Let me say this one more time. Wikipedia has simple coventions for disambiguation: We have Disambiguation pages. We also have "See also" links at the bottom of most articles. Further, this is the *English* Wikipedia, and we need to us enaming conventions and spellings that most English speakers are familiar with, and like to use. What about this is so difficult to grasp?
For as long as I have been on Wikipedia, we all have had to follow the same rules. For instance, Wikipedia does NOT break apart every topic into topic-fragments by author. Let me give you an example:
We DO NOT have Evolution (Gould) Evolution (Dawkins) Evolution (Darwin) Evolution (Mayr) and...Evolution!
We DO NOT have: Quantum Mechanics (Heisenberg) Quantum Mechanics (Schr�dinger) Quantum Mechanics (Dirac) and...Quantum Mechanics!
We DO NOT have: Relativity (classical) Relativity (Einstein) Relativity (Superstring extension) Relativity (Supersymmetry extension) and...Relativity
So why do we now have: Gaia theory Gaia hypothesis Gaia (goddess)...including BIOLOGY theories?!?! Gaia theory (Biology)
Anthere's obsession with having more and more articles on the same topic is unjustifiable, confusing, and misleading. She also is using a naming terminology that English speakers DO NOT use. Jimbo Wales and others have already made clear that our primary purpose here is to make this project accessible and clear to an English speaking audience. The terms we use are extremely imporant, otherwise people looking for one topic could very well miss much of what we have to offer on it.
Chopping up articles like Anthere does is confusing to the reader. Someone will read one article, and think that they have read what they need to on the subject...all the while mising the other critical information on the other pages. (And let's be real, most people DO NOT follow most links. They follow a few links, that's all.)
Anthere's method prevents future edits from being useful. Someone new will come along, and find one or two of her Gaia articles; they might want to contribute, and make an addition or an edit. Sounds good...but they probably will only make the edit to one part of the whole; what about all the other articles on the same topic?
And it gets worse. Many scientists have written on the Gaia theory, not just the two that Anthere is dwelling on. Will she create even more, such as [[Gaia theory (Dawkins)]]? If not, why? She already is doing so now...if we follow her convention, we will have to do so for many more articles. And why is her naming convention being defended for this one topic only, but rejected for other topics?
Again, this is not about content or NPOV. Anthere should not be jamming tiny bits of an entire subject into four separate articles.
Worst of all, the primary page [[Gaia theory]] is very misleading...because Anthere refuses to let us discuss gaia theory here! Instead, she focuses on pre-gaia theory theology and mysticism, and on radical left-wing politics! She forces any real discussion of Gaia theory into sub-pages. That is bizarre. I don't know what her college is like, but among *English* speakers, the phrase "Gaia theory" refers exclusively to a scientific thoery.
We English speakers to use the phrase "Gaia theory" to refer to biological theories by Lovelock, Margulis, et. al. Only on the rarest of occasions does anyone use it to refer to anything else. Anthere's demands for namin conventions are totally backwards. It is the [[Gaia theory]] article which should be about the Gaia biological theories by Lovelock, Margulis. If someone wants to read about Anthere's other interests, such as quasi-Gaian mystial theories of other people from previous decades and centuries, that should be on some other page such as "Gaia theory (precedents)". If someone wants to read about radical left-wing political groups, that should not be here either, but rather in another article.
This article should be about biology, because most English speakers who want to discuss this subject will use this name. What about this is so unreasonable? All I am asking is that we follow the same rules as we follow everywhere else.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
--- Royal We rkscience100@yahoo.com wrote:
So why do we now have: Gaia theory Gaia hypothesis Gaia (goddess)...including BIOLOGY theories?!?! Gaia theory (Biology)
Wrong. We do not have Gaia (goddess). We have Gaia.
As such, it does not necessarily imply it is about the goddess only. And since the word Gaia is evocating the hypothesis to more and more "english speakers" as compared to the goddess, it is perfectly relevant to introduce the topic here
Anthere's obsession with having more and more articles on the same topic is unjustifiable, confusing, and misleading.
The Gaia article was set on the
There have been no new articles on the topic since the [[Daisy World]]. You are dreaming them.
She also is using a naming terminology that English speakers DO NOT use. Jimbo Wales and others have already made clear that our primary purpose here is to make this project accessible and clear to an English speaking audience. The terms we use are extremely imporant, otherwise people looking for one topic could very well miss much of what we have to offer on it.
Yes. You are right. I entirely made up the "Gaia Hypothesis" name. All the 12500 references to that name on google
http://www.google.fr/search?as_q=&num=10&hl=fr&ie=ISO-8859-1&...
I made up myself I can be very prolific.
Chopping up articles like Anthere does is confusing to the reader. Someone will read one article, and think that they have read what they need to on the subject...all the while mising the other critical information on the other pages. (And let's be real, most people DO NOT follow most links. They follow a few links, that's all.)
I think this is the very principle of Wikipedia to link articles between them, rather than stuffing all of a topic in one and unique article. Small articles with a focus help understanding, while huge and dispersed ones discourage people.
Anthere's method prevents future edits from being useful. Someone new will come along, and find one or two of her Gaia articles; they might want to contribute, and make an addition or an edit. Sounds good...but they probably will only make the edit to one part of the whole; what about all the other articles on the same topic?
I think someone really interested in the topic, enough to add information to it, will probably make the effort to read the huge number of three articles.
And it gets worse. Many scientists have written on the Gaia theory, not just the two that Anthere is dwelling on. Will she create even more, such as [[Gaia theory (Dawkins)]]? If not, why? She already is doing so now...if we follow her convention, we will have to do so for many more articles. And why is her naming convention being defended for this one topic only, but rejected for other topics?
This comment is out of topic. The Gaia theory (biology) is there to support all theories. Not only Margulis one. I do not intend to break the topic into pieces. Though, I certainly will make sure to put Margulis other theories in other articles, as it make sense. And I will add that since an article is multiauthored, I find pleasant to receive the reproach *my* article is not complete on the topic. Excuse me there.
Again, this is not about content or NPOV. Anthere should not be jamming tiny bits of an entire subject into four separate articles.
3. But maybe are you right, and no article should be cut into pieces until they are at least 32 ko.
Worst of all, the primary page [[Gaia theory]] is very misleading...because Anthere refuses to let us discuss gaia theory here!
Excuse me ? When exactly did I prevented you to "add" things there ???? As history will show anyway, your only edits on this page have consisted in *removing* information.
Instead, she focuses on pre-gaia
theory theology and mysticism, and on radical left-wing politics! She forces any real discussion of Gaia theory into sub-pages. That is bizarre. I don't know what her college is like, but among *English* speakers, the phrase "Gaia theory" refers exclusively to a scientific thoery.
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. His intent in bugging me is only that I prevent him from plainly *removing* non science stuff. In short, he is trying to force Wikipedia on a full science view, just as he has been trying to do on the knowledge article.
I have no problem with NPVO (I am glad he mentions it), but he certainly has.
We English speakers to use the phrase "Gaia theory" to refer to biological theories by Lovelock, Margulis, et. al. Only on the rarest of occasions does anyone use it to refer to anything else. Anthere's demands for namin conventions are totally backwards. It is the [[Gaia theory]] article which should be about the Gaia biological theories by Lovelock, Margulis. If someone wants to read about Anthere's other interests, such as quasi-Gaian mystial theories of other people from previous decades and centuries, that should be on some other page such as "Gaia theory (precedents)". If someone wants to read about radical left-wing political groups, that should not be here either, but rather in another article.
And hopefully, you will then be able to remove then entirely later on. Who are you trying to convince here ?
This article should be about biology, because most English speakers who want to discuss this subject will use this name. What about this is so unreasonable? All I am asking is that we follow the same rules as we follow everywhere else.
Robert (RK)
All you are asking is that you remain the only author of these articles, and can remove everything that does not suit your pov. That is very sad. This is what you have started to do here
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Gaia_theory&diff=1039281&...
But I will let you do it entirely and remove everything non scientific on the topic. The english wikipedia is not only about science.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
--- Royal We rkscience100@yahoo.com wrote:
So why do we now have: Gaia theory Gaia hypothesis Gaia (goddess)...including BIOLOGY theories?!?! Gaia theory (Biology)
Wrong. We do not have Gaia (goddess). We have Gaia. As such, it does not necessarily imply it is about the goddess only. And since the word Gaia is evocating the hypothesis to more and more "english speakers" as compared to the goddess, it is perfectly relevant to introduce the topic here
Anthere's obsession with having more and more articles on the same topic is unjustifiable, confusing, and misleading.
Wikipedia was stuck, so I add the info now, since you appear to claim I am also responsible for the existence of the [[Gaia]] article.
The Gaia article was set on the 25th of february 2002, by The Epopt. I am not the creator of it. Unless I am The Epopt ? And The Epopt put the initial link to the [[Gaia Hypothesis]].
I just improved it in march. But nobody complained about me improving it. And I don't think this is a tribunal where I need to justify any of my edits. I stand by it.
However, Eloquence rephrase is fine by me.
This article should be about biology, because most English speakers who want to discuss this subject will use this name. What about this is so unreasonable? All I am asking is that we follow the same rules as we follow everywhere else.
Robert (RK)
All you are asking is that you remain the only author of these articles, and can remove everything that does not suit your pov. That is very sad. This is what you have started to do here http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Gaia_theory&diff=1039281&... But I will let you do it entirely and remove everything non scientific on the topic. The english wikipedia is not only about science.
Of course, I meant to write "I will not let you do it entirely and remove everything non scientific on the topic"
But, of course, my poor english is responsible of my typos. You suffer no such typos problems.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Its good to hear Roberts arguments made more clearly, with less obfuscation, as this facilitates greater communication, and communication is an important part of language, somewhat.
I do think, that Robert misses the point, when he accuses that too much attention is being paid to this particular subject, when on other subjects he would tend to write verbosely. He also tends to use the scattergun approach, when something more subtle might be far more powerful. As such, his long arguments are hard to read -- more so than Anthere's.
All that said, I do a see some problems with the articles, As Brion keyed in on -- why have a theory article and a hypothesis article, for example? The later one tends to trump the latter. My charge to Anthere would be to unify these articles in some way -- a disam page might work well -- but the respective articles seem to be disjointed, not properly flowing from one to the next, and the contexts to which they link could (like ten thousand other WP pages ) be better linked.
Hence, in summation, I know how much Robert wants to have this be resolved. Perhaps it could better be resolved if he cuts Anthere a little slack and takes a week off from the Gaia stuff? Anthere may then feel more open to make some reasonable changes -- under her own interest, rather than under duress. Thank you Robert for calling our attention to the matter, though one very short email, free of accusation, would have sufficed.
-Steve
RK wrote in part:
We DO NOT have Evolution (Gould) Evolution (Dawkins) Evolution (Darwin) Evolution (Mayr) and...Evolution!
However, we do have [[Punctuated equilibrium]]. That's analogous to [[Evolution (Gould)]] for number of articles. It's analogous as far as names are concerend, but then those names are strawmen.
Worst of all, the primary page [[Gaia theory]] is very misleading...because Anthere refuses to let us discuss gaia theory here! Instead, she focuses on pre-gaia theory theology and mysticism, and on radical left-wing politics! She forces any real discussion of Gaia theory into sub-pages. That is bizarre. I don't know what her college is like, but among *English* speakers, the phrase "Gaia theory" refers exclusively to a scientific thoery.
This is certainly not true, as I know from personal experience. Perhaps it's true among those English speakers that RK hangs out with.
(Of course, RK also gave a false vandalism alert for an edit war, so he automatically loses it by my standards. ^_^)
-- Toby
--- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
RK wrote in part:
Worst of all, the primary page [[Gaia theory]] is
very
misleading...because Anthere refuses to let us
discuss gaia
theory here! Instead, she focuses on pre-gaia
theory
theology and mysticism, and on radical left-wing
politics!
She forces any real discussion of Gaia theory into sub-pages. That is bizarre. I don't know what her
college
is like, but among *English* speakers, the phrase
"Gaia
theory" refers exclusively to a scientific thoery.
This is certainly not true, as I know from personal experience. Perhaps it's true among those English speakers that RK hangs out with.
(Of course, RK also gave a false vandalism alert for an edit war, so he automatically loses it by my standards. ^_^)
-- Toby
I fear I could be expecting to be a "troll" again very soon :-(
I was apparently not offered the truce some suggested. I think the the phrase "Gaia theory" does not refer exclusively to a scientific thoery. Thank you to those of you morally supporting me :-)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
I wrote in part:
However, we do have [[Punctuated equilibrium]]. That's analogous to [[Evolution (Gould)]] for number of articles. It's analogous as far as names are concerned, but then those names are strawmen.
Sorry, [[Punct... eq...]] is /not/ analogous as far as names are concerned. I left out the "not" -- there was supposed to be contrast! ^_^
-- Toby