Roxanne Tickle. As discussed previously (and argued here by @GraziePrego), it makes more sense to have the article topic be Grover. aside from the legal case, there's coverage of her app plus her impact on Shorten's policy (plus whatever else that might appear online). If the app/company had been more popular prior to the case, it could be the main topic instead of Grover (this would be my preference as smaller organisations are sometimes more notable than their founders). Similarly, if the case itself was covered in greater depth and represented a major legal discussion (eg. in legal studies), it may warrant it's own article. I suppose we may need to revisit the issue if Grover successfully appeals the case. דברי.הימים (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Eievie, I want to note that your suggestion to split the articles could work without any objection if there wasn't so much overlap of the current content. Things I would want to look could include academic studies that solely deal with the consequence of the legal case, and/or if Grover wins the appeal. Unless you have a different way to justify the split. דברי.הימים (talk) 04:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

After the case stuff goes on the case page, Grover's page should be judged on it's own merits per Wikipedia:Notability. If it has enough other things to justify still having her own page, great. If not, also great. Either is fine. But I don't think the case should be put on Grover's page in order to justify Grover having a page, or pad her page put and make it longer or something. Eievie (talk) 05:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I would agree with your argument. In this case The page was created before the case started, as there was enough coverage of the overall story (her background, her app/company, the face recognition software, etc). I think before the decision was made the case itself did not merit it's own article. And even after the decision, my view was that it was not initially clear that all the details needed to be added (as it stands now, I think it is far too detailed for WP). If your view is the case itself is notable enough on its own, and your method of creating it wouldn't appear as a fork, then I think everyone would agree with reducing the case content here. At the same time, the Grover page would need to stay, as discussed. דברי.הימים (talk) 06:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)