Talk:Human geography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human geography article.
Article policies
WikiProject Geography
Geography Portal

This article is supported by the Geography WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage on Geography and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Geography, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Human geography

I'm quite sure that human Geography, since it is a realm of the study of Geography, is not a term in and of itself. It cannot be called a geographical term stub, since it is not really a term. For those in disagreement, please specify your reasoning.--Bsdlogical 18:53, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Human Geography is most definitely a geographical term as it is one of the two major sub-fields of geography (the other being physical). Human geography is then divided into the separate fields listed under the contents. Someone really needs to consult a reputable University professor of human geography. As a person who loves geography (all of it), I am discouraged by all the work that needs to be done on this site. There is no aspect of our lives that cannot be improved by more geographical awareness.

Also, please consult the talk page under "Geographic Realms." I made some comments about things that need to be fixed with this section. Then it needs to be put under a human geography section (I sugest political or cultural). But first, someone needs to consult the book.

Also, where can I find information about the oldest continental crust on Earth? I read a section about the term "craton" but I think there are other types of this ancient crust. Is this historical geology or something else? If we can find it it would be great if we could have an expanded section about historical continents that traces the development of the first crust through all of it's permutations until the present day. I've been looking for this information but all I ever can find are brief mentions of Pangea, Laurasia, Gondwannaland etc. but no mention of the fact that within the present continents are pieces of these ancient continents that give us a record of primordial Earth. Wouldn't this make a great IMAX film? WLE 22:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC) WLE ---you're way off topic here. What you're looking for can be found in information on Australia and the two large shield structures, the Canadian Shield and the Fenno-Scandian Shield, among the oldest surficial rocks on Earth.

Someone is disputing the term "human geography"? wikipedia amazes me!... Supposed 20:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

...anytime somebody writes "I am quite sure," I know they probably don't know what they are writing about. Arguing that human geography is not a term because it is encompassed by geography is analogous to arguing that stratigraphy is not a term since it is a realm of the study of geology, or that cellular biology can't possibly be a term because it is a realm of the study of biology. Sorry, human geography is alive and well as one of the two major divisions of geography. NB: "human" geography is more common in the United States. In Canada and many European nations, the synonymous terms "cultural geography" or "social geography" are sometimes used.

[edit] Regional Science

Regional science is actually not a geographical science. It is something very close to economic geography, but it doesn't fit in this subdivision. There should be regional geography instead, which is also tought in some universities as a discipline of geography. Also rural geography is missing. Because it is also in template I can't change it. Please make corrections. The object of study of the geographical sciences is the Earth while region is the object of study of regional science. Thanks. GeoW 05:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Division

I've made a new division of human geographies. Any suggestions?GeoW 11:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Would it be possible to indicate, at least generally, how "subfields/subdisciplines" relate to the main disciplines of human geography? Rfrisbietalk 03:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be done in main articles about this four disciplins, for. e.g. cultural geography is the study of cultures, customs, foods, clothing, music, architecture, traditions, religions and languages and their distribution in the world. So for. e.g. language geography or religion geography can be considered as a part of cultural geography, but it can be studied by population geography as well. In the same time they can be considered as independend disciplins, for e.g. urban geography is quite well thoeretically and methodologically developed today. We should better focus on which disciplins include to template.GeoW 10:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Considering I'm a bit of an inclusionist, the template looks fine to me. If the article is more than a stub and it has the potential to be an interesting read, I'm all for keeping it on the template, even if it's a minor subdiscipline in the field. :-) Rfrisbietalk 16:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. But what if I give you a list of another 20 geographies and the template will be too long then? :) GeoW 07:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that can happen with any topic. One way to deal with that, if and when it gets to that point (lots of worthy articles) is to shift from a "sidebar-style" template to a "footer-style" template. Examples around the volume of this topic are {{Emotion}} and {{Emotion-footer}}. Examples for a much larger topic are {{Hinduism_small}} and {{Hinduism}}. At some point, an optimal size of template for different "major" and "related" articles tends to work itself out, eventually. ;-) Rfrisbietalk 11:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Structure of an article about discipline of human geography

I think that every article should have at least this basic structure:

  • basic definition
  • areas of study
  • history
  • references and further reading

GeoW 11:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Could we seperate critical geography into the different approaches? Supposed 20:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Do as you wish. That article is not originally mine. I have only separated it from quantitative revolution article. It was written by someone else, AlexD I think. GeoW 17:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disciplines of Human geography table

I would like to know opinions of others on these things:

  • What does it mean "fields of human geography"? I renamed it to disciplines of human geography.
  • If we are talking about disciplines, there shouldn't be behavioral or feminist geography among them because they are rather approaches to study in (human)geographical sciences, not disciplines. Remember that object of the study of geography (geographical sciences)is the Earth. And it is often talked about feminist or behavioral geographies (plural), for e.g feminist political geography or feminist urban geography and so on.
  • There should be written something about history of human geography and different paradigms, where this should be clarified.
  • Developement geography is not related only to economic developement. It deals also with social developement, acces to health, education, water and so on. It has more interdisciplinary approach, not only economic but social, political, historical and so on.
  • Problematic is also regional geography, which is a paradigm in geographical sciences and has problems of establishing itself as a scientific discipline. And please don't add the regional science to this list. It is NOT geographical science.

GeoW 08:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

My opinion: - Most human geographers refer to these as "sub-fields," not as disciplines. I cut the table; it's not useful. - This article is in desperate need of help (for one thing, it needs references besides De Blij), but I have neither the time nor the energy to provide any right now. It makes me appreciate what people mean when they call Wikipedia a "disaster." Holi0023 02:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New template

I've made a new human geography template in order to keep the template similar in style to the one used on the geography main page and the one used on the physical geography page. AlexD 12:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

IF anyone is brave enough I think there needs to be something in the article about the different approaches. Supposed 16:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There is an article on the Philosophy of Geography that needs a lot of attention so that might be an appropriate place to start.AlexD 13:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The template could also add more to the list of approaches... Both 'modernism' and 'postmodernism' are catch-all terms for an exceptionally wide range of approaches...--Cooper-42 12:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project human geography

Human geography seems poorly covered on wikipedia. I would like to set up a project to resolve this. Any takers? I would like to contribute detailed information about health geography to wikipedia. Any takers on developing something like this?

Supposed 22:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw this too and made a comment on the WikiGeography project here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geography#Human_Geography_stubs.... I'm not sure Human geograohy needs a whole project for itself, unless there are a number of people prepared to support it? I plan to sort-out the Feminist geography and Urban geography articles. Also, Social geography seems an odd one to me - isn't all human geography social geography? I've certainly never seen 'social geography' listed as a seperate field, whilst I have seen the others... --Cooper-42 12:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

- Social geography is a distinct subdiscipline, particular in the UK, perhaps, concerned with issues such as crime, community, education etc

'k, I just finished my BA here in the UK and never came across the term. Probably as I came across them as more specifics, such as 'Crime geography' and 'geography of education'. I'll have a dig through some of my old crap and see if I can come up with any relevant references for the article.
I know the term social geography as a counterpart to economic geography, including political and cultural geography. I think it's not used much these days and should be deleted with redirect to this page. GeoW 18:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
hmmm, just because something is "not used much these days" is certainly no reason to delete it Supposed (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As for Military geography - the stub is itsy-bitsy. I know the Armed forces rely heavily on geogarphical knowledge, in terms of terrain survey - is there a different article relating to this use (the wiki is usually really good for Military subjects) that it could be redirected to? The only other meaning it might have is the study of military operations by geographers - but that'd probably come under political geography... --Cooper-42 15:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Human Geographers?

Should a short list be added? A number of them have wikipedia pages already - I'll add a few at somepoint - more suggestions welcome... --Cooper-42 12:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Do as you wish. This article needs much work. BTW, most od it is such a mess :) I don't have much time for this, though. GeoW 18:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
By all means. Zigzig20s 22:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I've added a list and a brief sentance on what they are notable for, however, I'm a physical geographer so only know of a few human geographers and they tend to be in the urban side so if someone else can add a few from other areas that would be great. AlexD 12:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Humanistic geography?

Is this another term for 'humanistic geography', namely developed by Vidal de la Blache? Zigzig20s 22:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Humanistic/Humanism is an approach/philosophy within Human Geography and other disciplines.--Cooper-42 17:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advice requested

It has been suggested I come here to request a debate. I've been attempting to overview and tidy up the geography cats which involve the places where people live. There appear to be two useful ways of doing it - by region, and by size. Organising by size is difficult because User:Hmains uses the term settlements to cover all sizes of communities, and has altered dictionary definitions [1] to fit his own understanding of the term - [2]. However, community appears to be the term used most often to describe the places where people live, regardless of size. This is the definition of community - [3]. Hmains has reverted much of my work, and insists on settlements being the term we should use - basing it on this decision, which was a declined proposal to rename Settlements by region to Populated places by region. What do people think? Is settlement the appropriate term for covering human communities ranging from well established cities down to refuge camps? Is community a viable alternative? Are there other choices? I have started a discussion here and here, with the above wording, but no response as yet. I have left this message on the talk pages of active Geography Project and Category Project members. And then on this page. I am a bit lost as the best place to discuss this issue. I don't want to delete or rename any category. And I don't want to get into a revert war. I'd like an open debate to reach sensible consensus. SilkTork 20:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Settlements are small, newly created communities, generally on the "fringe of civilization". One wouldn't call New York City or Seoul a "settlement". Communities would be a much better general term. Parsecboy 20:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Communities' has been previously rejected as an alternative to 'Settlements'. See the article on 'Community' and it should be clear why this term does not apply to places of human population, such as cities and towns. A community, as shown in WP and as commonly used, is something that is self-created by people having/pursuing a common interest, with common beliefs, etc. Hmains 20:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I personally think that 'Human Settlments' would be the best term. See Google search for this term, not 'Settlements', and review the results to see current public use of this term. If so, an article on 'Human Settlements' should be created where the term can be fully discussed; it cannot not based on original research, I suppose. Thanks. Hmains 20:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Imho: 'study of patterns and processes that shape human interaction with the environment' needs to say what processes, all processes?? What is the "environment"?

[edit] Question by yeoyi: Among all the different types of geography, what is the difference?

[edit] Health Geography

Seems to have been removed from this page. The geographies of health and health care are quite a large area of study. Not sure why one would want to delete them. I mean you even have references to Animal Geographies & Children's geographies , which are tiny fields in comparison. Someone seems to have really messed with this article. I'm sure their intentions were good but I think we need the structure of the article to be referenced.

I mean who says these are subfields of this etc?152.78.121.49 (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Supporting image?

Population density by country, 2007
Population density by country, 2007

Ok, it might just be me - but I'm not too chuffed about the image supporting this page. Surely it just compounds the assumption that all we do is draw and colour in maps?

Sure, this is just the good old concern over self-identity and self-worth in the face of vast numbers of people, academic or otherwise, who have little or no idea of the scope of HG, nor engage with it at all, thus compounding worries of lack of wider relevance.

But... It would be nice to get other HG images in support - some good fieldwork photos anyone might be willing to share? Various suggestions of the engagement with performance art et al. in Cultural geography? Etc.?--Cooper-42 (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cooper 42, I think you've over analysised the picture a tad, as the chances are that it was one of the few figures available for Human Geography when the article was created and as such has just been updated year-on-year. In terms of a supporting figure you might want to have a look over at the physical geography article as I've placed a figure for each of the sub-fields, thereby not giving any undue prominence to one field or the other. In terms of Human Geography figures there is an apparent lack of them on wiki, especially ones that distinguish the discipline from other social sciences. The only place that I can suggest is having a look at Geography on Wikicommons [4] or various synonyms on wikicommons. Hope that helps. AlexD (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


Of course I'm over analysing it - I'm a human geographer, self-doubt as a worthwhile discipline is what we do best.

Anyways, I like the Phys Geog page a lot, I might sit down and use it as a template for an update to the HG page sometime soon, cheers --Cooper-42 (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jared Diamond ref?

I removed:

As I'm not entirely sure this should be there - I don't think it really counts as a further reading for HG as a whole. Might be useful in Political geography or even Historical geography? --Cooper-42 (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)