Talk:Political ecology

Proposed External Link
Hello to anyone interested in PE. I am seeking to list an external link with out running afoul of WP rules. The site is called Political Ecology and consists of screened summaries of recent PE related research and news from specialized journals and many other sources. The justification for this site is that it would be impossible for anyone to stay informed on all the journals and news sources covered therein. I believe that this site is extremely useful for everyone in the PE community, but then again I am also its editor and publisher. Since this disqualifies me from self-listing the site as an external link, I am asking for anyone to have a look and then add the external link. Here is the link html which can be copied and pasted directly into the external link editing window: Political Ecology: http://politicalecology.xyvy.info I appreciate your consideration. Utopian100, MPA-JD, Environmental Science and Policy Utopian100 (talk) 11:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Dead link... DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Works okay now, thanks. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This link has been functional for over four years. Perhaps there is a reason why you were not able to access it. I don't know, but the link is alive and well. Utopian100 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Proposed External Link
I wanted to contribute some reorganizations and grouping to this article, although I don't have the time to look up the uncited example in the introduction. Utopian100: I found your suggested link very informative and useful, and have added it to the External Links section. --Topher Hunt (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Article Peer Review
Peer Review by MTA Student: This Article has a really great list of related journals, and an extensive list of links to other Wikipedia articles that are to do with the topic of Political Ecology. The list of references is also extensive, and therefore very useful. However, the in-text citations are extremely confusing. The citations are in-text which makes the article very difficult to read, and the citations also did not follow the same citation style throughout. This therefore makes the article much more difficult to read than need be. The list of scholars provided is also very useful, but the majority are lacking links or references to where the reader can find more information about them. As well as this, having looked at the page reviews at the base of the page, it seems to be argued by a few reviewers that the article is not as well-written as it should be. The neutrality of the article is not disputed, but the article could be edited more extensively, as it is very long in some of its descriptions. Jmmacphail (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Peer review by MTA student # 2: I agree with the previous comments. I think that there is a good basis for the article in the way of references and materials to make beneficial changes and improve the article. I definitely think that the citations, though extensive, need to be turned into in-text citations as to help readers learn more about the topics. In addition to the above comments there are some some individuals in the list of scholars that have existing articles yet there are no links to them. I suggest that you go through the list and making the necessary link connections. Good luck with the improvements!MelaineH (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Socio Ecolo Evolutionists
The couple of sentences on the socio ecolo evolutionists may have some relevance here, but it difficult for me to tell. It would be useful to broaden the scope of this article, I think, to consider political ecology from a variety of perspectives around the world. At the same time, this reference does not seem to fit well under 'Relationship to Anthropology and Geography'. Underlying this, perhaps, may be the two different uses of the term 'political ecology', a more action-oriented one from green-left social movements, and a second more academic one from the social sciences. Maybe a new section is needed in this article on the former; in there the Socio Ecolo Evolutionists may fit better than the current placement. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

More Peer Review
I'm a political ecology grad student in a major PE-focused department. I've never actually looked at this article before and in reading it found a number of errors or spaces with a general lack of clarity. I will outline some of them below but I do not have the time nor the knowhow to make the changes myself.

In the origins section, the first use of the term political ecology is nearly irrelevant to the modern field. The more modern origins are correctly stated in relationships between PE and cultural ecology.

The scholars and major theorists section is correct but there are a number of important people missing from the various sub-subfields including Nik Heynen (urban), James McCarthy (first world), and Diane Rocheleau (feminist). It may be useful to break scholars up based on these distinctions as well.

The section on scope and influences is composed a bit oddly as well. It shows a false binary between viewing how politics affect environment and vice versa. One of the key facets of political ecology is the extension of political economy into cultural ecology, as mentioned in the relationship section. Cultural ecology, though, looked at human factors as being a part of ecological processes. People not only have effects on nature but nature has effects on people as well. The entire article leaves out the role of historical processes in the sociocultural creation of environments as well. When considering these factors politics affecting environments and environments affecting politics are seen as mutually occurring events.

In the relationship section the last paragraph states that one of the problems is the (neo-)Marxist approach linked to political ecology is a limiting factor given the global capitalist market. Considering that (neo-)Marxist approaches seek to critique capitalist processes this seems like an irrelevant point. Anecdotally, these come from Walker's writings attempting to critique political ecology and these have become a bit of joke to most people I've spoken to and at PE conferences. It should be noted that while the discipline does have its roots in anthropology much of the work in political ecology is being done by geographers and that these aren't the only two fields working in the discipline.

The relationship to conservation section's first paragraph reads like an extract from an introductory paragraph of an essay. There is nothing particularly bad or wrong about it but it is not encyclopedic in style and lacks a bit of empirical substance. The rest of the section could be reworked to read more clearly and incorporate more information and sources.

The journals section seems like an odd inclusion. Political ecology works are published in a huge variety of journals and very few are specific to the field. PEStudent (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with PEStudent that "The relationship to conservation" section is unreadable and does not contribute substantially to this article. I suggest to delete. Northwind Arrow (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Missing bibliography item
29- Hanna, et al., 2004: 203. has no proper reference in bibliography. Not sure how to fix this myself so I thought I'd drop it here GeforceRTX3080 (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)