Talk:Natural environment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This environment-related article is part of a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. |
Contents |
[edit] Definition
I'm having a problem with this definition. I'm unsure if the statements are just unclear, or I am fuzzy. Nature and natural contrast with man-made, man-influenced, and unnatural. Of course an urban park like New York's Central Park (as an example) contains much that is natural, but I would hesitate to define it as a "natural environment" despite its clear value in many respects. Is this not the "common" sense, or am I way off base and looking at it instead from a scientist's perspective? Is a corn field a "natural environment? It has great value and is all nature.- Marshman 00:46, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And right off the top there is clearly a problem in terms:
- "In politics and other non-technical contexts, nature or (the) (natural) environment often refers to that part of the natural world"
which links to Nature. It is saying "nature" is that part of "nature" that has value ??? - Marshman 01:04, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
- The more I read the definition, the more I came to see it as just POV with a very narrow bias. Indeed, the logical extension of the argument was almost the opposite of what most would think the term means (expecially the bit about requiring "value"). The last paragraph seems sensible, the others did not; so I deleted them and replaced them with what I believe is the "common sense" of natural environment. Comments invited. - Marshman 02:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] MediaWiki bug?
For some reason, the pipelink from "environment" in the first sentence is being displayed not as a link but in bold. I can't work out why. Could it be a bug? Agentsoo 17:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Plain English
This whole page needs a "plain English" rewrite. Andy Mabbett 18:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- I think there is a "Simple Englsh" Wikipedia for that. If you are really having trouble understanding this article you can of course improve it, but it seems pretty senior HS/college level to me - Marshman 04:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC) Sorry, but I find placement of such a "tag" more to do with POV than anything real. This article attempts to define the term "natural environment", but certainly could go other places. If you have a better definition, add it to the text. The article that was here previously was pure BS. - Marshman 04:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
- I find your response abusive. I suggested "plain English", not "Simple English", and suggest you read up on the two, which are different. Andy Mabbett 07:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
- Relax folks, it was a simple misunderstanding. If this article can be rewritten to use more everyday terms without losing technical accuracy then by all means do so. Inevitably some topics will use the appropriate technical terms, and you can always read up on them elsewhere, but if they aren't necessary then it would be better to make the article available to a wider audience. Go edit! Agentsoo 09:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
- Yes it was a bit abusive. Sorry about that. But I really object to tags such as you added. What is wrong with you doing some editing to improve the article? Adding a stupid "Plain English" tag is the same as saying "I cannot understand this article, someone explain it to me". Of course it could use some editing, and I did attempt to Plain English it for you, but I'm suspicious of how people interpret Plain English - I agree with what I read at Plain English but cannot help but think most proponents really want "no big words". Anyway, I abandon all interest in this article. I have no desire to get sucked into a conflict with difficult people - Marshman 17:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
- I find your response abusive. I suggested "plain English", not "Simple English", and suggest you read up on the two, which are different. Andy Mabbett 07:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Andy's point, above, that the article can use some plain english editing. However, I don't find the "cleanup" tag appropriate, so I've removed it. Marshman's concerns seem to have been reflected in the lead, so I think it is becoming a much better article and, with more editing, should be a fine article. Sunray 04:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Collaboration of the Week Nomination (August, 2005)
This article was nominated for a COTW in August, 2005. The discussion is here - Wikipedia:Collaborations_of_the_Week/Natural_environment. Jtneill - Talk 01:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Article Improvement Drive for Wilderness
A closely related article, Wilderness is currently nominated on the AID. You may wish to vote and discuss.
[edit] Poor article
84.13.247.151 wrote "this page is really ribbish im sorry but it does not state the defitintion of the natural environment in its easiest form.".
- Thank you for your comment. please in future put comments of this nature on the talk page (i.e. here) not on the main article.--NHSavage 15:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Definition revisited
The definition of nature does not exclude humans. SO why should humans not be included as a part of the natural environment? I'm not convinced that this article satisfies the NPOV criteria. Sholto Maud 02:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] There are so many more topics that this article could face, like climate change
This article should be telling people more about the environment and raising awareness. Why does it not talk about the Kyoto agreement in more detail? Or the fact that the USA is not willing to cut carbon emissions? In other words this article should be more in tune with the current day. When people talk about the environment they don't talk about a definition of the word environment, no they talk about the melting glaciers, the Greenhouse gases, the fact that the world could be facing a climate change. There are so many current issues this article is not facing. It is a good article but it could be a great article and then Wiki could be proud of the fact that it increased awareness for the environment. Who agrees?87.113.89.18 11:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
