[WikiEN-l] Let's follow Wikipedia rules for the Gaia articles

[Anthere]

--- Royal We <rkscience100 at 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&btnG=Recherche+Google&as_epq=Gaia+Hypothesis&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=

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&oldid=1038950

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