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

[Toby Bartels]

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