Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:04, 19 April 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.

What??

Hi, i'm from the nofap community, and being honest, the comments about nofap are, exagerated to say the least, first of all, almost everyone from the community is not misognist or racist, where did you guys get his from? 2804:1B3:AD83:E9C7:60C9:2F2C:C8F8:2B44 (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any WP:Reliable Sources backing up that position, or is that your WP:Original Research. Also see WP:MANDY. Cakelot1 (talk) 06:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Yup, there is a distinction between epistemologically responsible knowledge and WP:THETRUTH. We don't know "the truth", we only know what is epistemologically responsible, as rendered by WP:RS.

If you want "proof", just count the claims of conspiracy from https://www.reddit.com/r/NoFap/comments/u34ltr/the_double_standards_are_insane/ They basically claim that the articles cited herein are paid by the V.I.L.E. porn industry, and that the tiny world elite is robbing men of their wealth and freedom, mainly through not teaching them that semen retention boosts health and energy (esotericism). tgeorgescu (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

tgeorgescu fyi NoFap moderators are inciting posts on Wiki, claiming pornography paid for this page. Again. This is why there are new posts without any new scientific citations. They appear to be angry about a 2021 article accurately cited in the wiki and plotting to try to get it removed. https://www.reddit.com/r/NoFap/comments/125kj0f/wtf_is_going_on_with_wikipedia_nofap_creates/ Guardsmanmario (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Mainstream society has gone far left. ROFLMAO. "Mainstream society has gone far neoliberal" would be more accurate. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Lets talk about it your all Informations are incorrect No-Fap originally originated from Celibacy more than 5000 years before when people were believing in flat Earth theory. Giving more information about that I was myself a porn addict but after leaving it I experienced change in my life you can ask my Psychologist. Even today's Neuroscience agree to it! Another thing is that before industrialisation even your forefathers including mine when there were no smart phones and TV's. They didn't know too much about faping. They were mentally and physically strong if you still don't believe you can ask Dr. Trish Leigh about this!

https://www.facebook.com/drtrishleigh 106.207.36.194 (talk) 05:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Trish Leigh is:

• not a scientist;
• not a medical researcher;
• not a psychology researcher;
• not a sexology researcher.

And porn addiction is a bogus diagnosis, source: DSM-5-TR. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Proxying for a banned user

I could mine the WP:RS mentioned by the banned user, but while it would make the case stronger, I'm afraid that it is basically a repetition of what already is there now in the article. And to the extent that it isn't, it fails WP:MEDRS.

Anyway, the bigger point is: whoever thinks our article is not supported by or misrepresents mainstream science is wrong. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Retracted paper

Hi, so at this part whoever wrote this mentioned the retracted 145% testosterone paper:

"NoFap was founded in June 2011 by Pittsburgh web developer Alexander Rhodes after reading a thread on Reddit about a now-retracted study"

I can't speak on behalf of most people, but personally when I see "retracted study" I think to myself "alright, if that study got retracted then it probably had faulty methodology so I guess the conclusion was incorrect", etc.. But in this case, the article was retracted because it overlapped with a previous article the author(s) published, which was basically the same paper but in Chinese (the native language of the authors), not on account of the content of the paper itself. Here is the retraction notice in question, which is also in the main article: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1631/jzus.2003.r236

So I would like to request that someone adds a short sentence after the one I quoted that mentions this fact. Cheers 2A00:23C5:E929:9E01:FDB2:917:4A3F:9258 (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The source for the larger section does specifically mention this study. Since the study was retracted, this seems like exactly the kind of significant detail that primary sources are useful for. I don't think it's entirely accurate to say that this wasn't about the content of the paper itself. As Retraction in academic publishing explains, a retraction is not the same as a correction. The point of retraction is that a retracted study should no longer be cited.

I have adjusted this to explain that this study was originally from 2003, and wasn't retracted until 2021. This seemed like a potential source of confusion, since most of the article is about things which happened prior to this retraction. Grayfell (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, it's also probably worth mentioning WP:MEDRS. Medical sources are held to a higher standard on Misplaced Pages, and this one should not be cited for factual claims for multiple reasons, even without having been retracted. Grayfell (talk) 00:03, 19 April 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