I need to reply to Anthere's statements. First off, the issue has never been about how many Gaia titled articles that Anthere personally created. At least six Gaia articles already exist, and frankly, I don't care who authored these. So please stop acting as if this is an issue.
Anthere writes:
When Royal We decided all articles should be united in one, some merged were done, resulting in three articles.
Whoa...Anthere has been refusing to do merging, and has repeatedly mass reverted many attempts to do merging. Anthere is even pushing science dicussions (on Gaia theory) into an article an the Greek goddess Gaia.
Now, if Anthere wishes to defend her refusal to merge articles, that's her perogative. But to present *my* position as her own (I am the one who is trying to merge), and to gloss over the fact that she is preventing such merging, is quite misleading.
Anthere writes:
Unlike what Royal We claims, I was *not* the author of these moves, nor of the new names proposed."
Sigh. This is not my point, and she is wasting our time attacking a position I couldn't care less about.
Anthere writes:
He is currently suggesting that we move away the general article, to replace it with the content of the scientific one. This is very wrong. This is wrong because there is more to the Gaia theories than just *science*.
This is just not so. Look, among English speakers, people who look up encyclopaedia entries on Gaia theory are usually looking for information on theories about how life on Earth may regulate the Earth itself to make it more hospitable for life.
Most English speakers generally are not using this title to look for information on pre-1900s mystics (who *never* used the name Gaia theory), nor are they looking for info on radical European left-wing political acitivists (i.e. the Gaiains). If someone wants to link to articles on those topics, fine: We already have a working convention for this. We can create a disambiguation page, or use "See also". This is a convention that all of us have successfully used in the past; why now are so many people dead set against it?
Anthere writes:
And that is no reason to disperse all the non-scientific points in other articles to keep just the scientific point. I think that here, that is the scientism of User Royal We that makes him try to push away all non-scientific points away. This is bad.
I do not like it when people make accusations of "scientism". It is a perjorative word, used to demean and insult. (Anthere's charge, by the way, is false. I am not an adherent of "scientism". Frankly, I have never met *anyone* who is.)
Also, I have never tried to prevent these non-scientific points of view from being presented. Ever. Her claims to the contrary are bizarre and baseless. In fact, I have stated publicly time and again that do *not* have a problem with Wikipedia presenting these views. I just wish to disntinguish them from scientific theories. Ok? (Sigh...Why do some people seem to believe otherwise? Such beliefs are certainly not based on anything I have written.)
Anthere writes:
For this reason, I think keeping the scientific theories *apart* from other perspectives is a best choice, to avoid mixing scientific perspectives from
others.
How can she claim this? After all, this is precisely what I have been saying all along! I am confused as to how she could claim otherwise.
Anthere writes:
The second point : the most famous of all Gaia theories is Lovelock Hypothesis. Mind you, this is under this name I believe it is most well-known. This is not a crazy suggestion of mine to call it that way. This is what can be read in articles on the topic, as well as in Lovelock book. Suffice it to read a bit litterature on the topic to realise that.
I am astonished at seeing so many misleading claims. I have *never* denied that James Lovelock refers to his idea as the Gaia hypothesis. Ever. I have never tried to prevent this from being stated in Wikipedia articles, ever.
Anthere writes:
I think that since it is the most famous theory, that is in fact the one most readers will look for, when searching information on the topic. For this reason, I believe it is a good idea to have an article named "Gaia Hypothesis". It is likely the name under which they know this theory, I would say it would be confusing to redirect them in a more general article dealing with every aspect of scientific views of the Gaia topics. I am just trying to avoid losing them here.
Um, twenty years ago, when only one person was writing about this in science books, that might have been true. But today that positions is totally misleading! Many parts of the Gaia hypothesis (also called the Gaia theory by scientists) are now accepted (to one degree or another) by many scientists. When people do research on this issue, they usually do _not_ want to find out the views of only one person, from 20 years ago. They want to learn about the entire topic.
Consider Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity. At the time he developed this theory, when people wanted to learn about it, they read Albert Einstein's papers. Simple, right? But today if someone wants to learn about general relativity, it would be grossly misleading to refer them *only* to Albert Einstein's work! Relativity has been accepted by physicists in general, many other scientists have contributed greatly to this subject, and others have created a number of potential extensions to it.
Look, my position is very simple: When people search for articles on General Relativity, they should find a general article on this subject. Specific sub-topics within an article can and should be split off into their own page. For instance, we can and should have an article on how Einstein developed the theory of general relativity; an article with a detailed mathematical treatement of it; an article on preposed extensions to it; etc.
I have always agreed with you that there should be a general article on the topic of the Gaia hypothesis (or Gaia theory, use what name you like.), and that there can be other articles with more specialized information. I just am confused about your unwillingness to understand this, and am perterbed by your mispresentation of my views.
Anthere sarcastically writes:
Yes. You are right. I entirely made up the "Gaia Hypothesis" name. All the 12500 references to that name on google..
This is too much. I can't imagine why Anthere is doing this. I have never implied that Anthere made up this term. I have, on the other hand, pointed out that Anthere's *useage* of many of this term is confusing, and needs to be standardized. But why is she repeatedly attacking statements I have never made?
Attributing false positions to fellow Wikipedians, and then publicly lambasting them for non-existent view is a serious violation of our code of ethics, and an impediment to our working together. Please stop such behaviour.
Anther writes:
Here is where you are uncovering you. For the past month,
Royal We has been trying to remove anything *not* about
science on the topic.
Not true. I have only been trying to distinguish science from mysticism and politics. Again, please stop attributing positions to me that I do not have. You are seriously confused, if not deliberately insulting.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com