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)

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)

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)

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)