--- 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