For some reason my fellow Wikipedias keep missing the main point: standard Wikipedia protocol for disambiguation. In the past, this has prevented flame wars. Why is it not being allowed here? Let's change the [[Gaia]] article to a disambiguation page (proposal follows)
-----
'''Gaia''': This is a [[disambiguation]] page. The term '''Gaia''' may refer to
[[Gaia (goddess]] - A 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 scientific views on the subject in general, including the views of Drs. James Lovelock, Lynn Margulis, Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, etc.
[[Gaia hypothesis]] - An article devoted to solely to Dr. James Lovelock's ideas on Gaia theory.
[[Gaia theory predecessors]] - A discussion of proto-scientific, mystical and religious views about life on Earth that bear similarity to Gaia theory.
[[Gaians]] - A radical political and environmentalist group.
(and other related topics can be added as well. Perhaps Gaia theory in religion, Gaia theory in art, etc.)
----
Will this work?
Robert (RK)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Well, this sounds reasonable to me. Anthere, can you think of any additions/corrections?
Robert wrote:
For some reason my fellow Wikipedias keep missing the main point: standard Wikipedia protocol for disambiguation. In the past, this has prevented flame wars. Why is it not being allowed here? Let's change the [[Gaia]] article to a disambiguation page (proposal follows)
'''Gaia''': This is a [[disambiguation]] page. The term '''Gaia''' may refer to
[[Gaia (goddess]] - A 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 scientific views on the subject in general, including the views of Drs. James Lovelock, Lynn Margulis, Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, etc.
[[Gaia hypothesis]] - An article devoted to solely to Dr. James Lovelock's ideas on Gaia theory.
[[Gaia theory predecessors]] - A discussion of proto-scientific, mystical and religious views about life on Earth that bear similarity to Gaia theory.
[[Gaians]] - A radical political and environmentalist group.
(and other related topics can be added as well. Perhaps Gaia theory in religion, Gaia theory in art, etc.)
Will this work?
Robert (RK)
Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yes. Just to state : RK wanted to unite all articles at first. Now, he is putting them into pieces.
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
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 ? It is not exactly as if all theories were divided in two, with the old version and the new version. Check Evolution. Is there a second article mentionning everything that is older than 50 years ?
I would agree with gaia (goddess), with the set up of [[Gaia]] as a purely disambiguating page. Listing all the related articles
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 s pov
I would be more than happy to keep the Gaia Hypothesis
I currently object that the Gaia Theory to be turned to a purely scientific article. The Theory is not only scientific. I also fear that if we do so, soon any view non admitted by scientific academics will be put aside in yet another little article, as non relevant. Again, it is not as if non proven theories had to be cut from proven theories.
I hope I am not supposed to agree with everything just because you said it was reasonable.
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
Well, this sounds reasonable to me. Anthere, can you think of any additions/corrections?
Robert wrote:
For some reason my fellow Wikipedias keep missing
the main
point: standard Wikipedia protocol for
disambiguation. In
the past, this has prevented flame wars. Why is it
not
being allowed here? Let's change the [[Gaia]]
article to a
disambiguation page (proposal follows)
'''Gaia''': This is a [[disambiguation]] page. The
term
'''Gaia''' may refer to
[[Gaia (goddess]] - A 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
scientific views
on the subject in general, including the views of
Drs.
James Lovelock, Lynn Margulis, Richard Dawkins,
Carl Sagan,
etc.
[[Gaia hypothesis]] - An article devoted to solely
to Dr.
James Lovelock's ideas on Gaia theory.
[[Gaia theory predecessors]] - A discussion of proto-scientific, mystical and religious views
about life
on Earth that bear similarity to Gaia theory.
[[Gaians]] - A radical political and
environmentalist
group.
(and other related topics can be added as well.
Perhaps
Gaia theory in religion, Gaia theory in art, etc.)
Will this work?
Robert (RK)
Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Yes. Just to state : RK wanted to unite all articles at first. Now, he is putting them into pieces.
Forget about what RK says. Since neither of you can deal in reason alone. I think that Julie's suggestion is the best one. it's not really important to the community that these few articles are dealt with in any immediate timeframe, nor do these issues merit a rift between two people, who are both practically alone in viewing the subjects with too much unwarranted passion. While interest may make for strong feelings, such strong feelings do not necessarily make for good articles. Julie suggested that both parties take a break, and do other things -- I would tend to agree, though two weeks perhaps would suffice.
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,...
(yadda)
I hope I am not supposed to agree with everything just because you said it was reasonable.
You don't have to agree with everything,but you do have to realize, that he doesn't really matter whether you agree or not with consensus. The general consensus, being a bell curve, is bound to have people on either end of that curve, neither of which represents the consensus.
I would appreciate it very much, as would everyone else on the list if both of you took a breather -- it would allow other more ignorant, unqualified, and incapable people than yourselves. Despite their incapacity, these successors will no doubt be able to get the job done better than the experts.
Respectfoolly, Stevertigo
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Robert wrote:
For some reason my fellow Wikipedias keep missing the main point: standard Wikipedia protocol for disambiguation. In the past, this has prevented flame wars. Why is it not being allowed here? Let's change the [[Gaia]] article to a disambiguation page (proposal follows)
I don't see why the current single paragraph that explains -- & links to a fuller treatment of [[Gaia Theory]] -- can't remain in the [[Gaia]] article, as it currently exists. In the article on [[Oedipus]], one would expect some mention of Freud's interpretation -- which currently exists -- & I would expect the same kind of brief discussion & link in any significant use of myth in intellectual thought.
I've been quiet about this whole issue until now because I haven't been able to consider any way to contribute to the discussion in a way others haven't already done. As others have pointed out, it seems that we have two contributors who are increasingly talking past each other, & refusing to find common ground.
But making the [[Gaia]] article into a redirect I feel does not solve the problem. Frankly, I find the division of the matter into an article about the goddess, the scientific theory, & the mystical belief adequate. Further articles would only add to the confusion, as would fewer.
Geoff
I'm trying out new voice recognition software, and haven't quite got to hang of it. Please space barexcuse my punctuation errors, grammatical errors, errors in reason, and so on...
Focusing on a new way of writing apparently have side effects, among them, and ever so slightly butchery of the English language.
spectacularly, Stevertigo
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
--- steve vertigo utilitymuffinresearch@yahoo.com wrote:
Focusing on a new way of writing apparently have side effects, among them, and ever so slightly butchery of the English language.
Sort of like living in Los Angeles?
hehe
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com