Talk:Ecopsychology

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Mount Allison University supported by WikiProject Anthropology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from on 14:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Book importance
I think this Ecopsychology article overrates the book Ecopsychology (1995). The term and idea of e. is older than that. John Scull's excellent article makes that clear. - Jussi Hirvi (8 Dec. 2005)

I just cleaned this up by adding a reference to Roszak's earlier (and better) The Voice of the Earth. I didn't change the reference to the other book, though, since it's a collective work. The fact that Roszak gets so much credit is that he's a shameless publicity hound, as are many scholars, especially those who like to coin terms and phrases. It kind of goes with the territory, doesn't it? - Danielbu (22 Apr. 2007)

Founder link
This isn't linked to from the article on the founder. Secretlondon 11:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC). Omission has been fixed by other by this date. --Lauriec 08:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean Theorore Roszak? It's linked now (not by me).

Shamanic counselling
Shamanic counselling is quite different than Ecopsychology, though the two operate under similar principles. An analogy would like saying that a lamp is synonymous with electricity. Solace098 19:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please point out the difference in the article. I mentioned shamanism as there is a chapter on it by Leslie Gray 'Shamanic counceling and ecopsychology', pages 172-182, in the book Ecopsychology 1995 edited by Roszak, Gomes and Kanner--Lauriec 08:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Some think this article is biased.
It assumes that this theory is scientifically sound, completely correct, and contains absolutely no criticism of ecopsychology. It is also written in a confusing and obscuring style, which makes it very difficult for most readers to comprehend. Lord Patrick 03:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The article probably does need a section called 'controversies', as in the evolutionary psychology article. Rather than can it, why not do it? I'd be happy to see some editing from non believers, so we have some detail to improve. Cheers--Lauriec 08:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreement; this article reads as a shill for the links appended at the end. Normally there's a fair correlation between the content of the article and the amount of external links given, but not here. 24.151.128.208 20:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

'''Disagreement: I don't find this article biased, I'm just unhappy with its sloppy writing and lack of citations. Maybe the folks who think it's biased should ammend the article with a paragraph or two (plus links and citations) supporting their arguments.'''

Disagree: Can I just add that this is nothing new or unscientific, in its truest sense. See Goethe's writing on what a true science should encompass. Or, better yet, see Laura Sewall Tarcher/Putnam, 1999.
 * Sight and Sensibility: The Ecopsychology of Perception*

Man, woman, wake up. It's not just about what comes in, but what's coming out too.

Agree: the article uses quite a lot of words like sane, crazy, excellent, and so on, in a factual context and with very little qualification. Few claims are substantiated by a proper citation, and some are even blatantly unpsychological: e.g. not one of self-centeredness, alienation or insensitivity has anything to do with delusional thinking. As a result, the article seems more like a tract than an encyclopedic treatment of the subject. Decoy (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've addressed the advertising wording, I've look hard for criticism but didn't find any. Evolutionary psychology is more controversial as it makes specific claims / predictions that are up for debate. Ecopsychology, not as much. One could fault ecopsychology for being more spiritual in practice than scientific, there would need to be reliable source to back that up. - RoyBoy 22:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

References missing
As there are no references at the end of the article, it really should have a tag to indicate this. I have put in the link to transpersonal ecology -  as the person who started that article, I have included some references, but these are all journal articles from "Journal of Transpersonal Psychology". If any one has read books by Warwick Fox, it would be good if s/he could cite these both here and at the end of the article transpersonal ecology. ACEOREVIVED 22:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope folk do not object, but I have now added a tag to note that this is an article with a lack of sources - apart from websites, there are no references at the end. ACEOREVIVED 21:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

References added. Lauriec (talk) 11:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Conservation Psychology
My suggestion is to keep the two separate, but place a link to each, such as under the 'also' heading. Both topics have a different set of references and workers in the field. They may be working in parallel and should combine in the scientific literature. But that is not for wikipedia to do. Lauriec (talk) 10:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the two are separate Roszak and others didn't want to see ecopsychology become just another discipline within psychology of which conservation psychology arguably is, there may also be different arguments drawing upon different ontologies and epistemologies underpinning the two

My experience has been that conservation psychology is mostly interested in seeking ways to change behaviors using existing psychological paradigms as the basis of research. This includes either a very physical-chemical oriented approach to the human brain, or some of the "personality complex" theories that trace back to Freud. Ecopsychology is more interested in how to change the *values* that underlie environmental behaviors - therefore I believe that the two are very different and should remain separate.

Psychoecology
I think psychoecology and Ecopsychology are diferent and the first one should have its own article. A french writer (Jean Pierre Alain FAYE) defines precisely this concept: http://www.psychoecologie.net/ --Ecureuil espagnol (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

•	Conservation psychology’ is a new name for a convergent area of applied psychology which has been more directly involved with conservation initiatives, targeted behaviour change to protect the natural environment, people-animal interactions, and the human side of natural resource management. Conservation psychology is also a network of researchers and practitioners who work together to understand and promote a sustainable and harmonious relationship between people and the natural environment (e.g., Saunders, 2003; Saunders, Brook & Meyers, 2006).

•	Ecological psychology refers both to the work of environmental perception and cognition, following from the work of Gibson (1966, 1979) and the revolutionary and paradigmatic shift proposed by more contemporary theorists (e.g., Heft, 2001; Reed, 1996). Ecological psychology also refers to the work and perspective of Barker and his disciples (e.g., Barker, 1968, 1976; Wicker, 1979, 2002), the developmental framework of Bronfenbrenner (e.g., 1979), and some more recent psychological perspectives on environmental problems and sustainability (e.g., Howard, 1997; Winter, 1996).

•	Ecopsychology is a much more encompassing humanities and cultural studies perspective and movement concerned with people-natural environment connections and well being, with some psychology representation, but with roots in the broader environmental and human potential movements, and strong spiritual and therapeutic leanings and objectives (e.g., Reser, 1995; Roszak et al., 1995). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkarma (talk • contribs) 08:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

University Assignment
Howdy, folks! I'm the university student who's working on this article as an anthropology assignment, as per the banner above. Yes, I know it has been a while since I put that banner up there... alas, scheduling. So far, my plan is to delve into those referrences and sources, and do something about fixing the in-text citation issue. I'm also going to try using my university resources to see if I can find any relevant material, and trying my hand at some copyediting, since I have been led to believe that I'm good at making things read nice. I'll add to my mission statement if I think of anything else, and if there's anything anybody thinks I should try doing, feel free to shout! EmeraldWithin (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are all the websites an online sources I have extracted material from.
 * (n.d.). Gaia Psychology. Retrieved from http://www.gaiapsychology.org/
 * Anderson, G. (n.d.). About eco-psychology. Retrieved from http://www.eco-psychology.com/pages/about_ecopsychology.asp
 * Schroll, M.,A., Walker, H. (2011). Diagnosing the human superiority complex: Providing evidence the eco-crisis is born of conscious agency [Abstract]. Anthropology of Consciousness, 22(1), 39-48.
 * Hillard, H. J. (2009). Review [Review of the book Out of the shadow: Ecopsychology, story, and encounters with the land]. MELUS, 34(2), 194-196. Available from JSTOR Web site: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20532687?&Search=yes&searchText=ecopsychology&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Decopsychology%26acc%3Don%26wc%3Don&prevSearch=&item=1&ttl=42&returnArticleService=showFullText
 * Burke, B. M. (1996). Managed growth and optimum population: Irreconcilable concepts. Population and Environment, 17(6), 537-544.
 * Roszack, T. (1993, January). A new therapy [Letter to the editor]. BioScience, 34(2), 3.

EmeraldWithin (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello EmeraldWithin and welcome! Talk posts go at the bottom of the page and if you have any questions about WP you can leave a message on my take page linked at the end of my sig.   Alternatively you can use the  template on your talk page and someone will answer your inquiry shortly.  There are a lot of policies on WP but generally if you stick to sources and use neutral writing you should be fine.  N o f o rmation  Talk  23:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Application
Perhaps there should be a section devoted to the applications of ecopsychology and a list of "peer-reviewed" therapies developed from this area of research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcalder (talk • contribs) 19:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Notability?
One editor asked me to justify adding the notability tag: My concern was that the sources attached to this article were either self-published (Anderson, giapsychology). We only seem to have one article that mentions the topic in any significant way (psychology today), and I'm not sure if that alone implies notability for this subject. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Psychology Capstone
— Assignment last updated by Alaynna2023 (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi everyone! New Wikipedia editor here! I am in a capstone class for my psychology degree and have a natural affinity for learning about how nature and psych interact. While reading the article, I saw a distinct lack of sources that connected the theories for ecopsychology to the BIPOC practices most of the basis of ecopsychology derives from. I am looking to add a cultural connection section, as I believe it is important to give credit where credit is due. Please let me know if you come across anything, and/or if you have some advice. I'm still a little shaky on what's considered a good source, but look forward to editing with y'all! Psychologylearner1 (talk) 06:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * HelloI just came across your article, and noted the point about deficiencies in the field of ecopsychology.I'm thinking that my ideas about ecological restoration as a context for negotiating a positive relationship between an ecosystem and its human inhabitants might be of interest. For one thing, it is based in part on a theory of the experience of values such as community and beauty that is not sentimental, but proposes that the human experience of the "other," including the rest of nature entails the experience of existential shame, and that performance, ritual and the arts provide the crucial technologies for "metabolizing" this in an emotionally productive way, passing, as Frederick Turner has said, "through shame to beauty". Hence the notion of restoration as a context for ritual, and so a way of engaging the shame arising from our experience of the other (including what we may have done to it) and dealing with it productively. If you'd like to check this out, perhaps the most relevant source for my thinking about this is my book "The Sunflower Forest: Ecological Restoration and the New Communion with Nature" (California, 2003). William R. Jordan III (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

"Reearthing" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reearthing&redirect=no Reearthing] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Skarmory  (talk •   contribs)  07:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

PhDelity
There was a recent addition that I have undone.


 * Connectedness to Nature and to Humanity: their association and personality correlates contains the word ecopsychology just once, because it uses a reference from the journal with that name.
 * Acute, subacute and long-term subjective effects of psilocybin in healthy humans: a pooled analysis of experimental studies does not contain the word ecopsychology
 * Lifetime experience with (classic) psychedelics predicts pro-environmental behavior through an increase in nature relatedness contains it once, because it references a book with that title.
 * From Egoism to Ecoism: Psychedelics Increase Nature Relatedness in a State-Mediated and Context-Dependent Manner contains the word 1 time in the body of the text, and it references the same book and 2 articles in that journal.

So it appears that the addition is original research. Polygnotus (talk) 08:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)