Talk:Maddy Thorson

New headshot?

Can anyone find a new photo for the infbox? Its been a year and a half since Maddy came out and their appearance has changed a lot in that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordoftheRaccoons (talk • contribs) 21:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It would need to be a freely licensed image. The one we have is from their last appearance at GDC for Celeste, and until make a new game, unlikely we'll see them at the show. --Masem (t) 21:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I've added an image which has been submitted via VRT. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Something like commons:commons:village pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/03#Wiki Unseen drawings uploaded by WMF is an option. Arlo James Barnes 03:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

How is this person a significant figure?

How is this person a significant figure? 216.60.18.58 (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources discuss her history in game development and successful games. --Masem (t) 21:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

why is maddy's deadname in the introduction at all?

that's not her name anymore, there's no reason for it to be listed at the very top of her wikipedia article 184.57.163.191 (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The question that needs asked is, was she notable under her deadname? Given the name of the game company mentioned at the start of the article, it looks like there's a case for it. When people are notable under their deadnames, they are included in the articles. Caitlyn Jenner is probably the most obvious example, but she is not the only one. —C.Fred (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, particularly with the attention that Celeste got which was released before she transitioned. Search Google News on "celeste matt thorson" prior to 2020 and there's tons of hits. It is clearly a searchable term. --Masem (t) 23:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Masem hey Masem if you agree why do you keep deleting my correction Sandrinator (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

You are adding the name a second time, which is not appropriate. The dead name is present once in the lede. Masem (t) 19:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Masem the birth name should be used for the period before the transition (if the person was relevant, which is the case). It is in the Spanish Wikipedia so mu edit is legit. You have a history of bad faith edits. I am not the only one complaining about you. And I think you should let a third editor decide if it is worth keeping. This is a community project and you do not own the page. Let the community decide Sandrinator (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

What happens on the spanish wiki doesbt apply here. We have a policy WP:DEADNAME that says when the deadnane is notable, then to mention it once in the lede, nowhere else. You are adding it a second time. Masem (t) 19:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

This isn't quite true. The name should also be mentioned somewhere in the body, but again only once (unless necessary to mention it again), because the lead should not include content not in the body. WP:DEADNAME does not contradict this. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@Elli: The intro already does include content not in the body for biographies, like full name and date of birth. In similar situations, like The Wachowskis, the one place the deadname is mentioned (besides titles of references) is the intro. There's no reason not to treat this article similarly. —C.Fred (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It's also incorrect to do so there. Full name and date of birth should be mentioned in an "early life" or similar section. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Its not required, and the principle of deadname here is to minimize its use. For a case where the name stood out like Caitlin Jenner, repeating the dead name at the start of the early bio makes sense. Here, where the dead name should be mentioned but doesn't have the household recognition, it makes sense to keep it to a minimum Masem (t) 19:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not "repeating". The lead should not contain info not in the body, and WP:DEADNAME doesn't dispute this. The relevant sentence of WP:DEADNAME says when the name should be in the lead -- and while it doesn't explicitly say this, that combined with the next few sentences implies that it should also be mentioned in the body. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

We should be minimising the use of the deadname, which basically means include it at most once. Since she was notable under her deadname, we need to include it at least once. In combination, that means exactly once. In the interests of least surprise to a reader arriving at the article who may be unaware of Thorson's transition, it ought to be in the lead IMHO. stwalkerster (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

And it should be pointed out that when I created this article, it was under the deadname (they had not announced transition at that time). Since she transitioned the article was moved and the deadname redirected to here, so as a possible search term it does need to be in the lede. But repetition in the body is just not necessary. We do speak of her transition announcement in the body, which in those source her deadname is mentioned but there is no value to bring it up again. Masem (t) 20:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The lead is only supposed to be a summary, though. If the deadname is important enough to be included in the lead (which it is), then it should be included in the body that the lead is summarizing. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

That is guidance but not policy as Deadnaming is. I mean how many bios repeat the birth date in the body? Surprising fewer than you think. The case here is where thus may be appropriate to restrict to the lede only to do no harm under BLP Masem (t) 04:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:DEADNAME is not a policy either... and additionally, it does not support what you have been saying here. I disagree that any harm is done by mentioning the name once in the body, given that it's already mentioned in the lead. Doing so also allows the article to be more clear (as it can be easily explained why that is no longer their name, while doing it in the lead might be awkward, and it is also rather unexpected for someone's deadname to be mentioned only in the lead).

If we wanted to reduce deadnaming, we would only include the name in the body once, and not in the lead at all (I would generally not be against such a change), but including it only in the lead leads to our articles being less clear and violating our basic editorial guidelines, and it leads to highlighting the person's deadname. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@Masem: I was under the impression that due to your lack of reply for over a week, you no longer had an objection to this change after my previous comment. I am well aware that BLP is a policy, but that is not relevant to the details of whether the deadname should be included in the body in addition to the lead. Doing so clearly does not violate BLP. If content is acceptable under BLP to include once in an article, it's acceptable under BLP to include twice in that article (though except for the lead, there's not much of a reason to duplicate content in an article, of course). Elli (talk | contribs) 00:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Just because no one responded does mean you have consensus. And core of BLP police is to do no harm to BLP. Unnecessarily.repearing the deadname is harmful, particularly on a case like this where there was some but limited notabolity to the name. Masem (t) 00:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The potential harm done by repeating the deadname once is entirely insignificant compared to including it at all. Including the deadname at all causes harm because it makes the deadname easier to find. If we used her deadname to refer to her throughout the article, we'd be doing harm because we would be deadnaming her in wikivoice. Including it twice doesn't do any significant harm over including it once. It doesn't make her deadname any easier to find and we aren't deadnaming her in wikivoice.

Including the deadname in the body has the clear benefit of following our guidelines for how leads should be written, which improves how understandable the article is to most readers. This is also similar to how other articles are written, such as Chelsea Manning or Caitlyn Jenner, both of which also mention the deadname once in the lead and once in the "Early life" section. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Masem: do you still have an objection here? Elli (talk | contribs) 23:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, because just as you have those examples, I can point to Elliot Page and The Wachowskis. Masem (t) 00:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

From Elliot Page: He was assigned female at birth and used his birth name of Ellen prior to transitioning.

You haven't responded to the rest of what I've said. The harm done by repeating the name is nonexistent, but it makes the article significantly better and in compliance with our guidelines for how pages should be laid out. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I am asking for more input at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography (eg the talk page where DEADNAME is given).

However, I disagree repetition is not harmful. If two uses are okay, someone will argue three uses are fine for the same reasons, and that can grow out of hand. The point is that we do not want readers to associate the deadname with the BLP, and that is "helped" when the deadname is used repeated. The single use in the lede is sufficient most of the time. Masem (t) 00:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I feel like this might be worth clarifying at MOS:GENDERID for the future, if a clear consensus emerges (and if not, maybe open an RfC). Elli (talk | contribs) 06:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

This entire article is a BLP violation

If Brianna Wu can have her deadname removed, then why can't Maddy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fag marriage (talk • contribs) 18:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Wu's former name was not notable, only identified through primary sources (like court documents) which we do not allow. Thorson had their own company and won awards under their original name and then their transition was also widely covered. --Masem (t) 18:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

We need (preferably current) sourcing on her being non-binary

There are archived posts about her self-identity and use of she/they (this old Twitter screenshot on Reddit, for example), but I cannot find any recent primary source where she identifies as non-binary. CBR (don't think this is a precisely good source) does mention she coming out as non-binary, but that article is a couple years old. There are non-binary people who don't use gender neutral pronouns, but I do think we should try to be as accurate as possible. 2803:4600:1116:12E7:898E:45B4:CEEB:16D2 (talk) 07:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

CBR is a bad source and should never be used for potentially contentious information about a living person. HOWEVER, this Nintendo Life (a VGRS) source dated to August 2022, states, Maddy Thorson — the game's director and designer, who is non-binary, and I don't think it can get much clearer. DecafPotato (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Maddy's Medium posting outing herself as well as Madeline in the game as trans Masem (t) 03:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this a misuse of "his"?

In the sentence "Later, Holowka recognized Thorson as TowerFall's main creator and relinquished his stake as a co-creator.", is Holowka the "his" in this situation? blaz (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I honestly can't tell. That sentence is vague, and it seems to be unsourced too. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk – edits) 19:24, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I looked into it further, and I found the information in the Polygon source, so I have added a citation to it. After rereading that paragraph in the article, the sentence does make sense, and the use of his is correct. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk – edits) 19:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

ok thanks blaz (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Maddy has a child and partner

She has mentioned them online several times (born in 2022), but I can't find anything specific about them, and I only found one source talking about them

https://www.inverse.com/gaming/maddy-thorson-luminaries MsMissing (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Urgent: Remove Thorson's deadname from the lead

Including her deadname in the leading parenthetical is not necessary for identifying Thorson, and it risks needless exposure that could cause serious harm under WP:BLP. By changing her name, Thorson has attested that name is at odds with her identity and should not be used to refer to her, regardless of gender identity guidelines. It is disrespectful and sends a dangerous message to trans people that their correct name, and by extension their identity, will never be fully recognized. Starryskyzero (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

MOS:DEADNAME is clear about when and how we should use deadnames. This article is in compliance with that. — Czello ^(music) 20:26, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Deadnames should never be used. Removing it is the right thing to do. Starryskyzero (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

If the dead name wasn't widely know before, absolutely. But cases like this or for someone like Elliot Page, not including the name they were formally known by would be as issue. And here with Maddy, where it's well established they identified as transgender, it's far less an issue, since that aspe T is very much core to Maddy's notability. Masem (t) 20:38, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

The article already states she is transgender. Part of respecting and honoring that is fully recognizing her name and identity. Starryskyzero (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Which we do, we use her current name gender. However before transition she was notable under her given name so a reader wanting to learn more would need that name to do searches on that. Masem (t) 20:57, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

No relevant source that a reader would need to search for would include that name. Using her correct name and pronouns in most of the article is not enough to fully recognize her name and identity. Maddy is not the person she appeared as when Celeste was released, and I dissent that that person is necessary to include in an article covering a living person. Maddy being trans should absolutely not be wiped from history, but her deadname should. Starryskyzero (talk) 11:15, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

• the use of that name should follow her intent. Starryskyzero (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

  This is not how Wikipedia's policy on deadnames works — Czello ^(music) 11:19, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that we have several soruces as references (that can't be replaced), predating her name change, all using her original name. To a reader, jumping into those references would be confusing if we had introduced her only as Maddy, and the articles are using a completely different name. That's why we have the deadname policy that reflects the use of the deadname only if the person was notable under that name (which they were, back when I created this in 2019). Masem (t) 12:25, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I understand. I will refrain from making further disruptions. I started this discussion and made those edits in good faith, and in a just world I believe that name would not appear. Transgender rights, especially in the United States and Canada, are an issue of grave concern to me, and I can often be very strident in my opinions.

Thank you, @Masem, for being kind and reasoning with me. I apologize if I have forced you to spend unnecessary amounts of your time and energy doing so. Starryskyzero (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

No, you're right. This rule is gauche and ill conceived. Reading a deadname immediately on this article is off-putting. The practice should be revised. Yawnling (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

it's required for page redirects. Maybe not as much for Maddy here but a strong example is Elliot Page, where his name before transitioning is very much a searchable term and so needs to be highlighted per our redirection guidelines. But that's why we have to clearly demonstrate the person was notable under their original name first before doing that otherwise we respect the privacy. Maddy was very much notable under her original name at the time of Celeste's release. Masem (t) 13:11, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

No, the rule makes perfect sense. We're an encyclopedia; we document history – not censor it. — Czello ^(music) 20:52, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

That is not a valid point. Insistence on the use of an incorrectly gendered name to override a person's true identity is censorship. Use of that individual's correct name and gender for all references, past and present, is the most accurate means of documentation.

The rule is certainly gauche and inarguably ill-conceived, given the decade-old status, inaccurate and disrespectful arguments, and lack of transgender representation in the 2015 Village Pump that introduced it and the 2016 RfC that cemented it. — Starryskyzero (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

We're not overriding her true identity. It's rather backwards to suggest that including more information is censorship. That is typically when information is omitted. You might have a personal dislike of the rule, but (bluntly), tough. This is what our policy is - and rightly so, in my view. — Czello ^(music) 15:31, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Maddy Thorson is most notable for making Celeste (and to a lesser extent TowerFall), which were published by Matt Makes Games. This article would be very confusing if we never explained that they are the same person. Endwise (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Removing deadname from article

I've made a number of edits to this article recently, specifically removing a pre-transition image of Maddy Thorson, and removing references to the former name of her game studio, Maddy Makes Games, which previously included her deadname in the title. I am familiar with MOS:DEADNAME, and I am aware that a straight reading of that policy may call for the inclusion of Thorson's deadname. After all, she was notable under it, and there are a number of published sources that address her using this name, including some cited in this article. However, I still believe that the deadname should be excluded from this article, and I am leaving a message here to seek consensus for this change. (I am not certain if this would require a request for comment, but I am first attempting to seek consensus here.) My reasoning is as follows:

• Privacy concerns. The inclusion of a deadname could obviously be degrading or humiliating for a transgender person, even if they were known as such, and especially considering this is a biography of a living person, additional concerns apply. This article ought not to be an indiscriminate collection of information on Maddy Thorson.
• Low likelihood of confusion. There are a number of sources in this article that refer to Maddy Thorson by her deadname, including some self-published sources, but Thorson has been out as transgender for more than five years now. Recent press coverage of Thorson (The Verge Jan25, IGN Jan25, Rolling Stone Mar24) all reference Maddy Thorson, indicating that there is a low likelihood of confusion for readers. Additionally, while MOS:DEADNAME lists examples like Chelsea Manning and Elliot Page as examples where deadnames should be used (which I don't think are entirely unreasonable), Thorson's notability being comparatively minor (she was a game developer of a studio that bore her name, made it to the Forbes list) means that I think the odds of confusion are meaningfully lower, and the inclusion of a deadname here leans more towards a privacy concern.
• Specific notability of Maddy Thorson: One of Thorson's primary notabilities is for developing the game Celeste, which she has herself described as a transgender allegory. As cited in the article, she has stated that Madeline (the main character of the game, not herself) is canonically trans (Thorson, Nov20), and has described it as a "self-insert game" on Twitter. While obviously this is not explicit context to Celeste, and I suppose it is plausible someone who played this game in 2018, remembered its creator, and went to look a former name up might be confused, I would say that it is likely most people familiar with Celeste are familiar with the game's transgender undertones, and a number of sources (McPhee 2025, GayTimes Jan24, IGN Jun23) have explicitly noted Celeste as a transgender allegory. While I don't believe this to be the intention of the authors of this article, who have done good work to comply with the clash of MOS:DEADNAME and the established notability of Thorson pre-transition, I believe that describing a woman who is transgender, and who's primary notability is for writing a game about a transgender woman, by her deadname in the lede is disrespectful and should be removed.

A note: I may dip in and out of this discussion. While I do some BLP editing, game design is not my specialty, and digging through a bunch of sources with deadnames, and searching for deadnames, has not been particularly pleasant for me. LivelyRatification (talk) 10:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I should also note that Thorson states, in regards to Madeline (the fictional character) as linked above (but for clarity's sake, [https://maddymakesgames.com/articles/is_maddy_trans/index.html here's the link again): I feel conflicted even now while writing this, effectively outing her, because it doesn’t feel entirely fair to her. It’s the same consideration that I would want to be shown to me. I am hesitant about reading too much into words she wrote 5 years ago, but I do think it is relevant context here. LivelyRatification (talk) 11:40, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Before we knew she transitioned, she and the former name of her first studio are notable terms and were used to refer to her and her studio before she announced her transition. That makes those names necessary for inclusion so that a reader that wants to look at those sources or do additional research can understand that those names are going to be found in the sources before she announced her transition. Thats the situation that DEADNAME specifically allows for. We can minimize their inclusion to the basics (one time for each), but outright elimination is not appropriate here because of how much coverage she had before she announced her transition.

Removing the photo from before then is fine, but keep in mind that she has been very open about having transitioned, this is not like where someone that was living outside of public view has stepped forward without identifying that they transitioned, which is more the case that DEADNAME is meant to protect. Masem (t) 12:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Masem: I don't agree with your interpretation of MOS:DEADNAME here, at least relating to the name of Maddy Thorson's former games studio. I recognise that removing her deadname from the article wholly would require consensus, but I believe that removing the games studio name is in compliance with MOS:DEADNAME, specifically this line: Paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering, except in rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided, as where there is a pun on the notable former name, etc. I think that the exact wording can obviously be avoided here, although I don't disagree that it does make it more confusing for people trying to read the sources, I just consider it a less important factor here. (Gendering her by "she" when earlier sources would contain different pronouns is also confusing to an extent. I obviously think the pronouns should not be changed, but I don't think the page should be written primarily to minimise confusion for readers.) I also don't think that your reading of MOS:DEADNAME as meant to protect people who are prominent who have not identified that they are transgender or lived under [X] name is correct. Just because someone is open about having transitioned or as identifying as transgender does not make it any less harmful or more necessary to repeatedly list their deadname in the article. The barometer that MOS:DEADNAME seemingly uses is notability, not openness about transgender status. LivelyRatification (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Games were made under that former name so a reader trying to look stuff up needs to know that studio name. That studio name is clearly notable though for purposes of comprehensiveness we cover that studio on this page about Thorson. And no I'm not saying that because someone has publicized their transition does that make the earlier nane worthy of inclusion, it is about notability which applies here both to the person and the studio. Masem (t) 22:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

We've done this. She was notable under her deadname. This article existed and passed GNG while she was still male. The studio is also included in this. — Czello ^(music) 05:47, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the notability argument, which I haven't disputed, but I believe the points I have made ought to override this, hence why I am attempting to seek consensus for a change. And I simply don't agree with your contention that the studio is included. MOS:DEADNAME states that In articles on works or other activity by a living trans or non-binary person before transition, use their current name as the primary name (in prose, tables, lists, infoboxes, etc.), unless they prefer their former name be used for past events. If they were notable under the name by which they were credited for the work or other activity, provide it in a parenthetical or footnote on first reference; add more parentheticals or footnotes only if needed to avoid confusion. At most, this allows for a footnote to be made stating the studio's former name -- not inclusion in the article's body seven separate times. My stance is that the inclusion of the former name of the studio could easily be removed with little sacrifice to the article's readability or comprehension. LivelyRatification (talk) 08:56, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I simply don't agree that your arguments override the notability policies for MOS:DEADNAME. They are arguments that could feasibly applies to most trans BLPs, and could open a Pandora's box on other such articles, which is why we have the overriding MOS policy. — Czello ^(music) 10:01, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Its fair to ask how many times we need to name the studios original name, and was able to reduce the seven down to three (lede, and twice in body), all other times using "Maddy Makes Games". But we can't eliminate it, the old studio name is what Celeste was released at. Masem (t) 12:13, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I will be honest here. I don't have a policy-based argument to make. All authority should be questioned, and following existing policy is not a justification for any decision, unless your job or duty relies on interpreting that policy. My argument is based in ethics and consequential reasoning.

Leaving an irreplaceable mark of a name and gender that was forced on a person in perhaps their most viewed public record is a violation of one's right to self-determination and identity reclamation. In addition, it sends a message to transgender (trans) people who view this article that their names and identities will never be fully recognized. This strict policy enforcement adds an additional disincentive for anyone who could potentially be classified as "notable" (a very subjectively defined word by WP:BLP) to publicly come out as trans, which reduces trans visibility; and consequentially, social acceptance, ceteris paribus.

To @Czello: First, it is disrespectful and inaccurate to say "when she was still male". It is evident in her statements that she considers herself never to have been a man, and as a trans (agender) person myself, I can attest that I was never the gender that was assigned to me. Assigning genders to people based on the way their body looks and having those genders be one of two is an archaic, scientifically discredited, and inherently authoritarian practice. Furthermore, sex does not have a concrete definition and is distinct from gender. "Male" refers to sex, not gender.

Second, "Pandora's Box" is an incorrect metaphor to use for the removal of deadnames from the articles of trans figures. The opening of a Pandora's Box, metaphorically speaking, denotes a source of great trouble or misfortune, rather that a simple chain reaction of events.

Third, you have consistently been dismissive of other editors' opinions and the legitimacy of their arguments in this discussion. You do not have any more authority in forming this consensus than anyone else.

I stand with @LivelyRatification on this change. My suggested edits would be to remove the parenthetical "(born Matt Thorson, 18 March 1988)", as well as replace any instance of "Matt Makes Games" with "[Maddy] Makes Games". Starryskyzero (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

The DEADNAME policy has been developed over a significant amount of time weigning all the concerns of these individuals versus the goals of an encyclopedia. Thorson is one of the rare cases that's they were notable before and after publicly stating their transition, similar to Elliot Page. It is not appropriate to hide notable information that was published on RSes. If you really want this changes, you need to do that at the talk page of MOS:BLP Masem (t) 18:04, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Bluntly, we're not here for ethics. — Czello ^(music) 19:07, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

You've proven my point. — Starryskyzero (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Your point isn't based in policy, it's based in WP:RGW. I am saying that this isn't a valid approach to BLPs on trans people. — Czello ^(music) 09:50, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

You can claim that. My point was that you have been dismissive of the legitimacy of the opinions of other editors in a way that is unbecoming. Starryskyzero (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I do not intend to sound dismissive and apologise if it came off that way. However, this is ultimately a question of policy and so arguments outside of that simply won't carry much weight. — Czello ^(music) 15:33, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

The DEADNAME policy was developed taking in all the moral and ethics and safety and privacy concerns of those impacted individuals. We are not being dismissive here because that is an agreed upon position by a consensus of editors. Masem (t) 15:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

This article is a very typical case of MOS:DEADNAME for someone notable pre-transition. If you want to change it in this article you'd have to work to overturn MOS:DEADNAME itself, which follows an RfC that was widely publicised and participated in. Endwise (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Is this the RfC you're referring to? If so, it is more than ten years out of date.

In addition, several editors who participated in the RfC made comments indicating they are not qualified to develop policy that accounts for all moral, ethical, safety, and privacy concerns of the affected individuals, as was stated by @Masem, such as:

"...we have to explain why we use opposite pronouns when describing a transgendered person."

"If they find a fact "offensive", well, sorry, but tough!"

"The only problematic choice here is pretending that a birth name did not exist."

"I also support using the birth name and gender when referring to events that happened before the gender change."

"We don't allow subjects to suppress or downplay information about them just because they find it unpleasant (and frankly that kind of double standard is condescending). A change of gender identity should not be treated shamefully as The Name Change We Dare Not Speak Of."

"...if any are offended, they have chosen to be offended."

"Extremist POV pushing."

A new RfC is evidently needed to review this policy and its implications. I also agree with @LivelyRatification that, even if a consensus is formed to maintain the current MOS:DEADNAME policy, that the specific notability of the person must be considered. — Starryskyzero (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

The more appropriate RFC to use is this one Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2016 archive#RfC: Allow inclusion of former names in lead section of biographies covering transgender and non-binary people, which was after that previous one that lead to the language In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable prior to coming out. under MOS:BIRTHNAME (eg nullifying nearly all those arguments quoted above) That was later moved to the more specific Gender Identity section in 2019 (see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2019 archive#Gender identity section), and if you look through the talk archives at MOS:BIO, its pretty clear this approach stills holds wide consensus. You're free to start a new RFC, but knowing what the current support that DEADNAME takes has, you are likely not going to get a change made. Masem (t) 23:42, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

There’s clearly nothing that can be said that will change your minds. I only wish you could look past bureaucracy, manuals, and policy long enough to see that the civil rights and lives of millions of people are at stake. — Starryskyzero (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

The DEADNAME policy has been developed with all those aspects in mind, while also reflecting that we cannot erase certain information that was readily published in reliable sources before a person opted to transition. This specific case is not a situation where we have looked far past what has been published to dig up a name that the person was never notable under. If you don't like this, you need to take that up at the MOS:DEADNAME page, not here. Masem (t) 00:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Please stop deleting the deadname. It's not going away unless there would be some consensus to do so, which clearly isn't forming. — Czello ^(music) 09:50, 2 November 2025 (UTC)