Talk:Ecopsychology

This page is total bullshit. Like seriously. ArmyOfFluoride (talk) 04:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Sight and Sensibility: The Ecopsychology of Perception*

Tarcher/Putnam, 1999.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]