Talk:Models of nature
This article demonstrates some features of the most complex Simple English articles, the "late in the reading" articles that mostly introduce Full English terms:
- It tries to preserve the introductory lines of the Simpler English article nature, to make it easier to read for those who have already read that one - this creates some redundancy, but the payoff is much easier orientation for those still learning the terminology:
- Unlike the Simpler article, it uses only technically correct terms when talking about a field of study, the ones that would appear on google searches. All are used as titles in Wikipedia. If the article isn't going to exist in Simple English, the link can point there directly.
- Complex debates and issues are raised, mostly to show how models of nature affect daily decisions and larger politics. This shows how relevance to daily life must be worked in to articles - to retain interest if nothing else. Most rural Simple English Users will know about, or even be part of, some natural resource economy. Most urban Simple English Users will be exposed to some degree of toxicity from factories etc. In general the less developed world has more conflict, not less, between different uses for nature.
- Just because science creates the models, doesn't mean the way they are used is always scientific. This is quite clear in the article I hope. People with poor English very often hear claims made about "science says..." attributed vaguely to English speakers who are supposed to be authorities because they have guns, tools and money.
This article would be a useful feature of some Simple English User Stories, since it links to so many other articles.
I like this article, however a real definition of model is missing.
I see no value in this page. parody follows ... A model of nature is a model that is of some bit of nature and some say bad things are good, but no good things are good, whilst bad things are not etc etc... Victuallers (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)