Talk:Wendy Carlos

Archives (Index)

1 2

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Suggestion: More recent photos

The only photo in the article is from 1958, before her gender transition. It would make more sense to have more recent photos. What about this portrait she uses on her website? With proper attribution, could this go in the infobox? [1]https://www.wendycarlos.com/photos/wendy+pandy.jpg? JCLarsson (talk) 03:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

synthpop? jazz?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Using Amanda Sewell's book as a reference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As do you. We do not act as stenographers for the subjects of articles. If she disputes a claim, we can quote that dispute, but we're not going to entirely chuck out a biography by a subject matter expert from one of the world's most reputable publishers. Especially since Carlos " hasn't liked anything anyone's written about her for 45 years" [2] Gamaliel (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ancestry.com and Archives.com Sources

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