Talk:Natural environment

I'm having a problem with this definition. I'm unsure if the statements are just unclear, or I am fuzzy. Nature and natural contrast with man-made, man-influenced, and unnatural. Of course an urban park like New York's Central Park (as an example) contains much that is natural, but I would hesitate to define it as a "natural environment" despite its clear value in many respects. Is this not the "common" sense, or am I way off base and looking at it instead from a scientist's perspective? Is a corn field a "natural environment? It has great value and is all nature.- Marshman 00:46, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And right off the top there is clearly a problem in terms:

"In politics and other non-technical contexts, nature or (the) (natural) environment often refers to that part of the natural world"

which links to Nature. It is saying "nature" is that part of "nature" that has value ??? - Marshman 01:04, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The more I read the definition, the more I came to see it as just POV with a very narrow bias. Indeed, the logical extension of the argument was almost the opposite of what most would think the term means (expecially the bit about requiring "value"). The last paragraph seems sensible, the others did not; so I deleted them and replaced them with what I believe is the "common sense" of natural environment. Comments invited. - Marshman 02:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

MediaWiki bug?

For some reason, the pipelink from "environment" in the first sentence is being displayed not as a link but in bold. I can't work out why. Could it be a bug? Agentsoo 17:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PLain English

This whole page needs a "plain English" rewrite. Andy Mabbett 18:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a "Simple Englsh" Wikipedia for that. If you are really having trouble understanding this article you can of course improve it, but it seems pretty senior HS/college level to me - Marshman 04:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]