Talk:Wendy Carlos

It would be easier to read if the period of Carlos' life before the gender/sex change was referred to as "he"

Since Carlos began gender/sex changes around 1968, it would be much easier and factually correct to refer to the earlier period as "he" rather than "she". Perhaps consider using "they" to highlight that the gender of the earlier period is not plain vanilla "she"... Cawag98 (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Switching pronouns would be more confusing and less correct. The Manual of Style says not to do this. Please see WP:GENDERID, particularly the Retroactivity section. We can't use "they" for people who have not chosen "they", or at least disclaimed everything else. DanielRigal (talk) 12:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

In addition to what DanielRigal stated, Wendy herself has stated she always felt female. "Didn't see why her parents didn't see it clearly" and all that. For this reason referring to her as "her" throughout her life seems like the kind and respectful thing to do. Rcarlberg (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Using Amanda Sewell's book as a reference

I note that somewhere in the past year some of the passages from Amanda Sewell's book about Carlos--which Wendy herself has called "fiction"--have been woven into the narrative of her life. Rather than just dive in & remove them, I'd like to ask the assembled community: do we really want to reproduce allegations that Carlos became suicidal on being asked to perform live, when she herself disputes this? Rcarlberg (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the Amanda Sewell book should not be used for controversial claims with BLP issues. Carlos did not want a biography at all, and although most of the Sewell book is uncontroversial, some of it has been specifically denied by Carlos.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

So will you, or one of the other senior editors, take on the task of removing disproven content?

Rcarlberg (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

It shouldn't be removed. We don't remove legitimate sources simply because the subject disputed them. Anything noteworthy should be kept, with a note that Carlos disputes it when appropriate.—Chowbok ☠ 16:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a presumption of privacy for living persons. If a controversial claim about a living person is only being made in a single source, then we likely should be removing the content from Wikipedia articles. Per WP:BLPPUBLIC, there should be "Template:Tq" (emphasis included in policy) or else it should be removed from the article. – notwally (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you KIDDING me??? "We don't remove legitimate sources simply because the subject disputed them"? Wendy herself says Sewell's book is "fiction." Why would you propagate untrue assertions when the subject herself says they're untrue? You need to rethink your biases, Chowbok. (And this is why I no longer have any desire to contribute to Wikipedia...)

Rcarlberg (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

As do you. We do not act as stenographers for the subjects of articles. If she disputes a claim, we can quote that dispute, but we're not going to entirely chuck out a biography by a subject matter expert from one of the world's most reputable publishers. Especially since Carlos " hasn't liked anything anyone's written about her for 45 years" [1] Gamaliel (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Per notwally (above): "Per WP:BLPPUBLIC, there should be "multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident" (emphasis included in policy) or else it should be removed from the article." You won't find any other sources that corroborate Sewell's allegations. Is that clear enough?

Rcarlberg (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Oxford publishing is very reliable, despite the predictable complaint by Carlos. We are not throwing out the Sewell book simply because Carlos said it was fiction. Binksternet (talk) 04:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Dear Binksternet, Gamaliel, Chowbok et al: May I recommend you read, if you have not already, the discussion and resolution of this issue four years ago? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wendy_Carlos/Archive_2

Back then, a particularly-belligerent editor was banned, he created a sock puppet to advocate against the banning, and then was permanently banned when his deceit was uncovered. I don't know if any of you are also sock puppets, but you're making the same argument. Rcarlberg (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

This accusation is out of line. You said above you had no desire to contribute to Wikipedia; I strongly suggest you follow your (lack of) desire.—Chowbok ☠ 20:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not an accusation, Chow, it's a fact. This argument has all been covered－and I thought resolved－four years ago. If current editors are unwilling to follow Wiki's own guidelines (WP:BLPPUBLIC) then the lack of adult supervision here makes Wikipedia useless as a public resource.Rcarlberg (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

But you're right. Ongoing vandalism is not my responsibility. I shall try to forget it exists. Rcarlberg (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Sewell clearly states her sources after every chapter. Since she has scoured practically every source available then it would be practically impossible to write anything about Carlos beyond what is on Carlos's website and in her Playboy interview. Dismissing a whole book as fiction by Carlos seems to me a bit extreme without some qualification. Best compromise is to highlight disputed facts but not to dismiss an entire book. We prefer secondary sources to primary sources and Sewell's book is a secondary source. Egrabczewski (talk) 08:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Most of Sewell's book is non-controversial, as it was based on a deep dive into publicly available sources. Those of us who had read the sources found nothing new or disputable in those parts of the book. Only occasionally did Sewell venture into unfounded speculation, with zero sourcing, and I believe it is these episodes that Carlos objects to. As editors of Wikipedia, we are bound to stick to the facts and not repeat rumors or gossip or some author's speculations without foundation. Therefore the passages should be removed that refer to Carlos crying before interviews, becoming suicidal before public performances, and any references to her parents. These are unsupported by any other sources.Rcarlberg (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I guess nobody else is going to step up so I reduced the description of Wendy's public appearances to just what's verifiable. I also characterized Sewell's book as solely from "publicly available sources" because it is. I left in the comment that her book was well-reviewed because, despite Wendy's dismissal, it generally was. Hopefully this is fair to all parties, and accurate. Rcarlberg (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Ancestry.com and Archives.com Sources

Are sources such as ancestry.com and archives.com reliable enough sources for a biography, if the information is based on official state records? Egrabczewski (talk) 08:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Probably not. These services are known to be full of errors. What did you find? Rcarlberg (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I've lost track now. I think it was something to do with her parents, her mother perhaps. Wendy Carlos does not say much if anything about her. But if these sources are unreliable then it's probably best to forget what I found. Egrabczewski (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

The problem here is WP:BLPPRIMARY. These sources generally should not be used to support any assertion about a living person. See also WP:ANCESTRY.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Besides which, the wiki on Wendy does not need much if any info on her parents. Rcarlberg (talk) 02:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Transwashing

Harry Benjamin was a transsexual advocate. He was not a "transgender advocate" or aware of nonbinary. 72.11.53.153 (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance, but can you explain the difference? Carlos herself does not self-identify as non-binary. She identifies as 100% female. Okay, I googled the difference and it appears "transgender" refers to pre-op and pre-HRT, while "transsexual" is after. So you are correct, Carlos was transsexual since at least 1967. But nobody starts out transsexual; they must feel transgender first, which is how she felt since she was at least a pre-teen.Rcarlberg (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you got those definitions but I'm sure that there are some sources on the internet that use those words in that way. It's definitely not standard though. Generally speaking, "transsexual" is an older term that it is best to avoid except in quotations, proper nouns or when speaking about somebody who explicitly expresses a preference to be described that way. The rest of the time "transgender" is more likely to be correctly understood by readers. I think the OP here is probably just trying to yank our chain and make a point against non-binary people. It's best ignored.

The real problem here is that the current wording Template:Tq might make it sound like Benjamin was trans himself. I'm going to reword that. DanielRigal (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Good job Daniel. The title of Benjamin's book (which I linked to) is enough of an explanation, and the article there is thorough and balanced. Rcarlberg (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Photo

I wanted to thank @ArtemisiaGentileschiFan for the BOLD addition. I personally quite like the photo as a lead image of Wendy—even though she's only 19 there, it feels as representative of her as it can be. Maybe I've over-nervous about things, but I thought it was interesting the photo's been on commons since NYE 2022 and hadn't been added yet, so I just wanted to post this real quick in case there was a reason anyone intentionally didn't add it. Like I said, I like it, but I wanted to check my blind spots. Mazeltov. Remsense ‥ 论 14:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't go along with this. It is too old and to a certain extent smacks of desperation because there are so few images of Carlos, free to use or otherwise. See this previous discussion. There should be a clear consensus to include this image, as previous discussion is against it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I thought I had scoured the history before posting, but I missed that. Apologies. Remsense ‥ 论 14:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Template:Replyto Hi, thanks. I added the photo but I was a little bit unsure of the decision to be honest since it depicts her pre-transition. It still looks like her, but I don't know if it's an issue to depict somebody before their transition or not. Unfortunately I don't know if any free post-transition images of her exist. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Carlos's personal catalog of recordings

Note that the article is in error about this. Carlos's catalog of her personal recordings distributed by ESD (East Side Digital) have been out of print since the mid 2000's (not 2022 as the article states. Here are two sources for his info. (I personally vouch for this myself as well. I've been collecting her music since the late 60's.) Sorry I don't know how to do attributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wigandbean (talk • contribs) 03:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Note that I added attributions. Not sure if I did it properly. Why was my date correction removed? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wigandbean (talk • contribs) 03:31, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

The forum source isn't ideal but is broadly correct, because many of Carlos's works have not been available to purchase as new on CD or other platforms for many years. This is because Carlos owns the copyright and has decided not to make them available. The wording in the article is also correct, while Carlos's website discography gives no releases after 2005, although it does not confirm that they are out of print.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Carlos's works were sold via East Side Digital. The final time that ESD shows up on the Wayback Machine with a listing of Carlos's works that can be purchased is in 2009.[2] Carlos's works are mentioned but not offered for sale in 2011.[3] This suggests that it may be around fifteen years since it was possible to buy Carlos's works new.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)