Talk:Geography/Archive 1

23rd October 2007The page seems to have been vandalised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.183.168 (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

29th August 2006

I found the links section on the page to be hopelessly disorganised and littered with sites which were either commercial in nature or very narrow in their focus.

I have now broken the links section into three clear areas covered by the links that were there:1. Teaching Geography2. Multimedia Resources3. Organisations and pressure groups

And limited the links therein to no more than 5 per category. The idea is that future links will be placed in the appropriate categories and that these can in turn be "pruned" from time to time.

I hope this meets with the approval of the community!

Brian Griffiths (UK)hi

Tuesday 18th July 2006

Does http://www.geographyforum.net deserve a link? It is much more active at present than http://www.talkgeography.com, which currently enjoys a link from the main page. It carries no advertising and is a community of Geographers offering help and advice.

Wednesday August 13, 2003

There should be a link to the National Geographic Society article as well as infomation on the Royal Geographical Society.

Friday September 13, 2002

Political map- Shows boundaries that divide the world into countries and states.

Physical map- Shows natural features like mountains, rivers, and elevation.

Title- Tells the subject and/or location of the map.

Key/Legend- Explains the meaning of colors and symbols.

Scale- Defines the relative distances on a map. A smaller ratio, 1 to 1 defines a smaller area than 170,000 to 1. The ratio may be in inches to miles, centmeters to kilometers, or other mesurements.

Compass rose- Shows the 16 cardinal directions N, NNE, NE, ENE, E, ESE, SE, SSE, S, SSW, SW, WSW, W, WNW, NW, NNW on a map.

Latitude- Parallel lines that run east and west on a map.

Longitude- Lines that run north and south on a map, merging at the north and south poles.

Equator- Zero degrees latitude- an imaginary line that divides the earth into two hemispheres.

Prime meridian- Zero degrees longitude. Used as the origin for the measurement of longitude. The prime meridian runs through Greenwich, England.

Hemisphere- The portion of the earth north or south of the equator and east or west of the prime meridian and the 180th meridan.

Definitions moved here till they can find a better home or something, Aldie 22:39 Dec 8, 2002 (UTC)

Added some information about the history of the field in the 20th century, and about the human-environment subfields.

I felt there was no mention of Roman period, Srabo and Ptolemy should have been credited as Roman scholars, and also there was no mention of Kant or Ritters contribution in giving the geography its placeGeography.sunilreddy 20:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nice one. I meant to come back and do a little on Ritter and never got around to it. Icundell 20:35, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

geography is fun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.16.150 (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"What links here" offers a list of geographical terms that have their own entries: peninsula, sound, isthmus, etc. --and that really need to have a paragraph of simple alphabetic listing here. I know this is simple-minded, but it's part of what people are looking for at Geography.Wetman 20:02, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with the sub-headings or is it my browser? The hierarchy doesn't seem to match the font sizes. It is a very good article though --BozMo|talk 15:30, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

On this page, there is an interwiki link to ar:إستونيا. The same link is found on en:Estonia, and the interwiki links on ar:إستونيا refer to various articles on Estonia as well. As my knowledge of Arabian is extremely limited, I would like to ask someone who is capable of this language to search the arabian article which refers to geography and to correct the links here as appropriate. -- Gauss 15:33, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm just going to remove it (here and on interwikis) and if I'm wrong someone can put it back. It screws up the interwiki robot. ar:إستونيا also has internal links to Russia and Finland, so I'm pretty sure it's an article about Estonia. —Fleminra 21:19, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

The opening statement of the article is an indication that Geography is a science, in the classical term (see Natural Science). This does no justice to the numerous Human Geographers out there, and all the people that spend there time to discredit positivism from Geographic thought. Shouldn't the introduction at least mention that Geography is not viewed in such a way by all geographers?

I think you are misreading the intro: First, "Scientific" is not equal to "positivist. Second, Hughes's terminology may be a little archaic, but he was making two points: geography is not descriptive, but analytical ("mere place names are not geography") and that it is comprehensive ("alike of the natural and of the political world"). It is in no way a statement in favour of positivism, since the term meant nothing then. Not only does it do full justice to human geographers (I am one and would value the quote for "of argument and reason" alone), but it allows them licence to break free of such stale, constricting, pigeonholes. Icundell 20:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I created a redirect from History of geography to here, however I think it would be a good idea at this point to make the history of geography its own article and just keep more summarizing detail on the geography page. It is surely an article that I have reason to believe will grow so what do you think? gren 06:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can certainly see the case for that - and it would allow more space to explore the way the discipline has developed in different countries.Icundell 09:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have created a new page on the Quantitative_revolution as there are quite a few links on it and not much information about it and hopefully it is of some use to people. Alex

"Mathematics and physics are used to understand the motion of the earth and its relationship with other bodies in the solar system." Surely that's not geography! I've tweaked the summaries of human and physical geography. Hope everyone likes it. I have to say that Socio-environmental geography seems redundant and seems just to describe human geography. Historical geography seems like it needs rewriting as well. --komencanto 1 July 2005 05:52 (UTC)

The subheading of socio-environmental, and historical geography should not be given the prominance it is; particularly because these topics do not deserve any more exposure than the other human geography related subtopics. This article should be distinguished between the physical and human branches of geography, providing a general description of each. SCmurky 02:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Notoholic just removed the commons and category list in favour of the search thing. I disagree with this because most of those are pointless .Wikiquote wikinews and wikispecies have nothing about Geography, and wikisource and wiktionary have very little. Also, the search function is disabled half of the time so why bother when the other links work well. Also, it doesn't include the category thing which is an important thing to include. That template has even been listed for deletion! I'll put it back the way it was, although someone is welcome to suggest why it would be better otherwise. Cheers, --komencanto 08:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion: can we add more information about the acacdemic study of geography? E.g. major recognized centers/institutions, the prevalence of study at primary, secondary, and tertriary levels, etc in different world regions...? Thanks --Dpr 22:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

New article stub. Please contribute if you can.--Culturesoftheworld 18:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

"the dual concepts of space and place provide a commonality of interest, which gives the subject a unique identity" at the end of the first paragraph - is that really meant to read that way? flux.books 15:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This entry needs attention. There are problems with the human geography,physical geography and "geographic realms" sections (if that one evenshould be there). I don't want to act unilaterally but something really needsto be done. The integrity of Wikipedia is harmed when inaccurate informationis left up day after day. I'm willing to help, but it would be best if otherpeople were involved as well. I continue to wonder, is anybody out there?WLE 23:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Be Bold is official Wikipedia policy. Go ahead and edit the article yourself. It is not considered necessary to consult the previous authors in advance. Discusion is a last resort, in case of a disagreement. Consider this; one week ago, the opening sentence of this article was:

Geography is the study of locational and spatial variation in natural and human phenomena on Earth.

Today, the opening sentence reads:

Geography is the description of the surface of the Earth, its life and culture.

I think the revised opening is a notable improvement. One edit at a time, we all make Wikipedia better. -- Michaelfavor 04:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This very core article needs vast improvements, it's small for a big topic and most of it is lists. Needs an AID nomination. Skinnyweed 17:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Why does it say physiocal geography relies on? Geomorphology, Oceanography, Biogeography, environmental geography etc started by geograraphers, so it doesn't make any sense to me.AlexD 11:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Geography started as a study of the Earth and throughtout the history there were (and still are) many disputes about its definition and object of the study. Since then many geographical sciences has divided from physical geography as separate sciences. The current opening definition: "Geography is the study of locational and spatial variation in natural and human phenomena on the Earth." does not include branches of physical geography and is human geography oriented (physical geography does not study the Earths surface, they see the Earth as a system which consists of litosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere etc. with a human influence). There exists also a definition of geography as: "Geography is the study of the Earth's surface." that I think is more unappropriate. Some also see geography as a study of interaction between man and nature. There are many other definitions. I think that should be emphasized that the object of the study of geographical sciences is the Earth, not the space or Earth's surface. Recently there is a movement toward the term Geoscience that includes all interdisciplinary sciences (also mathematical or technical) that study the Earth and their origins are in geography actually.

PS: I've found another definition that may be appropriate: "The study of the earth and its features and of the distribution of life on the earth, including human life and the effects of human activity." GeoW 11:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This article needs loads of revision. From what I can tell, we are trying to describe a discipline with innumerable different subtopics and variations; the problem with this approach is the fact that geography is presented as the sum of all these parts, which is not the case. I present a few points:

1. Geography has been studied from the dawn of western civilization, therefore we need far more historical information.
   1. Historical maps
   2. Info on the development of navigation
   3. Info on early explorers/pioneers
2. Philosophy plays an important role in geographic inquiry, therefore we should present the various philosphical perspectives.
   1. Humanism, environmental determinism, positivism, ...
3. Geography relies increasingly on modern technologies for a variety of purposes, therefore we should present these.
   1. GIS, GPS, sattelite technology, survey technology, ...

SCmurky 10:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, much of what you have mentioned above has been included in the history of geography page, such as explorers, development of navigation etc. However, if you feel that it is not very detailed please add to the article.

1. The issue of philosohphy and geography is also broadly mentioned in the history of geography article as well. With environmental determinism (linked to its own page), the quantitative revolution and critical geography (representing humanism, feminism and behavioural geography) also having there own pages, being mentioned. Although, creating a new page on philospohy of geography would be welcomed as other areas such as non-representational theory, post-colonial theories, focault, post-marxism etc and there contributions to geography could be explored.
2. GIS is also mentioned in this article under the techniques section. On the other hand, you are right to point to a lack of information on remote sensing and GPS etc. Prehaps a re-work of the techniques section would be advisable.

Overall, the study of geography is dependent on where you study. For instance in the UK, geography is largely taught as the sum of its parts, with many students specialising in one of geography's sub-disciplines. Evidence of this can be seen in the article "Geography: a different sort of discipline" (2003) by Ron Johnston in the Trans. Brit. Ins. Geog. NS28 133-144 and "The Future of Geography: when the whole is less than the sum of its parts" (2002) by Nicholas Clifford in Geoforum vol.33 431-436AlexD 14:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

..."When the whole is less than the sum of its parts"? I'll have to look at that book. I will add summarized historical information from the history of geography article, when I have time of course. The placement of the physical/human geography section is out of context with the article, these should come after the history/philosophy sections (Im still uncertain of where they should be from the techniques section); in addition, these articles have their own pages where their associated links should be placed, physical geography and human geography respectivley. SCmurky 23:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The structure of the article is somewhat hap-hazard. Prehaps the following structure might be better:

• History of Geography
• Philosophy of Geography
• Branches of Geography

Physical Geography

Human Geography

Applied Geography

Environmental Management and Change

Natural Hazard and Risk

Problems in the Built Environment

Spatial Analysis Techniques (Including GIS, Remote Sensing etc)

Related Fields

• Geographical Techniques/ Practices

Quantitative

Qualitative

Laborartory (including palaeoenvironmental reconstruction, water analysis etc)

• See Also
• External Links

The seperate Human and Physical Geography pages appeared some time after the main Geography article and may be were envisaged by their authors' as being the main articles for that area. However, they have somewhat turned out to be stubs rather than main articles. AlexD 16:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the structure you have outlined, I only feel that socio-environmental geography seems out of place. Wouldnt applied geography cover the GIS/surveying/mapping aspects. Also, check out philosophy of geography, I created this, however it needs a lot of work.SCmurky 00:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There used to be a summary of The History of Geography and a link to the history of geography article. Might be worth checking the artcile history so see when it got (wrongly) chopped. Icundell 13:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Socio-environmental could be combined with Applied Geography, although the CAPE section is more so a philospohy area or approach and maybe could either go under your philosophy of geography or the human geography page under a new title of approaches (the historical geography section that was on here could also be moved there). The hazards and risk section could then be moved to the applied geography section. Applied geography would cover GIS etc as you've pointed out but it wouldn't cover the Quatitative and Qualitative methods. I've changed the layout above accordingly and if all is fine then I shall find some time to do some research and help out. AlexD 14:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Just changed a lot of the article and here is the reasoning.

• re-work the opening paragraph to be more concise and a description what geography examines *brought back the quotation as it elaborates that geography is not only about maps
• new introduction section to hold all the additional information that was previously in the opening paragraph as the old version was cluttered at the beginning
• re-worked the history of geography summary so it covers most of the important periods and doesn't just scatter over and miss out large chunks
• new selected list of notable geographers -added to make more knowledge of geographers and to place the list of geographers article in a more prominant site on the article.

AlexD 13:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added a new category (Category:Academic Geography), if everyone could make an effort to use this tag in relation to the academic side of geography then we will be able to build up a basic list of topics on wikipedia that relate to geography and will be able to improve the at present appalling condition of geography on wikipedia.Many thanks. AlexD 11:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I've just spent a while sorting through the Category:Geography and have finally sorted out the mess but there is still a bit to go to get it like a tree! I would appreciate users commenents on the new layout and groupings. AlexD 16:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should come to an agreement about the definition of geography. Geography is not just the science of distribution. The are at least four main views on geography: as a science of distribution (spatial view), area studies tradition (or areal differentiation, regionalism), man-land relationship tradition and the view of geography as an Earth Science. See this articles: http://www.ncge.org/publications/journal/classic/

I think that the definition I provided lately and is changed now does justice to all of them. It was: Geography is the study of the Earth and its features and of the distribution of life on the earth, including human life and the effects of human activity. That's according to:

geography. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=geography(accessed: September 05, 2006).

I would not include environment into definition as it is studied by Environmental Sciences.

This definition could be than completed by some key words that play important role in geographical research, such as space, place, region, relationship, scale and so on. I think that the only thing that geographers would come to agreement what is common for them is the Earth and probably the space (not only 2 dimensional) and relationships.

Another question is: It is needed to cite that William Hughes. Never heard of him and geography does not need to defend itself. I'm european, geography is thought in basic schools and high schools and it does provide systematical information about the Earth, including geology. Maybe there's another situation in United States, where Physical Geography was merged into geology, following the geography crisis and spatial (human) geography in 60s. Let me know what you think. GeoW 09:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I learned the Hughes quote at my UK university (or polytechnic as it was then) and still have my lecture notes (from 1979) - not everything is on the internet, you know. The point of the quote is the rejection of 'capes and bays' geography, ie as purely descripive, of geography as cartography, which is why the quote was placed where it was.

And of you do not beleive that geography needs to defend itself then you haven't been following the debate about its place in the UK school curriculum (never mind its constant history of flux). Icundell 12:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking again, it should have been placed in Introduction, after the carogrpahy comment. Icundell 12:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

To hark back to the definition, I think that it ought to include environments with in it, as many organisations include it in their definitions. For Instance:

• "Geography is the study of the earth’s landscapes, peoples, places and environments." (RGS - http://www.rgs.org/GeographyToday/What+is+geography.htm)
• http://www.aag.org/Careers/What_is_geog.html somewhat lenghty but towards the end environment is mentioned
• http://www.runet.edu/~geog-web/whatgeog.html
• CIA's definition "Geography This category includes the entries dealing with the natural environment and the effects of human activity." https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/notesanddefs.html

Further to this a lot of geography departments provide courses relating to the environment and some are even subsumed into a large school for the environment such as at the Universities of Oxford, Birmingham, Aberystwyth and Swansea.AlexD 16:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Environment is important for geography but it's not the object of the study. Geography does not study environment per se. GeoW 11:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

is a way of studying the world —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.39.212 (talk)

Thanks for clearing that up. ;-) — RJH (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The history section includes the statement that "With Aristotle being the first to show that the world was round...". The Geocentric model page states that Plato, the teacher of Aristotle, believed that the Earth was a sphere. Is there a good reference for the origin of this belief? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

First to assert a spherical earth may have been Parmenides (Lives), but i found one brief mention of Eudoxus of Cnidus. I'll look for some better sources.EricR 21:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Flat Earth states: "The first person known to have advocated a spherical shape of the Earth is Pythagoras (6th century BC)."EricR 21:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Origin of that statement is most probably:

On the other hand, Pythagoras seems to have learnt from Anaximander that the earth is not a flat disc. He still, in all probability, thought of it as the centre of the world, though his followers held otherwise at a later date, but he could no longer regard it as cylindrical. As soon as the cause of eclipses came to be understood, it was natural to infer that the earth was a sphere, and we may probably attribute that discovery to Pythagoras himself.

Burnet, John (1920). Greek Philosophy: Part I, Thales to Plato. London: Macmillan. pp. p. 44. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

EricR 21:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. — RJH (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)'

Do you think we should include Halford Mackinder into the list of famous geographers?He was one of the founders of LSE, Geography Association and Reading University and developed the heartland theory amongst other things. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.140.43.124 (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Are we excluding Gerardus Mercator because he was a cartographer? He did invent the mercator projection, and he made the first Atlas. Seems notable to me.

Do you think we should include Aziz Ab`Saber into the list of geographers? He created the Refuge Theory and done large scales studies to restore the history of the south america´s natural realms, including Amazon.

hello. i was looking for the geographical definition of these terms, but i can't. can anyone please help me?

here is the list of the words i've been looking for..

geography of emotionsglobal interconnectionsthe five person rule (for me, a.k.a. 6th degree)

-it states that any person is only 6 degrees away from you, e.g. you and your friend is the 1st degree, the 2nd degree is the another fiend of your friend that you don't know, etc.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.118.60 (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the concept six degrees of separation is a geography term. The Transhumanist 04:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it ready for prime time? If not, why not? Your input is needed.

Please see: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of basic geography topics.

The Transhumanist    04:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

In the 2nd intro section, The article says Geography is divided into two subfields, Physical Geography & Human Geography. Yet later on in the next section, the two are auguented with like four other additional subfields al either under the catergory of Human Geography/Physical Geography or unrelated for the most part. I'm condensing the other fields and adding some under Physical/Human Geography. Rustyfence (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"geography is divided into two main branches". AlexD (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This section implies that they are the same thing but they are distinct so it needs changing.

The entry on cultural geography does a great injustice to all the research that has taken place in recent years, and really does need to be updated. Do we have any cultural geographers who can do a better job of this than me?

Assuming I can do basic arithmetic (not a good assumption), a 1:1 scale map of the Earth would be 64,029,598,416 pixels on each side at 72dpi, and take up 1,120 TB. It could be transferred on 56k in under 5500 years, 300mb in 362 days, and 1 gigabit in 3 1/2 months. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-9 00:12

This is not really useful as the size of such a map is totally dependent on your 72 dpi... 193.190.253.149 (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to a comment made by WLE on Sun. Feb. 12. on the human geography page. I and Wikipedia need help finding some information about fragments of ancient continental crust. Thanks. WLE

THE following article has helped me a lot thanks!

Image:31b.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi! A vigorous - and now somewhat nasty - debate has emerged over the article Chilean Australian over the size of the Chilean-Australian population. The sole protagonists are myself and User:TeePee-20.7, and much of the discussion is on Talk:Chilean Australian.

TeePee is referring to an essay, written by a student intern and published on the website of the Chilean Embassy in Australia, that details the history of the Chilean-Australian population. Much of the article is quite informative and reasonably well written. However she estimates the Chilean-Australian population to be 45,000 without explaining how she arrived at this number.

In other articles that look at ethnic groups in Australia, Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006 Census data is used to present the number of persons (a) born in a particular country, and (b) declare to have ancestry to a particular country (either alone or in combination with one other ancestry).

TeePee is strongly opposed to using this data, and instead insists on solely referring to the essay reference. I do not think the essay's estimate is accurate.

There is one limitation to the ABS data - somebody who has a Chilean ancestry might only choose to declare themselves according to their new Australian identity, or their European heritage. However I have included a caveat which draws attention to this minor flaw, as well as a statistic on how Chilean-born Australians defined their ancestral backgrounds in 2001.

I believe this version should be used.

TeePee has adopted a highly aggressive posture (and has been previously blocked), and has claimed I do not adequately cite references (even though six out of the seven references in the version above go to my ABS sources). No amount of compriming, humouring, reasoning or exercising of a time-out has worked. Wikipedia would benefit from a third party opinion on this page.

And by all means, seek his side of the story. Kransky (talk) 10:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorting through the Propaganda

1st point: True

2nd point: False, very vaguely True - I am not referring to the essay written by the intern who was at the Chilean Embassy. I am referring to the data published by the Chilean Embassy on their website! There is no indication that the intern provided this information as she is not credited to it on the page but Kransky fails to fathom this.

3rd point: True

4th point: False - This is completely false and once again Kransky is lying! If you read the discussions between us you will be able to see this and infact you can even certify that the data has been used so once again Kransky has chosen to act inappropriately and lie once more.

5th point: True - This one took him a while. I had to tell him this because he could not comprehend it before hand but then he adds the caveat trying to shut me up hoping I would not revert his edit where he sneaked in unreferenced information which he has constantly been doing. Only he is not able to comprehend that just because you're Chilean doesn't mean you will put down your ancestory as Chilean as Latinos in general are very multiracial and might wish to put down European, Native American or even specific countries such as Germany in which to indentify as their ancestory.

I believe the current version as of 20:41, 12 May 2008 should be used.

Once again he is disparaging me and behaving inappropriately. I will not even attempt to put into words the patients I have displayed with him you can see this when you intervine in our dispute.

Thankyou for your time and I hope we aren't too much of a burden on you. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}please addhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindi_Katzhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Gregory

a clear link at the top of this article to the geographical terms listing would also be helpful

• Added Gregory to Human Geography, if only because he's known outside of the discipline somewhat. Not sure of his place here. Not sure of including Katz in either. As much as I like her work on chldren and young people, I wouldn't see it as notable beyond the work of many other geographers who aren't included here.--Cooper-42 (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I have removed the editprotected request, there does not seem to be consensus that either belong on the main Geography article. Thanks ~ mazca ^{t | c} 14:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• I would add Ratzel, father of physical deterministic geography, which by turn is the earliest form of modern geography. More famous is Huntington as racist physical deterministic geographer, but Ratzel was first (and also known for the Lebensraum-idea). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.253.149 (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello!

This page contains an image, Image:ReligionSymbol.png, in a raster format. A replacement is available as a Scalable vector graphic (SVG) at File:ReligionSymbol.svg. If the replacement image is suitable please edit the article to use the vector version. Scalable vector graphics should be used in preference to raster for images that can easily represented in a vector graphic format. Thanks SVnaGBot1 (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days.--Oneiros (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't figure out how to edit this page, but please add the AAG (Association of American Geographers) under the heading Geographical institutions and societies. THX —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpost85 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Jagged 85 (talk · contribs). Jagged 85 is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits, he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. I searched the page history, and found 3 edits by Jagged 85 in July 2008 and one more edit in April 2010. Tobby72 (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.

I've had a look at those edits. Apart from a potential bias resulting from the distribution of volume of content (The Islamic part of the history section is 3-10 times as long as any other), there's nothing particularly dubious about either the references nor their use (though I don't know about the reliability of the IslamiCity.com website).

The Medieval Ismalic section in the main article: History_of_geography#Medieval_Islamic_world is tagged as unbalanced, but no discussion as to why.

To be honest, this page, and to an extent the main history of geog. article are in dire need of a bit of attention and TLC. Over-zealous but largely accurate editing is the least of worries.--Cooper-42 (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

So I noticed that this page has no external links. I tried to add resources like Geography@About.com but the bot keeps deleting it. There are a wide range of Wikipedia appropriate news sites, educational resources, and even blogs that could be featured here yet we can't add them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catholicgauze (talk • contribs) 15:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a directory or collection of links. Please read WP:EL. About.com is basically a content aggregator and has many pages which are mirrors of Wikipedia. Links to blogs are discouraged unless they are the authoritative blog written by the subject of an article. The National Geographic site is probably ok, although the landing page is a huge promotion of the site's sponsors. --Versageek 15:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Please add links to the two following institutions (I am on the Executive of both) to assist readers of your geography article to find additional information.

Geographical Society of New South Wales (GSNSW) http://www.gsnsw.org.au/

Institute of Australian Geographers (IAG) https://www.iag.org.au/home/

Thank you in anticipation for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.45.89 (talk) 06:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

can this be related to visual geography ? Aylish (talk) 10:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Changes from revision 481175473 should be reverted, as they messed up the "Human geography" box. The wrong layout was tried to be fixed in last revision (at the time of this writing, but it was not enough (note the images for Religion and Demography). The original layout should be brought back.

Current text:

Cultural geography	Development geography	Economic geography	Religion geography
Historical & Time geog.	Political geog. & Geopolitics	Pop. geog. or Demography
Social geography	Transportation geography	Urban geography

Proposed text (the one from the previous revision to 481175473):

Cultural geography	Development geography	Economic geography	Health geography
Historical & Time geog.	Political geog. & Geopolitics	Pop. geog. or Demography	Religion geography
Social geography	Transportation geography	Tourism geography	Urban geography

81.9.131.158 (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, --RA (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

In the first paragraph, the entry states that one of four historical traditions in geographical research is “the study of the man-land relationship.”

Seriously???? In the 21st century, the central focus and self-understanding of our discipline are still gender exclusive???????!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In addition, we don’t only study human-land relationships, many of us also study human relationships with water, atmosphere/climate, ocean, etc. These therefore represent a plurality of study areas, not just a singular one.

The wording should therefore be corrected to read “the study of human-environment relationships.”

Geoggrrl (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)geoggrrl

Shouldn't this article say something about the ongoing decline of geography as a discipline within U.S. academia? Yes, the U.S. is not the whole world, but as far as contribution to global academic output, it is a giant; surely what happens in the U.S. academia has broader impact.

There is an interesting-looking article in the Japanese Journal of American Studies, “Another Closing Frontier?: Observations on Geography in American Academe,” with statements such as

a recent president of the Association of American Geographers (AAG) has noted “the possibility of having the discipline die a natural death,” mainly because of disciplinary inertia.

And a bit later:

The perception of crisis extends more significantly into the quality and constitution of the discipline, almost exclusively in academic contexts. These run through a spectrum of problems that include disharmony between the physical and human subdivisions, esoteric specialization, disdain for teaching, inappropriate training, practical irrelevance, and even bad attitudes.

The following seems like a useful reference on the topic: Geography: discipline, profession, and subject since 1870.

For a flavor of how the profession seems to feel about its state, it is informative to read “Citation for Harm J. de Blij, Ph.D. 2006 Recipient of the George J. Miller Award for Distinguished Service to Geographic Education”. It begins as follows:

Being a geographer in the United States during the past several decades has inevitably meant taking on a cause. That cause is a product of the systematic marginalization of the discipline in K-12 education, the closing of geography departments at some of the nation's leading universities, and the neglect of the discipline at many of America's liberal arts colleges-and even some of its prominent public universities. The social implications of these educational failings serve as the principal rallying points for the cause: an American population largely ignorant of the nature and significance of differences from place to place.

Someone closer to geography than I am might use the references above as a starting point to write something about this topic. Reuqr (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, this supposed "decline" does not account for two important new developments: the development of satellite-imagery and GIS software has significantly increased the application of geography to non-academic work (e.g. military use, industrial logistics, ecological restoration, etc), and the current of Political Ecology that developed among many geographers has significantly increased interdisciplinary activities of geographers. Consequently, several geographers (even those with only BS or MA degrees) are being increasingly hired outside of academia, and several geographers (particularly those with PhDs who work in Political Ecology broadly conceived) are being hired in non-geography departments at several universities.

Moreover, as the presidential address made during the 2011 AAG Annual Conference highlighted, the revolutionary wave reverberating through the Arab world and other surges of social movements in Europe, the US and elsewhere have expressed themselves in remarkably geographical terms - from the urban-character of Arab uprisings to the occupation of public space by the Indignados and Occupy movements - echoing and strengthening the public exposure and social engagement of many geographers. Indeed, even if geography might perceive itself to be facing a crisis in terms of the "constitution of the discipline" within academia, geography is still one of the best situated fields of social science to analyze and engage critically important events of our age.

Ultimately, this is not the first time and likely won't be the last time that geography as a discipline faces this "crisis". During the first two decades of the 20th century, Harvard shut down its department of geography, triggering very similar concerns to those raised above. Indeed, the discipline went through a transformation, as other prominent universities like the University of California at Berkeley (under the auspices of Carl Sauer) developed the cultural and human aspects of the discipline beyond its previous limitations. The additional concerns over the poor quality of K-12 education and lack of resources dedicated to education are more deeply seated problems with economic austerity and the abandonment of public education, not particularities of geography as a discipline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.174.1 (talk) 07:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no decline in academic geography. It is simply returning to its roots as a pure physical/natural science and going through a naming crisis because it now overlaps so much with environmental studies and environmental science. In grade school I hated geography because it was "sociology with maps". We looked at a map then watched a movie about tribal people trading bags of spice. The emergence of environmentalism and geographic information systems (GIS) as the primary applications of geography has resulted in more academic emphasis on meteorology/ecology/oceanography/cartography/computing/etc and (far) less on human cultures. The two schools I attended are excellent examples. At UCLA, the Geography and Environmental Studies majors are merged into a single major. At UC Santa Barbara, the Geographic Information Systems and Physical Geography majors are clearly defined sciences, while the plain Geography major seems to be suffering from a serious identify crisis as a venue for watered down "green sociology" and an excuse to travel. So in a way, Geography is actually emerging from the dark age that fell between the end of the mapping of the new world and the invention of GIS. It's returned to it's technical roots and no longer has to cling to existence as a vague social science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.165.96 (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

These two comments are very interesting indeed, and very well written. Would you please consider adding some of what you wrote to the article itself? Reuqr (talk) 10:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

geography/coğrafya

5.44.39.90 (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. If you're asking that a Facebook page be linked, we avoid such links on Wikipedia (see the guideline). Rivertorch (talk) 08:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This page has been semi-protected for almost 4 years. I haven't gone back in the history to see why it was worthy of protection to begin with but maybe it's time to test removing the protection? is there a particular reason this is a target? Thanks --Jeremyb (talk) 04:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

done by Swarm, now pending changes w/ auto accept autoconfirmed. (discussion) --Jeremyb (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it was previously under pending changes during the original trial, and when the trial ended it was placed under semi-protection. Now that pending changes is reinstated I'll keep an eye on it and if it seems to be necessary will extend it beyond the current month. Otherwise it'll be unprotected after one month. Swarm ^X 18:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I saw the different opinion about the functional attribution of Geomatics. Part of Geography or not? I undid the deletion, because from my point of view it is a geographic discipline. A lot of departments of geography expulse geomatics in their administrative structure, including their research in GIS and remote sensing.

TünnesUndSchäl (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, as a Geodesy Student and GIS Expert, I firmly believe that the Geomatics is not a branch of Geography. Just because it starts with a Geo and it is one of the Earth sciencies it doesn't mean it has to be a branch of the Geography.

If you take a look at the definition of Geomatics: ^[1] it is perfectly clear that this is a discipline closely related to Geodesy.

You might have confused it with Geoinformatics.

Geoinformatics (and Geomatics) have off course found numerous applications in Geography, and the students of Geography have some knowledge of Geomatics, but that it is far away from what the knowledge that Geodesy students have. I can confirm that by seeing what kind of a knowledge most of the Geography colleagues that I work with have.

Geomatics should be removed from the list of the branches of Geography, and moved to related fields section.

Ivan Grcic 31 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.209.204.2 (talk)

Which caption is more correct:

• Self portrait of Alexander von Humboldt, one of the early pioneers of geography
• Self portrait of Alexander von Humboldt, one of the early pioneers of geography as an academic subject in modern sense

If you think both are not good, please suggest another text. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hampl, Martin (2000). Reality, Society and Geographical/Environmental Organization: Searching for an Integrated Order. DemoArt & Charles University, Faculty of Science. ISBN 80-902686-2-5.

62.168.13.98 (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161018192946/http://www.rgs.org/AboutUs/About+us.htm to http://www.rgs.org/AboutUs/about+us.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rgo.org.ru/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

While "geography" once applied only to the Earth, we have an article called Geography of Mars. Others, not least NASA, use the term "Lunar geography". Ho can we deal with this, in this article? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, the article is about the Earth science (which is still the principal meaning of the word), not the word itself. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to briefly mention that the word is now applied extraterrestrially, but I don't suppose those applications need to be discussed in this article. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 06:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Need more information yeah? Why not write your views and ask your questions let's talk it out Orumen (talk) 02:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

What is the role of dynamic geomorphology in planning? That is; how can the understanding of dynamic geomorphology help in planning? Dop bisona doris (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

... is a town in Saskatchewan, Canada 71.17.12.30 (talk) 12:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you change the 2004 world map in the top of the page to the 2016 world map in the link below? It features the newest countries of South Sudan, Kosovo, Montenegro, and Serbia. The political borders in 2016 remain unchanged today.https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/graphics/ref_maps/physical/pdf/world.pdf 75.67.58.188 (talk) 10:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Not done: Your request consists only of a vague request to add, update, modify, or improve an image, or is a request to include an image that is hosted on an external site. If you want an image changed, you must identify a specific image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. Please note that any image used on any Wikipedia article must comply with the Wikipedia image use policy, particularly where copyright is concerned. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you upload the photo to Wikipedia? I believe this photo complies with the image use policy because the image is a work of the US federal government and is therefore in the public domain. I believe this image should replace the current image because it shows the current borders of the countries of the world. Tell me what you think. 2601:183:101:58D0:99E1:AE4D:5E71:8683 (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll try, but the image is in PDF format so I'm not sure. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I used an image converter to convert the pdf to png and it worked out fairly well. 2601:183:101:58D0:84FE:46FE:9246:EE31 (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes the image would fall under {{PD-USGov}}}} however the image will be of low quality if pdf-to-png is used. Please link an image not a PDF -- Waddie96 (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is a link to the same file in JPG format. Please let me know if this format works: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oLn_rK_bH2vTQPcD35HuMnOvb4hE5MlK/view?usp=sharing 2601:183:101:58D0:DC93:BDE8:FEEF:1DE5 (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Unfortunately, the image you provided is of very low quality compared to the image currently in use. You are more than welcome to find a better quality image and create a new semi-protected edit request. Thank you for your interest! Waddie96 (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Following an edit request, how about this file in SVG format and that I believe is in high quality: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Fn9yS1hukGasgYr5VMiLLuIq2iSU7YFI/view?usp=sharing. The file may not appear high quality, but if you download it and open it in a web browser (Internet Explorer for best results), it should appear high quality. If this file does not work, what is the best file format and what dimensions should I use in this case? 2601:183:101:58D0:F1EC:3592:BEF0:4D9F (talk) 00:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I was doing this, but I'm not sure if it is free to use. Otherwise, I will upload and include it in the article. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done: I will upload this file as it falls under {{PD-USGov}}. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Add (already included in another Wikipedia page, but should be included here too): According to Walter Tobler, the First Law of Geography states that "everything is related to everything else, but near things are more related than distant things." Ed sanfrancisco (talk) 05:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

This is referring to Tobler's first law of geography (which I was honestly a bit surprised to find a blue link for). My initial inclination is to decline this since I don't know where to put it within this article, and also since the requested text feels like it needs more context - this sounds more to me like the start of a paragraph or a section discussing this than just a bare statement. It also seems like it may be too technical for addition to a general article like this, but that could just be because I have no idea what that article is talking about. Leaving this request open for now to get additional opinions. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I agree with you ElHef. I am not sure exactly what and where to put it. @Ed sanfrancisco: Could you spell out exactly what you are thinking edit wise? Dolotta (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Akhmas Karim benzema (talk) 08:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

geography derived from 2 words geo means sphere and graphe means studying on a scale

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 09:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

What's the difference between the section listing the notable geographers and geographical discoveries? It already lists the contributions and discoveries geographers made in the "notable geographers" section. Is there a purpose for the "geographical discoveries" section that I don't understand, or should it just be deleted? --HyettsTheGamer2 (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Indian Geography Book- https://sarkariok.com/geography-book-in-hindi/

2409:4063:2384:DC7:A533:CF95:F534:EE53 (talk) 08:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 10:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes Malusi andile (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

An inclusion of discoveries or noteworthy geographical papers/reports is lacking. --Nhyman22 (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Mahmud al-Kashgari was a Turkic (not a Turkish) geographer, and more a linguist than a geographer.Тангичи (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes 94.6.65.185 (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Factors which have led to massive forest destruction in Ghana 41.210.159.242 (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Dushan Jugum (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

What is the relief n topography? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.191.107.135 (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Cov. Co 2800:484:B88B:6540:481A:6D5B:BCC6:6290 (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Drought — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:2880:31FF:1C:0:0:FACE:B00C (talk) 10:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

cyclone 41.114.50.253 (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The four grand traditions probably warrant their own section. Geographic Information Science has become a massive part of the discipline and perhaps the branches section should be reorganized to reflect that.A section on the Law(s) of geography.GeogSage (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I suggest a "Suggested Reading" sectionGeogSage (talk)

I have added a section on four traditions to parallel the branches. The grand traditions are more theoretical, while the branches are practical.

I added a section on laws of geography along with other key concepts.

In retrospect, "suggested readings" is probably far too broad to make a section. We could never actually create a comprehensive section on this.

GeogSage (talk) 02:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I've been working on adding more sources to the article, however, it needs more work. I think that fixing this should be a high priority. I am not sure how many sources it would need to eliminate the template, so if anyone has any idea that would be great. GeogSage (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I believe that we may be approaching the point that the 2018 template message could be removed. I think every section has some citations. I don't want to remove it without some form of consensus from other people.GeogSage (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Deleting maintenance template pertaining to sources. Some sections may need additional sources, but overall the article appears well sourced. As no one has responded on talk or other places I've reached out, I will assume silent consensus.GeogSage (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Classification — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.159.237.220 (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? GeogSage (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Osmosis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.108.90.166 (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Rotation of the earth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.108.90.166 (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you elaborateGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)