Talk:Wendy Carlos/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Comment 1

I've moved this from Walter Carlos because: 1. she's not known as Walter any longer; and 2. almost all the stuff she's famous for is under the name "Wendy". --Camembert

OK, maybe not "almost all", but she's almost always referred to as "Wendy" these days, anyway. --Camembert

Plus it's just nicer.Hyacinth

Of course :) --Camembert

What is it with musicians and sex changes? Wally Stott did it too...

You can't really generalize like that, surely? Out of all the musicians here, only 2 so far are transsexuals... Dysprosia 03:02, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

And then there's Prince...

Should I add Wendy to Category:Women composers? I don't want to pigeonhole her into a fixed gender role, but it seems as if her gender is that of a woman. Jimaltieri 08:29, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

She identifies as female, so go ahead. Dysprosia 08:37, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Leaving her out of any list of composers would be a loss to whomever is doing the research. --Richard deCosta

---

Removed image. It's not representative of her, and there's no sort of source or other information for the image (or copyright for that matter). Dysprosia 00:49, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Historical Revisionism Sucks. Thebaron

1st, I moved your comment to the bottom of the talk page as is standard for new comments, see Wikipedia:Talk page. I added the line because I'm not sure if you're commenting on the article in general, the talk page discussion in general, or recent Dysprosia's edit. See directly below:

2nd, what are you talking about? It would greatly help discussion if you elaborated on your problems with the article. You could also use a Wikipedia:Heading, which may facilitate discussion by indicating and limiting topics related to the article. For instance, you could make a heading (commonly "header") whose title describes in a few words one problem you have with the article. This will make it easy for people to address that issue, work towards consensus, and eventually resolve the issue or dispute and improve the article.

Hyacinth 03:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's not really legitimate to be editing other people's comments, Hyacinth. Jake b 14:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

what revisionism? she has always been female, despite being born into a body that would usually be considered "male" in form :) --86.135.221.95 (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Being not "cruel"

On a link given at "personal life" section, there is another link in which Wendy lists websites that have mistreated her. I am not sure what is her criterion for mistreatment, but I wonder if it was a good idea to remove all this "personal life" stuff and references to gender issues from this wikipedia article. Of course, wikipedia can have material that somebody regards as offending, but in musician articles, personal issues are not very important so they could be removed. 128.214.200.98 10:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

You're right. They're not very important. But I see nothing cruel about discussing factual information in a frank and honest fashion. I am aware that she views her Playboy interview as a mistake, but that places no obligation on Wikipedians to censor themselves in recording the facts. I don't see this situation as being mistreatment: this article concentrates on her career and all other Wikipedia articles that mention her make no reference to her transition. The "Personal life" section handles the situation very respectfully, I believe. It would be a shame if articles had to be censored so as not to offend anyone. I've reverted your edits. -- Krash 14:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

In the case, if facts are not important and there is possibility to hurt somebody, then I would prefer careful line. And living persons can be treated more carefully than dead ones. Cencorship is a wrong word here, let's not use it. I made a new suggestion about discography formulation and then I removed those surgeon things. I think they are unimportant and very private matters. I probably don't make further reverts or edits, but this is my current suggestion. 128.214.205.5 08:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe she is talking about people talking about her using inaccurate pronouns, inaccurate representations of transgender people, etc. etc. We have a fair and accurate representation here of her; our article I would argue does not "hurt" her -- we can't be responsible for how others use our information. Dysprosia 09:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Probably true. I just got cautious, when I read she did not like Allmusic guide, and I didn't manage to find anything that special from allmusic.com site. 128.214.200.99 12:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Sure it's crude ad cruel, and I add disrespectful. And it deserves to be totally removed. This is just sick minded curiosity. this is an artist, who produce art. Damn, focus on the art! Wendy always was Wendy. Period. And all material from her have been changed to figure "Wendy" on every piece available. So you have absolutely no excuse to give such PRIVATE information about a person who wants to STAY PRIVATE. Unless these kind of things cheers you up, and you know what I think of it. She is not a T-thing pride person, she's a woman. More, she's an artist. Talented. So give her the respect she deserve, leave her private life PRIVATE. StealthyGirl 15:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a fact. When editing Wikipedia, I try to keep this in mind: WWEBD? (What Would Encyclopedia Britannica Do?) Given a choice between the facts and someone's personal feelings, I'm going to have to go with the facts. This is a collection of facts, and not including important factual information; i.e. that the person now known as Wendy Carlos first achieved world-wide fame as Walter Carlos is, at best, disingenuous, and at worst completely invalidates the concept of an encyclopedia. This is not Wendy Carlos' personal web site, and shouldn't be treated as such. I've looked through a number of reverted histories, and all the reverts seem to have been done by someone unwilling to create a login. K8 fan 07:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

As much as Carlos would like to undo history, the fact is that she first achieved fame as "Walter". There's nothing "private" about her later history. I agree that the article should focus primarily on her music, not her sex change (and it does), but we're not going to airbrush history just because it bothers the subject of the article. —Chowbok ☠ 18:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The impression I got from the previous editor's deletion/censorship was that transsexualism was something to somehow be ashamed of, that it need be covered up and denied somehow. I don't believe this to be the case and while Ms. Carlos is not exactly of the 'out-and-proud' brigade, she's not exactly in denial either. It's a signicifant fact and I feel it should stay - Alison^✍ 01:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)`

Actually, I suspect that StealthyGirl/82.225.67.149 is in fact Carlos, or at any rate somebody working for her. If you look through Carlos's site, you see that she does indeed view it offensive to even mention her past. Nowhere on the site can she bring herself to write the name "Walter", even on her discographies or, indeed, the page that talks about these issues[1]. Even a quite mild mention of her transition, such as by Sarah Vowell in Take the Cannoli, gets a rating of "Has a sexual axe to grind, and needs sensitivity training" on her odd little blacklist[2]. I can see being annoyed if people focus on that part of her life rather than on her music, but she takes it much further than that; she really seems to want to completely erase her past and is annoyed that the rest of the world is not complicit in this. —Chowbok ☠ 02:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that StealthyGirl is Wendy, if for no other reason than that Wendy is a much better writer. The vast majority of the people contributing to this article and to the discussion about the article, are doing so because they admire Wendy Carlos. I suspect the majority of those admire her skill as a musician and composer. There is also a surprising number of people on this page who describe themselves as transgendered or transexual. They may or may not be fans of her music, but admire her for her courage in her transition. In order to do so, they are obviously aware of the fact that she transitioned. But there may be people who are unhappy in the gender identity, who need positive trans role models. Pretending that Wendy's transition never happened is not the purview of an encyclopedia.K8 fan 04:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, Chowbok, I'm not Wendy, as she speaks a much better English than mine (I'm a French person). This contribution was one of my first on Wikipedia. Looking back, it was an error, sorry. But we learn by trial and error. I felt that speaking about Carlos' past was like crediting De Maupassant's doppelgänger for his book "Le Horla", or Beethoven's deafness for his masterpieces. Sorry I'll try to make much more neutral contributions in the future. But, let me remove my personal IP address from this thread. As this IS unpolite and disrespect to my own, private life and has nothing to do on a cultural website :) StealthyGirl 23:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. Deafness may or may not have impacted Beethoven's later works, but any encyclopedia that neglected to mention it would be suspect. Reality is what we have, not what we wish for. K8 fan 23:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't edit other people's comments. Your IP address is visible to everybody from the edit history anyway. If you don't want people to know it, then you should sign up for an account. —Chowbok ☠ 03:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"born"

I've long perceived wikipedias "born (other name)" policy as somewhat rude, especially since it's so prominently placed in a page. For Wendy's page, I'd prefer a phrasing like "some records released under the name Walter Carlos, see Personal Life for details". For some other transsexuals (that don't have a record back catalogue) I don't see why the birth name should figure so prominently in the beginning of the article. It's more than enough to mention it in passing in a short biographical note. I'm very hung up on names and I get seriously anxious/hurt whenever I'm called by my birth name. Wendy seems to feel the same way. This might seem silly to people who've never been in this situation. --85.226.144.15 21:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

People's attitudes do change through their lives. In this instance Wendy's history is being reported both accurately and neutrally. She is not being called by her former name in the article, but the name needs to be up front for identification purposes, as a disambiguation just like in any other Wikipedia article. I have the early Walter Carlos albums, which she chose to release under that name. She could have used a pseudonym (a common entertainment industry practice) if it had bothered her at the time. Anyone with the early albums would be confused by the article if the disambiguation was not present. Notice that the focus of the article is on her wonderful work, where it should be. --Blainster 22:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

What's rude about it? This is supposed to be a biography. A sex change is a tremendous step, and to pretend that it never happened would just be dishonest. --24.58.13.127 18:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Facts are facts. If I was born name Tulip and I did not like it and changed it, the faact remains that I was born Tulip, no amount of politness will change that fact. It does not invalid the fact that I am now known differently. (FYI, I was not born with the name Tulip). HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

As a transwoman myself, I'd like to see the "born as" portion go in addition to my edits, as it is a very sensitive issue for us TG people and could easily be considered very rude, even upsetting. It's not necessary, either, as the matter of her recordings being credited to "Walter Carlos" is addressed later in the article. Millagurl 21:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No one cares if you're a "transwoman", it's totally besides the point. For whatever reason, Wendy Carlos was born Walter Carlos, and as per wiki policy, that warrants mentioning in the opening, as a means of making it easy on anyone who was looking for Walter Carlos. It may not seem sensitive, but honestly, that's not the issue. This is an encyclopedia.

I agree completely. I'm a fan of Wendy's work, which is why I'm on this page, and I have no desire to see her offended. But Wikipedia's first responsibility is not "to avoid offending the subject". This article is not written for the audience of Wendy or specifically any other transsexual. It is written for people seeking information about this individual, specifically this individual as a public figure. Wendy carlos was born Walter Carlos and released albums under that name. She then had a sex change and became known as Wendy and released albums under that name. Those are the facts and there is no rationale that can change them or change the fact that they should absolutely be in the article. Readparse 18:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. What information do you people think you have access to, which proves to you that Wendy was born a man? I see no proof whatsoever that Wendy was born a man. Is there a photo or scan of her birth certificate? And if so, how do you know it actually belongs to Wendy Carlos? I certainly haven't ever seen her birth certificate and I'm not stupid enough to believe that I know more about this woman's gender than she does. And if there is no such proof that she was born a woman, then stating that she was born a male, when she herself claims to have been born a female, is beyond disrespectful and also willfully mis-informative. I suggest that this article be written according to what she has stated about her own gender, being that she is the authoritative source for facts on her own life. I can't imagine that this is a difficult concept to wrap one's head around. To spell things out for you, the article should state that she was born a female, but that she portrayed herself as a male named "Walter Carlos" (think stage name if it helps) during the first period of her career. She continued to portray herself as "Walter", in her professional life, until she felt that her true gender would not negatively effect her success as an electronic artist. When she decided she was finally comfortable enough to come out as a woman, professionally speaking, she used "sexual reassignment" to explain the change, instead of admitting to having lied about her sex. Later in life, she decided to explain that she'd always been a woman, but had felt it necessary to record as a male in order to be taken seriously as an electronic musician. Honestly, is this really such a crazy story that you people can't believe that it's a possibility? And if you agree that it is POSSIBLE, and you also agree that you have no real PROOF that she began life as a HE, then I think you owe it to the woman to stop holding her gender hostage. It's obscenely disrespectful and it is definitely in opposition to the mission of providing accurate information. Try to wrap your head around it; It IS possible to write a wikipedia entry about Wendy Carlos, which addresses the gender switching, while respecting the truth about her birth gender. 2602:30A:C0B3:84E0:D43E:905C:FF3A:DF4B (talk) 07:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

If you can provide reliable sources that state that Carlos was assigned female at birth, but "portrayed herself" as male as some kind of stage act or ruse to advance her career, then we can change the article to reflect that claim. Otherwise, the article should to reflect the conventional understanding that she was assigned "male" at birth, went along with that (with varying degrees of willingness) thru childhood and part of her adulthood, then chose to publicly reject it in favor of the gender she felt was more correct. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

For the record, Carlos stated in her Playboy interview that she was "born male". We don't use that phrase because it's often deemed offensive today, but the intended meaning of it in context – a description of her anatomy and assigned identity – seems clear. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

bump: The term "born such-and-such" isn't even accurate. A name isn't something you are born with, but it is given to you by your parents (or someone else, depending on where you live) later. Names aren't genetic, they are arbitrary.

And I'm not even touching the implications of writing "Carlos was born a boy" with a ten-foot pole. — Mütze (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's an English idiom: it doesn't literally mean "born with a name", it's simply the standard way of showing that someone's current name is different to the one they were given after birth. It has nothing to do specifically with the sex change (for other examples, see Elton John, David Bowie, Johnny Cash). The "born Walter" bit is stating the bare fact that Wendy's original name was Walter, and there's absolutely no reason to change this standard English usage because some people are seeing a non-existent anti-trans slur behind it. I'd say it's even more important in this instance because those other artists didn't release important works under their birth names. 88.107.83.56 (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

For one more curve to challenge people's preconceptions, the name "Wendy" is also used by males. One example is macho test pilot Wendy Shawler, the first Air Force pilot to fly the F-15 fighter jet. He goes by that nickname as short for his birth name "Wendell".--ChrisfromHouston (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Brandon Teena and Gwen Araujo, whose notability rests solely on being trans people (and as murder victims due to their trans status), do not have their birth names listed next to the names they used. Instead, their birth names are listed in a sidebar under "Also Known As" or "Other Names." Why not do the same for Wendy? I agree her sex change is historically significant, and that her Playboy interview -- despite her later regret in conducting such an interview -- is an important document. But it seems the "born Walter Carlos" reference in the very sentence of the article seems unnecessary, given the precedent in those two articles. I am a tremendous Wendy Carlos fan and so I am making this suggestion with no agenda other than balancing important biographical information with respect for the subject. Just a thought. Joncruz1138 (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

that picture

I have to wonder if it's really necessary and/or appropriate. I'm removing it for now. -- Krash 00:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

What? Why?! That photograph was taken professionally after she had just gotten acclaim for her albums. She posed for it. Why is that unnecessary or inappropriate? Put it back. --WACGuy 06:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll wait for someone who wants to put it back to do so. If that person is you, I won't revert your edits, but I might request for comment depending on the situation. However I figured this dispute would perhaps be more easily solved on this talk page instead. While the "photograph was taken professionally" and "she posed for it" are true statements, they do not appear to me to be valid arguments in this situation.

My thoughts are:

• The picture is not relevant to the article. If this were about a model, numerous pictures would seem more necessary. However we're dealing with a composer/musician. There's already a more current (and more accurate representation) of Wendy at the top of the page. The article should focus on the career of Wendy Carlos, not her image.
• Also, and please tell me otherwise if I am assuming incorrectly here, I'm not sure if Wendy likes gratuitous references to Walter. As such, I'm not sure if it's appropriate.

-- Krash 14:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeh, I'm sure Wendy Carlos checks this page several times a day to make sure it's P.C. However, that "professional" photo is like a joke stereotype of the late-60s-early-70s look. How would any of us like to have our college-age snapshots posted publicly??? I say leave it off the page because it's stupid-looking. Wahkeenah 14:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd be 99% certain that Carlos monitors this page, and I'm sure she's behind at least one of the edits in the history. I definitely agree that the artist's wishes on this subject should be respected and these pictures kept off. - Anon

Whatever, my intentions were honorable. I was taking a neutral stance, I tried my best to keep the language PC when adding additional info. My intentions were not to disrespect the artist nor praise her. As with any encyclopedia article, the author should be objective.

Model? Damn! 1 picture. You act as if I bombarded the page with photos.

An encyclopedia article about a person focuses on that person's life which includes her career. An article on Vincent Van Gogh would seem rather odd if it only talked about his paintings and not about his depression, his poverty, his ear. Same with Tchaikovsky, it'd be inadequate to have an in-depth article that didn't mention his homosexuality. It's not to slander these people, they were some of the most creative people who ever lived, but rather to perhaps give a better insight into their work, how their personal life impacted their art. Problems affect the way people live, the way they think.

And as for the picture, that was a very good picture, I don't know what you mean by "stupid-looking". It was taken at a good angle with good lighting, I wish I was that photogenic. The photograph was taken to promote her music, so that makes it inappropriate?

Whatever, I can't stop revisionism. Agenda over historical integrity. You guys do whatever you want. I don't care anymore. In fact, delete the entire personal history section, it doesn't make anyone feel good about anything at all.--WACGuy 04:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The difference is that those others are long dead, so they couldn't care less what wikipedia has to say about them. That does raise the question, though... to what extent we should care what living persons have to say, as long as the article is factual. How much gory detail should it have about Walter being transformed into Wendy? As far as the picture goes, I took another look at it. My original assessment stands. It looks like anybody from that era, with the humongous sideburns and the Beatle haircut. Yuch. Wahkeenah 04:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

To the point of truth. No further, no shorter. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

---

This section contains trendy and imprecise phrasing:

1972's Sonic Seasonings pushed the envelope further (what does that mean, really?). This was packaged as a double album, with one side dedicated to each of the four seasons, and each side consisting of one long track. It blended recorded sounds with synthesized sounds, without melodies, to create an ambient effect. Not as popular as some other albums, (uh, doesn't that apply to almost all albums ever recorded?) it was however very influential on other artists who went on to create the ambient genre. (source for this large claim? And what is the definition of "very" influential in this context?)

Lawsuit over song?

I heard that Wendy Carlos sued a band for making a song titled "If Wendy Carlos Went Back in Time, Could She Have Sex With Himself?"

Is this true? I've heard this a few places so it may be important to mention even if it's not true, just to clarify that it is an urban legend, if that's the case.

Also, I see evidence that she sued the band Momus for releasing a song simply titled "Walter Carlos." I believe a Lawsuits section would be appropriate to detail these various lawsuits. 24.18.35.120 02:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I found this info on the Stars Forever page: Stars Forever also features the winners of a karaoke contest started on the album The Little Red Songbook (1998) which featured the song "Walter Carlos", which postulated that Wendy could travel back in time to marry Walter, and led to Carlos' lawsuit.

It seems that this lawsuit was exagerrated somewhat. Perhaps a section clarifying it is in order? 24.18.35.120 02:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Eclipses

In recent years, Wendy Carlos has gone into chasing eclipses of the sun, and taking high-tech photographs of them. Her photos are very much respected. I met her, a little, in June 2001, when we were both on the same eclipse tour in Lusaka, Zambia.

I'm surprised none of that is in the article.

Stephen Kosciesza 140.147.160.78 15:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this isn't what you had in mind:

Deleted as being a violation of WP:BLP --Guy Macon (talk) 04:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

That should probably go.

Mr.aluminumsiding 17:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's vandalism from this morning. I reverted it as soon as I spotted it - Alison^✍ 18:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The section on Carlos' eclipse photos says Citation Needed. There's a link on her webpage explaining her technique in photographing eclipses. Would adding that link be sufficient as a citation? Sorry I don't know much about this. Anyway the link is http://www.wendycarlos.com/eclipse.html. 65.12.135.63 05:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the person adding the request for a citation wants a link to a site other than Wendy's own page. For instance, astronomy magazines that might have featured her images. The claim is that she is "accomplished" - according to whom? The paragraph should either be rewritten for a NPOV, or praise from other eclipse photographers or publications needs to be linked to. K8 fan 07:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification K8 fan. I'll see if I can dig anything up. 65.12.135.63 15:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I did a bit of searching, and found a NASA page that hasn't been updated since 1997 featuring an eclipse image by Wendy. That would seem to be a fairly strong citation of the value and importance of her work in that particular area.K8 fan (talk) 04:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There's always some obscure problem with images

Gosh, you Admins sometimes are so complicated. I uploaded this image ([3]) from an album cover because some Admin had raised such a fuss with the article's previous image. I give up. Go ahead and delete it, Chowbok, leave Wendy Carlos' article imageless, and have fun at it. Alternatively, you'd first better find a new, objectionless image yourself. --AVM 17:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. We just can't use fair-use images if they could be reasonably replaced by free ones. —Chowbok ☠ 17:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

All the Wendy Carlos releases are currently on a tiny record label "East Side Digital", and there doesn't appear to be a "promotional" image we can use from that source. Short of someone photographing Wendy and applying Creative Commons license to it, there may be no image we can use.K8 fan 23:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Even a promotional image would be unacceptable, unless it were released under a free license. —Chowbok ☠ 02:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The purpose of promotional images is to be used for promotional and biographical purposes. Every newspaper and magazine has filing cabinets filled with promotional images sent out by record, film and publishing companies, and none of them contact the rights holder to obtain permission to use the promotional shot.K8 fan 06:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

But they don't strive to be freely redistributable. We do. Wikipedia policy is that no fair-use images can be used if they are replaceable, even promotional ones. —Chowbok ☠ 06:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a replacement? At some point, I think we may have to admit that the head and shoulders portrait of Wendy is irreplaceable. By the standard of the rest of the images in articles on musicians, the portrait is flattering and apparently one that Wendy herself approves of.K8 fan 07:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether the image is "flattering" is irrelevant. I don't have a replacement (if I did, I'd put it in the article), but one could be created, even if it doesn't exist yet. —Chowbok ☠ 15:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, a fair use image is acceptable until a free licensed replacement is available. If there isn't a replacement, then we can use a fair use image. Please correct me if I'm mistaken. -kotra 20:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You are indeed mistaken. A fair use image can only be used if a free image isn't reasonably obtainable (which it is in this case), even if one doesn't currently exist. We can't use fair use images as "placeholders" while waiting for a free image.—Chowbok ☠ 21:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. But is a free image reasonably obtainable? How would we obtain a free image? While not hermetic, it seems that Wendy Carlos is a fairly private person. Unless by a stroke of luck someone manages to take a good picture of her and releases it into the public domain, I think the closest we will get to a free image is Image:Wendycarlos.jpg, which already has her express permission. -kotra 22:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Somebody could also ask her if she would release this picture or another under a free license. —Chowbok ☠ 04:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Rationale of fair use for "Secrets of Synthesis" album cover image

1. No free or public domain images have been located for artist Wendy Carlos.
2. No free or public domain images have been located for this album.
3. The image does not limit the copyright owners' rights to distribute the album in any way.
4. For an article about a musician, the cover artwork of a CD album bearing the artist's photograph is very important and adds significantly to the article.
5. The image is of lower resolution than the original cover. Copies made from it will be of inferior quality, and cannot be used as artwork on illegal copies of the album.
6. This image is used on various websites, so its use on Wikipedia does not make it significantly more accessible than it already is. The cover is being used for informational purposes only. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AVM (talk • contribs) 20:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

None of the above is valid. Album covers are used to illustrate articles about albums. There is no article about this album, so there is no use for the image. —Angr 08:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

needle drop cues

The expression "needle drop cues" is not explained.

PeterKrohn 06:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It's an industry term for a temporary soundtrack assembled from a record collection i.e. dropping the needle on different tracks. K8 fan 23:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I had inserted an explanation that more clearly explained how Carlos had assembled a temp soundtrack to replace the fairly opaque term "needle-drop cues", and someone just deleted my explanation. Was there any problem with my explanation? "Needle-drop cues" is industry slang, and not a term in use in the general population. K8 fan 23:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it. I'm not sure why the anon removed your more informative phrasing. —Chowbok ☠ 23:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Readability issue

In the first part of her life, Carlos was male. But in the "Personal life" section and then the Work section of things that happened before the sex change, it says female. I think it should be, at least in personal life, should be male pronouns until sex change, then female pronouns. It's easier to follow and makes more sense. Joshua Zelinsky 16:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Switching pronouns in the middle of an article would just give the impression of bad copy editing, IMO. In deference to the sensitivities of the transgendered, I believe we should retain the female pronouns. Even when she was known as "Walter", she thought of herself as a woman, and if I recall the Playboy interview correctly, back to childhood. Besides, it is not a bright line - Wendy was taking hormones while working on "A Clockwork Orange", and was well on her way to transitioning long before the actual operation. K8 fan 18:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

As it is now, it's a little confusing as to exactly when Wendy switched genders. Joshua Zelinsky 10:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As K8 fan noted, there isn't a date when she 'switched genders'. Gender transition is just that: a gradual transition. It usually takes several years. However, like K8 fan said, she thought of herself as a woman long before she physically transitioned. So, since it is not known when she "became" female, it makes the most sense to leave the pronouns as female throughout. -kotra 22:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There's also the issue of the lede which says "born Walter Carlos", like "don't be fooled; she's really a guy". I think we should move that to the Personal life section, kind of like Debito Arudou which doesn't say "born David Aldwinckle (don't be fooled; he's really a gaijin)" in the lede, either (his birth name is given in the Background/Early life subsection). Or then we should be consistent and put Arudou's birth name in the lede in his article, as well. 130.230.4.13 (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's standard usage to put someone's birth name at the top of the article when it differs from their current name. You'll find the same thing in biography dictionaries and newspaper obituaries. It does sometimes tip you off that there's an intriguing explanation behind the change, but the "don't be fooled" is completely unintentional; it's just a standard. (see Elton John, David Bowie, Johnny Cash for more examples) The Arudou article has a one-line lede and the very next sentence mentions his birth name, so it's not a good example (the birth name would be moved to the lede per policy once it grows into a proper summary). 88.107.83.56 (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Protect page

Yet again, some IP user has changed all the female pronouns to male ones. Perhaps this page should be protected?K8 fan (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

As there have been several pronoun changes since I posted this, I have requested protection. K8 fan (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Article now semi-protected. K8 fan (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The protection has now expired. Hopefully it will not be necessary again. K8 fan (talk) 05:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sex Change Historically Important

While removing the sex change narrative may seem like a good action, it is actually retroactively denying and distroying historically important information. I was a fan of Walter (my original albums say Walter Carlos) and later Wendy and personally remember the media impact of this situation. This occurred during a time when sex changes were rare and new, and a public figure going though this was an historical event. It also creates false narrative to say that "Moog met Wendy" when he really met Walter at that time, but that and the "he or she" is another debate. Wikipedia is suppose to be informative. Wendy was one the first public exposure to this. The sex change was historic and significant and the facts should be related in an informative, unbiased manner, perhaps early in the article to prevent gender confusion in the narrative.

The medical treatments began in 1968, ending eventually in surgery in 1972. Valentine's Day 1979 Walter Carlos legally became Wendy Carlos, followed by the interview in Playboy. That's both informative and helpful against confusion. There are still copies of recordings under the old name.

KeithBarrett (talk) 05:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The Wendy Carlos article is found when anyone searches for Walter Carlos, and her birth name of Walter is in the info box right up at the top. Her transition is began in 1968. Switched-On Bach was released in 1968. It seems clear that Walter Carlos was in the process of transitioning to Wendy Carlos right at the very beginning of her career. The public might not have been aware of this for another decade, but she has been known as Wendy to the public for three times as long as she was known as Walter, so it's only fair that the article be about Wendy rather than Walter.

From her personal web site, it's clear that she would prefer that she would like the public to forget that Walter ever existed. But, this is an article about a musician; one who has not had any significant stage career, if any. Her work is mostly done solo in her personal studio. So, I believe it's important to concentrate on her work, rather than her sex reassignment. If she was constantly in the public eye, performing concerts, I could see a need to emphasize her transition, but that's not the case. K8 fan (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but many people have things they'd like the public to forget, and we don't delete important information because of that. History does not have an erase button. Walter and Wendy are not two different people. This is not about the true sex of a person. This isn't about trolls that defame the article. We don't treat stage musicians differently than studio ones. The first albums were released as "Walter Carlos" and just saying born named "Walter Carlos" is not at all relating what was a historical event of the time. Legally the name and sex did not change until well after the albums were released, but that's not the issue. Wendy Carlos is famous for this operation, this was THE first time this was in the public eye, and the article is about Wendy Carlos. I am a big fan of these albums and am a Synthesizer player myself. I played the same keyboard used in SOB. I remember well the media coverage over this. Wendy did public interviews on the transformation details. There is no separate wikipedia article about "Walter Carlos" describing this. If Wikipedia is to be a factual account of why the person is famous, then there has to be an unbiased inclusion of this historic information. It's the very purpose of Wikipedia. The confusion about the lack of mentioning it or that. There are albums released in multiple names is also significant. In fact the article is actually lying, saying that SOB was released by Wendy Carlos. Legally and printed on my album cover it was not. Elton John has paragraphs about his sexual orientation and drug journey. We have a whole article on Linda Lovelace, who also has stated she wishes the public would forget her past. I have to beleive that you are trying to impose a personal difficulty concerning this. If your personal goal is downplay the significance, pretending that it never happened is not the answer. I do not believe this can't be related in a mature, informative way.KeithBarrett (talk) 07:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The information is in the article, both at the top in in the very relevant Personal Life section. Please read the rest of the comments on this page to see how thoroughly this issue has been discussed. You claim the topic can be related in a "mature, informative way", although we previously have had to lock the article against vandals who have been changing all the female pronouns to male ones. I believe the current amount of emphasis in the article is reasonable, given that she has been known as Wendy three times longer than she was known as Walter. As it is, roughly one-tenth of the article is devoted to the topic, apart from the introduction and the discography.

The article could definitely do with some expansion, especially in the area of her musical theories, work on just intonation and alternative tunings, her work on the development of the synthesizer with Moog, etc. If the article were twice the length, an expanded section about her gender transition wouldn't stick out. Please consider assisting in this way.

I don't have a personal agenda here. Like you, I've been a fan since the 1970s. As you can see above, I've previously argued for keeping the information about her gender transition, against folks who wished it to be deleted - which may include Carlos herself. K8 fan (talk) 15:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

So that might be the current conviction, because there is NOTHING at all about the gender change. If people who do not know her at all read "born Walter Carlos" they'd first go like: HUH? Ah, a transgender? But it's never a good idea to let people guess information, that's why I don't like to see this removed from the article. The way it is now, it's much too one-sided. -andy 92.230.20.226 (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's in the personal life section. This is a dynamic encyclopedia. If this were 1982 instead of 2009 it would be more prominent as it was news of the day, etc but now it's simply an aspect of this BLPs personal life like how many children and if the are deeply religious. If the article is further developed and demonstrations that this had an impact on their composing then this could change. -- Banjeboi 23:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about information and historical fact. No one reading this article would know that this person released their music initially as Walter Carlos (important if you are a collector) and that their sex change was historically significant and extremely controversial at the time. Instead; it reads like politically correct people are suppressing information to serve their agenda. Just state the facts in a truthful and direct manner, then lock the article. Instead of looking complete and having courage, it reads like a big brother agenda was applied to rewrite history and discredits Wikipedia as a source of information. As a fan myself, I'd want to know, and the only reason I do is because I was there during the news when it happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgbarrett (talk • contribs) 17:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I find this a terribly confusing article. The whole impression given, quite erroneously, is that Carlos was always a female. It's only if you happen to glance at the info box that you realise that Carlos was born male. I believe that, even in 2009, the decision to undergo gender realignment surgery is a huge decision to make in anybody's life , and that it needs to be mentioned more clearly somewhere in the article, if only for the sake of clarity. Jack1956 (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This is part of policy, we write - when it comes to gender issues - in the gender identity that the person identifies themselves. We would give it more weight if this was shown to impact what they are notable for. Carlos is known for their music, so unless we have evidence their music was affected by the transition then we should avoid inflating it beyond an explanation. -- Banjeboi 09:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. Of course, you are quite right, and for some reason I didn't spot the mention concerning the realignment surgery in the Personal life section. Thanks for the explanation. Jack1956 (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all! -- Banjeboi 01:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Jack1956's comment above is part of why her change of gender identity ought to be mentioned in the lede. This information is currently "buried" where it can be easily overlooked, which it should not be. Her public self-identification is also historically significant, and an additional reason for her notability. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Biography or Criticism?

Regarding the album "Sonic Seasonings", this article states: "A somewhat cynical effort at 'aural wallpaper' produced under the press of contractual obligations, this album blended recorded sounds with synthesized sounds, only occasionally employing melodies, to create an ambient effect. Not as popular as some other Carlos albums, it was however all too influential on other artists who went on to create the ambient genre."

"Aural wallpaper" is in quotes -- who is being quoted? Who decided the album was a "cynical effort"? And what is meant by it being "all too influential on other artists who went on to create the ambient genre"? Did those influenced by it go on to create bad ambient music? Or is ambient music itself a supposedly bad thing?

This whole line reeks of classical snobbery -- ho hum. More importantly, the author's biases tell us nothing of the life and work of Wendy Carlos. Is this a biography or a review? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halcyon23 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've revised it.—Chowbok ☠ 22:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Shifting Walter out of birth details and into a more appropriate place in the lead, as per discussion on LGBT project

Following a guideline we have worked out through the LGBT project page, I have moved the former name out of the 'born as' section, and located it unemboldened in the lede text in an appropriate place to ensure we do not draw attention to this, but to aid people directed here looking for 'Walter Carlos' can see straight away that they are in the right place. Mish (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason to treat this any differently than standard Wikipedia practice, which is to include birth names in bold in the first sentence.—Chowbok ☠ 16:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This biography falls within the LGBT project, and the guidelines are here: Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines, in this case specifically pointing to the relevant MoS on identity. Please discuss this on the talk page of the project. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty strong change, conflicting with the MOS that, as best I can tell, was implemented unilaterally quite recently. I see no indication that consensus has been reached, or that WP:GUIDE#Policy and guideline pages has been followed. As such, I think we should continue to follow the well-established MOS:BIO#Names until this has gained consensus.—Chowbok ☠ 20:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

MOS is, after all, also a guideline whereas BLP is a policy. I wonder if this is more a borderline case however. This person's notability is tied to their music although teh sex-change itself was notable but we state she regrets being public about it. She is still alive so I do wonder if we should look to minimizing the focii in the lead to just the music aspects until a concensus on what, if anything, in regards to the gender issue should be there. I lean on WP:Do no harm which suggests we minimize but keep relevant information in the article body as it has brought her grief. -- Banjeboi 21:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything in WP:BLP that would apply to this proposed change. If somebody who was notable for other reasons had had a sex change earlier in life, and that wasn't publicly known, then yes, BLP would apply and we shouldn't out the person here. But obviously that's nothing like the situation here. The fact is that Wendy was originally famous as Walter Carlos and as much as she wants to, she can't go back in time and erase all knowledge of that fact. And frankly, anything that even says the name "Walter" brings her grief; she's attacked Sarah Vowell for some very innocuous mentions Vowell made in her book. Carlos will be unhappy with this article unless all mention of Walter and her personal history is scrubbed. —Chowbok ☠ 21:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess we disagree then. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Pressed return before I finished sentence on article edit - MOS:IDENTITY#Identity and WP:BLP override layout MOS in this - by rights we should not be mentioning Carlos' former name at all if she has requested not under this policy and this guideline. I only did this as an opportunity for compromise that would also signify to readers they are on the right page and justify redirection here. If this is not acceptable, then as Benji said we need to remove the name completely. The issue is not whether we think it makes sense for somebody to transition and wish not to be identified using their former identity - it is whether they do. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

To clarify I'm unconvinced that the mention of teh name or the sex-cahnge needs to e in the lede, especially on a BLP where we know this causes them distress. It should be in the article as it's well-documented by reliable sources but per WP:Undue we should accord it only as needed to convey the larger article's storyline. They are known for music, yes? Is there anything that shows this transition affected their music? If so that might be worth covering, the same as a famous conductor who gets married and turns to a new form of music in there work as a result or an artist who makes some transformative change that greatly impacts their work. I'm for showing the context. -- Banjeboi 22:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting point, I am moved to agree with you - in the text rather than the lede may be more appropriate in this case. Unless there is something sourcable about the effect of the transition on her music, I am not sure that could be included without it being WP:OR. The analogy puts me in mind of Anton Bruckner; there is a view that it was his marital sexual practice as a Roman Catholic that resulted in symphonies that were the musical equivalent to coitus interruptus [4]. Feel free to remove it from the lede if we cannot get consensus on the edit I made that keeps getting reverted. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to reopen this discussion, but nowhere else on Wikipedia do we give two craps about what the subject of the article wants us to write. This should not change just because she is transgender. "Born Walter Carlos" doesn't necessarily have to be in the lede, but as that information is a relevant and encyclopedic part of her life, it should stay regardless of her wishes. Allowing ANY Wikipedia subject to define our coverage of him/her is a terrible, terrible idea. Dozzzzzzzzzing off (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Discography

In the Discography section, I'd like to include original publisher and catalog number, since there is no Wendy Carlos Discography article. And for those works not possessing an article, cite sources. Any objections? --Lexein (talk) 09:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Erroneous claim?

This article states that "Switched-On Bach (1968) was [...] the first [album] to demonstrate that the synthesizer could be a genuine musical instrument". Sorry, not at all true (to my mind); there were at least three synth albums which predated it, namely The In Sound From Way Out! (Perrey and Kingsley, 1966), Kaleidoscopic Vibrations (Perrey and Kingsley, 1967) and Silver Apples of the Moon (Subotnik, 1967). OK, so the first two of these albums are cheesier than a kilogram of ripe Stilton, but they're still music (of a kind). (And it's said that in 1966 the Moog catalogue didn't yet include any keyboard modules, so the first of these albums had to be painstakingly assembled one note at a time, not just one phrase.) — 188.29.220.239 (talk) 01:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Would references to reviews by respected music critics suffice? K8 fan (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Wow, I thought we had already sourced everything well enough. IIRC, the claim should be "First album ... legitimate musical instrument for classical music", as opposed to avant garde, musique concrete, other experimental genre, or pop. It did go platinum, after all. First classical album ever to do that. --Lexein (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There are issues with reviews from the time, as a lot of newspapers and magazines of the time have not been made available via the web. The famous New York Times review is sadly behind a paywall. But the preview is pretty good. K8 fan (talk) 04:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

New synth?

In an interview in 1969 1979, Wendy said:

Carlos: I’m in the process of designing and having a new machine refined. It is to have a minicomputer, with special controlling devices and lots of knobs and dials and keyboards of various kinds. It’ll be a digital synthesizer and it’ll be a one-note instrument.

Q: What will it do that other synthesizers can’t

Carlos: I feel almost embarrassed to say that this will truthfully be the first time that an instrument will be able to imitate any sound that the mind of man can conceive and that the ear is able to hear.

Q: Can you see yourself marketing this instrument?

Carlos: Certainly not. I’ve never thought of myself as having a whole lot of business acumen.

Does anyone know whether this machine was ever built? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Slight correction: it was '79. --Lexein (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Note to self: Next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia... --Guy Macon (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Catalog out-of-print

The Work section muddles the reasons for her catalog going out of print. Carlos' own home page mentions changes in the music business, and losing her distribution deal with the record label East Side Digital. The acronym ESD for (what I imagine was supposed to be) that label's name links to a Wiki article on digital distribution. "ESD" refers to Electronic Software Distribution, which this isn't. (yes, we could split hairs and bring up the fact that there was trial synth software included with one of her CDs, but that is beside the point.) Should be revised. 7jlong (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Your points are well taken. Feel free to WP:SOFIXIT - that miswikilink may have been my fault, and may need to be simply unlinked. And do tell about that trial synth software... --Lexein (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I recall reading somewhere that East Side Digital went out of business in 2008 or thereabouts, when the economy went gunnybags. That doesn't explain, tho, why Ms. Carlos hasn't found another distributor to handle her catalogue.....98.232.239.205 (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Birth name

Re this edit: Some of Carlos' early albums were released under the name of Walter Carlos. If the article does not mention this at all, some people might get confused. This is nothing to do with transphobia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. "Walter Carlos" is a name that she used professionally for many years, and on account of her high-profile credits under that name, it is the one by which she is best known to many readers. As such, it should be mentioned prominently in the lede (not just shunted off to the infobox), just like we do with any other person who has gone by two different names during their career (regardless of the reason). If someone searches for "Walter Carlos" and ends up at an article about "Wendy Carlos", they should be given immediate assurance that they've arrived at the right article. Additionally, her public change of gender identity ought to be mentioned in the lede (explaining the change of name). Her public self-identification as transsexual in the 1970s is historically important, and adds to her notability; it should not be kept on the down-low for the reader to be surprised by when they get to "personal life". -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Carlos has said that she wanted the early albums to be released under the name of Wendy Carlos, but CBS insisted on Walter Carlos. All of the albums up to and including By Request (1975) [5] were originally released under the name of Walter Carlos.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Live Performance

I'm seeing a Wendy Carlos (with others) live performance cited on http://www.wendycarlos.com/newsold.html. It was called Bach at the Beacon and occurred around April 6, 1997. Further citation http://www.nytimes.com/1997/04/02/arts/play-it-jazzy-switched-on-or-straight-it-s-bach.html 2601:281:CB00:3BA0:9900:41AB:A2FD:B5D3 (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of pre-transition photo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've removed the pre-gender-transition photo of Wendy for the following reasons: 1) it is not representative of her gender, as per the "Gender transition" section, 2) it is not referenced in the text, 3) on her personal website, she only includes post-transition photos of herself, so it's clear that she does not wish to distribute such pre-transition photos, and 4) it is widely considered inappropriate to distribute pre-transition photos of trans people without their consent or knowledge. As such, I've edited the page to remove the photo. 95.80.44.16 (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Quick additional edit to anticipate an argument against removal: removing this photo leaves the article without a photo of the subject. However, per WP:MUG (and the reasons listed above) I count this as a misrepresentation of Carlos. Furthermore, per the Image Use Policy this photo could be considered unfairly obtained. Though the yearbook in question is cited and in the public domain, specifically seeking out a pre-transition photo of a trans person is not an acceptable way of representing them, especially after forty years of living with a different name and appearance. Though the article is without a photograph now, a photograph from 1958 of Carlos before her transition does not accurately represent Carlos now, and is not useful for the purpose of identifying the subject. Another photograph of Carlos should be sourced for identification purposes. 95.80.44.16 (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

As much as I am sensitive towards folks who have transitioned, I feel far stronger against attempts to erase the past, particularly when the removal of the image was done without explanation in the edit summary. Before transitioning, Wendy Carlos had a significant life & achievements. Removal of the image in question or any references to Walter Carlos is not something that can be done in absence of a discussion. We have had similar discussions about Chelsea Manning; zir article has before & after transition photographs. We should follow a similar course as that article. Peaceray (talk) 02:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you mean her article. --ChiveFungi (talk) 02:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I specifically chose the gender-neutral pronoun zir. Gender-neutral pronouns are very popular here in Seattle, although most tend to use the plural they. As a grammarian, it drives me crazy to use a plural for a singular pronoun. I still mourn the loss of thee. Peaceray (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Calm down, Ray. As someone who is obviously aware of gender neutral pronouns, you are also probably aware that zir/hir are generally used by people who explicitly identify as nonbinary. Wendy is a trans woman, and it's just weird and misgendering to call a woman zir when she herself does not use that pronoun set. You would also, as a pretentious-ass grammarian, be aware of the singular "they"'s long history of usage in the English language. Please try being less transphobic. Sephiroth1337 (talk) 07:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sephiroth1337: Thank you for the teaching / learning moment. I was not aware I was coming across as being un-calm. However, I do take exception at being referred to as an ass or being judged as trans-phobic. I think many of us are trying to negotiate potential linguistic minefields as gently as possible, & I do suspect that some of this is due to generational differences. I do intend to discuss this with my nonbinary & trans friends. I trust that they will clarify things for me. Peaceray (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: according to Singular they, "By 1980, the movement (to use the singular they) had gained wide support, and many organizations, including most publishers, had issued guidelines on the use of gender-neutral language." My education as a grammarian predates that. I don't think I encountered the singular they when I was hanging out at the Women's Studies dorm in the early '70's. Thus I am questioning the assertion that I should have been aware there has been a long history for it, at least in the Mid-Atlantic culture that I grew up in. Peaceray (talk) 07:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Singular they is used anywhere English is spoken; If someone says they don't use it, it's because they haven't noticed. :) Regardless, I think it's pretty clear that Carlos' preferred pronouns are she/her. P.S. Please don't throw "transphobic" at people. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't debating the use of the singular they in modern English, I was bemoaning the tendency of the language to substitute formal/plural pronouns for familiar/singular ones. I also was taking issue with the assertion of "long history of usage in the English language" when it did not become common until after 1980. Finally my use of zir was not in respect to this article, but another article altogether. I am sorry if my use of the term offended anyone, as I was simply trying to use a singular gender-neural pronoun to use, & it is one I am familiar with as I have non-binary acquaintance who uses it, although I do have more non-binary friends who prefer they. Again, I apologize if my use of zir offended anyone & ask for "gentle correction" as per the Seattle Relationship Anarchy info for new members:

Another (requisite for attending) is supporting each other through our mistakes and triumphs. For example, you may misgender someone or say something thoughtless. Please know that if you do, another community member may gently correct you. What’s important when that happens is that you apologize and correct yourself, not that you shame yourself.

Peaceray (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree. In fact I think we should propose deletion of the photograph from Commons. Has she written anything, or been quoted as saying that she doesn't want to be portrayed this way? That would give a stronger case to call it defamation per the Commons guidelines. --ChiveFungi (talk) 02:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED. Carlos was known as Walter Carlos well into the 1970s, and it is worrying to go along with the current theory that all references to a person's life before their gender transition must be banned from the archive. Personally, I would like to see an up to date image of Carlos in the infobox, but WP:NFCC becomes involved, as it isn't usually possible to have a non-free image in the infobox of a BLP. There are plenty of up to date photos of Carlos but they are unsuitable if they are copyrighted.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I found a later picture of her on Flicker with the proper licensing, so I uploaded it to Commons & have included it in the infobox. It is androgynous in appearance, so it might have been during her period of transition. I have also written to her on her website asking for an image of her as the woman she is. I included links to the Commons licensing policy, the English Wikipedia policy, & to Template:Non-free promotional, which tags an image that "is a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit." I think that is unlikely that we will get something, but I decided it was worth a try. Peaceray (talk) 07:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that Carlos has always been open about her gender transition and has not attempted to ban other people from mentioning it . It's usually only the self-appointed transphobia police who try to enforce a ban.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I fight tooth and claw against history erasure, and I don't think the pre-transition photo of her should be deleted from the servers altogether. But I also don't think it should be the only photo of her on the page (as seems likely if the current infobox image is deleted on copyright grounds), because it's such an atypical representation of her. We don't normally feature child/adolescent photos of subjects unless they were notable at that age. To be honest, for anybody below the level of a head of state or superstar celebrity (i.e. people who have invited the attention of being a "public figure"), digging into early photos feels a bit "stalkery" to me. And even in the rare cases that we do show such photos, they are "upstaged" by more recent photos of them as an adult. We aren't obligated to honor her wishes about photographs, but I'm on the fence about whether including it in context would improve the article, which should be our bottom line. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. The infobox photo is prominent and often appears in search results, and TBH I don't think Wendy Carlos on the Moog modular is up to scratch for use in the infobox. It could be used elsewhere in the article, but would still lead to people asking why there is no up to date photo. It's nothing to do with transphobia, just good old WP:NFCC in action. It's also now nominated for deletion due to doubtful CC status.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think that the later photograph will be deleted due to a dubious CC license on the part of the Flickr poster. That leaves two high school portraits that are significantly before transition as the only remaining depictions in commons:Category:Wendy Carlos. Absent a positive response to my request to Wendy Carlos on her website for a correctly licensed portrait, are there any artists out there who could draw a later-life portrait? Peaceray (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

However, consensus on removal of this image before it has been deleted on Commons has not been reached. If you wish to delete it get consensus or go through a WP:RFC first. I think it is better to have a marginal picture than nothing at all. Maybe it may spur Wendy Carlos to provide a better image, as requested. Peaceray (talk) 03:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable with the idea that we should make a decision with the goal of coercing the subject to give us a better image. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

So much for attempts at levity & wistful thinking. I seriously doubt that any decision we make will influence Wendy Carlos one way or the other to supply a CC-compliant image. I do not think my email to her asking for an appropriate image will bear fruit in this regard, but I did figure that I would politely ask. Peaceray (talk) 04:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The image has dubious CC status, and even if it didn't, it is too old for the infobox. Most people today, transgender or not, would not want a photo of themselves from the early 1970s being used as their main photo. As I've said, infobox images often appear in search results and this isn't doing Carlos any favors.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I respectively disagree. While it is on Commons, it is valid to use. An old picture is better than no picture as it tends to draw readers. A picture that may have been during transition is better than the only other position that is clearly pre-transition. Please get consensus as I have asked before removing itPeaceray (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the place to have this debate is on Commons, anyway. As long as the picture remains on Commons, it is fair game to use it in an article. Peaceray (talk) 05:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't use this image in the infobox even if it was CC. It's way too old and has been imported from Flickr simply because someone dubiously said that it was CC.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

If there is a policy about using old images in an infobox, please point me to it so I can learn about it. Otherwise, it is the most recent picture, & it depicts Carlos at the time that Carlos was achieving notability. The CC debate should take place on Commons, not here. As long as an image is on Commons, I see no reason prohibiting its use. Peaceray (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The consensus about deleting the post-transition image is clear enough: it's going away. WP:LEADIMAGE offers guidance about what should be used as a primary/sole image, including the purpose: "to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page". A photo that appears to be show a teenage boy doesn't accomplish that here. The images "should be natural and appropriate representations ... the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see." The photos generally used on WP are either recent (e.g. Arnold Schwarzenegger) or show the subject as they are best known (Buzz Aldrin). Pre-notability yearbook pictures don't meet that. The fact that it would present someone whom WP recognizes as female as if she were male just adds another layer of argument against it. "Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." Yes. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

??? JasonAQuest, I am confused as to which images you are referring to & their location. Currently there is a picture in the infobox, which in my mind counts as the lead, that shows Carlos sometime in the Switched-On-Bach or Clockwork Orange period, possibly during early transition. The image of the teenage Carlos appears in the Early life section. Also, you state that "The consensus about deleting the post-transition image is clear enough: it's going away." There is no post-transition image of which I am aware. Peaceray (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I think of a person's "transition" as the point where they choose to present as a different gender, so I was referring to the adult photo. Whatever you call it, it's a copyvio, it's going to be deleted, and you are wasting time clinging to it. The rest of my comments are referring to the remaining image, from her yearbook. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

A few things:

• The picture in question is the most recent available. Find a more recent, i.e. post-transition, image with the proper CC licensing for Commons or that meets the conditions of Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Non-free & I will happily insert it into the infobox at the earliest opportunity.
• While an image exists on Commons, it can be used on Wikipedia. CC discussions need to occur there, not here.
• The image depicts the subject after the Carlos had first achieved notability. This is no different from the pre-transition images on Chelsea Manning. To remove it on ideological grounds would violate the Wikipedia policy of neutral point of view & thus would be unacceptable.

Peaceray (talk) 04:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

On my talk page, I mentioned this New York Times article which highlights the problem of Wikipedia articles using mediocre or unsuitable images of a living person because it is difficult to find a copyright free image. We've run into the same problem here, in a big way in fact.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)}

Wikipedia addresses this problem in part by saying that images are optional. We don't resort to whatever picture we can get just because we can get it. As for Ray's "things":

• "The picture in question is the most recent available." That's not how it works. You asked me to cite policy, and I did. If we don't have a suitable picture that we can use (and we don't) then we go without.
• "While an image exists on Commons, it can be used on Wikipedia." You admitted the license couldn't be verified. What's the point of using it for just a short time?
• "To remove it on ideological grounds...." Apparently you're still confused. The circa-1970 image is unsuitable on legal grounds. On the other hand, the yearbook image is unsuitable as a replacement for it on editorial grounds (an encyclopedia should not feature an obscure photograph cribbed from the subject's high school yearbook when their notability is based entirely on their activities as an adult), and on policy grounds (we do not present a trans woman as male, which is what that image would do if it was the only photograph of her). -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@JasonAQuest: Two things:

• Yes, I was confused about your previous argument. Part of it was the discussion of pre-transition vs post-transition images being mentioned so closely to the CC licensing issue, & I found it difficult to tease it apart. I apologize for that.
• Please respect my user name & refer to me by that. If we get to choose the gender with which we identify, then we also get to choose what name with which we identify. In fact, most people who know me call me Peaceray.

Peaceray (talk) 04:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I apologize about the naming. (For what it's worth: I chased down the copyvio image, and it appears to be from 1972,[6] the year of her surgery.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

My two cents as the uploader of the high school photos: we should keep one of the high school photos in the article, and it should not be in the infobox. We frequently publish high school photos of famous people all the time, and there's no good reason to treat this article differently. If it weren't publicly known that Carlos had transitioned, then it would be a different story.—Chowbok ☠ 00:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem I see is it's the only picture of her, and as WP:LEADIMAGE explains: "On some mobile platforms an article's first image may be displayed at the top of the article, even if it appears well into the article in the desktop view." Also, if we use high school photos as the only images for other adult subjects... I don't think we should. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The 1958 high school photo is good and shows that Carlos was destined for greater things. It wouldn't normally be a problem, but the gender transition may lead to complaints about its inclusion. I really don't know what to suggest for the best here, because some people will oppose the inclusion of any pre-transition photo. The real problem is the lack of an up to date image. You might think that Carlos had appeared at some public event where a CC photo was taken as with many celebrities, but it's amazing how few the options are for CC images of her in the past twenty years. In fact, there don't seem to be any at all.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems as much an embarrassing-high-school-nerd photo to me, and the gender identity issue adds to that. (See the WP:MUG BLP policy.) I really wish we had a recent image we could use ("the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works"), but I support the principle that no image is better than an inappropriate one. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

User IanMacM states: "it's amazing how few the options are for CC images of her in the past twenty years. In fact, there don't seem to be any at all." There's your clue, folks. Wendy does not like to post photos of herself, even on her own website. You can choose to respect that, or you can choose to titillate readers with pre-trans pictures gleaned from her 1958 yearbook. It's a moral issue, as I see it.Rcarlberg (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

It isn't "amazing"; it's true of most people who are not regularly in the public eye or on exhibitionist media. [e.g. I challenge you to find a CC-licensed photo of me.] In fact she's published several photos on her web site,[7] so it's not as if she hates having her likeness published. But we aren't free to use those just like we can't copy photos from anyone else's web site. That's why it's common for WP not to have a usable and shareable portrait, and what we do in those cases is: go without. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

We have now established that it is not Wikipedia's fault that there is no post-transition photo, it's just that despite considerable searching around, there is no CC image available. There are some images on Carlos' website, but we can't use them because they are copyrighted.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

If we can establish that a photo was clearly used for promotional purposes, it could be {{Non-free promotional}}. As stated there,

It is believed that the use of some images of promotional material to illustrate:

* the person(s), product, event, or subject in question;

* where the image is unrepeatable, i.e. a free image could not be created to replace it;

* on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation;

qualifies as fair use under Copyright law of the United States. Any other usage of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement.

Note that this only applies to a file uploaded to en.wikipedia. It would decidedly not meet the CC licensing requirements for Commons. Peaceray (talk) 06:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I believe that photos of a living person automatically fail the second point, on the grounds that it's still possible for someone to take a new photo and license it Freely. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I do not think that the intent of {{Non-free promotional}} is meant to be hypothetical, as your comment suggests. A photo will remain unrepeatable as long as Wendy Carlos declines to appear in public or to provide a photo. Peaceray (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Photo revisited

I agree with the people above who argued that the per-transition high school photo of Wendy Carlos should be removed. Including it represents poor editorial judgement. Jason A. Quest and I often disagree on matters like these, but I agree with them here that digging into early photos feels a bit "stalkery". WP:BLP says we must respect people's privacy and dignity. Carlos's site doesn't include high school photos like this one. Retrospective articles like this one don't either. Furthermore, Carlos's per-transition appearance is not well known like in the case of Caitlyn Jenner or Chaz Bono. So let's remove it. As MOS:IMAGES says, not every article needs images. WanderingWanda (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

WanderingWanda, A recent conversation on Discord has led to me to the same conclusion, thus I will remove it. If folks feel that improper, feel free to revert my bold move. WW is right: not every article needs images, and a poor quality high school photo pre-transition is essentially worse than no image. Until we can license a better image, I would opt to have no image. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 10:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert this, because it smacks a bit of desperation to have a high school photo as the only one in the article. As discussed previously, it is just about impossible to find a copyright free photo showing Carlos in recent years.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree as well. Having information about her dead name, a name that she was famous as and does not try to hide, is one thing. Having a low-quality highschool photo that no one would recognize her as is entirely different. The highschool photo adds nothing to the article. Gbear605 (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't normally say "desparation" alone is enough reason not to (though it would raise licensing concerns). But having the only photo be one that is in no way accurate actually hinders the article, so support to the removal. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Wendy Carlos Biography

Now that Amanda Sewell's biography of Wendy is out (https://global.oup.com/academic/product/wendy-carlos-9780190053468?cc=us&lang=en&) I wonder how this will affect our discussions of Wendy and her desire for privacy? The book has elicited the first new addition to wendycarlos.com in ELEVEN YEARS:

"Bogus "Bio" Alert: Please be aware there’s a purported “Biography” on me just released. It belongs on the fiction shelf. No one ever interviewed me, nor anyone I know. There's zero fact-checking. Don’t recognize myself anywhere in there—weird. Sloppy, dull and dubious, it's hardly an objective academic study as it pretends to be. This slim volume is based on several false premises. All of it is speculation taken out of context. The key sources are other people’s write-ups of interviews done for magazine articles. There’s simply no way to know what’s true or not—nothing is first-hand. The book is presumptuous. Pathetically, it accepts as “factual” a grab-bag of online urban legends, including anonymous axes to grind. The author imputes things she doesn’t understand, misses the real reasons for what was done or not done. She’s in way over her head, outside any areas of expertise, and even defames my dear deceased parents—shame!

Well, now you know, and have the victim's honest reactions. Wish there were more one could do about needless personal attacks, but we have to understand how essential freedom of speech is, even when it permits such abuse. Have dealt with stereotyping most of my life, a pretty tough hide by now. But aren’t there new, more interesting targets? Unless you consider “academic” books a form of contact sport, you really might want to reconsider your time and money. —Wendy Carlos, August 2020."

Wendy is obviously still jealously guarding her privacy. Having just read the book, it's based entirely on publicly-available information and so paints a pretty good portrait of Wendy's public face, but gets no closer to understanding her as a person. There are numerous small factual errors, but my feeling is, if Wendy recused herself from the fact-checking that's on her. Rcarlberg (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The disclaimer text is on the main page of http://www.wendycarlos.com/ and Carlos does not say if she was approached by Amanda Sewell and declined to become involved. If this is the case, then it would be difficult to criticize the book after its publication. The book would qualify as a reliable source if it is compiled from previously available material.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The last chapter of the book recounts numerous instances of online cyberbullying, where Wendy's music is sidelined in favor of the more titillating medical history. Wikipedia isn't mentioned in the chapter, but the disrespect shown here is just as bad as the sources that were mentioned. Do we reform ourselves? Or just consider ourselves lucky? Rcarlberg (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the article we have at present is a pretty good one, which satisfies NPOV/RS/BLP/ETC, and also treats its subject with respect. If there are issues that arise due to the existence of the book you mention, we can address them as they come up. –Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

"Consider ourselves lucky" then, got it. Rcarlberg (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I see the issue of Amanda Sewell's biography has reared its head again. The mention of it on the current Wendy Carlos page contains at least two errors. One, Carlos has only declined public interviews and stopped updating her website (with VOLUMINOUS personal details!) since 2009. Prior to 2009 she was hardly a recluse. In an earlier decade of her life, between 1968, when she transitioned to living full-time as a woman, and 1979, when she announced her transition to the world, yes she was reluctant to appear because her appearance was at odds with her marketing persona. But for the thirty years(!) between 1979 and 2009 she did numerous interviews, both video and print. Two, she does not perform in public because electronic music of her type is not a performance genre. It's assembled on tape. Once these errors are corrected, the wisdom of mentioning a highly-speculative "biography" that has been denounced by the subject as "fictional" is another discussion we can have. Rcarlberg (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The statement that she doesn't do a lot of public appearance or interviews is sourced from an article in Harpers (a reliable source by any reasonable standard), not the book. Famous people get books written about them; pretending they don't exist would be infantile as well as dishonest. Carlos has read this one and commented publicly about it, and we report that opinion. There really isn't anything more to discuss here. Get over it, please. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I don't see what the issue is here other than Rcarlberg disagreeing with what we write. But we write to reflect reliable sources (which Harper's is) and not personal opinions of editors. --Laser brain (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@JasonAQuest: There you go again, calling other editors "dishonest" and "infantile." Listen, I know you'll never understand the issue, you've made that abundantly clear -- but I don't understand why you think YOU and YOU ALONE get to decide what's notable and what isn't. Don't tell me to "Get over it" -- you don't get to decide. Harper's may be a usually reliable source, but what is linked is just another review of Sewell's discredited biography! All your "reliable sources" lead back to the same "fictional" book -- and those are Wendy's words. I'd take her word over somebody's who never even met her. Rcarlberg (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rcarlberg: The entertainment industry is full of biographies that are written without the subject's consent and of course their reliability is always in question. We just have to exercise care in how we refer to them and ensure we're writing about them properly in Wikipedia's voice. "The biography claims..." and so on. I'm unclear what your exact issue is. Do you dispute that Carlos has generally avoided appearances and interviews? That seems to be true according to the preponderance of sources. You'll have to excuse me as I'm relatively new to this discussion and I don't know who you are—but you strike me as someone who is not approaching this subject neutrally and dispassionately as should be our goal here. --Laser brain (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Laser brain, I think one of issues that that Rcarlberg is raising is whether the biography itself is a reliable source. There are certainly indications that it is not a reliable source, based on the subject of the biography disputing it. I agree that, should the article be used as a source for this subject then we would want to be especially clear that the information used is only a claim and a disputed one at that. Given the role of Wendy Carlos in popular music culture and gender politics I think we should err on the side of caution re: inclusion of facts or statements. This may mean being more discerning with sources that involve this particular biography. Rcarlberg's concern regarding circular sourcing (not-very-reliable biography gets mentioned in a reliable source and thus statements from the biography get attributed to a reliable source) are valid in all of Wikipedia but especially in situations like this and re: BLP. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Totally agree, and thank you—I was looking for a clear description of what the actual issue is without the histrionics. If Harper's is repeating claims made in an unsourced/dubious biography we should not be repeating them here except perhaps to say that the biography made specific claims. --Laser brain (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks LaserBrain and TheMusicExperimental, you are 100% correct. Sewell's biography has been discredited by Carlos herself, and to continue to refer to it as a "reliable source" through third-party reviews of it is circular citations. Now, the mention of the biography in the body of the Wendy article is nicely balanced, and sheds proper doubt on it. WHYYY it is then cited as "reliable" elsewhere -- merely to bolster some editor's prejudices -- is beyond me. Rcarlberg (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Glad I could help clarify. It's understandable that people get a little worked up given the importance of the subject of this article in multiple aspects of contemporary culture. As long as a few of us can keep a lid on, assume good faith, and find the often useful points within the occasionally impassioned discussion we'll continue to align this article with what is truly notable about Wendy Carlos without getting too mired in the gossip/opinion that follows her. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Where is Sewell's book cited by this article as a source? -17:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The concern is that Harper's is repeating claims made in the book and thus they get established as claims being made by a reliable source. It's a common problem. I'd like to exercise care in referring to the biography as "discredited" as the term "disputed" is more accurate. I've seen this over and over in the entertainment industry. It's one thing for the subject of a biography to refute the claims made in it. We should leave it to the overall community of music journalists to determine if the book should be considered "discredited" which to me means it should just be thrown in the trash. --Laser brain (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Sewell's book is not cited directly. Several REVIEWS of the book are cited as "reliable sources" even though the book they're reviewing is not. If you're read Sewell's book, it is full of speculation about Wendy being suicidal and on the verge of a breakdown -- speculation that I have never seen verified anywhere else. This is not "disputed" speculation, it's outright "discredited" by Wendy herself. Most of the book sticks to public sources, and it well-researched and sourced. Wendy's over-sensitive, I get that, and not the WHOLE biography is discredited. Just the speculative parts. Listen, I'm not against mentioning Wendy's transition. It *is* notable, and it *is* factual. I'm just concerned that one editor is making more of it that it deserves, for the reasons I noted in the first section of this TALK page and in the third section. I proposed an alternative wording which mentions her transition without making any claims about it being "one of the first." I only ask that other editors consider overruling Jason's single-minded campaign to elevate her medical history. Rcarlberg (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Rcarlberg is apparently trying to argue that, because Carlos disputes some of the things in the book, anything that is said in the book should be presumed false, and therefore if Harper's says something that is also stated in the book, then Harper's is wrong and should not be cited, despite the publication being a reliable source that practices journalistic fact-checking. That's utterly unsound. And his histrionic rants about my "single-minded campaign" are like the pot calling the kettle black, given his obsessive one-fan battle to downplay the "humiliation" (his word for it) of her gender transition, and his sanctimonious accusations of "bullying cruelty". -17:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello unsigned Wikipedia editor, I would like to note that circular citation thing is a real problem throughout the entire Wikipedia project and there's nothing unusual about applying greater discernment to sources as a result. No fewer than three editors have now weighed in here on this. I think it's critically important to remember that the Harper's citation in question is in fact about a book and not about the subject of this article at all. Additionally, it's better for all of us here trying to work on this article to avoid finger-pointing and name-calling. If there's a problem please file an ANI, which is where those kinds of disputes get handled. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

We don't fundamentally disagree, Jason and I. He's right, her transition is notable. I would simply state it as thus: ""In 1979 Carlos raised public awareness of transgender issues by disclosing she had been living as a woman since at least 1968, and in 1972 had undergone sex reassignment surgery." That's all that needs to be said in the lede; the rest is in the Gender Dysphoria section. Rcarlberg (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Moving/continuing my commentary re: above sensible proposal to the section on gender reassignmentTheMusicExperimental (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Birth name, gender dysphoria & attribution

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I note, with considerable disappointment, that Wendy's Wiki page has been revised -- yet again -- to place her sex change front-and-center. Several years ago I had been involved in the effort to, not exactly HIDE this information, but at least make it part of the body of the article (under "Personal Life" which I added) rather than being the first thing someone encounters. While I am sympathetic to the opinions of people like KeithBarrett that the sex change is exciting and noteworthy, the flip side of this coin is that Wendy is still very much alive, and very much private about her personal life, and very much offended when writers focus on her gender dysphoria (which she could not help) rather than her music (of which she is very proud). It is not "whitewashing" the issue to give it lower priority, much as it would be inappropriate to label authors as "gay authors" if in fact they're homosexual. It's nobody's business, in short. I seriously doubt, as one comment suggests, that anyone searching for "Walter Carlos" would be confused landing on a page headed "Wendy Carlos." After all, every single one of her releases put out (against her will, BTW) under Walter's name has been re-released under Wendy in accordance with her wishes. When I re-wrote the introductory paragraph at the time, I very carefully crafted the sentences to avoid having to use the pronouns "he" or "she" and just presented the facts, neutrally and without bias. Maybe after Wendy has passed away it will be more appropriate to savage her reputation by relegating her music to second-mention, but I fail to see this today. Rcarlberg (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll note that MOS:BIRTHNAME says that the older name should be included when a person was notable prior to their (public) transition. This is the case with this article, however it's been such a long time since her transition (almost 40 years now) that perhaps it would be suitable to remove her older name from the first paragraph of the lede. I would support such a change. --ChiveFungi (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

The new text also says, erroneously, that Carlos was one of the first public figures to undergo sex reassignment surgery. The writer apparently was not alive in 1975 during the Renée Richards controversy, when she wanted to play the Women's Tennis tournament.Rcarlberg (talk) 02:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Wait a sec, Carlos had surgery in May 1972. This was in fact BEFORE Richards in 1975. I stand corrected. Still, it's one more mention that may or may not be warranted.

"One of the first" does not mean "the first". It's phrased that way intentionally, due to the fact that there were a few others around that time, some of whom were more or less well-known to the public, Carlos being secretive about it for several years, etc. But including it in the lede is absolutely warranted, because coming out as trans when most people knew nothing about such things is an important part of her historical legacy.

Just because her recordings have since been rereleased under her chosen name doesn't mean that no one remembers her by her given name. There are plenty of people my age or older (still alive, thanks) who heard "Switched on Bach by Walter Carlos" back in the day, but didn't read Playboy and missed the news of her transition. Some of those million original LPs also still exist, and some millennial hipster coming home from the thrift store with one and wanting to learn more about the artist, would have no idea of her name change, precisely because her transition was years before they were born.

Wikpedia's duty is to the reader. That's why we avoid pronoun-free phrasing that reads awkwardly and leaves them confused about the subject's gender: in this case we use "she", and we use it consistently. It's why we tell them the most notable facts about the person in the lede, rather than hiding some of them only in the body of the article. The article as it's written meets that obligation to the reader. It gives her birth name in the opening sentence for the same reason we give Marion Morrison's, Paul Hewson's, or Reginald Dwight's: as a matter of biographical fact. The vast bulk of the article and the lede are about her most noteworthy contribution to society: her music. And then, both lede and body also talk briefly about her gender transition, because the role she played in raising awareness of transgender identity is historically very important. The fact that she's unhappy about how her public disclosure went is worth reporting, but it is not guidance for how we should write about it... that would be the opposite of NPOV. Personally, I'd prefer to make it a little more prominent, because "the reader" could likely be someone who sees trans identity as something embarrassing (possibly about themself), and seeing it handled matter-of-factly in reference to an acclaimed musician could helpful in counteracting that. The current article is a compromise already, and I don't want to see the coverage of Carlos' gender transition compromised further. –Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jason, for the reasonable discussion. I see your points, about respect for the trans community and the need for balanced coverage. And I appreciate that viewpoint. But as a fan of Ms. Carlos since SoB (which, contrary to your assertion, does NOT say "by Walter Carlos" on the cover!) I am also aware of the acute pain she feels about any discussions of her dysphoria. I cannot IMAGINE how traumatic it must be to grow up in a body that does not match your internal self-image. John Wayne, Elton John and Bono CHOSE new stage names when they went into public life. Carlos had her identity already assigned to her -- and it wasn't the one she felt herself to be (the article mentions her crying before her rare public appearances). I wish people could be a little humane and compassionate. I don't feel strongly enough about this (& I have no pony in this race) so I will defer to the assembled wisdom... but I remain disappointed in the tone.Rcarlberg (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

BTW your millennial hipster coming home from the thrift store with a copy of SoB would find the following, perfectly acceptable, opening phrase on that album's page: "Switched-On Bach is the first studio album by the American musician and composer Wendy Carlos, released under her birth name Walter Carlos in October 1968 by Columbia Records." No confusion at all for your hypothetical clueless hipster. On the other hand, Wendy Carlos is very real and very much still alive, & she will eventually run across the article about her. A little sensitivity to her feelings would be simple common courtesy. Rcarlberg (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm talking about the "vintage" best-selling pressings of the LP, which credit "Walter Carlos". (I didn't say it was on the cover.) Your argument about those other people I mentioned choosing their stage names misses the point: Elton John didn't choose to be "Reginald" any more than Wendy Carlos chose "Walter". But there it was on his birth certificate, so we report it. (I bet he'd prefer we didn't mention Leather Jackets, but it exists so we do.) I have no desire to cause the woman any grief, but if "don't upset the subject" was a WP editorial policy, the whole principle of NPOV would be undermined. We report verified facts: accurately, fairly, and soberly. –Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I've made my points, no sense belaboring it. Rcarlberg (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

As I said in one of the sections above, "Carlos has said that she wanted the early albums to be released under the name of Wendy Carlos, but CBS insisted on Walter Carlos. All of the albums up to and including By Request (1975) [8] were originally released under the name of Walter Carlos." This means that Carlos originally became famous under the name Walter Carlos, much to her disappointment. Many of the famous albums were released under this name, so it isn't quite as simple as it looks.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Given it's in the infobox, discussed in the appropriate point, and her transgender status is made clear in the lede, I'm not sure if getting on fourty years later - and rather longer since she transitioned - is enough to justify a big, bold quote of her birth name in the first five words of the article. That she is transgender is worth mentioning in the lede, but putting her birth name - in bold, no less - as the fourth and fifth words of the article feels like we're literally defining her by her transgender status. This isn't a Dee Palmer situation where credit for most of her work is under a different name, and that won't change anytime soon. She transitioned forty-five years ago and everything she did that was released on any sort of modern and most obsolete formats uses Wendy. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Re this edit: I'm not entirely happy with the current wording in the WP:LEAD. It risks confusing the reader to fulfill a desire not to upset Carlos, which is not in accordance with WP:NOTCENSORED. Even Chelsea Manning (where there have been huge arguments over this) gives his birth name as Bradley Manning in the opening sentence. I'm tempted to revert this, but don't want to set off the inevitable allegations of transphobia, so I will wait for input from other users.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the latest edit before I read this, but I agree that, per MOS:BIRTHNAME, Carlos's birth name should be included in the lead sentence because she was notable before coming out. Per WP:BRD, now that Adam Cuerden has made the bold edit and it's been reverted, the edit shouldn't be made again without consensus here on the talk page. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that, according to BIRTHNAME, her birth name should go in the first sentence of the lead in bold. However, while BIRTHNAME is a guideline, it should be noted that it is a style guideline. The main thrust of BLP is the possibility of harm to living subjects. The possibility of doing harm to an actual human should be far and above more important than any sort of style guideline. I don't know where rcarlberg got the information regarding the acute pain [Carlos] feels about any discussions of her dysphoria, but, to me, that is a very compelling argument to remove her dead name from such a prominent position in the lead. As Adam Cuerden mentioned, it's already in the infobox and the body of the article, and the lead mentions that she's transgender, so I honestly can't imagine that it'll cause much, if any, confusion to not have her birth name displayed so prominently. However, as a compromise, I think we could take an approach similar to the liner notes of Switched on Bach and mention it as part of the text of the lead later on. -- irn (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Might I suggest Alexander James Adams as a possible model? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

AJA seems to be of a different breed here, as they continue to acknowledge the prior identity, and don't outright reject it as seems to be the case for Carlos. However, I think it is a reasonable compromise in that it keeps the information in the lede and understandable to the reader, while not making it the first bit of information learned. Contrary to Irn's argument (although it seems they agree with the compromise), the main thrust of BLP is not to not case harm to the subject, it is to not cause harm to wikipedia via legal liability. There is no legal liability issue here. These are very well documented facts, and we do not allow the subject of any other sensitive issue to dictate their preferences in how their articles should be written. This topic (Transgenderism) and further even this particular individual should be no exception. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is going to give "don't go against the preferences of the subject" priority over our duty to make things clear to the reader, we might as well chuck the whole principle of NPOV out the window. People come to this article looking for "Walter Carlos", so that name needs to be at the top of it, yes: in bold, just like her other well-known name. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Jason, you CONTINUE to claim "clarity" as your reasoning when it's been pointed out numerous times that her 45-year-past gender dysphoria is already referenced several times in her article. That fish don't fly, my friend. Carlos' website (such as here: http://www.wendycarlos.com/ouch.html) makes reference to the "acute pain" she feels when she is defined by others for her sex-change rather than for her composing. To her it's not her defining feature -- and anyone who continues to harp on it is simply being hurtful and inconsiderate. Look inside yourself Jason.Rcarlberg (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Rcarlberg: Thanks for posting that link! Unfortunately, it leaves a lot of room for interpretation, which I'm not totally comfortable with. I just spent some time with google to see what makes up the Hall of Shame, and I've found this transcript from This American Life (both Sarah Vowell and Ira Glass), this discussion of Trevor Pinch & Frank Trocco's book, 120 Years of Electronic Music, some pages from Colin Larkin's book, and what I think is the Grand Royal Magazine article that she objected to. (After finding those, I stopped looking for more.) From this, it does seem to me that any sort of discussion of her gender dysphoria would put someone on her "cruel list". However, I’m not convinced that having her deadname in bold in the first sentence versus in the infobox and maybe elsewhere in the lead and again further down in the article would make much of a difference to her or cause her acute pain. But I’m not sure, and I’m just interpreting based on what I think she's referring to in her hall of shame, and I think that the possibility of causing harm is still there, so I'm not totally sure how best to proceed. -- irn (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Irn:You are 100% correct, Carlos is HYPER-SENSITIVE about her deadname and "ouch lists" anyone who even mentions it! This is perhaps too extreme a position for Wikipedia. Although I find it unbelievable (to the point of questioning the veracity of user 188.143.0.104 below...) that anyone buying an old Carlos LP would do so without first having some idea who she is, I DO concede that Carlos became famous AFTER her transition but BEFORE she changed her name, due to marketing concerns and the greater resistance to transgender issues forty years ago. We can appreciate that Wendy is hyper-sensitive without necessarily agreeing with her blanket denunciations. Rcarlberg (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Also when was it added that she "oversaw the development of the Moog synthesizer"? That overstates the case quite a bit. She provided a performer's perspective to Bob Moog and suggested keyboard touch sensitivity (among other tweaks) but that hardly rises to OVERSEEING development.Rcarlberg (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Oy. So many edits have been made to her article without consideration for the reader... We now have such bizarre constructions as "She once went on a date with a girl..." Carlos was not a SHE when he went on that date. I spent a lot of time cleaning up such careless gender-confusions, now all of them have been blown to hell. Somebody should work to correct the language, if only to prevent such stupid constructions. IMO!!

Go back and re-read the comments from 2005 and 2007 at the top of the talk page. A lot more wisdom was displayed ten years ago.Rcarlberg (talk) 01:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Rcarlberg wrote: We now have such bizarre constructions as "She once went on a date with a girl..." Carlos was not a SHE when he went on that date. I don't see this as being bizarre. Wendy is now a "she", so if you're talking about her from the perspective of the present looking back at the past, "she" is the correct pronoun. What I'm less clear about is what pronoun to use when writing from the perspective of the past. Should it be "She went to school at xxx high school" or "He went to school at xxx high school." My choice would be to use "she" consistently throughout the article. Is there a Wikipedia policy about this? Strawberry4Ever (talk) 03:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I've just noticed this comment near the top of the article: <!--Per Wikipedia:Manual of style, use she/her to refer to Wendy Carlos throughout her life.-->. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 04:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Well if you want to minimize reader bafflement -- we do, right? -- you word the sentence to avoid pronouns. "Carlos went on a date with a girl..."Rcarlberg (talk) 06:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

You could do that, but it can sound awkward to avoid using pronouns, e.g. Carlos became aware of Carlos' gender dysphoria at an early age, recalling: "I was about five or six... I remember being convinced I was a little girl, much preferring long hair and girls' clothes, and not knowing why my parents didn't see it clearly". While in college, Carlos went on a date with a girl and felt "so jealous of her I was beside myself". When Carlos moved to New York City in the 1960s, Carlos learned about transgender issues for the first time and received counselling from sexologist Harry Benjamin. In early 1968, Carlos began hormone replacement treatments, which altered Carlos' appearance. I think it's better to use a consistent pronoun throughout. Readers who are aware that Carlos changed her gender will understand what is being said: that she was biologically male at the time she dated a girl in college. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I keep citing clarity because it's important. If someone types "Walter Carlos" into the search box, Wikipedia will immediately redirect them to an article about "Wendy Carlos" instead. Redirects are inherently confusing, and to someone who doesn't understand trans identities, it's especially so. ("Did I type/remember the name wrong?" "Is this his sister/mother/wife/daughter?") That's why Wikipedia calls for both familiar names to appear in bold in the first sentence. R, if you don't like the rule, you can try to get it changed, but it's been debated pretty extensively, and frankly I don't think your sanctimonious instructions to "look inside yourself" would add anything new to the discussion. It's the nature of an encyclopedia to report things that the subject might not like being reported, in ways they don't like. I don't take pleasure in it. But I am committed to that mission of this encyclopedia.

The phrase "she once went on a date with a girl" may be confusing if you suppose that Wendy Carlos was once a boy. But it's widely held by most psychologists and trans people themselves, that someone who identifies as female was always female, regardless of what her name was, what she might have looked like, or what gender people told her she was. Wikipedia policy reflects this consensus, because 1) we owe it to our readers to help them understand it, and 2) many already do and would be confused if we changed pronouns mid-article. In this case, we are talking about a girl (then named Walter) who tried to conform as male by dating a girl. Of course it's often possible to phrase things to avoid gender-specific pronouns, and that's helpful... in moderation. But we shouldn't avoid them so completely that we imply that we aren't sure if she's "really" female, and phrase things so awkwardly that it becomes painful to read. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Avoiding pronouns only sounds awkward if you word it artlessly, as in your example. A good writer can make it work. Okay, as I said before, I'm not interested in arguing. I'm disappointed in the tone, I think the article does a disservice to Carlos (AND her listeners), but it's not my responsibility to right all the wrongs in the world. Carry on Rcarlberg (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I have never heard of Carlos before and I wanted to find out more about him/her but the article is very confusing because of the transgender issue not being made more clear and I feel it greatly hampers the clear flow of information. I am very disappointed that this compromise is made to not hurt the feelings of the subjects of articles, as the target of these articles is clearly not them but everyone else. 188.143.0.104 (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

What do you feel is unclear? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I want to make it clear for anyone reading this that news organisations Do Not Care about whether printing someone's birth name is relevant to their career in whatever field they choose. They only print it because they want to stir up public opinion of trans people and dehumanise them. Taking after news organisations in your style of editing is never a good idea, as they will always have biases, and wikipedia is one of the most unbiased sources of information in the world. No matter what any other source prints, discussion as to someone's deadname should first and foremost take the person's opinion into account, and only then should discussion as to whether it is relevant to their career happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesGordon69 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

We would be a very poor encyclopedia were we only to print what the subjects of articles wanted us to print.—Chowbok ☠ 14:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

This isn't really an issue, the full text of Wendy Carlos's 1979 Playboy interview is here. Carlos actually wanted publicity to raise awareness of gender dysphoria. The people who say "OMG we must censor all mention of this" are invariably people who have not met Carlos or read the 1979 interview.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

At this point, it seems to be that there is some agreement that her dead name does not need to be in the first sentence of the article. The current page of Alexander James Adams, who acknowledges his dead name to a much greater extent than Carlos does, doesn't mention it until the second paragraph. I'd suggest similarly putting Carlos' dead name in the second paragraph of the article. Gbear605 (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning's dead name is in the opening sentence of the article. Wikipedia guidelines do not forbid this if the person was previously well known by a particular name. My guess is that one of the reasons why Wendy Carlos gave the 1979 Playboy interview was to prevent the obvious question "Where is Walter Carlos nowadays?"--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea where Gbear605 imagines to find any such "agreement". The name under which she became world famous (and by which she is still known to people of a certain age) belongs in the first sentence of the article. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The MOS:DEADNAME guideline is clear: "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name." Peaceray (talk)

I just noticed that the articles on Renée Richards and Christine Jorgenson both refer to the subjects by their post-transition names until well into the articles. Why can't Wendy be afforded the same courtesy?Rcarlberg (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

This has been previously discussed and has to be looked at on a case by case basis in line with MOS:DEADNAME. The article should not hide the fact that Carlos was at one stage world famous under the name of Walter Carlos. "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name. One can introduce the name with either "born" or "formerly".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Jorgenson is known to the general public only by her chosen name, and Richards did not become widely known until after she changed her name (a borderline case, resolved in favor of omission). But for a while in the 1970s you couldn't listen to a contemporary-music radio station for very long without hearing Carlos' birth name. This difference is not difficult to understand unless one chooses not to. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

She doesn't deserve to have her dead name advertised at the top of her wiki page. It's asinine to include this one useless piece of info in the first sentence. Leave the transition info in the Personal Life section, but it seems disrespectful and unnecessary to announce her dead name. We shouldn't feel like we have to sacrifice respect to a prominent musician so that people who haven't paid attention in 40-50 years can find the wiki with slightly less effort. Jonrade (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jonrade: the guideline on MOS:DEADNAME states "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name." This is clearly the case with Wendy Carlos, & anyone who is looking up the musician behind the original vinyl albums of Switched-On Bach, The Well-Tempered Synthesizer, or Walter Carlos' Clockwork Orange should immediately know that they have arrived at the right article. I know that this is a sensitive issue with gender identity. We treat this as we do any other individual whose fame came before a name change, even when it against their wishes. I am in accord with the statement in the right to be forgotten article that removing this information "would decrease the quality of the Internet through censorship and a rewriting of history." "Wikipedia is not censored. Peaceray (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jonrade: Certain mods on this website have decided that obscure Wikipedia rules take precedence over the feelings of a living composer. No amount of appealing to basic humanity has swayed them. I've given up -- as has Wendy, who's gone underground from such relentless pummeling. At least we can be fairly certain that Wendy no longer exposes herself to this bullying cruelty.Rcarlberg (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I very carefully researched Wendy's supposed status as "one of the first public figures to disclose having undergone sex reassignment surgery." I found this statement was unsupported by the facts. 1) if you go to the Wikipedia article on "sex reassignment surgery" Wendy isn't even one of the patients mentioned, first or otherwise. Therefore, calling her special in her own article seems hypocritical. 2) if you read the Wikipedia article on Harry Benjamin, who counseled Wendy, it lists patients undergoing gender dysphoria treatment in 1951, 1952, 1954, 1958, 1961 and 1963. Therefore Wendy's surgery in 1972 probably WASN'T "one of the first public figures" afterall. 3) By highlighting Wendy's surgery, perhaps counterfactually, one elevates its importance when it is not, and should not be, the lead story on this composer. Therefore I removed that statement. User PEACERAY reinstated it, without giving a reason. When I questioned him, he suggested we bring the discussion here. So, is everyone okay with removing it? Rcarlberg (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Rcarlberg, I opened up a topic on this 1½ days ago. Please see #Wording around the disclosure of sex reassignment surgery in the lead. Peaceray (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Rcarlberg, JasonAQuest has a number of sources disagreeing with you in the "Wording around the disclosure of sex reassignment surgery in the lead" section below. In addition, your arguments don't seem to make sense to me, since you only are proving that some people did it before Carlos (trivially true) but not that Carlos was the one of the first public figures to disclose it, which is not trivially true. Given the small number of people who were transgender, had undergone surgery, and were public figures in the 1970s, it seems entirely plausible that Carlos was one of the first to disclose it publicly. Gbear605 (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Gbear605: As Peaceray alerted me above, this discussion continues below. He mentions there that Carlos's "coming out" in Playboy was a VERY BIG DEAL. It was. I still have my copy of the magazine! But she missed being "the first" by at least 27 years, because Christine Jorgenson came out in 1952. I'm too young to remember that, but writing "Carlos was the first public figure to disclose in my lifetime" seems like the wrong way to go. [smiley] Rcarlberg (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Rcarlberg, the specific quote is "one of the first" not "the first," and the difference is that Carlos was a public figure before disclosing that she had gender affirming surgery while Jorgenson became notable because of having surgery. That's the distinction that this sentence is trying to make. It's an important distinction because people who are already public figures who then disclose something personal are much more able to change other people's minds. Probably a lot more people felt positively about trans women thanks to Carlos coming out than thanks to Jorgenson. Is it fair to Carlos that her gender is in the public eye because of this? No, it's definitely not. But she did fill that role. Gbear605 (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The difference between "the first" and "one of the first" has been explained to him before. I'm not sure why he keeps pretending to be confused. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see how a gap of 27 years makes Carlos still "one of the first"? As to being a "public figure prior to transition," yes, ostensibly, the NAME "Walter Carlos" was. Wendy herself -- who was already undergoing hormone treatments and living as a woman prior to SOB coming out -- never appeared in public as Walter (except for a couple miserable times) and didn't put photos on her albums (hence the whole "pre-transition photo" discussion below). If Walter Carlos was such a "public figure," where are the pictures of him? Where are the interviews? Wendy tried her best to AVOID being a public figure as "Walter" because Walter Carlos no longer existed by the time her album came out. Listen, it all comes down to respect for Wendy. I would be in favor of acknowledging her sensitivity on this issue, if it were up to me, that's all I'm saying. And Jason? Please stow the snark. We are all adults here, discussing a very sensitive matter about a living person. Rcarlberg (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the issue here could be a difference of definition of "public figure"? Wiktionary defines it as "A famous person whose life is the subject of public interest." So the question is whether Carlos was both famous and was the subject of public interest before coming out. To be honest, I don't know the answer, since I wasn't alive when Carlos came out. Gbear605 (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

She had a top-10 album (not the "classical" chart: overall) that sold over a million copies. I was a kid who listened to the Jackson 5 and the John Denver, and even I knew who she was. Playboy's articles aimed for mainstream reading; if she had not been "of public interest" they would not have published her piece. She was famous enough that WP's "notable under prior name" policy applies to her.

Regardless, the statement is supported by numerous reliable sources, and the notion that it's somehow defamatory is absurd. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC on references to Trans creatives

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC: updating MOS:DEADNAME for how to credit individuals on previously released works
Newimpartial (talk) 02:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Lede image

Would it be possible to get a suitable lede image of Wendy? Maybe through fair use? ~ HAL333 03:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The infobox of a BLP generally should not have a fair use image. There are very few photos of Carlos in the last twenty years; many of them are on Carlos' website with watermarks making clear that they are copyrighted. As for a free to use image of Carlos from the last twenty years, we've given up looking.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh well. I appreciate the response. ~ HAL333 19:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

And yet, somehow the disputed high school picture has re-appeared? Rcarlberg (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Deadname

Why it appears here? --130.232.224.69 (talk) 13:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

See MOS:DEADNAME.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

See also the EXTENSIVE discussion of this issue in the archives. I agree with you.... but others do not. A new article just appeared today in PinkNews (https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/02/09/wendy-carlos-transgender-trans-electronic-music-robert-moog-synthesizer-bbc/) referencing Wendy's deadname -- no new information at all, just an excuse to reopen old wounds -- so this issue refuses to die.Rcarlberg (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

It's unrealistic to suggest that all of this can be tipped down a memory hole. It would lead to serious gaps in the article and leave the reader puzzled about Carlos pre-1979.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

It might be more palatable if the name she was born with was part of the Early Life section and perhaps in the Career section for those albums that were released under that name. The current situation is that either the names get presented as fully equivalent in bold text on the very first line, or not at all. No need to expunge the name completely, but some compromise between in your face and not at all would be nice. --JeroenHoek (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

[Heavy sigh] Here we go again. Please read the "War and Peace" novel (maybe two volumes of "Remembrance of Things Past"?) in the archives. Rcarlberg (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no need for the deadname to appear in bold in the first line. No one should have any interest in knowing her deadname besides morbid curiosity or for research pourposes, in any case the place in which now stands is not correct. I am baffled at how this decision is still being debated. I will refrain fron further recrimination, but please either give permission (whoever has the authority in the matter) or change it yourselves. Xuiz (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

You do realize, do you, that people are constantly encountering vinyl albums and scores she produced under the deadname, for the first time? And that she was probably the most well-known composer in her genre, many years before announcing the name change? Including the deadname here represents a real encyclopaedic requirement, IMO, and I am not an enthusiast when it comes to deadname inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed; also, try watching the credits of A Clockwork Orange (spoiler: the film, in general, is violent. Big time). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Idk how this god forsaken layout works so Im probably not threading this correctly and making it an standalone answer, but anyway:

Both of you (and thank you Redrose for the consideration but Ive alredy seen the movie) bring up points that do not debunk mine. Its been decades. People know before of her real name than her deadname, and if someone doesn't, it's as easy as looking for her work in any archfamous piece of art, no posibility of missing it, specially being her last name Carlos, or they alredy know her "new" name. Yall being disrespectful as shit just because. This is not alright. Xuiz (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

You can say that, but on WP we have a policy, MOS:DEADNAME, that has been repeatedly, extensively, and very recently discussed. According to this policy, deadnames under which people were clearly notable (as is the case here) are encyclopaedic and should be included in the lede of biographical articles. If you object to the policy, the place for that is on WT:MOSBIO, not on this article's page. Newimpartial (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

So your assumption is readers know who she is, and can find her previous name by researching it...in an encyclopedia of some sort, perhaps? A credible one, that actually cares about facts? FACT: She was born Walter Carlos, became Wendy Carlos. Both names were used professionally. Erasing one does not change facts, but could very well confuse people who are looking for information on the composer then known as WALTER Carlos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.168.233 (talk) 08:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Would it be possible to remove the birth_name row from the infobox? Her deadname is already listed on the very first line, at the top of the page, in bold. There's no reason for her deadname to be listed at the top of the page twice. Awalley95 (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

That is not in accord with the MOS:DEADNAME guideline. Carlos was clearly notable under the name Walter Carlos before she became Wendy Carlos, & even released an album entitled Walter Carlos's Clockwork Orange.

It would work against WP:SURPRISE for users who type in "Walter Carlos" then arriving at "Wendy Carlos" without an obvious explanation.

To see how this has worked elsewhere, please see Chelsea Manning. Peaceray (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, it doesn't matter if she was notable under her deadname or not. Look at Billy Tipton; when "notability" couldn't be used as an argument, some of the usual suspects legitimately argued that people wanting to know his deadname was, by itself, enough to include it. It's honestly a useless discussion, so long as this group of people keeps trying to nakedly fight against changing the deadname guidelines to be less transphobic. - 64.235.79.240 (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I thought you retired as User:Abryn.

Of course it matters very much whether she was notable under her birth name. That's the essence of the guideline. Binksternet (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Irrelevant, I assume bad faith. :^) - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)