Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:49, 28 January 2023

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of NoFap was copied or moved into Gary Wilson (author) with on 7 June 2022. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Internet culture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Websites: Computing Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pornography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Article is obviously biased

Apparently not masturbating makes you racist, misogynistic and “whorephobic” lol. And I liked the use of “far-right, religious fundamentalists, and conservative who are biblical inerrantists” as wikipedia-speak for religious people. This article needs to be moved to Criticism of NoFap and a whole new one written that actually talks about what NoFap is I💖平沢唯 (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Won't do. Misplaced Pages is biased against pseudoscience, it has always been and it will always be. And we have plenty of WP:RS telling us that NoFap is sexual pseudoscience on steroids. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@ILoveHirasawaYui: I'm not an admin, so I'm not the person imparting bans around here. Religious guilt is an issue, however, it is the guilt of religion and not that of masturbation. And we're not even criticizing religion for this. We are criticizing the fact that random people self-diagnose with a mental disorder which is not recognized by MDs, and then proceed to self-treatment, often paying lots of money to self-appointed reboot coaches. Those who are short of money just enjoy self-treatment encouraged by the NoFap forum. In other words: that forum is loaded with psychically fragile people, very frustrated, and it is seen as a place to recruit adepts for extreme right organizations. Basically, what happened to /r/incels is happening to /r/NoFap at a slower speed; I know that the leader of NoFap does not want such troublemakers, however he is paddling upstream. And it seems that their recently deceased guru did not shy from personal attacks, threats of violence and even blackmailing his opponents into giving him control of their own website (straight dope: his attempt to get in control of their website through WIPO arbitration failed). tgeorgescu (talk) 02:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

See . I did not write that because I would oppose masturbation, but because it is mainstream science. Same applies to what I write about NoFap. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Empirical data

If you want sheer empirical data, here are raw empirical data: https://osf.io/pva6k Hint: it was never illegal to scientifically study publicly available information. Confidentiality contracts are only valid if signed in writing on paper by both parties. One cannot unilaterally impose that publicly available information is off-limits for scientists. Have the scientists signed their agreement to keep it confidential on paper? No, so they are not bound by website license or by disclaimers. Same as confidentiality disclaimers from e-mails are juridically worthless. If lawyers did write such disclaimers, they are incompetent lawyers. See e.g. https://cenkuslaw.com/annoying-email-confidentiality-disclaimers/ A lawyer who thinks they can unilaterally put a random person under a NDA by simply e-mailing them a disclaimer is mentally unfit for their job. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Anxiety rather than porn

About Prause's paper that anxiety rather than porn explains the failures attributed by nofappers to "porn addiction": I'm afraid such claim enters WP:MEDRS territory, which requires systematic reviews, preferably indexed for MEDLINE. That's why I chose not to cite Prause's paper. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-Protected edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In either Litigation or the subsection Research concerning NoFap forums and followers of the Reception section, please add the lawsuit against Nicole Prause. https://www.vice.com/amp/en/article/ywa97m/nofap-founder-suing-a-neuroscientist-no-nut-november 2600:100C:A206:278D:D074:8947:B731:EC92 (talk) 07:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done tgeorgescu (talk) 07:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

2600:100C:A206:278D:D074:8947:B731:EC92 appears created solely to insert a personal attack against an individual living person on this web page. The resolution of the case was never covered by any media because it is not newsworthy, failing . The law firm defaming their target in national news does not make the case newsworthy. Further, Dr. Prause is not as an individual scientist who admitted zero liability. The mere appearance of this case by a targeted edit from a new user appears to be NoFap members themselves trying to smear those who publish science on them. From the study "NP made reports to law enforcement due to threats of harassment and violence posted on Reboot forums that named her." The fact that the resolution was never covered makes clear wiki is being abused to include media sought by a for-profit group attacking the reputable sources and private individuals publishing science on them makes clear this was nuisance suit they want to misrepresent here again. Antfightclubcatsup (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The MAC address for the user was from a Wireshark server used to hide his identity identity. For this reason, I believe 2600:100C:A206:278D:D074:8947:B731:EC92 is actually a conflict of interest WP:COI for NoFap hiding their identity to request inappropriate edits in Wikipeda. This was one of the online resources showing the address belongs to an IP bank used to elude identification https://maclookup.app/search/result?mac=2600%3A100C%3AA206%3A278D%3AD074%3A8947%3AB731%3AEC92 Antfightclubcatsup (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

@Fantboy3: I know that many want to remove mentioning pseudoscience from this article, however that goes against the website policy WP:PSCI. 'What Misplaced Pages won't do is pretend that the work of "lunatic charlatans", as they were described by Jimmy Wales, is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse". It isn't.' WP:LUNATICS.

In respect to This article has a concerning agenda that does not take into account all perspectives and evidence.: you have been served with WP:GOODBIAS upon your talk page. Namely, DSM-5-TR (March 2022) gave the lie to Wilson's/YBOP's "preponderance of evidence" claim. After 20 years of broadband internet there wasn't any evidence that porn addiction even exists. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Fantboy3: The place to discuss the article NoFap is Talk:NoFap. According to WP:GEVAL, Misplaced Pages does not treat perspectives equally. The American Psychiatric Association officially gave the lie to the existence of porn addiction in March 2022, and the existence of porn addiction is NoFap's primary claim. In respect to articles rendering the views of scientists see WP:PARITY. Those who, verifiably, speak in the name of mainstream science and medical orthodoxy are given prominence in articles about WP:FRINGE topics.

About physical beliefs that are not supported by medicine see WP:CITELEAD.

NoFap believes that the stimulus porn + excessive masturbation is the cause of disease, instead of being just a symptom. By and large, psychiatrists and sexologists do not buy the into claims made by NoFap. So that makes NoFap WP:FRINGE.

NoFap justifies itself through a paranoid worldview, wherein mainstream sexologists are shills of the porn industry, in a grandiose comparison with MDs who were shills of Big Tobacco. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

(Moved here from my talk page. -Guy)

I have a question regarding my edits on the NoFap page of Misplaced Pages. I respect your comment and understand the part regarding it being based on pseudoscience. That makes sense. However, I think that a lot of my edits were, outside of the removal of this term, fair and made the article more objective. NoFap has a lot of disinformation and unsubstantiated claims in its site, and it's okay to mention that, but there were also many unsubstantiated and un-cited claims against the site which should not have been removed. If I go back and edit the article to put back in that NoFap was a pseudoscience (as this is a very real error on my part), would it be acceptable for me to revert to the other changes I had made to the article?

Thanks for your help, Fantboy3 Fantboy3 (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Wrong place, wrong user, wrong way to try to re-introduce your edits after they were reverted.

Instead of just re-adding the edits that were reverted, please read and follow the advice at WP:BRD.

Instead of posting to any user talk page you should discuss the article at Talk:NoFap.

And if you insist on commenting on a user talk page instead of the right place, instead of posting to my talk page saying "I respect your comment and understand the part regarding it being based on pseudoscience" you should post to the talk page of the person who actually made that comment, which is tgeorgescu, not me.

I have never edited the page in question before this comment, nor have I ever had any interactions with you, but now that I have checked your posting history, I will tell you that you need to change your ways. Let's look at one of your edits:

In that edit you removed " ... physical beliefs that are not supported by medicine." with the comment "Allegations that 'the claims of the community are not supported by medicine' are not supported by the citation cited."

You should not write things that you know are not true. In particular, The Psychology Today cite says:

"Unfortunately, the NoFap community seems filled with people who believe that the strength of their beliefs is equivalent to scientific evidence, and they fail to acknowledge the subjective weakness of their reliance on anecdotes... The press is part of the problem, by treating these issues as though the anecdotes and moral conviction are just as important as scientific evidence. That’s why we have the anti-vaccine crisis. Same dynamic here, thankfully with less critical results."

Did you imaging that nobody would check the citations and see that your claim was false?

At this point. I think you should propose whichever change you think is your best here on the article talk page and participate in the discussion. If it is good, others will agree and it will get into the article. Then move on to your second-best change, etc. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Fantboy3: You see, his response is even harsher than what I had to say. And I'm usually the party pooper in respect to porn addiction articles. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I thought about trying pornography, but I couldn't find anyone who would sell me a pornograph. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

To be sure, this accuses the DSM-5 team of having committed the egregious error of discarding porn addiction. What did DSM-5-TR had to say about porn addiction? The same things as DSM-5, namely that there is not enough peer-reviewed evidence that porn addiction exists at all. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Internet culture articles
• Low-importance Internet culture articles
• WikiProject Internet culture articles
• B-Class Websites articles
• Low-importance Websites articles
• B-Class Websites articles of Low-importance
• B-Class Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Websites articles
• B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Low-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• B-Class Pornography articles
• Low-importance Pornography articles
• B-Class Low-importance Pornography articles
• WikiProject Pornography articles