Jump to content

Talk:Human geography/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

The very concept 'Human Geography'

The whole concept of "human geography" is farcical and this Article should be deleted entirely. Look at the first sentence. Sociology ring a bell? What a rip-off. It's practically the very definition of sociology, a discipline that's existed for well more than a hundred years. What exactly is the objective of geographers who insist on this term 'human geography'? Sociologists differ from human geographers because the latter emphasize human interaction with their physical and social environments and Marx, Weber and Durkheim didn't? Retarded. And ignorant too. The very discipline of sociology was born upon the observation that the human condition is intrinsically connected to the environment. The likes of Marx and others looked around at a nineteenth century European socio-political landscape changing hand-in-hand with a changing physical landscape and before long there were Departments of Sociology all over the place. 'But Marx didn't know the names of capital cities'. Is that the idea??

Geographers should invent a geography subdiscipline that focuses on great apes, and instead of calling it primatology they should call it 'primate geography'. And then when primatologists, whose own discipline has existed for a long time, look at them with a furrowed brow the primate geographers should just stand there, with their eyes glazed and mouths open -- 'What? What's wrong?'. Idiots.

Look at this GeoW contributor down in the "Divisions" section of this Talk page. These are his words: "[C]ultural geography is the study of cultures, customs, foods, clothing, music, architecture, traditions, religions and languages and their distribution in the world." Ever heard of anthropology? Is it willful ignorance or what? What a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.212.73.242 (talk • contribs) Bakilas (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I object to the author's use of the term "retarded" (unless she/he means 'late'), but otherwise tend to agree with her/his sentiments. I don't think anything can be done about it though. If geographers entering the domains of other disciplines (sociology, anthropology and the like) want to pretend they're offering something novel and/or innovative on the grounds that they're 'geographers' then that's their prerogative. It would help though it they specified where exactly the 'geography' element of their input is located if they're going to explicitly or implicitly deny that either of sociology or anthropology are devoid of that element. This entire issue raises some fascinating questions about where exactly disciplinary boundaries lie, and what exactly 'geography' even is/means. Either way, if a sociologist started claiming she/he has authority on the matter of, say, plate tectonics that would definitely be peculiar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.226.62 (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

It is said that Geography is made up of only two sub-fields which is correct, but I think it would be good to go back and add some of the branches that make these sub-fields up. The way it is currently written makes Geography as a whole seem very simplified when in reality it is a very broad and complex topic. Murky am (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Human geography

I'm quite sure that human Geography is like mc donalds and asda and farming 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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I've removed Tim Cresswell in favour of Yi-Fu Tuan. Its a much fairer representation of significance to the subject —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexanderleo (talk • contribs) 23:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

More detail should be provided about Yi-Fu Tuan. He's the only notable geographer of the list that doesn't include follow up information, outside of his heritage. It should include that his career was mainly focused on humanistic geography, and how he distinguishes humanistic geography from human geography. BustosA (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

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)

Advice requested

why do you read this

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

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)

Supporting image?

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 [1] 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)

The worldmapper stuff is no-derivative Creative Commons, which is a bit disappointing, so I went for the good old N-S divide map. Still a map, but, there you go I guess... --Cooper-42 (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, it seems like their are other visual aids out there on the same topic, that may be more recent with up to date stats and better visuals. I think the visuals are a crucial part of the article and get the point across with certain information better to readers, especially those who are visual learners, than just words on a page. Byrneryan (talk) 03:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Jared Diamond ref?

I removed:

  • Diamond, Jared (1999). Guns, Germs and Steel: the Fates of Human Societies. W.W. Norton & Co., New York, NY. {{cite book}}: Check |first= value (help)

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)

dumb people use yhis site it has wrong info 81.152.36.36 (talk) 09:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)--81.152.36.36 (talk) 09:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I really AM looking for an answer

North/South Divide?

What is that graphic supposed to represent? There is nothing in the article or even in the text below the graphic which defines what "North" and "South" are meant to represent. Obviously they're not the cardinal north/south directions, or what is the "North" and "South" according to what each nation determines in their own nation, so what is it?? -- 71.141.107.123 (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Erroneous Swedish interwiki link - need help

I'm trying to correct the Swedish interwiki links for Cultural geography and Human geography, but I'm not used to the centralized interwiki handling. Can someone help me?

In short: Cultural geography should link to sv:Kulturens geografi and Human geography should link to sv:Kulturgeografi, not the other way round. The system won't allow me to correct the links or remove them. /85.231.96.228 (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Further reading

62.168.13.98 (talk) 14:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Evaluation of Article Quality

I believe the main issue with this article is that there are not enough citations or references. There seem to be only about 6-8 citations in the entire article, and this is a problem seeing as there are 5+ paragraphs. Technically, every sentence needs a citation, unless it is "common knowledge," which would be very unlikely in this context. Every sentence without a citation can be deemed plagiarized. I am not sure about the creditability of some of the sources either, some of them seem like they may not be reliable. There are also some broken links in the references which need to be fixed. JamiePryor (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Citations

While reading about human geography. I check most of the links and they all worked. They took me to the right place. Kirschme (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The books by Johnston, R.J. have no referenced ISBN number or link reference of any kind. Rocka1994 (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that overall the article is lacking citations. This seems especially true in the History section in which most of the information presented is outside of realm of common knowledge. Even if these facts are being well paraphrased it may be useful to include more citations and references to back up the information being given. In addition to this, the links to references 4 and 6 are broken though the other references look okay. I was able to follow the link on reference 2 and the information from this source is paraphrased well, does not plagiarize. Malia Cagampang (talk) 03:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Article Bias

The article seems to be fairly neutral throughout. After reading the article multiple times, I can not find any part that shows any sort of bias towards one side or the other. In fact, it seems that the article solely reports facts and known information rather than taking a specific side on any given topic. One of the easiest places for there to be a strong bias would have been in the "History" section, yet still, there is little to no bias shown, rather facts that are reported. Nearyke (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Jimbooh (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)After reading this article, it seemed neutral. I did not notice any claims or frames that were appear very heavily towards one position. The article states the different aspects of Human Geography such as the fields in HE, philosophical and theoretical approaches, and notable geographers. There was no opinionated statements in any part of the article which is why this article was neutral. [[[User:jimbooh|jimbooh]]] 18 February 2017

Human Geography Page Evaluation and Possible Improvements

This page entitled Human geography has some issues, the main ones being a lack of sources and source/reference quality. Upon reading the article, it is clear that much of the subject matter is not necessarily "common knowledge" and should contain a reference, but many of these facts do not. Additionally, some source links are broken and do not point to the correct page (Antipode: A Radical Journal of Geograph... and ACME journal homepage). There is a lot of content in the "Further reading" section that could be examined for sources. The fact that there are over 15 paragraphs and only six references points to an under-referenced page that needs work. As for the neutrality of this article, it is not clearly biased. More could be added in the history section regarding some of the earliest aspects to the studies of human geography, as there are only short mentions of 19th century works and no information regarding 21st century studies. Most information in this article is about 20th century studies, some of which could be very out-of-date by now. The images in the article could also be more big-picture or section/main point related, as this article currently acts as sort of an information hub that links to many more specific pages in the human geography area of study. I was distracted by the format of the article because it had so many sections. This is currently unavoidable, however this problem can be alleviated if the article is more filled out and robust.

-Maelstronomy (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Fields

In terms of the fields you need a lot more citations. Per section you should be citing each field, even if they are all paraphrases it is good to not only use paraphrasing. Also if the individual fields are not cited I am unsure how credible this information is. I understand that in each field you can access the link taking you to the type of geography but the brief description of each one should be cited. Taicheesy (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


It seems like the explanations of each of the fields are clear, but maybe they could use a bit more detail, especially the ones that are only one sentence. Often times it is easier to read a brief description on the same page than to click a link in order to clarify basic understanding. They could also use a better citation. Boboshic (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Broken references

Both reference 4 and 6 are broken links currently.
AlanGoering (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Broken Link or Incorrect Link*

The second link under "external links" was linked to an online survey, and appeared to be spam. Title of the link: "Online Human Geography Resource - Help and advice on human geography matters" Boboshic (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


From the cited sources I was able to access, there was no plagiarism or close paraphrasing. Reference 2 and 4 have broken links Connorz (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Requires more citations for credibility

The information throughout was relevant to the topic however, without more citations from reliable sources I am not sure if the information is accurate or credible. Especially in the fields category, there are not sources letting the reader know where the information is coming from. The links to other Wikipedia articles sometimes will have the sources of information but the citations should be on this page for credibility. Two of the external links were also broken so they should be updated or removed. Overall the information is neutral and relevant to the topic but it needs citations from reliable sources to make sure the information that users are reading is credible. Perkinsl (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Human Geography very complex

The article offers a history and the the acknowledgment that Human Geography was recognized by scholars in the 18th century. The section after history titled as "Fields" offers a rather long list of different studies incorporated into Human Geography as a whole. Upon clicking on the links that describe the studies, they do not seem very reliable as they just offer additional background information on that specific study.In addition the fields section makes Human Geography to be very complex and a description on how one specific study relates to Human Geography would aid in a better understanding of Human Geography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamal13 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Settlement

  1. The second and third sentence of settlement portion within the field section are each a rephrasing of the first sentence. This is distracting to the readers and it causes the appearance of settlement section of human geography to be more important than other sections.
  2. The last sentence, of the settlement portion, is confusing and unclear to many readers. In order to help this section the last sentence needs to be rewritten or removed.

Nick.ped (talk) 03:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Human Geography

I think this is a well written article but the author lost track of his argument in the history section. The author explains in great detail the history of geography itself and also goes into detail of how numerous branches of geography were created. Most of the these branches of geography stemming out of human or physical geography. Instead, focus on Human Geography in itself and how it differs from physical geography. I kept having to ask myself what does this have to do with how human geography began or where the need to separate physical and human geography came from. the author mentions "The now fairly distinct differences between the sub fields of physical and human geography developed at a later date." but never discusses the distinct differences. Lastly the fields and theoretical sections should be combined into one section with a brief explanation of each. Justinjames92 (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Differences between Human geography and other geographies

Should there be a section that mentions the distinction between Human Geography and other types of Geography. Something that emphasizes why this deserves its own article instead of a subsection in Geography. There's a brief mention to this in the article introduction however I feel as if there needs to be a larger description between the differences. AdamRuark (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Restructure "Philosophical and Theoretical Approaches"

This section should either be eliminated, and the approaches be added to the fields they correspond with, or more detail should be provided on how the approach is related to human geography. Otherwise how do we know how Positivism is related to Human Geography? BustosA (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Well written

This article is very broad because human geography itself is broad. I can only see the need for more details in the introduction of how human geography became studied. Mandersauer (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Amanda Sauer

Human Geography

Overall, there seemed to be a pretty decent structure to this article and it seems to be very neutral, but it could use a few improvements. It seemed like there were several claims that were not cited, it would have been helpful if there was more support to these statements. In the history portion specifically there were several paragraphs without citations that included several things being stated as facts. It would give the article more credibility if there were more citations. The introduction and description of human geography in the first paragraph seemed very short, it was very to the point and it seems like there should be more detail in describing what exactly human geography is. Such a short introduction makes it seem like human geography is more simple than it really is, there is a lot that goes into it making it very complicated. (Alexislarsen00 (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

Is the article neutral?

Throughout the article there does not seem to be much bias about the topic. The different forms of Human Geography is presented with no favoritism to any topic. All of the information presented in this article is purely factual, and does not sway to one side or the other. The writer is neutral, so that the reader is able to form their own opinion. The article also remains to the point and refrains from using "fluff" words. Gyalpot (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Evaluating an article

Each fact presented in the article is referenced with an appropriate and reliable reference. Everything in the article is relevant to the topic. It develops a strong outline to explain all necessary information about human geography: definition, subfields, different approaches and well-known geographers. It’s very easy to follow and understand. The article appears neutral and simply states the fact about the topic. There aren’t any claims or frames that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. Most of the sources are from different journals that represent different viewpoints. Some of them are neutral, which means they just list out the facts and statistics. Biased sources are from notable geographers and of high value. The ACME journal link is not working, but the rest appear to be reliable. NguyenTran31 (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Increase the number of citations

The article is well written and goes into a significant amount of detail in certain sections. That being said, some of the statements lose credibility because they lack a citation. While the claims are made and backed up with relevant information, the lack of sources causes me to question its validity. I believe sources should be added throughout the fields section of the page. JoeLewis6 (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

In the history section, citation are very general. Need to add more citation on regional geography. Maikan93

Critique an article

This article is definitely thorough in its understanding of human geography as much of the topic seems to be fairly abstract and difficult to talk about besides its history. Yet, speaking on the topic of history, my first issue arrives within this section due to the lack of citations. 5 out of the 7 paragraphs in this section are completely uncited with a variety of claims made in this section. There are a variety of links provided to valuable pages that support the claims, but again come from Wikipedia itself, and not independent sources. For example, please look towards the map of John Snow's cholrea outbreak. With a topic like the history of human geography, the lack of citations shows how easily someone might be able to create lies about said history. Further, the citations that are given for online sources have become unusable, with 2 out of the 3 online source not able to connect properly. Jaursch (talk) 05:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Neutral Article

I found this article to be a neutral unbiased article. Nothing tried to pull you in one direction or another. It provided just clear facts about human geography. It makes it easy to navigate through the article with out feeling like you're pressured to view it in a certain way. There's a clear use of just facts to educate the reader about human geography. It includes different scholars for human geography from which you could then go explore different view points for different layers withing the realm of human geography. Overall good neutral article. DakotaJackson (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Question regarding human geography

I had a question regarding human geography:

Wouldn't religious buildings (mosques, churches, synagogues, temples, etc.) be considered part of human geography since they aren't naturally occurring formation? Wikipedia's articles on "Human geography" https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Human_geography, "Building" https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Building, and "Cultural geography" https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Cultural_geography seem to not touch the topic, though these links regarding AP Human Geography (https://quizlet.com/2120072/ap-human-geography-cultural-geography-flash-cards/ [which specifically mentions religious buildings (see "Christian religious buildings", "Hindu religious buildings", "Buddhist", "Islamic religious buildings", and "Judaic")] and https://www.brightknowledge.org/knowledge-bank/geography-and-environment/spotlight-on-geography/human-geography-and-physical-geography certainly [which touches on religion in general (see "Cultural Geography")]) seem to concur that religion/religious buildings are part of human geography.

--Ka24872482Akeakamai (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human geography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human geography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_geography/Archive_1&oldid=1069789480"