--- Royal We <rkscience100(a)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&am…
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&am…
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