Talk:Kate Edwards

March 2011 updates
Updated pertinent information regarding the individual, corrected some information that was unclear/outdated and provided additional links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navanax (talk • contribs) 02:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

December 2012 updates
Minor revisions and updates by the subject of the article entry.

Serious Problems
I was going to start adding "citation needed" tags to this article until I realized this entry was basically all unsourced information written by the subject herself or someone close to the subject. The article gives detailed descriptions of Ms. Edward's return and departure from graduate school, youth, minor employment history, etc. but with no citations. For example, how does this entry know: "She has resided in the suburbs of Seattle since 1989" or "Academically, she restarted her Ph.D program in 1998". This is all incredibly specific information for a fairly unremarkable subject all given in the entry without any citations. This raises issues both with the wikipedia policy that "poorly sourced claims in biographies of living people should be deleted immediately" (see: Citation needed) but also issues with self-advertisement, unsourced claims, and bias. I can't edit this entry because I don't care about the particular topic enough, but I hope someone (other than the subject of the entry or person close to the subject) can come along and write a biography of this person relying purely on published information about her. User:Bilby has been making a valiant effort today to clean this entry up, but I am afraid that it requires a bigger overhaul. This entry has been up for deletion several times and has been voted "keep" each time, so it doesn't seem worth going through that process again. But almost everything in this entry needs to be deleted or sourced. - Atfyfe (talk) 06:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The article didn't use in-line sources, but I'm finding that a lot of the claims are sourced, just based on the list at the bottom. Technically Wikipedia doesn't require inline sourcing, but that's more of a leftover from when the project started. My plan at the moment is to go through each claim and see if it can be sourced, (and especially see if it is included in the provided sources), add an inline reference if it is, and remove it if it is not. I suspect a lot will need to go, but we should be able to make things a lot neater. - Bilby (talk) 06:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am glad you are on it. I wish you the best! - Atfyfe (talk) 07:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I am quite concerned that I see people removing on topic comments from this talk page. It is always better to address opinions that you disagree with rather than remove them, especially without providing any reason what so ever. Unless someone gives a reason for removing the recent comments from this page, I will revert that edit. Tusind tak. Rekov (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Rekov and others. Please remember that speculating about the real-life details of Wikipedians is considered harassment and is subject to suppression. If you have concerns about an editor that require citing real-world details, you must send that information privately to the Arbitration Committee for them to deal with. Persistently speculating onwiki, correctly or incorrectly, about the real-world identity or details of other editors may result in editing privileges being withdrawn. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Please be aware that this individual is currently being severely targeted by the "GamerGate" troll crowd; any revisions or editing should be sensitive to this fact and demands for changes should be carefully considered. Use your discretion and be sensitive to the individual as well as to the purported feedback you're receiving. Ronin Poet (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronin Poet (talk • contribs) 15:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Remember to always assume good faith. Talk page comments aren't "demands", all edits should follow policy regardless of who/why. --TheTruthiness (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Disclosure: This page came to my attention through an off-site forum on abuses of process at WP. The attention from gamesindustry.biz and Fortune is enough to establish notability of the subject, but most of the material is not of encyclopedic interest. I do not think there is enough to support an independent article. I suggest that only the following sources be retained and used to create a section at IGDA to which this page will redirect. Rhoark (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * We need a source to tie Tom and Kate together as the same person. There's no mention of the connection in the article that I can see, yet the first three sources are about Tom, not Kate. If that can't be definitively shown with an RS (I haven't dug through all the existing sources to check if they mention it), then we would need to split this into two separate articles. —Torchiest talkedits 21:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * They're the same person - I haven't seen a source yet discussing the transition, but there's no need to run two articles. - Bilby (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I went through this for the article on Cathryn Mataga and was prevented from asserting she had gone been another name and gender until I found something explicitly linking the two. I was not happy about it, but I do think we should be consistent. If we don't have any clear link between the two provided by a reliable source, how can we justify including sources about Tom? —Torchiest talkedits 13:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by explicitly linking. We have sources describing Tom Edwards, and later sources taking about Kate Edwards, which make it clear that they are the same by providing the same biography. Same job at Microsoft, same job title, same education, identical founding of Englobe, and so on. - Bilby (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean a source confirming they are the same person. If you check the article I linked above, you'll see I went through quite a bit of effort to establish the connection between the before and after persons. The type of identical biographies you're talking about were viewed as insufficient in that case. My suggestion is to resource everything based on the first three sources either from other sources already in the article or from new ones. —Torchiest talkedits 20:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I fully agree that we would need a source to discuss changing name and gender, it stretches things beyond reason to assume that two different people were the same sole founder of the same organisation, or that two different people wrote the same Masters thesis, or held the same single position at Microsoft at the same time. - Bilby (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm uncomfortable that you've been removing sourced content on these grounds, but I don't want to revert. So I've taken this to WP:RSN to see if we can get some independent thoughts. - Bilby (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This individual's gender history/identity is irrelevant to the article and their significance as a public figure. Obviously they are inclined to not highlight that, so unless you are aiming to unduly out this person and make a spectacle, any mention of "Tom" is irrelevant and actually very inappropriate, including the mentions in the citations. Ronin_Poet
 * We will always defer to a subject's preferred pronouns but we don't exclude sources on those grounds. Reviewing the thread above there appears to be no consensus for this removal - it's a relevant RS - so I'll revert. 104.200.154.2 (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That reasoning is problematic; I'm requesting escalation of the editorial review to avoid appearances of bias that this individual is being singled out for harassment by anonymous individuals (such as yourself). Removal of a single source because of its title isn't a problem for this article; the information is still corroborated by additional resources. Ronin_Poet —Preceding undated comment added 16:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for discussing here. Note reference 3 presents a similar problem. The source refers to the subject by another name. On these grounds several sources (I believe all those before 2009) would have to be excluded and information removed from the article. 104.200.154.2 (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless the individual purposefully seeks to reference their previous name, etc., I don't think it's appropriate to use WP to out someone, even inadvertently. Their notoriety is backed up by later sources, so removing the pre-2009 sources shouldn't be an issue. I haven't found any public references made by this individual to reference their change, and without that, I don't think we can/should make that connection. Ronin_Poet —Preceding undated comment added 16:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I see this was discussed previously, and brought to WP:RSN. The apparent consensus there was for inclusion. 104.200.154.2 (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't necessarily a WP:RSN issue, it's more than that. I'm going to escalate further. Ronin_Poet