Talk:Ashley Gjøvik/Archive 1

Education
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)
 * 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)
 * GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Harassment
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. 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

Readability
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)

BLP concerns with Ashley Gjøvik
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)
 * ✅ 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

"Possible libel" cited as reasoning for revert of revert
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)