Talk:Wendy Carlos

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1; 2;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wendy Carlos article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2: 12 months

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Women in Red: #1day1woman (2020)

This article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2020. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers / Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance).

Composers

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Composers, a group of editors writing and developing biographical articles about composers of all eras and styles. The project discussion page is the place to talk about technical and editorial issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!ComposersWikipedia:WikiProject ComposersTemplate:WikiProject ComposersComposers

Classical music

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music

Electronic music Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

LGBTQ+ studies: Person

	LGBTQ portal This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
	This article is supported by the LGBTQ+ Person task force.

Women in Music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article should adhere to the gender identity guideline because it contains material about one or more trans women. Precedence should be given to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, anywhere in article space, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. Some people go by singular they pronouns, which are acceptable for use in articles. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Former, pre-transition names may only be included if the person was notable while using the name; outside of the main biographical article, such names should only appear once, in a footnote or parentheses.

If material violating this guideline is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other related issues, please report the issue to the LGBTQ+ WikiProject, or, in the case of living people, to the BLP noticeboard.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

An edit notice or FAQ may help slow the thrashing about naming in the lead and infobox

There seems to be a never-ending supply of editors (usually newish) who change the lead or Infobox in order to campaign for what they think is right regarding Carlos's birth name. A similar thing used to happen pretty often regarding Leslie Feinberg's pronouns, until we applied an WP:Edit notice to the article. That didn't stop it entirely, but it slowed it way down. To see the edit notice, go to Leslie Feinberg and click the Edit link as if you were going to edit the page.

Do we want to add an Edit notice here about changing the naming in the article, along the lines of the one at Leslie Feinberg? If so, I'm happy to create one. If not, we may need to request semi-protection for this article, but I'm hoping we can avoid that. (As a side note, if an edit notice is created, mobile web users *will* see the notice before they can edit, although apparently mobile iOS app users will not see it, per T201596.)

Another approach we could try, is to add a FAQ box to the header section at the top of the page. You can see a FAQ box in action at Talk:Rachel Levine, Talk:Elliot Page, and Talk:Chelsea Manning. All of these have a FAQ question about deadname, which are resolved differently, according to the circumstances of the individual cases. We could do something like that here, as well. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reasonable idea, but I do wonder sometimes if people actually read these things. There is already a HTML note explaining that there is a talk page consensus that Carlos was previously notable under another name, but it doesn't seem to have much of an effect.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can believe they don't read the FAQ as much, but it's a place to point to, if you revert someone. But the Edit notice is a different kind of animal; you can't very well *not* read it, as it comes up very much in your face, when you try to edit the article. There's kind of no way to not see it. Mathglot (talk) 07:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Er, use mobile? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a trans woman all I can say is that even if a trans person was notable under another name previously it SUCKS to have every article / every item on a person feel it needs to prominently include said dead name

Honestly, its frustrating to think that a trans person is forever denied the right to have their dead name actually die.

How many trans people were consulted / included in the decision process? this being the talk page - I don't see said "talk page consensus" or really any actual discussion of the appropriateness of deadnaming her.

Yes she was notable under another name .. over 40 years ago. I really wish we could give trans people - even ones that are notable - some dignity in this regard.

DigitalSorceress (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a trans woman all I can say is that even if a trans person was notable under another name previously it SUCKS to have every article / every item on a person feel it needs to prominently include said dead name

Same. The policy about "notable under their deadname" at least has some logic to it, but not when the subject has been out for over 40 years. When was the last time anything was released under Wendy's deadname? Why does it have to be in the lead? I know about MOS:GENDERID, and there's consensus on the issue. But it seems that consensus was built more around people like Elliot Page and Caitlyn Jenner, when a recent transition might genuinely confuse some readers looking at an article.

I doubt a rational discussion could be had about it right now. But maybe there's a path toward consensus that the deadnaming policy is being applied by the letter of the MOS, not the spirit. Maybe the deadname policy itself could be revised some day.

Or, we must keep the deadname in the lead because without it, someone who obtained the original theatrical release of a clockwork orange might get confused when they google who did the music. /s Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, terrible thought: Everybody dies. When it's Wendy's time, everyone will flock to wikipedia and before the first sentence is over, the reader will view the deadname as equally important as her real name. Really disgusting, and a reminder why I'm a wikidoomer, and deleting all of wikipedia might be the best option lol. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At least, once Wendy passes, she will no longer be personally offended. The deadname advocates have fought for YEARS to include this hurtful information. The ludicrous explanation－that somebody might buy an original LP pressing of "Clockwork Orange" and be confused by it－is a transparent excuse for gender identity intransigence. Rcarlberg (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree that the principle of least astonishment has no purpose here. I think that the statement that this is a transparent excuse for gender identity intransigence is a failure to assume good faith. We have a policy, MOS:DEADNAME, that governs the use of notable deadnames. I would ask those who disagree with the consensus policy to please consider the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS portion of the tendentious editing essay. Peaceray (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. The MOS:DEADNAME style guide is clear about such cases in which the birth name is associated with early fame. Let's not stick our collective head in the sand and ignore this aspect. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Her identity does not need a caveat or asterisk. This is not like a casual name change or the way an actor changes their name. See day Carlos is not a character she puts on or an alter ego, it is who she is. Once she felt comfortable to do so she informed the world that they had been mistaken about her identity. She has corrected everyone on the subject. She is Wendy Carlos. Period. It’s a matter of factuality. Her dead name is irrelevant to her legacy and historical contribution. It’s hard to see how any argument to the contrary isn’t either purely in bad faith or stems directly from a frankly harmful level of stubbornness and lack of ability to empathize with the situation. Her name was never truly that. It’s like if via the “telephone game” many people were under the false impression that a girl named Emily was named Sarah and on said girls wiki page you named her as Emily (unless you heard it’s Sarah, some people think it’s Sarah). EXCEPT that no one would ever hatefully call a girl named Emily Sarah, and if a girl named Emily informed Wikipedia editors that her name was not in fact Sarah you’d change it. This is literally the point and purpose of Wikipedia’s editability. So that errors can be corrected and are not recorded forever as such in our human history. It’s ok. I understand it can be hard and even uncomfortable, when you are not personally affected by an error like this, to not see how incredibly harmful it is. But that is why the wise but privileged person listens to members of marginalized communities, to better understand a perspective they can never truly know. Please don’t be the kind of people that fight to invalidate trans identities, I’d have thought better of this community Maravelous77 (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive the grammatical errors. I’m swipe typing this. I think the point still gets across Maravelous77 (talk) 03:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Carlos Streaming

Her work is available on Spotify. Her biography on Wikipedia states that her discography is largely unavailable and not licensed for streaming services. This edit would correct that error and increase awareness of her life and achievements Andy6502 (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look on Spotify [1] and it isn't anything like a comprehensive list of her works. It is still true that many of her works can only be bought as compact discs or vinyl on the used market, and are not available on streaming services. It is unusually difficult to buy Carlos's work new nowadays.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently no published works on clockwork orange on spotify or youtube and lead me to this wikipedia article because of it 66.74.198.140 (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most(not all) of her discography is Streamable on Amazon.com's Music service or cds can be bought there, as per a deal she made with amazon a while back, as well as deals with Barnes and Noble and(now defunct) Boarders. This includes the Clockwork Orange soundtrack. 5cardz (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additions

Could whoever is wielding the eraser on my edits please hold fire? I have literally just acquired the new Carlos biography and will add the appropriate references asap. Thank you. Please show a modicum of patience. Dunks (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should add the ref in the same edit as the content that it supports, that way people know that you're not fabricating it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dunks, I assume the "new Carlos biography" you refer to is by Amanda Sewell, since it's the only one out there. You should know that Carlos herself has proclaimed it untruthful, full of misinterpretations/speculations, and not to be trusted. I found the book to be generally an in-depth compilation of publicly-available information on Wendy, except when Sewell veered into speculation about Wendy's state-of-mind and made unsupported statements about suicidal ideation. A much better portrait of Wendy can be had by spending about a month reading everything she herself has posted on her website. She does not hold back on any subject. Rcarlberg (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dunks, I just noticed that you repeated Sewell's unfounded speculation in the section on "Switched-On Bach." Since this episode is already covered FACTUALLY under the "Gender Transition" paragraph－where it rightfully belongs－your addition should probably be backed out. I'm done editing Wendy's page; it's a thankless task fighting the intransigents; but you can certainly correct your own addition. Rcarlberg (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly are we dead naming her?

Her dead name absolutely needs to removed. If you’re not trans you probably won’t get this, and if you are you probably really really do; regardless it’s pet messed up that you dead name her immediately and frequently. Her identity doesn’t need a caveat or asterisk. What exactly is anyone getting out of that? Maravelous77 (talk) 03:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the MOS:DEADNAME guideline that states In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under that name. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly".

In 1972, Carlos released Walter Carlos' Clockwork Orange. Many know her by her former name. Consider the Principle of least astonishment. Those searching for Carlos under her former name would be very confused to arrive at an article that contained no mention of that former name. Peaceray (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really, really, do get it, and what you say is absolutely true in regards to to hundreds of articles about trans individuals at Wikipedia, but it doesn't apply to this article. And if you are not aware of the fact that Carlos was already famous under her birth name, or if you don't know what Wikipedia's DEADNAME guideline says, then you probably won't get this, and if you are, you probably really really will. What we get out of this is a consistent approach to the style of naming trans individuals based on the guidelines. See, for example Jan Morris, or Chaz Bono, or Caitlyn Jenner. Wendy's situation is just like theirs. Mathglot (talk) 08:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was Carlos's own decision to give the interview to Playboy magazine in 1979 that put all of this into the public domain. She had grown tired of people not knowing that she was transgender, and of the albums being released under the name Walter Carlos even after she had undergone gender reassignment surgery. I get that Carlos doesn't seem to like any of this being mentioned today, but relevant facts that are in the public domain are hard to remove.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But why does the infobox need to deadname her twice?

I get the MOS policy in this situation, but if you look at articles for Elliot Page, and others, there is no reference to deadname in the infobox. The article only says "formerly X Y Z"

Where does the policy say that the infobox also needs to say the birth name? Lillianama (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, MOS:DEADNAME only gives us guidance for including the name in the article's lead. Additionally a recent RfC on GENDERID left us with a clear consensus to use prior names as little as possible. So with that in mind, I've removed Carlos' former name from the infobox. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Lillianama (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: More recent photos

The only photo in the article is from 1958, before her gender transition. It would make more sense to have more recent photos. What about this portrait she uses on her website? With proper attribution, could this go in the infobox? [2]https://www.wendycarlos.com/photos/wendy+pandy.jpg? JCLarsson (talk) 03:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, there seem to be no public domain, CC-by, CC-by-SA, or freely licensed pictures of Wendy Carlos after her transition. The image that you ask about is clearly marked as All Rights Reserved. Peaceray (talk) 03:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the high school yearbook photo has found its way back into the article. This was discussed here and I'm not sure if it is a good idea to have this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It fails to illustrate the subject. Including it at all is dubious but using it as the only image is awful. That's not to cast any aspersions on the intentions of the editor who added it. I can see why somebody might think that a bad picture is better than none at all but, in this case, it isn't. I have removed it. DanielRigal (talk) 13:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

synthpop? jazz?

I don't recall that any of her works could be categorised as "synthpop". Can you provide any examples or should we remove that label? And how about jazz? --80.221.189.8 (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz is at least somewhat attested in the NYT review of Switched-On Bach that's cited. I've removed synthpop pending a mention in the article and a source. Good catch. Remsense诉 15:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]