Talk:NoFap

Illuminati paragraph

The paragraph mentioning the illuminati should be rephrased, because it misrepresents the source (NPR). (Or sources that actually support the paragraph should be added.)

"Magic pill" is a term used by a specific former member, but the paragraph subtly implies that the phrase is used by "NoFappers". But overall, these pseudoscientific ideas are elaborated upon in other sections, so I don't think mentioning this phrase adds anything to the article.

Similarly, the paragraph accuses the forums of being "rife" with antisemitism, while the source uses language like "there would be people saying that the Jews...", "conspiracy theories recur", "Some posts are explicitly antisemitic". The source says that conspiracy theories appear repeatedly ("recur"), which is very different from being frequent ("forums are rife with"). I don't see why not to retain the word "recur"; "rife" is much stronger. (By analogy: Corruption scandals recur in every country. But not every country is rife with corruption scandals. The statement "Corruption scandals recur in country X." does not imply that "Country X is rife with corruption scandals".) 84.245.120.231 (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Oh, I see you mentioned this issue above and attempted to make a partial fix. 84.245.120.231 (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Tried to address it. But the "quit porn and you'll get superpowers" is an all too frequent trope from NoFap. tgeorgescu (talk)

Thanks. I did not intend to dispute the claims in themselves; I disputed what I see as inadequate sourcing–content combination.

Similarly, in the Journalistic depictions of Nofap subsection, the same article is summarized as "NoFap forum is rife with racist, misogynistic and violent posts". Again, I am not trying to say that is untrue. But there also are other issues discussed in the NPR article (esp. violence and racism are mentioned only very tangentially), so I don't think this is a good summary of the NPR article. (I interpret the subsection's purpose as summarizing journalism about the topic.) 84.245.120.231 (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Verbatim quotes

@Peaceray: I thought that changing verbatim quotes is a bad idea. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

First, I unintentionally made a mistake by violating MOS:PMC when I somehow missed the quotes.

Second, MOS:QUOTE, the guideline for quores, states Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. The question is whether the existing quote included the full text of lengthy primary sources.

While I think the quote as it existed before my edit was sufficiently short, it certainly lacked context & begged for paraphrase. I believe my most recent edit has done this. Peaceray (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Stebbins

In NoFap vs. Aylo, NoFap claims that the statement about Stebbins is wrong.

1. Why she declared that? Because she would have been punished if she did not declare that.
2. Do we have a WP:RS that it is wrong? tgeorgescu (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

NoFap vs. Aylo

The trial apparently got dismissed. No, I didn't buy the documents, just going by their titles. And going by the fact that there is no party mentioned, which would have filled them. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I was wrong. One of those documents has been made public, and it was filed on behalf of Prause. Therefore, it wasn't a verdict. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

About (I can only see the first page): "Prause invoked rule 11" is an objective fact, which cannot be false in any circumstance. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I saw . tgeorgescu (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2026 (UTC)