Talk:Sall Grover · Paulipedia

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)

Thanks @DanielRigal.

To be clear, if you didn't realise earlier, that my name is Roxy is not a coincidence.

Can I request that you also look at protecting my privacy and safety? There is discussion in this Talk about Sall Grover being "specifically at risk of antisocial behaviour because of her views". I feel that this applies to me as well, and yet a regional town of 30,000 has been allowed to be described on this page and on the new page Tickle v Giggle as being my place of residence. I too am not a politician. I too am reasonably concerned for my safety.

For the sake of transparency I didn't want to make any changes myself or ask somebody else to do it on my behalf.

If you could consider removing the regional town completely for my peace of mind and sense of safety that would be amazing thank you. Can I suggest that it is replaced with "the Northern Rivers" or similar? Theroxyepoch (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Theroxyepoch, I have removed the town from both pages. It's not actually mentioned in the sourcing in either place so it shouldn't have been there anyway. Thank you for raising this concern and happy to have helped :) GraziePrego (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2025 (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)

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:

Revert my revert and let the split stand.
Revert Tickle v Giggle back into being a redirect.
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)

Removal of "cisgender"

@Wikigrund can you explain further why cisgender is incorrect? nil^nz 19:48, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Also just to clarify on my part, I'm not against the addition of the BBC as a source, but rather the wording in the edit attached to it. In fact I'm surprised it's not cited in the article already tbh. nil^nz 20:04, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I think we can take a fairly tough line on spurious removals of "cisgender". It might be a good faith misunderstanding, so we still need to AGF in the first instance, but repeated removals are disruptive and should be treated as such. DanielRigal (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I can explain why cisgender is incorrect in this situation and I can also explain why we need to be careful in the use of words. From what I could find the app creator of “Giggle for Girls” always refered to the app as "female-only" or "woman-only" and not as "cisgender-only". The app was marketed as "an online refuge where women could share their experiences in a safe space, and where men were not allowed. (...) Giggle’s legal team argued throughout the case that sex is a biological concept." (Source BBC article)

Your argument in the revision history is: "Eligibility is for women who were born female – therefore, cisgender is the concise and accurate term." or in your first revision of my edit, you argued: ""cisgender women" is an accurate descriptor of biological sex." I beg to diver. To assume, a women who is born female is cisgender would be cisnormativity. Biological women is not a synonym for cisgender.

Furthermore Sall Grover explained multiple times that biology is what matters in her opinion e.g. she said in an interview: "... the other side in the court case really couldn't get their head around this, that say on Giggle woman who claim to be man, or non-binary or whatever one of the other billion gender identities that exist they're welcome on the app. Because it was not on the basis of gender identity. It was on the basis of sex." (Source: Erasing Sex & Reality: The Tickle v Giggle Case | Sall Grover, Aug 11, 2025 - John Anderson Media, min 38:38). She made it very clear that her discrimination criterion for access to the app is biological sex and not gender identity.

I think it is fair to say that "what a woman is" is obviously debated in the court case and also a highly controversial topic right now and we should be precise in our wording. According to Wikipedia-rules, controversial topics need to be sourced well and the guideline is to use quotes and reliable sources. For example: "According to XY the app favors cisgender women." would be fine. But saying Sall Grover created it for cisgender women is not verifyable. WP:V

In summary I argue that the term cisgender is not a synonym for biological women (that would be cisnormativity) and that if the word cisgender is used it needs to be verifiable in the source, preferably it should be added to the page in form of a quote. Wikigrund (talk) 09:40, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

To assume, a women who is born female is cisgender would be cisnormativity. ...huh? No. A woman who was assigned female at birth is a cisgender woman. A woman who was assigned male at birth is a transgender woman. That's not cisnormativity, that's just what that words mean in English. If an app excludes trans women, then it is for cisgender women only.

This is also the language used in sources, such as the ABC:

The judge found [...] the successful claim of indirect discrimination was based on a condition being imposed for the use of the Giggle app that Ms Tickle was required to have the appearance of a cisgender woman.

-- nil^nz 10:08, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to grasp the nettle of Wikigrund's point. If one is assigned female at birth and transitions to male, they are not a cisgender woman, but apparently they are free to use the app. Why they would want to might be a an open question, but Wikigrund is right: cisgender is not an exact synonym. I also think that cisgender is specialist vocabulary. I think we should be more careful about its use. It is exceedingly unlikely that someone who is gender critical would use the term as the basis of their inclusion criteria. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:17, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Wikigrund (talk) 10:21, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah rereading the conversations above, I did misread the point being raised; apologies all! nil^nz 21:19, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Are there any independent reliable sources that talk about trans men in relation to the app? LunaHasArrived (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

It is mentioned in an 2022 article of The Australian: “... insists she and Giggle are not anti transgender. (Giggle does allow trans men – women who identify as men – on the platform.)” Source (paywalled) Wikigrund (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

That is ok sourcing but doesn't satisfy anWikipedia:Exceptional claim, especially when followed by that incredibly transphobic description of trans men. LunaHasArrived (talk) 13:07, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

That's paywalled for me so I can't read it. I think the fragment you quote has the problem that the bit in brackets is unclear as to whether that is Grover speaking or The Australian editorialising. We have to be careful because it makes her sound awful, claiming to being willing to allow men on the app as a way to dunk on trans women, but if that's what she actually said (rather than The Australian putting words in her mouth) then maybe we should include it. DanielRigal (talk) 13:07, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

The full paragraph:

Grover has been bolstered by the support and insists she and Giggle are not anti transgender. (Giggle does allow trans men – women who identify as men – on the platform.) “I don’t care if you want to identify as a woman and live your life that way, I only care if you want to come into a female space,” she says. “I am not a gender feminist. I want no labels. I am just a woman.” LunaHasArrived (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

That last bit might be worthy of inclusion in the article but then I'm biased because I've long been a fan of the formula that goes "I have no labels. I am a (label)". It never fails to make me hoot with laughter. OK, on second thoughts, maybe leave that out. The article isn't for my entertainment. Including the bit about trans men is very hard to do in a way that actually says anything meaningful unless there is something concrete to say about how trans men were actually treated on the app. Without that, the reader is merely left to speculate about the sincerity of the invitation to trans men. (I mean, obviously, we all know that it's utter BS but we can't say that in the article unless Reliable Sources say so.) --DanielRigal (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think we need include it, but we can still sharpen up what we are saying. with the app presented as catering only to cisgender women is downright wrong. The app is not presented in that way. Cisgender is also specialist vocabulary. How about:

In 2020, Grover founded Giggle for Girls, a mobile app designed as a social networking platform for ~~cisgender~~ women. The name, Giggle, is described as a collective noun for women~~, with~~. The app ~~presented as catering only to cisgender women, offering~~ claimed to offer a safe online space for ~~them~~ women to connect and find support in various areas such as finding roommates, freelancing, emotional support, and activism. 'Nevertheless the app drew criticism for excluding trans-women. Grover has said she was driven to develop a trans-exclusionary digital platform ~~for cisgender women~~ by her desire to guard against the advances of predatory men, a view that was informed by her experience with misogyny and sexual violence.

Bolded text are proposed additions, and not intended to be bolded in the article.

I believe this keeps the same substance whilst avoiding the above issue. The only question is over use of "trans-exclusionary" since trans men are apparently bot excluded, but I think the term is fine because it is clearly a deliberate policy to exclude trans-women, which is still, therefore, trans-exclusionary. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I think this is good, but the last sentence could do with some refinement. It could read as saying that the platform is trans-exclusionary because trans people are predatory men, but I think rephrasing to the below would avoid that?

-- nil^nz 21:32, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I agree that is better. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the proposed changes are very good! In the infobox I would suggest changing Known for: to just "Tickle v Giggle". What do you all think? Is she known for the app or for the legal case? I'm not from Australia, so I don't know how popular the app was. Wikigrund (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

In my understanding a cisgender woman is a woman who was born female and consistently identifies and lives as a woman. A biological woman can have no gender, can be non-binary and so on. A biological woman can be trans and she would not be discriminated against on the app, according to Sall Grover. So in my opinion the wording needs to reflect that. Wikigrund (talk) 10:21, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I just wanted to add I am not against using the word cisgender, but it should be used carefully. It is perfectly fine to use it to describe what the judge found and to quote the judge, for example. Wikigrund (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2026 (UTC)