Talk:Ashley Gjøvik

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ashley Gjøvik article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 June 2022. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Women in Red

This article was created or improved as part of the Women in Red project. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Education[edit]

Can we use her website or LinkedIn as opposed to Mail Online to highlight her education? As she is a woman, and one who seems particularly subject to harassment, it would be nice to clarify how much higher education she's accomplished, other than just her ongoing pursuing of a law degree. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could add it from her website per WP:ABOUTSELF. I'll do that. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment[edit]

Gjøvik has mentioned the harassment from her colleagues in numerous places, though I discovered it in the Mashable piece (or rather, a copy of the original that was re-published on another outlet). Was going to expand with additional context from the piece on truthout.org.^[1] It seems heavily related to the culture described by Scarlett in the Mashable piece, and relevant to properly highlight what she endured at the company for speaking out. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 01:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Mashable or TruthOut is a great source. If there is mention of it by a publisher with the caliber of some of the others that have written about her (NYT, Reuters, etc.) then it could be worth including. But the bit you included from the Mashable piece was a small portion of a long article about mostly other things (where Gjøvik took a generally empathetic view towards the reception). I think we should stick to the higher quality sources for this. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding now that I've skimmed through the TruthOut piece—the mentions of harassment there seem to be the same as the ones already mentioned in the article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Knight, Sam (19 December 2021). "Apple Employee Blows Whistle on Illegal Spying and Toxic Working Conditions". Retrieved 1 January 2022.

Alright, maybe I misunderstood that they both were subjected to a ton of vile harassment from pro-Apple anons from the pieces. Thanks for checking and clarifying your understanding. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 02:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BLP concerns with Ashley Gjøvik#Anti-harassment order[edit]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

I don't think we should be republishing Gjøvik's allegations against Scarlett, particularly given that a court saw fit to grant an anti-harassment order to Scarlett to protect against harassment from Gjøvik. The section also relies on a single source, which itself is relying on a generally unreliable source (New York Post, see WP:NYPOST). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:47, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done for now. You're right that the AppleInsider piece relies heavily on NY Post reporting, and our article's summary didn't similarly attribute claims to the original publication. I couldn't find coverage in any other publication to verify the content or lend it any additional weight. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The anti-harassment order seems like the sort of thing that should be on this page, no? 85.191.71.142 (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion in the section just above named "Harassment". Here is a list explaining Reliable Sources: WP:RSP. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 19:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Possible libel" cited as reasoning for revert of revert[edit]

Happened to notice a large drive-by content removal by an IP and reverted it, on the grounds that there wasn't a substantive justification.

User:Bobrossghost reverted my revert, stating "possible libel vs Lisa P. Jackson and Ronald Sugar, section WP:UNDUE vs sourcing about her allegations. IP was a range block. Use talk page to make a case for inclusion"

This seems not unreasonable; however, examining the history of the page, User:Bobrossghost appears to have contributed the sections involving Lisa P. Jackson and Ronald Sugar, cf: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashley_Gj%C3%B8vik&diff=prev&oldid=1084110580

It seems strange to cite one's own contributions as the reasoning for the revert of a larger delta (8739 characters vs. ~3k for the net of Bobrossghost's contributions).

Further, the spirit of Bob Ross appears to be a WP:SPA -- all edits involve this article, cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bobrossghost

I invite discussion from uninvolved observers here (I think I am one, I've never edited this page previously).

User:Bobrossghost, why not remove your own contributions if you feel they were potentially libelous? Traumerei (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Readability[edit]

I fixed grammar and ordering for readability. Also some claims failed verification so I deleted or replaced them. You Make Me Fade (talk) 09:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Knight, Sam (19 December 2021). "Apple Employee Blows Whistle on Illegal Spying and Toxic Working Conditions". Retrieved 1 January 2022.

[1]