Difference between revisions 34973 and 34975 on enwiki

Some stuff by 24.150.61.63 which still needs checking (I'm reluctant to just delete everything, although (s)he's adding stuff so fast there may be no alternative):

*[[Bonobo]]
*[[Eco-villages]]
*[[Evolution of societies]]
*[[Four Pillars of the Green Party]]
*[[Great ape]]
*[[Greens]]
(contracted; show full)

That will not work.

:Actually, I didn't mean we shouldn't have articles on [[Nearctic]] and [[Neotropic]]. (They do, however, need to be properly written.) I just meant that we should delete all your stuff as the easiest way of dealing with it for now. It would be great if someone would come along and convert all your stuff into something encyclopedic, but I don't see this happening at the moment. --[[user:Zundark|Zundark]], 2002 Mar 22


⏎
----
OK, the term "undo" should not be confused with the term "delete" but I hear whta you are saying.  I figured this out myself and went mostly to one-liner stub-type articles.  Some, like 'ecology movement', were cut down to that but left senseless.  Now the only thing it says is that they became Greens - but the fact that ecology movements still exist or what they believe is gone...

It's not just a question of having articles on Nearctic and Neotropic, these are new scientific names for ecozones that correspond to continents just like Homo Sapiens is the scientific name for humans.  So scientists going forward are more likely to refer to Nearctic or Neotropic peoples or species than to North and South American, which are colonial names now going out of style... likewise Europe is now considered ecologically aligned with Russia and North Africa while China/Malay is split off from the rest of Asia.

This is a major shift in how people see the world, and I'm not surprised it is surprising to some.  But it's not an attempt to push some personal agenda.

I'm just reporting.

If you want, I can report like a Libertarian or a hardcore Communist, but I'm still going to have to differentiate ecologically-real things like Nearctic from ideologically-made-up things like 'class struggle' or 'property rights'.

That's going to make me sound like a Green.  But that's also what makes a scientist sound like a scientist.

I'd just ask you to look at your own motivations, and why something like Four_Pillars you consider so objectionable in its edited form, while Electoral_Reform is not.  

I'm sure you don't want me digging through every entry to find ideological points of view that don't reflect modern scientific ideas of body and ecology, so we have to find some middle ground here somewhere.

Biosafety has three definitions:  one in agriculture, one in medicine, and one in trade.  I can't explain the three meanings without some attempt at unifying them, and I can't unify them without some reference to ecology and the body.  That's going to make me sound like a Green, because only Greens can do this... unfortunately.  Biosafety and biosecurity don't make sense if your brain is addled by ideology.  They make perfect sense if you view your self as body wandering around in an ecology.