Talk:Nature/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

General

Man, the pictures introducing this article, and the descriptions of the divisions of the study of nature are quite simple, profound, and very cool.

I disagree, I think the article starts out very messed up. Most people use the word "nature" to refer to the natural world on the human scale. Not subatomic, not even chemical, and not interstellar. This is because the average person's understanding of Nature is no better (and perhaps worse) than that of the ancients. So, simple earth sciences and biology, geology, botany, meterology, and some solar and lunar astronomy. It is fine to modernize the definition to include "matter and energy", but it should be done on the basis of an introduction for people who don't understand the composition of the universe (this is an encyclopedia!) rather than starting from the point of view of a physicist who does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.49.188 (talk)

History

A section on the history of the concept "nature" would be fine, but none at all is preferable to the silly one given. I have therefore removed it. The Greeks used the word "physis" to refer to a thing's essential nature. Aristotle referred to the "physiologoi" or "nature philosophers", the first of whom he said was reputed to have been Thales. These nature philosphers eschewed the appeal to gods as explanations for "natural" phenomena. Instead they offered possible natural explanations for things such as thunder, eclipses etc. Leighxucl 19:12, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)

Dear Leighxucl: I look forward to your "History" section. Meanwhile, I am about to revert your small change about some people thinking it is artificial to distinguish between the natural and the artificial, mainly because the circularity of definition, though perhaps cute, really only obscures things. Also, the text that you omitted was important for continuity. Peak 02:15, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The circularity to which you refer, struck me later. As you can see I feel that it is important to stress in this section the egregious problems which arise from the narrower interpretation of nature (human/mind exclusive). Leighxucl

Your revised version is fine by me. Thanks. Perhaps you will one day become more tolerant of ambiguities in natural language. (Have you read Max Black's Margins of Precision?). Peak 05:49, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The ambiguities may perhaps be easier to tolerate for someone who is reasonably happy (or even strongly of the opinion) that humans are a special case standing outside nature; than they are for someone like myself, who strongly feels the opposite. I shall look out for the book that you mentioned.Leighxucl 00:57, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

I feel this article has a long way to go. You cannot start an article on nature with distinctions between realism and idealism, and not give an alternative definition for idealists. If the person who put in this rider on the definitions isn't prepared to explain it more, in my humble opinion the comment should go --(talk to)BozMo 10:05, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I replaced the annoying collage. Bensaccount 17:43, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Beauty

i like the division of nature into simple parts, but feel this article neglects looking at nature as a whole, and gives the impression that the only human thought directed toward the study of nature has been scientific and philosophical. i've just added the section on beauty to counterbalance this slightly, because i felt that the idea of nature as a whole is culturally very important. any thoughts on this approach? halio dec6 2005 Also, i hope no-one minds my addition of seperate sections. if anyone wants to add a section for the beauty entry, then feel free- may i suggest something like "man's place in nature" "the relationship between nature and humankind" or "cultural issues" etc

Religion, God, Supernatural

Removed text:

"Nature" is a tactful term to use when discussing non-human creation (for example, Christians would say "God", which could annoy atheists.)

How in the world is this on-topic? Wikipedia is not a usage guide and this statement is idiosyncratic and presents an un-needed red herring into the article. --maveric149

myths and the Nature vs God vs Man link should go here. Edited by Dwarf Kirlston Feb 16 21:10 Brazilia Time Zone

Why is there a supernatural category here at all? The supernatural is BY DEFINITION beyond the natural world. In the absence of objection I'd like to remove it....--Deglr6328 2 July 2005 01:18 (UTC)

Article Improvement Drive for Wilderness

Wilderness is currently nominated to be improved on Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. You may wish to support the article with your vote. Jtneill - Talk 14:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Adriatic Sea

Article used to say:

The Adriatic Sea is a part of Mediteranean Sea placed between Croatia and Italy. Its croatian part is beautiful and, as the latest examinations say, the most cleanest of all the parts of Mediteranean Sea.

Nature and Artifice

The section of the article on where to draw the line between what is natural and artificial is interesting. It assumes that they are completely independent but artificial things are really just a special kind of natural thing because the raw materials needed to make any man-made thing are necessarily natural to start with. I would say that artifice is both natural and unnatural because I think that 'nature' and 'artifice' are both subsets of a set called 'Nature'.

I have always wondered about this issue as well. As far as I can tell, human beings are just another species on this planet. When a beaver builds a dam, and detrimentally affects other species, it's natural, and something good. When humans build a better dam, and do the same, it's automatically bad, and something to be reviled, as if we have no right to do so. Weird, wacky stuff, man. I've always thought we are nature. Everything we do is natural. Everything we use to build and do everything comes from the earth. Does anyone have any further reading on the subject to suggest? it seems very basic philosophical stuff, and I just cannot grasp the modern environmentalist philosophy. --Kvuo 01:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
An essential difference between a beaver, building a dam and humans doing so, is in the fact, that the beaver only uses buildingmaterials in the shape, in which they occur in nature, and no buildingtools, or -machines. If man would do the same, his activity might be regarded as "natural" as well.--Natubico 18:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Several flaws in thine hypothesis. For example, chimpanzees are "part of nature", but they use machines to more efficiantly gather food. Everything comes from natural materials as per law of conservation
Chimpansees use a twig to gather ants. They hold it in or near to their hole in the ground and when enough of them are on the twig, the ape takes it out and eats his 'sate'. But a twig is not a machine, Mr or Mrs X. Natubico 01:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Why is a machine not part of "nature"? It is made by natural creatures (people) from natural materials (metal, rubber, etc.). Humans are part of nature. Everything humans do is part of nature. Only the supernatural (aka imaginary) is outside of nature. 70.162.156.229 (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
You asked your question in a way that suggests that what you're really asking is why we define a term that includes everything except for ourselves and other products of civilization when such a division seems so arbitrary. I'll assume you aren't instead suggesting that "nature" in all contexts is defined in such a way that includes technological artifacts and technologically adept animals like humans because by definition nature generally explicitly excludes these things. We can only speculate as to why it was felt necessary to coin a word for all things not of our own device but it probably has to do with issues like the fact that none of us are to blame or credit for "natural things" and so they are approached differently from things that arose as an artifact of our culture.Zebulin (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes. Why do we need such a word and what are we trying to convey when we use it? Obviously some people think the word is necessary and meaningful, because they use it a lot. But when a box of granola says "all natural" we don't expect to find whole stalks of oats with dirt still on the roots. Humans select and process various plants, even baking them in an oven, but the result is still called "natural" in a context suggesting "this is better". The unspoken implication (mentioned by Kvuo above) is that humans are evil and everything else is good. This distinction pervades our discussions with profound repercussions: is global warming human caused or "natural"? Indeed the entire environmentalist movement could be seen as wanting to defend "nature" against wicked humans. The distinction can only be meaningful if we suppose that humans are not part of good pure nature, but arrived here through some other mechanism (creation? UFOs?) and now exist only to do harm (fallen sinners? destructive aliens?). It is worth some analysis in the main article: why do humans have a self-hating category that implies humans are bad and everything else is good, and where is the line to be drawn between "natural" and whatever the antonym is? 70.162.156.229 (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Nature or Creation?

"The English word derives from a Latin term, natura, which was in turn a translation of a Greek term, physis (φύσις). Natura is related to the Latin words relating to "birth", while physis relates to Greek words relating to "growth"."

Can it be, that a Latin word, which is a translation of a Greek one, has another meaning, than this last mentioned one? This is hard to believe; if the Greek word means "growth", than the Latin translation also means, or should mean "growth", or at least be used in relation to this word. Indeed this matter is relevant to the part of this article, of which a copy is placed hereabove, in a special way. To the undersigned the difference between "come to life" and "growth" is more or less analogue to the difference between "Creation" and "Nature". To him the description of "Nature" in this article is in fact the description of Creation, or at least of the part of Creation, known as "Planet Earth", including all, that is on and in it. (For it all seems to be made out of 'living' elements (like molecules)). Nature, on the other hand, (supposed, that it is indeed a translation of the Greek word for "growth"), would rather mean: that part of Creation, that not only lives, but also grows. As that part mainly contents humans, animals and plants, this might not only be a much more conventional meaning, in which the word "Nature" is to be used, but also a more correct one, from the linguistic point of view.--Natubico 19:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have reason to believe, based upon your research into the Latin and Greek uses of these terms, that the article is in error?--Andrew Lancaster 14:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to explain it a bit more clearly, and I hope the etymology (and its importance for this word) are a bit more clear now.--Andrew Lancaster 08:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Nature is socially constructed!

It is. This article does an OK but not tremendous job with that. savidan(talk) (e@) 08:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is socially constructed? Aren't all W-articles?
"OK, but not tremendous"; when, or how would it be tremendous?--Natubico 19:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


The first paragraph

Can someone explain what the "especially in its essential form" adds to the first sentence? I suggest it should be removed. ~~

I think it is necessary, as a defining feature, in order to qualify "matter and energy." Otherwise the definition could include inorganic material or processes, could it not? Sunray 14:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

First, sorry I did not put my signature in correctly above (~~). Now (1) Do you think these words clearly say what you think they say? If not, they should be made clear. (2) Is it really so obvious that nature does not include inorganic material or processes? I'd suggest that if this is even a slight bit debateable it should be left out of wikipedia or put into a special sub-section. I hope no one minds me removing it. I understand that if anyone knows what the words were trying to say, and they can write it better, they will of course change it again! --Andrew Lancaster 11:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

My complements on the changes you have made to the article, generally. However, I think you have not quite nailed down the lead yet. Here's a standard dictionary definition of "Nature":

the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

By stating that nature is "all the 'things' we perceive" you have opened up a vagueness that will leave the reader scratching her head: "What was that masked nature, anyway?" (with apologies to L.R.). It seems to me important to distinguish what nature is in the lead. The current lead seems to be saying "it is everything." Sunray 17:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
If the dictionary quote is being used to argue that people are not part of Nature then it is pretty obvious to any English speaker that this is either a mistake or at least an unorthodox position. Even amongst the Greeks, humans were part of nature. Please consider the extremely common and ancient term "human nature". Any definition of Nature which claims that no one speaks of "human nature" has obviously got a problem. Andrew Lancaster 14:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello: I now see this discussion for the first time. I must disagree most vociferously with the following sentence just inserted into the first introductory paragraph of the article, as follows:

I do not have adequate time to fully analyze and argue this point at the moment, but I would think there will be significant disagreement about this sentence among other editors as well. The use of the accepted delineation between the natural and social sciences does not rise to the level of a definition for nature. Nor does the subject matter of the journal Nature serve as adequate for such a fundamental slice across the natural world in an article such as nature. This approach is, I'm sorry to say, much too close to certain variants of what's often called scientism. I apologize for not having noticed this discussion already. Will exchange notes further just a bit later. ... Kenosis 21:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


Let's start with this first paragraph again...

1. Why has the strange wording about the essential form of nature been reinserted without anyone being able to even explain what it means?

2. Can anyone cite any authority at all for stating that it is uncontroversial to say that there is no such thing as human nature?

3. There seems to be some concern about saying that nature includes "everything". What is the nature of that concern?

4. Concerning this, a link to articles on things or objects was removed, but was intended to help explain this position.

5. May I suggest that the concept of Nature is a difficult and debated philosophical concept for anyone who does not just swallow it whole without thinking about it, and therefore any attempt to pretend that it is not, is misleading. For example, one edit was justified by saying that what we think of nature is seperable from what we think of science. Can anyone believe in science if they do not believe in laws of nature? Are laws of nature a simple and obvious thing which all people have believed in at all times?

--Andrew Lancaster 14:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andrew. Welcome. good to see some thought going on around these parts. Will be willing to talk in some more depth in due course. As to this specific issue, and as with topics of common interest that involve demarcation problems, "nature" certainly presents difficulties in delineating it. As you already see from your exposure to this article, the demarcation between natural, supernatural, artificial, human biology vs. human choice, body/mind etc. is a constantly moving target. That, in very-very-short, is why this last edit leapt off the page. Later. ... Kenosis 15:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I await for the less short, less non-existant, explanation. In the meantime I add that I have no idea what the following sentence is meant to add: "Nature includes all matter and energy in its essential form." This is meaningless in its essential form? --Andrew Lancaster 07:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with this, Andrew. Please go ahead and remove the words "in its essential form". They are wholly unnecessary in this context. ... Kenosis 07:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC) Perhaps the editor who originally placed this wording intended to find a subtle way of addressing the distinction between natural and "man-made", or between natural and artificial, without testing the ever-controversial question of where nature stops and humans take over manufacturing things. The use of the words "includes all matter and energy" appear to have the advantage of avoiding this issue while still making some kind of distinction between the physical cosmos and any arguable consciousness or supernatural aspect that lay "behind" or "beneath" or "within" it. What exactly that distinction is and where, if anywhere, the dividing line is, is of course the other perennial problem here. ... Kenosis 07:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the nature versus artifice distinction is important for some meanings of the term nature, but this was not succeeding. In the paragraph as deleted by you I had actually started breaking up the opening paragraphs of this article into several meanings, and I think this is a way forward. I suppose Nature means, in different usages: 1. All things understood as being comprehensible to people, i.e. physics (I disagree BTW with the idea of turning the basic word things into something like "matter and energy" as this just raises new questions) 2. The causes of the way those things work, i.e. metaphysics, that which goes together with physics. 3. According to older, but now controversial understandings, all things or causes excluding those with free will. Is this an acceptable way forward? --Andrew Lancaster 08:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have tried again, starting from scratch and trying to keep everyone's concerns in mind. Can I ask that people look at this carefully before pulling it apart or reverting it? I say this because I have tried to make my points hang together more, and we should try to avoid creating a mish-mash that readers will not be able to follow. I am hoping people will at least find potential in the approach I have taken.--Andrew Lancaster 08:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, you have addressed a difficult topic that had found a tentative stability for some time. This article has needed a great deal of work, despite a few niceties already in the article (such as those fine photos for instance), and I'm pleased it caught your attention. After postponing this item on my "to-do" list, it now has mine, and I presume this discussion will likely bring yet other participants into the discussion in due course (perhaps to our disadvantage, at this time of year many academically oriented folks are taking a breather from their computer screens I should think).
With continuing discussion, some more background research and effective analysis, along with exercise of reasonable editorial approach(es), this article certainly can be improved to the point where it addresses the relevant tough questions here and provides stable, relevant information for the reader in a way the meets WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VER, as well as reasonably being consistent with WP:MOS. Questions about the natural-supernatural issue, and the natural-artificial distinction, are important – indeed fundamental to the topic – as we've already seen. I believe the introduction will need to account for these, fully analyzed and justified on the talk page to back up the ultimate approach, in order to remain stable for long.
Your comments do, in my estimation, lead in this general direction. ... Kenosis 16:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Well thanks. Let's see what everyone else says. I am certainly not saying that what I have put in is "it" but I have some time in the next days, and so let's try to get the most obvious problems cleared up. Let's also hope that other people with other concerns keep watching and guide the process at least. I ask that anyone coming in with changes keep in mind that however ugly the intermediate results we are trying to keep a range of concerns in mind and wholesale deletion or too-quick editing will not help. Let me also just emphasize that I think none of my changes are original, unverifiable, non-neutral etc. Style and precise references are something else, but let's get the substance right first.--Andrew Lancaster 21:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed material

I have removed the last paragraph of the section on metaphysics and am placing it here for futher analysis and discussion. Among other points, this is not an accurate characterization of the "metaphysics" of "modern science". There also have been some important philosophical developments in between Plato's forms and the emergence of modern scientific method. Among them is that modern science does not deal in mataphysics but rather in observable, measurable phenomena. That does not equal a "metaphysics of modern science". ... Kenosis 23:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

A presumption of modern science is that the truly eternal beings or natures, those which philosophy and science should seek to understand, are the "simple" ones (such as heat, movement etc) "behind" the "compound" ones (such as slugs, or a chair). This was argued by such people as Francis Bacon and is now widely accepted while the counter arguments are also widely forgotten. According to modern science, the only eternal beings we can hope to study can be understood as "laws of nature" rather than "forms". These laws of nature are the metaphysics of modern science. ... 23:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I have reinstated it, because it is not original research, and so the reason stated for removing it is an error. Other problems? Is the terminology in the paragraph not widely used in debates about science and nature in philosophy? Is not a fair description of what Bacon argued? Was Bacon not seen in that age as the defender of what has become modern science? I suggest that the passage might look more odd than it is simply because Bacon's position, which was once controversial, won so overwhelmingly that most people are not aware that he had to argue a case? Please consider. --Andrew Lancaster 14:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Andrew: Yes I will get back to you on the specifics later. I left the other stuff in because they were reasonable summations of some specific aspects of the topic of metaphysics. As to the last paragraph, I don't have adequate time to parse it thoroughly for you right now. More important to welcome you to WP. Will talk in more detail later on. ... Kenosis 15:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
In essence the major changes you reverted were themselves reversions, although they included changes intended to cover concerns raised here. So this is not a case of a careful edit replacing a radical re-write and I don't think you should portray it that way. So please find time to consider all the stuff you were not comfortable with and at least come up with a better explanation than that you don't have time to think about it. It is still my understanding that the basic concerns being raised are mainly coming from a lack of familiarity with what came before modern science, and how modern science originally argued it's position. So removing or artifically simplifying reference to metaphysics seems unjustified. --Andrew Lancaster 07:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately this isn't a dictionary of philosophy. The lead, in its present form, is not nearly understandable enough for the general reader. I am not a philosopher, but I am an editor. I will work with you on this to improve it. Sunray 15:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Sunray, as you just found it, the intro was revised as of this_edit. It has now been brought back to this_version, pending current discussion about this issue and about the article's section on metaphysics. ... Kenosis 17:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC) The most significant edit in between the two versions can be found here. ... Kenosis 17:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. The current version may have limitations, but at least it is clearer. Those who glance at the top of this page will note that the article is rated as a "Start" article. It has a long way to go. Sunray 18:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the concept of metaphysics in science has raised some concerns, but they have not been explained clearly. Kenosis removed "These laws of nature are the metaphysics of modern science." with the remark “Metaphysics -Rmv the last sentence of section ("These laws of nature are the metaphysics of modern science.") No significant contingent of published philosophers agree with this summary conclusion”. Not only do I believe that the removed sentence is actually quite uncontroversial (look up "laws of nature" and "metaphysics") this judgement implies that the reason for the removal of the sentence is based upon the fact that he knows philosophers have discussed the question of whether the laws of nature are the metaphysics of modern science and all come up with the conclusion that they are not. Really? --Andrew Lancaster 08:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not a section about metaphysics and science. It is a section entitled "metaphysics" in an article entitled "Nature". Thus far, Andrew Lancaster's arguments appear to be (1) Nature is intractably defined by, or inextricably intertwined with, science; and (2) Science has its own metaphysics roughly equivalent to Plato's forms, or "eternal beings" which thus are the "metaphysics of modern science". I'm sorry, but taken together, this is at least highly misleading or, depending on context and interpretation, completely erroneous. ... Kenosis 15:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this would be wrong, but it was not my intention. So let me explain again and see if this can be made more clear. Science has a metaphysics, at least in one sense of the term "metaphysics" which was the oldest sense even if it no longer the casual sense. It does, in other words, assume the existance of "eternal beings" which explain the regularities which help us comprehend things: natural laws though, and not "forms".
The metaphysics of Platonic-Aristotelian classical science and Baconian modern science are very different. In modern science, Bacon and his team argued for a "lowest common denominator" policy, effectively saying that metaphysics is what we least know and it should look like that. For this reason the only metaphyics accepted by most scientifically trained people today is that they believe in "laws of nature". These are their "eternal beings". Ask them (and I guess I should say I have sympathy with the argument) what these laws were intended to achieve, or who made them, and they will say that this is a subject for theologists or people interested in metaphysics as such, which they are not. They use the word "law" in a metaphorical sense and do not like to discuss the implications of that metaphor.
What does this have to do with Plato? I am not 100% sure how this was misunderstood but the point about mentioning his theory of forms here is to realise that before Bacon and the like philosophers felt that just leaving it at "laws of nature" was not enough. Indeed, if the idea is to just say what most obviously seems true, Plato seems to have argued that then the most obvious metaphysics would be one where the eternal beings are "forms of things". Because this is how people speak and think when they say things like "that's not a proper chair". Please try to work out how I gave you the impression that Bacon was a Platonist in this respect, and then if possible let's fix it. --Andrew Lancaster 21:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Modern science does not deal in metaphysics, period. ... Kenosis 21:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I missed your argument there. Can you repeat it? : ) On the other hand, maybe you shouldn't bother. In a sense we agree. Modern science uses the term "law of nature" to refer to the gap where you can fit a metaphysics if you want. Does that make sense? --Andrew Lancaster 21:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope you intend to explain your assertion. Perhaps it helps to just ask you: 1. Can modern science work without the assumption of "laws of nature"? 2. Are "laws of nature" metaphysical? If not, why not? They certainly are not amongst the "physical" objects which we observe directly. They seem to be classic example of "beings" which exist in a way different from the beings we observe directly. They are therefore perfect examples of what is meant by the term meta-physical, at least by any precise definition of that term. Looking forward to a considered response.--Andrew Lancaster 07:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The small sections

I suggest that the sub-articles on Life, the Earth and Universe or Outer Space should be deleted. Perhaps a sub-article on the Natural Environment and/or Wilderness would make more sense, and might even achieve what was intended. --Andrew Lancaster 09:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

changes by kenosis after changes by Andrew Lancaster (6 July 2006)

I think the basic idea is good, but I wanted to ask for a consideration of what I might have been trying to say with this seemingly childish sentence:-

"Human nature" for example, is the way a human is born to be, so to speak.

We have to start with a solid starting point? --Andrew Lancaster 22:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to the use of this kind of writing approach when the choice of explanation is a standard way of putting it, and if it's standard it doesn't need the words "so to speak" attached. There are multiple ways of mentioning the use of the word "nature" with the qualifying adjective "human", of which "the way a human is born to be" is just one (and surely this can be done better). Also, to begin with it's a peripheral explanation that is used in the introduction to give the reader persepctive on the scope of the concept "nature". My preference would be to see a more encyclopedic or definitional approach, especially in the introduction and especially when dealing with peripheral contexts such as any chosen references to "human nature" in the intro. This preference is generally consistent with the preferences/guidelines expressed in WP:MOS. ... Kenosis 22:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
You are a little unspecific. What is "encyclopedic or definitional" and whatever it is can it work on a philosophical subject as primary as nature? (I am tempted to imagine that you just mean that fancier and more roundabout words should be used.) Wouldn't a more constructive approach be to show me what you mean rather than just deleting what I wrote? If you have no better way to write it, and you have "no objection" then please tell me precisely what is wrong with the sentence you deleted so that I can try to improve it. Is the problem the "so to speak"?--Andrew Lancaster 07:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I am continuing to make piecemeal changes which try to clarify points of concern. But this will inevitably lead to confusion I think, because the mixture of different drafts can lead to confusion. I am working off line on drafts of major reorganization. I think the article needs it, and I guess that any damage such an effort causes can be reversed. However I will try to include previous work even if reorganized. In the meantime, I hope people will keep explaining concerns and confusions.--Andrew Lancaster 08:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

major re-arrangement

In order to avoid being shocked by the rewrite and automatically reverting it, please note that the shortening is mainly coming from the reduction in repetitions of things that mainly I had inserted into different sections, and a change in the sub-heading structure which allows this simplification. Please look carefully to see whether your concerns are answered before any wholesale deleting or reverting!--Andrew Lancaster 10:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've had a shot. Do people think they can fit the essentials into this format? Should the tag be removed by the way? --Andrew Lancaster 13:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's my criticism of the article: The article talks too much about the symantic meaning(s) of nature, and too little about nature itself. A meaning should be chosen and written about. Other meanings can sit on a disambiguation page. It should simply be an article about the natural world. Whether humans and human thought belong in it deserve perhaps a paragraph, or a section, but not an entire article. Pompous talk like the opening paragraph are best avoided:
Nature is a word used in two major sets of ways, which are inter-connected in a complex way, for reasons related to the history of science and metaphysics, particularly in Western Civilization.
—Pengo 12:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The philosophical material from Nature has now been moved to Philosophy of nature, which will in turn contain a disambiguation with Natural philosophy. All three of these articles need work, and all have great potential. The philosophical discussions should, I expect, remain largely confined to philosophy of nature in order to keep priorities reasonably straight. In any event, there's now a place for that range of philosophical content. ... Kenosis 15:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. That's a great start —Pengo 02:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there will never be agreement about which sense is the primary sense, so if the article is going to be split up, I suggest that the main article should be about the origin of the different concepts of Nature, with those different concepts becoming the new articles. Does this work for other people? In my opinion this is possible because the different meanings DO have something in common and linking them.--Andrew Lancaster 15:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The article currently speaks to the question of agreement or lack thereof on the meaning of the word "nature"in a number of places throughout. It should not however, get bogged down in arguing about the different views of the word. There are hundreds, or thousands, or millions, of ways to write the article, but it should contain content, not arguments about meaning. That is more appropriately the subject of philosophy of nature, and even there it should be balanced (WP:NPOV), based on verifiable sources (WP:VER and in keeping with WP:NOR). ... Kenosis 16:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I am placing this section here for reference. It is really a modified "See also" section, which the article already has. ... Kenosis 08:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

== Related concepts ==
The term natural science is used in a variety of ways, primarily:
The term natural philosophy formerly named the scientific discipline now known as natural science.
Natural theology straddles the disciplines of theology and philosophy of religion.
In education and related areas, the contrast "natural/artificial" can appear as "nature/nurture".
See also: praeternatural, unnatural and supernatural. 08:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Needs a better opening photo

The current photo of Galunggung is far too distracting, and I don't really think of destruction when I think "nature." How about one of these:

♠ SG →Talk 16:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I like those, especially the last four. Maurreen 17:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
My opinion? Nature is not only picture-postcard serenity (unless you live near or in a major city like I do), but is also about change. There are several postcard pictures farther below in the article. Originally the Hubble space-telescope image (now at the bottom of the article) was used to convey the scope of nature. This is not insignificant to the integrity of the article, because the thread throughout the article covers not only the naturist's perspective, but centrally covers all the natural sciences. ... Kenosis 17:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, no need to overly play up the serenity side. The forces of nature is quite good and that makes a great first picture. But any of them are pretty good. - Taxman Talk 16:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Nice images. Perhaps a collage of multiple images of nature would work? Maybe different realizations of the word "nature"? — RJH (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia entry not a work of art. The current version is fine. There is no need for collages which will mainly just distract from the text. JoshuaZ 14:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Obviously I completely disagree with you. A collage works just fine on the World War I and World War II pages, and doesn't distract from the text in the least. A collage is a useful way to present multiple perspectives at the same time, when it's done artistically. By the way, I suggest re-reading the help page on reverts. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I think Joshua was responding mainly to the problems that were occurring around this diff and the edits leading up to it. ... Kenosis 02:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Isn't erosion (waterfalls) destructive? --Kvuo 23:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The one photo that bothers me a little bit is the farm scene. It has a somewhat unnatural look to it, as if the colors had been overemphasized to cut through the haze. Could it be modified from the original to make it look more natural? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I separated it from the "wildebeast" image immediately below it to de-emphasize the differences in coloration, for now at least. ... Kenosis 18:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I really like the idea of modifying a photo of a farm to make it look more natural. This article is going to have a hard time before everyone is at ease whith it. --SidiLemine 14:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree about the coloration of the farm photo. I apolgize too, but I looked through thousands of photos this summer to find reasonably suitable ones for this article that had more meaning than just "picture postcard" views of "nature". This one seemed suitable because it spoke very nicely to the issue of where "natural" environment meets "made" environment.

As I don't have photoshop on any of my computers at the moment, I wonder if someone could experiment with coloration of that photo and maybe add a modified jpg to the wiki-commons? ... Kenosis 17:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I just added another photo to the assembly above, placed by an anon IP but for which I couldn't fimd room despite its apparent beauty. ... Kenosis 06:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Core COTF

I haven't read the whole article, but it looks pretty good. I think after a copy edit, we should probably nominate it for WP:GA. Maurreen 17:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, nice work everyone. Why not skip GA and go for FAC? We can add {{todo}} here to create a todo list or just as another section. The only things I can really see separating it from FA is the lead needs to be expanded to three paras and properly summarize the whole article and probably the matter and energy section to a larger para or even two, and clarifying the connection there to nature. I came here from the COTF collaboration link expecting to find a lot of work I could do, but it's in great shape. - Taxman Talk 16:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it worth noting that the improvement in the article is largely due to the hard work of Kenosis, who has been patiently toiling away on this for some time. Sunray 17:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Well then especially congratulations fo Kenosis. Does anybody have any ideas for what else needs to be done? The only problem left to me seems to be the last two sections being too short and not much else needs to be said about them. Would it be possible to combine them into a single laws of nature/physics section? If not what else can be done to expand the matter and energy section? - Taxman Talk 13:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The only thing that comes to mind is a section on "Natural catastrophies". While nature as a whole may be a self-regulating, somewhat stable system per the Gaia hypothesis, it is subject to unpredictable instabilities. It could mention, for example, the Butterfly effect and catastrophe theory, then give a number of examples of natural instabilities. (Tsunami/Megatsunami, landslides, Extinction events, and so forth.) — RJH (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

A few other possibilities to add are Weather and something about mankind's use or enjoyment of nature, such as agriculture, etc. Just food for thought. Maurreen 23:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

But then again, the article is 36 KB now, maybe we should leave well enough alone. Maurreen 23:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Isn't most of that due to the images? The article doesn't seem all that bloated. I'm taking through an article for FAC now (Star) that is up to 56Kb and nobody has even objected to the size. The FAC'd article on Ketuanan Melayu is up to 131 Kb. That whole size limitation issue is unfortunate. It's too bad we can't paginate the way they do on other web sites. — RJH (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Earth infobox?

I'm wondering why the infobox of the Earth has been added to this article? This doesn't make much sense to me; the infobox pertains to the physical characteristics of the planet, not to "nature" as such. At best a table of related topics might make some sense, but I was more than content with having the prior picture. I was tempted to yank the infobox out but I wanted to see if that would be objectionable. — RJH (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, it's been expunged. — RJH (talk) 18:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Beauty in Nature

I hate to mention this, but the section titled "Beauty in nature" has significant redundancy with a like-named section on the Nature (philosophy) page. The topic also seems more philosophical to me than the main topic of this page. Should that material just be on one page? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It is disproportionate as is. I could go either way. Maurreen 17:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Wilderness and arts

The Wilderness section is the only part that discusses man much, as in art about nature. This seems disproportionate to me, as the article has little about man's use or general enjoyment of nature, such as parks, agriculture, and mining. I am not sure about adding more because the article is already 36 KB. Thoughts? Maurreen 17:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Maurreen, nice edits. I particularly appreciate your eye for sentences unnecessarily written in the passive voice, along with the many other important practical matters that appear to catch your attention.

May I observe the following? The COTF editors have, I think, already pinpointed the main issues I struggled with while participating heavily in developing the article from about this diff through to the recent form.

  • Length. Though 36 kB is recommended as "article length", this seems discretionary; if there's a good reason to go beyond this approximate length, such as an inherently broad topic, inherently detailed topic, etc., I don't see any reason why it can't be done, assuming there is appropriate justification for it. Wouldn't be opposed to truncating the article either, though there currently is some interesting content that might be hard to trunctate. I also struggled with somewhat excessive length in the sections on "Earth" and "Life", but got stuck at roughly the current length; I now gladly leave this issue to the new cluster of excellent editors presently involved.
  • Wilderness section. Agreed with Maurreen that this discussion should be on the table, as there are without doubt numerous ways of presenting the concepts of wilderness, beauty in nature, nature as presented in art. I chose to try to make a flow between those two sections on wilderness and beauty in nature, then use the concept to lead into the particular kind of aesthetic that physicists and other natural scientists find in their realm of investigation into nature. I'm pretty sure the attempt was quirksome at best.
  • Last two sections on "Matter and energy" and "Nature beyond earth". No doubt these should be expanded at least a bit, with some interesting and informative slants for the reader. I got stuck on these, as every time I started drafting some copy, it threatened to turn into a 10kB section. I think with six or seven good brains involved, as is the case now, this will fall into place somehow. Kenosis 18:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The only problem I have with these two sections is that the subject matter is vast—essentially covering the entirety of physics and astronomy. I don't see how a few paragraphs in this article could do the subject justice, and it's already well-covered elsewhere. — RJH (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Good regards all; very glad to see you involved in this one. ... Kenosis 18:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Scope

Thanks guys for your comments. I'm off and on lately, because I've been trying to catch up on some things I've been neglecting in real life, but I'm addicted to WP.

I don't feel strongly about any specific size limit; just think we need to be way of getting carried away. These broad topics can be hard to work on.

I am leaning toward:

  1. Adding a little about:
    1. Nature beyond earth, maybe a paragraph or two, such as about the solar system.
    2. Weather and natural disasters
    3. Man's relationship with nature, maybe about a paragraph on each of the following --
      1. Parks and such (enjoyment might combine with "Beauty"?)
      2. Maybe ecology, environmental changes?
      3. Use and natural resources, such as agriculture and mining.
  2. Combining and trimming the arts part of "Wilderness" and the "Beauty" sections. Maurreen 18:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Or maybe man's relationship with nature would be better in a separate environment article. Maurreen 19:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Nice additons.
Does anyone have any thoughts on my comments above, or should we put the article up for GA? Maurreen 21:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

There's some comments in the Wikipedia:Peer review/Nature/archive2, if anybody is interested. — RJH (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Matter and Energy

This section seems horribly confused to me: the title is a little awkward, the discussion starts by talking about the fundamentalism of physics (which to me has little relevence to the article), and it states other points that don't really need to be stated in an article about "nature" (such as, "According to the theory of relativity, there is no unchangeable distinction between matter and energy, because matter can be converted to energy..."). Now, I don't wish to offend the editors who wrote this section, I just think that the section needs a clearer direction on what it is trying to say. For example, adding a few lines about what the word "nature" means to physical scientists etc. Krea 15:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is agreed to be awkward and in need of work. Please feel free to propose some specific selections about what nature means to physicists and chemists. ... Kenosis 17:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it could be retitled as the "Laws of nature" (as is mentioned in the first sentence) and use that as a general tack to relate nature to the fundamentals of physics? There is a Physical law page that could be used as the main article link, rather than links to matter, energy, chemistry and physics. — RJH (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I would prefer not to see this section titled "laws of nature" for a number of reasons. Among the most important of those reasons are that "laws", from a scientific standpoint, are definitions or descriptions of interactions between variables that happen across the whole of nature, often mathematically described, and often described as a relatively simple equation which defines the specifics of an interaction that previously was counterintuitive until it was so described and sufficiently well verified that the particular interaction is essentially no longer in question, i.e, no longer a theory, but instead agreed to be a "law". Physics and chemistry nonetheless always have leading edges in their research and analysis of nature, so they are always progressing, and some of the current theories will one day be regarded as laws, while others will not. For this reason alone I'd prefer to see the article avoid the blanket use ot the words "laws of nature". ... Kenosis 04:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Then I favor removal of this section. It has also been object to in the Peer review. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I kind of agree with that for now, RJ. Right now that material, however flawed it is, completes a representation of the four major natural sciences with a small section looking at nature in terms of physics and chemistry. I see that as a benefit (assuming of course that the "natural science" approach doesn't overwhelm the article completely). But thus far this section has essentially gone nowhere because of significant conceptual problems in the writing of it. A possible future section on this slant, would, I think, be more useful if it describes in an interesting way how these two disciplines, physics and chemistry, see matter and energy as displaying patterns of interaction within nature, patterns which those two sciences seek first to understand, and then to utilize them. It's a tough one conceptually, because as soon as something's understood and utilized, it enters the realm of the "man-made". So right away one tends to get into the kinds of philosophical issues about natural/supernatural, and natural/artificial that plagued this article earlier in its history.

I'd certainly support removing it, but would also appreciate some level of permission for any participating editors to bring it up again in the future, if able to come up with a less-conceptually-confused approach to what this section attempted to do. ... Kenosis 15:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

So essentially you're looking at this section as a topic on the natural sciences? Perhaps that would be an acceptible name? — RJH (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
The natural sciences include physics, chemistry, earth sciences and biology and their various subdivisions; each are informally represented with links at this stage. ... Kenosis 17:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the last part of the current section dealing with the anthropic principle and speculation about origins related to the fine-tuned universe, placed around September 4, and possibly contributing to the confusion about this section brought up more recently. Hopefully that will keep it in bounds until we can get a good angle at this section. Or, alternately, it can be removed until we can get a better handle on it. ... Kenosis 17:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That portion about the fine-tuned universe was my fault. Sorry about that. It just seemed closely related to the whole natural science theme. — RJH (talk) 16:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I suppose it can as easily be left there as it is, until a more viable slant can be worked in. Presently it doesn't seem to me to be much of an interference to anything else the article attempts to do, and seems like just enough to satisfy the natural-science afficionados that they're fairly represented in the article -- for now at least. ... Kenosis 16:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I have absolutely no problem with that being removed if that will improve the article. Thanks. :-) — RJH (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Several editors have suggested that this section should be removed entirely - at least in its present form. I agree. As Krea said at the top of this section it's totally confused, and it appears to be a jumble of facts that has little relevance to the subject in hand. Let me suggest being bold and simply removing it. Someone could always then add it back once it's been re-written in a useful format. I'm tempted to do it. Do others agree? --MichaelMaggs 17:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, no response after two days, so I'm just going to do it. Someone can always revert if they really want it back in its present form.--MichaelMaggs 21:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. The removal of this section was reasonable to me based on the discussion in this section. Most of the more confusing material was removed here, here, and copyedited here. So I've replaced it as a concession to the physics afficionados who earler demonstrated a preference for having a discussion of this kind included in the article. No doubt it can be further improved, but RJHall's inclusion of, for example, the material on how little of the actual structure of the cosmos constitutes the "visible" universe and a few other things seem like they may be of value in the future. So I've replaced it with the expectation that we ought be able to keep speculation about origins, supernatural aspects, metaphysical propositions such as Plato's "forms", etc. from taking over that section. ... Kenosis 17:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've re-done the section (renaming it too). It is at least a little better structured now. As for the content (or the title), if anybody wants something removed or added, then be my guest: it is by no means complete (I'm not even sure if I like the second paragraph), and it should only be thought of as a base from which to build upon. Krea 04:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I propose that the section be deleted - it is of no use to the reader due to its fractured and unfocused content. Krea 15:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

New section on "Man's relationship"

The new section on human relationship with nature seems to me to have fine potential. Currently it reads as follows:

===Man's relationship===
 Please help improve this section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion.
Mankind uses nature through both leisure and economic activities.
Some activities, such as hunting and fishing, are used for both sustenance and leisure, often by different people. the adoption of agriculture was first adopted around the 9th millennium BCE. Ranging from food production to energy, nature influences economic wealth.
Manmade threats to nature include pollution, deforestation, and disasters such as oil spills. Mankind has contributed to the extinction of some plants and animals. ... 17:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

A couple of issues I see at the outset:

  • I think a gender-neutral term will be needed here.
  • The statement "mankind has contributed to the extinction of some plants and animals" is already dealt with in the section on "Life", which explains that new species are constantly arising and other species are constantly becoming extinct, and that on balance the number of species presently is in rapid decline. Indeed, a recent poll of biologists showed that a majority of those polled characterize the present decline as one of the major mass extinctions of the earth's history (can't find that cite at the moment). So, a reasonable way of expressing this might be, say?, "Human influence on nature is currently a principal factor in the extinction of many species of plants and animals. Many biologists hold that the current decline is one of the major mass extinctions of history". Possibly this might be an appropriate place to include a statement (or restatement) of this reality, part of which isn't included in the current content of the section on "Life". No doubt there are other interesting and important observations that can be added to the very apt one about pollution, deforestation and disasters. I'd be pleased to help with that as soon as I can find the time.

I think this section is a good idea Maurreen. ... Kenosis 17:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Start Class?

Shouldn't this be reassessed? It's way above start-class now, probably more like A-class, or at least GA. Should we nominate it? Silvdraggoj 00:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I say we wait until the end of the collaboration.--SidiLemine 14:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination on hold

I'd first like to point out that this is an excellent article -- certainly the best broad survey article on Wikipedia. But I must put the GA process on hold for a few reasons:

  • I'd like to see a more direct discussion of evolution. As is, it's only referenced implicitly.
  • "Life" is strong, but a little long and meandering. It could use some internal sections, and perhaps some simplification of complex parts, such as the discussion of animals' organs.
  • "Human relationship with nature" is an important topic that's not up to the quality of the rest of the article. I recommend a rewrite, focusing on key topics -- i.e., more discussion of agriculture, less about herbal medicine.
  • "See also" needs a purge. Done --SidiLemine 11:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Overall, I am very impressed by this article's balance between terseness and detail, and I expect it will reach FA soon. Twinxor t 11:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, these criticisms have not been significantly addressed, so I'm going to delist the article from GAC. I'd encourage the contributors to this article to do just a little more to get it to Good standard. Twinxor t 21:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I think these issues have been addressed now, so I'm taking this article through for another GA attempt. — RJH (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Evolution

Here's my attempt to address the evolution issue raised during the GA review:

Life, as we understand it, is currently only known to exist on the planet Earth. The origin of life is still a poorly understood process, but it is thought to have begun about 3.9 to 3.5 billion years ago during the hadean or archaeon eons on a primordial earth that had a substantially different environment than is found at present. These life forms possessed the basic traits of self-replication and inheritable traits. Once life had appeared, the theory of evolution holds that a process of natural selection resulted in the formation of ever-more sophisticated and diverse life forms.
Species that were unable to adapt to the changing environment and competition from other life forms, became extinct. However, the fossil record retains evidence of many of these older species. Current fossil and DNA evidence shows that all existing species can trace a continual ancestry back to the first primitive life forms.

I'm sure this can be greatly improved upon. — RJH (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Implemented. — RJH (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The review of Physics continues at Talk:Physics/wip

Some time ago a group of editors set up a "work in progress" page (at Talk:Physics/wip) to hammer out a consensus for the Physics article, which for too long had been in an unstable state. Discussion of the lead for the article has taken a great deal of time and thousands of words. The definitional and philosophical foundations seem to cause most headaches, including what counts as nature, or the natural world, and how wide the scope of physics is as "the" science of the natural world. But progress has been made. Why not review some of the proposals for the lead material that people are putting forward, or put forward your own, or simply join the discussion? The more contributors the better, for a consensus. – Noetica 02:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Concrete proposals have now been put forward, arising from recent discussion aimed at producing a stable and consensual lead section for the Physics article. We have set up a straw poll, for comments on the proposals. Why not drop in at Talk:Physics/wip, and have your say? The more the better! – Noetica 22:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): [[Image:|15px]]
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail: [[Image:|15px]]

Specific comments.

  • Why does matter and energy, arguably the most basic topic come at the end? I can't see why the sections have been organised as they are.
    • I would speculate that it is because the article is generally anthro-centric and is primarily focused on nature as it applies to Earth, Life and Humanity (by order of development).
  • Some statements need referencing. Added fact tags.
    • References added.
  • Why is Loch Lomond classified as an isolated ecosystem?
    • Per "The fish community of Loch Lomond, Scotland : its history and rapidly changing status". The book shows that the fish community has remained stable for a very long period without an introduction of new species.
However waterbirds are also part of the ecosystem, so I can't see how it can be called isolated. TimVickers 20:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Would "relatively isolated" serve?
  • ..Cambrian explosion in which multicellular life forms began to widely proliferate about 530-540 million years ago. Widely proliferate is unclear.
    • I removed "widely".
  • ...allowed humans to affect the Earth in a relatively short timespan like no other life form had before, affecting both the nature and quantity of other life forms as well as global climate. Algae changed the atmosphere from reducing to oxidising. Our impact is minor in comparison.
    • The Oxygen Catastrophe required about 300 million years. So I think the time scale is the key factor in that statement.
OK, reworded. TimVickers 20:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The theory of evolution does not predict increasing complexity.
    • It looks like you addressed that already, unless I'm missing something.
Yes, I thought I'd better make the change explicit.
  • Plants and animals are not the dominant form of life on earth. Microbes are more abundant but are only mentioned in passing.
    • A brief section on microbes has been added.
  • Quote from Fundamentals of Physical Geography is too long, put this in prose.
    • Quote has been merged into prose, with suitable revisions to avoid copyvio issues.
  • Manmade threats to nature not clear what definition of nature is used here. If universe is included in the definition, oil spills are insignificant.
    • Addressed by changing wording to, "Manmade threats to the Earth's natural environment..."

This is a very important article, so I hope you'll forgive me asking for the best. TimVickers 23:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Excellent work. definitely GA. Had problems finding the right category for this one. Eventually I put it in "Geography" TimVickers 17:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
That's probably as good a place as any. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Improve "Matter and Energy" section

It has been mentioned before that the matter and energy section is not up to the same standard as the rest of the article. I have said before that it should merely be deleted, but I really would prefer it be improved. However, no improvements have been made. Therfore, can I propose we do something about it here and now? I would like the whole thing rewritten, but I'd like to post my revision here in case anybody has some objection as to its content.

When used within the physical sciences, the word "nature" merely means the sum total of all things in existence, and places no restriction on the objects included except that they must be to be measured in some way (this is the requirement that must be fulfilled in order for something to "exist").
In terms of classifying the various objects of nature, physicists currently understand nature to consist of quantum fields (where particles are localizations, or "lumps", of the field). These fields, which between them give rise to all known particles and interactions except gravity, can be classified in many ways; but the most common distinction used is that between fermionic fields, which give rise to the "matter" particles such as electrons, protons, neutrons etc; and bosonic fields, which give rise to the interacions such as electromagnetsim, the weak interaction etc. Gravity remains the one interacion that has yet to be described in terms of a quantum field (it is described not by a quantum field, but through the geometry spacetime), and much work is currently being conducted in order to explain gravitation in the same way as the other known interactions (see quantum gravity, loop quantum gravity, string theory, and M-theory).
Since the 1930s it was infered that there may exist further objects of nature which were completely unknown of at the time. Based on the observations of galaxies, physicists infered that there must exist more mass in them that was currently visible. This undetected "missing" mass came to be known as dark matter ("dark" in the sense that it gave of no light or any electromagnetic radiation that betrayed its existence). Theories were proposed to as of what this dark matter could be, which largely remain unanswered to this day.
Besides normal matter and this hypothesized dark matter, in 1998 physicists discovered there may exist jet more objects in nature. This time, physicists observed that the Universe was accelerating, meaning that there must be something that was driving it. Whatever this ineraction is, it has come to be known as dark energy (called "dark energy" since some theories claim it to be an energy field unlike all other known energy fields). Whilst little is known of dark matter, even less is known of dark energy; to the extent that there remains great doubt as to both its origin and behaviour.
The latest research states that nature is composed of about 23% dark matter, and 73% dark energy - which leaves about 4% of "normal" energy (those everyday objects that are visible and well understood).

All criticisms and suggestions are welcome. Krea 18:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks okay so far, but I think it needs some more work. There are a few spelling errors (interacion, infered, jet); the wording becomes too informal in places, and there are a couple of uncomfortably long sentences. The first paragraph is a single sentence, which is normally discouraged. You would need to add wikilinks and references to maintain the GA standing of this article. — RJH (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As yet unreferenced draft of some additions

Hi all, Tim suggested back in January that I might enjoy working on this article, and I drafted a few notes back then. I've been busy with another article since then, but I was wondering whether people here think some of these topics might make good additions to the article. If so, I'll add references and try to incorporate them into the text here without being too disruptive. Thank you! :) Willow 11:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Willow. You have some interesting material there. I see a few issues, though. Firstly, most of the philosophical content was deliberately moved to Nature (philosophy), so that this page could have a primarily scientific focus. (But your focus does seem to be primarily scientific, so that probably isn't a problem.) The second issue is that you have no references for your material. I think that's a "must have" requirement for expanding this article. Speaking of expansion, the Nature article is already quite long at 59 Kb. (It's well past the normal limit of 32 Kb.) So some of the current material would need to be abbreviated or spun off to different articles. How do you think that could be accomplished? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, of course I would be happy to add references, and perhaps I should do that, now that I know that the material might be welcome. May I offer a suggestion right away? The various sections of the present article don't seem to connect back strongly to Nature, or to each other. Instead, the article reads like a series of wonderfully well-written but disjoint mini-articles stacked end-to-end; a reader might ask, "Why am I reading about the Earth or the evolution of life, when I came here to read about Nature?" Some overarching connection is offered in the lead, but you might want to strengthen the reader's feeling of guidance throughout, you know, follow a golden thread. A discussion of the various definitions of Nature and a systematic progression through them (say, by size) might help do that, don't you think? Anyway, trying to be helpful, Willow 17:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually the last two paragraphs of the lead section lean somewhat in the direction you are describing. Perhaps they need to be spun off into an introductory section (called "Meaning"?), and then the lead section can be re-written to serve as a true summary? — RJH (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

DAB pages - proposed merge

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The statutory two weeks have come and gone with no comments being added - I've therefore carried out the merge. Tevildo (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the {{redirect|Natural}} tag to this page, which was deleted back in October with the reason "Fixed repititon" [sic]. Although this link is currently needed, I can see the benefit of only having one dablink at the top of the Nature article, so I'd like to propose that Nature (disambiguation), Natural (disambiguation), and Naturalism be combined into one dab page (viz, Nature (disambiguation), unless another title would be more suitable). I don't believe that this is a violation of WP:DAB, as all the articles on the three pages have similiar titles. Tevildo (talk) 11:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Support as nominator. Tevildo (talk) 11:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.