Talk:Nature

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2022

I suggest to add this recent paper published in ""Nature"" in the section "Further reading". It could be great also to refer to its contain in some parts.

Layna Droz, Hsun-Mei Chen, Hung-Tao Chu, Rika Fajrini, Jerry Imbong, Romaric Jannel, Orika Komatsubara et al., « Exploring the diversity of conceptualizations of nature in East and South-East Asia », Nature - Humanities & Social Sciences Communications, vol. 9, no 186,‎ 2022 (DOI https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01186-5).

It is about the diversity of conceptualization of nature in East-Asia (in Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Filipino, Tagalog, Cebuano, Lumad, Indonesian, Burmese, Nepali, Khmer, and Mongolian). It includes of course explanations about the history of the idea of nature in Western thought.

It is explained for instance that "the term phusis comes from the Indo-European root *bhū —which primordial meaning is “to grow”".

It also suggest to remain open to the diversity of conceptualization of nature among the world, in particular in East-Asia. The authors emphasize the fact that "To take into consideration the diversity of conceptualizations of nature can lead to better decisions about sustainability and improve the acceptability and efficiency of environmental policies in each local context, as well as internationally." Romaricj (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done If there's more to add to the article from that source, please reopen (and be specific). Thanks! SWinxy (talk) 05:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Are the Phenomena part of Nature or vice versa?

Hello,

• here in en-wiki Category:Phenomena are part of the Category:Nature.
• in Wikidate it is vice versa: nature (Q7860) is part of/instance of phenomenon (Q483247)
  but in the description it is written like here in en-wiki: "nature = natural, physical, or material world and its phenomena"
• in Commons also vice versa to en-wiki: Category:Natur part of Category:Phenomena.

so.... what to do ??? Are those just errors in Wikidata and Commons which need to be corrected or is it still an unsolved philosophical question? Regards --W like wiki ^{good to know} 05:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Not an issue for this article. As for it being 'an unsolved philosophical question', I'm not sure it is even that - just ambiguity resulting from less-than-precisely-defined words. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

This article is not about nature, it's about "things considered as nature"

This article here does not focus on the concept of nature itself, but rather rehashing content from other articles. Nature is a human construct and thus it should be treated as way: there should be content about how this concept was developed over time and how does perception of nature change across cultures. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree that 'nature as a social construct' is a legitimate subject. I'd think you'll find it difficult to convince people that this article should only discuss the topic that way though. Lots of things are social constructs, but we still write articles on them. The article is more than a little unfocussed, certainly, and maybe more on the 'social construct' side of things would be a good idea. It needs someone to write it though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't say that the article should only focus on that human aspect, that would be undue. But it seems that both you and me agree that the article should definitely talk more about that aspect. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. Everything is a social construct, and if you want, you can add a section about it. Placing big maintenance template in a GA wouldn't help. If you think that the article is incomplete/not a GA without this info, you can go to GAR. Artem.G (talk) 06:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

No, everything isn't a social construct. Not as the term is used in the social sciences. You don't need new terms that describe 'everything'. As for the template though, it is clearly inappropriate. It neither explains what the perceived problem is, nor offers any sort of solution. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for correction! just for my understanding - can we say that 'cosmos' or 'universe' are social constructs?

I should admit that I'm quite ignorant in social sciences, but my point was mostly about a template being inappropriate. Artem.G (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, on Wikipedia, the cosmos is (sorta) but the universe definitely isn't. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

This discussion had stalled, do we have consensus about the tag? Anyone can place a tag, but it's not clear what's lacking, and it's ok for a wp article to be incomplete, as it's a work in progress. Article looks good for a GA, so if nobody is planning to work on it or at least proposed a good way to develop it, the tag is useless and should be removed.

CactiStaccingCrane, can you show any reliable source that talks about "nature as a human construct"? Artem.G (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2023

Change "Although humans are part of nature, human activity is often understood as a separate category from other natural phenomena.[1]"

To

"Humans are part of nature and our activity is often incorrectly understood as separate from simultaneous nautral phenomena.[1]" JaydenMurphy (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The given citation (fittingly in the journal Nature) does not argue that the view you object to is incorrect. It describes a number of different, and often incompatible, views and the implications arising therefrom without taking a stance on whether one is more correct than another. The discussion section also says, There have always been many different policies of nature, and the main reason appears that there are many different conceptions of nature, which do not entail the same priorities, objects, and methods. These conceptions change with philosophical groundings, and are then deeply rooted in people. Hence, science cannot (and must not) artificially standardize them, all the more that science also experiences such philosophical discrepancies.

The article is open access and quite accessible to non-scientists. Very much worth reading as an example of how NPOV is supposed to work. On that note, this article's lede could be tweaked to better reflect the multiple views considered in the source, but I think it would be a good exercise for you to read the article and propose a more reflective and comprehensive edit rather than a single word edit supporting your personal POV. Feel free to reopen this request and ping me if you do so.

Thanks, Xan747 (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2023

Can you please remove the template {{Other uses}} because it's already been represented by Redirect automatically. Thank you. Natsuinyerere (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Hyphenation Expert (talk) 06:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Natsuinyerere (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

image selection

This article has more images than I've seen anywhere else on Wikipedia, which in itself seems harmless. What bothers me, however, is that they all depict nature as if it were made for postcards (or science textbooks).

We do not want to add anything that might upset readers, but, especially with so many images, shouldn't at least a few acknowledge that much of nature registers to us as gross or disgusting? The Life section would be the obvious place to include something to capture this aspect of nature, and maybe also one of the five in the lead could acknowledge this.

Also, a separate point: the top image of the article appears to have been HDRed or otherwise run through some rather aggressive filters. Is this really an appropriate choice for this article?

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)