Talk:I Sexually Identify as an Attack Helicopter

Is it appropriate to link the text of the original story?

Currently, this article links to an Internet Archive copy of the original story. As it's been withdrawn from publication by the author, that gives me pause. Does anyone else think there are ethical (or even legal?) issues with providing a copy of a story that the author and copyright holder wants to have removed? Robofish (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It's appropriate for an external link (as long as it does not violate WP:ELNO) or for the article itself as it would be used for a critical commentary (per WP:NFCC). © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 23:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Robofish, I agree with Tbhotch. It is also a consequence of WP:NPOV that we report on our topics whether or not their creators stand by them or disavow them. As long as the Internet Archive (presumably legally, otherwise Clarke could request its removal there) carries a copy of the story, it is relevant to readers because reading the story helps them understand the debate about it. Sandstein 09:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Is "military science fiction" an appropriate description of this story?

This is more an absurdist study of transhumanism and gender. It lacks the standard memes one would expect in military SF. Also see project listings above. Pkeets (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Pkeets, these categories are not mutually exclusive. Our article Military science fiction defines that genre as "science fiction that features the use of science fiction technology, mainly weapons, for military purposes and usually principal characters that are members of a military organization involved in military activity, usually during a war". That's exactly what this story does: showing the use of fictional technology (medical gender reassignment) for a military purpose, in a war, by members of the military. There's no requirement that all military sci-fi conform to the same tropes. Also, this story does somewhat continue the tradition of military sci-fi fetishizing weapons systems, just a bit more literally... Sandstein 09:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

These citations are awful

Seriously, this is unacceptably awful. My changes got reverted, because I replace what was there because it was completely uncited. Now the citations are to garbage articles and opinion pieces. This is unacceptable. [2] The journal this is published in, is an unashamedly and openly political organization, the published article has 0 citations in any other journal according to Google Scholar, and has 0 study or examination of the persons or motives involved except wild speculation. Its literally opinion, disguised as an article, in a social commentary magazine disguised as a journal. [3] This is just some lady's book, not only is Katie Steele not a doctor of any description, her masters is in business. Shes an MBA. Julie Nicholson, does have a PhD, its in child development. Shes not a medical professional, shes not even a psychiatrist let alone a psychologist. This book, however, is not peer reviewed, is not based on a peer reviewed study, and in no way has undergone any kind of scientific review. [7][10][11][12] Are all opinion pieces, written in opinion journals, with publicly known political biases, and operating for profit.

These are unacceptably trash sources, and in all reality this should read simply as

"This is a sci-fi short story written by Isabel Fall and published in Clarkesworld magazine on 9 January 2020. It features a service member who undergoes 'tactical gender reassignment surgery' to become better suited for their combat role as an attack helicopter pilot. The story was later removed from its initial publication, following objection from third parties who claimed the article was related to an internet meme they also claimed was transphobic"

Because anything other than that, attempting to provide any more context, is going to result in a flame war with everyone pulling crock sources like this out of their ass. At least the ones I found were public common or the exact forum posts being referenced.

If any moderator types are around, could you please do something to strip out the argument about "what the meme represents" as the sources on one side are all opinion peices, and the ones on the other are all public commons or are just catalogs of events not intents. Azeranth (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

"Know Your Meme" is not a reliable source. Nor are blog posts on Medium (whatever side of a controversy they happen to advance). Calling The Verge an "outsider" source is OR and POV-pushing. On the other hand, the sources currently in the article are adequate for the (rather bare-bones) claims they are being used to support. Drastically shortening the article would not give a very good portrayal of the diversity of opinions and reactions that the story provoked, which, at the moment, the article does a decent job of. The item in The Guardian is not an opinion piece, and those sources from which opinions are quoted were published in venues that exercise editorial oversight. Further improvements are doubtless possible, but I do not think a drastic stubbification could be the way to go. XOR'easter (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Azeranth, I agree with XOR'easter. Please read our core policies WP:V and WP:NPOV. They explain that we cover our topics based on what reliable sources write - i.e., professional publications with editorial oversight, not blogs or user-edited websites or the like. The personal qualifications of authors or their (assumed) political views or your disagreement with what they write are not relevant for this purpose. The present article covers all the (conflicting) views about the subject that are represented in reliable sources. If there is another view you'd like to see covered, you'd need to provide a reliable source for it. Sandstein 11:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The archive.org page is down

The URL is now excluded from it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.18.129.89 (talk • contribs)

This has been around long before 2020

Who is adding this nonsense about publication dates and authors? This copypasta was originally posted on the Team Fortress 2 Discussions on Steam six years ago and was definitely not by whoever this "article" says it was by. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.48.187.141 (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

this isn't about the copypasta, it's about a short story based on the copypasta which happens to have the same title Sobsz (talk) 07:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

We go with what RS say, what do RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Also referenced by popular YouTuber Lemmino many years before the story. Should cite this reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUzOTtRkTuE&ab_channel=LEMMiNO 157.211.9.237 (talk) 11:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

What, before the short story was published? Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2021

Change "transphobic internet meme" to "internet meme" as the term transphobic is subjctive. Sgstenberg (talk) 09:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Please seek consensus before making edit requests. On the merits, we follow reliable sources, which describe the meme as transphobic, which means that so do we; see WP:RS; WP:NPOV. Sandstein 11:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Can someone please delete the part calling it ‘transphobic’?

I know this request has already been posed, but I would like to ask again to show my support for it. Like the user before me, all I’m asking for is that we change the phrasing from “transphobic internet meme” to simply “internet meme”. The term “transphobic” and what it encompasses is debatable, which means that using this term on Wikipedia is an opinion. Sandstein the administrator said that, and I quote, “ On the merits, we follow reliable sources, which describe the meme as transphobic, which means that so do we.” I disagree with the calling of these sources reliable. Since those sources are using the term ‘transphobic’, is it clear that they have picked a side on the issue and are only spouting their opinions. The last time I checked, Wikipedia is a place where only fact is welcome. Please, I ask the administrators to delete this unnecessary description. Just say it is an internet meme, and let the people that read about it decide if it is transphobic or not. 2600:1700:7580:3160:918D:DFC1:5DB6:5E4A (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Helen

 Not done Feel free to re-read the reason why it was declined and understand it. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 02:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly. Sad to see the antiscience decline of Wikipedia on such topics. "Transphobic" IRT this meme is 100% subjective. 157.211.9.237 (talk) 11:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

request for deletion supported. also, things like this are exactly why I don't financially support Wikipedia. Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source when it comes to ANYTHING remotely political

Your choice, but it's reliably sourced.Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we can find a better solution using wording from The Guardian, one of the sources cited here, which explains the meme's origin and clearly cites it in relation to transphobia and to being "hurtful": "..editor Neil Clarke clarified that .. Fall had 'honestly and very personally wanted to take away some of the power of that very hurtful meme', which is intended to parody the evolving gender spectrum." HouseOfChange (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

And if it was only the guardian saying this that might be valid, its not.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, my idea was not to remove the word "transphobic" but to give it additional context in its sentence. To clarify further, I edited the article accordingly. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

HouseOfChange, I've removed the qualification "widely described as". There's no source calling it anything else. Sandstein 16:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

re: above comment

Yes, I did. I read it, and found it to be misinformed. This meme is not mocking transgender people, it’s a reference to the myriad of other genders. But what it isn’t, is transphobic. I know that tone of voice is hard to convey in text, so know that I’m not trying to be rude when I say, feel free to re-read my post and understand it. 2600:1700:7580:3160:2139:14F9:6E76:3136 (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Helen

RS say it is, we go with what RS say. If you wish to question the sources, the place to do it is wp:rsn.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

To summarize: Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say. "Reliable" in the context of media means that they are a publication subject to professional factchecking and editorial review, i.e. we have some reason to believe that they are not just making stuff up. This is the case with the sources cited in this article. What does not matter is whether you or I as individual Wikipedians agree with what they write in this case or with their general editorial line. You are free to disagree with this approach, but it's how Wikipedia works. Sandstein 15:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Renames

Normally I'd just implement this as 'obviously right', but under the circumstances, I feel I should get consensus.

I suggest renaming the page to "Helicopter Story" (since that is now Fall's preferred title for the story). "Helicopter Story, originally published under the title I Sexually Identify As An Attack Helicopter, is etc." Any thoughts? DS (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. Mentioning the name change would be fine if WP:RS exist for it, but the bulk of the commentary about it uses the original title (and I'm not sure the rules we follow when a person adopts a new name should apply for a story title). XOR'easter (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

DragonflySixtyseven, I think that the original name should be retained for now, since that's what all secondary sources cover it under. We don't have any sources as to why it received a new title for the Hugos, whether this is supposed to be a permanent renaming, whether it will be republished under that title, etc. Sandstein 17:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

There is a tweet from Clarkeswold (initial publisher of the story) which could be mentioned but I would agree that there's not suffiient detail to rename the article. Artw (talk)

Seems wrong to me, since a significant amount of duress was involved. Artw (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Artw, thanks for linking to the tweet. I think that it suffices as a source for the renaming of the story, but as concerns the article title: This is not about a person, where we respect the person's naming preferences, but about a literary work. As such, I think WP:NAMECHANGES applies. It says that we should continue to use the old name unless reliable sources consistently use the new one. We're not there yet, I think, but we might be if the story gets more coverage in the Hugo context. Sandstein 08:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

DragonflySixtyseven, Nope, per WP:COMMONNAME. The old name - much more catchy - is more popular and I doubt the new name will be repeated much. It's sad to see the author so browbeat she is even changing the name. What's next, a rewrite to make it less "offensive"? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

it’s also never been published under that name. Artw (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Jemisin's comments

If the article is going to retain quotations from NK Jemisin it should probably also note her clarifications? For accuracy, but that's her personal blog not an Official Source but the Outline article was just quoting her twitter. I don't know what you're supposed to do there. --M, 05:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we can or should write anything based on that blog entry, because it's a primary source and a WP:SPS. We base what we write on reliable secondary sources, both per WP:V and also because otherwise we'd have trouble deciding which of the zillion of tweets and blog posts in this whole drama we should use. Secondary sources do this job for us. We should therefore only cover Jemisin's role in the affair further if it is covered further in secondary sources. Sandstein 07:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sandstein: File 770 has covered her apology here. But I feel the section may already be giving undue weight to Jemisin's tweets, which are only in one source (The Outline) — in comparison, other comments like Arinn Dembo's are covered by multiple sources. To give proportional weight, how about trimming Jemisin's quote to something like this?

The Outline reported on comments by writer N. K. Jemisin, who tweeted that she was glad the story had been taken down, and that "not all art is good art". She later wrote that she had not read the story, and apologized. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 08:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2021

Please change all references to the publication date from "9 January 2020" to "1 January 2020". Citations: Per https://clarkesworldmagazine.com/advertising/ all issues are published at the beginning of the month. The corresponding podcast also shows that it was released on January 01: https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/clarkesworld-magazine-science-12408/episodes/i-sexually-identify-as-an-atta-50865057 Devinganger (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Huh. The archived copy we currently cite as reference #1 is even date-stamped 1 January. I'll go ahead and change this. Maybe it was just a typo in one place that got propagated. XOR'easter (talk) 02:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2021

Virtumonde (talk) 09:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Remove the sentence related to reference 6. That is "A 2020 Australian study identified those who identified their gender as "attack helicopter" in online surveys as "incels" and "trolls", and described them, on average, as "single Caucasian males, high school educated, with average to low incomes, and some degree of non-heterosexual attraction".[6]". The study itself is questionable and doesn't represent an accurate representation (i.e. a fact) but rather a subjective interpretation.

Do you have any sources that stay that?Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Well great, now I've spent part of my Sunday morning reading a paper on people who responded to an online survey in Australia who filled in a text field for gender with non serious replies. That entire paper is based on 20 responses to the survey, with only 5 of those responses relating to an attack helicopter. If people think we should include that we shouldn't just quote that small part of the abstract, because it certainly gives the impression that it was a real study, rather than looking at other responses by less than two dozen people on an online survey and taking them as fact from a group you've already identified as online trolls.

Slatersteven, I assume you've seen me close enough of these shortly after you've replied to know I generally just close requests that are just partisan complaints. This probably started that way, but that paper is no way near the threshold to be worth quoting in such a way.

As per template instructions, I'll be closing the request, as it is under discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I took a look at the source, and that description is based on 20 responses from an online survey of 7479 people[1]. Only five of those responses included a form of the attack helicopter meme. The abstract even states The describing characteristics of these individuals are unclear. As such, I've removed that sentence. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Categories on redirect from Fall

Is it appropriate to put Isabel Fall in Category:Pseudonymous writers? Clearly she wasn't publicly using the name/identity for anything other than writing this story before and isn't now, but I also think I recall reading the suggestion that this would have been the name she went by publicly when coming out, had the backlash not shelved that plan. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

That would imply Isabel Fall isn't her real name, an assertion which we don't have sources for, and which would appear somewhat offensive given the circumstances. Sandstein 10:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that was essentially my question. I think it's evident from the sources that this wasn't the name she was going by in day-to-day life (or for purposes of publishing other work), but also that that might not have remained the case had the backlash not been so virulent. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2024

Remove the word 'transphobic' from the 'I sexually identify as an attack helicopter" is a transphobic Internet meme' line, as this is biased language. 81.148.222.117 (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Not an uncontroversial change. PianoDan (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)