[WikiEN-l] Disambiguation is not censorship (Gaia related)

Wed Jul 2 00:48:03 UTC 2003

Anthere claims:
> Yes. Just to state : RK wanted to unite all articles
> at first. Now, he is putting them into pieces.

Anthere, are there not enough disputes already? Why do you
continue to write false claims about me?  I have never
tried to unite *all* the Gaia articles, and you know this. 

All I have tried to do is unite the scientific topics into
one article, and non-science topics into other articles.  I
even made multiple links from the science articles to the
non-science ones, just for you.  

> I disagree with moving all the content of political
> issues in the gaian article. Not everyone recognising
> himself as a gaian agrees with what is said in
> political stuff. And some not recognising them with
> gaian agree. This is far too reductive to put
> everything under the gaian article

Fine. If you believe that there are other political groups
that deserve their own article, make an article about them.
But please stop jamming every single remotely-related topic
into the [[Gaia theory]] page.

Anthere writes:
> Second, did you really read the content of what RK is
> proposing in the predecessors article ? The beginning
> is indeed about predecessors. The second part is
> totally current. Not ancien story. What would you
> define as predecessors ? In any case, predecessors
> have their part in the gaia theory as it is now. 
> They inspired Lovelock theory. Why should they be put
> elsewhere ?

Anthere, stop being disingenuous.  Perhaps you truly
believe that these mystical, political and religious
beliefs belong in a science article about atmospheric
science and biology.  But they actually don't belong there;
you keep imposing your religious and political views on the
rest of us, and you keep screaming "censorship" when we
point out that these are separate topics. That is
inappropriate behaviour.

Frankly, Lovelock himself has stated that his theory was
not based on these religious and mystical ideas that you
favour so much.  His theory developed out of a study of
atmospheric gases, and his observation that many observed
gases in our atmosphere should not exist, unless one
postulated an as-yet-unknown mechanism.  Your claims about
the history of Lovelock's Gaia theory are historically
incorrect.  Also, your claims about Buckminster Fuller, on
this topic, are similarly historically inaccurate.

Anthere writes:
> I disagree with letting RK definition at the top of
> his version Gaia article. This is not a proper
> definition. It is a scientific definition, and as such
> is pov...

> I currently object that the Gaia Theory to be turned
> to a purely scientific article. The Theory is not only
> scientific. ...

Huh?  I am simply saying that we should have one article
specifically on science; we already have two other Gaia
articles (Gaians, and Gaia theory predecessors) that
discuss how mystics, religious believers, ancients, and
radical political groups interpret Gaia theory.  We can
also have more Gaia-related articles, as you intimated!

The problems is that every time we use standard Wikipedia
disambiguation forms, you cry censorship, and pretend that
other points of view are being hidden. They are not. They
simply are being discussed in their own articles. This is
clear to everyone else.

Please, take some time to learn how disambiguation is done
on other topics. It is not censorship. Please don't cry
victim.

The only POV violation is when you keep imposing your
religious and political beliefs on us, and forcing your
religious and political beliefs into an article about
atmospheric science and biology.

Robert (RK)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com