Talk:Nicole Prause

Diff correction requests
This page has been vandalized numerous times and is semi-protected down again due to edit warring. Please review below corrections and undo the edit warring: 1) Claims not a neuroscientist https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicole_Prause&diff=1004373372&oldid=985995673

Is a "neuroscientist" https://ccnc.iu.edu/profiles/Alum/NicolePrause.html

2) Claims secret funding https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicole_Prause&diff=1004374108&oldid=1004373816

Funded by non-profit NORD https://journalstar.com/news/local/education/crowdfunded-grant-will-help-unl-researcher-study-sex-related-condition/article_131c1916-2b01-5d39-951c-af209d7f3baf.html https://www.ean-online.com/insights/interview/my-priorities-are-on-identifying-the-general-health-benefits-of-sexual-stimulation/

3) Claimed not high-profile and not replicated: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicole_Prause&diff=1005047293&oldid=1005047022 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicole_Prause&diff=1004554069&oldid=1004374108

Is "high-profile" https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/nov/25/female-orgasm-research

Study is replicated/extended. Meaning of replication: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103115001195 Replication: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301051115300107 MERABDen (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Opinion privilege. Of course, WP:BLP defaults to protecting reputation when the claims are not clearly established. There are several libel trials going on about her. And of course FBI and Police investigation trumps libel trials: the feds and the police-people do not have to abide by the outcome of those trials. They will only listen to evidence of felonies, not to libel disputes. So, stalking her could put someone in jail even if he wins the libel trial. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Libel trials never grant immunity from prosecution. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * And about Gary Wilson and Alexander Rhodes: they don't have to be the stalkers, but if the stalking was organized at one of their websites, or one of their IRC channels, and they failed to snitch the culprits to the Feds, they will be criminally investigated about it. I know that as a Dutch subject I have a legal duty to inform the Police about certain felonies organized by others (if I learn about them) and I will be criminally punished if I fail to do so. IMHO, they have the legal duty to snitch upon planned sexual aggression having the potential to get lethal. Keeping mum is a way to land in jail. As I explained at Talk:NoFap, this is no longer about pranks done by their teenage peer group, since the press linked NoFap to murders and breeding domestic terrorism. Now they have the full attention of the FBI. The Feds would have to be deaf and blind if they didn't put Rhodes's and Wilson's servers under surveillance.


 * Wilson bragged about making a FOIA request to the FBI. Well, FBI never discloses classified evidence before the start of the trial, i.e. when it becomes a matter of public record. Ongoing investigations are not part of the public record. See (3) under Freedom of Information Act (United_States). Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * To respond to YBOP criticism: I don't side with Prause and I do not "protect her edits" (whatever that would mean in an encyclopedia anyone can edit). I side with the objective truth, mainstream science and the medical orthodoxy. She also happens to side with these, that's all ground of the similarity between us. I hate pseudoscience, I hate quackery, and she hates those too. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:01, 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) 09:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I saw an exhibit of the death threats regarding Prause and my impression is that the threats have been issued by ranting fools. In doubt, ask any Wikipedia admin how many death threats they did receive. I even had a Dutch Policeman explain to me that the Dutch Police only investigates credible threats, i.e. threats that are likely to be performed in real life. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2021
Nicole Prause, PhD publishes her funding sources in every peer-reviewed paper as any other scientist. The suggestion she has secret or "undisclosed" funds is unsubstantiated and should be removed. Jammoth (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Jammoth (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing where it says anything about secret or undisclosed funds. Could you be more specific? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Already done by : . – NJD-DE (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

COI
I'm not a major contributor to the article, and I'm not close to Prause (I only sent her a tweet once). tgeorgescu (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Do I read her tweets? Yes, but I am my own man in respect to how I edit Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The business OneTaste funded her "study" about the so called "Orgasmic meditation"

 * The founder is listed at the bottom of the "study":
 *  Funding Statement This study was supported by OM Free, a 501(c)3 nonprofit URL: http://www.iomfoundation.org/.
 * Link to "study": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7946224/
 * Also, everyone who really read this thing would notice the names of the authors of that "study" at the top...


 * I added this and User:Primefac removed it two times in a row:
 * @User:Primefac If it was only a grammar problem and you know better: change it and not delete! But it's obvious that you are totally not willing to read that study, so I ask you: what is your mission here?
 * --KleinerKorrektor (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * My issue is that it is putting undue emphasis on where the funding came from. As it currently reads, Prause co-authored a paper that found out some information. I am not contesting who funded the study, I am contesting the need to include that information because it is not really relevant. The fact that there were grammatical issues was secondary to that point.
 * The above being said, if there are reliable sources that indicate that her research is somehow tainted because of who funded it, or shows confirmation bias, etc, then we can certainly add in more information about OneTaste and how her publication could potentially be problematic. We don't have that, though, so any implications or insinuations created by your proposed additions fail OR. Primefac (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Ok it is obvious, what is your mission here!
 * The subject of that "study" is a term and a practice wich is propagated, by an organisation that founded that "study"!
 * This is conflict of interests and a abuse of using studies!
 * It is Pseudoscience.
 * --KleinerKorrektor (talk) 12:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not necessarily disagreeing with your assessment of the situation; running a study that conveniently supports the position of the institute that is funding the study is rather problematic. As I said above, though, without an independent reliable source that makes that connection, we cannot simply state it, because it is considered original research. Primefac (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh is that so? But keeping this text in the article is fine?
 * No half measures then, I will move the whole section to here, till it has other sources than original research.
 * --KleinerKorrektor (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Here it is:

Prause co-authored the first study on the effects of orgasmic meditation, short OM, a technic propagated by the controversal business OneTaste. It was published in 2021 and concluded that this genital stroking practice increased closeness in partners regardless of whether or not they had an existing romantic relationship. The study was founded by the Institute of OM Foundation an institution of OneTaste


 * --KleinerKorrektor (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * If you throw the word Pseudoscience lightly, it is a WP:BLP violation. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @User:tgeorgescu Read the article you linked and understand it.
 * After that read that "study" of Mrs. Prause, while knowing, that this "study" was totally funded by the company who sell that term and technic the "study" is all about.
 * Wikipedia is not an advertising rostrum for companies!
 * --KleinerKorrektor (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Conflict of interest is another matter than pseudoscience. Using the word pseudoscience lightly (i.e. WP:OR in a WP:BLP article) is sanctionable with a topic ban.
 * Whatever might be the faults of her study, that has to be stated explicitly in WP:SECONDARY WP:RS. What you won't allow you to do is to ventilate your own opinion upon her study. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That was kind of my point, and the whole reason this section got started. Primefac (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Meaning I agree with you. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I concur with the decision to remove the section fully - it's only a primary source, which allows for a Gordian knot cutting of the issue. If there were secondary sources about using COI-linked money, then we could include it on those grounds. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Questionable science
https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/is-nicole-prause-influenced-by-the-porn-industry/ Jm33746 (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What is your point? Primefac (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for posting the URL for
 * I will note that while the article seems to have a voluminous amount of information about Prause, I will also note that it is hardly a neutral source, since it was founded by Gary Wilson, & the article lists the many conflicts between Prouse & Wilson. The article itself does not identify an author. It in itself can be considered a reliable source. It mostly cites itself, although it sometimes seems to republish other sources.
 * Let me reiterate 's question: what changes do you propose to the article? If you do propose changes, please establish which citations from the Your Brain on Porn website would be reliable sources & post them here. Peaceray (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Are there conflicts of interest Jm33746 (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not understand what you mean by that. Please elaborate & explain. Peaceray (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The simpler point is: even if you are Albert Einstein you still need the bulk of scientists (in Prause's case DSM-5-TR) to agree with you. So: one scientist never dictates the views of the scientific community, at best he/she might try to persuade them.
 * The quoted URL is basically a rant based upon persecution mania, insinuating without evidence that she would have a conflict of interest. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)