--- Brion Vibber <brion(a)pobox.com> wrote: Historic. There were initially 3 articles. One was specifically about Margulis recent Theory. One about Gaia Hypothesis (as proposed by Lovelock) and one general article, where all the different aspects were proposed, historical and other theories on the matter, as well as political, mysticism and sociological aspect. At that point, I had basically never participated to any of these articles, except for removing the [[Daisy World]], and making it a stand alone article. Until now, no one has challenged that move that I know of. Needless to say, I did not "made" any of the original titles as Royal We claims it, since I was not yet on Wikipedia then. When Royal We decided all articles should be united in one, some merged were done, resulting in three articles. A general one (with mostly political, sociological...aspects), another one on pure biological aspects (the scientific one), and the Hypothesis was kept as it was. Unlike what Royal We claims, I was *not* the author of these moves, nor of the new names proposed. When that was done, User Royal We didnot revert it, which I supposed meant he agreed with it. That was less than a month ago. Now, he is claiming I made the renaming, I made the move, and he never agreed upon these. 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*. And there is a strong risk, that most of the general article will be cut into parts and made inintelligeable, just because some people consider it is not a scientific theory, and as such, should not be considered unless proved. Of course, it is typically a theory difficult to prove. But, that does not mean the theories do not exist. 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. For this reason, I think keeping the scientific theories *apart* from other perspectives is a best choice, to avoid mixing scientific perspectives from others. 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 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. User Royal We claim I want to put only Margulis on the Gaia theory (biology) article. I know not where he took that idea. There is nothing further of my mind. This one is meant to discuss the various claims made on the topic, influential Gaia, Gaia co-evolution, Gaia homeorhetic, Gaia homeostatic, geophysiological Gaia, optimizing Gaia. To detail, from the weaker claims to the stronger claims, which are the *scientific* points supporting each of the way the Gaia theories have been expressed. Of course, Lovelock Hypothesis is part of this. But only part of it. And I fear a reader will get confused in all the theories, while in truth, he just initially wanted to have a clear idea of what Lovelock Hypothesis was on the topic. Hence, my suggestion that we keep an specific article on the Hypothesis, rather than just redirecting to a more complex article. Now, I don't know what is best. Should this one be just a short one, giving the basics and the general one give the details, or should it be the opposite ? This is totally open to discussion. But, just making a redirect of the article without initial discussion, without even keeping the last changes made to the article, it is *not* good. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com