Talk:Gaia hypothesis/Archive 3

message: Substituted at 20:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: I have deleted a bunch of links that had a dubious relation to this article, and were more related to the Gaia movement, philosophy, etc. A couple of them were already referenced in the text several times. Less is more and there is still 12 of them. I believe the whole page will benefit from a bit of focus.--Qgil (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning the 'See also' section 

message: So I decided to go ahead and start rewriting the first paragraph, focusing on clarity, the basic definition of the hypothesis, the main authors, and the closest scientific fields that are working with this hypothesis. I also referenced the Gaia philosophy and movement articles (that are also in dubious shape) in an attempt to draw a clear line and drive away whoever is interested in the philosophic and religious aspects. If nobody objects I will continue cleaning the article. Full disclaimer: I'm not an expert, just a hobbyist willing to learn more about the topic.--Qgil (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating first paragraph (and perhaps the rest of the article) 

message: There is some overlapping between this article and Geophysiology. Basically, it seems that what initially emerged as the "Gaia hypothesis" consolidated into different trends (as explained in the 'Range of views' section) and also inspired other trends out of the scientist academia like the Gaia Movement and the Gaia philosophy, all cited in the article. Geophysiology is the study of interaction among living organisms on the Earth operating under the Gaia hypothesis. So what about considering Geophysiology as a main article for the current scientific view of the Gaia hypothesis? Here we could concentrate on the original hypothesis formulated, its evolution into different trends, the main authors postulating and criticizing. I'm happy putting some time on this page as a pet WP hobby.--Qgil (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact I was wrong, and there are differences between the Gaia theory and Geophysiology, even if both have a lot of overlapping. I'm reading more about this before doing changes to the article.--Qgil (talk) 05:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, I was wrong again.  :)  In The Vanishing Face of Gaia, the own Lovelock writes: "Geophysiology, the discipline of Gaia theory, had its origins in the 1960s Gaia hypothesis. Summary edited accordingly.--Qgil (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article & Geophysiology 

message: Unknown author dleted part of the post concerning Lovelock's latest book "Gaia's Revenge".  This has been reversed in the absence of either a sihgned change or an explanation in the discussion pages
John D. Croft 02:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved part of that section to James_Lovelock#Climate_and_mass_human_mortality since they were digressing from the Gaia hypothesis itself, but could be still interesting in the context of Lovelock's future predictions.--Qgil (talk) 05:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As a matter of fact, the more I look at the article the less I see the point of this section about "The Revenge of Gaia". It is about Lovelock's personal predictions about the future, a topic that is already covered at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock#Climate_and_mass_human_mortality and it doesn't contest or add to the Gaia hypothesis itself. A sentence somewhere linking to the section in Lovelock's article would be enough imho. This would help cleaning the pages and keeping the focus.--Qgil (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there were no objections, I have left just a basic mention in "Regulation of the global surface temperature" and I have moved the whole paragraph to James_Lovelock#The_revenge_of_Gaia.--Qgil (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Gaia's Revenge

message: Gaia_hypothesis#Gaia_hypothesis_in_ecology contains a lot of redundancy and looks to me good food for the somewhat lacking article Earth system science. Any objections to clean/move? --Qgil (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done--Qgil (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Integrating "Gaia hypothesis in ecology" 

message: This is a topic that has been discussed above, some years back. I'm not in a hurry on this but I though it was useful to notice that the own James Lovelock gives an explanation on his book The vanishing face of Gaia (2009) that is different from anything discussed here. At the end of the book there is a summary where one can read:
GAIA HYPOTHESIS. James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis postulated in the early 1970s that life on Earth activly keeps the surface conditions always favorable for whatever is the contemporary ensemble of organisms. When introduced, this hypothesis was contrary to the conventional wisdom that life adapted to planetary conditions as it and they evolved in their separate ways. We now know that the hypothesis as originally stated was wrong because it is not life alon but the whole Earth system that does the regulating. The hypothesis evolved into what is now Gaia theory.
GAIA THEORY. A view of the Earth introduced in the 1980s that sees it as a self-regulating system made up from the totality of organisms, the surface rocks, the ocean and the atmosphere tightly coupled as an evolving system. The theory sees this system as having a goal - the regulation of surface conditions so as always to be as favorable for contemporary life as possible. It is based on observations and theoretical models; it is fruitful and has made ten successful predictions.
The book refers to a collection of scientific observations and predictions, and mentions the different recognitions the Gaia thory has received from scientific organizations in the last years - many of them after the discussions held here. I will update the information in the article as I progress reading the book. Once the article is updated and in good shape I'll go back to this discussion over the default title of the article, if needed. I thought it was good to share now just in case someone has good knowledge and/or strong opinions.--Qgil (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm reading another book where the difference between the original Gaia hypothesis and the current Gaia theory is also stressed. I have created a new section to explain this: Gaia_hypothesis#From_hypothesis_to_theory.--Qgil (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypothesis vs Theory, revisited 

message: The article is huge (as is this discussion page). I've added the template split-apart and propose it be split into smaller articles referent to each topic ("History of the Gaia theory", "Weak and strong Gaia theories", etc.). I believe most top-level topics are detailed enough to be stand-alone articles. 189.61.242.178 (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your help. I believe that "Critical analysis" and "History" could get sub-articles created right away. About the rest, there is still a lot of cleaning to do. For instance, the "Weak and strong Gaia theories" might well be the analysis done by a single person, since these terms seem not be used by the scientists actually working in connection with the Gaia theory. I'm doing more reading before proposing anything, though.--Qgil (talk) 05:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: About the long Discussion page, I also agree. Does someone know how to archive the old discussions until, say, Talk:Gaia hypothesis/Archive 1#Error (March 2010)? --Qgil (talk) 06:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: /Archive 1 created.--Qgil (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Until there is more to put into such articles we would only be creating stubs.  For the moment I am against it, and for that reason I am deleting the "split" line on the front page.  Is that OK? John D. Croft (talk) 12:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I also prefer to concentrate first in the cleaning of the article (as requested a year ago). Once we have gone through it we can consider whether more splits are needed. In fact we have got already entire paragraphs being moved to other aerticles as a result of the clean-up.--Qgil (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split apart 

message: The sections "Critical analysis" + "Range of views" contain a lot of redundancy and disorder. At the end they try to address Criticism and the different replies from the Gaia scientists. It would be more useful to have them organized by the hottest topics: the concept of a living Earth, the role of Gaia in evolution and natural selection, the name of Gaia itself...--Qgil (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that this "Strong Gaia vs Weak Gaia" thing comes as a result of a single PhD thesis, see this. I haven't seen it referenced anywhere else except in pages mentioning either that thesis work or this Wikipedia article. That sections contains a lot of redundancy. I'm happy keeping the mention to the Weak/Strong concept pointing to that thesis available online, moving whatever unique to the corresponding sections in the article and delete the rest.--Qgil (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

text: It is the book I am reading these days. :) --Qgil (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical analysis + Range of views 

message: I think the page should be semi-protected, to autoconfermed users, to prevent vandalism. --71.31.247.179 (talk) 05:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A request at WP:RFPP would not be successful because there has not been much disruption lately. If you are aware of any bad text in the article, please fix it or mention it here. Johnuniq (talk) 06:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to protect the page 

message: Thank you Qgil for your fantastic work cleaning up the article.  I deleted a small section that I found to be repetitive, but apart from that I am very pleased with the direction you have taken.  I wonder about including a photograph of James lovelock in the text?  What do you think?
John D. Croft (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback and your help. Having a picture of Lovelock is a good idea, and I would add ome from Margulis too. What do you think?--Qgil (talk) 03:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes excellent.  I'll see if I can find them.  John D. Croft (talk) 08:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. John D. Croft (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The work you have both been doing shows WP editing at its best - an intelligent approach to a controversial topic and useful tidying of a long, intricate and, in some places, still poorly organised article.93.96.233.235 (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: The cleanup of the article

message: UMD Finding May Hold Key to Gaia Theory of Earth as Living Organism is there anyway we could get this on the article?
"Is Earth really a sort of giant living organism as the Gaia hypothesis predicts? A new discovery made at the University of Maryland may provide a key to answering this question. This key of sulfur could allow scientists to unlock heretofore hidden interactions between ocean organisms, atmosphere, and land -- interactions that might provide evidence supporting this famous theory."
Sulfur Finding May Hold Key to Gaia Theory of Earth as Living Organism GreenUniverse (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: User:GreenUniverse has been blocked as a sock of banned User:BookWorm44. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent news

message: Just a note that I brought this article up at WP:FTN. Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  FTN 

message: The link to the "Omega Gaia" is an occult/metaphysics not a science website. Also Teilhard Chardin did not propose the Gaia hypothesis and neither did Oliver Reiser so they have been removed. 86.153.42.156 (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Teilhard de Chardin did make use of Vernadsky's "Biosphere" hypothesis, via Henri Bergson, which has been acknowledged as a parallel to Gaia Theory.John D. Croft (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted original research

message: I have added citations where citations needed existed before.  There is still weaknesses as Kirchner gets mentioned twice, and this needs correction, as it is repetitive. I invite anyone else to have a go. I have been trying to find who added the "tone" criticism in April 2010, as I would like to find what their criticisms were.  It doesn't show in the talk pages. John D. Croft (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks John! I am also working these days in improving this article - see the comments just above. The article is definitely messy and with many repetitions, and this is why I'm going from top to down, step by step as I find the time. Next comes Gaia hypothesis#Regulation of the global surface temperature, where I plan to include the mention to Daisyworld and move all the rest to the Daisyworld main article. I'm fine having that banner until we are done with the cleaning. Then we can request revision from The Powers That Be, and perhaps we can get a better quote than the Cs above.  :)  --Qgil (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

text: John, thanks again for all these edits and citations. Very much needed! I see that you have expanded the section "The Revenge of Gaia". In fact I'm proposing to remove it completely, see my comments at #Gaia's Revenge. Looking forward to your feedback!--Qgil (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Qgil for your edits to the article.  I feel we could go for an improvement in the quality (It is now definitely better than C class).  What do you all think? John D. Croft (talk) 13:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Strong disagreement until the rest of the fringe/pseudoscience issues are resolved (especially the lack of demarcation between these and the actual science). I will hopefully get some time to work on that soon. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Arc du Ciel - which fringe/pseudoscience are you referring to?  I cannnot see much in the article as it stands that could be called pseudoscience.  John D. Croft (talk) 07:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the FTN post linked below. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Attempt to fix weaknesses in the article

message: This whole section seems like fluff to me.  It only repeats what has already been said elsewhere in the article - for example the original work by Margulis and Lovelock, and criticism by Gould and Dawkins - and adds very little of value.  There certainly seems to be nothing about "Philosophy".  I propose the section is deleted.  Atshal (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Gaia Philosophy" section 

message: The paragraph on Latour is at best unclear, and at worst gobbledygook. On the off chance that it actually means something, I left the first part of it. The second part - on politics - seemed completely off topic, and so merited deletion. Here it is:
:"Facing the Anthropocene by which the Anthropos is no longer in nature, nor outside of nature, Latour foresees the coming of an entirely new kind of political animal, a novel form of political body and political theology (composed of demos, theos, logos) in which science, politics and art play specific roles for the people of Gaia as agents of an impatient planet."
The entire paragraph relied on a dead link and so is unverifiable.  
I would be glad to hear opinions on the first part, and does it mean anything? Yabti (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism: Bruno Latour 

message: I added the link to Quantum Decohesion because it is relevant to the Physics of Climatology & to Homeostasis, the basis of the Gaia Hypothesis. " Decohesion occurs when a system interacts with its environment in a thermodynamically irreversible way."  & "As with any coupling, entanglements are generated between the system & environment. These have the effect of sharing information with, or transferring it to, the surroundings."  Those who do not perceive this have no business "correcting" it.AptitudeDesign (talk) 07:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: is that a "See also" addition? Whatever you are trying to do you are doing it wrong. You do not link to wiki by an external link and you do not place signatures inside articles.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 12:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decohesion 

message: I've made a few edits. I'd like to remove the final paragraph because it is stating the obvious. I'd replace it with something more consistent with what is said elsewhere in the article -- the question is "does Earth work like Gaia? Are their real world equivalents for white and Black daisies, or is the model of limited or no relevance?".
(The final paragraph on the current page: "It has been suggested that the results were predictable because Lovelock and Watson selected examples that produced the responses they desired."
Or you could add something like, "the model has nothing to say on the plausiblity of organisms acting like those programmed into Daisyworld emerging through natural selection".
77.98.32.90 (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  daisyworld 

message: Two convoluted edits have removed big chunks of the criticism section (in parallel with seemingly beneficial copyediting). The rationale appears to be that the removed text was repetitive of other article text and was inserted, at least in part, by an author of a Gaia critique, who cited his own work. However, looking down the article history back to how it stood in February 2015, the deleted material also includes criticisms by other scientists as well. As such, the wholesale deletion seems a little hasty to me. I note that the recent deletions follow an extended number of unexplained edits, and it may be that the sense of the text was lost during these edits, and precipitated them.  --PLUMBAGO 15:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to the above, I've rolled back the article revision to one from early March.  This reverts a large number of unexplained, and piecemeal, edits by one editor, and restores text removed subsequently by a later editor.  Looking at the earlier edits more carefully, I suspect that these made the article text difficult to follow.  Anyway, I think what's here now is imperfect but editing it rather than simply deleting it is the way forwards.  --PLUMBAGO 10:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted criticism 

message: The "recent criticism" section says CLAW has been "discredited". That's a harsh word; I usually hear it in the context of scientific misconduct. The only citation is a review paper, which I don't think can be taken even as demonstrating a scientific consensus against CLAW, much less a discrediting. And if there is a source to show either of those things, the first article that should be revised is CLAW hypothesis, not this one. --Allen (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't read it this way, but to reduce confusion I've tried to reword to make it clearer that it's simply regular scientific progress that's the source of this reversal for the CLAW hypothesis. Hope this helps. --PLUMBAGO 16:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, thanks; I think it sounds better now. --Allen (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  CLAW hypothesis "discredited"? 

message: It is often claimed that the lack of reproduction is evidence against the Gaia hypothesis, as reproduction or rather the possibility of reproduction is said to be a characteristic of life.  But by this definition a mule is not alive!  Carl Sagan, suggested the Space Program would suggest the world is preparing to go to seed.  There is also evidence that there is more than one Gaia - Archaean Gaia, with an anoxic atmosphere, Proterozoic Gaia and finally Phaneroic Gaia.  It is suggested that Gaia reproduced itself across each transition and evolved a new metastability as a result.  Lovelock suggests as much in the Ages of Gaia.  John D. Croft (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this argument ever really used seriously? That is, in a non-rhetorical fashion in a quality source that we can cite. It's facile and smacks of the sort of "characteristics of life" lists from high school biology (cf. why not claim that Gaia is false because the Earth isn't "irritable"?). Gaia is proposed as a dynamical system in which the ebb and flow of ecological actors acts in a fashion to provide a stable climate (in the broadest sense) as an emergent phenomenon. This is surely only analogous at best to the more integrated and self-contained dynamical systems that make up these same ecological actors. And anyway, as the article makes clear elsewhere, there are plenty of arguments against the Gaia hypothesis that don't require dropping to such a first order description of "life". I reckon we should remove the last two sentences of the paragraph as simply unnecessary. --PLUMBAGO 09:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This mule argument/statement is silly. A mule is the offspring of living creatures. The Earth's Gaia wasn't formed from in any analogous way. Moreover, many of these multiple Gaias seem to me to be more about generating names than making actual substantive distinctions: Is "Archaean Gaia" really more meaningful than "Archaean"?. This article needs quite a bit of cleaning. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Gaian Reproduction and Life

message: This section is small and has notes asking for citations.  I just attended a class about the sodium (Na) cycle, Pliny, Lavosier, Halley, Emerson and Hedges, Marcet's principle, Libes, MacKenzie and Garrels, and Leo Da Vinci's theories relating to the scientific theory of salinity. 
:Could this information be linked from other Wikilinks to support this sub-section?  
If this is appropriate I can start on this for my Biogeochemical class requirements.  To state what the Gaia Hypothesis Theory's are they should be compared to scientific pages relating to each part.  
:Can the concepts, in my own words, be added to understand what the fundamental teachings of salinity are in this theory?  
I can try to find other sources to validate Lovelock's or counter his views about salinity.Winterba (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This section is pretty badly sourced at the moment. I've just had a look in the scientific literature to see if any papers talk about salinity in this context. It's very, very slim pickings — I only got one hit; (but I only tried a few search terms) — which I interpret as this not being an active research topic (this is more generally true of Gaia). However, I did find one quite explicit hit from 2001 that talks about the Mediterranean Sea as being Gaia's "kidney" (you can probably access it here). This is definitely worth citing here. I was going to say that the article should indicate what the mainstream, non-Gaian interpretation of salinity is, but I can't find any sources on that on the salinity page. Ho-hum. --PLUMBAGO 11:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salinity 

message: The introduction has changed and is much easier to view without large areas of blanks space.  I hope to update the salinity section today with a citation and some links.  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaia_hypothesis&action=edit§ion=new# Winterba (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates[[User:Winterba|Winterba]] ([[User talk:Winterba|talk]]) 22:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)   

message: Why did you delete all references to "geophysiology", only to re-create Geophysiology as a redirect to this article—where there is now no mention of the term? I'm confused. — Gorthian (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the two references to geophysiology as they were misrepresenting the concept as if it is a fully-fledged field of study - in fact, it is completely associated with Gaia (Earth system science is probably its closest mainstream analog). However, as a term associated with Gaia, redirecting "geophysiology" to this article post-deletion seems reasonable to me. Sorry if I've been confusing, however. --PLUMBAGO 08:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no problem with deleting those references to "geophysiology"; it's the creation of the redirect that bothers me. If someone searches on the term, they'll get sent to an article where it isn't even mentioned, much less explained. If it's used as a synonym for the Gaia hypothesis, then that should be in the article. Maybe something in the section "Formulation of the hypothesis" about how it used to be called "geophysiology"? Obviously, I don't know enough to make a useful edit. — Gorthian (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a very fair point. What I should have done was add an explicit reference to "geophysiology" to the text. I'll try to think up a suitable wording to fit the bill. Thanks for picking me up on this. I have, yet again, skilfully seen the wood but not the trees. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 16:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geophysiology 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Gaia hypothesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120223165936/http://www.wildethics.org/essays/the_mechanical_and_the_organic.html to http://www.wildethics.org/essays/the_mechanical_and_the_organic.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060408121826/http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article338830.ece to http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article338830.ece
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120223165936/http://www.wildethics.org/essays/the_mechanical_and_the_organic.html to http://www.wildethics.org/essays/the_mechanical_and_the_organic.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131031191848/http://www.wildethics.org/essays/the_perceptual_implications_of_gaia.html to http://www.wildethics.org/essays/the_perceptual_implications_of_gaia.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gaia hypothesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723055017/http://ejour-fup.unifi.it/index.php/eee/article/viewFile/787/733 to http://ejour-fup.unifi.it/index.php/eee/article/viewFile/787/733
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gaia hypothesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080209234239/http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2007/sep07/noaa07-r435.html to http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2007/sep07/noaa07-r435.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I notice the strong and weak versions are still not mentioned much in the article. As mentioned above, they're quite important. The current article gives a lot of criticism to what is essentially strong Gaia, while weak Gaia is very much accepted. Kirchner came up with the terms, but I've seen them pop up in many works related to intelligent systems. Prinsgezinde (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Strong and weak

message: After giving a read through your article and through the previous edits suggested by others, there are a few sections that would require better referencing (clearly indicated by others before me), however, much of the information presented is highly relevant and contributes to a greater understanding of everything that stems from the Gaia hypothesis. If some of the corrections could be made, i.e. finding better sources, expanding on a couple concepts, etc., then this article would be all the more complete. At a glance, much of the information also seems to be rather up to date, and with continuous suggestions being made for new edits this article continues to expand and become all the more relevant. Good job so far!
Cheers! -OricaRyu (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This content may be worth including but it needs to be paraphrased and sourced properly for the community to more easily evaluate. As it was, I had to remove it because it was truly unclear what was a quote and what may be unsourced conjecture. Central Midfielder (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick Evaluation From a New Perspective

message: I think it's mildly fascinating that there isn't any mention about the controversy surrounding the original adumbration of the Gaia hypothesis. Namely whether it was originally proposed by James Lovelock or Oberon Zell-Ravenheart, who are contemporary influences. Granted, one finds it far easier to attribute it to the English scientist and not the American educator (and, frankly, the hippy), however there is enough on the testimonial end of the evidentiary record to cause some reasonable dubiety to surface. While the arguments have stagnated, it was still a fairly significant point in the attribution of the theories origins and even the source of much of the institutional association biases that led to its quick dismissal by most physical scientists. Would anyone agree that it deserves at least some mention in the Arty?
Luxnir (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Zell-Ravenheart Dispute 

message: Gaia_hypothesis#Daisyworld_simulations is pretty extensive considering that Daisyworld exists and is in fact a good article. Gaia hypothesis is already too long, and a thinner Daisyworld section pointing to the main article would help. There is work for a volunteer to keep the section here at a minimum and move to Daisyworld the information not mentioned there, if any.--Qgil (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, the Daisyworld content could be located inside the section "Regulation of the global surface temperature", since this is what the model aims to demonstrate.--Qgil (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Now the text under "Regulation of the global surface temperature" needs a bit of expansion. Maybe there is more to move from below in the article, maybe we can take the basic content from other WP pages or maybe we must go to the sources and extract what matters.--Qgil (talk) 02:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

text: I recommend using this Daisyworld plot from Lovelock's 2014 book, as it allows a better comparison with temperatures in the geologic record (the image preceding it in this article). 24.237.39.251 (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daisyworld section vs article 

message: It says early on in this article that the hypothesis was proposed by James Lovelock. That is true, but it was said on Last Word today (Friday 12 August 2022) that the term for it, "Gaia hypothesis", was not chosen by Lovelock, but by William Golding. YTKJ (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Lovelock did not introduce the term