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