Talk:Wendy Carlos

Comment 1

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

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

Plus it's just nicer.Hyacinth

Of course :) --Camembert

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

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

And then there's Prince...

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

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

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

---

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

---

Historical Revisionism Sucks. Thebaron

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

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

Hyacinth 03:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Being not "cruel"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"born"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

that picture

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

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

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

My thoughts are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

This section contains trendy and imprecise phrasing:

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

Lawsuit over song?

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

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

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

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

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

Eclipses

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

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

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

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

Though his penis has been turned inside-out, and his testicles have been cut up to look like a labia, it does not change the fact that Wendy Carlos is a man who gets hard-ons from looking at solar eclipses.

That should probably go.

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's always some obscure problem with images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

needle drop cues

The expression "needle drop cues" is not explained.

PeterKrohn 06:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Readability issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protect page

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

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

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

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

Sex Change Historically Important

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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