This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Articles on wikipedia such as natural skin care are misusing this term to mean 'non-artificial', 'non-manmade', etc. concepts applying to things which occured in nature without human contribution or design. I feel this is inaccurate. Is there a term that can be suggested for them to use? Obviously they don't want non-artificial or anything with a no/non prefix but rather something neutral and positive or something. Like 'left' rather than 'non-right'. Tyciol (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The substances used for natural skin care are natural because they are not created by mankind. The relocation of substance(s) from the earth to the skin is controlled by mankind.Dsoconno (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Since when are Homo sapiens not part of 'nature'? JascalX (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
nature is all the physic in the world.we all life in the world.what we do to environment will do back to us.all something in the world is the facility that god give to human for keep it well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I vote we delete this section of the Discussion/Talk page, as it is very WP:FORUM, WP:POV, and doesn't do anything to advanced this article. --Thorwald (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
nature is the beauty of soul that is very important point by khawar abbas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
In nature, the concept of natural landscape has evolved from art into something else. Chunglin Kwa, Alexander von Humboldt's invention of the natural landscape, The European Legacy, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 149-162, 2005 point this out quite clearly. Wilderness, I think, is a very static word. Unlike natural landscape, wilderness seems not to be in conflict with our culture. By conflict I mean juxtaposition with a non-wilderness for which there is no such expression. In addition, wilderness has to be explained. It is not self evident. Natural landscape is like the word nature or natural by itself. It is self-evident. The ordinary person knows when a place once again is or is under natural controls and processes. Thus nature, the subject of this page, benefits from being broken down into human and non-human or, if you will, natural and not natural. Wilderness is also misleading in the fact that it causes one to dream of wild things ... vicious things. However, there are many landscapes both macro and micro that give no indication of being vicious. But, natural landscape can encompass these innocuous places quite easily. Can one look through a microscope at and see the calm landscape of a quartz crystal facet and say "what a wilderness"? I don't think so. Yet one can say "look how the silicon atoms have arranged themselves in a marvelous natural landscape." All I am saying is that natural landscape is very useful term and is a natural extension of nature.Rstafursky (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe this article does a good job of explaining the rational of calling man-made enterprise as unnatural (and/or distinct from "natural"). Why is it when a beaver creates her dam by felling many trees and, by some definitions, are environmentally destructive, that is simply "natural". However, when humans do they same thing (i.e., felling trees), that is unnatural? We need a better definition of what is natural and why (the later part being more important, in my mind). --Thorwald (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
This article has long been rated "Top importance" by the Wikiprojects Physics, Chemistry and Biology. And since 2007 it has covered the broad range of important meanings of "nature", various as they are, as put forward by numerous reliable dictionaries and encyclopedias. After some rearranging mainly by one user in February of this year, the lead seems to presume only the most informal, popular, very loosely defined notion of what many folks mean by "nature" (as if to say, e.g., "ahhh, it feels soooo good to get out of the darned city and back into nature ") it is proposed to merge this article into Natural environment? I'm sorry, but "nature" is far broader than that. In light of this untenable state of the article that just now came to my attention, I'm reverting the lead section back to its long-standing state, in which it had been very stable for several years. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Should we perhaps add one section about forests, and one about terrain and mountains? I can only find the word forest two times in the article text, and the word mountain doesn't even occur except from in the word "mountainous". —Kri (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)