# Talk:Shipping discourse

Could the concept of DNI be mentioned? I found some sources but couldn't think where I'd add it. [1] [2] [3] Web-julio (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I personally think DNIs are not that much related to shipping discourse. Sure, one may choose to DNI proshippers or antishippers, but that's only one of the choices. The sources pretty much says so, too. Spinixster (trout me!) 02:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the average reader would not register that Wikipe-tan and Commons-tan are sisters and would be somewhat confused by the caption. The age gap (I think) would probably be a reasonable guess given the height difference, but sibling-ness? Not so sure (although not sure enough in the opposite direction to revert immediately). @Magatsu62, since you added this to the caption. Based5290 :3 (talk) 05:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree; I don't think the caption should mention incest, as it requires niche Wikipedia knowledge to recognize.  Generalissima (talk) (it/she)   05:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Yeah it definitely should ~2025-31760-46 (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Here are certain passages I take issue with:
Anti-shippers, referred to as "antis," take the view that fictional portrayals normalize harmful dynamics and behaviors and pose a particular threat to children. Fanfiction depicting underage characters in sexual contexts is characterized as child pornography by such antis.
This ignores the fact that such content is literally considered child pornography in various jurisdictions. See Legal status of fictional pornography depicting minors. Yes, this applies to even written fanfiction of fictional characters in some jurisdictions. Attributing this perspective to just anti-shippers would be inaccurate. Fanfiction and child pornography is mentioned in sources like this one, for example. There are more out there. 
Academic coverage generally disputes antis' claims regarding fictional works, analyzing the movement as a moral panic, harassment campaign, or "faux-activism." Antis have been criticized for equating fictional content with real-world sexual abuse, online harassment of pro-shippers, as well as the spread of moralistic and pathologizing attitudes towards kink and sexuality.
This implies that being concerned about child sexual abuse is a "moralistic and pathologizing attitude", when mainstream society sees anything other than that as WP:FRINGE. Maybe it's difficult to find sources for this as it pertains to shipping discourse specifically, but I don't think that in itself should mean it can't be mentioned, and would be an odd exception when compared to other pedophile-adjacent subjects covered on Wikipedia. When read in the worst light possible, it reads as pedophile advocacy. To be clear, I do not think this was the author's intent at all, but it's another reason I think things need to be phrased better.
The actions of antis have been compared to censorship campaigns against LGBT works, as well as regulatory codes such as the Hays Code and Comics Code.
Another reason the distinction should be made clearer is that there's a big difference between LGBT censorship and pedophiles having relationships! LGBTQ grooming conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory for a reason. I think I've made my point, but here's one more passage that runs into the same problem: 
The strong emphasis on protecting minors within the anti movement has been described as stemming from broader moral attitudes towards protecting children and adolescents from inappropriate sexuality and maintaining childhood innocence. The anti movement may reflect a broader Generation Z discomfort with sexual material. 
Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

While I'm at it, some potentially useful sources I found through Google scholar: [4][5][6]. I'd also suggest having anything about child pornography be in its own section so it's *not* directly equated with other more healthy sexual behaviours. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Incorporated the sources you linked; thank you very much. I'll try my hand at rewording some things later.  Generalissima (talk) (it/she)   08:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate it. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
I think a potential issue at play here is that the academic sources seem to be mostly written by people partial to the pro-ship side of the debate, so they seem to be spending more time leveling criticism at anti-ship (IE, the Hays Code and Comics Code comparison, the moral panic/harassment campaign labels, etc) rather than criticizing pro-ship positions as genuinely problematic in some cases. Most of the criticism leveled at pro-shippers in the sources seems to be aimed at their reception of criticism (IE, minimizing critiques by labeling it as "anti") rather than actually pointing out potentially problematic positions or suggesting that defending fictional pedophilia might actually be a bad thing as the antis say.
TL;DR I think that the pro-ship lean in the sources kinda skews how we can cover this unfortunately. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
There's more to shipping discourse than "defending fictional pedophillia". Even if there were no more sources (which wasn't the case yesterday and I think the ones I provided have been a good start in improving this), things could be phrased more delicately. I really do think the pedophilia stuff should be its own subsection because I believe this article might be against WP:CHILDPROTECT otherwise. I also don't think it should soley attribute the position to "anti-shippers" or equate pedophilia with other more healthy sexual behaviours like consensual kink or being LGBT+. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you, my point was just that the sources initially used in the article had a pro-ship slant. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Why should fictional pedophilia be singled out versus rape, abuse, gore, etc? There's nothing to show that lolicon or stuff like that is harmful even if it's seen as disgusting in real life, and just because some jurisdictions (not all or most) criminalize it does not mean it's off-limits to discuss as part of proship/anti discourse. It's a taboo fantasy and nothing more, saying it normalizes pedophilia or makes people go out and molest kids is like saying violent video games or gorey moves will influence people to do that in real life, or a rape kink will influence rapists to act on those desires. 2603:7080:A5F0:77B0:1C7:54BC:9DC9:D170 (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

This has been stated multiple times in this talk post, but I think that there is bias against anti-shippers. They are generalized to be teenagers, and they are referred to as "antis" for the majority of the article. I find this weird as pro-shippers aren't referred to as pros. It is understandable that this is supposed to have a neutral standpoint, but I notice lots of bias against these anti-shippers. Should something be done about this? 
IHadHotDogsForDinner (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

They are generalized to be teenagers: the claim that antis are younger than pro-shippers, and often teenagers, is cited to two academic articles. I don't have access to Aburime 2022, but Urbancyzk says antis tended to be much younger [than pro-shippers], many of them in early or mid-teens. Unless Aburime supports the largest contingent in their early-to-mid teens we might need to change the exact wording, and the sources cited by Urbancyzk certainly look as though they could be better, so if you can find a better analysis of the demographics we could update this – but we shouldn't remove sourced demographic information merely because you think it makes antis look bad.
As for why antis are referred to as "antis" but pro-shippers are not referred to as "pros": these are the terms used both in fandom and seemingly the sources. This isn't a bias against antis: this is just using the commonly used words for things. Antis are more commonly referred to as such, whereas I have never seen "pros" be used to refer to pro-shippers. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Predators are often adults, their target age range often opposes them. It's not hard to understand. We just had someone try to shoot themselves at a Wikipedia event over Wikipedia not supporting their pro-predator world view. The LGBT stuff isn't a conspiracy, it's a fake queer ideology called radqueer trying to make being a predator inherently queer. Just like sexual liberalism did with sexually violent men in the 90s. 75.174.89.9 (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Pro-ship is nothing more than a precursor ideology of radqueer/xenosatanism, the end goal was always to push the idea that works of fiction are physically incapable of affecting reality. 75.174.89.9 (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
764 (organization) is involved in this too. Most of the kids they exploit have a history of being in pro-ship communities. 75.174.89.9 (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Being pro-ship is not being a predator. And don't use the slippery slope fallacy here. Just to also say, this has no relevance to improving the article at all. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver (talk to me, maybe?) 20:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
>Being pro-ship is not being a pred-AAAAAAAAACK!!! ~2025-33610-38 (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
1. We're supposed to be discussing the article itself, not what the article is discussing.
2. ...What the hell? IHadHotDogsForDinner (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
I also have noticed the gross bias towards proshitters, but I have neither the writing skills to remake the article nor the arguing skills to justify it. I’m not really sorry. ~2025-33610-38 (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
We write what's supported by reliable sources. And, in my opinion, this article is very neutral in its point of view. I may be wrong, but you might be only focusing on the pro-ship part because you don't like pro-shippers. That's fine—don't get me wrong, I'll always believe everyone's entitled to their opinions—but there just isn't an obvious bias here. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver (talk to me, maybe?) 01:08, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
We have to base the article off of what the reliable sources on the topic present. Both Aburime and Urbańczyk's sources take a relatively pro-ship stance on the matter, but they are academically published sources which have undergone peer review. No reliable source calls pro-shippers "pros", and many use the term "anti" as a colloquial abbreviation for anti-shipper. The fact that anti-shippers as a demographic skew younger is also noted in these sources. Generalissima (talk) (it/she)   17:57, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

this page seems to be mainly about pro ship vs anti ship even though there is a lot of shipping discourse outside of it to my knowledge Skeletons are the axiom (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean? 🫀 Crash // Organhaver (talk to me, maybe?) 19:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
like I feel like "shipping discourse" has a history be on "pro/anti"stuff like people attacking other's ship not for anti reasons but "in favor" of a different ship of course someone would have to find good sources about stuff like that obs so I get it if that kinda stuff isn't here due to lack of sources Skeletons are the axiom (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, you're pretty much right. Anyways, I'm unsure if that would be able to be in this article, even with sources, as this is majorly about the pro-ship/anti-ship thing. Maybe ask in Shipping? 🫀 Crash // Organhaver (talk to me, maybe?) 19:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

This is obviously biased against anti shippers. I don’t think any Wikipedia page should have bias because this just seems like it was made to spite/“own” people lmao. ~2025-31760-46 (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

See WP:SBEXT, and WP:BIAS in general. Sure, there shouldn't be any bias, but what can we do? 🫀 Crash // Organhaver (talk to me, maybe?) 21:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)