Should the lead use:

1. In 1979, Carlos was one of the first public figures to disclose her sex reassignment surgery, having undergone it seven years earlier.
2. 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.
3. In 1979, Carlos became one of the first public figures to disclose her gender identity transition having lived as a woman since at least 1968, and undergone sex reassignment surgery in 1972.

Or something else? Glee^anon 18:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

4. Carlos was living as a woman since at least 1968, had sex reassignment surgery in 1972 and revealed those facts publicly in 1979.

This option was introduced in the Survey section below by Ihaveadreamagain in this edit of 20:03, 29 Oct., and is the same option as the one referred to as Option 2 modified below. A vote for "Option 2 modified", or "Option 4", is a vote for this version.

5. In 1979 Carlos disclosed that she had undergone sex reassignment surgery in 1972 and been living as a woman since at least 1968. Her announcement raised public awareness of transgender issues.

   I'm introducing Option 5 in preparation for my vote below. Mathglot (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

6. In 1979 Carlos disclosed she had been living as a woman since at least 1968, and in 1972 had undergone sex reassignment surgery. Her announcement raised public awareness of transgender issues.

   Option six, modified from Option 2a way above, which seems closer to normal English to me. I don't think it's necessary, but I put it out there anyway. Rcarlberg (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

7. In 1979 Carlos made the surprise disclosure that she had been living as a woman since at least 1968, and in 1972 had undergone sex reassignment surgery.

   Options, we got options. Rcarlberg (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

8. Carlos became one of the first trans celebrities to transition publicly when she came out as a trans woman in 1979–having had sex reassignment surgery in 1972–while presenting as female since at least 1968.^[1]

The phrase "one of the first public figures" is unsourced, and its champion has so far been unable to provide any sourcing that does not refer back to Sewell's discredited biography. Wiki articles on Sex reassignment surgery and Harry Benjamin would support the view that Carlos was not the first, not among the first, and her gender transition does not, itself, reach the threshold of "notability." I thought we had ten editors in agreement here. Who farted in the bathtub? Rcarlberg (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Those Wiki articles only show that Carlos was not the first nor among the first people while the relevant quote is about being among the first public figures. No one here thinks that Carlos was among the first people in general, just one of the first public figures.

Certainly the transition itself is DUE enough to at least include in the lead, given the publicity in 1979.

JasonAQuest has provided a list of sources above that show that Carlos was one of the first public figures to do so, and it is blatantly true - few other public figures came out as trans prior to Carlos. Some of those sources refer to Sewell's biography. While Sewell didn't consult Carlos in the writing of the biography, that doesn't mean that the biography is completely false. Saying that Carlos was one of the first public figures to disclose her gender identity doesn't need consulting with Carlos, it needs consulting with historical records about which other public figures came out as trans prior to Carlos.

Gbear605 (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 Option 4 is my preference. It seems a logical and reasonable compromise for the various positions discussed on this talk page. I don't believe "one of the first" is a well-supported statement based on WP:RS I've seen (that is, discounting the disputed recent biography and various sources that repeat what it says). I also don't believe it's appropriate weight for the lead regardless of the disposition about the new biography. --Laser brain (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

  Changed to Option 4 based on additional choices. Hopefully someone can untangle this and make some sense of it at closing time. --Laser brain (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 is my preference based on clarity and verifiability. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 modified but I see problems in #1 (lack of verifiability of "one of the first"); and #2 "raised public awareness of transgender issues" -- how do we know that the general public became aware? What about "Carlos was living as a woman since at least 1968, had sex reassignment surgery in 1972 and revealed those facts publicly in 1979." It is an active sentence and covers the facts without embellishment.Ihaveadreamagain 20:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 is my preference as well. Option 2 modified (which is now Option 4) removes all indication that her coming out was in any way notable, which I think understates the case. Saying she was the first would OVERstate the case. Option 2 is nice neutral middle. Rcarlberg (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 modified - continued Doesn't "raised public awareness of transgender issues" imply the public wasn't already aware of the issues? Plus, it doesn't reflect statements in the references. Ihaveadreamagain 20:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Raising public awareness is not the same as creating public awareness. Carlos was possibly the highest public-profile individual to undergo SRS at the time, and for a while after her interview came out, transgender issues were in the news. So, in fairness to the 'notability' advocates, her coming out was notable. It was not, by any means, the first:
• 1917 Dr. Alan L. Hart
• 1926 unnamed trans man
• 1930 Dora Richter
• 1931 Lili Elbe
• 1948 Michael Dillon
• 1952 Christine Jorgensen
• 1964 Jan Morris
• 1975 Renee Richards

All of these people are "public figures" enough to have their own Wikipedia pages, with the exception of #2. Who decides who is a "public figure"? At least we're all learning a lot about trans history, aren't we. Rcarlberg (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 is unambiguous, and doesn't involve questions of firstness or earliness. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Rcarlberg, so... you agree that Carlos was one of the first then? If only ten public figures did it before her, then that makes her among the first. Gbear605 (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Please. You wish to ignore 100 years of trans history? By the time Carlos had her surgery, it was no longer "experimental," no longer untested, no longer radical. I proposed an Option 2a (somewhere up above) which mentions her high public profile at the time of her surgery. I'd be okay with that one too. Rcarlberg (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Rcarlberg, I'm honestly confused - the surgery being untested, experimental, radical isn't really relevant to whether she was among the first. Saying "among the first" just means that if you make a list of all public figures to publicly transition by order of when they came out, then Carlos is near the front of the list, say in the first twenty percent. Do you seriously think that those ten people plus Carlos are more than twenty percent of the public figures to ever publicly transition? Gbear605 (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Saying Carlos was "one of the first" would ignore the 55 years between her and "the first." If we send men to the moon in 2022, does that make them "among the first men on the moon" just because it's been forty years since the last manned mission? Rcarlberg (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

If we're looking back on it after thousands of more people go to the moon, then yes the people going to the moon in 2022 would totally be among the first men on the moon. Gbear605 (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, there you have it. I don't think thousands of public figures have undergone gender reassignment surgery. Rcarlberg (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 5 or 6 – I think User:Ihaveadreamagain identified the problem with option #2 correctly above, in talking about an "active sentence" which starts off, "In 1979 Carlos raised public awareness..." Really? Subject: Carlos; predicate: raised public awareness of transgender issues. That's an awkward phrasing, to say the least, for what Carlos did, as if that was her purpose in the announcement, rather than being her true self and letting others know so she didn't have to hide anymore. Carlos did not raise public awareness of transgender issues, Carlos disclosed (or, announced) something; namely, her transition. *News about her transition* raised public awareness. Option 2 has all the correct elements, but in the wrong order, making it seem like Carlos woke up one day, decided the public needed to be educated, and decided that disclosing her transition was a good way to achieve that. Recasting the sentence in a different order, to keep the active-voice verb avoids the false causality implied by Option 2, but keeps the "public awareness" part dropped in option 4. In option 5, actual causality, and the later knock-on effects (raising public awareness) are presented in the proper order. (As a result, breaking the sentence in two made it flow better.) Mathglot (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: "Option 6" was added after my !vote, and I'm equally okay with either 5 or 6. Mathglot (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC) Redacted to add clarifying words that left an ambiguity; thanks to Rcarlberg for pointing this out. Mathglot (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Mathglot you're a lot smarter than me, but I don't think "Carlos raised awareness" in Option 2 is an awkward phrasing. She came out SPECIFICALLY to raise awareness of her status. I think Option 5 puts the cart before the horse (sex change before living as a woman), which is confusing and jarring. I have rejiggered 5 to make 6 which is itself a rejiggering of 2a. But in point of fact.... I still prefer Option 2.. Rcarlberg (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

  Replied to you in #Discussion, below. Mathglot (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Added the following WikiProject notifications:
  • Listed: at WT:LGBT
  • Listed: at WT:BIOGRAPHY
  • Listed: at WT:WikiProject Music

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment, "one of the first public figures" to me is much more compelling writing, and helps anchor why it’s relevant to Carlos’ biography. It’s exactly what I would expect to read here and on any good biography about her.
  The phrase “raised public awareness” is extremely vague, almost to the point of being meaningless, and could apply to nearly every LGBTQ activist and trans person in the world; you could even apply this to everyone who opposes LGBTQ culture and rights. I’m afraid it’s rather poor writing, even if well-intended. Glee^anon 22:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Gleeanon409, it's "compelling" but it just seems WRONG to me. At least a dozen people underwent SRS before Carlos, and a dozen or two since Carlos. That puts her squarely in the middle of the pack; non-notably, non-compellingly, non-sensationally. Mathglot made the brilliant point above: I may come back to the main point being discussed above, but I wanted to come in by the side door, because I see a claim being made above (six times, if I counted right) that Carlos's dysphoria or reassignment are a "key" or "important" part of her notability. But this is false. In the English sense of "notability"—okay, yes, I grant you that. But, I assume you were talking about capital-N WP:Notability in the Wikipedia's sense of the word. As Carlos was already notable due to her pioneering music, revealing her gender status didn't change a thing. "Notability" of a topic, in the Wikipedia sense, is binary: either you are (and then you can have an article here), or you are not (and you cannot have one). Carlos's dysphoria did not make her "Notable times 2", and had she become a Senator or President after that, she wouldn't be "Notable times ten".Rcarlberg (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Even if a dozen had gone through the surgery, she still is the first to those that the Playboy exposure reached. And it was a turning point in her life. Even if it in itself wouldn’t get get her Wikipedia notability it is a major chapter, one of a few for that decade, in the history of trans people. Glee^anon 23:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

      Gleeanon: A long time ago (in a galaxy far, far away...) I wrote the following: "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" I still feel it's valid. Rcarlberg (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

      The salient phrase is “became one of the first trans celebrities to transition publicly”, it’s clear, precise enough and sourced. Glee^anon 01:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment the phrase "one of the first public figures" is not verifiable and is unclear--For example: what does "one of the first" mean? First three? First two? First 20? Similarly, what does "public figure" mean? Similarly the "raised public awareness" claim is difficult to verify or support per discussion above and additionally is contradicted in the body of the article itself where Wendy Carlos claims that the public was indifferent. I remain an "option 2" but an option that does away with both of these problematic claims while retaining the verifiable and clear dates of gender reassignment surgery and her disclosure would also work fine. I do very much believe that Wendy Carlos' story is important for trans people (and everyone, frankly). I would also note that this article is not included in the WikiProject LGBT Core or Vital lists. I think there's a way to indicate the importance of Wendy Carlos to the story of trans acceptance in the US in this article without having verifiability or claims-based language, and also think it should be represented in other articles on this topic elsewhere in Wikipedia. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • That it’s included or not in Wikipedia list of articles is of little consequence, anyone can add or remove articles as the mood strikes.
    The phrase “became one of the first trans celebrities to transition publicly” would seem to counter your concerns with similar wording. Glee^anon 01:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• Use 4 or 7 (without the word "surprise"). Carlos was decades too late to be among "the first", and this hand-waving about awareness raising is basically WP:OR.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 if there are sources for it, and Option 4 if there aren't. As far as I can see, the other options basically say the same thing with a lot more words. jp×g 09:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

It's easier to have all the options in one place, at the top, otherwise others are likely to miss them. I've copied user Ihaveadreamagain's proposed version, which was subsequently referred to by some as "option 2 modified", to the top, where it can more easily be seen. By the count, that makes their version "#4"; so to be clear about the voting, I added a little note that a vote for either "option 2 modified" or "option 4" is a vote for Ihaveadreamagain's proposed version. In addition, I'm proposing a version of my own; I've listed that one as #5. If there are other suggested wordings, please add them at the top so others can find them all in one place. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Rcarlberg, Regarding your reply to me above: my comment about "raised awareness" probably wasn't clear, because I agree with your comment that "She came out SPECIFICALLY to raise awareness of her status." That is exactly right. But that's not what #2 says, which is what I was objecting to. Number 2 starts like this: "In 1979 Carlos raised public awareness of transgender issues..." (emphasis added), but as you point out, she came out "raise awareness of her status" and not to "raise awareness of transgender issues". So, I think we're in agreement here. My comment was unclear, I'll redact it above to add those words so it's clearer.

Options 5 and 6 are both better than Option 2, because Option 2 makes it sound like the reason for her announcement was to raise public awareness of transgender issues. That's absolutely not why she came out. She came out for personal reasons, so people would know her as she really was, and she didn't have to hide. Public awareness followed, as a result; but that wasn't automatic. If no one had attended or reported it in the press, it would not have had the impact it did; the "public awareness of trans issues" part of it was optional, so to speak, and not her purpose in speaking out. Mathglot (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• EXACTLY why I would argue that "raising public awareness" doesn't need to be mentioned at all. Her reasons for coming out are fully described in the Gender Transition section. Rcarlberg (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

  Can't argue with that. Mathglot (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

  Or hey, how about "In 1979 Carlos made the surprise disclosure that she had been living as a woman since at least 1968, and in 1972 had undergone sex reassignment surgery." That might work? Rcarlberg (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

  Also fine by me, with the exception of surprise (unless there's a solid citation for that) because of WP:EDITORIALIZING. Mathglot (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

  Would IMDB qualify? https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0137793/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm Also, the interview was announced as "A Surprise Playboy Interview" on the Playboy cover in question: https://cdn4.mavin.io/production/soldItems/82573414/images/image-0.jpg Rcarlberg (talk) 01:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• I don't like Option 8 at all. Carlos was not, is not, and never has been "a trans celebrity." She's a composer. As part of my research earlier I googled "famous transgender persons" and found exactly one website, out of a couple dozen, that even mentioned her. Rcarlberg (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• No, not withstanding your research skills, she’s been a trans celebrity—whether you like the term or not—since 1979. Glee^anon 23:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Citation? Rcarlberg (talk) 23:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• It’s already cited. Glee^anon 01:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 8, despite the rather WP:BLUDGEONy atmosphere this is my preferred wording. It’s precise and contextualizes that among early trans public figures she was a trailblazer. It’s the kind of writing I think our readers expect, and it’s sourced. Glee^anon 01:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Collapsed. Mathglot (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

This seems to be a sub-issue of the Rfc, so thought I'd respond here, so the Survey section doesn't get bogged down with a sideshow discussion that may be relevant, but not to the voting part. Anyway, if someone wants to compile a list of early transitioners, there are others; I know of one by name, and a few others by hearsay. One is Aleshia Brevard who transitioned in 1962 but did not come out until decades later. She probably would have been notable anyway, as there were articles in the press about her at the time, but she was certainly not famous or well-known. In those early days, trans women—who were not called that because the word transgender hadn't been invented yet—were often stealth if they could manage it, and were simply women to the rest of the world. Aleshia came out in her 60s as I recall, and *then* wrote a book about it. So in her case, it didn't increase any public awareness of transgender issues, but only awareness of her own, personal journey. Mathglot (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Billy Tipton didn't come out until after she died. There are probably LOTS of TG cases we never heard about. Rcarlberg (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Like Albert Cashier. Mathglot (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Transgender issues were current in the late 1950s, with films like Victor and Victoria (1957 film) and Some Like It Hot (1959). Rcarlberg (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

No, transgender issues were not "current" in the 1950s; nobody had ever heard of it, and the word was yet to be invented. That's a bit of historical revisionism, as people of that time had no experience, vocabulary, or lens with which to discuss transgender issues per se. Cross-dressing, and female impersonation were known, and juiced by 1930s Berlin, of which the 1957 film was a remake. "Some Like I Hot" was seen as broad farce, in the way of a cross-dressing Bob Hope for one of his broad skits wearing a grass skirt and no attempt to look or play the part and seen to be more ridiculous, or slapstick, than anything transgender. The only real transgender issue to reach public awareness in the 1950s was Christine Jorgensen, but the public didn't have the experience or vocabulary to interpret that, either, and she came off either as a freak show, or an improbable tabloid story on the order of 'Elvis sired my alien baby'. Saying "transgender issues were current in the late 1950s" is as true as saying "transgender issues were current in the early 17th century" because cross-dressed men regularly appeared on stage at the Globe Theatre. Those 1950s films happened; those 17th c. men did play in female costume, but neither was interpreted that way, as transgender concepts were still unknown, until Harry Benjamin began to make them known in 1966. Mathglot (talk) 08:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

There are several inaccurate statements here and unless I am missing how this discussion can improve the Wendy Carlos article this is WP:NOTFORUM. Rab V (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rab V: this discussion on early transitioners addresses the wording, "one of the first...", now or formerly in the lead, which is part of the Rfc question in this open Rfc, of which this discussion is a subsection. So I don't see how it could possibly be considered irrelevant to the improvement of the article, unless the Rfc also is. If there are inaccurate statements that you feel affect the quality of the argument, please list them. Mathglot (talk) 04:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi! The language transgender wasn't used but earlier vocabulary did exist to talk about trans people. Magnus Hirschfield used transsexual in the 1920s and David Cauldwell brought the term to the US in his writings in 1950. The phrase sex change is also used casually in mainstream news in the 50s talking about Jorgensen. Also maybe subjective but the contemporary media I read about Jorgensen seemed like non-judgemental human interest stories, as opposed to a tabloidy freak show. I don't have a strong opinion on whether trans issues were 'current' at the time but just wanted to point out the language to talk about trans people existed then and was used in mainstream media. Rab V (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

As the number of options increases, it becomes harder for one to become a clear winner. It's also hard to WP:REFACTOR, at least for options that already have at least one vote already. When there are large numbers of options, another tack is to request participants to give their first, second, and third choices, so the closer has more data with which to make a decision. The downside of that, is that a number of people have voted already registering only one choice a time when there were only 3 options. So not sure what we can do about this now. Mathglot (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

It was a rather poorly formed RFC to begin with—and it's very confusing to have all these options added after many people have weighed in. --Laser brain (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Leadership, we need leadership! :) I vote option 7 first choice, first half of option six 2nd choice, option 2 3rd choice. Just would somebody please shoot this dead horse, and put the Wendy page on lockdown to prevent further vandalism. Rcarlberg (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 (formerly Option 2 modified) - "Carlos was living as a woman since at least 1968, had sex reassignment surgery in 1972 and revealed those facts publicly in 1979." Adding the resulting publicity could also be done if that makes everyone happier; "Carlos was living as a woman since at least 1968, had sex reassignment surgery in 1972 and revealed those facts publicly in 1979, which led to increased public awareness of transgender issues." But, may result in Option 4 modified, so sorry if I've muddied the water more, but it could be useful. Ihaveadreamagain 19:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Just a note to whomever closes this mess: Gleeanon409 has been blocked as a sockpuppet account of a banned user. --Laser brain (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Struck comments by indef blocked sock per WP:TPO. Note that this includes the Rfc question itself; does that make the Rfc moot, or does it carry on? Any thoughts, Laser brain? Mathglot (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Please observe how it now appears at the RfC listing pages, such as WP:RFC/SOC. You should either (a) remove the {{rfc}} tag in accordance with WP:RFCEND so that Legobot de-lists the RfC; (b) unstrike the statement and Legobot will fix the listing pages; (c) write a new statement, placing it and a timestamp after the {{rfc}} tag but before the struck statement, and Legobot will amend the listing pages accordingly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I saw how it appears at SOC: struck out but legible, so not sure what the issue is. Nor do I know who/how to decide between a, b, or c. For the time being, I've unstruck the Rfc question; if someone else wishes to do (a) or (c) instead, I have no objection. Mathglot (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you The issue is basically that there is an entry in several RfC listing pages, but that the statement is struck through giving the appearance that there is not a matter under discussion. People seeing that in a listing may think "well, what's the point of that?" --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. When that person went in and undid essentially all of my edits and then opened an RfC that looked nearly custom-designed to fail gathering consensus I just backed out. Thanks for the heads up that I'm not crazy. How does all this get closed? TheMusicExperimental (talk) 05:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Seeing as this RfC was started by a sockpuppet, I would like to propose we end this RfC. The guidance on ending RfC suggests the following:

"1. The question may be withdrawn by the poster"

Our situation is a little different. Rather, the poster has been withdrawn from Wikipedia and the two most vocal discussers have removed themselves from conversation here. Perhaps in the spirit of that item we can close this RfC.

There is also:

"2. The RfC participants can agree to end it at any time, and one of them can remove the {{rfc}} template."

And so I am asking you all if you would like to agree to, at this time, end this RfC and one of us can then remove the RfC template and close this RfC discussion and archive it.

Even if someone would like to continue discussing the topics involved, I would highly recommend closing this RfC and starting anew, given that this thing is so entirely convoluted with so many options etc that it is unlikely to ever generate consensus.

--TheMusicExperimental (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion this RFC was badly executed in the first place, and was not a showcase of everyone's best behavior. However, I stated an opinion on the matter of discussion so I don't wish to advocate for how and when it should be closed. An uninvolved closer should determine if anything useful can be taken from it. If there even is still a dispute, we discuss it. I doubt a formal RFC is even needed. --Laser brain (talk) 12:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@TheMusicExperimental, Mathglot, Rcarlberg, JasonAQuest, Gbear605, SMcCandlish, Ihaveadreamagain, and Robert McClenon: This RFC was opened by a sock of a banned user and we're trying to move forward. Do any of you object to us closing it as moot and resuming normal editing and discussion? We can open a new RFC later if needed but no one seems to think this is necessary. --Laser brain (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Laser_brain. Just list it at WP:RFPP and someone will eventually close it. There's a significant amount of (non-bogus) editorial input here, and I think we all know that TG/NB naming and address continues to be a hotbed of dispute on Wikipedia. While a single RfC about a single bio is not going to settle anything site-wide, we actually need a larger "track record" of RfC assessments on these matters, to become more certain of the broader editorial community's overall consensus, especially as previous decisions are effectively being ignored by some WP:BATTLEGROUND-prone parties. Cf. the ongoing abortive RfC at WT:MOSBIO and calls for a new more detailed RfC there (after the page was locked for several days due to outright editwarring).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Despite being made by a sockpuppet, clearly the RfC existed for a purpose - to decide which phrasing to use. I think we need an outside closer to decide which option to use, since the STATUSQUO seems pretty clearly not preferred and starting a new RfC right now seems unlikely to be effective though. Gbear605 (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The notes on how to end an RfC include the possibility that participants can simply decide to end it and remove the RfC template. This is what I think we should do. Prior to the sockpuppet starting this RfC everyone involved with the exception of Jason felt that the wording as it is at this moment in the lede is fine. Leaving this here is mostly just a monument to the sockpuppet's efforts at disrupting a collaborative editing process. I'm also fine if someone can rope in an uninvolved editor to close it the standard way. But I fear the longer we leave this here the more drama it will attract. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Neutral as to closing the RFC. The fact that it was started by a sockpuppet is not in itself a strong reason to close the RFC, but it is a weak reason to close the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm leaning to removing the template. Btw: no one need recluse themselves from expressing an opinion on closure here; supporting (or opposing) rfc closure is not a violation of WP:RFCEND which requires an independent editor for evaluation of consensus but not for simply withdrawing the Rfc without an attempt to evaluate it. Thus anyone, including Laser_brain or others who participated in the !vote above (including myself) can express an opinion here. As TheMusicExperimental mentioned, we can simply decide to end it; that is one policy-compliant option.

The statement about everyone "prior to the Rfc" supporting the current version of the lead may be true but is irrelevant; others are aware of it now and wider consensus is better. Clearly, some find the current wording not acceptable, so what a smaller group thought at some earlier point in time doesn't matter anymore.

I'm torn between continuing this Rfc, and just removing the template:

• argument for continuing – if wider is better (and it is) then by opening another Rfc and alerting projects again, we're not going to get a good turnout.
• argument for removing – this rfc is a complete mess, and the multiplicity of options, some of which were added after some !voted already would be a nightmare for a closer.

Neither option is great, imho. I'll watch this discussion, but currently I lean towards removing the template: this would undoubtedly cause a series of changes to the statement in the lede by more than one editor. Another (non-Rfc) discussion could result, which might resolve it; I'm hopeful, but not expectant. If a subsequent discussion finds no resolution, or if there's edit-warring, we'll be back here doing this again. I hope someone can envisage a better outcome than this. Mathglot (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up: just to be clear: removing the Rfc template is not the same as a finding of "no consensus" following a formal Rfc evaluation by a closer. The latter is an evaluation of tallies and argumentation expressed in the rfc; the former is nullification of the rfc without any evaluation at all. Mathglot (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I could see leaving it for some other editor to closer per SMcCandlish re: it would be nice to have an instance of RfC for this type of issue with trans BLP. Though I think even for that purpose a cleaner and better-written RfC would be better. The most recent edit war on this specific issue was between two people who have indicated that they are no longer participating in editing this article and also the sockpuppet. If we get another edit war I honestly think a better crafted RfC would serve the purpose. No one is currently disputing the lede as it stands today and if someone were to boldly edit the sentence based on discussions we've had (vis a vis public awareness for example) I would be surprised if that touched off an edit war. Right now, what keeps the article from being edited is this open RfC. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 06:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

That's fair enough. My RFPP suggestion isn't a demand, just a suggestion, and your arguments about a better RfC are pretty good. Consider me now neutral on the matter. My main interest was seeing the dispute and disruption resolved, and that appears to have happened by some "walk away" already. It's perhaps not fair to those who want to get back to work on this article in particular that there might be some value (to other related disputes elsewhere) in waiting longer.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Feels like a tilt towards removing the Rfc header. If there's no objection after waiting a bit longer to give others a chance to weigh in, I think we can go ahead and do so. And again: removing the template is not closing the Rfc; no reason to involve an outside closer, though it's not prohibited either (but you might have to wait a long time). Mathglot (talk) 09:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

In the end, the Rfc header was removed via expiration by Legobot in this edit on 28 November. So, I guess that leaves us in status quo ante. Mathglot (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It is regrettable that many comments have been made on this page about editors instead of about the substance of their edits. I see also now behavior indicating the possibility of edit warring. I'm just dropping a note here to say that I've left notices on a couple of users' talk pages about the fact that discretionary sanctions are in effect for all BLPs. My notices are informative only, not a suggestion of wrongdoing. This is required by policy. I've skipped at least one user who has already been informed of DS for BLPs. What this means is if editors are behaving poorly on this page, a case can be filed at WP:AE and uninvolved admins may apply sanctions to either this page or to individual editors in a much more brisk manner than usually occurs at the drama boards. I'm involved here so would not take action personally but I will not hesitate to file a case if the discussion or editing rises to a certain level of disruption. --Laser brain (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Laser brain: Please have a look at this. Glee^anon 03:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey y'all. I've decided to withdraw from any further discussions on the Wendy Carlos page. I'm starting to dream about Wikipedia citations, which indicates to me that I'm entirely too wound up about something that doesn't deserve the psychic energy. It's only a minor point about a minor personality on a stupid user-written online encyclopedia. There are PLENTY of excellent editors here who will make the right choices, and not let one bully sabotage a very good article. Life's too short, and I have plenty of other more important work I should be doing. Be kind to one another, and Happy Halloween. Rcarlberg (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Enjoy the roses! Mathglot (talk) 06:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to propose the following section to highlight her influence on contemporary electronic music-- other articles featuring notable musicians tend to have an influence/legacy section, and she deserves one too! <3 Atomic putty? Rien! 16:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

[Draft to follow below]

Wendy Carlos's pioneering work with synthesizers and electronic music in the 1960s and 1970s has had a significant impact on the development of contemporary electronic music. Her use of analog synthesizers and innovative sound design techniques helped shape the sound of early electronic music and laid the groundwork for later genres such as ambient, techno, and electro-pop.

Numerous contemporary artists cite Carlos as a major influence on their own work. Among them are Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails, who described Carlos's album "Switched-On Bach" as a "life-changing" experience, and praised her for "taking this unwieldy instrument and making music with it that feels timeless".[1] Aphex Twin has cited Carlos as one of his biggest inspirations and has covered her song "Beauty in the Beast".[2] Daft Punk has also spoken about Carlos's influence, with Thomas Bangalter stating that "her music is some of the most important electronic music ever made".[3] Carlos's influence can also be heard in the work of ambient and experimental artists such as Brian Eno, who has cited her as a key inspiration,[4] and Tangerine Dream, who have described her as a "pioneer of electronic music".[5] Her use of synthesizers to create atmospheric textures and otherworldly soundscapes was especially influential in the development of ambient music, which often prioritizes mood and atmosphere over traditional song structures.

Today, Carlos's legacy continues to be celebrated in electronic music circles. Her use of analog synthesizers and other vintage gear is seen as a hallmark of "classic" electronic music, and her groundbreaking work with early synthesizers and sound design techniques has left an indelible mark on the genre.

= References ==

References: Pareles, Jon. "Wendy Carlos's Switched-On Bach, the First Classic Synthesizer Album." The New York Times, 10 Mar. 2016. Accessed 16 Feb. 2023. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/arts/music/wendy-carloss-switched-on-bach-the-first-classic-synthesizer-album.html. Colburn, Randall. "Aphex Twin Covers Wendy Carlos's 'Beauty In The Beast': Listen." Consequence, 3 Aug. 2020. Accessed 16 Feb. 2023. https://consequence.net/2020/08/aphex-twin-wendy-carlos-beauty-in-the-beast/. "Daft Punk Talk Wendy Carlos, Dance Music and More in Rare Interview." Rolling Stone, 17 May 2013. Accessed 16 Feb. 2023. https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/daft-punk-talk-wendy-carlos-dance-music-and-more-in-rare-interview-196615/. Hogan, Marc. "Brian Eno Talks Inspiration, China, and His Brilliant New Album, The Ship." Pitchfork, 29 Apr. 2016. Accessed 16 Feb. 2023. https://pitchfork.com/features/interview/9944-brian-eno-talks-inspiration-china-and-his-brilliant-new-album-the-ship/. "Interview: Tangerine Dream on the Evolution of Electronic Music." Reverb.com, 28 Apr. 2016. Accessed 16 Feb. 2023. https://reverb.com/news/interview-tangerine-dream-on-the-evolution-of-electronic-music.

 Atomic putty? Rien!  16:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Shoutout to @Schminnte for improving the style, cutting it down to size a little, and bringing it in line with MOS! Thank you! <3 Atomic putty? Rien! 18:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

It's nothing much. I think the problem you had with the previous version was that quite a lot of the proposed section was unsourced analysis of Carlos' influence. I've just removed those unsourced statements and left the cited facts. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 18:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Atomic putty? Rien! but where exactly are your references taken from. The URLs provided are either blank, broken or link to a different page. I have checked the wayback machine as well and there has been no luck. As these are quotations, I'm going to remove the section for now until references are either proved or provided. Sorry for the hassle. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 19:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Schminnte super odd. It's probably my fault, I'm not very experienced with finding/adding citations-- let me retrace my steps Atomic putty? Rien! 19:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Update: I think the NYT stuff is locked behind paywalls. : (

I've sourced *an* anecdote from Aphex Twin listing Carlos as one of his favorites-- feels a little like cherrypicking tho. Probably best to leave him out.

(Found this from a blog post too, so I don't necessarily trust it)

“Kraftwerk’s weirder stuff, Wendy Carlos, Terry Riley, Steve Reich. I probably like Steve Reich best ... this is music I enjoy."

https://lannerchronicle.wordpress.com/2020/11/18/aphex-twin-q-magazine-march-1994/

Atomic putty? Rien! 19:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

As for the other stuff, feeding the quotations into google and pairing up the results with the automatic citation tool might turn up usable citations, but it seems like a lot of work, eek Atomic putty? Rien! 19:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

If there are no reliable sources for a quote, I would recommend not using it. If you could attempt to find references using the automatic cite tool that would be great. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 19:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Will do! Thank you for all of your advice!!

Atomic putty? Rien! 20:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

This needs to be a lot tighter. The version that I reverted had way too much unsourced analysis. The cites should directly support the text.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@IanMacM: If you see the (now reverted) changes I made to the section, all of the unsourced analysis was removed. I am troubled by the lack of sourcing though, hence my revert. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 20:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: (Ping again because I messed up.) Schminnte (talk • contribs) 20:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I had a look on Spotify [11] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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