Robert -- what part of "you are becoming tiresome pushing your
anti-Anthere agenda " don't you get?
At present, every one of your Gaia e-mails comes across to the readers
as an attack on Anthere. Several of us have asked you to back off for a
bit and give it (and all of us) a rest. Could you please just do that?
Great that you are finding stuff to support your view. Have to say,
though, that based on almost two years of participation and observation
here, not to mention having some research experience myself, I know very
well that it's easy to find information on one's own agenda, and that
some people, including you, have not always been up front about evidence
that might support another POV. I say this in full knowledge that it
may bring on one of your pre-emptive strikes, BTW.
I am not a scientist, and I have to say that my first thoughts when
hearing the words 'Gaia Theory' have a lot more to do with all that
mystical/philosophical/religious stuff -- basically, that's the first
context I heard them in, probably in popular fiction or boredly browsing
in a New Age shop while the husband checked out Eastern Philosophy My
point is, I'm not sure it's as cut and dried as you want to make it out
to be, and your constant barrage of e-mails makes it very hard for
people who might want to help resolve the issues to actually give them
serious thought.
Please just give us a break
J
>
>Jtdirl said: We can say what we want about Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] and Michael, but
>they have never stooped to such a level of vandalism.
>Adam von [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
>How true...
I would go further and say that if Adam and Michael sorted out their problem
with Jimbo, I would welcome them back as legitimate contributors to wiki.
But I think that DW's behaviour is of such a serious magnitude that he
should be permanently barred from contributing to wikipedia.
So I make this call publicly to Adam: please if you want to come back to
wiki, talk it through with Jimbo and get it OKed with him. And if you come
back that way, I for one will be happy to work with you.
JT
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Please stop the trolling. This is the English Wikipedia
list. Stop using this list for French discussions.
RK
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
We need a bit more clarification. I have been doing some
more reading on this topic, and have disovered that many
claims Anthere has been making in the Gaia articles are
incorrect. Anthere has saying that we must refer to
certain ancient religious and mystical views of the Earth
and/or cosmos as "Gaia theory". In point of fact, the
people who developed those ideas never referred to those
ideas with this terminology! More to the point, these
ideas have no relation Gaia thoery. Even today most
English speakers do not use this terminology for those
ideas. Anther is mistaken on this point.
More problematic is her curious claim that Dr James
Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis is based upon these earlier
mystic and religious beliefs. In point of fact, Dr.
Lovelock says no such thing. Lovelock is an atmospheric
scientists, and his Gaia hypothesis grew out of his study
of atmospheric gases. He did *not* use science to build
upon earlier mystical beliefs; he created his own
hypothesis by applying ideas from Biology to findings from
atmospheric science. Anthere's claims that all these
religious and mystical views must be viewed as precursor's
to Lovelock's hypothesis are incorrect; they seem to part
of her own belief system, and they have no basis in
historical fact. Having watched a detailed interview with
Lovelock on how he developed his hypothesis, and having
read two different accounts by him on the same topic, I can
say with some certainty that Anthere's beliefs about the
origins of the Gaia hypothesis are totally off-base.
Now, it may be true that a tiny number of radical left-wing
ecology activists (for example, Gaiains) have developed
certain religious and/or political beliefs based on
Lovelock's ideas. They may even have mistakenly come to
believe that Lovelock didn't originate the Gaia hypothesis,
but merely added science to previous mystical belief
systems. But so what? We can certainly mention this set
of beliefs in the article on Gaians, but it would be
grossly inapprorpiate to jam it into an article on
atmospheric science and biology, i.e. the [[Gaia theory]]
article.
Finally, Anthere keeps demanding that since some people mix
together science, radical politics, and these new-age
belief systems, we are somehow obligated to cram all of
this into the science articles. She is plainly wrong. We
in Wikipedia already have a convention for dealing with
this; we already have a clear and working precedent.
Consider the topics of Biological evolution and [[Quantum
Mechanics]]: As many of you know, these are modern
scientific theories, and our articles on these topics
reflect this fact. Yet many new-age writers have come to
believe that Quantum mechanics and/or evolution somehow are
related to ancient mystical and religious belief systems.
As many of you know, many new-age folks try to connect
Quantum Mechanics with Daoist or Buddhist philosophy, and
claim that it is "proof" of the validity of these
religions. I have also seen Orthodox Jews try to fuse
Kabbalah (Jewish mysticism) with Quantum mechanics. But so
what? Frankly, there are many individuals and groops that
insist that Quantum menchanics or evolution has some
mystical or political significance. Do we then rewrite
encycloepdias to make them in lin with the religious or
political demands of these groups or individuals? No.
That would be a violationf our NPOV policy.
What we have always done for these issues is to create new
articles on these poltical or religious groups, and explain
their viewpoints. We have always done this in the past, it
makes it easy to stay NPOV, and provides useful
disambiguation.
Can you imagine how misleading it would to start pushing
mystical, religious topics, and political topics, into our
articles on Biological evolution, and on Quantum Mechanics?
Why then should we do the same for the Gaia hypothesis?
(Also called the Gaia theory.) Answer - we shouldn't. It
would confusing and a violation of NPOV.
Again, from discussions on this list and on the Talk pages,
it is looking like the following disambiguation scheme
should be implemented:
*****
Gaia: This is a [[disambiguation]] page. The term Gaia may
refer to
[[Gaia (mythology)]] - Discussion of the Greek and Roman
goddeess.
[[Gaia theory]] - A group of scientific theories about how
life on Earth may regulate the planet's biosphere to make
it more hospitable to life. This discusses all scientific
views on the subject in general, including the views of
Drs. James Lovelock, Lynn Margulis, Richard Dawkins, Carl
Sagan, etc.
[[Gaia hypothesis]]- A subset of the above article; this is
a discussion of Dr. James Lovelock's ideas on Gaia theory.
[[Gaia theory analogs]] - A discussion of proto-scientific,
mystical and religious views that some people believe are
related to Gaia theory.
[[Gaians]] - A discussion of the small left-wing radical
political and environmentalist group.
(Of course, other articles could be made as well, if
needed.)
*****
We must not push mystical, political or religious ideology
into our science articles on Gaia theory, Biological
evolution, or Quantum Mechanics, etc. All I am asking is
that we continue to follow the same disambiguation and NPOV
policy that we also have followed. Is this clear?
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
>Message: 1
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:55:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Robert <rkscience100(a)yahoo.com>
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Please stop the trolling.
Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Please stop the trolling. This is the English Wikipedia
list. Stop using this list for French discussions.
RK
Blar blar blar. Geez give it a rest Robert, you are really getting on my
tits with your constant blabbing on about trolling and vandalism.
In the interest of making it possible for users to read all (or even
most) e-mail's from the mailing list, and to give people equal
representation on the list (to try an keep people who don't send 50
million e-mails from being ignored) I propose we set up a limit to the
number of e-mails that can be sent per day per e-mail account. This
will encourage to say meaningful things (instead of useless crap).
Also, I propose that everyone read the standard rules of Netiquette
(search google if you need to) and follow them. While some people would
consider things they do on this list harmless, others (including me)
consider them rude.
I realize that my above message may sound harsh, but I am just trying to
be direct about this problem (no beating around the bush for me).
Thanks
--
Michael Becker
I have just been said I was abusing the list, because
sending two many mails and in double sometimes.
I wish to say that I sent many mails because I thought
I could answer to criticism (RK), to comments (Steve)
and to questions and request (Jimbo).
I sent double mails because I have pb with one of my
work computer configuration (the other one is the one
doing the wrong indentation someone mentionned). This
is not mine to be able to do anything, but the firm
admin. I have no right to install a new browser, nor
to reinstall the current one. Hence, either I stop
sending mail, or MB put the filter on my name as he
said he would do.
I thought that in an edit war, the ones involved in
the edit war were welcome to give their opinion once
the article was frozen, in the talk page. I was told
no to, to let others discuss the matter. Hence, I will
not comment any more. If anyone think I could help
them understanding the topic in any way, please drop
me a message. I am doubtful of how I could feel
entirely happy with the outcome if I have no voice at
all on the matter. I certainly did not want to say my
opinion would weight in any way in the final outcome,
but perhaps proper arguments would have been
receivable. But I will gladly let others than RK and I
work on the topic. I hope that before the final
decision is taken, I will be asked by Jimbo perhaps
what I think of the resulting proposal and if I have
anything else to say. I also hope I will be told when
I can come back on the topic. I still fail to see how
this could be called consensus if the ones in the edit
wars are asked to keep out of this consensus.
I also hope that RK does not go on insulting me on
this mailing list.
Thanks
Have a good day or week all.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
Um . FWIW, here's my suggestion. RK and Anthere both leave the topic
alone for a period of 2 months. Just leave it. In the 'Pedia and on
this list. Get on with something useful. Neither is a troll, and
neither is displaying the kind of behavior that has heretofore ended in
a ban. In fact, both are longtime contributors who have helped produce
really good articles (notwithstanding the fact that I seem to remember a
few other nasty edit wars involving one of them, complete with unfounded
accusations of vandalism).
Anyway, just leave the bloody topics alone. Let other people look at
them for a while. Maybe let people less personally involved use their
judgement. Either that, or start buying us all mass quantities of
antacid.
J.
Anthere claims "I will be clear. RK and I disagreed on two
things. He wanted one article while I wanted 2. Now there
is only one. Point for him. Me out."
This is false. No Gaia articles have been delted. Her
claims to the contrary are totally false, and I can't
understand how she thinks she can get away with fooling all
of you. Just check out the Wikipedia for yourself! All the
Gaia articles are still there. Is Anthere's web-browser
accessing some alternate form of Wikipedia that the rest of
us don't have access to?
Anthere claims "He wanted to remove non scientific view,
politics and such from the article, when I claim it was
important they be there. Now, only science is left. point
for him. Me out."
Untrue. In fact, this is an easily exposed falsehood. All I
did was use standard Wikipedia disambiguation, to make
clear that mystical, political and religious views that she
wants to call Gaia theory are not confused with scientific
theories.
Contrary to her odd claims, all of Anthere's material is
still there. In fact, I added discussions of non-science
opics to a science-based article, and made a few links to
non-science articles, for the sole purpose of appeasing
Anthere. Didn't work. Now she doesn't even admit that her
work is still on the Wikipedia.
It is difficult to work with someone who repeatedly makes
false claims, and who has a persecution complex. The rest
of you, however, can see the articles for yourself, and you
can evaluate and comment on the proposed disambiguation
that was sent to this list; it was also put on the
Discussion pages.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
Anthere claims:
> Yes. Just to state : RK wanted to unite all articles
> at first. Now, he is putting them into pieces.
Anthere, are there not enough disputes already? Why do you
continue to write false claims about me? I have never
tried to unite *all* the Gaia articles, and you know this.
All I have tried to do is unite the scientific topics into
one article, and non-science topics into other articles. I
even made multiple links from the science articles to the
non-science ones, just for you.
> I disagree with moving all the content of political
> issues in the gaian article. Not everyone recognising
> himself as a gaian agrees with what is said in
> political stuff. And some not recognising them with
> gaian agree. This is far too reductive to put
> everything under the gaian article
Fine. If you believe that there are other political groups
that deserve their own article, make an article about them.
But please stop jamming every single remotely-related topic
into the [[Gaia theory]] page.
Anthere writes:
> Second, did you really read the content of what RK is
> proposing in the predecessors article ? The beginning
> is indeed about predecessors. The second part is
> totally current. Not ancien story. What would you
> define as predecessors ? In any case, predecessors
> have their part in the gaia theory as it is now.
> They inspired Lovelock theory. Why should they be put
> elsewhere ?
Anthere, stop being disingenuous. Perhaps you truly
believe that these mystical, political and religious
beliefs belong in a science article about atmospheric
science and biology. But they actually don't belong there;
you keep imposing your religious and political views on the
rest of us, and you keep screaming "censorship" when we
point out that these are separate topics. That is
inappropriate behaviour.
Frankly, Lovelock himself has stated that his theory was
not based on these religious and mystical ideas that you
favour so much. His theory developed out of a study of
atmospheric gases, and his observation that many observed
gases in our atmosphere should not exist, unless one
postulated an as-yet-unknown mechanism. Your claims about
the history of Lovelock's Gaia theory are historically
incorrect. Also, your claims about Buckminster Fuller, on
this topic, are similarly historically inaccurate.
Anthere writes:
> I disagree with letting RK definition at the top of
> his version Gaia article. This is not a proper
> definition. It is a scientific definition, and as such
> is pov...
> I currently object that the Gaia Theory to be turned
> to a purely scientific article. The Theory is not only
> scientific. ...
Huh? I am simply saying that we should have one article
specifically on science; we already have two other Gaia
articles (Gaians, and Gaia theory predecessors) that
discuss how mystics, religious believers, ancients, and
radical political groups interpret Gaia theory. We can
also have more Gaia-related articles, as you intimated!
The problems is that every time we use standard Wikipedia
disambiguation forms, you cry censorship, and pretend that
other points of view are being hidden. They are not. They
simply are being discussed in their own articles. This is
clear to everyone else.
Please, take some time to learn how disambiguation is done
on other topics. It is not censorship. Please don't cry
victim.
The only POV violation is when you keep imposing your
religious and political beliefs on us, and forcing your
religious and political beliefs into an article about
atmospheric science and biology.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com