Talk:Shipping (fandom)

Controversy section

I would like to take @Historyday01 up on the offer, since I feel like this needs to be discussed. Controversy section was removed because “section was so badly written and the sourcing was done in such a way that it was hard to verify anything stated” DoggiestDoggo (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I stand by what I said in my comment and on your talk page. To reprint what I said there:

Even if the edit doesn't violate copyright, it was so badly written and the sourcing was done in such a way that it was hard to verify anything stated. Having it on that page does nothing to help readers. In fact, it results in further confusion. Two of the sources used were from weird and undoubtedly unreliable Freedom of the Mind (a private consulting and coaching service). Another was from a Google doc (self-published). Not sure about 'The Social Animal. While the articles from Samantha Aburime (one in 2023, another in 2021), Blackwell et al., and another by Alice Marwick, seem good, the use of unreliable sources in the section undermines the entire addition, and arguably, invalidates it. If such a section should be added at all, there should be discussion and crafting of the section by multiple users, not someone doing fly-by editing.

Historyday01 (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The sources on Freedom of Mind were from the main website of the creator of the BITE Model, Steven Hassan, M.Ed., LMHC, NCC, Cult Expert also covered in his 1988 book Combatting Cult Mind Control (ISBN 0-89281-243-5).

The “google doc” was Google Form poll of 500+ people on how they self identified in a fandom, I understand questioning the validity of that one. DoggiestDoggo (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, but Hassan, even from looking at Steven Hassan#Criticism is a relatively controversial figure, it would somewhat fall under WP:SNPOV. More than that, the text (which you added) somewhat falls under WP:NOR and it leans toward WP:UNDUE (undue weight). As such, it would not be right to cite anything from the "Freedom of the Mind" site, which leaves only four other articles. There is a lot of controversy over anti-shippers/antis, as compared (and opposed to) to pro-shippers/anti-anti, both of which have pages on the user-edited Fanlore run by Organization for Transformative Works, but neither can be cited on here, as those pages aren't reliable sources. Such a controversy section would probably need to be separate, as there are more controversies around shipping in fan circles than just antis or pro-shippers, and also written carefully, using various reliable sources. Historyday01 (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Despite the controversy around Hassan, the BITE Model is widely accepted.

I gathered this from just a few minutes of research:

https://www.insightpsychological.ca/counselling/bite-model/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2626545/

https://ilaging.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/aging/protectionadvocacy/documents/undoing-undue-influence-ppt.pdf

and these two from the Wikipedia entry Combatting Cult Mind Control:

West, Louis Jolyon (July 1990). "Combatting Cult Mind Control by Steven Hassan". American Journal of Psychiatry. 147 (7). doi:10.1176/ajp.147.7.943. Archived from the original on 18 August 2003.

Stephen Barrett, writing for the National Council Against Health Fraud Newsletter, believes that the book is an "insightful look at the bizarre and dangerous world of cults". DoggiestDoggo (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of the reliability or otherwise of Hassan and/or Freedom of Mind, none of those sources talk about fandom culture, shipping, or antis at all that I can see. Nor do Blackwell et al. or Marwick. I don't have access to Aronson, so maybe there's something there, but it looks to me as though the only usable sources here are the two by Aburime – and if there are only two usable articles, both recent and by the same author, I am skeptical that an entire subsection is merited. Maybe there's scope to mention antis, but the way they are discussed in this revision is not it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

the BITE model was included to back up the claim that antis mirrored the behavior of a cult made here in Aburime’s "The Cult Structure of the American Anti." DoggiestDoggo (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Given that none of the BITE model sources by Hassan talk about antis they do not support that claim though. If you want to say that Aburime has argued that antis exhibit cult-like behaviour then that can be sourced to Aburime. What you can't do is cite Hassan for the claim The online group known as "antis," which emerged in the United States around 2016, displays cult-like behaviors because he says no such thing. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

He outlines the criteria of cult behavior, the criteria that antis fit is explained in Aburime’s "The Cult Structure of the American Anti." DoggiestDoggo (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

If Aburime supports the claim then you should cite Aburime for it. According to our verifiability policy, All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. None of the Hassan sources directly support any of the content here. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

My mistake then, I am new to editing on Wikipedia (if that wasn’t already painfully clear). I still don’t believe that the entire section should be removed. DoggiestDoggo (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I have the same concern. I posted about this discussion on various projects and hope to get some more input, as I KNOW that other people may bring it up in the future. Historyday01 (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)