This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CJTheReader.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Saw2188, Kevinmccarthy25.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Saw2188 and Kevinmccarthy25, this is a huge improvement over the previous page, on an ambitious topic. Here are some reflections and suggestions for improvement:
Chrisblattman ( talk) 18:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
-- Sarah Whittenburg ( talk) 05:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
The article repeatedly states that it has been debunked in academic circles but I don't see any convincing arguments as to how exactly, or links to the opposing views that have supplanted environmental determinism. Saying it's bad because it justifies colonialism or racism or whatever does not say anything as to whether or not it is actually valid, but I can't really see any other "reasons" as to why it is considered "debunked." Not to mention, how can it possibly be "racist" if it posits that the it's the environment that shapes human culture and development, not heritable traits. Reading this feels like I'm reading an article on genetic determinism by mistake.
There is also way to much space taken up by Jared Diamond's work. Put a link to his pop-history book somewhere, sure, but I'd rather hear from the opinions of the authors from the time period when environmental determinism was actually considered a relevant approach.
It's generally a very verbose article, with too much devoted to it's criticism or perceived negative consequences. That aspect should be contained within its own section, not sprinkled throughout the whole thing. 50.71.184.223 ( talk) 23:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Lots of missed opportunities, though I'm surprised that there are so few general studies of environmental determinism. So maybe part of the problem is that scholarship is still lacking ... even after all these centuries. 98.115.255.240 ( talk) 12:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CJTheReader.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Saw2188, Kevinmccarthy25.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Saw2188 and Kevinmccarthy25, this is a huge improvement over the previous page, on an ambitious topic. Here are some reflections and suggestions for improvement:
Chrisblattman ( talk) 18:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
-- Sarah Whittenburg ( talk) 05:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
The article repeatedly states that it has been debunked in academic circles but I don't see any convincing arguments as to how exactly, or links to the opposing views that have supplanted environmental determinism. Saying it's bad because it justifies colonialism or racism or whatever does not say anything as to whether or not it is actually valid, but I can't really see any other "reasons" as to why it is considered "debunked." Not to mention, how can it possibly be "racist" if it posits that the it's the environment that shapes human culture and development, not heritable traits. Reading this feels like I'm reading an article on genetic determinism by mistake.
There is also way to much space taken up by Jared Diamond's work. Put a link to his pop-history book somewhere, sure, but I'd rather hear from the opinions of the authors from the time period when environmental determinism was actually considered a relevant approach.
It's generally a very verbose article, with too much devoted to it's criticism or perceived negative consequences. That aspect should be contained within its own section, not sprinkled throughout the whole thing. 50.71.184.223 ( talk) 23:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Lots of missed opportunities, though I'm surprised that there are so few general studies of environmental determinism. So maybe part of the problem is that scholarship is still lacking ... even after all these centuries. 98.115.255.240 ( talk) 12:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)