Talk:No Nut November

Merge Destroy Dick December
Following declined CSD of the above article it was proposed to merge the above page into this page. I would agree to this merge until such time as some WP:RS refers to Destroy Dick December facilitating a stand alone article. JW 1961  Talk  21:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As everyone seems in broad agreement, I've performed the merge. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Image necessary?
I'm curious, but is there a suitable image that would be appropriate for No Nut November? I don't think there's an internet culture image that plays a role in centering NNN activities, but hopefully there is something out there that can represent No Nut November in some way shape or form. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 04:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Probably not necessary for encyclopedic or pedagogical purposes, but a crossed-out peanut seems to be an existing pictorial representation of NNN, for instance on Reddit (other examples: [1 ], [2 ]). ComeAndHear (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Removal of info
The information was impartial and I personally don't see a problem with it. BSC-56, the impression I'm getting is you don't like it but that isn't really a valid reason for removing it. NemesisAT (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

YESPOV
According to WP:YESPOV:


 * Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2021
The History mentioned here is not gives complete histroy of No Nut November if you can link to https://blockerx.net/blog/history-of-no-nut-november/ every one get complete knowledge about no nut november Chandraprabhudev (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Blogs are not reliable sources ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2022
Destroy Dick December is a joke. No one is seriously proposing people do this, and the sources referenced seem kinda tongue-in-cheek. Can someone delete the bit about Destroy Dick December, make it shorter, or at least make it clear that it's a joke? TropicalTriangle (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Semi-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

It was originally called No Fap November
If you look up "No Fap November" you'll find a popular entry on urban dictionary from 2009. Worth adding to the article since it was known as No Fap November for a lot longer than it's been known as No Nut November. 216.10.179.161 (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * You'll have to provide a reliable source to back that up before it goes in the article. Cakelot1 (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A no urban dictionary is not a reliable source. It's completely user-generated ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Usage of claim
In § History, it currently reads "Although No Nut November was originally intended to be satirical, some participants suggest that abstaining from ejaculating and watching pornography has health benefits.12" (emphasis mine)

The word suggest implies that this is a simple idea that someone should consider doing, which may or may not be true; one doesn't take it very seriously; it's just a suggestion; etc. However, the two citations clearly say that NNN is affiliated with NoFap, a group genuinely believing that abstinence from masturbation increases testosterone, greater focus, concentration and other extraordinary, exaggerated claims without any proof. This is why the NoFap article contains a WP:DS notice on pseudoscience/fringe science. The excessive citations at Masturbation show that scientific consensus (which we should follow per WP:FRINGE) is in favor of masturbation, which is why I think we should use the word claim instead.

The article has used the word claim in place of suggest for a long time until recently, where it was first changed to say by, got reverted by me, and finally changed to suggest by the same user. As per my edit summary, claim is used to "call [someone's] statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying disregard for evidence" (MOS:CLAIM). The word claim also does a better job contextually and stylistically as a contrast to the first clause IMO. lol1 VNIO ( I made a mistake?  talk to me ) 22:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The article is not about NoFap though, it's about NNN and they're not the same even if some associated with one are associated with the other. Reflecktor (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That doesn't stop the fact that the idea of "abstinence brings health benefits" is still a claim outside of mainstream science. lol1 VNIO  ( I made a mistake?  talk to me ) 15:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC); edited 15:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

"Destroy Dick December" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Destroy Dick December and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 18 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Article's tone does not reflect challenge's tone
No Nut November is a largely whimsical Internet meme challenge. The article spends nearly all of the History section discussing NoFap and the far-right, while the article has very little explaining that the challenge is usually seen as an ironic meme challenge. Reading the article gives the general impression that No Nut November is an auxiliary to NoFap or associated with the far-right. Though some background is informative, the challenge is first and foremost an Internet meme challenge. This should reflected in the article's overall presentation. TomeTwister (talk) 12:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @TomeTwister, We follow what the Reliable sources say and balancing topics in the article based on the balance found in the sources. The sources that we have concentrate on the far-right connection a lot (even twitter tredn-piece "slop" on Destroy Dick December spends half it's time talking about the far-right). If you have more recent Reliable sources that teat the topic with a more whimsical tone then you should present them.  Cakelot1  ☞&#xFE0F;  talk  21:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Add nonstop nut November?
It’s just like destroy dick December 2600:4040:516C:9F00:4DF3:E84C:4E70:709C (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2023
We should update the official subreddit numbers, and add the official website, https://nnn-progress.vercel.app/. The official subreddit has been running for the past 5 years, and now has 155k users. The wikipedia page cites 52,000 subscribers, which undermines the size of the movement. The website also has 1000 MAU, and is tightly engrained with the movent. It should be included as one of the parts of No Nut November. Dhillonjustin99 (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: If there's a source attached the subreddit numbers I"ll update them. But that doesn't seem like an official website and more like a spam link. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze&#95;&#95;wolf 04:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)