Talk:NoFap/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Lead needs adjustments

The last two sentences of the lead have issues. The claim that "physichal benefits" of abstaining from masturbation "are not supported by mainstream medicine" is not claimed by source 4. This source's goal was to "evaluate the associations of motivation for abstinence from masturbation", not to study the science of the physical effects of frequent masturnation. It also notes in its Limitations section that more research into the subject is necessary.

Source 5 meanwhile is a textbook that says nothing about NoFap (even in the quote). The phrases "simplistic, outdated, and incorrect" are not used in any of the sources to describe NoFap.

The sentences based on these sources should thus either be removed or changed. I'll also note that both of these controversial sentences were only added to this page in the last 6 months. Edit5001 (talk) 09:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Yup, the claim that abstaining from masturbation improves physical and psychical health is an outdated superstition. According to WP:FRINGE we do have to make this claim. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

You need to cite a reliable source to make that claim about NoFap, and you also need the source to include regular masturbation to pornography in its findings, because that is what NoFap is primarily about avoiding. The current cited sources simply do not say these things about NoFap. Masturbation, by itself, may not be unhealthy, but what about frequent masturbation? What about frequent masturbation to pornography? These are things in which various studies have produced different results, with some showing evidence of negative effects on physical/mental health. That corroborates with NoFap. Edit5001 (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

While I would admit that there could be compulsive masturbation, like there is compulsive eating, the cases are so scarce that a regular MD never seen any such patient in his/her whole life. In this case, compulsion is treated, not masturbation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE, we should summarize the academic consensus on fringe topics, but beyond this, sources must be primarily about the topic. Not other topics like opposition to masturbation, not the health benefits or determents of masturbation, not compulsive porn use, not whether or not porn compulsion is also addiction, etc. Crossroads -talk- 15:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The concept that regular masturbation to internet pornography has negative effects is far from a fringe scientific viewpoint. Can you provide reliable sources that specifically say there's an academic consensus that NoFap is incorrect? I've seen many sources that corroborate some NoFap claims. This 2018 paper indicates that regular internet pornography use (and masturbation to it) are often associated with a variety of sexual dysfunctions and is inherently addictive due to sex hormones' effects on the brain. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327295984_Sexual_Dysfunctions_in_the_Internet_Era . It notes; "Internet pornography use shares many similarities with substance addiction" and that "Since 2007, mounting evidence has suggested that Internet pornography might be a risk factor for sexual dysfunctions, including low libido and impaired erectile and orgasmic functions".

Another study found a reduction in 'Delay Discounting' (or delaying of gratification) in those who consumed internet pornography. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Trading-Later-Rewards-for-Current-Pleasure%3A-and-Negash-Sheppard/978f3fa95544ae041f6fff2a3318323a5b384887 These findings are noteworthy. Edit5001 (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Not WP:MEDRS-compliant: one is a WP:PRIMARY study, the other is not indexed for MEDLINE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay. As I asked, can you provide reliable sources that meet the criteria which say there's an academic consensus that all of NoFap's claims are incorrect? Like I mentioned earlier, source 5 is literally a random textbook that only talks about masturbation by itself - not pornography - and doesn't mention NoFap at all. This simply doesn't back the line it's being cited to support. Source 4 doesn't back the line either though for slightly different reasons that I mentioned in my initial post. Edit5001 (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

As stated:

Per WP:FRINGE, we should summarize the academic consensus on fringe topics ... Crossroads -talk- 15:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

You have not shown that there is academic consensus that masturbation to pornography is harmless. The sources currently cited in the lead certainly make no such claim. Edit5001 (talk) 10:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The fringe topic is masturbation is bad for you. Nothing is harmless, even drinking water could kill someone. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

NoFap isn't just about masturbation, though. It's specifically in regards to masturbation to pornography. But even if it's about all masturbation, it should be noted on the page that there's evidence in regards to harm from regular masturbation to pornography. I reiterate that the lead should be changed because the sources cited do not back the sentences they're being made to make. Edit5001 (talk) 10:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

As stated, compulsion is harmful, not masturbating to pornography in itself. And you're wrong: WP:FRINGE requires of us to present the WP:RS/AC upon masturbation inside this article. NoFap is like stopping from eating would be the solution to eating compulsion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

What several studies have indicated is that masturbation to pornography is inherently impulsive because it affects dopamine in the brain in similar ways to addictive drug use. The academic consensus on masturbation by itself means little in regards to NoFap because NoFap isn't just about masturbation by itself. Research has shown that there's a world of difference between masturbating once a week using your imagination and masturbating every day to internet pornography (which is what NoFap deals with). This whole page needs to take these things into account, and the lead does most of all. Edit5001 (talk) 11:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Dopamine is a debunked canard, see e.g. Zen Faulkes's answer at https://www.quora.com/Is-dopamine-a-feel-good-happy-chemical-neurotransmitter

Otherwise, the WP:ONUS is upon NoFap to show that quitting masturbation for 90 days heals anything. Like it were the onus upon he who claims that not eating for 20 days is the solution to eating compulsion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Quora is not a reliable source.... And I showed you two studies already that indicated regular masturbation to pornography has negative mental and physical effects.

And I will continue to reiterate my main point: Sources 4 and 5 cited in the lead do not back the points they're being cited to make. Edit5001 (talk) 11:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, masturbation is bad for you is a delusion pertaining to religious fanaticism or pseudoscience. That's the WP:FRINGE view that has to be put in context of WP:MAINSTREAM science. WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies to it not being fringe. WP:RULES have been followed scrupulously, if you don't see this is because you did not get the spirit of our rules. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Since Edit5001 has been indefinitely blocked, I suggest HATting this section. The reason that editor was blocked in not directly related, but it was due to similar behavior. If a non-blocked editor has similar proposals to make, it would be better to start a fresh new section. Grayfell (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Addition of content which is not about NoFap

Regarding this revert of edits by @Tgeorgescu:, I am confused about why so much content was added which is not directly about NoFap. I appreciate that we should summarize the academic consensus, but including even more tangential sources seems like a messy way to do. Further, this opens up the article to abuse by editors wishing to include similar studies in the future. I appreciate that these are literature reviews, but this is still straying very far from the article's topic without saying anything in particular about NoFap itself, right? I feel like I'm missing something here, but I am concerned that by using so many tangential sources we are granting greater significance to this relatively small internet community. Grayfell (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Grayfell: I will abide by the WP:CONSENSUS. Anyway, I guess NoFap is more about claims about porn addiction than about masturbating. I mean nobody would consider stopping from masturbating if they were not scared of porn rewiring their brains like those of drug addicts. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to revert the revert, but like I said, I'm afraid this is giving the NoFap movement undue heft by implying that it has a place in the literature. I'm sure you've noticed that figuring out how to walk this line comes up a lot with fringe topics, and I'm not consistent on where I stand. If you think my concern is misplaced, I won't be offended.

I'm not sure what NoFap is really about, honestly. I don't know that there is a shared source for their fears. My impression of the NoFap subreddit is that it's largely about viewing masturbation as a problem, at least in practice. Pornography seen as a cause of the problem, not necessarily a problem itself. Users can add a day-counter to the end of their usernames that automatically tracks their streaks. The post explaining this feature says "You make NoFap what it is and 1000s of lives have been improved through simply removing one variable from life, PMO."[1] "PMO" is a common acronym there which means "porn, masturbation, orgasm". Note it's described as one variable.

Unfortunately, this is all WP:OR, of course, but should explain why I'm reluctant to add more about this aspect. I don't necessarily think the members of the movement share a specific goal beyond "don't masturbate". Grayfell (talk) 07:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

At least as the founder states its purpose: the problem is porn addiction (which they maintain is as real as drugs addiction), and not fapping is the cure for this problem (also called "rebooting"). So yeah, they practice not fapping, but their declared purpose is healing porn addiction. And at least as far the founder can be trusted, he does not even proclaim lifelong avoidance of masturbation, but just for those months needed for "rebooting". Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

People seem to be extremely confused and think this article is about abstaining from pornography and masturbation rather than about the website/subreddit. This article is specifically about the website/subreddit. Articles etc. that are not specifically commenting on the website have no relevance and need to be removed. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Removal of science about the reddit

AlphabeticThing9 systematically removed science about the actually Reddit claiming it was not about the Reddit. More WP:vandalism on this page. Talk before removing 1/2 of an accurately cited article, including a sentence that has been added back as well-supported literally 14 times. Etta0xtkpiq45ulaey2 (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not very happy with those edits, but you have to cut others some slack. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

100% happy to have factual information added, but removing carefully cited/quoted peer-reviewed sources to intentionally misrepresent what actually is known (by science) about the group is WP:vandalism. If there was any science suggesting this group actually helped anyone...or did not cause harm...it should also be here. It just does not exist. Etta0xtkpiq45ulaey2 (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Etta0xtkpiq45ulaey2: Again, not every deletion is vandalism. You should abide by WP:AGF, especially with established editors who seem to know and do say what they're doing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Optimistically, a good faith edit removed all the peer-reviewed science. Happy to have it back. Etta0xtkpiq45ulaey2 (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

AlphabeticThing9 You again systematically removed science that specifically investigated the NoFap reddit. Your claim that what you deleted was "not relevant to the Reddit" is clearly false and failing to engage in discussion before unilateral editing is looking more like WP:vandalism. Why should we delete the actual science focused on the exact group the wiki entry is for?Etta0xtkpiq45ulaey2 (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Dissent

There no published evidence that other neuroscientists dissent from the view of the cited neuroscientists, or that such dissent would be something else than a WP:FRINGE view. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hilton

I have commented out the Hilton "reference", since that's no way to verify anything. If somebody wants to re-add it, please provide a real WP:RS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Citations in Opening Paragraph

I do not understand how either of the quoted citations [5] or [6] confirm the sentence "The group's views and efforts to combat pornography addiction have been criticized as simplistic, outdated, and incorrect by neuroscientists, psychologists, and other medical professionals." Can somebody elaborate? 173.77.153.52 (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:CITELEAD: references are generally speaking not needed for the lead section. Anyway, I obliged. The two references you mention give the why they view it like that, Huffington Post and David Ley state for a fact that they view it like that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems i am not the only one that has issues regarding the opening paragraph. This needs to be looked into, as it seems Tgeorgescu is not willing to change his mind on this, regardless of how misleading the paragraph is. The huffington post and David Lay articles do not mention anything regarding neuroscience, and neither of them even include any statements made by a neuroscientist. White Guy (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)White Guy

Look, I have better things to do that to comb every source cited in the article in order to find if this neuroscientists term applies. My point was just that the rules have to be obeyed, for the rest consider me neutral in respect to your claim. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Header issues

I have an issue with the way the header is phrased. I've tried to edit it (by following wiki guidelines), but it seems that the other editors have a problem with the edits (without stating any consistent or clear arguments), so to avoid being given a warning or a ban, i'm taking the discussion to here.

The issue is this sentence: "The group's views and efforts to combat pornography addiction have been criticized as simplistic, outdated, and incorrect by neuroscientists, psychologists, and other medical professionals.[6][7][5][8]"

First off, none of the 4 links that are given state that the group's views are "incorrect", but rather "damaging", and so we should use that wording. It also makes the statement less opinionated.

Secondly, none of the 4 links mention any neuroscientists, so it seems pretty obvious to me that this word needs to be removed from the header. Another user claimed that the "neuroscientist" claim was actually just referencing the sources found in the main body of the article. But I don't think i need to tell you that this is not the way articles on Wikipedia are made. After every claim, there needs to be a source-link that substantiates the claim. The source shouldn't be found in some later section of the article, where it would be totally disconnected from the place where the claim was made. And even if we go by that logic, then what's the point of having any source-links in the article at all? If you're of the opinion that a claim can be substantiated by a source-link much later in the article, then why not just remove all source-links in the article, and instead just have a long list of sources at the very end?

White Guy (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)White Guy

@White Guy: See WP:CITELEAD. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I would like to know what the point of any of the sources in the header are, if you think that we should just allow for the claims to be made in the body without any sources. Do you disagree with the view that these source-links clearly imply that the previous sentence is substantiated in those 4 links? White Guy (talk) 11:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)White Guy

@White Guy: Yup, you require neat, logical explanations for stuff we just take for granted. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I'm sorry what? I would like to have a serious discussion on this topic and i feel like you're just mocking me. If you're not willing to have an honest talk about my questions, then you're really only leaving me with one option, which is to participate in the edit war. White Guy (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)White Guy

"Damaging" certainly implies "incorrect" and we do put things in our own words rather than plagiarize. It's clear that those sources view NoFap as incorrect. I don't have time to find which source supports "neuroscientists", but if someone does, then please re-add it with the source. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@White Guy: It were mockery only if I had reverted your edit, which I didn't. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Crossroads: To be honest, I could not find them either. Do they really exist in online papers?--Histoire des religieuses 17:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

As a fringe topic, NoFap is built on pseudoscience about the brain:

"The NoFap folks regurgitate a lot of old myths about how refraining from masturbation helps them to be more energetic, more sexual, more virile, and more manly. They’ve now paired it with the new modern worship of brain science, making lots of extrapolations on weak science to argue that porn has a disproportionate effect on the brain. They are also now linked with moral groups who oppose porn on feminist and religious grounds, and use the same brain-based language to mask that these are actually moral arguments, not medical ones. No one in the movement is actually a scientist who researches neurophysiology and function. Instead, they are enthusiastic amateurs who've learned enough about brain science to be dangerous: They see what they expect to see, and interpret brain science to support their assumptions."[2]

Scientists who study brains reject these broad, simplistic conclusions, and this should be indicated per WP:FRINGE. Grayfell (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

NoFap history of legal threats

A letter just published that NoFap has been threatening to sue scientists who are critical of them (https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10508-020-01722-x.pdf). These scientists stated that they will not be silenced by such threats as NoFap is part of the public sphere covered by Free Speech. Specifically <

Individuals or organizations behind commercial ofers (like the community membership ofered by NoFap LLC.) have legitimate fnancial stakes and are thus equally legitimately concerned about their vulnerability to defamation campaigns. As they operate in the public sphere, however, we deem it not only as legitimate but necessary to acknowledge and cite them as one prominent voice in the debate around masturbation abstinence—everything else would be an unjustifable muting of their stand. We have no stakes or stands in the dispute (that has culminated in legal action) but were merely interested in the underlying structure of men’s decision to voluntarily refrain from masturbation. Based on more than a thousand responses from a relatively unselected Internet forum, our data suggest that the motivational correlates point stronger in the direction of value confict and (mis-)perceptions of masturbation as unhealthy than actual problematic sexuality. Clearly, these data rely on self-report rather than objective data and may thus refect men’s subjective reality more than an “objective” truth. Equally clearly, pointing to Web sites as visible protagonists in the discourse around masturbation abstinence does not imply that our participants were ofcial members of their community.

— Roland Imhoff

This seems important given the edit wars on this page as NoFap appears litigious and anti-science, in direct opposition to their claims of supporting science/scientists. Is this an appropriate ad? If so, what section seems best? Is a new section warranted? Anemicdonalda (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

All I could find is that Rhodes claimed libel from Prause, see e.g. https://skepchick.org/2019/11/is-pornography-addictive-nofap-founder-sues-neuroscientist-who-says-no/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, about the merits of the case: Prause was harassed, I don't doubt that, however it is dubious that Rhodes himself would be the source of such harassment. Maybe members of his forum are, but he is not his forum. I also believe him that he tries to keep his house clean of extremism, racism and hate speech. I don't know what Donald Hilton said about child molesters, but if he meant that people associated with the Kinsey Institute are child molesters, then, yes, he meant that Prause is a child molester. In the Judith Reisman article there is a WP:RS that she called most sexologists "Nazi serial pedophiles". If you Google their names, you will see that Hilton and Reisman are often associated (part of the same movement, so to speak).

Reading court documents, Prause says she will bring a witness that will testify that Hilton meant that people associated with the Kinsey Institute, and Prause in particular, are child molesters. The claim about KI did not come as a surprise: it is what Reisman claims for decades. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Implications

"...a 2003 Chinese study[note 1] ... claimed that men who refrain from masturbation for seven days experience a 145.7% spike in testosterone levels on the seventh day." Assuming that the same effect is achieved through abstinence from all male sexual activity, (and why not), testosterone levels in the Vatican must be through the roof. Could explain a lot.Achar Sva (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

That is original research. To be included in this article, any implications would have to be directly linked to "nofap" by a reliable source, which would also have to meet WP:MEDRS for any claims about testosterone or psychology. Also, endocrinology is a very complicated field of medicine, so interpretations like this are not simple or easy. Grayfell (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we remove the sentence about the Chinese study? I'd support that. Achar Sva (talk) 07:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

It says there was a peak on seventh day. It does not say it remained higher thereafter. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I wonder why it focuses on the 7th day? You'll be aware, of course, that the number 7 has peculiar potency in Biblical texts. God's creation took 7 days, the descendants of Jacob who came down into Egypt numbered 70, and the book of Revelation is filthy with sevens. There's excellent reason for this in biblical culture (7 is the perfected number of the cosmos, consisting of the number 4, which is the four directions of the earth, plus 3, which are the heavens above, the underworld below, and the mountain at the centre of the world), but why would the Chinese join in this little bit of madness? The world is full of wonders. Achar Sva (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Chinese professors have to publish lots of research in Chinese journals. But their problem is that they don't have the means (funds) to carry out proper research. Perhaps a tiny elite does real research, the rest just have to write something. Western-style scientific research is incredibly expensive. E.g. in Socialist Romania an engineer worked for an army research institute. He got the advice: "Don't waste your time with innovations, just copy the technology of the Russian tanks." Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

JCM

Journal of Clinical Medicine is published by MDPI, which is largely seen as a predatory publisher. Therefore it cannot make medical claims for Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

In fact, even if it's a reliable source, it doesn't mention NoFap at all. It's hard to persuade me with a fallacy of division. --Histoire des religieuses 02:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

CNET

The CNET article centers on Kraus's narrative. But its main point is: we don't know if porn addiction exists, but we will know more about that in three to five years. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

So, write in your agenda: Christmas 2025, when we will likely know if porn addiction exists or not. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Removal of category

According to WP:PSCI, the removal of the category pseudoscience cannot be taken lightly. It is Wikipedia's mandate to tell everybody that NoFap is pseudoscience.

In the end I have to remind everyone that the judgment of Tgeorgescu isn't binding. [3] is binding. If you have a problem with that, fill a request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. The decision is clearly logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2020#Pseudoscience—it was not something done in secret. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

New study addition

A new peer-reviewed publication in Archives of Sexual Behavior is fairly damning of NoFap and PornFree, but I am not sure where the article best fits. https://openresearch.lsbu.ac.uk/item/8vz02

Should it have its own paragraph given the focus on the community? Some considerations for the conclusions: "over-emphasizing on the notions of recovery and relapse seems to exacerbate feelings of despair and therefore further perpetuates problematic pornography use" "participants’ accounts of distress are associated with a rigid culture, promoted by the r/Nofap, within which procedures of abstinence are linked to claiming of male honor and its violation with intense shame, accompanied by feelings of betrayal and inferiority" "As these notions were framed by a dichotomous thinking of failure and prosperity, abstinence emerged as a collective moral commitment" "frequent pornography consumption does not seem to act like some typical dissociative facilitators (like alcohol or drugs). In particular, instead of numbing painful emotions through the facilitation of self-detachment, pornography offers the potential for transforming the self into a desired subjectivity within a virtual reality. In short, individuals have the opportunity to escape from a painful reality and resort to an artificial one where their wishes for transformation into ideal multilevel subjectivities are fulfilled through fantasy." "successful social exhibitionism, when attached to an identity crisis, appeared to play a vital role in self-perceptions of pornography addiction." "the addiction model is a symbolic resource that is usually evoked by individuals in order to mitigate feelings of guilt and responsibility" "It could be supported that nofap was transformed into a moral commitment that invests in the ‘price’ of hegemonic masculinity." Transmitting2020 (talk) 01:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

URL says under embargo. Are you sure you want to spill the beans? Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Deletion

@Howlongtosing: The source is Brain Watson's paper from 2020, not using Daily Beast or something like that. I reverted your deletion as badly motivated. So, I don't care about what the Daily Beast says or doesn't say, your deletion has nothing to do with that, so it was justly reverted as illegitimate deletion of WP:Verifiable information. I repeat: the Daily Beast is not the source of that information, Watson's paper is the source. So, if you ask what is my motivation for reverting you: we are at war with pseudoscience. We are not at war with Christ, we are not at war with Christianity, and I think that it is profoundly anti-Christian to spew out pseudoscience. The essence of pseudoscience is untruth, Christ is defined in the Bible as the Truth, and so to speak pseudoscientists are possessed by the spirit of Antichrist. I don't care about non-science (purely theological dogmas), but pseudoscience is the loud and clear voice of the Antichrist. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu:I know that the source is Brain Watson. Watson cites two articles in his paper for this claim, one being from the Daily Beast (that I have already mentioned) and another that was written by the Atlantic to support his claim that the LDS church is funding FTND. Neither of these sources claim that FTND or Nofap is being funded by "the Elders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Nor do they state that "FTND operates Nofap" Nofap is never mentioned by name in those two articles. Essentially this claim is relying upon Watson's claim that is unsupported by any evidence he gave. Howlongtosing (talk) 05:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

That's not my problem. The statement fulfills WP:V, I'm not Watson's peer reviewer, I don't know how he got the information. Also there is a difference between FTND operates NoFap and FTND operates NoFap.com. The former is an organization, the later is a website. I have started a topic at WP:RSN. So, yeah, follow the money and Watson says that the money come from LDS Church and other religious right organizations. So, the founder may claim all the way that he is an atheist; he is just a pawn of the Christian right, serving the promotion of sexual pseudoscience. That NoFap is pseudoscience has been already made obvious and binding for all Wikipedians by arbitration enforcement, if you have a problem with that fill a request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. So, most definitely, WP:PARITY does apply. So, we are not going to discuss the ridiculous idea that NoFap isn't pseudoscience. I mean that by the Term of Use you are obligated to accept that NoFap is pseudoscience, unless WP:AE gets overturned. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Conclusion: FTND financial report 2019 does not support this claim. I have therefore removed it from the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

This being said, it is your right to try to overturn the WP:AE decision, but until it gets overturned, the Wikipedic truth of the matter is that NoFap is pseudoscience. So, at [4] they may whine all they can that I was wrong about restoring Category:Pseudoscience for this article, but I am simply singled out as an exponent of the system of Wikipedia, a brave Wikipedian who does everything by the book. The WP:AE decision is an administrative decision, so it is binding upon each and every Wikipedian, whether they like it or not. I happen to address such removal, which I see as a violation of WP:ARBPS. Gary Wilson should finally understand that I not his enemy, his enemy is the WP:ARBPS decision which is binding for all English Wikipedia and cannot be overturned by a court of law, since it is the policy of a website which happens to be private property, and thus Wilson cannot claim that he has free speech inside Wikipedia. https://xkcd.com/1357/ is extremely clear thereupon: his constitutional right to free speech does not apply to Wikipedia, since Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM for free speech. Same as K12 teachers, Wikipedians do not have academic freedom. We have to happily kowtow to mainstream science and to the medical orthodoxy, we have no choice in this matter once we edit Wikipedia articles. I am simply aware of this fact and scrupulous about it, that's why Wilson regards me as his personal enemy. The truth is that I happily bash pseudoscience and quackery, and this article falls under WP:ARBPS discretionary sanctions, which proves my point that NoFap is pseudoscience, which is formally endorsed by the highest court of English Wikipedia, the Arbitration Committee. NoFap and Wikipedia are at odds, this is the simple truth of this quarrel. And that is not because of me being WP:ACTIVIST, but because of the WP:ARBPS decision which has become the sacred cow of such articles.

About MDPI: it is not a totally rogue publisher, but it isn't WP:MEDRS-compliant stuff, either. So, yeah, MDPI journals are not allowed to be cited for WP:Verifying medical claims inside Wikipedia. Again, this is not just my personal opinion, but a judgment thoroughly endorsed by the checks and balances mechanisms of Wikipedia.

The golden rule of WP:SOCKS is don't wake up the sleeping dogs. That's why Prause's WP:SOCKS could go unnoticed: she wasn't violating the WP:RULES of Wikipedia. So, there was no need of complaining from the regulars.

I think that Wilson dabbles into pseudoscience, but I don't hate him. In general I don't hate people. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

E.g., the Journal of Psychosexual Health is not indexed by PubMed (forget about being indexed for MEDLINE). Wilson parades similar sources, which don't get accepted by the scientists who define DSM, ICD, and so on. So, forget that Wikipedia has conceit for MDPI, the scientists who have the decision power whether porn addiction will be accepted or not, don't accept MDPI either. Wilson indiscriminately collects studies and opinion pieces which agree with his view, while mainstream science is a highly elitist endeavor and has little place for indiscriminately collecting all sorts of claims, more often than not published in shoddy journals.

About being libel: truth is a complete defense to libel and defamation claims [5]. I'm simply describing true, objectively assessable facts about the state of scientific research (as in mainstream science and the medical orthodoxy). Wilson cannot seriously claim that what I write about him would be libel, since I'm merely summarizing scientific knowledge and scholarly knowledge which exists independently of me. He could at most deny that that particular piece of knowledge is actually true, but he cannot deny that it's true that it is scientific or scholarly knowledge. You see, a scientific claim does not have to be absolutely true in order to pass through peer review, it just have to be, well, scientific enough. And then it becomes true that it is scientific (if published in the proper journals). Frankly, what is scientifically true? is a never-ending debate. But we can speak truthfully about the scientific consensus upon ... from 2021 AD.

Well, the press linked NoFap to past murders. Deny that as long as you wish, but it is an objective fact that the press linked NoFap to past murders. See evidence about that at https://news.google.com/search?q=nofap%20murder&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen So, if the FBI didn't previously keep an eye on NoFap's website due to Prause's complaints, now the FBI has plenty of reasons to do so. Breeding place for domestic terrorism isn't a tort, like libel is. So, if Alexander Rhodes's wish was to get attention from the FBI, his wish was granted. Applies to Wilson, too. The Feds would have to be deaf and blind if they didn't put Rhodes's and Wilson's servers under surveillance.

Summarizing what The Daily Dot and Der Spiegel stated about NoFap isn't libel, either. It's a true, objectively-real fact that these reported about NoFap and libel would be to state that they had written something which in reality they didn't. But they clearly linked NoFap to recent murders and breeding domestic terrorism. If NoFap has a problem with that, NoFap should sue them, not me, I'm am not the author of those statements. And I'm afraid SLAPP trials don't get recognized by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, so they would have to start a libel trial here, which is the task of the Police and of the Public Department, which almost never prosecute libel charges, it's in the Penal Code, of course, but it is largely seen as juridically moot. They could get a verdict that the Public Department has to prosecute that case, but the Public Department is free to demand applying no punishment whatsoever from the judge. And, at that point, the Dutch press would be all over it, and NoFap would have to mind bigger legals threats, like preparing their own defense in respect to an impending FBI prosecution. Since the Biden administration stated that domestic (right-wing) terrorism is now a special priority for the FBI, and Der Spiegel pointed that NoFap adepts are undergoing radicalization which might turn them into tomorrow's terrorists. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

So, what's the problem with NoFap? NoFap seems to be r/incels 2.0. Perhaps it isn't there yet, but it is slowly and steadily moving in that direction. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

And sorry to burst Wilson's bubble, but Sam Vaknin isn't a psychologist, isn't a professor of psychology and isn't Russian. Vaknin is not part of the scientific community and, IMHO, the medical orthodoxy is inclined to think that narcissism and sociopathy are not treatable mental disorders: they are forever and cannot be healed. How do I know that Vaknin isn't part of the scientific community? He published 0 (zero) papers indexed by PubMed.

I never stated that I am impartial. Wikipedia requires me to have a WP:GOODBIAS, not to be "impartial". Journalists feel they have to present arguments of the both sides to a dispute and let the reader decide; that's not what an encyclopedia does. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Paradigm of addiction sounds so 20th century! If we learn anything about it from DSM-IV, DSM-5, ICD-10 and ICD-11 is that the paradigm of addiction has been deprecated. It seems that Wilson regurgitates memes that were popular 50 years ago among medical researchers. I cannot know either way, but certainly I cannot disprove that a diagnosis of porn compulsion or impulse control disorder will be adopted. What I know fairly sure is that this diagnosis, if adopted/broadly accepted will eliminate the diagnosis of porn addiction. So, it is extremely unlikely that a diagnosis of porn addiction will get accepted by the two APA, and by the AMA. The general understanding among psychiatrists is that compulsion rules out addiction. These are competing models of mental disorders and rule each other out. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Montreal Police is investigating arson which might have to do with NoFap and YBOP, so these sites will come under scrutiny of the Canadian Police. The neighbors were endangered, so it will be easily upgraded to attempted manslaughter charges. The lives of innocent third parties were put at risk. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Update from the author

B. M. Watson replied to my request with The correlation between FTND and YBOP was a conflation, it was originally from https://www.thedailybeast.com/porn-kills-love-mormons-anti-smut-crusade but sam updated it and my article was updated with an erratum
The budget information is public information as it's disclosed under IRS policy

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I saw the paper. The figure of one million dollars has been officially retracted. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)