Talk:Integrated geography

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Whitsons.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

I had posted a comment some time ago, about the previous version of this definition. I finally decided it would be best just to revise it. In my view (as an environmental geographer), the previous version conflated environmental geography with geomorphology, and actually presented a somewhat erroneous view of the latter. Environmental geography is the analysis of the interactions at the human-physical interface.

See my page at http://webhost.bridgew.edu/jhayesboh/environmentalgeography.htm for more.

Environmental geography v. Integrated geography?

Could someone please explain the difference/ preference and why the title to this article has been changed? Also, is this a broadly accepted understanding, or subject to debate? Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 14:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Now Integrated geography redirects to this article. Shouldn't it be the other way around? (See WP:TITLEFORMAT, re: article title naming conventions.) Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 05:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed, thanks! (and presumably the talk page will be, too?) DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Integrated geography?

Nobody does integrated geography: it is not a term used by anybody. Where did this come from? Human-environment geography would be ok, or what the North Americans call nature-society geography. The evidence would be that the Annals of the AAG, the top journal, has a nature-society section. 212.76.254.50 (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be a rather empty article in terms of information & references . It explains what it is but could be connected Human-Environment geography Fireball1983 (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Based on the definitions and descriptions, this article should be titled Human-Environment Geography. I have never heard of 'integrated geography'

Wikianp (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Alex Porter

Origins citations

Too few citations within the origin section, one citation leading to source 3 for the full paragraph. Possible reworking necessary. 

AlanGoering (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The citations are pretty out of date, the earliest citation is dating back to 1959 and the latest citation is in 2009, which is still 8 years ago. Cindyxpeach (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)CindyxPeach

Focus Section

Gives a nice concise statement on why Integrated geography is important. It mentions using analytical tools to to describe the relationship between human impact and the environment, however no example or in depth discussion on how this process is done. Adding in the process of how analytical tools are used to relate human impact and environment would help improve the focus section. Lamal13 (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)Lamal13

I agree maybe there is a source with a "case study" giving an example on the methods used and results. HickmanbGeog203 (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

This is very well written and concise, but I feel it is very subjective. Saying that links between human and physical geography aren't as apparent seems like a statement that could be incorrect depending on how you define Human/Physical Geography. It could also differ between where you draw the line, one person might draw it at a very different spot than another person. I would like to see this section edited so that it explains why the field of Integrated geography exists, without making the claim that the line between the two sub-fields isn't apparent. Murky am (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

As many pointed out, integrated geography is too broad of a term.

Integrated geography makes me think of the various aspects that link geography with the way society functions. It refers to a number of different ideas including how humans interact with the environment, how socioeconomics and geopolitics shape our physical environment, and many others. The article shows promise, you can link every area of study related to geography onto one page. Geography is study of the physical, but integrated geography can be seen as the study of both the physical and the societal. This page can be a treasure cove of information that includes sections on population geography, bio-geography, behavioral geography, environmental geography, and many more. Each of these sections can have countless sub-sections as well. The topic is easy to understand, but there isn't enough coverage on the many aspects of the subject. The references seem to originate from reliable sources, but some of the information on here seems to have been ineffectively paraphrased and have not been cited. Nasgeo (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree, although it is broad and incomplete right now, there is a lot of potential for this article. There are many sub-categories that can be added under Human-Environment Geography, like cultural ecology and political ecology. Further, there are other disciplines that connect to Human-Geography such as political science, sociology, and social justice. A historical section could also be added.

A textbook that is a good reference for the layout of the article is "An Introduction to Human-Environment Geography. William G. Moseley, Eric Perramond, Holly M. Hapke, Paul Laris September 2013, ©2014, Wiley-Blackwell" Wikianp (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Alex Porter

Reference and Organization

It seems that under Origins, (Harlan H. Barrows 1923) is in need of a reference or citation for her contribution to Physische Anthropogeographie. Reference 3 also does not link directly to Penck's contribution to Integrated geography. A reference should also be included for White's specific contribution for a more applied view of integrated geography (it seems as though the following sentence after White's mention is trying to quote (in this case it REALLY NEEDS a reference) or summarize his contribution, but I'm not entirely sure since there isn't a reference). Also, the organization of the Origins section is quite jumbled and could use reworking. For example, I'm not quite sure what the first sentence of the Origins section is trying to accomplish in helping describe what the origins of integrated geography are. A section like this should focus on how the term integrated geography came to be (or how the term was coined) and how the definition has evolved over time. Hillyerl (talk) 09:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, Harlan H. Barrows reference seemed out of place and without citation is not reliable

Wikianp (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Alex Porter

Integrated Geography citations and expansion

The overall article for Integrated geography seems to be outdated while considering its citations made available. Many citations are almost 10 years old with the oldest being from 1959.There is only one citation made available in the origins section "3". The last sentence relating to the Origins content needs to be cited and verifiable. Where is this information coming from? It is not cited and likely cant be ones own definition. There is possible paraphrasing occurring here. The citations of this subject likely need to be revised and improved. This appears to be an empty topic with some scrambling occurring, why cant more in formation be added collectively to this page to make it more appealing to the viewer? This article should be reviewed.Mcpherko (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Article Critiques

This article is too broad. It basically states that Integrated Geography is the cross between physical geography and human geography, and not much else. The article offers few to no examples of these relationships. There is no section stating the differing views within Integrated Geography, and the associated critiques of those viewpoints.

This article suffers from having too few references, the Origins section for example only has one reference linked. While the references listed at the end of the article may cover everything that is stated within the article, most statements are not explicitly referenced. Even though there are few references, the ones listed do appear to be reliable sources.

Finally, this article has a very weak introduction. It is literally the exact sentence pulled from the end of the Origins section. It needs be beefed up quite a bit.

WomackJu (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems that this article needs a better opening sentence under Origins that does not start with "it requires" because "it" sounds very vague, and it is rather hard to understand where the sentence is heading. A more concise and well-worded opening would benefit the entire page. The entire Origins section is not easily understandable, and could benefit from more clear diction. The entire page is lacking detail and information on Integrated Geography as a whole, and could use a lot of extra clarification on what the topic actually is. Boboshic (talk) 01:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree, this Wikipedia article is much too brief for a topic such as geography, whether it be human-environment, or "integrated." It's great to see the lack of bias, which was reiterated in the training videos, but more could be researched and written upon. The "Origins" section could use more chronological organization for the little information that it does provide. To enhance it further would require more information about contributions and some kind of timelineGeislera (talk) 05:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Physische Anthropogeographie

Physische Anthropogeographie is highlighted as a predecessor to Integrated Geography. If its important enough to be mentioned, I would think it would be smart to link to supporting information or given a one sentence explanation of how it was formed and how it evolved to be succeed by integrated geography. HickmanbGeog203 (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

For how broad the topic of human-enviornment geography is there should be a lot more information on the subject. The field of human-environment geography is constantly changing as global issues and human perspectives change so there should be more than six references and more recent than 2010. Hanna5ilva (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

But why is integrated geography relevant

Viewpoints seem underrepresented in this article. Their is no bias, but there isn't enough of a definition to what integrated geography is and examples of how it is being used. Integrated Geography is a geographic information system interrelating environmental factors, politics, ethics, and demographics to understand a certain space.OregonState MapGuy (talk) 04:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Article Critique

I felt as though this article was just extremely vague. There could be more added to this article to have a better idea of what integrated geography is and how it works. This article is off to a good start but needs to be spruced up a little bit. There's potential here! DakotaJackson (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Evaluation and Suggestions

For an article that claims integrated geography is one of three major branches of geography, it does not seem very comprehensive. There could be a lot more said about the specific influences from Carl O. Sauer and Gilbert F. White, as well as more about the history of integrated geography and its theories. There are many theories and perspectives about interactions between humans and the environment and notable researchers in the field. For such a complex and important topic, there are a lot more aspects of it to discuss in the article, such as the role of integrated geography in culture, farming, economics, global climate change, ecological impacts, preservation, and more. I feel like this article does not capture the broad diversity of ways in which humans view and interact with the world we live in. --Rettigm (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Lack of Purpose and citation

When exploring this piece it was hard to find an overall purpose or function. It actually has a "Focus" section which does not provide enough detail to inform the reader about the subject. This has me wondering about the overall relevance of the article as a whole. When considering the citations or lack thereof it must be pointed out that most of the sources used could be interpreted as outdated, which drastically decreases the credible nature of the piece. The "Origins" section seems to be lacking citation with some wording that seems to be paraphrasing. This calls to attention the importance of the missing citations as well as the value and correctness of the ones actually used. It would also be wise to revise the article with sentence fluency and grammar in mind. I found myself getting hung up trying to read the run-on sentences and the out of place, overdone diction. This does not only distracts the reader but, seems to cut into credibility when the piece challenging to read and understand. DustinD (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

It is too short

I feel that the article is too short. It does talk about its origin and focus which is fine but it will be great if it could include the category and sub category of human environment geographyAmanimazlan (talk) 07:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Article critique and review

The articles sources are dated with the most recent being in 2010. This broad of a subject, especially in recent years as recognition of the sustainability issues, many current and ongoing projects could be referenced providing tons of up to date information on the relevant topic. With the subject being so broad there are many different sections that could be made and focused on such as the different aspects, directions, ideologies and then how they are specifically integrated. This subject has a lot of information potential that hasn't been utilized.Huffbr (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Article Review

I agree with many of the reviews/critiques for this article. To start, I think the article could be larger in terms of information. I’m sure there is more to integrated geography that can be included in this article to make it more information rich. Adding more information will also add more references and citations which this article is in need of. Many of the references are outdated with the oldest one dating back to 1959 so the new references could add more recent information. Also, the information that is currently in the article is relevant to the topic and is very well explained, so it has potential. Mceuint (talk) 07:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)