|WikiProject Mythology||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
I just put a cleanup tag on this article for a few reasons.
- There are very few sources cited, and those that are are not cited correctly.
- The article is not very well written.
- The only mythological aspect given is the myth of Demeter and Persephone; this section is too long, hardly wikified, not very well written, and goes into way more detail than is necessary in this article; I'm sure the Demeter and Persephone articles have plenty of information of their own.
- The mythology section could be greatly expanded, seeing as the Greeks are not the only ones to have a mythological system with a depiction of Mother Nature.
That's all that comes to mind right away; I hope some people are interested in fixing this article up, because it's an important topic, and could be a great article! Thanks, romarin [talk ] 01:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- It is an inappropriate use of the cleanup tag which is normally used when there are objective problems like formating, not to express personal opinions about content. Saying "I don't think it is well written" is a value judgment. Citation tags are usually at the bottom in the notes section see Template:Unreferenced - if you have a specific concern please use fact tags on individual entries is more helpful. I also disagree with your opinion about the the myth of Demeter and Persephone section. -- Stbalbach 16:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for your response. I realize that some of my point were subjective, but not all are and I feel that the cleanup tag is the best one to cover the gamut of problems with this article. You're right, saying that the article is badly written is a value judgment; I think that in relation to good Wikipedia articles, this one is just not up to par. For that reason, it could use some cleaning up. I don't see a problem with pointing this out.
- I disagree that it is poorly written. Since there is no objective way to resolve that, the cleanup tag is inappropriate for that reason. -- Stbalbach 15:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- My point about the mythology section is not really subjective though. It is a fact that many, many other mythological systems besides that of the Greeks have a conception of Mother Nature, and I think that this should be reflected in the article. The section is also not very well wikified, and sources are not cited properly. What exactly was it about this point that you disagree with? It would be helpful to know your thoughts on the matter.
- I don't disagree there, but this is true with the majority of articles on Wikipedia - they need to be expanded and they don't cite sources as well as they could. This article is not particularly bad, I don't see need the need to nag tag it with a cleanup, that article is not that bad. -- Stbalbach 15:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Finally, I'm not sure why you keep moving the citation template to the bottom of the article; as far as I can tell, this is not standard practice. If you go to Category:All_articles_lacking_sources, you can see how it is done elsewhere (a quick, random selection of several articles showed each one with the template on the top of the page, rather than in the references section). Thanks, romarin [talk ] 18:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Did you read the template instructions? It is standard practice. There is no consensus on it, but most people prefer to have it in the citations section. -- Stbalbach 15:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this article could do with some cleaning up for several reasons:
- Some sentences are messy or confusing: for example, the second sentence, "Images of women representing mother earth, and mother nature, are timeless"... "timeless"? This is not just vague, but also fairly unencyclopedic and doesn't introduce the subject adequately. Similarly, the third paragraph of the introduction is confusing, grammatically incorrect and generally needs rewording and a citation.
- The capitalisation of "Mother Nature" is not consistent throughout the article.
- There are writing mistakes, such as innapropriate or missing punctuation.
- What about this: "The pre-Socratic philosophers of Greece had invented Nature when they abstracted the entirety of phenomenon of the world into a single name and spoken of as a single object: Natura", yet a couple of sentences earlier, it says that "Natura" is a latin word... Also the sentence should be reworded, because it reads as if the Greek philosophers had invented nature (not the concept of Nature), which is confusing.
- The Greek myth section doesn't use a consistent tense.
- "When Hermes came to take Persephone back to her mother Hades argued that she had tasted the fruit of the dead, therefore, must remain with him and be queen of the underworld"; improper use of "therefore" and missing punctuation ("her mother Hades")
- "Zeus made a deal with Hades, for every seed that Persephone ate she would have to stay for a month in the Underworld with Hades" again, improper punctuation
- "[...]six cold months that are Winter and Fall. However, the price humankind pays[...]" ; improper use of "however"
- The plural of "phenomenon" is "phenomena"
- The "Greek Myth" section should be capitalised "Greek myth", per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings).
Therefore the cleanup tag is appropriate at least for reasons of improper grammar and punctuation, capitalisation and confusing sentences. I shall therefore put the cleanup tag back until these issues have been addressed. IronChris | (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying actionable reasons for the cleanup tag. -- Stbalbach 04:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Removed the nonsense about Aristotle personifying Mother Nature and scare quoted "invented"; shortened the Persephone myth (which sought to highlight Demeter's cruelty to humans); generally removed unencyclopedic narration and OR.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
This section have nothing to do with the term 'mother nature' please amend it by removing it. If the term 'mother nature' is found in the greek myths then by all means include the actual passage where it is used. The encyclopedia reference is Mr. Leeming's personal interpretation of the myth written in the 1990s. Please remove this reference as it is not the origins of the term or at least clearly qualify it as being in the 1990s. --184.108.40.206 (talk · contribs)
The end of this section about sexual metaphor is problematic for a few reasons. Firstly, Bacon was talking about looking at witchcraft and other folklores to see if something could be learnt about nature from them. So, even if he was feminising something, it was witchcraft, not nature.
Secondly, this passage seems to base the idea of the feminisation of nature on the wording "penetrating into these holes and corners", as quoted by Carolyn Merchant. However, this wording comes not from the original, but the later Latin version then translated back into English. The words are taken out of context to support the sexual metaphor, but in context it is more obviously a metaphor of shining a light into a dark place:
"… a useful light may be gained, not only for the true judgment of the offences of persons charged with such practices, but likewise for the further disclosing of the secrets of nature. Neither ought a man to make scruple of entering and penetrating into these holes and corners, when the inquisition of truth is his sole object, — as your Majesty has shown in your own example ; who, with the two clear and acute eyes of religion and natural philosophy, have looked deeply and wisely into those shadows, and yet proved yourself to be truly of the nature of the sun, which passes through pollutions and is not defiled."
In the earlier English version, the light metaphor exists without sexual connotations:
"Neither ought a man to make scruple of entering into these things for inquisition of truth, as your Majesty hath showed in your own example, who, with the two clear eyes of religion and natural philosophy, have looked deeply and wisely into these shadows, and yet proved yourself to be of the nature of the sun, which passeth through pollutions and itself remains as pure as before." — The Advancement of Learning (1893 Cassell & Company, ed. Henry Morley) (Also 1863 Parker & Son, ed. Thomas Markby, page 70 https://archive.org/stream/twobooksfrancis00bacogoog)
The sexual interpretation is only possible in the translation that Merchant references, and only by taking the words out of context. And more importantly for this article, it refers to witchcraft, not nature.
All in all, this is a tenuous point not supported by the referenced literature and I don't think it's suitable for a single-paragraph entry on the view of Nature in the Enlightenment. Lugh Summerson (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)