User talk:NatGertler

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 21:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Message to self

Yes, I'm writing on my own talk page... to remind myself that if further "pregnant people" discussion emerges, that's not the only non-gendered term being used. Google Scholar finds slightly more hits for "pregnant individuals" in 2022 (2700) than "pregnant persons" (2480). And then there's the matter of when the use of "pregnant women" is merely the citing of an older article, and thus not reflecting current language choices. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Nat. All the points in your 18:18, 27 Dec. comment were good ones (esp. the possibility of "activists on both sides"). I would have acknowledged that there, but I felt by this time, I had said my piece for better or worse, and wanted to avoid bludgeoning. Did I miss some activism because I didn't go deep enough (i.e., the same thing I was attributing to W)? Very possibly, but I wanted to let Colin have the last word (or you, or anybody) and felt that the conversation didn't need more of my input at that point, especially because of the inclination to get into the content issue, which I felt was just not appropriate there, doubly so, because it's so contentious.

Some contentious topics can be inflammatory, and the "biological" characteristics of trans women are one of those, and it depends a lot on what the user had in mind. I don't even like the use of the word biological related to sex in any article, even in articles that have no trans-relate component, because it can be a muddy phrase, or a stand-in for any one of several different characteristics, and my impression is that sometimes the editor/author isn't quite sure what they mean by it, which can lead to problems when others interpret it differently. A phrase like biologically female can mean anything from anatomic, to physiological, to chromosomal, to endocrinological, to hormonal sex, or to some combination or all of them; in contrast, I would claim that biologically a woman (is that really what W. said? that's way worse) hardly means anything at all, and is likely to inflame without actually imparting meaning, unlike biologically female, which, as imprecise and unhelpful as it is, at least points to one of several possible related meanings. On the flip side, even accurate statements can cause a row, or resentment, or inflame, such as stating that trans women are born with male genitalia, male internal organs, male (23XY) chromosomes, and with male reproductive glands that produce male hormones, and a shorthand for that in the mind of many people is biologically male, although I would avoid that term unless it was defined in the article.

Anyway, I know better than to say any of that at the ANI discussion, which would knock it off course even more than it is already; I'm content to let it just play out as it might. Whatever the truth of what W's intentions were, I'm pretty sure getting hauled before ANI will calm their jets as far as their actions are concerned. If it does, then it will have served a useful purpose; and if it doesn't, then Colin will be proved right, and W will get blocked, and it'll show me that I'm still too much of a soft touch. We shall see. Sorry for rambling, and thanks as always for your thoughtful analyses, which help me think things through, probably even more when they challenge my position, than when they agree. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot; you had started out with your scholar figures (thanks for that) and as I always appreciate arguments backed by data, I wanted to offer these additional datapoints in this ngrams chart; note that pregnant women is biased by two orders of magnitude, to avoid flatlining the other terms. This represents only occurrences in books, not academic journals.

I also checked Scholar, counting the number of "pregnant individuals" and "pregnant women" in 30-year chunks starting in 1910. Needless to say, both numbers go up as time goes on, so I took the ratio, and got this:

Comparison of two expressions over 30-year intervals

Range	pregnant individuals	pregnant women	ind/women (per cent)
1910-1940	216	7410	2.91
1940-1970	416	17400	2.39
1970-2000	1650	609000	0.27
1989-2019	6500	1630000	0.40

Maybe that last uptick in percent indicates some increasing use of pregnant individuals lately, but since the latter can refer to rats, a better experiment would attempt to determine whether that introduced an imbalance over time and attempt to factor it out. Mathglot (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

The exact thing that W said was Trans men are biologically women, as well as girls. Now clearly you're aware of the complex aspects at play in the term 'biology' that makes that the problem... but then there's also the fact that, even ignoring the most direct reading of the statement (that trans men are also girls) in favor of the one that context suggests (girls are biologically women), we've got a linguistic mess. And my guess is that we will see, when W next gets in the mood, much the same edits, only with an edit summary that makes it sound like he is speaking Basic Truth.

Ngram data is interesting, but I think in this situation it's like the guy who lost his wallet on 5th street, but is looking for it on 12th because the light is better. The data is all three years old, which is fine for some things but seems wickedly ancient in terms of discussions linked to transgenderism. Looking at the Scholar data which is kept so up to date that the numbers have changed from just a few days ago, we see that the between 2018 and 2022 annual appearances of "Pregnant people" progresses 282, 399, 757, 1750, 3020... and that data for 2022 probably isn't complete yet.

That doesn't look like a linear increase, but logarithmic one. So a data set that ends in 2019 is quite stale. (And to answer the question of whether there's just that big an increase in articles about pregnancy:: the progression for "pregnant women" is 98,700, 94,800, 85,700, 71,300, 61,800, so that's a resounding no.) (Also, point of concern with Scholar: it lists 61,800 uses of PW for the 2022-2022 period, but only 45,600 "since 2022")

I'm trying to limit my editing on Wikipedia, so I doubt I'll be the one to start a general RFC on this... but I'll likely join in with data when it happens. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Adding on -- "Pregnant individuals"is seeing a similar increase:: 591, 657, 977, 1550, 3030. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC) Even "pregnant folks" is on the upswing, skyrocketing from 2 in 2018 to 6 in 2022! --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I was worried about the 2019 end-point, too. Thanks for accumulating that data, it will be useful if and when someone starts the general Rfc. As far as W, I'm hoping that he was sufficiently chastened by the ANI experience, and perhaps by my attempt to reach out at his UTP, that there won't be a repeat. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey, talk page watchers, here's stuff for you to do

I don't know if anyone's watching my talk page... but as I'm actively avoiding editing in article space at this point, here are some egregious things I'm finding. I shall keep building this list.

• Agency Rent-a-Car: the entire External Links section is spam.
• Farhad Mann -- BLP totally sourced to subjects own website, with promo-y content
• Dallas Raines not only has external links in the text, but one sales link which has since been usurped.
• The entire Personal Life section as well as the recent employment above it in Mark W. Rocha is unsourced, particularly important as the personal life includes both negative material and privacy concerns.
• Over at Talk:Mark Gerson, I point out a boastful claim about the subject that is sourced to folks the subject had just given millions of dollars to.
• Someone has been removing editing notices and adding unsourced racial information at Gang of Amazons.

• The intro to Australian Christian Lobby was some really loaded terminology, as I explain Talk:Australian_Christian_Lobby#Intro_problems here.
• Someone has decided to link two unrelated murders a world apart from each other because one was done by a female couple and one by a male couple.
• And if someone wants an ongoing project: when a WP:PAID account stopped editing Gospel for Asia, their efforts were quickly resumed by a WP:SPA account. This could use an ongoing set of eyes and a good scrub.
• There are a bunch of external links and arguably some promo at the bottom of the body of [[Demeny voting

]]

Feel free to respond or even mark within the message if you address any of these things. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC) Last expanded: Nat Gertler (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For this, thanks for that! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about removing your comment

I didn't notice your comment when I returned that discussion to the closed version. FYI, the IP user you were addressing does have a user account, it was just blocked indef a moment ago. MrOllie (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Except there was supposedly more than one user at that IP. As such, either the user account was one of those users and the others should also get accounts, or the user account represented multiple users, which is improper, in which case they should each get accounts. They may have logged out of the account so that multiple users were not under the same named account -- it is not against the rules for multiple users to use the same IP address (indeed, we expect it from schools and such places.) While they were wrong about the blockchain nonsense, they were not always appropriately treated either. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

CT alert

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 19:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I confused Focus on the Family and Family Research Council

I recently made an edit to the Focus on the Family article that was in error because I inadvertently confused Focus on the Family with Family Research Council. You undid my edit, probably because you noticed my error. This is to thank you for that. P8Wm7G42 (talk) 02:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

2023 Tel Aviv car-ramming

I've been asking for an article update for months and the contributors have left it at that for updates. The investigations and the authorities classified it as a terrorist attack. A head of state does not receive the body of a person involved in a road accident at the airport but does so if this is the victim of a terrorist attack. and this happened. President Mattarella received Parisi's body at the Rome airport.--Peter39c (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Peter39c: Heads of state receive bodies where they think it will be politically useful to do so. But none of that has to with the fact that you've taken a situation where the victims were British and Italians and put them on a template dedicated to attacks on Israelis. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

EWG

Can you point out on the Talk page where there is a consensus that it's undue weight to mention that EWG publishes material about PFAS? I only see a section where two editors are disagreeing about it and KOA keeps reverting it. Steven Walling • talk 04:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Consensus has not been found for inclusion. Under the WP:BRD cycle, the material should not be reinserted until consensus arises... and given the lack of third parties in the material repeatedly reinserted, we are lacking indication of its import. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, we can discuss on Talk. I asked because the edit summaries made it sound like there was already a consensus that it's undue weight, and I don't see that anywhere. Steven Walling • talk 04:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Technical test

Hello, NatGertler. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Technical test, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)