I strongly suggest moving this article to a temporary but clearly neutral and descriptive home before starting a discussion on a new name, which is likely to take a long time. [[User:Martin Hogbin|Martin Hogbin]] ([[User talk:Martin Hogbin|talk]]) 08:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Horticulture and Gardening on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Horticulture and GardeningWikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningTemplate:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningHorticulture and gardening articles
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
The lead was recently rewritten/reduced. Per WP:LEAD, "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article." Hence I recommend that most of the previous content be restored, but incorporating any necessary rewriting for style and accuracy. (To be specific: for a FA quality article, the lead should be able to be mostly copy&pasted as the summary blurb on the main page.) See the guideline page for further details. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, the top image was moved down to be next to the appropriate section, which I agree with, but we now lack a lead image. I'd suggest File:Neadle.jpg is possibly the most appropriate (it is interesting, it is created by an important historical figure in the art, and it is understandable at thumbnail-size and fullsize). Other suggestions welcome though. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the page before the changes [1] I had done some work on the Alternative names adding details about the names with references. Today the page is missing approximately 450 words of text. Whole sections have been removed. The two methods have been diluted and blended with some of the original references removed. There seems to be too many images to the text now and the lead is not a proper summary of the page. I feel the page has been effectively vandalized. @Slowart good luck with your lecture on arborsculpture at the International Society of Arboriculture. Blackashhave a chat 15:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Quiddity on both need for and choice of image for the lead. Fully support expanding summary, but not by directly repeating content in the article. Blackash, the page has not been vandalized. With the exception of deleting a single reference that was neither intelligible nor functional, I was careful to keep all references both intact and with the statements they referenced. If I missed any, it was unintentional. If I somehow misconstrued their proper location, please set that right without adding back repetitive material. I DID remove a LOT of repetitive material, particularly the direct repetition in the lead of two paragraphs from the article. That's not summarizing. . I reorganized and consolidated a number of verbose, clunky, and grammatically incorrect sentences and paragraphs, in several sections, into concise statements and ideas that flow from one to the next, hopefully building and conveying the idea smoothly. Word count is not a measure of informative content. It's supposed to be a concise encyclopedic article about arborsculpture, now being referred to by consensus (this I assume) as tree shaping. It's not a book. It's not supposed to be a how-to manual. It's not "battle of the sculptors and the finer fractional points of their methods," nor is it a debate on whose artistic technique is more pure, nor whose book is more popular or true, nor who sells more mirrors. I strove for neutrality, well aware of the ongoing editing issues among the (IMO) way-too-involved author/editor/artist/arborists who currently monitor this page. For just a single sticky example, waxing on about one's own (or someone elses) worldwide acclaim is not only not encyclopedic, it's unseemly. It is made immeasurably more so by adding copious and ever-more-poorly formatted references to the insisted acclaim. Further, there are several sections I haven't yet hammered at, that need it. Most particularly the protracted sections comparing arborsculpture to (and from this reader's perspective, defending it from encroachment by) each and every other horticultural art & practice. These sorts of writing read tensely and uncomfortably, like an argument, detracting from the fascinating topic. There may indeed be too many images for the text. Perhaps one exemplary image per artist is enough after all. ;) Duff (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with Duff, you have lied, for example about only removing one reference, in the Alternative names section there were 5 references with text which you removed and no longer appear any where on the article. missing Alternative names section In the history editors have agreed not to have any alternative names in the lead. Alternative names section should be put back to follow Wikipedia:LEADAlternative names quote
"Separate section usage
Alternatively, if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line."
It is not appropriate to have removed the Alternative names section and put the list of names back in the lead. Blackashhave a chat 02:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have multiple issues with your edits. I see now that it wasn't simple vandalism but a tactical step in a planed agenda. Blackashhave a chat 02:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"you have lied??" Reiterating: "If I missed any, it was unintentional." Thanks for continuing to Assume good faith, because I'll appreciate a civil discussion. My only agenda is a better wikipedia article. Duff (talk) 07:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I never thought it was right to change the name of this article to tree shaping. The editor who changed the page FYI AfD hero ( no edits since 2-09). The article name was changed [[2]] during an AFD on a different page. if anyone is interested. You are right, I am way-too-involved, now that there is more than one other person with this page on their watchlist, I am happy be be uninvolved. Good work on the article.Slowart (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AKA Other Alternate Alternatives
Alternative names or Other names
I changed other names in the lead back to alternative names as alternative names is more commonly used than other names in wiki articles and the section name is alternative names.Blackashhave a chat 03:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with that edit revert. Other names is more appropriate in this wikipedia article because the other names used (not the several recently added which are NOT synonymous) are strongly associated with the art and should not be burdened with the dismissive undertone of 'alternativeness'. Your campaign to diminish or discredit the use of the word arborsculpture, by any and all means, while promoting an pushing forward the repetitive use of your preferred trade names is transparent, itches, and has my attention. Please take a breather. Thanks. Duff (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative is the wording most in use though out Wikipedia articles.
The dismissive tone you think is there is also being applied to pooktre our "trade name" maybe the problem is not the tone but the fact you have a bias and you are seeing it in a more negative view than is warranted.
Which ones are you saying were just recently added? Blackashhave a chat 00:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative or Alternate
(moved following comment from new section @ the bottom up to and as a subheading of the discussion it pertains to)
Changing Alternative to Alternate doesn't make sense. Blackashhave a chat 00:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does it make any more sense to you when you consider it here, in the context of yesterday's discussion? It's an attempt at a compromise. Maybe usage is different in Australia, but I don't think so, and it may just be a nuance of the English language with which you are unfamiliar. Alternate is less dismissive than alternative. Using the word alternative conveys an air of fringe-ness to all the names it refers to, which isn't conveyed so obviously by either of the words 'other' or 'alternate.' Let's get consensus on this before you revert it again, please. Duff (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate your innuendo that I don't understand large words. Here is a link to dictionary.com with alternate and it's meaning. Alternate is not the right word when used in the context that you are wanting to use it. Try a different compromise. Blackashhave a chat 22:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I neither made nor meant any innuendo concerning "large words". My comment concerned the nuanced bias conveyed by the specific choice of the word Alternative. I was attempting to be as generous as possible in accommodating the possibilities that a) usage of the word Alternative in Australia may not be burdened with the same nuanced bias as its use is here, or b) that you may not be familiar with the bias inherent in its usage here and elsewhere, or c) if the nuanced bias is also present with usage of the word alternative in Australia, you may not be aware of it. Alternate conveys less bias than does Alternative. I stand by that preferred compromise, but also offer Synonyms and Synonymous Words as two other alternates with which I would also be satisfied as to neutrality. Duff (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Synonyms or Synonymous words seems to give to much weight to the names. Alternate is just wrong. I stand by that it should be Alternative names for the reasons listed above. Blackashhave a chat 10:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welp, I don't mind waiting for further consensus to develop. Concerning your sense that any choice other than Alternative gives too "much weight to the names," I understand your perspective and why you have it, but I do not share your view. My sense, which is also open to change, is that the names treeshaping and Pooktre, have both been given entirely disproportionate weight for the topic, largely due to your directly involved and persistent influence. Less so (but still so) for the other "alternative names" dragged in to assert your case. I have expressed this clearly in previous comments. This is not bias. It is legitimate criticism and you've earned it. I get that you feel targeted, because you've placed a lot of your own energy in the article, but please recognize that doing so, in the way that you have, is improper. You'd be doing yourself and your reputation a huge favor to just accept that gracefully, learn from it, and move on. Eventually there probably will be separate articles spun out for Pooktre, for Reames, and for Cattle; you are all interesting and notable enough, I suspect, and YOU are going to have to learn to sit on your hands and restrain yourself from editing those too.
Other editors, including me, are working our way through a very long list of citations; many if not most of which are: added by you, duplicitous, oblique, poorly formatted, and missing key information. These factors alone cast serious doubt on the validity of the citations and that is why they are now under such intense scrutiny. Up until this point, that work has been complicated by your continued reverting of refs and facts that do not suit you, and you've made a lot of extra work. The task is to standardize formats on each reference, get all the cite info, read the material cited, verify its applicability to the content cited, and then properly analyze each individual citation for reliability. That will take some time, but it is crucial to fairly assessing how much weight is due in several areas. I trust that approach and your scholarly side should trust that approach too. Again, there is no hurry. If it doesn't get completely ironed out before your book release date, please just chalk it up to unpaid volunteers who must do other work (and even sleep!) at times, and who, you need to understand this, aren't doing this work to benefit you. Surely your 70+ tree shaping projects could benefit from your expert attention. Get some sleep, work on your own book bibliography, and avail yourself of some other legitimate avenues of marketing, OK? Not a big deal. Trust that the article will turn out well. You've done enough. Take comfort in the fact, if you can accept it, that I have no stake in the outcome, have nothing against you personally, am not professionally involved in your craft, and am working on the article solely for the purpose of making it better.Duff (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm so that's your compromise, putting in the wording you wanted in the first place. Are you trying to imply that I'm in a rush? Remember I watch trees grow. Blackashhave a chat 11:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that was my compromise, and now you have ignored the above discussion and admin comments, to wit: "Quiddity:I strongly agree that Blackash should not be editing this article with anywhere near the current magnitude. Blackash, I suggest you reread Wikipedia:COI#Non-controversial edits." Instead of following Quiddity's suggestion, you have boldly reverted what has already been noted as controversial, in its entirety, to the term you prefer. As I have stated, it is non-neutral, as it conveys fringe-ness where there is no consensus to relegate all of the other names to fringe-status by choosing a less-than-neutral section titling term to infer this lack of weight upon the other names. Let's don't call it rushing, shall we? Let's call it instead, what it is: refusing to wait for consensus, refusing to take note of admin instruction (that's meaning 1b @ Merriam-Webster on the word 'instruction', "a direction calling for compliance"), and instead plunging on forward at the same or greater level of magnitude, as previously uncomfortably stated here. Here is only the most recent specific series of reversions I am referring to: here, here, and here.
Please inspect the meaning #4, at the main entry for alternate [3]. You will notice that the secondary meaning is the verb, which is the way you are interpreting it, based on your edit summary notes and comments here, however I am clearly not using the word 'alternate' as a verb. I am using it as an adjective: Alternate Names, which is an acceptable and comprehensible, neutral use. So is 'other', as in Other Names. Please inspect the meaning of the adjective 'other' at the main entry at 1b. [4]. This regards choice of an alternate neutral adjective for the adjective you have chosen, 'alternative', as in Alternative Names, which please also inspect at the main entry, meaning #3a [5]. That is the non-neutral message that the use of the word alternative conveys, and that I am specifically referring to. Your comments nestled in your edit summaries belong here, where the discussion is taking place concerning the use of these words. Please do not edit this back to the less neutral wording. If you can think of even more neutral wording, please suggest it here for consideration, rather than continuing the already years-long crusade to purge the word 'arborsculpture' and then failing that, marginalize any use of it. These are the alternating (used as a verb, here) patterns, and the context is still: Tree shaping as an article title is NOT neutral, because it is strongly associated with Becky Northey, Peter Cook, Pooktre, treeshapers.net, and a wide variety of other unreliable sources across the web which we can't cite in this article. This is the problem, clearly stated, I hope, and with sincere intent to resolve the tedious conflict of edit warring. Frankly, I think the entire section on Alternate names needs to come out and be worked on here on the Talk page, since it is being used to establish these points, with references, and is not really article-class material at this time. The legitimate other names, and only those which legitimately are used interchangeably, should remain in the article, in the lead, at least until such time as a fully developed Alternate or Other Names section can be flipped back in. There is no good reason to bury them at the bottom of the article, purge them from the article and all associated articles, and then proceed to margininalize their use. That's not the purpose of the article at all. Kinda long winded, but that's what needed to get said, so let's get some thoughts from as many editors both involved and especially uninvolved as possible, and try to build some consensus please. Remember, everybody else watches trees grow, too. Duff (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ Duff, I agree. I suspect that until we have more experienced editors here who won't put up with COI editing and make space for neutral editors to do their work, that the tedious discussions and point by point contentions will continue. Take heart, It has been said, the wheels of Wikipedia justice grind slowly, but they grind fine. When referring to editors edits try to use the diff's url, it was hard to see what you were talking about. I know it's all temporary but check the AFTAU press release and see if..."Used as an alternative name for "the concept of shaping living trees into useful objects" by the eco-architecture team at TAU/Plantware[1]" is correct. I think it could be a false assumption. It is not the word used by the eco-architecture team I'm pretty sure that the word string was just chosen by the writer not the team, probably after a quick visit to this wiki page. For a word to be called an alternative or alternate it should register substantial usage, not just on some blogs or other poor citations IMO. Sure I agree, remove the entire alternate section and see if there is anything there or is it just fluff?Slowart (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Section moved here for further development needed, if any
This is a sandbox for the Alternate names section. Please continue editing it here until consensus is reached that it is both of sufficient quality for publication AND needed in the main article.
"Arborsculpture is a method of bending and grafting shoots to create useful and eye-catching structures."[1]
"Grafting to create unusual growth forms in a practice called arborsculpture involves intertwining and grafting together the stems of two or more plants in order to create domes, chairs, ladders, and other fanciful sculptures." and "Fig. 9.2. Arborsculpture of Alex Erlandson’s Tree Circus made in the 1940s."[2]
"We also plan to demonstrate arborsculpture, which is a unique method of bending and grafting shoots to form unusual designs and structures. We plan to create a fruit tree chair, a three-sided ladder to make the high fruit more accessible, a gazebo, fences, and other structures.[3]
In an industry newsletter article titled Arbor Sculpture, "A leading arborsculptor is American Richard Reames, who manages Arborsmith Studios in Oregon-..." and (re:Aichi)>"Also exhibited at this event were the Grown up Stools of the English arborsculptor, Dr. Cattle, pictured below."[4]
:Primary name in the Golan patent. "The art of shaping living woody plants is known as arborsculpture, etc...."ref name=RootShapingpatent Citation| inventor1-last = Golan| inventor1-first = Ezekiel| title = Method and a kit for shaping a portion of a woody plant into a desired form| issue-date = 2008-02-12 Questionable Source| patent-number = 7328532| country-code = US| description = A method of shaping a portion of a woody plant into a desired form is provided. The method is effected by providing a root of a woody plant, shaping the root into the desired form and culturing the root under conditions suitable for secondary thickening of the root. ref
:In Richard Reames first book How to Grow a Chair he explains how other terms like Tree trunk topiary, botanical architecture and arbortopia have attempted to describe an approach to tree shaping that goes beyond such traditional practices as topiary, bonsai and espalier. "I call it Arborsculpture".ref name=Reames1/rp|14
biotecture/biotechture
From a presentation on botanical engineering "The branch of architecture that deals with living structures is called 'biotecture' and was pioneered by the German landscape architect Rudolf Doernach." [5]: 15
*botanic/botanical architecture:An alternate name in the Golan patent ref name=RootShapingpatent:Planting of evergreens to provide accommodation for outdoor theatrical entertainment.refBritannicaref:Mark Primack, who rescued much of Axel Erlandson's Tree Circus and is perhaps the most knowledgeable authority on those trees,ref name=Reames1 cite book|last=Reames|first=Richard|authorlink = Richard Reames|coauthors=Delbol, Barbara|title=How to Grow a Chair: The Art of Tree Trunk Topiary|date=1995|isbn=0-9647280-0-1 ref rp|18 lectures about Erlandson and his work as a visionary pioneer of "botanic architecture,"
refThe museum of Jurassic Technology.ref:Used in the book How to Grow a Chairref name=Reames1/rp|14:Marcel Kalberer's experiments with "botanical architecture" reftranslation of site about Marcel Kalbererref:Growing a cover of plants vertically up exterior walls of buildings.refLiving wallref
From a presentation on botanical engineering that refers to several Cook/Northey & Cattle pieces as "grown furniture" and to Erlandson's ladder as "grown ladder"[5]: 21–26
*Grownup/Grown Up Furniture:Brand for the art works of Dr. Chris Cattle ref name=grownfurniturecattle1 cite web|url=http://www.grown-furniture.co.uk/%7Ctitle=Grown Furniture home page|publisher=Cattle, Chris|accessdate=2010-05-07ref
*living art:An alternate name for "the concept of shaping living trees into useful objects"ref name=FriendsofTAU Cite web|publisher=American Friends of Tel Aviv University|url=http://www.aftau.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7595%7Ctitle=Eco-Architecture Could Produce "Grow Your Own" Homesref:Creating something practical, decorative, or both, using living plants, such as hanging vegetable gardens, vertical gardens, or succulent walls.refliving art projectsref
*Pooktre:Brand for the partnership and art works of Peter Cook and Becky Northey.
*tree trunk shaping:An alternate name in the Golan patent ref name=RootShapingpatent
*Tree Trunk Topiary:An alternate name in the Golan patent ref name=RootShapingpatent:A nursery that specializes in shaped trees ref http://www.treetrunktopiary.be/eng/ www.treetrunktopiary.be/eng ref:Subtitle of the book How to Grow a Chair: The Art of Tree Trunk Topiary and used inside the same book.ref name=Reames1
^Mudge, Ken; Janick, Jules; Scofield, Steven; Goldschmidt, Eliezer E. (2009), "A History of Grafting"(PDF), in Janick, Jules (ed.), Issues in New Crops and New Uses, Purdue University Center for New Crops and Plants Products, orig. pub. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 442–443 {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^Ingels, Chuck (1999), "Fair Oaks Orchard Demonstration Project"(PDF), Slosson Report 98-99, University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources' Slosson Endowment for Ornamental Horticulture, pp. 442–443 {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ abFischbacher, Thomas (2007), "Botanical Engineering"(PDF), School of Engineering Sciences @ University of Southampton {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
=Worksheet on citations that support the legitimacy of alternate names=
This may be a better way help. I could be wrong about some of these refs, but help and clues are available at the WP:RSN
==Cutting Edge: VWA Newsletter==
"Arbor Sculpture: "If you like I'll grow you a mirror"", The Cutting Edge; the Newsletter of the Victorian Woodworkers Association, Inc.: 16, June 2006, retrieved 2010-05-15 Questionable Source
Why is this magazine article a questionable source? Duff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. It refers for our alternate names. Welp, gotta add that. Bad link too, fixing. [6]. Anybody feel free to ring in here...is this a questionable source because it is promotional in nature or for some other reason? I'll hit up RSN too.Duff (talk) 04:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article was submitted by Richard Reames to Victorian Woodworkers Association newsleter's editor as a marketing tactic to brand Arborsculpture across our and Dr Chris Cattle's work and link back to himself. Blackashhave a chat 13:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is an unsourced claim, which I am not sure would be relevant anyway, as it could be claimed about nearly everything anyone has ever written for a magazine on any topic. The article does not show any byline, and on that basis it appears to have been written by editorial staff @ the paper; absent some other reliable indication to the contrary. Still standing by for comments from WP:RSN, submitted request @ 15:00, June 6, 2010 re: use at all five points cited in the article, including the citation in Alternate names for the use of (that word) in the generic sense as a name for the craft, crafters, etc. Duff (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are not reliable sources. What is being referenced in the text of the aka's anyway? The other name tree shaping? The cite is plugged at the opener: "Other names for tree shaping include:[2][3]" Same exact question on the google map blog ref [2] What's referenced?? This one is out as a ref: does not support whatever it is pointed at as an aka for our topicDuff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be really surprised if a google map of any sort is a reliable source, it's not different than a blog. Who does the peer review on those? What is being referenced in the text of the aka's anyway? The other name tree shaping? The cite is plugged at the opener: "Other names for tree shaping include:[2][3]" Same exact question on the treehugger blog ref [2] What's referenced?? This one is out as a ref: does not support whatever it is pointed at as an aka for our topic. Duff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've placed a WP:RSN request for this source so we shall let the experts figure it out and report back.Duff (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The map contact is Peter Ganser a willow crafter who does fences and houses http://www.ganserpeter.de. Reames is listed too but without precise location...Is this Original Research by Peter Ganser? Did Pooktre join and add the three products or find themselves there? Duff (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you can't back up that text with that source. You can't use that source for anything. I'd say it falls under WP:SPS. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!) 00:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Arborsculpture: Horticultural Art Reliable source".
I expanded this citation to a full cite-periodical listing and also cited it elsewhere in the article, where appropriate. It refers to both Reames' and Erlandson's works as arborsculpture, so it's a good ref in support of arborsculpture as a generic name for the craft. Duff (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mudge, Ken; Janick, Jules; Scofield, Steven; Goldschmidt, Eliezer E. (2009), "A History of Grafting", in Janick, Jules, Issues in New Crops and New Uses, Purdue University Center for New Crops and Plants Products, orig. pub. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 442–443 Reliable source
I noted the large file on the citation and cited it elsewhere in the article, where appropriate. It refers to Erlandson's works as arborsculpture, so it's a good ref in support of arborsculpture as a generic name for the craft. Duff (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Golan, Ezekiel, "Method and a kit for shaping a portion of a woody plant into a desired form", US A method of shaping a portion of a woody plant into a desired form is provided. The method is effected by providing a root of a woody plant, shaping the root into the desired form and culturing the root under conditions suitable for secondary thickening of the root. 7328532, issued 2008-02-12Questionable Source I hope to find some info on using patents as sources.
Patents are primary sources. Are there any third-party reliable verifiable sources that refer to this patent? If not this ref is out, as are any aka's dependent on it. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/For Fuel Freedom, Inc. "the argument that primary sources such as patents indicate notability is faulty" and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boris Volfson"No reliable third-party sources......Finally, patent (granted and applied) aren't reliable sources either." Duff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further and more clear direction on this: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 10#Patent application as sources:"Patent applications, by themselves, represent absolutely nothing more that what the person who filed it claims to have invented. Patent offices do not require working prototypes, they no longer require models, and they don't review the design to make sure it makes sense. They're happy to take your money, and holding a patent doesn't actually mean anything until it's tested in court. So except when a patent has actually been reviewed an evaluated by independent experts, which does happen sometimes, it's no better than what the inventor posts on his personal blog" I removed this reference from the other names section and from the lead, as it is a primary source which can't be used to establish anything. However we have a problem in that it is the only reference we have for root shaping (besides the living root bridges), let alone aeroponic root shaping. I did some searching and came up dry, so for now I'm leaving the awkward "According to patent No. xxx" statement in, and sticking root shaping in the research box. Duff (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, reliable source for the article, but biotecture is not supported as an aka reference for the topic of this page. "The branch of architecture that deals with living structures is called 'biotecture' and was pioneered by the German landscape architect Rudolf Doernach." is on page 15; that illustrates grown buildings, noting that "the old 'weaving' technique used to construct these living structures is called 'pleaching'," so that's a valid reference for pleaching as a technique for building far more than just hedgerows. Pages 21-26 deal with Cook/Northey & Cattle pieces, referring to them as 'grown furniture' and Erlandson's ladder tree, referring to it as 'grown ladder'. I placed another new alt name for grown furniture...see if that seems like an aka for the art/craft or not. Maybe there are sub-genera of arborsculpture as applied, such as biotecture=living architecture/buildings, arbors, fences, gazebos, domes, etc.; grown furniture=chairs, stools, tables, mirrors, etc; live wood art=purely artistic fanciful stuff? Comments?Duff (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This site does not support the use of either of the words biotecture/biotechture as an aka for our topic. It is also an ezine, which is not a reliable source. This ref is out, as are any aka's dependent on itDuff (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/245100/green-theatre Britannica online, a "green theater" has greenery, big deal. Reliable source may be useful in a "Botanical architecture" or "Arbortecture" section.
"various entrances screened by trimmed hedges." Hedged screenery for entrances to theatres? May be useful at hedge (barrier). This site does not support the use of the phrase botanical architecture as an aka for our topic. This ref is out, as are any aka's dependent on itDuff (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reames, Richard; Delbol, Barbara (1995). How to Grow a Chair: The Art of Tree Trunk Topiary. ISBN 0-9647280-0-1. Self Published by a NON-Expert, Questionable Source Moriarty was not a expert in 1994 when he wrote "How to Grow a Chair"
Moriarty who? Where you find that name? The book states by Reames, Richard; Delbol, Barbara (authors) publisher is Arborsmith Studios (which is Richard Reames) with address. Distributed by Arborsmith Studios. So yes it is self published book but that is ok if it is Self-published as long as it meets the specific criteria. If it is found to be an unreliable source then all media interviews and articles online that are based on this book also should not be used.<Blackash there
Yah, gosh...You'd better get busy blogging that up, dear. Duff (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did a search on title and Moriarty nothing please tell where you got this word. Blackashhave a chat 14:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
::Sorry, Sherlock, just adding a touch of humor, breath. Your pal, Professor_Moriarty AKA Slowart (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I didn't 'get the word'. Slowart did this citations work and a lot of it. His sig is at the bottom there, you'll note. Perhaps Moriarty is Reames' nickname? I don't know, but he's pretty obviously referring to the author, and has honestly assessed his own status as a newbie and the book as a questionable source. That's a non-issue. I did not say google it up. I said blog it up, and I was referring directly to your unsigned statement above (which I tagged with your username):"all media interviews and articles online that are based on this book also should not be used." and I was referring specifically to your voluminous blogging efforts to squash the use of the word arborsculpture. Or did you mean not used here at this article? Perhaps I misunderstood. If that's what you meant, where is the policy, chapter & verse, that states this? Keep in mind that any such policy would apply right across the board. Which citations specifically are you suggesting are "based on the book"? Duff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published, self-admitted non-expert. Should be ok to use for the Reames bio portion only but not elsewhere, and particularly not as a source for establishing arborsculpture as an aka for our topic, though there may well be other reliable sources. This ref is out for that purpose and the article is not about Reames.Duff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We should find out how much weight a museum site carries.<Blackash there
It's a store. Duff (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Click the home link leads to museum front page. So the store is part of their web site. Blackashhave a chat 14:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
::::No, this link is an event advertisement; it's a commercial website, not a museum website, and they are selling tickets to his lectures, this is not a reliable source. Furthermore, read the hype on the link, it directly contradicts the use of the reference to support the use of Botanic architecture as an aka for our article topic: Primack discovered Erlandon’s neglected and dying trees in 1977, shortly after completing his Masters thesis on ‘Botanic Architecture’. There is no reference here, even if it was a reliable source, to him using this term to describe Erlandson's work. On the contrary, it states clearly that he hadn't discovered Erlandson's work until after writing his thesis by that name. While there may well be some reliable and verifiable reference out there to him branding Erlandson's work with that name post-1977, this ref is out for the purpose of establishing botanic architecture as another name for the craft, except as proof he wrote a masters thesis called botanic architecture pre-1977. Anybody got a link to the thesis? Erlandson's work could not be in it, because he discovered Erlandson AFTER, but it might still be a potentially useful ref for the rest of the article, if determined relevant, reliable if verifiable. It might clarify whether or not his thesis and it's title has got anything to do with our topic at all.Duff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed that link here (No translation page, just direct, but still needs fixing in the actual refs, if it's even kept. This is what he calls what he does, not an aka for the craft of our topic. May be a good source for info about Kalberer if he's added as a minibio or full bio, but not beyond, and not to support an aka botanical architecture for our topic.Duff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are unreliable sources. This one is out as a ref, and not to support botanical architecture as an aka for our topic Duff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are unreliable sources. This one is out as a reliable ref, and not to support circus trees as an aka for our topicDuff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisements are unreliable sources. This one is out as a reliable ref, and not to support circus trees as an aka for our topicDuff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisements are unreliable sources. This link produces no archive anyway. This one is out as a reliable ref, and not to support circus trees as an aka for our topicDuff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Press Releases are unreliable sources. This one is out as a reliable ref, and not to support eco-architecture as an aka for our topicDuff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are unreliable sources. This one is out as a reliable ref, and not to support green design architecture/eco-construction as an aka for our topicDuff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisements are unreliable sources. This one is out as a reliable ref, and not to support biotecture as an aka for our topicDuff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published, Should be ok to use for the Cattle bio portion only but not elsewhere, and particularly not as a source for establishing Grownup furniture as an alternate name for our topic. This is what he calls his works, not what the craft is known as. This ref is out for this purpose. That aka is out unless there is a reliable verifiable reference that uses Grownup furniture to describe the topic of our article. The article is not about Cattle.Duff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Eco-Architecture Could Produce "Grow Your Own" Homes". American Friends of Tel Aviv University. Press release Questionable Source
Press Releases are unreliable sources. This one is out as a reliable ref, and not to support living art as an aka for our topicDuff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are unreliable sources. This one is out as a ref, and not to support living art as an aka for our topicDuff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reames, Richard (2005). Arborsculpture: Solutions for a Small Planet. Oregon: Arborsmith Studios. ISBN 0964728087. Self Published by a expert, Reliable Source by 2005 Moriarty had become an expert.
Umm who is Moriarty again? and who says he is an expert? Book says by Richard Reames (author) Copyright 2002 to Richard Reames, distributed by Arborsmith Studios. Ummm looks self published to me. It would need to follow the same outline as for How to grow a chair. Self-publishedQuestionable Source
If it is found to be an unreliable source then all media interviews and articles online that are based on this book also should not be used.<Blackash there
Here again, get busy blogging away on that. 10 years later, same topic, much practice, not an expert? Who says he's not? O by the way, that's two instances in, gosh, an hour, of your misstating the publication dates of Reames' books. What's up with that? Reames1 HTGaChair is 1995, not 2005, and Reames2 ArborsculptureSFASP is 2005, not 2002. Please use the existing 2 ref names for correct citations to Reames' 2 books, with the rp template to indicate the page#, so that those sorts of misleading mistakes are eliminated, and please do not make up any more new ref names to describe these 2 books. Also please put your comments/research below each citation here and sign each of your posts with four tildes as usual/Thanks!.Duff (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The man himself, for a start. quote "Over the past 15 years I have developed the attitude that every tree I work on is an experiment or a learning opportunity. The inevitable mistakes become opportunities to advance the skills required to master the art". (An expert doesn't have inevitable mistakes, mistakes yes, but not ones that keep reappearing.) book Arborsculpture page 154. or when he states about our work, quote "I had no idea that such complicated detailed balanced work was possible." Just because you do something for 10 years doesn't mean you are expert. More to the point who says he is? (Can't use interviews based on the books either.) Please note the book has copyright 2002 First printing is April 2005. And to confuse matters more Richard had done a revised edition of his book Arborsculpture solutions for a small planet. So maybe we need 3 ref names so people can find the right book. Will do with signing. Blackashhave a chat 15:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Experts make mistakes, it's inevitable. Everyone makes mistakes, it's inevitable. You make mistakes and so do I. Mistakes are inevitable. That's how people learn. Every day with trees is a day to learn, even for experts. And where does it say the same mistakes keep reappearing? Just because he was unaware of the quality of Peter's work and complimented him on it doesn't make him not an expert. I too, have been completely isolated from your work until participation on this article. It's also not any discredit to expertise to be honest enough to admit, especially in print, that one is fallible. On the contrary, it's a sign of maturity. That sounds a lot like original research and it's a spurious argument. It can certainly be argued that Reames was an expert by 2005 at the publication of his 2nd book in 2005. By that time the term arborsculpture was in widespread usage and not any longer considered a neologism as has been repeatedly alleged. Now we are here in 2010 and he's presumably learned from even more mistakes, like all of us, and is likely even more expert now than in 2005. The nouns arborsculpture and arborsculptor are even more deeply entrenched in the cultural vernacular, efforts to quash notwithstanding. There aren't that many living experts in this craft, and he's clearly one of 'em. So is Peter Cook, I'd say, and some others. Even if there was a reason to exclude this text as a reference for using the term as an aka (and I'm not sure there is), there are LOTS more third party sources that use it as the primary name for our topic.Duff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question is who states Richard Reames is an expert? Where are the peer reviews of his shaped trees? (Can't use interviews based on the books either.) Blackashhave a chat 15:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone else ring in please, on whether that is the question, and if it is, what is the best way to answer it conclusively without wasting any time? Duff (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline at WP:SPS#Self-published sources (online and paper) guides thusly: Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. If this is indeed the appropriate standard, what are we looking for to establish that the standard has been met or hasn't? Does someone have to evaluate his trees, for heaven's sake? Wouldn't that be original research? Duff (talk) 01:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are unreliable sources. This one is out as a ref, and not to support pleaching as an aka for our topicDuff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Published by a third party, written by an expert, not covered in the article, a reliable source. Supports pleaching as an aka for our topic. Duff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commercial website: "Tree Trunk Topiary is geared to the commercial market." Commercial websites are unreliable sources. This one is out as a ref, and not to support tree trunk topiary as an aka for our topicDuff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There you go... like I said I could be wrong but... 99 questionable refs on the wall, you take one down, pass it around... 98 questionable refs on the wall... Slowart (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think I will, so pass it on around. Duff (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The rest I'll comment on as you select them review. Blackashhave a chat 09:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's my consensus where it applies. The threads need to be pulled back out of the aka names in the actual section above, and see what's left. We need to do the same process on the rest of the citations in the namespace. Ugh. I don't want to wrestle my way through those at this moment. Need rest. Peace out. Duff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So we don't destroy this lovely record of tedious labor, I will use the strikeout method to dis-plash the stricken cites. Duff (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have done so, and we're not left with much. Comments? Duff (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Woody Plant vs Tree
A recent edit here: diff, posted with the edit summary "(plant is not a suitable word please read http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plant I for one don't shape blue-green algae.)", changed the words 'perennial woody plant' in the lead, to the just the word 'tree' instead. This conflicts with prior established consensus by discussion of this very point. I've changed it back. The work encompasses more than just trees and that is why perennialwoody plant was chosen. Since the text substituted read perennialwoody plant, that summary and deletion is not entirely straightforward. The right dictionary reference should have been woody plant[7]. Plant is indeed an appropriate term; so is woody plant, and so is perennial woody plant...they are all appropriate. While not all of these projects involve trees, they do all involve plants or parts of plants.
This is also one of several reasons why the current article title is under serious discussion here. I will note this and link to this comment at that point on this talk page. It also should be noted that in the diff above, the editor chose to screen the entire article for the word 'plant', replacing it wherever found, with the word 'tree' or tree shaping, in what oddly appears to be an attempt to give undue weight both to the use of 'tree' (vs, say shrubs, vines, or roots, which are all frequently used in this craft), and to the argument for the use of the current title. I'm fixing that too. The article is boring with the same word repeated over & over for no other reason than to arm-wrestle over POV promotional naming. Synonyms are good and add interest. Duff (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Citations and the References Section
(Moved ongoing discussion sections here to consolidate discussions of citations and references)
Misunderstanding of References
Duff you seem to have misunderstood what the refs are for about the different trees, the ref that was originally there was for the fact that tree type was used to create a tree shaping not for correct "plant taxonomy", so please add your refs to existing ref, don't introduce a completely different wording with "plant taxonomy" as the only reason for it being there as the section is about Popular species for artists. Blackashhave a chat 23:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you seem to have misunderstood the naming conventions used in both science and wikipedia. 1.Prunus myrobalan is an incorrect binomial. There is no such correct name for any tree in the Prunus genus. The scientific names of plants are not determined on the basis of popularity and we do not make them up and call them popularly used. That is why you do not find it listed at Prunus 2. The correct binomial for the tree commonly called Myrobalan Plum (if this is indeed the species that you hope to see referenced as a popular candidate for shaping in the section) is Prunus cerasifera, the one I edited it to and provided the reference for. 3. Wild Plum is not Myrobalan Plum, nor is it a common name for Myrobalan Plum. So. Which is the favored tree? Wild Plum or Myrobalan Plum? The correct species name should be used. If its all sorts of plums, then just Prunus (not wild, not myrobalan) is appropriate, but that's not what it conveys.Duff (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the misunderstanding, we were told by the Department of primary industries in Australia that the tree species we use most is wild plum which is a root stock used for grafting of fruit trees and it's botanical name was Prunus Myrobalan, which seemed understandable to the Japanese government when we inquired about importing live trees for the Expo. I will have to chase it up with the DPI here, it may take a while to find out the correct info. All the same the trees do need to be referenced in regards to shaping. Blackashhave a chat 00:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed, the trees should be referenced, but identified correctly if they are to be identified. I don't know which species you or other artists use, and it would be original research anyway to just answer the question. One commonly used tree for Prunus rootstocks is Myrobalan Plum aka Cherry Plum (both are common names for the same species of tree). The binomial and specific name for the tree that is commonly known by those names is Prunus cerasifera. That may or may not be the species you commonly use. Wild Plum is a common name that is used in a great many places (maybe yours) to refer to a great many different trees (maybe yours), some of them not even plums. It's ambiguous and that's one of the troubles with common names; they can be misinterpreted. Using the correct scientific binomial is helpful because it is then known which species in particular is meant (if one particular species is meant at all). Common names are great but they vary and frequently refer to different plants by location. For example, you and I and everyone in Australia and Oregon might call it Purple Plum, and all of us may know exactly what it is and we may know this plant intimately enough to correctly identify it in the field. People in, say, South America may also call one particular tree the Purple Plum, but they might call our Purple Plum the Violin Plum, say. That would make it tough to get the valuable rootstock species unless you knew the scientific name of the stock offered. Some people in S. America might mistakenly label it Prunus violinus and you and I and our countryfolk might even find it at a nursery mistakenly labeled Prunus purpleii, but the one we are talking about (and trying to find for our arborsculpture projects, say) would still be Prunus cerasifera, and we could generally count on finding it reliably by that name, true to species (nevermind varieties and cultivars, but that is another important detail, perhaps). Scientific species names change sometimes too, but it's usually in an orderly and reasoned fashion, on the basis of significant scientific consensus, and we can usually count on a plant labeled Prunus cerasifera to be that very productive plum rootstock so useful for grafting other Prunus genus fruits. I'm totally FOR the list of popular arborsculpture species, and especially for their accurate naming. Duff (talk) 02:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quality of References
This point was made on my talk page, right after I started trying to straighten out some of the kinks in the refs section. It merits discussion here. I haven't yet sifted the archives for prior talk on this, if any. Please jump in and comment so we can all work in the direction of a really great and properly formatted refs section. The current iteration is hard to use and complicates verification.
Science Daily/AFTAU Citation
FYI- Science Daily takes press releases. Identified by the word "release" is in the Science Daily url. Are releases good sources?
Original article is here.[[8]] Slowart (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the original link. Not sure...What's the appropriate policy? That's part of what I was wondering. I will open that question on the talk page for discussion. I did not add the source. There are a bunch of new sources suddenly, with ref names that tend toward the obtuse. I am scratching my head for a better place to start; as article edits I make are being reverted very quickly, which is a little frustrating. Thought I'd start at the top & peruse all of these sources, straighten out the ref formatting mess, try to understand what's what, like that. For source #1, I expanded its refname= to improve clarity (it was just SD somethingsomething, and I had already run across it broken before), so I changed its template title to reflect cite info offered on the page, moved the full ref to first instance of it's use, tried to read the reference carefully and assess its application to the various places it's used in the article, and applied it, in particular, to instances of the use of the various alternate names, as suggested by Colonel Warden. Duff (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Press releases are primary sources, with higher probabilities of bias. Follow WP:PRIMARY, and make any possible bias clear, if informative. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That press release ref had been used earlier to justify stuff, it's a primary source, lets dump it.Slowart (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are different points of information in the lead which point is it? Blackashhave a chat 23:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it is correct that press releases are likely bias and are poor refs, it would be wise, for the long run to base this article on good sources, more peer review and fact checked secondary and tertiary sources. Another poor ref in used here is Treeshapers.net as it is a personal web site.Slowart (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARYPrimary source section under the subheading of Our policy says quote "A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge." Blackashhave a chat 23:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am removing this reference and the text it supports (which I wrote) from the aka list for tree shaping, because the text of the cited document, properly read, does not support the use of eco-architecture as an aka for tree shaping. Rather, the citation clearly states that eco-architecture will "use this concept (tree shaping aka A,B,&C) as the foundation of a new company." It builds upon our article's topic, but does not call itself tree shaping or any of the other names. Eco-architecture is the informal partnership's product.
This is the text:
Used as the primary name[1][citation needed] for the product of an informal scientific and commercial partnership betweeen Professors Yoav Waisel and Amram Eshel of the Sarah Racine Root Research Laboratory at Tel Aviv University and researchers at Plantware, a company founded in 2002. The researchers and scientists intend to use the concept of shaping living trees into useful objects. "the foundation of a new company that will roll out these structures worldwide." Certain species of trees grown aeroponically yield “soft roots,” which they intend to use to turn living trees into useful structures. According to Eshel, “The approach is a new application of the well-known botanical phenomenon of aerial root development.” and “Instead of using plant branches, this patented approach takes malleable roots and shapes them into useful objects for indoors and out.” Pilot projects in the United States, Australia and Israel include park benches for hospitals, playground structures, streetlamps and gates. Plantware's director of operations, TAU life sciences degreed Yaniv Naftalya and its CEO, engineer Gordon Glazer hope to grow a prototype aerial root home within ten years.[1]
We may be able to rework and work this useful information back in some other way, if it belongs somewhere in this article.
I am also moving a statement which I also wrote, using the same citation, from the end of the methods section, to the end of the lead, edited to more properly and accurately summarize the useful content of the reference cited, thus keeping the useful reference and giving it appropriate, but not excessive, weight.
The statement doesn't describe a method, so it doesn't belong in the Methods section. Please see the lead text for that change.
I'm going next to look at the other statements cited with this reference, to see if they are actually supported by the AFTAU ref and if not, how or if to keep them. Thoughts?
The useful information above points to a branch of this art called arbortecture or eco-architecture. Architecture with trees would be a natural division and alien the tree work of Arthur Wiechula, David Nash, Konstantin Kirsch, Marcel Kalberer...Just a thought. About the AFTAU ref, reliability is suspect, bias acknowledged by Quid (I think), confirm facts (if used) with reliable sources. Slowart (talk) 05:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
designshell.com blog
This reference, cite web|url=http://www.designshell.com/articles/living-trees-living-art-pooktre.html%7Ctitle=Living Trees, Living Art |accessdate=2009-05-08, which was used to support the statement "Design and setup are fundamental to the success of all such pieces.", cites a blog, containing a self-published and glowing post by our resident editor/covered artist @ Pooktre, as evidenced by the url and the specific content of the self-post. Not a reliable source to support anything at all. I have deleted the reference, am noting it here, and have left the statement it supported as I believe it to be a non-controversial statement, though whether leaving it in improves the article...?? Duff (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
treeshapers.net self-pub
This reference, cite web|url=http://treeshapers.net/ezekiel-yale.html |title=Tree roots |publisher=Treeshapers.net |date= |accessdate=2010-04-13, which was used to support the inclusion of Ficus (fig) in the Species section, cites a self-published website authored by our resident covered artists/editors @ Pooktre. Not a reliable source to support anything outside of the section covering the artists/editors themselves. I have replaced the reference with an existing citation, ref name Cherrapunjee, which clearly establishes the potential of Ficus to inosculate, and am noting it here for posterity. Duff (talk) 05:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This reference, cite web|url=http://treeshapers.net/nirandr-boonnetr.html |title=Life Furniture |publisher=Treeshapers.net |date=1996-01-16 |accessdate=2010-04-13, which was used to support the inclusion of both Psidium (Guava) & Tectona grandis (Teak) in the Species section, cites a self-published website authored by our resident covered artists/editors @ Pooktre. Not a reliable source to support anything outside of the section covering the artists/editors themselves. I have replaced the guava reference with an existing citation, ref name Reames2, which clearly notes that this is an inosculate species (which Boonnetr uses) but am unable to locate a RS for the teak as inosculate, though I believe that Boonnetr does indeed use this species as well, according to more than one not-RS. Can anyone help find one RS for teak inosculation and/or Boonnetr using teak? Anyhow, I'm removing the treeshapers.net citation from that piece of information, but leaving the piece of information at the Species section: Tectona grandis:Teak, with a citation needed tag. Duff (talk) 06:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bricks & Mortar Magazine
This reference, <ref name=B&Mmagazine>{{Citation| last = | first = | title = Pooktre| magazine = Bricks & Mortar Magazine| pages = | year = 2008| Edition 24 | url = | archiveurl =| archivedate =| accessdate = }}</ref>, which was provided in response to a citation needed tag and was used as the sole reference to support the inclusion of the statement, "He started the very next day, with 7 willow cuttings.", is vague and is still not verifiable. I don't even find any reference online to such a magazine, though more information, such as its publisher and a url, would be extremely helpful. If a reliable source can be found for the first statement, and not an interview of the artists saying it is so, which is basically what its inclusion here consists of, then we can return it to the bio, properly sourced, if it is deemed needed and an improvement to the article. Until such time, I have removed it and noted it here, as the challenge has not been addressed and as it is at present, unverifiable. I'm not sure such a statement even can be verified adequately.
It was also used to support the inclusion (with 2 other cites) of the prior statement, "Peter Cook became inspired to grow a chair in 1987, after visiting three figs trees twisted together." The prior statement has 2 other citations, so doesn't really need a third anyway, since that would be OVERKILL, and so the statement stays in, on that basis, but the ref name B&M tag has been removed. Duff (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reference Cleanup Update
I've just standardized the refs currently numbered 1-10. There are, as of right now, eighty sources total. Judging from the results of that effort so far, some of the remaining 70 will inevitably be consolidated, some likely into those first 10. I'd prefer to carefully move through that before we start dumping references, as tedious as it is, for the value of establishing appropriate weight. My fascination may be more tied to wanting to see the full scope of this come to light, and I'll defer to consensus either way. If additional citations are to be added, and they probably will be necessary, I'd dearly appreciate a careful perusal of existing cites to see if the one wanted already exists, is buried here in some form, and can just be used, instead of adding more ever-less-artfully crafted instances of the same slightly differently formatted cites. And finally, I think we have plenty of primary sources at this time. Thanks!Duff (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
removal of citation need
"The word has since become nearly synonymous with the art of tree shaping itself." From Richard Reames section.
I disagree that the references given are appropriate, as they don't state the word arborsculpture is synonymous with tree shaping. They use the word and you have done original research to come to the conclusion that means synonymous with. Going by that logic pooktre or grownup furniture should have something along the lines of same in their section. Blackashhave a chat 23:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC
Ok, the proper way to challenge that is with a verification request template, and I'll carefully read each reference and eliminate the ones that don't apply or change the text. The references noted, as far as I read, use the word AS the craft. Tree Shaping is a synonym created by artifice, registered as a domain name by...you, and applied to an established article on the craft to appease...you. I have in mind a rewording that is more accurate, but since its a term, not a living person, there's no hurry, so please let that stand challenged for a non-involved editor, maybe me, to tackle as time permits. Thanks.Duff (talk) 08:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was standard practice to use the [citation needed] tag when wanting someone to establish their statement isn't original research. The "verification request template" you talked about, WP:Requests for verification appears to be a page that is only kept for historical reasons quote "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant, or consensus on its purpose has become unclear." Blackashhave a chat 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not the template I meant. Sorry for the confusion. This is the template [verification needed].Duff (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Each one will have to be first standardized, then read and checked for applicability, then evaluated for reliability, then either kept or tossed. Stay tuned, but relax, because I am going to try to get to all of them and as I've mentioned, that will take some time. In the meantime, thanks to your efforts, it is not even close to unreferenced content, so no problem with its staying put in the bio section, unless your contention is that all of the above sources are unreliable in some way? If so, please discuss that here and we will strive to reach consensus on a proper approach to resolve that.Duff (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Duff quote "The references noted, as far as I read, use the word AS the craft." The references don't state that the word is interchangeable or synonymous with Tree shaping, they just use the word. Your comment, just reinforces that you had to come your own conclusion the word is synonymous with Tree shaping, which is original research.Blackashhave a chat 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They use the word as the craft. Please consult your dictionary reference for the meaning of the word synonym.Duff (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point is yes they use arborsculpture as a name for the art form. They don't state that arborsculpture is interchangeable with the word Tree shaping. That is your conclusion from reading multiple articles that are using the word arborsculpture. Blackashhave a chat 11:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the point is yes. They use arborsculpture as a name or the name for the art form. Multiple articles from reliable sources (if they are) that are using the word arborsculpture as a name for the art form = at the very least, a synonym; more than likely = the name for the art form. I know you want to cast that as my synthesis, but you've spelled it out yourself, and so even you aren't fooled by that drivel, are you? If so, again, I suggest you consult your dictionary reference for the meaning of the word synonym. By the way, did you ever locate a source specifically stating that the phrase 'Tree shaping' was synonymous with arborsculpture or with "the art form" or with the craft? Same questions on pooktre. Same questions on the rest of the alternate names you have been working on in that section.Duff (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Using the word arborsculpture is not the same as saying that arborsculpture is a synonym of Tree shaping. The articles use arborsculpture, not state that the two words are one and the same. Show me where in the references it says Arborsculpture is interchangeable with the word Tree shaping, or synonymous with Tree shaping. If you can't, please remove the disputed sentence or I will have to ask for a 3rd opinion on this point. Also as you are the one wanting the wording of synonymous, it is up to you to find a source specifically stating that the phrase "Tree shaping' was synonymous with arborsculpture or the art form. Blackashhave a chat 11:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not the domain name I was referring to. Sorry for the confusion. Let's take a good close look at the whois on treeshapers.net instead, shall we? Accessed 2010-05-07. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5pYlO5zQs) Duff (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Treeshapers.net was created to keep a history of the artists who shape trees. Please look each artists page and see if any one is branded. Also if I owned a business call "Tree shapers" and tried to sue "Tree shaping" for having a name to close to mine I would be more likely to get snow in hell than to win the case.
Tree shaping has been used in published sources, which is part of the original reason for the move. Blackashhave a chat 11:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Point 1 above: Treeshapers.net was created by you. Its content is directly controlled by you. Citations to it, by you which are about you are not going to stand, and the reference itself, in its entirety may not withstand scrutiny. We await consensus on that, according to WP policy on such citations.
Point 2 above: Yup, you nailed it. That's exactly what's in question: The quality of the provided sources, and by extension, their relative weight in shaping consensus for the move. Duff (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Duff quote "applied to an established article on the craft to appease...you." Wrong again. Multiple editors came to a consensus [9] the article needed, to quote AfD hero "a generic, descriptive, and in current use". name.Blackashhave a chat 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have referenced a consensus that was reached off-article, during and as part of an AfD pertaining to an article about yourself, not about this article, which is part of my concern, as I have expressed under the heading above Talk:Tree shaping#Proposal to Move: Arborsculpture or Tree Shaping(where this comment of yours and mine belongs)Duff (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't be implying that you are neutral when it can be seen here, here and by your continual use of arborsculpture into discussion when the word is not even needed here that you are not. Blackashhave a chat 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone see a pattern here ? [[10]] Slowart (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"...use of arborsculpture into discussion when the word is not even needed." I am agog at the blatancy of this statement, setting aside the grammar issue. It points to a comment I made previously on this Talk page, not even in the article mainspace. I am considering what response might be adequate and yet still diplomatic. There is a word or phrase for this kind of thing, but I am at a loss to articulate it. Blackash, since you've covered several areas of your concern, for continuity and for reduction of future reorganizing effort, I've interleaved my responses to your several questions. Accordingly I have also copy/pasted your sig from your single post at 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC) to identify your comments as belonging to this single post, at the points where your comments/questions precede my responses, so we don't lose track, and so there's no misunderstanding as to who said what when. This is extremely tedious. Please try to put your concerns under the sections where the matters are being discussed, so that concerns can reach resolution by consensus. I will try really hard to do the same. Thanks.Duff (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noted and will try to endeavor to do the same.Blackashhave a chat 11:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how any of the three links you provided demonstrate any bias or non-neutrality on my part, but I stand ready to be schooled by yet another neutral party. Each of them leads to an instance of my written use of the generic word arborsculpture. If you are asserting, and I think you might be, that the word arborsculpture should never again be used to refer to any of this work, in any context, by anyone, or that anyone who does use the word is biased and/or non-neutral, then in my opinion, you are not only too late to prevent that, but may actually be engaging in that most odious form of censorship which purposefully attempts to obliterate legitimately applied words from the lexicon of usage. Your purpose for doing so may be benign, but from where I'm sitting, it appears to be an effort to gain some commercial or other advantage over a rival artist/author, particularly given your continued insistence on editing a page where you are prominently featured. I look forward with great anticipation to your comments about it. My sincere protest is below and we will get to some sort of resolution, I am confident. Cheers.Duff (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not saying it shouldn't be used, just demonstrating that you do have a bias. Blackashhave a chat 11:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? You have attempted to purge the word. Repeatedly. Your campaign is completely transparent and your 'demonstrations' serve only to cast a brighter light on your own actions. Are you really sticking to this?Duff (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further, this edit that you point to, here in which you reversed my edit adding the absent arborsculpture & tree shapers detail to the Expo 2005 article, is problematic. I reversed your revert at Expo 2005 (just) to the original text, which contained a functional redirect, which is permissible, by this wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. I've previously noted this very policy to you, in response to your comment on my User talk page at User talk:Duff#Arborsculpture. You claimed there, on 7:12 pm, 5 April 2010, to be unfamiliar at that point with the policy. I don't know if you found time to read it that night, as you noted you would, or at all, but you did acknowledge having noted my point. Please read it. Consensus on this page wasn't to eliminate all uses of the word arborsculpture. Your stalking of the word is what got my attention over here in the first place, so you know. I was working on improving the Arboriculture page, where coincidentally, similar, but less sophisticated efforts at commercial linking have been attempted and are constantly thwarted by adroit editors. When the See Also link there, which had been entitled Arborsculpture, was switched to Tree shaping, I thought, "Hmmm...WTF?" Before that, I hadn't read the Arborsculpture article, but I was peripherally familiar with arborsculpture by that name, having lived near Scotts Valley years ago when part of the interesting drama with Erlandson's site was underway. This article is the first I'd ever heard it called Tree shaping and until now, neither had I ever heard of Richard Reames, or you, or Pooktre<-Why is this business name a redirect, and by what consensus? Duff (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect was suggested and added at the Pooktre AFD [page] Slowart (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "original text" appeared on the expo page 2005 by you on the 02:48, 4 May 2010. You may have missed the discussion about not using alternative names on other pages. SilkTork quote
"* The consensus is that tree shaping is the most neutral of the widely used terms, and so that is the preferred term for use within this and related articles. SilkTork *YES! 16:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
It is also the most descriptive, which is very useful. SilkTork *YES! 16:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)" follow link bottom of section
You may have overlooked my first sentence there above: "...in which you reversed my edit adding the absent arborsculpture & tree shapers detail to the Expo 2005 article..." No secret there, so please don't cast it like I'm trying to hide something. I edited Expo2005. You reverted my edit, purging arborsculpture even though I used both terms in the short bullet point. I reverted it back, and generously tagged it as an AGF rollback. What SilkTork did not say, and a consensus that was not reached, was that the word arborsculpture should not be used, should be stalked and changed whenever and wherever found, and that past uses of it are fair game for deletion until complained about, whereupon at that time future uses are fair game for deletion. None of that was said. You got a really big inch, and you ran many miles. Preferred Term is not synonymic with Exclusive Term. Sadly, that is the policy you have been pursuing and enforcing. When you come to realize the ethical gravity of this, you will be disturbed by it too. Duff (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S Why do you think Pooktre is a business name? Blackashhave a chat 11:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really want me to take the time to reference here all of the references, mostly provided by you, that refer to your business, and your business partnership? Spend some time reading the material you have cited and do not revert any cited factual information. Also, put this in your pipe and toke it: Pooktre is not an artist. Peter Cook is an artist and Becky Northey is an artist. Each has their own proper spot on the Chronology. Either or both might turn out to be notable enough to merit a separate article. So might Pooktre, but not as a bio, because it's not a living (nor a dead) artist. While to you, it is many things, which is good and fine, it's a business.Duff (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recent Removal of Citations Negates Citation Improvement Effort
Citation use in this article is sloppy and is a problem which is under serious consideration. We are working on improving citations and references for accuracy, relevance, and reliability. I am working on citations: standardizing refs and ref names and verifying that the cited statements are referenced accurately. I spent hours studying only a handful of the citations and references provided by others; trying to find, identify, verify, and correctly cite the specific statements referenced. I have also added a few new references which clearly support certain relevant statements, and cited those references accordingly.
Blackash has systematically removed a group of citations, as well as the content they cited, which do not support her position, both within sections that feature her prominently and within other sections where the content (previous to citation verification) tended to indirectly support her position. I am struggling to assume good faith. These are exceedingly disruptive acts and they do not make the article better. I request that each of these reverts of the citations I added are reverted back, as a first priority. Diffs for the changes of concern that I have found begin here [11], and continue here [12], here [13], here [14], and here [15].
These statements and their citations are parts of biographies of living persons. They are nested within this article where, by prior consensus, the bios are incubating for further development before being spun out as articles on their own merit. Each statement, and in some cases, each element within each statement, requires citation.
Many statements, references, and citations contained within this article have been heavily influenced by one editor's citing of external links to a) self-published material, b) sites over which that editor has either partial or complete editorial control, and c) sites whose content that editor has influenced, or does influence, including a blog article about that editor wherein the blog author notes having received a letter from that editor. These are not valid citations. Consensus over inclusion or dis-inclusion of content, and titling/naming of the article content they pertain to, has been reached on the basis of these faulty citations.
The neutrality of the current page title is again challenged (discussion above at Talk:Tree shaping#Proposal to Move: Arborsculpture or Tree Shaping and at several points in the 7 archives), on the basis that prior consensus on the re-titling was both reached without adequate discussion and that it hinged on these purportedly neutral citations, which are not in fact neutral. We have reached consensus to work on the citations first, which I agree with, but am now hesitant to continue, as it seems like wasted effort.
In any case, it is completely inappropriate for any editor, in particular one who is covered or featured prominently in an article, to exercise this level, or any level, of control over the cited content in that article, or any article. I object most strenuously to this activity. I request intervention and intend to pursue appropriate mediation if this is not resolved swiftly. Duff (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree that Blackash should not be editing this article with anywhere near the current magnitude. Blackash, I suggest you reread Wikipedia:COI#Non-controversial edits.
Regarding citation style, I'd quote the sentence beginning "If the material is particularly contentious..." at WP:CITE#Inline citations. (using citations mid-sentence should be a last resort)
Regarding reliability of sources, I agree with Duff completely.
Regarding the page title, I don't believe there could be a good consensus to move back to arborsculpture (currently), given the various comments from many of the artists mentioned in this article, at Talk:Tree_shaping/Archive_2#Move from Arborsculpture to Tree Shaping. Yes, it is a wonderfully appropriate sounding word (with a closeness to arboriculture, and a fairly obvious/intuitive meaning) however it has been objected to by numerous "experts" in this artistic field (assuming they were who they said they were). I don't believe there is enough fresh evidence to make a solid decision, one way or the other (but I'm open to slow persuasion). -- Quiddity (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being open Quid, when the time comes, I will offer some fresh evidence. We should of course use "good sources" as Colonel Warden says. Lets remember that the objections were derived from a mailing list of 500, they are single edits accounts admittedly invited by Blackash to comment. Cattle was asked to remove the word arborsculpture from his web site and he did so. Boonneter, Konstantin Kirsch and Herman Block are experts who all use the word arborsculpture. The usage that should be here has little to do with the so called experts it's what is being used in the University's the Tree Care Industry, Arborist and the Landscapers trade. Artist opinions like mine, are primary evidence and likely subject to bias.Slowart (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Slowart, as you know the page was moved and the subsequent discussion was well on its way before I made a newbie mistake of e-mailing our mailing list. As you also know Boonneter, is from Thailand and Konstantin Kirsch and Herman Block are from Germany and they were informed that Arborsculpture was standard English. Arborsculputre is a Neologism (my debate with supporting links) with strong links to you Richard Reames. Google arborsculpture. Blackashhave a chat 13:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Duff if you are going to give diffs please do so I have linked the diffs with my thoughts when I made the changes.
1 Where do you get the idea we are a "partnership" in the business sense? I removed that and add some content.
2 I thought the use of multiple inline citations to the same reference was a bit excessive. Removed only multiple inline citations.
3 Two words before repeating the same inline citation? Really? Removed only one of references.
4 I thought the use of multiple inline citations to the same reference was a bit excessive. Removed no text thou, only the ref.
5I thought the use of multiple inline citations to the same reference was a bit excessive. Removed no text thou, only the ref.
@Duff quote "influenced by one editor's citing of external links" Please look at the article before all this debate started. :[16] Please note there are no links to treeshapers.net, also any links to pooktre linked straight the media page in the reference. Not material that I could "control". The article was open to editing by anyone at that time.
The article was changed because if you Google Arborsculpture it leads to Richard Reames and his methods. Arborsculpture is not neutral. Here is the last edit before article's name change [17] Ummm this was before all those "faulty citations"
Duff I asked you earlier not do this, but maybe you just missed it so I give the brief version here. Duff you are the one who has added at least 11 links to one of our sites, it seems you are planting evidence to make your statement true. Here is the diff of your changes [18]. Don't make changes and then say goodness me it's too heavily weighed this way. Please don't do this again. Blackashhave a chat 13:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All content at Treeshapers.net is presumably based upon material from elsewhere, which is what we should be using. The site makes a fairly good external link, but a poor reference source for the purposes of our article.
I've never been able to get webcitation.org to work (possibly one of my browser extensions is interfering). That doesn't really matter, as treeshapers.net isn't a reliable source anyway, so the whole issue is moot.
I did get WebCite to work; it opened blank in Firefox, but opened clean in IE, which I keep for just such pesky sites. Anyhoozle, there was indeed a 404 error upon opening the site, at the very point when I was making the references requested, so that felt inky and was disconcerting. However, the page was restored within 5 minutes of that odd event, and upon comparison with the WebCite archived page, it was identical, a fact that is of great relief to me.
So...regarding these steps too:
yank the cites?
keep resultant unsourced content?
seek other sources to support it. Slowart contributed a stack or three.
toss what won't submit to verification?
bios: not keep resultant unsourced content?
finish what I started on tightening up the references section?
return the External Link for the treeshapers.net site.
Same policy with all sites cited which link to the artists covered?
Ditto with return of external links?...There are 1 or 2 others I treated as converted to references and so deleted from External Links.
Also, credit where due: Geez, this woman has got a BEEUtiful garden: [19]Duff (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially yes, except regarding bios, where anything non-contentious can just be tagged with {citation needed}, for future sourcing.
WP:Primary references are fine, as long as used with care.
Yah, everyone involved in this artform create beautiful works. Hence we're all here, and trying to help inform the rest of the world! :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Short refs (and other citation styles) are good. I'm not familiar with them all, but anything consistent is fine. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am removing this entire statement about a living person, until and unless it can be properly sourced, (which I doubt, because I have searched carefully for another reliable source, but still welcome):
The first part of the sentence is not supported by the reference provided, if that reference even stands as a reliable source in the first place, which remains to be determined. The second part does not stand alone without the first partm and is referenced by a source (QSFMagazine) that is (so far) unavailable for verification, though welcome to be considered for reliability if available, hence the [verification needed] tag. How much does the sentence add anyway? Does it make the article any better? As a reader of an article about tree shaping, I don't find it a particularly valuable, compelling, informative, or encyclopedic statement.
"decided to grow a chair in 1987" which is what the farmshowmagazine article says verbatim, is not "started that same year," (as the year he had the idea, as referenced in the prior sentence, also with an unreliable reference, treeshapers.net, that we've already agreed to yank, and which statement also needs to be yanked unless a reliable reference for that can be found). This is the same point I intended to convey at our previous discussion regarding "When he/she had the idea" and we did reach consensus on that point. Again, when a person "decided" something around tree shaping, or "had an idea" to do something around tree shaping, is not going to be verifiable, no matter how many people or media outlets are told this by the person who supposedly decided or had an idea. That is original research and doesn't belong in the article. Any other editors or admins have thoughts on this?Duff (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Volz Reference
On the Volz/Queensland Smart Farmer citation, thank you Blackash for finally providing the link to the actual article, which you did at 2010-05-28T22:29:40 with this edit diff.
No thank you for your comment in the edit summary for your edit fixing the title of the citation:
"(Duff are you so are you bias you can't even use the real title in the ref if they use Tree shapers? The article title is" A Tree shaper's life" not On-farm Interview with Pooktre)" which you did just over an hour later at 2010-05-28T23:43:22, with this edit diff.
While the link to the article is appreciated, your exceptionally improper direct accusation of bias aimed at me, nestled in the edit summary for the edit wherein you changed the citation title to the correct article title, is both is both spurious and disingenuous, given that the article itself was not made available when you added the citation originally.
As you clearly are aware, previously the only source for this citation was pooktre...History of Pooktre http://www.pooktre.com/history_09.html, where only a brief summary of your meeting with Volz was provided; not the title of the article.
The only information you provided for the original duplicated citation was the title and date of the magazine, which is what I googled (Smart Farmer Magazine Pooktre) to find the information (only) on your website, which is where I found the name of the author, which I also googled ((Smart Farmer Magazine Pooktre Volz) and which still did not yield the original article.
This is why I chose to clarify the 2 separate ambiguous untitled citations you provided ("Queensland Smart Farmer, Oct./Nov. 2008 (Australia)" and "Magazine Smart farmer Oct nov 2008"; one of many I worked on) with the single more detailed citation, including a title "on-farm interview", derived from the information you provided on your website, in the absence of the article itself. It was neutral and accurate, but I far prefer the correct title and link. There's a WP rule on being nasty in the edit summaries, but I'll leave that to you to find and read. Please remember to be polite, edit honestly, and assume good faith.
I apologize for my hasty assumption which was based on your earlier behavior where you have shown a clear bias. For example by removing of Pooktre (and even our names) from our images in the article. Yet leaving the other images with names or alternative terms on them. I had the impression you had gone to our site, we have a media page that is easy to find that links images of Smart farmer article. I didn't link to the article on Tree shaping as I was been neutral and not doing "self promotion" Blackashhave a chat 10:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I accept your apology, though your assumptions about my "earlier behavior" and "clear bias" are also faulty. No branding. Simple. WP sound and without controversy. Is it your assumption that anyone who plainly disagrees with one or many of your positions is biased and that your positions are neutral? Duff (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Citation Styles
RP template for cites to multiple page #'s of the same book
Refactoring bits of this discussion here first, from elsewhere on this page, for continuity.
Re: Citations: The template {{rp}} is strongly cautioned against unless absolutely necessary. Which alternative would you recommend, Duff (or anyone else knowledgeable on this)?
-- Quiddity (talk) 1:37 pm, 26 May 2010, last Wednesday (6 days ago) (UTC−7)
Re: Citations: Quiddity, with your ok, I'd like to move this comment and your response about citations up to the citations & references section of the discussion, under a heading like Citation Styles, so that that continuity of that discussion may be maintained. I recommend the {{rp}} template, and that is why I started using it, to solve an ongoing and exponentially increasing problem which is precisely the one described in the text for usage of the template. 'Strongly cautioned against' is a bit over the top. Here's what the warning says:
" Warning: This template should not be used unless necessary. In the vast majority of cases, citing page numbers in the ref code is just fine. This template is only intended for sources that are used many, many times in the same article, to such an extent that normal citation would produce a useless line in references or too many individual ones. Overuse of this template will make prose harder to read, and is likely to be reverted by other editors. Used judiciously, however, it is much less interruptive to the visual flow than full Harvard referencing and some other reference citation styles."
In particular (though there may be others), the 2 Reames references have been quoted from practically every page, on points which would not seem contentious but for the ongoing and one-sided attack on the word arborsculpture (not my choice to do so, but since it's a reliable source, it's a reasonable cite). I would otherwise say that the vast majority of citations to the Reames books are excessive, as are several other cases which still stand in the article today of unattractive CITATION OVERKILL. I can't readily verify any of the Reames citations, since I don't own those texts and they're not (AFAIK) available on the web, but assuming in good faith that the references are accurate and that the statements referenced are not direct quotes from the books, I'm ok with statements so cited. The messy and far-to-lengthy reference list is not ok and it is very difficult to verify anything in its present condition. This is what I stated I was going to try to resolve and started to do. I researched it carefully before deciding to use {{rp}}, because it is the best and most appropriate way to deal with these most copiously cited references. IMO, it is indeed necessary. If someone comes up with a better way that achieves the same goals, I'm good with that too. I am not ok with the deletion of the rp references (these are among my concerns as stated above). Edit summaries of "doesn't make sense" to explain these deletions are inadequate and unhelpful. Duff (talk) 2:38 am, 28 May 2010, last Friday (4 days ago) (UTC−7)
Feel free to refactor my comments for cohesive organization.
I'm only familiar with the basic cite templates; I'll try to research the alternatives sometime, but it might not be soon. Whatever you suggest, and are willing to implement, is fine by me :) More comments when I have time. -- Quiddity (talk) 11:49 am, 28 May 2010, last Friday (4 days ago) (UTC−7)
Done Both the refactoring of this discussion here and the {{rp|x}} template choice for multiple (say, more than 2) citations aimed at the same reference. It is simple and immediately follows each citation's closing ref tag. Duff (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Radio and TV Interview Citations
Listing a gang of them under a single citation makes them difficult, if not impossible to verify. This reference is a case in point, presently @ #52:
52. Radio interviews about Grownup Furniture
BBC radio 5 live CC with David Davies. Transmitted in "the Magazine" March 1996
BBC radio Wales CC with Rebecca John. Transmitted in 'Good morning Wales' September 12, 1997
CBC radio 1 CC with Arthur Black. Transmitted in "Basic Black" November 6 & 13, 1999
Radio Deutsche Welle (Colne) CC with Paul Chapman. Transmitted in English language service "Science & technology" November 16, 1998
(Sky News in their general interest news syndicated to USA on November 17, 1999, with Lucy Chator and November 3, 2002, with Jonathan Samuels.)
One way to standardize the citation is with cite episode (from Wikipedia:Citation templates). I like this way because it's easy to duplicate and requires only the title to use it. Thus, a full radio/tv citation could contain much more verification information, if available, and would look something like this:
{{Cite episode
| title =
| episodelink =
| url =
| series =
| serieslink =
| credits =
| network =
| station =
| city =
| airdate =
| began =
| ended =
| season =
| seriesno =
| number =
| minutes =
| transcript =
| transcripturl= }}
Can we get consensus that this is a good place to start for such citations?
Further, on this particular citation, supporting Cattle's bio info (but not sure which info or the content of the interviews) where it currently points is the last remaining WP:OVERKILL instance (way too many cites). There are other cites there that are more easily verifiable, and I'd like to keep say 2 of those, as per Martin Hogbin's suggestion, and move the rest, if they can be verified as supporting the use of the term grown furniture to refer generically to our topic, to that alternate name in the alternate names section, as I did with the arborculture overkill cites. I don't really want to format all those radio citations, but will knock it out if the consensus to both these is yes, and the citations are verifiable and not just fluff. If unverifiable or deemed fluff, let's say we pitch 'em. Thoughts? Duff (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Design options section
Section name switched back to Design Options, and here's why: I again replaced the bullet point approach with the flowed text in this section. It is preferred over the bullet point approach for a couple of reasons. Design alternatives are not restricted to three overlapping styles, but are instead wide open.
By overlapping, I mean that Architectural could easily fall under either Intended harvest or Living art.
Some relevant discussion on this occurred on my user page, prior to the recent original change I made, and so I'm clipping it to here for reference:
you asked Q: Are architectural projects ever designed for intentional harvest or always living art?
As far as I know, they are all intended to remain living. Slowart (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've had another thought on this too: The boats. Your buddy's and this one [[20]]. Also those willow rod fences, etc. Hmmm. Where am I going with this...The splitting in the section on Styles is bugging me. Pretty soon I'll advocate for calling the whole article Basketry. Duff (talk) 01:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Architectural" use of trees is probably not a "Style" or a subset, Rudolph Doernach called the use of plants and trees for houses, biotecture.
Now we have Living art -verses- Intentional harvest, these are not "styles" this is an approach to the art. You can design a chair for harvest, by planting 4 legs or design your chair for staying alive and only planting one leg. Or even change your mind at any time or if anything dies and eventually they all die, then you save it if it's worth it, even if it's a one leg chair. Slowart (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snortle. One-leg chair. Average lifespan of Prunus cerasifera? 20 years, a very short century. Duff (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the info is better titled: "Design Options"- Inclusions, functionality, symbols and letters, for harvest, for longevity, for architecture.Slowart (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better. Lemmesee here. Further consolidation in order. Duff (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The two different process of shaping tree trunks has been blended and merged. The ring barking part is not at all how it was written about in Richard's book. He stated 5 methods of ring barking to slow the growth of a dominant branch to allow a slower growing pathway to catch up. The plan is to keep the branch as part of the design, not to kill it off and later remove it.
I think we should follow the Bonsai style, change Methods to Techniques and have sub headings with appropriate text.
Suggested subheadings
Bending
bending 2-3 year old trees from 1 hour to whole afternoon.
Training
day to day guiding of the new growth of seedlings.
Framing
depending on which shaping technique being used, the framing is either to hold a bent mature tree in place or to support the growing tree.
Aeroponic roots
growing roots in a nutrient rich mist, to achieve lengths of 6 meter or more for shaping at a later date.
Creasing
using trees such as willow and poplar to be folded over upon themselves.
Grafting
to join branches or trees to create a design
Ring barking
used to achieve the slowing down of dominant branch allowing slower branches to catch up.
Pruning
mainly used to keep the design free of unwanted branches and to reduce the size of the canopy.
This is a very brief outline. Each section has a lot more information available in relation to Tree shaping.
We can work on the wording and refs for each section here first and then put it up on the front once we have consensus. I am not ready to start on this just yet as I want to find some more info about the different Alternative names first. After that I will do some more work on the techniques. Blackashhave a chat 02:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1.'Ring barking' is just poor English (albeit common) for damaging a plant or branch of a plant by girdling it, which is why it redirects there. Girdling kills the branch. That's factual. We dont need to adhere to the wording chosen by any specific author or editor to convey the information clearly.
2.Oppose proposal to change the format of the methods section at this time. That is looking a lot like a how-to or guidebook, which we can't do. See WP:NOHOWTO Please sit on this idea for now, allow it to season a little, and work on finishing some of the other dangling and tedious matters, such as the backlog of tightening up poorly formatted and questionable references, left for others to untangle. For a start, read WP:CITE and its offshoots.
3.Furthermore, suggest strongly that involved editors should busy themselves with articles in which they are not involved, and should be allowing and encouraging non-involved editors to make such changes, instead of making such changes themselves, since it is so difficult to maintain NPOV and nobody likes having to arm wrestle over every point. Editors, especially involved editors, can do themselves a disservice by engaging so forcefully. Put what you think is important stuff on your own site (it's already disproportionately represented in the references section, by the way) and shape that site as you wish. Suggest it here if you wish to. Interested but uninvolved editors will find it, add it, and cite it if they find its reliable and relevant. That's how wikipedia is supposed to work. Duff (talk) 06:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ Duff I don't know where you got the idea I was going to rush in and start changing things when I stated that
I wanted to work elsewhere on the page first.
I wanted to work on one subheading at a time before putting it on the main article.
You shouldn't be implying that you are neutral when it can be seen here, here and by your continual use of arborsculpture into discussion when the word is not even needed here that you are not.
Duff's quote "your site....disproportionately represented in the references section" You are the one who has added at least 11 links to one of our sites, it seems you are planting evidence to make your statement true. Here is the diff of your changes [21]. I have always endeavored to reference media details instead of linking to our sites which I could easily have done on multiple instances. I also will search for new references when asked instead of taking the easy route and linking to the site you are complaining about. Don't make changes and then say goodness me it's too heavily weighed this way. Please don't do this again. Blackashhave a chat 23:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon the belated reply. I had to give this one some serious thought. I did add the single citation to the bio page on treeshapers.net [Peter-Becky Bio http://www.treeshapers.net/peter-becky.html], and I did reference that single citation repeatedly in the several edits I made in the diff provided above, in the context of nailing down what was citeable and not in the Cook/Northey section. It seemed (and seems) the most appropriate citation for information in the Cook/Northey section of the bios. It was also the only citation found for some of the bio info presented and it's the only place in the article that a self-published source could be cited. However, that was not the citation I was referring to when I pointed out here on the talk page on the following day that the editors' sites were disproportionately represented in the references section. Instead, I was referring to the multiple other instances of citing the self-published material at both treeshapers.net and pooktre.com to reference statements outside of the section on Cook/Northey. I do apologize for any confusion that may have caused and for any misunderstanding that may have arisen over misconstruing of my motives for either of those edits. Duff (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison with other forms of living sculpture section
This section contains an odd line in the first paragraph of the topiary sub-section: "tree shaping is primarily the practice of manipulating stems and bonding trees together by grafting.": Is this a a new definition? Also, I've removed the Pleaching sub-section from this section: as written it's inaccurate, perhaps most importantly because pleaching is actually a method which is part of this art that we are writing about (not something else to be compared to), in the same way that shaping and bending are methods which are part of it, and in the same way that grafting or topiary, (less often perhaps) may be a part of it. See the Methods section for a place to perhaps fold it in. Here is the text I removed, for convenience, in case it is useful elsewhere:
====Pleaching====
Pleaching is similar to espalier, in that it trains rows of trees to grow in the vertical.[4]: 11–12 Pleaching is trees trained into raised hedge with flat planes and hedges,[5] and, therefore, is inaccurate way to describe tree shaping.[6]: 24 "
(Talk:Tree Shaping#References, is upthread: preexisting reflist.) Duff (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Duff as you keep telling me "you don't get to pick and choose" well neither do you. This subheading of pleaching meets WP:Verifiability so I putting it back. Blackashhave a chat 11:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both the reinstatement of the poor text and the redeletion of the better text. Please point out a single instance of the asserted quote: "you don't get to pick and choose", or strike that assertion. Pleaching is not a related craft, it's part of the craft. Furthermore, I added the clearer and expanded text where it belongs, in the History section and that is referenced too. If it's morereferences that are sought on that, please just ask for some, as we have been doing. Please don't just delete my work over and over. Is there a good reason to delete the better and more expansive, connected text from the history section and replace it with brief and poor English in the lower and improper section? More information is better. I looked at the pleaching article and doesn't contain much other info, it's also poorly referenced & I may propose a merge of that to this article, since the information is about this craft.
The 2 sentences added back are really poor English, so please work that out first before putting it back anywhere. That's really more of a grammar issue. Also, the really nice continuous flow of the History section has been interrupted again, which clearly established the steps in the development of the idea and of the craft. While I accept that this may not have anything to do with how Pooktre developed, the article is not about Pooktre, and this is how the craft developed, and it is part of the history of this topic. Not part of a related topic, but a foundational element of the craft, in a way that topiary and bonsai are not, though these two are also forms of tree shaping, if that winds up remaining the title of this page.
Again, comments that belong here on the talk page for discussion are nestled in several edit summaries, where they can't be easily discussed.
These are the diffs and comments, associated with the re-insertion of really mediocre text, followed by the re-deletion of really good material:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tree_shaping&oldid=365621583 the edit summary:"(→Related art forms: It cited please don't remove. This meets WP:Verifiability)" (I didn't delete it for verifiability, but now that it's mentioned, all three cites are questionable for WP:Reliability, as you've noted yourself on two of them earlier this evening. Self-Published, remember? Can only be used in the part about the author, remember? I am challenging the third: http://www.plantedplants.com/?page_id=20 The post is poorly synthesized, AND It's a commercial landscaping business website: the information cited there is unreliable, incorrect, grammar-weak, not subject to peer review, and generally unscholarly.) Unless there are some reliable cites for that information + a decent rendition grammar-wise, it's out. I'll be refactoring this whole nugget to the cites section too.Duff (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The deleted, and better section from the history section was as follows:
Pleached trees. Drawing by Johnathan Webber. Commissioned work for the book How to Grow a Chair
"Pleaching is inosculation, when it is aided or initiated by humans.[7] In an early, labor-intensive, practical use of pleaching, woody plants are installed in the ground in lines, then shaped by trimming to form a flat plane above ground level. These installations are often designed and planted in parallel hedgerow or quincunx patterns. Branches are then woven or joined together at the design height. Their bark is wounded at the joins and bound together until they grow together, forming a raised grid upon which planks can be placed to support structures, perhaps above a floodplain.[7] In late medieval gardens through the 18th century, pleached allées were common in European gardens. The ornamental craft of topiary, the agricultural craft of espalier, and the arboricultural craft of arborsculpture all developed from the utilitarian practice of pleaching."
Artists' mini-bio section
Alphabetic or Chronological order of tree shapers?
I think putting the tree shapers into alphabetical order is the wrong way to go, it just seems to be an arbitrary way to sort them. The Tree shapers had been date ordered and I believe this is a more natural flow for an article and is of interest to the reader to know who did what and when. I would like for them to be put back into date order. Blackashhave a chat 02:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Chronological ordering is more informative than alphabetical. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't strongly disagree, though I do disagree. Who did what and when they did it is clearly asserted (and not at all well cited) in the text of each bio. The alphabet is not arbitrary in the slightest. It is orderly and neutral in the extreme. If the list is indeed in chronological order, that fact is not clearly stated nor readily evident (Take Wu, for example), and thus the order chosen (and very quickly reverted to) appears to be arbitrary and reads like non-neutral POV to the casual reader. How about allowing more time than an hour and a half for consensus to develop before reverting? There is no hurry. If editorial consensus is that the list of bios should be presented in chronological order, then that helpful fact belongs in a note at the head of the list of bios. Thanks Duff (talk) 09:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alphabetical would be closer to a NPOV for living artist anyway. The exact date someone started pruning or made a graft is IMO irrelevant.Slowart (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The relevance of chronological order doesn't change just because the artist is dead, the only difference I can see is the dead don't protest when branded. Slowart as you know this art form can involve large spans of time. So it would be of interest to the reader to have an idea of when an artist started creating their art. Blackashhave a chat 22:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The recent change to including dates before names in the headings of the bios is confusing, unattractive, and does not improve the article. Who is being branded and how are they being branded? As tree shapers? The date a person 'had' an idea is not only not encyclopedic, it's not interesting and its not referenceable unless perhaps if there were some reliable reference to the person saying that they had a certain idea at a certain time...and for that, it's got to say that in the text, like this: "Theresa Shaper told interviewers on Fox News that she had the idea to rename Prunus cerasifera as Prunus myrobalan in 1962, but only began petitioning the scientific community about it in 2010, after having referred to her plants in print by the name she preferred since the mid 90's." When she manifested the idea in some referenceable way MIGHT be encyclopedic. Not when she claimed to have thought of it, and not how repeatedly she insisted that the idea came to her out of the blue and with complete obliviousness to others having similar ideas. Wikipedia is not a patent establishment forum. That debate belongs in court maybe, and we could reference such a case on this page, perhaps. We certainly don't establish a chronological order of bios on the basis of when we insist a person had a thought, or even when they say they had a thought. That's why alphabetical order was better, and it should go back to NPOV alphabetical order, keeping in each bio only properly cited material about the ideas and their dates. Unreferenced material is challenged and should be deleted if it can't be properly referenced with reliable sources. Duff (talk) 11:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe it is useful to list the people in chronological order. Most of our high-quality lists of people follow this convention, eg the Featured List of major opera composers. We could order the artists by year of first actively shaping trees, or by year of their birth. (I do agree that ordering by "year they claim to have thought of the idea" is inappropriate, even if explicitly stated and sourced). Any ordering that does not place Krubsack and Erlandson first in the list, seems like a poor solution. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with the dates out of the headers, I think the date should be at the start of each artists section. It would make sense to have the dating start from first shaping. Blackashhave a chat 23:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the now named Chronology of the Craft the wording seems awkward. I think it should go back to Tree shapers and have the fact the artists are listed in chronological order in the starting sentence. The title as it is now could be talking about a number of different things.
I'm also not enthusiastic about this wording "Some notable artists were aware of and inspired by earlier artists" as this gives the impression that the artists were notable before they were inspired.
Although this is true "while others assert having discovered and developed their craft independently" I think the earlier wording of "The individual artists may not have been aware of their predecessors" is a more general wording and covers artists who not aware of earlier artists and haven't assert so, to be covered. With some artists it can not be established one way or the other. Blackashhave a chat 00:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose reverting each of these changes and will be very pleased to explain why, if you will please move these comments into the 2 ongoing discussions about these very points, where consensus is developing, and please stop making a new section containing your ruling on several sections presently or previously involved in consensus building. Leaving others to do the work of refactoring comments and cleaning uo references wastes everyone's editorial time, confuses easily understandable positions, and erodes consensus. So quitit. Thanks Duff (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to move it and then discuss it but which two discussions are you talking about? Blackashhave a chat 01:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On a second look, all 3 belong with continuing discussion of the entire section @ Alphabetic or Chronological order of tree shapers, perhaps as subheadings?Duff (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal to Move: Arborsculpture or Tree Shaping
I've read the AfD and the archived discussions on this talk page, including moderators comments. A lot of energy has been spent around this page and pooktre. My sense is that Arborsculpture was a more descriptive and compelling article title. I am not inclined to agree that the word is a neologism, if it ever was. Tree shaping is, IMO, a more confusing and ambiguous term. It is too narrow, in that arborsculpture encompasses not only trees, but all living woody plants (shrubs, vines, etc.), including their roots, as does the art described. It is simultaneously too vague, in that 'shaping' obviously can be construed to encompassing trees which are subjected to bonsai, topiary, even arboriculture, etc., if you take my point. That is why the (IMO) excessive comparison section is now necessary, is to resolve this inherent naming ambiguity. The word arborsculpture inherently communicates part of the heart of the art, which is arboriculture, the definition of which is inclusive of all woody plants. The artists doing these works are performing arboriculture to do them, in the keenest sculptural sense, each one of them. Credit wherever coining credit is due. Bravo to the crafters and their craft. I have no skin in that game and don't own any of those books. Arborsculpture has, like it or don't, come to mean this distinct (and yet broad) thing, as differentiated from the rest of those fine trunk and foliage shaping arts. Please type agree or disagree (bold) before your comments on the proposal to change the name back to Arborsculpture, as this is an attempt to re-evaluate the consensus on that change on its own talk page, where that discussion belongs, so that people who watch this page (and who weren't necessarily watching the pooktre page) can receive notice on their watchlists of the proposal to change back. Please also remember to indent comments with the progressive # of colon sign(s) to maintain continuity and readability. Also, finally, if your personal signature is HUGE, couldja consider reducing it to normal size, so it doesn't so tend to convey undue weight? Thanks! Duff (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Duff you are misrepresenting several different issues. Here are 3 of them for example
"spent around this page and pooktre" (most of energy spent has been about arborsculpture, pooktre article had a short life twice before we asked for it to be deleted)
"excessive comparison section is now necessary" (this was on the article when it was titled Arborsculpture)
"Credit wherever coining credit is due" (and yet you change Dr Chris Cattle from having the idea to being inspired? not really giving credit where it is due.) There are more but I leave that for another time.
Disagree about moving. Google arborsculpture it leads to one person Richard Reames. Arborsculpture is Neolegism please follow link where I discuss the Neologism of arborsculpture and link to the appropriate Wikipedia policies. Blackashhave a chat 02:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I oppose a move unless and until we have good evidence for the new title. This evidence should be examples of good sources which indicate a preponderance for the usage. I have added such a source - The Home Orchard - to the lead in support of the names arborsculpture and tree trunk topiary. Let us have more such sources please. I have also put the various alternate titles for this practise in bold face as this is our usual style. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unnecessary and potentially disruptive proposal which I shall ask Duff to withdraw and everyone to simply ignore. SilkTork *YES! 10:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I second SilkTork's comment. (I want to say more, I shall refrain). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Duff's well reasoned argument should not be ignored. This page was seriously disrupted long ago. I think the issue will return and return as new editors arrive and wounder why this article title has a general category "Tree shaping" Yet describe an art referred to most often by the specific name arborsculpture.Slowart (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Slowart (Richard Reames), at present arborsculpture is only one word in group of Neologisms that are used to refer to the art form. SilkTork proved that pooktre is also generic. As pooktre leads to us, arborsculpture leads to you. It would be inappropriate to have either word as the overall name of the art form. Blackashhave a chat 23:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1) There is a clear difference in "generic-ness". The word "Arborsculpture" is intended to be generic. In contrast, you would prefer that "Pooktre" be the name for a specific subset of "tree shaping" (anything that does not include "fast" methods of shaping).
2) According to google results (not a strong criterion to base things on, but a legitimate datum to be aware of...): "Arborsculpture" is strongly tied to Reames. "Pooktre" is strongly tied to Cook&Northey. "Tree shaping" is also fairly strongly tied to Cook&Northey (via your registration of treeshapers.net and by referring to the practice as "Pooktre Tree Shaping" in many interviews/articles).
So, none of these is unbiased. The whole issue is complicated. I don't think now is a good time to reexamine the issue. If it is to be examined again, then the prior discussions need to be much more extensively linked/summarized (beyond the 1 sentence mention that Duff has given). I don't think now is a good time to reexamine the issue. Give it a few months. (Personally, I think of them collectively as "Tree circus", for a variety of reasons that I won't attempt to explain.) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is complicated. Tree shaping is closely linked to us because we have the images people want to publish. If the name had been changed to Tree training instead of Tree shaping we would still have the same problem except it would be Tree training linked to us.
You may be interested to know that before the world expo in Japan we where asked if we wanted Pooktre or Circus Trees for the overall name of the art form. We felt that as Axel N. Erlandson had done his trees first, grown even and balanced pieces, that we where happy to have our trees associated with his. So in Japan at the Expo the art form was called Circus trees. Blackashhave a chat 02:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term, not books and papers that use the term." Quote form WP:NEO These links have one thing in common they all use the word arborsculpture. One of the citations also uses the wording Tree shaping and other one has a method linked to the word arborsculpture. Quote "plans to demonstrate arborsculpture, which is a unique method of bending and grafting" form [23]Blackashhave a chat 09:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That section of WP:NEO is to do with establishing the notability of articles where a word itself is the topic, eg Agitprop, Google (verb), etc. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My sentence must be a bit out of date as on the WP:NEO it has "particular term or concept" in the sentence. So it not just where the word itself is the topic but also a concept. Blackashhave a chat 01:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again they use the word. Quote WP:NEO "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles." Blackashhave a chat</span> 01:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brief discussion on arborsculpture, moved here from User:SilkTorks talkpage
So, are we to understand that the word arborsculpture should not be used in the article? Should only be used in certain sections? Should only be used to describe one artist's work? Should only be used to describe the work of those artists who do not object to the use of the word? Why should or shouldn't any or all of the other alternate names be used in the article? I seek understanding. How does this compare with usage of alternate names in other Wikipedia articles? Please explain the distinction. Could you please respond to this on the Talk page, at your convenience?Duff (talk) 08:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I have been slow to respond to both these queries - I am on Wiki only briefly at the moment, and usually to do some research for off-Wiki work I am doing. I had hoped to withdraw myself from the Tree shaping article and allow it to develop organicaly. I am on the whole in favour of the work Duff has been doing, though slightly concerned about Duff's interest in using the term arborsculpture in place of tree shaping, as it is the arborscupture term which has been the primary cause of disputes. There was a period of discussion and research conducted into the term. A summary of that would be that the term was coined by Richard Reames, and is associated with that person. Reames has used the term when talking about tree shaping, and so the term has been adopted by neutral commentators as a generic term for tree shaping. I have said right from the start that I feel it would be appropriate for an article to be created on either Richard Reames or Arborsculpture, which deals with Richard Reames' tree shaping/arborsculture work. But that the article we now know as Tree shaping should be about tree shaping in general, including its history before Reames' involvement, and to include mention of and links to other known forms of tree shaping, such as Bonsai and Pleaching. As the arborsculture term has an association with one person, then prominent use of the term can gain that person some commercial/prestige advantage, which would be against the spirit and the policies of Wikipedia. As we have an acceptable neutral alternative, which also has the advantage of being more descriptive for the general reader, of "tree shaping", that is the term to be prefered. This is not to say that the arborsculpture term is banned - on the contrary, I feel it is highly appropriate to use the word in both describing Reames' work, and also as part of an explanation that there are alternative terms in use. Also, I don't wish for people to get into an edit war over the term, so if there is a long term use of the word in an article, that use should remain. But if arborsculpture has been used to replace tree shaping, or has been inserted additionally into a sentence without adding any meaning, then it should be removed, as such use can be construed as looking for commercial or prestige advantage. I made a comment on this earlier, which can be found in the archives of the Tree shaping talkpage:
I think it would be disruptive to engage in an edit war on other articles over which term to use, "tree shaping" or "arborsculpture". I would favour "tree shaping" as that is the term we have agreed is the least problematic however, if arborsculpture is currently used appropriately in an article I feel it can be left there. Where there is an example of both "tree shaping" and "arborsculpture" being used in the same or consecutive sentences to no meaningful effect, then "tree shaping" is to be preferred. I have amended Axel Erlandson to remove arborsculpture.
The above explains, I think, the removal of arborsculpture in the Axel Erlandson article. The history of that article shows that the term arborscultpture was introduced needlessly, and the article worked well then without the term, and works well now.
I think this also explains why I recently ammended a use of the term arborscupture in the Tree shaping article. WP:Promotion and WP:Promotional give some loose guidance on this. SilkTork *YES! 10:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting around to this. The logic that arborsculpture is preferred over tree shaping due to the advantage it gives Reames, needs to be equally applied to the advantage "tree shaping" confers on Pooktre, As in Pooktre Tree Shapers. It seams to me advantages aside, I'm NOT here to promote, I am here to defend the attack on the organic growth of the word by a professional rival. You have to admit the last two editors in the last three months user Griesum and user Duff have had to battle it out with a COI editor. You have pressure a cooker on the stove, arborsculpture is organically growing, (is in current use by university's and tree industry professionals) user balckash is trying to keep a lid on it, I suspect the pressure will keep building. I am hoping you have tools or suggestions for involving a mediator or three. At this point neutral editors and mediators need to improve the page rather than to compromise it to death in the hopes of ending edit wars that just lead to more wars. I have more to say, unless other say it first, but I'll keep this one brief. Respectfully Slowart (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to respond, Silktork. I respect your opinion and I thank you for the nod to the work I have done recently on the (now) Tree shaping article. I find the topic meaningful. I am confused by the extent to which the use of the term in the article disturbs you, but I accept that it does. I understand clearly your desire to move on, because I've read all the archives on the page carefully, including your past efforts to mediate the controversy, which are laudable. It has been a wrestle to get even some of my most seemingly non-controversial edits to stick on that page. Questioning the authority or challenging the control of the dominant editor has led to several instances of necessary conflict resolution in the form of complaints to admins from the controlling editor. She's determined, I'll give her that. I've moved your comment into the pre-existing subsection by the same title, upwords on this page, to keep it with the several other comments about arborsculpture, so I don't lose track.
The word used outside Wikipedia and Blackash's circle of offended artists, to describe the topic that is now being called tree shaping, at Wikipedia and on several websites over which Blackash exerts influence or control, is arborsculpture. Arborsculpture as a concept has transcended Reames' work and encompasses the topic with little controversy, except here, whether the artists who do the work prefer the word or do not. One particular artist, Becky Northey, who also, as you know, is a prolific editor of the article, feels quite strongly about it. She has taken it upon herself to stir up and maintain controversy about it among other live wood sculpting artists, creating a false 'branding' association with the term. She has exerted an entirely inappropriate influence over first the titling and now the content of the article, in which she and her work is prominently featured. She is strongly associated with the phrase "Tree shaping," and you've caved to her extremely persistent, dramatic but fallacious argument. I haven't. Becky Northey aka Blackash is the registered domain name owner of the websites [24][25] and [[26]] and has well-documented on-topic book writing plans of her own. This is clearly stated on her own websites and on other websites, lots of bloggy stuff too, where her campaign to stalk the use of the word arborsculpture and promote the use of the word of Pooktre is readily evident if sought. I understand why she would prefer to coin her own word. It has become the focus of some mirth among the larger circle of artists, tree people, and designers. Though I acknowledge that there are some live tree crafters who now claim to have been made to feel branded by the word, any one of those artists, if notable, would be considered an involved editor and an acknowledged expert in the field, and not certainly permitted to exert the level of manipulation of both language material from reliable sources which were not considered as you were coming to your awareness of the topic.and content that one editor here has enjoyed. Fortunately, there is plenty of source
As a 25 year veteran of the tree industry and a former resident of the Santa Cruz County area, during the Tree Circus dissolution, I was quite familiar with the term arborsculpture and what it describes and with Alex Erlandson's work, though until I read the article I had not heard of Richard Reames or known of his books. Tree shaping is a new one on me, and not an acceptable compromise as the title of this craft, particularly given the profound influence that one editor has had on the attempted dissolution of the widespread acceptance of the terminology.
First, the work goes well beyond trees, which are one type of woody plant, generally including those woody plants that exceed 6 meters and have single or few trunks, to include shrubs and vines which are also sculpted into useful and ornamental things, so in that sense, your compromise choice is awkward and doesn't accurately or adequately encompass the scope of the practice. A similar debate emerged and was resolved at arboriculture, which is a very closely related field of practice (the planting and care of woody plants, especially trees) that also has experienced some controversy (though not nearly so narrowly and not over what to call it). There, it's the big-tree workers who wish to consider arboriculture their domain and to relegate those who perform arboriculture on other smaller woody plants do the domain of mere gardeners.
Second, the work doesn't always involve 'shaping' per se, as in David Ladd's inclusions-based work in which he is not doing any shaping, but instead is deliberately stimulating the formation of reaction wood.
Third, an article by the name Tree shaping, must include fully expanded explorations of, not just mention, but full discussions of equal, if not far outweighing weight of the topics pleaching, pruning, arboriculture, topiary, bonsai, and the myriad other ways that people shape trees and that trees shape themselves. Similarly. arborsculpture is one particular form of living sculpture.
I'm an avid pruner; a retired tree worker who made a good living for many years pruning and caring for backyard fruit and ornamental trees, shrubs, and vines. I'm not an arborsculptor, though I have twisted up quite a few arbors and carved out a few bears with a chainsaw. I certainly do shape trees, by pruning them for deadwood and high vitality, and I do this daily. You'd have to include my work with trees under a general title of tree shaping, but I submit that it's more of a category than an individual craft. I now own a small nursery and vegetable farm and when there's a surplus I'm a market gardener. I'm still an arborist. I'm also a lover of good words and few are as delicious as arborsculpture is in describing the nature of this craft, which sometimes reaches the level of an art. It's why the word has caught on so profoundly among the broader field of those who know and love wood and the plants that make it. Even if Reames wanted his work or his name to be solely associated with the word, which he doesn't particularly seem to, it would be irrelevant at this point, as the word has achieved general usage. I don't mind and I hereby submit Livewood sculpting, Tree sculpting, Xylem influence, and best of all arborisculpture (more properly constructed perhaps), as three options which are more neutral than and possibly more both more comprehensive and more specific than tree shaping, but only if we are determined to deny the common usage of the prevalent word.
The idea of that is itching at me though, as are the broader implications of the determined elimination of very specific and descriptive words from the lexicon and their substitution with more ambiguous terms instead. There's an inherent muddying there that I will resist and resist again, as necessary and as my faculties and time permit. The initial title switching was a disruptive act, in my opinion, and it has continued to reverberate disruption.
Arborsculpture is the word most commonly used to describe the craft, including Erlandson's work, in scholarly publications and reliable sources that discuss it. Not just a few and certainly not just in Reames' books anymore. SilkTork, with few exceptions, only those who've been influenced directly or indirectly by Becky Northey call this thing tree shaping. I'm not at all satisfied with that, particularly now that I've read the whole history, long and short.
The way I know it, arborsculpture is one practical application of arboriculture, as are topiary, bonsai, and espalier, each with a different goal. Its focus is training live xylem to form reaction wood and thereby create objects, using a variety of tools and evolving practices including grafting and pleaching to shape and form the objects. Arborsculpture relies on grafting, pleaching, and arboriculture to usefully wield certain woody plant characteristics over time. It is also paradoxically the antithesis of arboriculture, in that its focus is not directly the welfare of individual plants, but more the successful coaxing of them to form live wood in the shape of the objects that humans find most useful or attractive. Arborsculpture is accomplished by human physical manipulation of live wood, sometimes gentle, other times not. Humans, in their symbiotic engagement with wood producing plants, have evolved the capacity to imagine and encourage these useful behaviors and responses in them, and trees have evolved the capacity to behave and respond accordingly, in much the same way as they have accommodated wasps with their galls.
I find it fascinating that of the four times you used the word arborsculpture in your response, it was spelled correctly only once. Blackash tends to butcher the spelling, notably in citations, and it has caught my attention more than once. Maybe it's inadvertent, and if so, mea culpa, but SilkTork, is that purposeful? I welcome Quiddity's ongoing involvement and his openness to presentation of a well-reasoned argument and evidence to the contrary, and I also welcome yours, should it emerge. Blackash is wrong (though well-practiced at what she is doing) and has ruined any possible neutrality that Tree shaping might have enjoyed in my mind.
That said, I want to make this clear: I don't have any skin in it either way. I only want a better and more definitive article, one that is truly based on a preponderance of reliable secondary sources. I don't prefer the word arborsculpture, instead I know the word and the scope of the work. There's a difference which may strike you as subtle, or not, but know that I have no emotional or financial investment at stake whatsoever in what this topic is called; just a fully absorbed interest in everything having to do with plants, especially woody plants, and an equally profound interest in human language and the ways it is used.
That was very well explained. Essentially, I completely agree with almost everything.
I've considered suggesting new/unused neutral terms too, but came to the same conclusion that an unreferenced neologism (or protologism) would be inappropriate and unhelpful.
The spelling/grammar here has been consistently erratic, I'd suggest ignoring that ;) (I could point you elsewhere, for examples of famous people with far worse commands of sentence construction. At least the participants here are all comprehensible!)
I see some similarity between this dispute, and the dispute that is waiting to happen at Schmidt Sting Pain Index vs Starr sting pain scale. Over there, I'm still waiting for feedback on what the wider professional entomological community uses.
My ideal result here, would be that we use "arborsculpture" and "tree shaping" interchangeably within the article. (Without reviewing all the archived discussions, but from memory - ) They appear to both be very generically and widely used to define the artform, with regard to contemporary and historical pieces and people. They should be used interchangeably in exactly the way that "lift" and "elevator" are used at Elevator. However, I don't have any idea how to resolve what article title this article should have; perhaps that policy page does.
Hope that helps. I'll continue to watch and read everything, and chime in when I believe I have something worth saying. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Duff the mispelling of Arborsculpture seems to have started with Griseum he would spell as arborsculture, sometimes.
Duff this reference The Cutting Edge; June 2006 newsletter of the Victorian Woodworkers Association you gave, it is a classic example of the linkage between Richard Reames and Arborsculpture. This article was submitted by Richard Reames to www.vwa.org.au. This article talks about Richard and features images from both us at Pooktre and Dr Chris cattle with some text. Yet the only artist website that is given is Richard Reames. He uses other artist's images to lead to his web site, selling books describing the arborsculpture techniques a process of shaping trees which cannot achieve the results that lead people to the site in first place. Richard Reames has deliberately created this linkage between his name and the word arborsculpture so that he can reap the benefits of anyone branded with the word arborsculpute. Blackashhave a chat 03:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quiddity you seem to be ignoring these guidelines WP:Promotion and WP:Promotional. When a search of Arborsculpture is done it leads to Richard Reames hardly a neutral word. Blackashhave a chat 01:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not ignoring them. I'm taking into account the fact that the term "arborsculpture" is very widely used to describe the artform, and has been for over a decade, even outside of the people that Reames or yourself have been in contact with.
For example, this is one of my old bookmarks, (right underneath this one). It's a good word. It's widely used in our reality. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The example links you give are not outside of people Reames and myself have had contact with. The site was created for the Growing Village World Expo 2005. The Chief producer was John Garthright, who in 2000 had commission Richard Reames to fly to Japan to do a planting and shaping of 1200 trees, (John informed us the trees failed due to the Aborsculpture extreme bending methods used). This is what he had to say about the name change on the talk page.
"TreeShaping?
I have followed the present discussion about allocating a neutral name to the art and craft of grafting trees into unique and artistic forms. To be completely honest it causes me to reminisce back to 2003 when I first took on the position of Chief Producer for the Growing Village. The art of grafting and shaping trees is both ancient and modern. It can be both artistic and practical. There are various ecological perspectives as well as potential for tree damage and tree abuse.
In my research and preparations for the World Expo, I had the opportunity to meet and work with Mr. Richard Reames. I was very impressed with his passion for the Circus Trees history and his efforts to re-introduce the techniques and theories of previous people who grafted and shaped trees. Richard also coined a very interesting and catchy word "arborsculpture"
Originally, it was my intent to use the Arborsculture name for the Growing Village but, after further educating myself and visiting grafting artists and crafts persons around the globe it became evident that a more neutral name was necessary. With much deliberation and thought, (Odious Expo Committee meetings) it was voted that we accredit Richard Reames' research, efforts, and uniquely shaped trees by calling his work Arborsculpture. We would also use the original historically significant name of Circus Trees for Erlandson's trees and Unique and Artistic trees. Chairs and Furniture would be " Growing Furniture" Living and practicing artists could chose their own branding for their craft. It became evident during the expo after reviewing the comments of literally millions of people that we were correct.
Personally, I feel that this field is still young and exciting. There is great diversity in the practices, methods, and outcomes for this unique art form. Tree Shaping would seem neutral and generic to me! I would also encourage individual branding by all of the artists and practitioners'.
My vision is: this art form will only grow in appeal and popularity but there will be a time when we refer to individuals styles and techniques in the same way that we recognize a Picaso or Monet as an artist and style of art.
I recognize the need for a generic name and Tree Shaping does fit the criteria. I hope that there be efforts to also promote the uniqueness, diversity and history of the individual artist, researchers, and people who have helped to grow this exciting and visionary form of Arbor-Art!
Solicited opinions from uninformed single edit accounts of friends, carry no weight. If Dr. John Gathright, had the time or inclination to read the wikipeda policies like COI and NPOV, catch up on the discussion here, investigate the long sordid edit history, he would IMO, be appalled at the censorship and hostile editing environment you have created. If this were a forum then we would weigh the expert testimony of all our friends and newsletter subscribers, mine included not just yours. This is not a forum, or a place to attack the work and character of your adversary. Slowart (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Slowart/Reames those are rather large assumptions you are making. As you know you introduced us to John Gathright, and have had more interactions with him than we've had. He has a PHD in Bio Agricultural Science and has traveled the world researching different artists who shape trees, for the Growing village Expo 2005 Japan. Blackashhave a chat 10:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Blackash. Why is is it necessary for you to continually use my legal name over and over here? Feels like harassment to me. It is true I got you your job at the World Expo. Dr. Gathright wanted to use the word arborsculpture for the whole art on the English side of the expo web site. Quid's web archive links thisthis Illustrates your objection.
About Dr. Gathright, perhaps it is an assumption, but not a big leap, your edit history and editing conflicts with the last 2 major contributors to this article, Griseum and Duff Your page protecting should be blocked to save Wikipedia editor another hundred hours of volunteer effort to create a neutral article. I would be happy to except equal blockage. Wikipedia works when people cooperate and work together, attempting to censor and marginalize the organic spread of a word violates the policy of COI, NPOV and your extensive online comment box spam [online campaign] violates common decency. Slowart (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Slowart, because you regularly talk about Richard Reames in the third person. Periodically I will clarifying who you are so that new editors will understand that you created the word Arborsculpture and can decide for themselves how much weight to give your arguments regarding the importance of the word Arborsculpture.
Dr. Gathright was walking a diplomatic tightrope between you and his team who had experiences with the Arborsculpture techniques of shaping trees. Which is why the word Arborsculpture wasn't used at the expo. The pages you linked to were created when you were pushing John to use the word/s Arborsculptor or Arborsculpture at the world expo. Here are some links to the Growing village's main pages [27][28] quote "We will create a park area of wonderfully shaped trees known as "growing furniture" or "circus trees" and communicate their joy." Dr Gathright did comment (on the Tree shaping talk page) they (growing village committee) were thinking of using Arborsculpture but decided that Arborsculpture should just relate to Richard Reames work and that a neutral name was needed for the art form. Your work didn't appear at the expo and hence the word Arborsculpture wasn't used at all. Blackashhave a chat 01:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Back to arborsculpture
Returning the title to it's original stable version is one practicle way to pop this pimple. The best of the academic references support the title "arborsculpture". The title was changed from arborsculpture without fair notice or fair discussion, it needs to be re-examined. Slowart (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Slowart you created the word Arborsculpture and you have made it clear you want the word as the name for the whole art-form. When a search is done on Arborsculpture it leads straight to you Richard Reames. Arborsculpture also has published process of shaping trees. Therefore it is not appropriate to have this word as the overall name for the art-form. Blackashhave a chat 10:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pop the pimple. Enough hostility. Arborsculpture defines the art form. I get a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach now, each time this article comes up on my watchlist. Duff (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_naming "encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality" Arborsculpture leads to Richard Reames, and had a method linked to it. It is not neutral. Blackashhave a chat 01:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where a term leads or if someone has a method has nothing to do it, with just a smidgen of critical thinking, Tree shaping also leads to you and your methods also. Fortunately we have verifiable evidence of neutrality. Editors, please look at [this] search useing "Tree shaping" If you are unfalmilar with with the tree work of the various artist, the count of Pooktre images in the first 20 images are as follows, 12 for Pooktre, 4 unrelated to our subject, 2 Axel Erlandson,1 Germany university, 1 Dougherty, 0 Richard Reames. Now compare with [this] image search using "arborsculpture", the fist 20 images contain, 6 for Axel Erlandson, 3 Pooktre, 2 Reames, 2 Bio park Okinawa, 1 Golan, 1 Fab tree Hab, 1 Kirsch 0 unrelated. What term exhibits the highest degree of neutrality ?
This page titled "Arborsculpture" was created by User:Ezekiello April 2006, 33 months later the title was changed without notice, by a group of editors working on an[AFD] for "Pooktre". When the debate over the title change occurred about Jan 10 2009, the discussion was basicly ended when User:Rror Wrote... "This is exactly the point: a generic term to get you started with this topic." Rror (talk) 01:19, 11 2009 January (UTC) Tree shaping wes intended to "to get you started" that was 16 months ago. A good start has been made and the page is better than it was. Proposal, revert to the original title, see if the climate changes.
@User:SilkTork If you find the time to stop by, I request that you withdraw your unhelpful "please ignore" suggestion. Your thoughts about COI on your user page are noted, I think this is an exceptional case requiring a hard-line approach. P.S. please note the handy i search box at the top of this page returns only "labeled for reuse" on the images search. Slowart (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Slowart, Thank you acknowledging that Arborsculpture has a method. You use the term Tree shaping in both of your books. You even use tree shapers. There are multiple references of the term tree shaping used in published media. "verifiable evidence of neutrality" how about just typing in Arborsculpture in search (which is what most people would do), Oh look it leads to Richard Reames. I have a suggestion, why don't you spend the next 12 months disengaging yourself from the word Arborsculpture. That would address some of the argument against having the word Arborsculpture as the title. Thou it still leaves that fact Arborsculpture teaches a process of shaping trees, which is unique to Arborsculpture.
Yet again you are trying to mislead, it not what you write but what you leave out. As you know, we both personally know editer User:Ezekiello. You and User:Ezekiello worked together on the this article both before and during your visit to us in march 2006. When you and User:Ezekiello stayed at our place, you both were so excited about Wikipedia that you guys did some editing on the article to demonstrate how Wikipedia works to me and Pete. Blackashhave a chat 01:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such acknowledgment in the statement above yours. We've thoroughly established that "arborsculpture" is both intended to be, and is widely used as, a generic term - it covers the whole artform. Not any specific method(s).
Look: All tree sculpting artists use 1) grafting 2) pruning and 3) bending/shaping/training.
You specifically want to quibble over the nuances of bending/shaping, as regards Pooktre vs not-Pooktre. That's fine, you can define your protologism however you wish. But arborsculpture is generic.
Everybody wants the honour of naming the artform, and it's getting tiresome. Bringing up this "methods" non-argument repeatedly is not helping. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did a dictionary search on protologism no results but Wiktionary did and basically it means the same as neologism.
A word can be both generic and specific as can be seen by Bio and bio. I'm stating that Arborsculpture is both. We didn't choose the name of this article, we even suggested other words. We don't care what the over all name of art form is as long as the word chosen doesn't have a method or leads to one artist Arborsculpture does both.
Quiddity you removed my first reference and text to a technique of Arborsculpture, which has a unique outcome and is specific only to Arborsculpture tree shaping. The fact that a method is linked to Arborsculpture is highly relevant as it is not appropriate to use this word for artists who grow shaped trees that are achieved using a different process, that what is described in both Richard Reames's books. In point of fact the process from these books cannot achieve Axel Erlandson trees, Dr Chris Cattle, Pooktre and others. We don't bend trees, To have Arborsculpture as the overall name is both misleading and uninformative to anyone genuinely interested in the art form.
I also have other techniques that I will reference that are unique to Arborsculpture. I understand that you don't like the idea that Arborsculpture is both generic and a specific method of shaping trees, which is why I created my sandbox so editors can have a look at finished result and then decide if it appropriate for the article. Blackashhave a chat 03:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Presumably you mean this edit) - Ring barking is not an "arborsculpture technique". It is a horticultural/arboricultural technique. It is described in the book by Reames, as are other methods for shaping trees, but that does not make it his technique. Horticultural. This is a WP:DEADHORSE, please stop beating it. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is what I was referring to please find me a horticultural reference that recommends the complete removal of 3/8in (1cm) wide band of bark as a means to slow the growth down of one branch, or even one that recommend the complete removal of 3/8in (1cm) wide band of bark for any reason other than killing a tree. If not then it is unique to Arborsculpture. Blackashhave a chat 05:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In a very quick web search, I see that some standard girdling knives are 1/8 - 3/16 of an inch. So even if that is the maximum size ever used in fruit tree girdling, it just means Reames experimented with twice the standard diameter (which, given that his intent was not to increase fruit yield, is hardly surprising). I'm not buying it. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Darn sidetracked. Not sure if it is worth it but, according to the book The Complete Book of Pruning 1992 Coombs,Blackburn-Maze Cracknell and Bentley, Page 23 Under the section "Other methods of controlling growth" subsection "Complete girdling or ringing" Says "Remove a complete ring of bark about 1cm or 3/8in wide. After a seasons growth the wound will be covered in a rough growth of callus...."
Can we talk about the title yet ?Slowart (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's absolutely worth it, if only to stop the misinformation of "arborsculpture has a technique" being propagated elsewhere. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Quiddity for clarifying your POV that arborsculpture has no technique. It explains your lack of acceptance for cited text, removed refs and text which you replaced with a reference which talks about how to get better coffee beans. I'm sorry I when into so much detail in this earlier discussion plus the next two sections when you had already made up your mind. Wikipedia:Verifiability quote "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Blackashhave a chat 08:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We found cites, as requested, that ring barking (even at wide diameters) is not unique to Reames' book. We pointed out before that the sentences that read "... the Arborsculpting techniques ..." are ambiguous, and could legitimately be read as meaning "... the horticultural techniques ...".
If it had been found that wide ring barking was unique to Reames' book, then I would be quite happy to agree with you, but it isn't. If you have further points to make, regarding unique methods/techniques of Arborsculpture, then please make them. Calling my neutrality into question doesn't advance your point. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stalking the word Plant
A recent series of edits appear designed to weight this discussion by stalking all instances of the word 'plant' in the article and replacing them with the word 'tree' and 'Tree', with erratic placement of the capitalized version. This is referenced at 1.1.2 Talk:Tree shaping#Woody Plant vs Tree and has been reverted/fixed.
Images
Lead image
I think John Krubsack's chair would be a better image to use in the lead. It's the first known example of a grown chair. A unifying theme between tree shapers is to shape a tree/s to sit on.
John Krubsack
Axel Erlandson
Nirandr Boonnetr
One of the German Tree shapers I don't remember who, next week I'll find out who and put it here.
Pooktre (us)
Dr Christopher Cattle
Richard Reames
John Gathright
Mr Wu
Plantware (Ezekiel Golan and Yale Stav)
Dr Lois Walpole
People are fascinated by the concept of growing a chair as can be see by the fact Richard Reames titled his first book How to grow a chair. Out of all our images our chair and people trees are the ones that receive the most interest. Blackashhave a chat 02:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hesitantly agree. I recently chose the Erlandson image for the lead, primarily because it shows a living shaped tree, which I thought to be an important aspect. (I was also unaware of the larger Krubsack chair image). Any clear and large image works for me. Actually, given the large size of the TableofContents box, we could easily fit two images in the lead. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I moved John Krubsack's chair to the lead, I left Axel's image there for now. I think a colour photo would be nice as the second lead image maybe another one of Axel's trees but in colour? Blackashhave a chat 00:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support the empty sepia-tone Krubsack chair image as the lead. Classy, evocative shot. Support consideration of an alternate Erlandson image for the 2nd lead image, expecting both color and equivalent profundity. Duff (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Number of Images
If any more images are moved onto the Tree shaping article, I think the page should have a gallery section for the images. Blackashhave a chat 00:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, for now. The article is developing nicely and the images seem well distributed with the text at this point. Duff (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And so the default position is now just delete the images Blackash does not feel are needed in her article. Appalling. Duff (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Watermarked Images
These two images are not publishable due to their watermarks. Becky's Mirror and Person Tree. I'm removing them for now, per WP:WATERMARK and curiously also User Talk:Blackash#Watermarks. Please feel free to resubmit non-watermarked images, especially the mirror, which I've seen several better images of, without watermarks.
I'm also moving one of Blackash's questions (#5) from down below to this section, as it's about images, specific to this concern, and pertains in part to the image she has made an edit request on, pertaining to the citation used for the picture. Recaptioning can be discussed in this section on a case by case basis, once we have images that meet the requirements. That question is below. Duff (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(cc'd response and my additional request to here from my User talk:Duff page)
Thank you. Two questions (and I'm cc'g this to the existing discussion on this @ Talk:Tree shaping#Watermarked Images so we can continue this there.:
1. Can you please explain why the new person tree photo is 4x the KB that it originally was: 671KB vs 164KB on the watermarked photo? That seems odd for a photo of the same size: 733x550. An image of the same or very similar KB size would be much appreciated.
2. On the mirror, can you please submit a photo that is of just one image of the mirror, even if it's just cropping this photo in half? This looks most like a catalog image. You have more flattering images of this piece, again, by the way, and it is a beauty. Also, just a note for comparison, this image increased in KB size too, but not nearly by the same order of magnitude. 68KB-->100KB
Thanks much, Duff (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. Umm it must have been the way I saved it. I'll work on it.
2. This piece is done in the round and that is why it has the front and back view. For the catalog look would it help if it was on a white back ground instead. Also this mirror is never for sale.Blackashhave a chat 14:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. A single image, the best you've got, is preferred. Readers can imagine the back, as they do with the other images on the article. Your photo notes state that you've combined two images to create this one. If you do not wish to submit another better photo, then please pick one of the two for this article, because undue weight is weighing quite heavily by now. I'm pretty sure you can see that if you step back and consider carefully. If you'd rather not include it at all, that would be ok too, though it's lovely. Duff (talk) 09:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image Citations
5) In the caption of this image Pooktre mirror frame shaped from its roots at planting in 1996 and as it grew, harvested in 2004, finished in 2005 and exhibited at the World's Fair Expo 2005 [8] on the right (taken from the front page) is a reference used that was a marketing tactic by Richard Reames to brand Arborsculpture across our work and link back to himself. Please change this ref for this one Citation| title = "Warwick artist grows wooden 'jewels' for world Expo"| magazine = The southern Free Times Newspaper.| pages = 20| page=4| date = 20th April 2005| url = | accessdate =
I don't have time to fix this right now, but the recent gutting of photos, text, valid references, and reference page numbers from the article by one involved editor, will not stand. User(s):Blackash has been warned repeatedly to not do these types of destructive, disruptive edits, and to refrain from editing material about herself (or themselves). She (or they) have apparently abandoned her (or their) sandbox project and returned to previously cautioned against behavior. Strongly recommend that User(s):Blackash, cease this and instead study citation methods, particularly how to form a proper page numbered and non-repetitive reference, as a first priority. The recent flurry of edits, over several days, by User(s):Blackash, is not aimed at a better article and it is not a better article. The editing environment on this page is dishearteningly hostile. Please stop gutting the article. Nobody has time to go back and argue again, point-by-point, over each of these self-serving changes, many of which had already been decided by consensus. Not that long ago, we had a pretty good article. What a disappointment. Duff (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Duff here is another way that you are similar to Slowart and Griseum, you come in with wide sweeping generalizations, it appears with the intent to mislead new editors.
Example COI Blackash please read link. It has been repeatedly found that I don't. Example Griseum stated he put the tag COI on the article because of me. The tag was removed as the COI was not clear.
Example "apparently abandoned her (or their) sandbox project" my edit history shows that each day I edit here I do some work on my sandbox.
Example "recent flurry of edits" I'm editing about the same amount on the article now as when you where editing as well.
It would be nice if you would give details as to which references that link to www.pooktre.com you don't like when asked to, so they can be fixed or changed. Blackashhave a chat 02:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: COI: Blackash, you very clearly have a potential conflict of interest, simply by being a primary part of the subject matter of this article. Also, you clearly have an actual and strong conflict of interest, because you have a real-life dispute with another person who is part of the subject matter of this article. Nobody has ever said that you do not have any conflict of interest. What was agreed (in February), was that the way the article was worded, didn't warrant it having a {{COI}} banner at the top (meaning: the information was properly presented with a NPOV). You absolutely must follow the instructions at Wikipedia:COI compliance#Editors who may have a conflict of interest, when editing this article, or any article that is extremely closely related to you. That said, I don't have any specific problems at this moment, though I haven't had time to look through all the diffs. I would specifically caution you against making any edits to content that is about yourself/Peter/Pooktre or about Reames, without checking at the talkpage first. Duff: I do have to agree that there were many sweeping generalizations in your initial post in this thread. More diffs please!
Re: Columns: The code for columns only works in some browsers. See Template:Reflist#Browser_support_for_columns. Please keep this in mind when structuring content for visual aesthetics alone.
@Quiddity, there are multiple edits, that I would liked changed but because of the potential for a conflict of interest I haven't done them. Would it be alright if I list them here tomorrow for you to look though? (Tonight is my night off). Blackashhave a chat 08:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Always fine. I can't promise I'll get to them immediately, but slow and steady wins the race. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: diffs to specify my specific generalizations, I wish I had the time to copy and paste every diff here for you, but the copy/paste function is lame on the mouse I am currently using and it is simply not reasonable to waste that much frustrating time. As a suggestion, please start here: [29] and roll forward, revision by revision, as I did, and witness the scope of the continuing and expanding gutting, deleting, removal of references, and editing of material about one's self, in the manner that I experienced it. Sorry, but for the time being, that's the best I can do. Duff (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quiddity, I didn't create the columns for the visual aesthetics, but to make reading of that section easier. My understanding is browsers that don't support the formatting of columns, will just show the section how it would normal appear. I checked in Internet Explorer and had no trouble, just showed each section as one long column.
Duff the confusion about the formatting of {{{1}}} template lead to, the "doesn't make sense" I removed : 14 which I replaced with in-half hour, or for 4 edits.
'majority of citations to the Reames books are excessive, 16 references from two books with different pages referred to, out of (I guessing here) 250-300 citations, would not seem excessive.
Duff what is your problem with Pete and me being a couple, the ref even states that we are a couple. You did state these sections are bios.
As for not having time, just put up one diff each week or fortnight that you disagree with, and then a consensus can be reached about that particular edit.
But before you start doing that please answer my questions,
"In 1996, after nine years of Peter's experimentation, isolated from awareness of any other tree shapers, he and Becky created the name Pooktre to distinguish the artistic works emerging from their creative partnership from those of other artists." We didn't create Pooktre to distinguish as we didn't know about anyone at that time. Pooktre was just a name for our art. This sentence contradicts itself. Where can you cite we created the word Pooktre to distinguish ourselves from someone else?
You seem to want the references fixed, for the third time which references exactly are you talking about that link to pooktre.com? Blackashhave a chat 02:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went through some diffs. I'm not sure about these edits:
Most of the rest looks fine. A few sentences need copyediting, but that's par for the course. (particularly the last sentence in the arborsculpture list in the Alternative_names section). Anything else? -- Quiddity (talk) 05:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all, and a handsome couple at that. Just that Becky Northey and Peter Cook should not be editing anything about themselves or anyone with whom they have a potential COI (nor should any other people covered in the article) and I stickle on correct spelling, grammar, and verifiable statements from reliable sources. One thing though, and you are NOT going to like this: Becky Northey belongs at 1995 in the chronology, if Becky Northey is indeed noteable. Not sure how to proceed on this point, as I see the potential stickiness that is about to arise, but facts are facts...it's verifiable from multiple reliable sources. What would you do about it? Anyone?
One diff per fortnight would be far too slow to keep up with the flurry, so I'll list 'em as I see 'em and trust that they will be self-evident.
I altered the text you refer to there & I think it should be satisfactory in that regard.
I am referring to all statements which are supported by citations that either involve self-published material, including but not limited to those at either pooktre.xxx or treeshapers.xxx, and also those that are incorrectly ref-named pooktre-x or treeshapers-x. The Pooktre brand is all over this article and that shat stops now. It is inappropriate for reasons that have been outlined in detail, repeatedly, by a variety of editors. No self-promotion! Clear?
I think that's everything. Now, how about resubmitting some unbranded images to replace the deleted branded images of the mirror and people trees? Cheers. Duff (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Editor with a potential for a conflict of interest is still entitled to edit, The editor must take care, which we have.
We have never tried to hide who we are. (Pooktre)
We have endeavored to make the article more balanced by adding other artists, and relevant content. edit before my first edit with the renamed article, some examples diff, diff, and diff. There is not shortage of these types of edits.
We have always been willing to discuss our pov and even had our pov changed. (I can go and find some if you want.)
SilkTork aslo pointed out that Wikipedia asks for experts to edit.
If you had followed the links to treeshapers.net you know that we haven't branded other artist's pages on the site with pooktre and the only place treeshapers.net appears in the the address bar example [30] Please remember that I can edit this site however I want and yet all the artists (including Richard Reames) who replied to my email where happy with pages and any changes they asked for where made. I believe this site is a good demonstration of my neutrality. Blackashhave a chat 11:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not "editor must take care" & I'm going to explain it again point by point:
Becky Northey and Peter Cook should not be editing anything about themselves or anyone with whom they have a potential COI (nor should any other people covered in the article). Here are some of only the most recent firmly worded instructions to jog your memory, again:
"I strongly agree that Blackash should not be editing this article with anywhere near the current magnitude. Blackash, I suggest you reread Wikipedia:COI#Non-controversial edits."- Quiddity (talk) 7:08 pm, 7 May 2010, Friday (29 days ago) (UTC−7)
and
"Re: COI: Blackash, you very clearly have a potential conflict of interest, simply by being a primary part of the subject matter of this article. Also, you clearly have an actual and strong conflict of interest, because you have a real-life dispute with another person who is part of the subject matter of this article. Nobody has ever said that you do not have any conflict of interest. What was agreed (in February), was that the way the article was worded, didn't warrant it having a {{COI}} banner at the top (meaning: the information was properly presented with a NPOV). You absolutely must follow the instructions at Wikipedia:COI compliance#Editors who may have a conflict of interest, when editing this article, or any article that is extremely closely related to you."Quiddity (talk) 11:49 am, 28 May 2010, last Friday (4 days ago) (UTC−7)
You are two people editing as and hiding behind one user name, Blackash, which purports openly to be both Becky Northey & Peter Cook (both featured at this time in the article) which is prohibited, for a start. Please read WP:ROLE. Since you most frequently claim to be Becky, Peter Cook needs to get his own user account and/or the "we say" stuff needs to slip away.
Setting aside grammar, style, spelling and punctuation, which others can and must edit correctly for an encyclopedia, those edits aren't bad, but the third diff, you are editing on your own bit, which is not permitted. There has been really really really no shortage of that sort of thing, nor of mercilessly editing your confirmed professional rival, which is also not permitted.
You seem to be completely missing the point that your POV is not welcome in the article. Neither is mine. Neither is the POV of any editor on wikipedia. We must strive to be NEUTRAL. That is exactly the dealio with Wikipedia, and while I know that you are accustomed to editorial freedom and control over your own publishing project (and you should be)... here, it is just not proper. Go read those policies Quid pointed you at.
Wikipedia does want experts to edit, under specific conditions. Are one or both of you asserting that you are an expert? You don't have to disclose, but are either of you or both asserting some advanced degree or professional credential? This would surprise me, as you went a long ways out of your way to insist that Pooktre is not a business. Still, if so, here is some guidance on that: WP:EXPERT & WP:EXR
No, please remember that you cannot edit this site however you want. You have got to follow the rules just like everybody else. Also remember that the incident involving "all the artists (including Richard Reames) who replied to [your] email [, who] where happy with pages and [for whom] any changes they asked for where made." was one that is most strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. It resulted in several single-edit one-topic posts and served to bolster your already cooked-up position, but did not earn you any glory. You have frequently referred to it as your "newbie mistake", so I must assume that you understood at some point that it was not ok to do that, per WP:MEAT. Off-wiki meatpuppetry is not something to be proud of.
You can do whatever you want on your own site, in your own book, on every blog you can find to post on that will allow it, in your own garden, etc., but this is not your garden. This is OUR garden, all of us, with you, and there are garden rules and policies aimed at joyous and productive encyclopedia writing for all. You don't get to say how it goes and then call everyone who won't bow biased and then wrestle for control of article content for years. Do you get it? Duff (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of changes Blackash
I'm starting a new section for the list of changes I would like made or done. I haven't done these myself due to the fact I'm trying to not run into COI. There is no rush, Pete and I watch trees grow after all.
pooktre in the list of Alternative names should have text and references similar the other words. Here the list that was used to find that pooktre is generic as well specific to our art.
In our section Peter Cook and Becky Northey it's say quote "In 1996, after nine years of Peter's experimentation, isolated from awareness of any other tree shapers, he and Becky created the name Pooktre to distinguish the artistic works emerging from their creative partnership from those of other artists." I have asked the editor who created this sentences to justify it. Which they don't seem willing to do so. Give it a couple of weeks or month.
We didn't create Pooktre to distinguish as we didn't know about anyone at that time. Pooktre was just a name for our art. This sentence contradicts itself. I think it would be fine as "In 1996, after nine years of Peter's experimentation, isolated from awareness of any other tree shapers, he and Becky created the name Pooktre for their art."
{{3O}}
3.I think the word Pooktre should be in the lead sentence of our section. As SilkTork pointed out our art is better known as Pooktre. Maybe something like "Pooktre is a word created to name the art work of Australian artists Peter Cook and Becky Northey who are a couple who live in South East Queensland."
4.I think the dates of the first tree shaped by each artist would be of interest to readers. Previously I had put the dates in the heading but 2 other editors didn't like the look of it. I still think it is a valid to have the dates more prominent in each section than they are. Not sure the best way to go about this.
I add more once these are sorted out one way or the other, please feel free to reply after each numbered section. Blackashhave a chat 05:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. DoneThe Alternate names section has been moved here to the talk page at Talk:Tree shaping#Alternate names for further work until consensus is arrived at that it is ready for the main article space, if at all. Consensus so far, based on all information that has been provided, leans toward that the alternate names section is an agenda-driven effort, both to dilute the actual other name(s) for this art and to self-promote. BTW, howz the book coming? ("The title of our book is “Pooktre knowledge to grow shaped trees”), right? Duff (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I've list the alternative names back on the page, while we work on what text works here on the talk. Blackashhave a chat 13:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Done No need to give it any time at all...as noted in responses to your questions at Talk:Tree shaping#Recent Gutting of Article also, this edit has been made: distinguish...other artists...all out. Duff (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, Thanks for finally replying. Thanks, for removing the distinguish...other artists, thou we didn't know about other methods either when we named our art, you know it goes with the whole thing of not knowing about other artists. Blackashhave a chat 13:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Done As also noted @ Talk:Tree shaping#Recent Gutting of Article, a single instance of the brand Pooktre to refer to Pooktre is adequate. No further branding is necessary, thanks. Duff (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, I stated that it should be in our lead sentence, it also should be with the images of our art. I ask for 3rd opinion Thanks. Blackashhave a chat 13:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Done Those dates are indeed of interest, which is why each little bio contains them, and quite prominently. They are the very basis for the Chronology itself. The best way to go about that topic, clearly, is to consider the fact that the other editors didn't care for the look of the dates in the headings a consensus on that point and leave it at that. Please note also at Talk:Tree shaping#Recent Gutting of Article my comment about the sticky matter of Becky Northey 1995. Duff (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm I did state that other editors didn't like the look, I also stated the dates should be more prominent then they are. Maybe if the dates are set out the same in each section? Look forward to any suggestions. Blackashhave a chat 13:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute resolution now: Threats and discouragements to editing in edit summaries
Before we go any further down this road, I will seek dispute resolution now.
If everyone could please pause for a moment, I want other eyes here to look at this, and the last series of edits.
Here are the diffs for the discouragements and threats. I'm stopping editing; I can't waste time like this. It's just too discouraging and I'm paying for gas to keep the generator running to run the computer. I calmly oppose most of the reverts that have been done for the second time his morning, to what was again shaping up to be a pretty good article, sez me.
(cur | prev) 2010-06-02T04:17:59 Blackash (talk | contribs) (48,552 bytes) (→Design options: Bullet points clarify the three different forms within this art form and they are cited, please don't remove again) (undo)
(2010-06-02T05:15:03 Blackash (talk | contribs)(Duff please leave Alternative don't change back to Alternate or I will take you to dispute resolution.)
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
There is an ongoing problem (several years) at Tree shaping, which was formerly Arborsculpture. There's a BLP related aspect also, with an involved editor (or an involved couple using the same User) controlling their own nested mini-bio. There are multiple naming issues. Several admins have attempted to mediate between a well-warned but still editing-and-reverting-at-great-magnitude involved editor who aggressively controls the page and several well-meaning non-involved editors, including most recently myself, as well as another involved editor. There are 7 archives worth of arguing, but the current talk page contains the gist of my experience with the page. There are multiple incivilities and I am at the fullest stretch of my diplomacy. The issues are simple, but tedious reading will be necessary to appreciate the full scope. I'd love to help get this article to good article status and keep it there, but the editing environment is too exhausting for me to continue and we need dispute resolution of some appropriate type. Duff (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Update: RfC & now RfM on Arborsculpture[reply]
We could sure use a few more eyes and green fingers to consider the facts and help us reach consensus at the article currently being called tree shaping, which started out as arborsculpture and which is the craft of cultivating and training trees, shrubs, and vines to grow into ornamental shapes, useful implements, and structures. It has a project tag for us here, and I got wind of it over at arboriculture back in April. I've since edited a lot, and also finally initiated a request for comment, surrounding an involved & covered artist-editor having maintained a commercially motivated hostile editing environment over a period of years. This yielded a few new editors now, including myself, who reached consensus in a proposal to change the page title to proceed with a requested move to consider the page move back to its original name, which may end up in mediation or not, depending on whether some consensus can be firmly established, and there is some. Meanwhile, the article is moving in new directions and getting much better, though it's a wrestle, and it may be due for a re-appraisal as to quality anyway. Thanks very much, if you can help us out over there. Duff (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me some clue what this dispute is about. I have had a quick look around an cannot see what exactly what is disputed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Practically every edit results in some sort of dispute. I think I started editing on this page in April? Maybe earlier...after a wordstalking incident on the word arborsculpture at Arboriculture. This article has come a long way, but has been a truly frustrating and anti-collaborative experience, the first such environment I've encountered firsthand on Wikipedia in six years. I'm really struggling to keep up with the many facets of it here on the talk page, keep this page factored properly, whilst also improve the article. Have you had time to flip through the last few days of diffs and/or the content of this page, most recently the section just upwind of this one? I'm also now aware that the editor in question has also initiated dispute resolution today via 3rd opinion, as noted upthread, which is good because our regular admin contributor Quiddity (whose most recent comments here bear reading) is not in today. There are COI & POV & autobiographical insistence & verifiability and reliability issues, as well as lots of accusations. My concern goes way beyond the 3rd opinion request point, though that's a good example of one aspect of what's going on...tip of the iceberg, if you will. Consensus is elusive with the one editor, to put it diplomatically, and I'm now not responding as positively as I like to. Does that help at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duff (talk • contribs) 02:33, 3 June 2010
Having witnessed, over the last three years, many many inappropriate edits, comments and actions by one editor. I should try to explain what is happening. User:Blackash is the account of Pooktre (Becky Northy) and myself, Slowart is the account of Arborsmith Studios and Richard Reames. We both grow trees. I published a book in 1995 and coined the word arborsculpture to unite the field. Northy has a issue with the word "arborsculpture" and charges me with branding others work with my word to get there busness or web traffic. Northy has crated a hostile editing environment as evidenced by not just the new editor Duff, but the last editor who made this comment about the edit war, this will give you a bit of clue.[[31]] See comments on his user page.User:Griseum Here is a bunch of evidence of a much wider[effort] by this one contentious editor, a pointed campaign to stop the organic growth of a word (that has been in use for many years in academic and professional circles to describe the whole art form) and redefine it. Slowart (talk) 05:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those two summaries. I do not think any editor is going to be interested in trying to resolve three years of undefined historical argument. However, I am a keen gardener, and experienced WP editor, with no special knowledge of tree shaping and certainly no strongly held opinions on the subject. I am happy to stick around for a while and give a neutral third opinion on the future edits if that would be of help. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yay! More eyes! Thanks Martin. Duff (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I'm not an admin (not that admins are meant to have any more influence than non-admins). :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I propose a truce as the article page stands now. This article is better than it was. Let's agree to discuss one point of contention at a time before making a change to the article. We would be happy to discuss whatever you like to nominate to be changed on the article. Blackashhave a chat 07:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised that there should be so much in contention in an article on tree shaping. I can only presume that it was essentially commercial content. The article is quite commercially orientated as it stands and my advice to those concerned would be to keep a low profile to avoid attracting too much interest There are many editors who adopt a strong line against self promotion in WP. So yes, a truce on contentious editing is a very good idea.
There is some collateral damage from earlier edit wars that should be attended to. The place to make points is on the talk page, not in the article, for example no point needs 9 references. I would suggest that multiple references are pruned down to at most two, the most authoritative, and an online reference.
There must be much more non-contentious material that could be added, such as further details on techniques. I suggest that you all try to turn this article from a battle ground into a good WP article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you be more specific, which parts are you referring to as being commercially orientated? Blackashhave a chat 11:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that discussion "one point of contention at a time" as Blacksash suggests is a page protection strategy. If editors here want to "beat some more dead horse" I'll reluctantly read along. I propose a truce, between Blackash and the main space of this page. During this truce, the collateral damage from earlier edit wars can be attended to. Slowart (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support this version of the truce and approach to housekeeping. Duff (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"page protection strategy" No it a good way to gain consensus and new editors can follow the for and against points and therefore decide which points are valid in their view. A one sided truce is not a truce. Blackashhave a chat 12:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am still have in difficulty in understanding what this conflict is all about. Who wants to change what, and why? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue, IMO is the title. Please read the section 2.1 Brief discussion on arborsculpture, moved here from User:SilkTorks talkpage. Explicitly Duff's well articulated reply to SilkTork. Slowart (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arborsculpture is not in my dictionary but it seems a much better term that 'tree shaping' to me. It certainly does have some commercial connections (it gets 37,000 hits on Google whilst 'arborculture -reames -arborsmith' gets only 8,200). On the other hand it is a nice descriptive term that seems to be moving into common usage. I presume it is not being claimed as a trademark by anyone. All new words have to be coined by someone.
The problem with 'Tree shaping' is that this term is ambiguous. It is in common use to refer to the pruning of trees into shape. A Google search on 'tree shaping' brings up (in the UK at least) eight sponsored links on the first page, none of which is offering to provide the services described in this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some background information. This is a very small field approximately 18-20 people around the world who do this and 3 are dead. (There are likely some not know about yet.)
In light of the different comments by Slowart and Duff I think it is worth repeating my stated comments again.
We don't care what the name of the art form is as long as it is not linked to a method or has strong ties to one person.
Arborsculpture can be both a generic word and a word that relates to a process of shaping trees. Example biro/Biro and hoover/Hoover.
Axel N Erlandson, Dr Chris Cattle, Our trees (Pooktre) and others are unachievable using the techniques as described in Richard Reames books "How to grow a chair" and "Arborsculpture".
As far as we are concerned Pooktre only relates to our artwork and is not the name for the art form as a whole.
1. Arborsculpture is a method of shaping trees, please have a look in my sandbox, The Instant tree shaping is the suggested heading for the arborsculpture process. This heading may need to be changed, but that can wait. It is very rough but the references are there and I'm only adding text I can cite in regards to this point. I'm using Bonsai as a guide for style of this section.
2. Arborsculpture is strongly tied to Richard Reames, and is therefore not neutral. Lets use Martin Hogbin's example, arborsculpture "gets 37,000 hits on Google whilst 'arborsculpture -reames -arborsmith' gets only 8,200". Pooktre gets 39,800 hits on Google whilst 'pooktre -becky -northey -peter -cook -rebecca gets only 8,710. It seems Pookte is moving into common usage, but using this as a way of establishing whether or not a person is linked to a word is deceptive both for Pooktre and Arborsculpture. Please have a look at this list for Arborsculpture. Originally created by Griseum from a search with Richard Reames removed from the results. I went though and followed each link and summarised the links into groups. Richard Reames is still a dominant presence within the links. Realistically how many people will search Arborsculpture with any words removed? I believe it is reasonable to assume most people would just type Arborsculpture in a search and that leads straight to Richard Reames and his methods of shaping trees.
3. Arborsculpture is a Neologism, quote from Neologism "Neologism is a newly coined word that may be in the process of entering common use, but has not yet been accepted into mainstream language" Length of time is not an issue either quote "When a word or phrase is no longer "new", it is no longer a neologism. Neologisms may take decades to become "old", however. Opinions differ on exactly how old a word must be to cease being considered a neologism." Please read Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms.
Tree shaping has been used in published media before the name change, used many times by Richard Reames in his books. As long as the title doesn't have a method linked to it we don't care what the name is. We even have made some suggestions, for example Tree training was one, also pleaching may work or maybe this article should be under Espalier. None of these lead to one person. Blackashhave a chat 12:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Latest edits
I am puzzled by some of the latest edits to the article made by Duff. Some seem to be making some kind of point that I do not quite understand. In particular, the change of 'trees' to 'perennial woody plants' seems odd. Few would consider that term to include trees. I 'trees' is considered too narrow, the I suggest 'trees and shrubs'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I hope it is OK to insert my comments amongst your post. In the articles I regularly edit this is the norm but some people regard it as bad etiquette. If anyone objects please let me know.Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm copypasting your sig (and mine) accordingly, so we don't get lost. Otherwise, when everyone else does the same thing, and they will!...we get lost. ;) Duff (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, unless everyone insists otherwise, I have not come here as an arbitrator or referee, so nobody needs my permission to do anything. My aim is just to give an outside, uninvolved view on the subject. I still feel like someone who has walked in a on a WWI battleground and wondered how so much damage can be done over so little. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can appreciate that sense. Likewise. I don't like to just blithely refactor comments without consult...and I want to try to keep the page organized in a way that will promote coherent process toward (and reach!) consensus. I want to submit that it may be well past time for an arbitrator and referee, but if this is not your role, that is ok to. More eyes is good.Duff (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misread what you said. Please refactor as you suggest. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear on what about that term doesn't suggest trees, though. All trees, shrubs, and vines are plants. Trees and shrubs is too narrow too...because the craft includes vines and the roots of all of these as well, and it's unwieldy conveyed as 'trees, shrubs, vines and their roots'...but that's what it is. Too, few would consider roots at all, which are becoming a big part of the craft/art, whatever you want to call it. Thus it is perennialwoody plants which certainly does include trees (and which is worth a read). Still, you can't just say that over and over, any more than you can say 'trees and shrubs and vines, etc.' over and over, and we can't seem to get to the simple and elegant arborsculpture yet either (where this article started, by the way)....So, where appropriate...trees, woody plants, plants, lignified plants, shrubs, live wood, etc., is what I've been strongly working toward. Please consider the related discussion and honing at arboriculture where the same discussion unfolded over what it's all about, this wood thing. Duff (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that your term is technically correct but it would not suggest trees to me. Why not just 'trees, shrubs, and vines' the? These terms would be naturally taken to include the roots. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try it and see if it works and sticks. I assume that you mean in the lead sentence. Duff (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem in giving further details in an appropriate paragraph where it might be pointed out that the process can be applied to some perennial woody plants that are not trees, shrubs or vines but surely this detail need not be in the lead. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here again, let's give it a whirl. Though there are few perennial woody plants which are not trees, shrubs, or vines...not sure if I misconveyed that.Duff (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plants are defined in the Oxford dictionary as , Member of the vegetable kingdom; small plant (other than trees and shrubs). Trees, shrubs or vines is fine. Blackashhave a chat 12:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
noun. 1. a living organism of the kind exemplified by trees, shrubs, herbs, grasses, ferns, and mosses, typically growing in a permanent site, absorbing water and inorganic substances through its roots , and synthesizing nutrients in its leaves by photosynthesis using the green pigment chlorophyll.
a small organism of this kind, as distinct from a shrub or tree:garden plants
This may explain why no link was provided for your version, or not. In any case, the phrase in the lead was perennial woody plants, and consensus was that to change that to trees, shrubs, and vines, added clarity. Please see the (hopefully short) continuing discussion below. Duff (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, we are working on sorting out all these crazy citations for other names for the art/craft, which were used to influence the original debate that led to the name change, which originated and concluded off this page in an AfD process on the article Pooktre, and most of which are turning out to have been (and be) unreliable sources. See above at Talk:Tree shaping#Section moved here for further development needed, if any. Duff (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same contention over use of the word shaping vs sculpting can be seen over the years. Same contention over other names/alternate names/alternative names and what to call them and how many to include and where to place them...all in major flux all the time. Some artisans/crafters <--also even this naming is somewhat contentious> like this, others that. Two editors, writing under one username, both covered under one mini-bio in this article, both involved editors on this article, who (quite referenceably, and well documented, if one reads the whole current Talk page) intend to publish a book entitled "Pooktre method of shaping trees" insists that arborsculpture is a brand, and not a generic term, which in fact it has indeed become. This does not work for those two editors, because by gosh, Reames might sell another book that might be theirs to sell, if they ever publish the dang thing. It's a ridiculous debate. I don't like wordstalkers. That has been the pattern, and it's the one that needs to be broken. Duff (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that, if you get some more outside editors from the RfC, you get just the uninvolved editors to make a decision on the article name. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's's gonna take an act of congress, but we'll keep working on those citations and see what's left.Duff (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Duff thank you for changing the title of our book, even though you had earlier quoted the correct title "Knowleadge to grow shaped trees on the talk page. I won't mention it again.Duff (talk) 02:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mea culpa. I don't know what I was thinking there & I did get it close the first time...So that's Pooktre: Knowleage to grow shaped trees[32]. I won't mention it again.
It's about the fact that Richard sells a method of weaving trees and calls it Arborsculpture. Then brands everyone with the word arborsculpture, to lend credibility to his methods. These methods can't achieve trees like Axel Erlandson. Blackashhave a chat 12:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do these edits here also seem odd? [33] Please take a look at the article just before that change, and I guarantee that it will seem a lot less odd to have made the changes that I did.
My edit concertedly reverted that pesky muddying changing that insists, ad nauseum, "Nope, it's trees, because anything else would both sink us all in shaping blue green algae and also jeopardize the POV titling matter, which has been cast as a professional rivalry, and which shall remain cast in concrete forever, no matter what is accurate. because after all, there are books soon to be published by that more ambiguous and yet still narrower name." I'm an uninvolved editor too, also keen on trees especially and gardening in general, but also way keen on fairness, collaborative editing, good writing, and accurate descriptions. Duff (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The edit on the patent reference (Golan patent) was just wrong. The patent description was quoted, as required for a patent citation, and indeed did use the phrase twice. A point that should also be noted is that we have later discovered that the patent (any patent) is a primary source and thus may not even be used as a reference for what it is claimed to cite on this page. That is one of the many details that has emerged from the citation work referenced above at Talk:Tree shaping#Section moved here for further development needed, if any. Duff (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So who exactly objects to 'trees, shrubs, and vines' and why? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that anyone does object to that specific wording, yet. I don't, as I noted. I rolled that out in the lead at your suggestion yesterday and it stands today. Duff (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is far better than plant/s I go and change the rest of the article to echo this wording. Blackashhave a chat 12:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, mindlessly echoing the wording without thought for the context of its use is not what is called for. Further, the terminology used was woody plant, specifically perennialwoody plant, so let's keep it honest, k? Try popping this into your search engine: define:woody plant [Here's a link http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Awoody+plant&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&client=firefox-a&rlz=1R1GGLL_en___US382]. Also, please read the wikipedia article, which was wikilinked (and is just above, there), entitled woody plant, if there is really still confusion about the term. Is anyone confused to the point of thinking that the article is about vegetables? I am going to go back through the article and sort out the recent reversion by Blackash, who is refusing to step back from the article, clearly, and which eliminated all instances of use of the words 'plant' & 'woody plant', and substituting instead rather careless placement of the words tree(s), shrub(s), & vine(s), except in some cases of blatantly POV editing. The consensus is not that these words (plants and woody plants) should be eliminated from the article. That was an incendiary move, familiarly provocative and extremely unwelcome. Duff (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotect
I have been asked to completely unprotect this article, and I will do so. If there are problematic edits as a result of this unprotecting, please get in touch and I will restore the semi-protection. SilkTork *YES! 15:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, cool! No more angry pink thingy. That goes a long way already. Thanks.Duff (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only way forward
Having seen how things have been going here for a while I would suggest that the only way this article can get out of the rut that it is currently in is for all editors with any commercial interest in this subject to take a break whilst some uninvolved editors sort the article out based on normal WP principles and policies. The editors with commercial interests could then return to editing the article on the basis of adding useful information, rather than fighting over commercial interests.Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support That suggestion sounds just ducky. Duff (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support assuming you mean a break from editing the main space, not the talk pages. I will of course continue to refrain from editing on the article, and would like to see this same restraint from Blackash here and at Axel Erlandson and John Krubsack. I don't support a later return to editing... unless someone beside myself is watching.Slowart (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant a break from both the main space and the talk pages. The problem is that otherwise all discussion turns into arguments about commercial benefit and self-promotion. WP is not obliged to provide equal self-promotion and commercial benefits to all participants, the content should be based only on what reliable sources say about the subject. Neutrality should mean that we do not give undue prominence to any one method or principle of the process, not that everyone gets an equal chance to promote their business.
Clearly, all editors with a commercial interest in the subject would have to agree to withdraw from all discussion relating to this article, for this suggestion to work. Other articles are best dealt with through their own talk pages. Attempts transfer self-promotional material from this article to another would be quite obvious. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and No.
I would agree to not edit the main space if there was a real truce and each point could be discussed by all on the talk page and then the change put up. Doing this would keep it clear, what the consensus was and any new editors could then follow, the for and against points and therefore decide which points are valid in their view. The points should be brief and to the point, not an essay in the making. Blackashhave a chat 13:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cornfusion: Whose comment is the one above and at what time?Duff (talk) 10:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was my fault for splitting the post. I have pasted in a copy sig. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are missing the point of my suggestion here, which is that those with a commercial interest in the page should withdraw completely. Discussing each point with the current editors is a bad idea because every discussion seems to end up revolving around some point of commercial or personal interest. Such interests should play no part in editing WP pages. I am therefore suggesting that you withdraw completely from all editing for a short while. This is not a criticism of you or anyone else here, it is just that a personal rivalry seem to have built up that makes cooperative editing impossible. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree because, for example if I hadn't changed plant to tree, which means Duff wouldn't have reverted it. Martin may not have pick up that it was an issue, and an opinion was called for. Blackashhave a chat 13:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blackash, Slowart is willing to give this a try, are you? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Martin, I'm willing to let you have this talk page to yourself but, consider that there are 2 tags at the top of this page. "A contributor to this article, may be covered by or significantly related to this article... I assumed this this would help editors know to take anything these 2 assumed "self promoters with commercial interests" said with a grain of salt, and you should ! Better to assume everything is quite now that Duff and Martin and Quiddy are around keep things good, while still allowing for self expression, suggestions, links, photos, and venting from the conflicted...but only if it's really needed. Slowart (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to have this talk page all to myself, I am suggesting that, for a short while we have only editors with no commercial or personal interest in the subject to here. I guess that would allow Duff and Quiddy to stay together with any other uninvolved editors we could persuade to join us. Your point about potential commercial interests is exactly the reason that I am suggesting this move. Commercial and personal interests need to be completely removed from the scene for a while. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. Yes, I suppose it's worth a try. Good luck then. Slowart (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RfC Hi. I came here from the RfC and have read through the talk page (admittedly not all of it) and article. I agree with Martin that, at least for a little while, editors with a commercial interest should take a more hands off approach. Or if you do feel like contributing try to make it things like simple copy editing for better grammar and things like that. nothing contentious. I for one would like to expand and rewrite the section on Bonsai. I think the [citation needed] tags have gotten a bit out of hand, and it reads like a preemptive strike on anyone who feels the two art-forms are similar, not an unbiased comparison like it should be. I hope no one objects? Colincbn (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome Colin. Like you, I came here from the RfC to find a battle scene. There are two (at least) major contributors (Blackash and Slowart) to this article who have significant commercial interests in the subject. This naturally makes it difficult for them to contribute in a neutral manner.
I have suggested that these two editors (and any others with a commercial interest in the subject) take a break from editing the article and talk page, whilst non-involved editors sort out some of the problems with the article resulting from previous, commercially centred, arguments. Not the least of the problems to be sorted out is the name of the article.
To date, Slowart has agreed to my proposal but Blackash has not.
Regarding your plan to rewrite the Bonsai section, it will be interesting to see what happens. If it works well, with no interference from the commercially interested, then maybe we could just get on with doing the same for the rest of the article without waiting for agreement. The bonsai article itself seems to show how a subject with considerable commercial interest can be written in a neutral manner. Good luck. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome, Colincbn and thank you for providing another set of eyes and another voice of reason to this needlessly contentious article. I came into this article quite late in the discussion, but have engaged fully for the last month+. After an initial foray at article improvement, I studied and attempted to grasp the dynamic at play throughout the 7 archives of the talk page, as well as the blow-by-blow diffs of the article page from start to finish (and in some cases, of the talk page) and the various side shoots, AfD issues, and major to minor fluffs. I've also become entangled in several uncomfortable kerfluffles here myself in this short period, which is why I initiated the RfC.
I agree, the Bonsai section needs rewriting, as do the other headings in the Related art forms section. The pleaching section is just wrong, and unsupported by any facts whatsoever. The pleaching article is not a whole bunch better, but is under consideration for vast improvement and fact checking ensues on the talk page there. I put the fact tags here in this section as a reminder, intending to go back and work on that whole section also. Each of the "related art forms" was apparently re-cast adversarily in an attempt to somehow exclude or at least minimize the other tree shaping forms from this article which, under its current topic title, would of course have to give each of them (and several unmentioned others) appropriate weight.
One key problem that may need to be dealt with first is this issue with the article name. The article started out titled arborsculpture (which now instead redirects here) and it pertained in particular to the broad but specific craft which is described herein in great detail. Its development surrounded the main craft described, but did not envision the title as currently applied. These art forms were "related but distinct" at that time, and could probably have all comfortably and briefly fit into a See Also section of links to the related crafts and arts. Under the present article title, they are not just related, but are topically included and thus passing mention of them would be inadequate. If we take off down that path, those other fine tree shaping arts/crafts/practices would far outweigh, IMO, and certainly dilute the focus from this one that has been detailed here. Given the existence of the living sculpture article, as well as those on each individual main articles summarized there, I'm not sure that a parallel article on only (narrowly) trees, and only (broadly) "shaping" of said trees, is needed. The topic as detailed merits its own treatment, unburdened by the obvious weight of the other topics that would legitimately fall under the title 'tree shaping'. ::Arborsculpture was a good name for it (though perhaps a better and more appropriate one might emerge), and arborsculpture is the one so far proven, verifiably by reliable sources, most in use to identify the craft presently detailed, as ascertained through hours of research and verification of sources at Talk:Tree shaping#Alternate names. That has proven contentious in the extreme, to one duo of involved/covered editors/artists who, posting under one username, protest being 'branded' by the word arborsculpture, and insist that not only are they the uniquely first and best ever, but that tree shaping is a neutral term, which is is not. That editor, or those editors, (whichever it actually is) have already refused to accept consensus that they need to step back and it is probably time for administrative intervention. Until the naming issue is resolved, I am afraid that any approach to polishing text supporting the misnaming will lead us back to that awkwardness inherent in the odd simultaneity of a too-narrow and yet too-ambiguous title. What say you? Duff (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It looks as though we have started an important discussion without Blackash agreeing to keep out. There is little we can do about that except to ask again for all those with a commercial interest in the subject not to intervene in the discussion unless requested. The current title is positively misleading, in the UK at least where 'tree shaping' is already in common use to refer to the normal arboricultural practice of pruning trees to maintain a good natural shape. Should we start a new section below on the article title? Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts are as follows - although Arbosculpture is a good word, it raises some serious NPOV concerns given the controversy and commercial aspects involved. AfD hero (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. For the record, research indicates that User:AfD hero•contribs was directly responsible for the original decision to change the page name to Tree shaping, in the context of an AfD on [Pooktre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pooktre], without discussion or consensus on this page. The user has not edited since June 2009; last edits on this page. Welcome back AfD hero and especially welcome back to this discussion. Duff (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was the one who originally moved it, I thought it would be good to give a short summary of my opinion. I do not intend to continue participating in this discussion. AfD hero (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I we are going to start the article name discussion, I suggest we create a new section below. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion isn't new; there's a whole section focused on it on this very page at 2. Talk:Tree shaping#Proposal to Move: Arborsculpture or Tree Shaping (and its subsections 2.xxx) where also are many, many links to several past incarnations of the same discussion in the multiple archives of this talk page. I suggest that rather than reinvent that wheel too, we carry on with new comments on changing the name being added after the most recent ones (pretty recent). If preferred, we could easily refactor the entire 2.xxx section down here to the bottom. How does that sound? Either way I'd prefer to keep the whole discussion together so that work already done won't have to be duplicated or overly cross-referenced and so that when we finally do reach some consensus on this, and we shall, it can be referred back to in the future with a succinct link, as a discussion that has been hammered to its fullest extent and settled. Duff (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moving relevant discussion her might be useful but we do not want to go over all the old irrelevant commercial discussion again. We have a new set of editors. I suggest we start again from scratch and that you copy down any information that might be useful or relevant as we need it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you wholeheartedly as to what we do not want to go over. I am really glad for all the help. I am game to start over from scratch, and I see the value of that. I am also exhausted from the tedium of explaining everything repeatedly to User:Blackash without ever reaching consensus (with just that username) over the same points and fallacious arguments ad nauseum. The discussions @ 2.0 on this page are not even ripe, let alone old yet (1 month, nine days ago, I started that heading), but I am eager to move along, and so will go along with a another new section if that is the consensus, to whatever extent it does not exclude the valid and well reasoned thoughts expressed by other non-involved editors such as User talk:SilkTork, User talk:Colonel Warden, and User talk:Quiddity, all of whom commented thoughtfully and whose influence was also quite welcome. It is worth a good read. Maybe we could invite them back to re-engage, if they are not also exasperated with this topic. It is my perspective, based on the preponderance of evidence to the contrary, that the argument inherent in the original name change: that the word arborsculpture is a commercial term or a neologism, is a fallacious one, with its roots in the commercial advantage to be gained for the previously mentioned editor (and that editor's perception of the possibility of disadvantaging the word's coiner, a fellow designer, author of 2 books on the same topic, and at least as far as I have seen, a valuable, cooperative, & neutral other editor on this page: Slowart). I will try to contain my exasperation and move on freshly. Here goes, inserting new section name & intro at the most strategic spot I can target for it. Duff (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal to change page title
It has been proposed to change the ambiguous title of this page to a more specific title, perhaps to its original title, arborsculpture. Comments from editors, not involved in the commercial aspects of the topic, including but not limited to the professional practice of the craft and book-writing about it, are encouraged to share their thoughts on the best way forward to a good article. If you have commented on this name-change idea before, please come and help us restart the discussion with a new and cooperative editorial staff. Thanks!
(unindent) Well from my understanding this is an article about shaping plants/trees into specific Items/tools/geometric shapes. The Living sculpture article seems to be the broader classification, as stated in that article's first sentence "Living sculpture is any type of sculpture that is created with living, growing grasses, vines, plants or trees. " That being the case, regardless of the current name, I think we can agree to what this article's specific subject is. That does not mean I think the current name is the best one, I just think there are places that can be improved without even worrying about the article's name. That issue seems like it will take some time to resolve and it is valuable to fix the areas we can while waiting for that resolution.
Also, I agree with Martin that having an easy way for new editors to see the main points of the naming issue would be valuable. A bullet list of themain points of either side for example. Colincbn (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Living sculpture is broader only by the included blades of grass, than the broadness of the title of this page (whose topic is also included on that page), and I guess that's first what we need to get to. I may have misunderstood your sentence: The topic is not limited to any specific items, though I'm not sure if that's what you meant to convey as your understanding. It encompasses a whole raft of design ideas, some of them emergent, grown from live woody plants; and the practices used to do this neato construction craft cum art form; and (somewhat less so, I hope) some of the most significant and prolific crafters known. Shall we also attempt to cover with equal weight all the other topics potentially falling under the current ambiguous name: Tree shaping (including those currently listed under Related art forms, which are also currently all included at Living sculpture) and the practices and significant artists of those areas of horticulture, or should we stick with the subject at hand? I am for sticking with the subject at hand, developing it fully, and as quickly as is possible: titling it properly.
It's an article about arborsculpture. And yes, (I think) we agree as to this article's specific subject (I think). Work continues on improving the article, including several other artists and the new developments in the field, but a few things do need to be decided relative to the name, IMO, before certain work ensues that might be wasted in the event of a name change.
For example: with the possible exception of the pleaching item (which I believe is turning out to be the actual foundational history of this craft which most scholars and reliable sources currently refer to as arborsculpture), the entire Related art forms section, including the Bonsai bit (which I agree needs a complete overhaul) might instead be deleted entirely and reduced to additional wikilinks in the See also section, were the article to return to its original name (or one that some other appropriate name that we can agree means the same thing). Can we agree that we don't need to rewrite articles on bonsai, espalier, and topiary here on this article, but can mention the relationship briefly in the text and list these three in the See also? That is the way I had attempted to approach it previously and I think it will work. Comments? Duff (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On thing is for sure, the current title is not satisfactory, as the term 'tree shaping' is in regular use, in the UK at least, to refer to something other than the subject of this article. As to what exactly the subject of this article is, it would seem to me that, although other techniques are used, it is the inosculation of branches and roots to form a desired artistic or functional structure that is the unique and distinguishing feature of the subject of this article.
I agree that arborculpture would be the natural term to use for the title of this article. It is descriptive and there is evidence of its common generic usage. I would therefor support that term subject to the following:
There is no earlier name in common use.
It is not claimed as a brand name or trade mark by any party. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the precise subject, that was well said. Restated a little:
While other artistic horticultural and agricultural practices such as bonsai, espalier, and topiary employ some of the same techniques and share a common heritage, the unique and distinguishing feature of this craft is purposeful inosculation of branches and roots to form desired artistic or functional structures.
I'm going to work that in, and see what we think about losing most if not all of the detailed comparisons to/distinctions from those three arts/crafts, in favor of placing those terms honorably in the See Also section.
To my knowledge, there is neither an earlier name in common use, nor is arborsculpture claimed as a brand name or trademark by any party. I support the term also, and subject to the same conditions. I stand ready to view evidence to the contrary on either of those points, but so far none has been presented.Duff (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with all the above. It does seem to be the dominant term in reliable sources, and there were no previous common terms. The only arguments put forward against using "arborsculpture", boiled down to the "commercial linkage" argument, and the suggestion that there were specific "method(s)" linked to arborsculpture (which has since been refuted).
I'd support retitling the article, and restructuring the first sentence to read (something like) "Arborsculpture, also known as tree shaping, is ...". -- Quiddity (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree. After reading through some of the links it seems the term "Arborsculpture" is perfectly valid. And as WP policy is to use the original name of an article, unless there is a consensus not to use it for some valid reason, I suggest the change be made. However in the event objections are made I still feel individual sections can be improved upon before waiting for the outcome of those discussions. I feel the subject of this article is clear, regardless of the name, and I think we can edit from that standpoint. Colincbn (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like that a lot and I found this today too, at WP:Title#Considering article title changes, so there is also clear policy support for this as the default title, even if consensus could somehow not be reached.
"...If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. If it has never been stable, or unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.[3]
^ 3 This paragraph was adopted to stop move warring. It is an adaptation of the wording in the Manual of Style which is based on the Arbitration Committee's decision in the Jguk case."
I think, if we can call that consensus so far (and I'd like very much to hear whether User:SilkTork and any others still tuned in can support this move), that it is proper to list it at WP:REQMOVE, since it has been the subject of so much controversy and chafing already and there is reasonable expectation of a challenge to the move, from the usual source. I checked out the instructions, and it says to add a new section with the move request template, which will advertise it to the page move crew for survey & discussion and help getting it done properly. So here goes that.Duff (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Requested move
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was not moved. I read through the discussion in this section and (most!) of the discussion above and there are a lot of good arguments that have been made here, especially the excellent summary by colincbn and the way in which martin hogbin brings out some of the key issues. For the purposes of this move discussion I chose to ignore arguments for deleting the article or merging it with Living sculpture (both are better dealt with elsewhere). It seems to me that the main arguments boil down to as follows:
For arborsculpture: that the article was created with this name; that tree shaping is too generic a name; that one of the editors supporting 'tree shaping' over arborsculpture has a commercial involvement with the art. There is also a suggestion that arborsculpture is an accepted name for this art. Of these arguments, the 'generic' nature of tree shaping is the strongest but it is worth noting that it is a negative argument (against tree shaping rather than for arborsculpture). The commercial involvement argument is weak because of two reasons. First, the involved editor is not promoting their name for the art as the title and second because the pooktre title as well as the arborsculpture title appear to get almost the same google hits (not a minority viewpoint here!). The 'original title' argument would carry some weight but the article itself is more than 4 times the size it was before the move so the stable article argument is not a strong one.
For tree shaping: that tree-shaping is clearly descriptive of the art; that the term arborsculpture is a term coined by a single practitioner of the art; that it is a marketing term; that it is a neutral term; that arborsculpture does not describe the art well enough. Of these, the descriptive and neutral argument is the strongest (and clearly and succinctly presented by col warden and helloannyong and silktork). Googling the terms shows that there are plenty of hits that talk about tree shaping (or the shaping of trees) without mentioning arborsculpture so the term is definitely descriptive. Both pooktre as well as arborsmith seem to talk about the art as shaping trees (or trunks) so it appears to be neutral enough. And, as helloannyong points out, arborsculpture is not something that a lay person would immediately understand. Finally, there seems to be no question that arborsculpture is a term coined by an individual practitioner of the art.
On the balance, it appears that "tree shaping" is the appropriate name for this article. Tree shaping may or may not be generic but it is very descriptive and is likely to be easily understood. If, at some point in the future arborsculpture catches on as the default name for the art, then we can always reconsider the title at that time. Meanwhile, there is never a hurry on wikipedia and there is plenty of content to add. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tree shaping → Arborsculpture — Current title is ambiguous and has been extremely contentious since its change from the initial long-stable article title, which was arborsculpture. Currently, unanimous consensus has emerged among new and all-uninvolved editors, following an RfC. That consensus is: The current title is unsatisfactory, as the term 'tree shaping' is in regular use to refer to something other than the subject of this article. Absent evidence that there is either an earlier name in common use, or that arborsculpture is claimed as a brand name or trademark by any party, it is agreed that arborsculpture would be the natural term to use for the title of this article, as it is the most descriptive and appropriate name and there is ample and preponderant evidence of its common generic usage to identify the subject of the article. Duff (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very soon it will be time for a completely uninvolved and non-participating editor to close this discussion; having reached its full listing period of seven days. So, those who may have waited for more discussion before expressing support or opposition in the survey, or who may want to ring in with any final discussion comments, are warmly encouraged to express themselves below now, please! Duff (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have contributed significantly to the article, understand is content, and intend to improve it further. I submitted the RfC and the RfM, have enjoyed the improved atmosphere at the article and its talk page since having done so, and do agree that this is the best way forward, subject to the conditions noted. There is also consensus that lead shall contain something very similar to "Arborsculpture, also known as tree shaping, is..." Duff (talk) 03:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus for that. 'Tree shaping' is an existing, widely-used term for something else. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are published references for Tree shaping used as the generic word for the art form. Blackashhave a chat 11:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, you are right, not for the specific wording with treeshaping. What I meant was that any legitimate 'other names' should be expressed in the lead in something similar to that format, such as Arborsculpture, also known as cherryforge and ashweld, is..., as a more neutral example of the intended form (if any aka's are determined appropriate), a consensus I understood to have been reached by Colin, Quid, and myself. Duff (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blackash, after extensive and time-consuming research, NONE of the many questionable references previously provided for this claim, many of them used to establish false weight on the prior name change, have panned out to be reliable references that actually support the claim. Exhaustive details of that work are above at Tree shaping#Alternate names. All further such references provided should be checked against that long list first, to save time re-researching the same tired claims, and if not found therein, scrutinized just as carefully for relevance, reliability, self-publication and other departures from good citations in one form or another. It's been problematic. Fair warning. Duff (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article's original name is a valid and unambiguous description of the subject. Regardless of who originally coined the term it has come into common usage in the field. The term is not copyrighted, trademarked, or otherwise restricted in its usage. Colincbn (talk) 04:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support For reasons given above by Colincbn. Note that there is no conflict with NPOV in that there is no significant evidence of widespread usage of any other generic term for this subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you have capitalised the term. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry habit, it was made clear, it is not about how we use the word. It's about how other people use the word. Blackashhave a chat 11:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you capitalise the word it indicates a clear intention on your part to treat it as a trade name. It is even referred to in this article as a brand. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is about what reliable sources say. It is quite clear from your web site 'Pooktre Tree Shaping' that Pooktre is a trade name. Most other sources show it with a capital. The sources thus clearly show that the originator of the name considered it to be a private commercial name that it is generally used in that way. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand,'arborsculpture' was not generally capitalised by its originator, indication a clear intention to coin an ordinary word. That is the way it is now used in many other sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes most do use the word Pooktre the way we intended, but some are using it as the generic word for the art form. It's not the indention that matters. Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth
Arborsculpture is now one of the generic terms used, but there has also been controversy about the definition of Arborsculpture though out the history of this talk page. links. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Clarity#Neologisms quote "Generally speaking, neologisms should be avoided in articles because they may not be well understood, may not be clearly definable, and may even have different meanings to different people. Determining which meaning is the true meaning is original research—we don't do that here at Wikipedia". Blackashhave a chat 00:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is clearly verifiable that Pooktre was originally intended and is still generally used a a trade name. The fact that this also happens to be the truth does not disqualify this obvious fact under any WP policy. That Pooktre is a brand name is verifiable and true. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-issue. Pooktre is not a generic neutral name for the topic of the article, and it is not under consideration in this RfM. There are countless references to its use as a trade name for the Cook/Northey products, including numerous quotes to that effect by the artists themselves. It may turn out that inclusion itself of this product in the article is too problematic to sustain. Duff (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The word arborsculpture has 3 problems.
1. Arborsculpture is strongly tied to Richard Reames. Changing the title to arborsculpture would go against Wikipedia guidelines of WP:Promotion and WP:Promotional and Wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV quote "encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality.". Google arborsculpture, the links nearly all go one artist Richard Reames. Please have a look at this list for arborsculpture. Originally created by Griseum from a search with Richard Reames removed from the results. I went though and followed each link and summarised the links into groups. Richard Reames is still a dominant presence within these links. Realistically how many people will search arborsculpture with any words removed? I believe it is reasonable to assume most people would just type arborsculpture in a search and that leads straight to Richard Reames and his methods of shaping trees. WP:NPOV also states about choosing a title quote "...might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view" Tree shaping was chosen with this idea in mind. Tree shaping is used as the generic word in books and media articles about this art form, including the books of Richard Reames. Blackashhave a chat 10:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tree shaping has been clearly established as neither neutral (as previously miscast) nor descriptive (as previously miscast). No reliable sources use this phrase to describe this craft (as previously noted) and it is in common usage describing a different thing. It is an inappropriate title for this article. The relevant WP is WP:Naming conventions#Considering Title Changes. It states clearly "If [an article title] has never been stable, or unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." Duff (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Arborsculpture is a method of shaping trees, (described in both of Richard Reames books. How to grow a chair and Arborsculpture) which are different to other artist methods of shaping trees. Please have a look in my sandbox, The Instant tree shaping is the suggested heading for the arborsculpture process. This heading may need to be changed, but that can wait. It is very rough but the references are there and I'm only adding text I can cite in regards to this point. I'm using Bonsai as a guide for style of this section. Quote from reference for arborsculpture. "We also plan to demonstrate arborsculpture, which is a unique method of bending and grafting shoots to form unusual designs and structures." Link Quote by Reames/Slowart Title Arborsmith newsletter- #18 Full Moon August 2006 he stated Pooktre quote "...were shaping trees using techniques that allowed much more detail than anyone on earth had tried before. I can honestly say that it’s true." Pooktre uses different methods than those described in Richards books. Blackashhave a chat 10:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Every artist's methods are a little different, some are a lot different. Pooktre's methods may well be different, but that is off of the point at hand. The word arborsculpture was not intended to convey a method, and does not convey a method in general usage. It conveys an idea, which is the one we have described so specifically in the article. Your instant tree and gradual tree details are original research. While they may be interesting and appropriate for your future book text, they cannot be considered reliable citations for the purposes of this article. I think what may be the case is that the Cook/Northey team does not wish to be included on the Wikipedia article about arborsculpture, given that they claim so stringently to be doing another thing entirely. This merits consideration. Duff (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Arborsculpture is a Neologism, quote "Neologism is a newly coined word that may be in the process of entering common use, but has not yet been accepted into mainstream language" Length of time is not an issue either quote "When a word or phrase is no longer "new", it is no longer a neologism. Neologisms may take decades to become "old", however. Opinions differ on exactly how old a word must be to cease being considered a neologism." Please read Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. quote "Where editors disagree about the use of these neologisms it is best to err on the side of not using them." (I am Co-founder of Pooktre) Blackashhave a chat 10:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply false, has been refuted by the preponderance of evidence, and is yet another argument without merit, attempting to defend that which is perhaps commercially acceptable, but wikipedially, is an objectionable gaming of the system. To wit, "(I am Co-founder of Pooktre)", means...what, if not a clear acknowledgement of your own business name?Duff (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When all is said and done we don't care what the overall name of art form is as long it is not linked to a method. If anyone is still interested I found some references for some of the suggested alternative titles. Blackashhave a chat 10:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly have a strong commercial interest in this subject. Three editors with no commercial interest, two of whom are new to this page, have all agreed that the most appropriate generic name for this article is arborsculpture. I have read your comments above and believe that these are all driven by commercial interest and are not relevant to WP.
From a commercial perspective let me suggest that you take different approach. Rather than trying to remove all reference and usage of what you see as a competitive term, I suggest that you fully embrace the term in your commercial activity and web site, along the lines of Pooktre is a (superior, better, alternative, extended, or whatever, it is your site) form of arborsculpture. This will help to ensure that arborsculpture is a fully generic term with no connection to one particular business. Of course if there were any commercial objection to this, that would show that 'arborsculpture' is being promoted a trade term, making it not appropriate as a WP article title.
We all know that the term arborsculpture was coined by a person who you see as a competitor but there is no claim to any commercial rights for the term and the evidence suggests that it was intended to be a generic term for something that previously did not have a widely used name. Wikipedia is under no obligation to provide equal commercial benefit to everyone. Our obligation is to report the facts as supported by reliable sources. The clear outside opinion here is that, on that basis alone, the most appropriate title for this article is 'arborsculpture'. 10:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
<--Whose are these three above paragraphs, please?Duff (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pooktre is not a business. We are not trying to name the art form. I have stated, the title shouldn't be a word that links to a method and shouldn't lead straight to any one person. Please explain how arborsculpture can be neutral, when you google arborsculpture it leads to Richard Reames. Blackashhave a chat 11:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What method(s)? Not ring barking, we already found sources for fruit propagation that match the diameter Reames suggested using. Do you mean the "initial bending and grafting on a project in an hour" idea? I don't think that could be properly called a "method" - It's just hasty, and doesn't provide refined results (afaik). Was there anything else that you believe is a "method" attributable only to "arborsculpture"? -- Quiddity (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ring barking as used for arborsculpture is used to achieve a different out come than ring barking for fruit or to kill a tree. Try arborsculpture's creasing technique. Blackashhave a chat 23:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ring barking: Whether to influence fruit production, or to slow the speed of branch growth, or to kill a branch or the whole tree, the method is the same. Purpose is not the same thing as method. Please stop confusing the two.
Creasing: Creasing is not mentioned in the archives. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No Creasing is in my sandbox, partly due to your behavior in removing text with citations. When I asked why and give quotes for the citations here You answered with Analogy The long and short of it was you didn't like the use of arborsculpture technique of ring barking. I replied with quote "If the wording arborsculpture technique was the issue why didn't you remove it and leave the references? Using the book that talks about ring barking in context of shaping trees make more sense that using a web page that talks about how to get better coffee beans. For now it doesn't matter as the text about ring barking is so changed from what I put up as to be unrecognizable and is now original research as doesn't match the book or text in the coffee reference. Blackash have a chat 15:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)" To which you didn't reply.
I created my sandbox, so I can put together the different process of shaping trees as a whole and not have the text twisted from what the references say. When I have this section more polished with correct reference I will ask other editors to look at it and see if is of interest for the article.
Please look at my sandbox for some more details about arborsculpture technique's creasing.Blackashhave a chat 02:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The word Pooktre is word coined by two artists to trademark their own creations. That is a commercial entity. That is another non-issue, as it is not a generic term for the craft and is not being considered as a possible option for generic titling. The word arborsculpture, on the other hand, is under consideration, as the preponderance of evidence indicates that even within a few years of its coining, the word was being used in scholarly resources and good citations to identify the craft, the crafters, and the product of the crafting. Duff (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The proposed title, arborsculpture, is a neologism and its meaning is not obvious at first glance. The existing title seems clear enough for our purposes. To help readers understand that they have come to the right place, we just need the various competing names to appear in bold face in the lead, per WP:LEAD#Abbreviations and synonyms. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The existing title is thoroughly misleading and is therefore unacceptable. The term tree shaping' is in common use for a completely different subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does not seem misleading. Its only fault is perhaps that it is too general. We might distinguish the shaping of the foliage of trees (which is what I suppose you refer to) from the shaping of the woody portions of the tree. We could do this by either expanding the article to say something about the former or limit its scope more clearly by renaming it tree trunk shaping or the like. In any case, the proposal is for arborsculpture which is less clear than all these possibilities.
The term 'tree shaping' has a completely different meaning. It refers to the standard arboricultural practice of pruning trees to maintain a good natural shape. That usage is vastly more common that that proposed in this article. There are hundreds of arborists offering to do 'tree shaping' but they certainly do not mean what is described here. I have had it done in my own garden, it is commonplace. If you have any doubts just search for companies that do tree shaping and ask them what they do. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tree shaping was chosen because it has a wider meaning and was in books and published media about this art form before the name change from Arborsculpture to Tree shaping. WP:NPOV also states about choosing a title quote "...might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view". Blackashhave a chat 00:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current title is indeed misleading. It is too ambiguous, demanding that all possible forms of shaping be included and it is in common usage to describe a different and far more general tree related practice. It is also too specific, suggesting that only trees are subjected to the craft, which incorrect and also misleading. Duff (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if the original title is indeed a neologism then the article should be deleted. That is what I read from the Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy (which is where the policy on neologisms is found). I would be happy to start an AfD based on the neologism policy if there is consensus for that. However, if "arborsculpture" is a neologism and this is a "notable topic which is well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists", then the article name should be something like "Shaping plants to form useful or artistic tools and items". I have seen zero evidence that "Tree shaping" is the general term used to denote this specific practice. The name was originally "arborsculpture" and the practice of "arborsculpture" has had a fair amount of coverage in secondary sources, therefore rather than deleting, or renaming to a long drawn out explanation of the craft, which is what the policy on neologisms calls for, keeping the original name seems to me to be the best way forward. However there is no policy that allows us to make up a name that is not used in secondary sources, and plenty that specifically forbid it. Colincbn (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current title of tree shaping is consistent with the policy WP:NEO which advises " Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.". That's what we have here - a descriptive phrase in plain English. Arborsculpture seems inferior as plain English because it is pretentious and Latinate. And it is also a neologism and we should not show preference when there are competing neologisms for the same activity. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not feel that tree shaping is descriptive of the process this article is about. And as Martin pointed out above "The term tree shaping' is in common use for a completely different subject." therefore it is unacceptable to use it as the title of this article. The policy on neologisms says , as you mentioned, "it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.". Therefore we either keep the original name as called for in the MoS, or if that is in fact a neologism, we either delete the article or change the name to a descriptive title such as "Shaping plants to form useful or artistic tools and items". And please remember, I don't care what the title is, I have no invested interest in this subject whatsoever. Deleting this article would not cause me to shed a single tear if that is what is called for by WP policy, I am just trying to implement that policy in the best way for the encyclopedia as a whole. Colincbn (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I have absolutely no specific interest in the subject and came only in response to the RfC to give an outside view. certainly there are only two options as Colin suggests a totally neutral descriptive title or the original one. I have suggested some below. If fact I do not accept that 'arborsculpture' is neologism according to the definition given there are plenty of examples of general generic usage. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe WP:NEO applies at all in this case. The term "arborsculpture" has been widely used for over a decade, in reliable sources, from journals to grad-papers to books to articles. Compare with Snowclone for example (term coined in 2004, but widely used in reliable sources, and hence accepted). -- Quiddity (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Length of time is no gauge as to whether or not a word is a neologism. Neologism, quote "When a word or phrase is no longer "new", it is no longer a neologism. Neologisms may take decades to become "old", however. Opinions differ on exactly how old a word must be to cease being considered a neologism." Most of the reliable sources are based on Richard Reames's books and teaching classes, so it is not surprising they use his term. As can be seen though out this talk page there is controversy about the definition of the word arborsculpture.
What Mark Primack has to say about arborsculpture. (In Richard Reames's book, Arborsculpture Solutions to a small planet, Richard has acknowledged Mark Primack as being the leading authority on Axel Erlandson's trees.) quote "That word is no more nor less than the name chosen by Mr. Reames to describe what he has accomplished with his own hands. His recent efforts to center himself in the world of artists (some more accomplished or famous than himself) who are working with living plants and trees, by applying his brand to all their work, may someday succeed, but it does not appear to be the mission of Wikipedia to support such efforts." search Mr ReamesBlackashhave a chat 01:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a fairly new editor on the article too and we do not have a descriptive term at present. We have a term that has proven to be specifically associated, in fact, with the work of one pair of artists, by their choice, and which, perversely, describes something else entirely in common usage. Its use has made the article difficult to edit due to all the toe-stepping around the elephant in the room. I agree with Martin Hogbin and with Quiddity, based on the preponderance of reliable verifiable sources, that arborsculpture is not a neologism and so that the policy on neologisms does not apply to this discussion. I agree with Colin, we have a naming issue that must be resolved by either returning to the original and specific name as clearly decided and implemented in the MoS by WP:Article titles#Considering title changes or by crafting another specific descriptive phrase but which is not in common usage, or we have an entirely non-notable topic whose article must be proposed for deletion. I do not think either long and clunky or gone are better than just using the name that is used by tree professionals and scholars.Duff (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Colonel Warden got it right: "Arborsculpture" isn't crystal clear as to what it means. It comes off as a little inside group, to be honest - as if only people who know the topic get the title. I'd stick with what we currently have. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!) 14:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Colonel Warden do you have the same sense about arboriculture? That's an even longer established name for something related to this area of work (and from whence the term arborsculpture is clearly derived), which few people know the meaning of, and yet which is indeed the correct name for what it describes. I wonder if it might be not so much about a little inside group, but instead just a little outside your own (probably large) area of experience. Duff (talk) 06:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I promised myself I'd stop participating in these stupid trivial wikipedia controversies, but I keep getting sucked back in. The term "tree shaping" has problems, but changing it to "arborsculpture" is not the way to go. It seems that every "tree shaping" artist uses a different word to describe what they do, whether that is "arborsculpture", "Pooktre", "botanic architecture", or whatever. Arborsculpture is the most popular, but it is still controversial and highly tied to the work and books of the artist who coined the term. It is not the place of wikipedia to choose one side of the debate over the other. AfD hero (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might be right. I like arborsculpture because that is what the article started as. As far as I know it was originally about the specific method used by the guy who wrote the books, in other words "Arborsculpture". But that is irrelevant, at the end of the day the article has come to cover the craft as a whole and there seems to be contention over what the broad name should be. In that case I will be proposing "Shaping plants to form useful or artistic items" (I shortened it a bit from what I put above) as the most appropriate title cosidering the WP policy on neologisms. It could have sections about each method used including a Pooktre and arborsculpture section. How does that sound? Colincbn (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing controversial about 'arborsculpture' except that one commercially interested editor here does not like it. Al the sources just use the term as an ordinary word without comment. There is no controversy elsewhere. 15:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)<--whose comment is this please?Duff (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was contentious before the name change, and has had controversy about the definition of arborsculpture though out the history of this talkpage. Here is summary of the different comments with links Quote from a reference for arborsculpture. "We also plan to demonstrate arborsculpture, which is a unique method of bending and grafting shoots to form unusual designs and structures." LinkBlackashhave a chat 02:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Use of the word arborsculpture is contentious only due to the considerable and highly improper influence of one editor on creating contention here at Wikipedia, and the same editor(s) protracted on and off-wiki campaign to squelch the word. The campaign is contentious. The word is non-controversial and easily understandable by anyone with the loosest familiarity with gardening and art. The article was not originally about a specific method. It started off with a picture of Aaron Naveh's pretzel tree and was written to describe the craft as a whole. The original source of the word did not convey it as a specific method either, but instead the word was coined therein by an admitted (here) amateur in the craft to unify an oddly unnamed field. The word arborsculpture is in common usage, in lower case, to describe the craft, as it was intended to do and it is without trademark, specifications as to method, or commercial identity. Posing Pooktre and arborsculpture as separate sections in an article with a different name is not going to resolve the problem, and in fact compounds the matter, since the word Pooktre IS a commercial name, tied to just one pair of artists and their work, and may not even qualify as notable on that basis alone. Duff(talk) 03:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Changing the name would not make dissent go away, and would only encourage another request to change the name back to Tree shaping - or one of the many other suggestions that have been put forward over time. The best way to stop this petty infighting over the name is to settle on one name, and stick with it. I thought we had achieved that when it was settled on Tree shaping. Dragging up this issue again is not the way to go - it is in itself disruptive. The intention with having an article under the name Tree shaping was that it would serve to include discussion on the various aspects of tree shaping - and that if someone wanted to create a distinct article on Richard Reames and arborsculpture they could do so. While evidence was found for arborsculpture being used as a generic term for shaping trees, much more evidence was found for it being related to the work of Richard Reames. On the other hand, there was much more evidence found for tree shaping being a generic term, and while some tree shaping searches led to Pooktre, this was significantly fewer than the arborsculpture searches leading to Richard Reames. Our policies, guidelines and our sense of fairness and common sense lead to using the most neutral term, the most explanatory term for the general reader, and the term most used in reliable sources - and that is Tree shaping. SilkTork *YES! 17:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tree shaping is indeed a common generic term. Sadly, for something completely different. See section below. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The word "arborsculpture" is used in the majority of reliable sources as the name for the artform, and is the original article title. The phrase "tree shaping" has been shown to overlap with another distinct activity, the generic (non-artistic) pruning of trees. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Our policies and guidelines do not support keeping this name. On the contrary, they support a return to the original article title. There are not reliable sources for the use of the term 'tree shaping' to describe the craft and it is by no means the term most used in reliable sources. That point is false and has been exhaustively proven false at Talk:Tree shaping#Alternate names. There is no change of name, alone, that will solve the most serious problem with this article, which is an editorial one. Changing the name per policy and prohibiting the misuse of Wikipedia by the particular involved editor(s) who have manufactured and carried out the controversy by gaming the system...that would likely solve the problem.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Duff (talk • contribs) 03:54, 13 June 2010
Comment Re-reading some of the archives, I was dismayed to see this link to Blackash's internet campaign objecting to the usage of "arborsculpture" as generic, and pointing to Wikipedia as her evidence. Not good. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the text that Quiddity is referring to quote "Hi this is Becky form Pooktre. Arborsculpture relates to Richard Reames's method of shaping trees. At Wikipedia there was a consensus that a neutral name was needed for the artform, and Tree shaping was decided upon. Wikipedia Tree shaping You may be also interested in visiting this website tree shapers.net which shows photos from all the different tree shapers from around the world." Blackashhave a chat 01:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, 127 hits. but when I just go and study a few, mostly blogs, and read them through...the depth to which this ridiculous campaign has sunk...for what? For the sole purpose of discrediting another respected artists work, while simultaneously and blatantly soliciting one's own work, is frankly appalling. This is the source of the "arborsculpture is a neologism associated with Reames" meme, and the source of the "arborsculpture is an extreme method of bending which is inferior and leads only to Reames" meme as well. The only source that seems to indicate this view, replicated over a period of years, back and forth across the web, traces back to Becky Northey, Pooktre, treeshapers.net and pooktre.com...none other than our self-outed ID, over-involved editor, Blackash. It's BRILLIANT! Are wikipedians going to let this stand? We shall see. Duff (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support For many reasons.
1. The original title was stable as "arborsculpture" until it was changed to "Tree Shaping" without the benefit of a proper discussion or even any notification anywhere. See the original change that got us into this mess. [AFD here]. A house built on a bad foundation can not stand.
3. Neutrality ? The terms variant, "Tree Shapers" is used most often in the artistic world to refer to the work of Pooktre Tree Shapers "Pooktre Tree Shapers" total web hits 58,400 (13,300 for Pooktre AND tree shaping) compared to Reames AND Arborsculpture 6,000. Try variations of these and others with and without quotes or capitalization and check my work and relize some web search results are scewared by the Blackash's internet campaign to stop a word and other internet marketing efforts all around. I'm finding that arborsculpture is much more evenly applied across all artists work than "Tree shaping" is when doing an image search. arborsculpture images compaired to tree shaping. I was hoping editor Blackash with the pretty green and purple signature, would step back now and allow the neutral editors to figure this one out as suggested, more than once, previously.Slowart (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair and with full disclosure: Following an RfC pertaining specifically to a hostile editing atmosphere at this article and talk page, consensus was reached between 4 new and uninvolved editors that different name was needed and that a return to arborsculpture was the appropriate move. See Talk:Tree shaping#Proposal to change page title. Discussions preceding the RfC had become unproductive and the article was suffering. See Talk:Tree shaping#RfC:Tree shaping editorial conflict and the RfC was thought to be the most appropriate first step in dispute resolution. In discussions with new editors from the RfC, at Talk:Tree shaping#The only way forward, consensus was reached that the involved editor usernames Blackash and Slowart should step back from editing both the mainspace and the talk page for a while, and let the new editors try to find consensus (which we ultimately did). Slowart agreed to step back and Blackash refused to agree to do so. Consensus was nonetheless reached during the discussions that followed. Subsequently, when I opened this RfM, I thought it appropriate to invite both editors to express their support or opposition and participate in the discussion, in this context, as part of the ongoing dispute resolution process. I hope that was appropriate, and I trust firmly that all discussions in this RfM will remain civil.Duff (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. The word is as old as the www, it simply filled a vacuum when the works Axel Erlandson were becoming well known and other examples from history were starting to be uncovered. Without a unique name, finding historic and contemporary examples in 1995 would have been extremely difficult. The motivation to apply a single unique word to this unique art form was paramount because "pleaching" had become the default word and the art deserved and researchers needed and still need BTW, this unique word, arborsculpture. Slowart (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not entirely against using "Pleaching art" at the very least as an alternative name, but the article on pleaching still needs a lot of work (its basically a stub) before there could be justice for either page in this solution as a page title. Still, there were 2 reliable references using (possibly incorrectly) the term 'pleaching' to describe this art; and check out the google images on [pleaching http://www.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS348&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=pleaching&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=]...An important point that is emerging in development of the pleaching article is that to pleach (or plash) is to plait, which is to braid or interweave, and the full dictionary reference dictionary term yielded roots in the Latin word plectere (buffet, beat; punish; plait, twine) and the Late Latin word plicare (to fold; fold , bend, flex; multiply by X , X-tuple; add together), both derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *plek-. To touch on an earlier point in this discussion, I believe that pleaching can be understood to include creasing via folding...no? AND, this art/craft that we're describing consists of MANY of the practices indicated by the practice of pleaching. Just some thoughts on that. Duff (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The term “arborsculpture” is neither controversial nor descriptive of a particular set of methods. Rather, it describes the practice of making what this article is about. Indeed, the first time I saw the word "arborsculpture," I got a mental image that exactly corresponds to the article's subject matter. I can't go so far as to say that the word “arborsculpture” is self-explanatory, but it's darn close. More importantly, the term “arborsculpture” is used by numerous verifiable sources, including universities and national magazines, to describe the sort of thing this article talks about. Previous discussion has documented this beyond doubt. “Tree shaping,” on the other hands, is a term we ourselves are choosing to distinguish from “shaping trees” – a concept that would include topiary, pleaching, bonsai, etc. It is Wikipedia's role to reflect existing nomenclature, not to deliberately change it. The fact we know who coined the word “arborsculpture” isn't especially relevant; it is individuals who coin words. The word has never been used in a propitiatory way by Richard Reames, he just recognized a category of horticulture that lacked a term so he made one up. Evidently, all of the supposed controversy about this term, on Wikipedia and across countless internet forums, can be traced to a single individual who considers Richard Reames a professional rival. Having sincerely examined her tireless objections over the course of half a year, I find they lack merit. Therefore, I think changing this article title to “arborsculpture” would improve Wikipedia because it is descriptive and appropriate for the subject matter. --Griseum (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This territorial feud does a disservice to its subject, and threatens to limit the value of the work described. I can understand the importance placed on naming something; it's a lot like founding a club- you then get to decide who can join, which guarantees your place at the center.
At the center of this subject is Axel Erlandson. His Tree Circus creations are the preeminent and unparalleled masterpieces of the field. The wikipedia article on Erlandson quotes me as saying, in 1981, that "I know of no other single person who has taken ornamental grafting to such an extreme, it is not just an oddity. It demonstrates an intriguing option for improving our environment by creating an absolutely unique space of living sculpture." Of course I said many things about Erlandson's work but, as his biographer, never used nor found the term 'arborsculpture'. Mr. Reames attended my lectures on Erlandson, and 'borrowed' portions of my original research. He was also familiar with my broader overview of the subject at hand, to which, in 1973, I had given the title 'Botanic Architecture'. At the time he requested access to my research (the early 1990's), he was using the term 'arborsculpture' to describe the work upon which he hoped to embark. That term does not adequately describe Erlandson's work, and I have been in communication with several practitioners mentioned in the article who feel the same.
So it is important that the title not convey ownership of the subject, that it instead respect the unique and idiosyncratic natures of the individuals involved, and that it remain open enough to encourage full participation and exploration. Therefore I recommend that the 'plain English' title 'Tree Shaping' remain until such time that the subject does prove to be limited to 'sculpture' alone, or 'architecture' alone, or perhaps becomes a stand-alone 'art' of it's own.MarkPrimack (talk) 06:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine, unfortunately "tree shaping" means something else. Please see the section below regarding WP policy. Cheers Colincbn (talk) 07:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mr. Primack and thank you for returning again.
This is not a territorial feud from where I stand, though there are aspects of the discussion that feel that way and certain involved participants in the discussion who seem determined to frame it that way. Although Axel Erlandson is clearly at the center of your work in this subject area, he is not at the center of this encyclopedia article's topic, and we are not in any way aimed at guaranteeing his (or any other artist's, or your) place at its center.
It appears to me, as a non-involved editor, that the controversy exists chiefly among certain involved editors (Primack, Cook/Northey, and Reames). It may extend further to include discontent with usage of the term on the part of some other artists themselves, though this second point remains an unsourced claim. Use of the term arborsculpture to describe the subject (which has been shown not, by far, to be limited to describing either Erlandson's or Reames' work) is not controversial and generates no heat whatsoever -- only light -- outside the actual "club," as you call it, of which you clearly see yourself as a member. Reames' works, and his coining of the word to describe the craft in general, may have sparked that light to some extent, but all the artists (and you) have benefited from the exposure. The word remains without copyright or trademark, has not been shown to accrue any particular benefit to any one artist, and it is in fact neutral, as its coiner intended.
Further, returning to the original article title 'arborsculpture' conforms to established wikipedia article-naming policy, as detailed above, to wit: "If it has never been stable, or unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." 'Tree shaping' does not, both because it is in common usage to describe something else, and because it's invention to rename this article violated "While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names."(emphasis mine) These policies are clearly stated at WP:Article names#Considering title changes
While it is acknowledged that you are among the foremost experts on Erlandson's work, this article is not about Erlandson's work, nor is it about your work. It is also not about Cook's or Northey's work (either or both of which, I am of the opinion, might be notable enough to merit individual artist articles, but not authored or edited by its subjects), nor is it about Reames' work; although it does seem appropriate to include brief mention of each/all of these artists/craftspeople in the chronology section, if we are to include a chronology section at all. [[Axel Erlandson[Erlandson]] is considered notable enough to merit his own article, as are Reames, Krubsack, Wiechula, Nash, and the War-Khasi people, though none is considered, for the purposes of this article, any more prominent than any other, nor should they be 'centered' or promoted unevenly in the way that you suggest. Other gifted and possibly notable crafters may emerge (and have, but have yet to be included) and these designers/artists/craftspeople may merit their own articles too, as well as inclusion in the chronology of this article. All of you, and several others, and countless amateur crafters across time, and many appreciators of the art & the craft, are doing (and appreciating) something that transcends you as individuals. What to call it isn't really any longer a question outside your club, as the preponderance of reliable sources and many others outside your club are calling it arborsculpture. Both art and craft are safe and open under this name, even though I do like the elegance, if not the exclusiveness, of the name "Botanic architecture". Clearly some of it is architecture, however, you could hardly call people trees and peace signs architecture, could you, as an architect yourself? Yet they are most certainly part of the subject covered in this article, which is not architecture, but is: "the craft of cultivating and training (not just) trees, (but also) shrubs, and vines to grow into ornamental shapes, useful implements, and structures." Please note that 'woody plants' covered what's trained too, but was shot down in favor of the more detailed "trees, shrubs, and woody vines."
By the way, are either your biography of Axel Erlandson or your early 1970's master's thesis, Botanic Architecture, published and are they available anywhere on the web for reference and citation here? They're not currently cited in the article and I wasn't aware that you had published his biography. I found this [34], but no ISBN & no preview. It's come up in discussions that led to this RfM (see Talk:Tree shaping#Museum of Jurassic Technology). While a link related to you was provided, at the store at the museum of Jurassic Technology, it was disqualified for the purpose of supporting what it was used to cite, which was both whether that citation established 'botanic architecture' as another name for the craft and whether it called Erlandson's work (or any other) by that name. Given that the reference provided so clearly stated that the thesis was written before your discovery of Erlandson's work, and so could not have encompassed it specifically; and given that the thesis itself was not cited, we are seeking a better reference than that one and in any case, it would be extremely helpful to properly consider the thesis and its relationship to the subject of this article, if possible. Thanks much. Duff (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose'In the article in Richard Reams bio section the writer infers that Axel Erlandsen called himself an arborsculptor. In Axel Erlandsens' letter to Ripley he states he trained trees and did tree training.
Wilma Erlandsen refers to her fathers work in her book as 'tree shaping'or 'circus trees'. The term Circus Trees was used to introduce the artform to the world at World Expo 2005. Richard Reams, in his book, branded Axel Erlandsen the first arborsculptor. When I google arborsculpture I am sent directly to Arborsmiths Studios and am encouraged to buy merchantdise.The word is obviously a marketing funnel.
The word arborsculture has a gender bias.Sydney Bluegum (talk) (contribs) 13:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its Reames. Please read the section you are concerned about again carefully. You may have been looking at a past version of the article, but for quite some time the wording there has been very carefully stated so as to specifically clarify that very point, and it does not at all infer nor does it intend to convey that Erlandsen called himself that, nor that his daughter did. Curiously too, when I google the word arborsculpture, I get a whole long list (About 37,700 results), with this article at the top of the list, preceded only by a series of images of arborsculpture, two of which, including the first and largest image, are indeed Erlandson's. Two are also Cook/Northey works. I note that your user account contains exactly 2 edits, both on this article talk page, one in February and then this one. Do you ordinarily edit under a different username or are these your first edits on Wikipedia ? If the latter, I'd be very curious to know just how you got wind of this particular discussion first (and only). Finally, I am baffled by your last comment: Please explain precisely what you mean by "The word arborsculture has a gender bias" (and also whether your misspelling was intended or inadvertent). As far as I know, that's the first time gender non-neutrality has come up about the original article title, and I'm failing to see any, but maybe you can point out where I'm wrong. Duff (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
Any additional comments:
The proposed move also conforms to the following established policy at WP:Article titles#Considering title changes: "..If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. If it has never been stable, or unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." Duff (talk) 03:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was contentious before the name change, and has had controversy about the definition of arborsculpture though out the history of this talkpage. Here is summary of the different comments with linksBlackashhave a chat 10:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is clear at this point there is no consensus to rename to arborsculpture. I don't like it but there it is. I will be putting forth a new proposal to change to something more in line with WP policy, as I feel "Tree shaping" is right out. Cheers, Colincbn (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As of the time of the above comment, the RfM had started only yesterday, 7:49 pm, 9 June 2010, last Wednesday (3 days ago now) (UTC−7). We are now on day 3 of a 7 day formal process of finding consensus on the page move, as part of an ongoing process of dispute resolution that will continue to additional forms of mediation if appropriate and necessary. Everyone doesn't agree, but there is some consensus.Duff (talk) 04:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only completely neutral names that are clearly relevant to the subject would be either the bland and unhelpful 'Inosculation' or the ludicrously cumbersome 'Creation of artistic or functional plant structures by inosculation of branches or roots'.
I'm going with "Shaping plants to form useful or artistic items" Its a bit shorter and covers the main points of what this craft is about, but it might be too general. Any better suggestions? Colincbn (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about "Shaping plants through inosculation to form useful or artistic items"? Colincbn (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine with me if, after the RfC and hopefully some more outside views, there is a consensus that 'arborsculpture' is is neologism. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger that. Another option would be to move up the dispute resolution line to informal mediation or something like that. Colincbn (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that will be helpful here. I think we need more outside views. Mybe a note added to the RfC asking for opinions on just the article name.
I've commented on the NEO claim, further up. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are other alternatives, but I need more than one day to find reliable references. Yesterday I researched biotecture and it been around since the late 70's in published media and books. Tree Circus and grown furniture was used at the world expo Japan in 2005, but it will take time to get the published references in English. There are others, maybe the way to go about this is to create a list of the different suggestions and have editors voice which ones may be worth researching. Blackashhave a chat 01:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I speak and read Japanese at a fluent level, I am in fact a translator of Japanese to English by trade, so if you have any Japanese text I would be glad to translate it for the betterment of WP. I also think the current name of the article is unacceptable as the term "tree shaping" is much more commonly used to describe a separate art-form and I feel that WP policy is clear that a descriptive title, even if it is long and awkward, is called for. Colincbn (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at this trying to do a close and suspect that it could be closed as no consensus. In reading the comments, I wonder why Tree shaping (tree trunk art form) has not been considered? I know it is long, but it seems to address many of the concerns and describes what I think the article is about. The biggest problem for me with keeping this where it is appears to be the fact that the term is ambiguous and we even have tree shaping sources for artificial Christmas trees. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should leave it a bit longer in the hope of more outside views on the subject. If the stalemate persists, the only option we have is to change the title to one of the unambiguous, neutral, and descriptive names suggested above. Colin's "Shaping plants through inosculation to form useful or artistic items" looks fine to me and clearly meets the strictest WP criteria for neutrality.. If this RfC runs its course without consensus then I will propose a move to that name. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Vegaswikian's suggestion of refining the title with brackets would work. Blackashhave a chat 10:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To properly reflect the subject of this article the title would need to be Tree shaping (Shaping plants through inosculation to form useful or artistic items). In that case you might as well drop the misleading 'Tree shaping' bit. In any case it is not neutral. Your business describes itself as is called 'Pooktre Tree Shapers' Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Martin. Tree Shaping is not neutral, and neither is shaping.
Neither is supported by a preponderance of reliable references as a name for the craft and using either would give improper benefit to a commercial entity composed of 2 WP editors using one WP name, with whom we are wrestling constantly for editing freedom on this page and upon whom the responsibility for all controversy over the use of the original, and again proposed name rests. This can't be permitted to continue.
Even Shaping of...... is not the right verb, were we to lead with a verb, which we won't, please, as that conflicts with naming policies too. Tree shaping: Tree trunk art form has similar problems: The craft is not limited, either to trees (one form or type of woody plants used) or trunk (one particular crafted part of woody plant among several that might be used to craft a design); and the practice of the craft is certainly not limited to Pooktre's term 'shaping'). I've suggested several alternatives already, including arborisculpture(note the i as in arboriculture), which does have references for its use by reliable sources; Livewood sculpture; and Xylem influence; and how about Live wood construction,Live perennial woody plant crafting, or Living woody plant sculpture, but honestly, this proposed title fits the best, has the most serious references, is already well-established, and meets all WP criteria for neutrality. Agree with Colin, Martin, and Vegaswikian: Tree Shaping is ambiguous. Disagree with Vegaswikian on closing. As of the time of the above comment on closing, the RfM had started only two days prior, 7:49 pm, 9 June 2010, last Wednesday (3 days ago now) (UTC−7). We are now on day 3 of a 7 day formal process of finding consensus on the page move from tree shaping to arborsculpture, as part of an ongoing process of dispute resolution that will most assuredly continue to additional forms of mediation if appropriate and necessary. Everyone doesn't agree, but there is some consensus, so let's keep up the good work and see what happens with the proper process please.Duff (talk) 04:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Quiddity's suggestion, I have just added a note to the RfC inviting further comment here at the RfM. (This basically involves only noting it at the initiation of the RfC section of this page, as the RfC page is bot updated and contains a warning not to post anything there upon it.) In case that's not effective in generating more light, I've also placed the same note on both of the interested project pages for this article, hoping to spark the interest of some more voices from our friends and fellow members of the Horticulture & Gardening and Plants communities; something I incorrectly assumed had already been done and wish I had thought of checking on sooner. Duff (talk) 06:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, on a similar note, thanks again to Blackash, who beat me to my next task this evening, sending out invitations to comment to (it looks like) every user who ever contributed to the arborsculpture/tree shaping article, including IP addresses, creating user talk pages where there were none as deemed necessary. Bravo, and WoW, that is really thorough. Did that include cross-referencing with all the talk page user names, I am curious? Again, thank you for that. Duff (talk) 10:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Althoughhhh...This is odd: What's up with no invitations for some named contributors, for example, User Talk:Thumperward (3 edits), User Talk:Tktktk(24 edits), User Talk:Pgan002(14 edits) and particularly User Talk:Ezekiello(12 edits), who started the article in the first place? Here's the tool I use: [35]. Maybe Blackash or someone can follow up with invitations to those and any others missed...I need sleep.Duff(talk) 10:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Thank you kindly, Martin Hogbin. Duff (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tree shaping
I have explained individually to editors that 'tree shaping' is a common term for the standard arboricultural practice of pruning trees to maintain their natural shape. For those still in doubt have a look at these links, all found from a quick Google search of 'Tree shaping arborist'.
There are plenty more. What this shows is that whatever usage there may or may not be of the term 'tree shaping' to refer to the very specialised and limited subject of this article, the term is already in common use to refer to a standard arboricultural process, carried out on a much wider scale. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is to have the title that is to quote AfD hero "The term "tree shaping" was thrown around because it is neutral, generic, descriptive, and in current use (judging from a quick googling). That is a good point about Bonsai et all. Perhaps we should include them in the article. If you have another name you think would be more appropriate, we could move it there, though I don't think moving it back to Arbosculpture would be a good idea given the controversy over that name.
How to grow a chair by Richard Reames, page 14. Quote:- "Tree trunk topiary, botanical architecture, arbortopia -all of these terms have attempted to describe an early 1900s approach to tree shaping that goes beyond such traditiaonal practices of topiary, bonsai and espalier."
Arborsculpture Solutions to a small Planet by Richard Reams, uses it twice on page 1 'shaping tree trunks' also 'shaping trees' there are other places though out the book that it used.
My Father "Talked to trees" by Wilma Erlandson, page 7 'shaping trees'. She doesn't use the word Arborsculpture anywhere in the book."
There are plenty of other references for the word Tree shaping linked to this art form. Blackashhave a chat 01:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to comment or argue further here, the facts are plain for all to see. The term 'tree shaping' is in common use by arborists throughout the English speaking world to refer to something other than the subject of this article. Those who argue otherwise demonstrate a desire to ignore the facts for some reason. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason
Here may be at least a part of the reason: A quick whois search on the websites treeshapers.com & treeshapers.net yields the following: [treeshapers.com http://who.is/whois/treeshapers.com/] was created on 4-23-2003 and is a California, USA company, consisting of certified arborists who focus on overall arboriculture (and not arborsculpture), whereas [treeshapers.net http://who.is/whois/treeshapers.net/] was created 5 years later on 6-4-2008, by Becky Northey @ Sharbrin Publishing Pty Ltd (our editor Blackash, self-outed, clearly finding the .com version of her preferred domain name already taken), which is a South Queensland, Australia company focused on arborsculpture that wishes to establish and emphasize the independent development of its craft in complete isolation from other practitioners of the same (or a very similar) craft (though apparently not in isolation from the internet itself). Her use of the word treeshapers to describe her craft and the work of others may be its first actual use in that manner, and it may be helpful to note just where the discussions in this article's archives were headed on the date of her registration of her website domain.
This then proceeded through Blackash's attempt to create a separate page for Pooktre and two AfD proceedings that ultimately decided that article's fate: deleted. Somehow this led to a redirect to this page, which I think is iffy, but even more iffy was the decision made without consensus by a participant in that AfD, User:AfD hero, preceding the AfD closure, to move Arborsculpture to Tree shaping without discussion and consensus first on this page, where heated related discussions were already underway.
That's the nutshell of it, I think. Duff (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have had a look at the history and it seems clear to me that the article was moved completely against all WP policies. My view is that it should be moved back to arborsculpture pending a consensus for possible further action. There was certainly no consensus for a move in the first place. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree I share your succinct view. Thank you for taking the time to swim through all of that. I do intend to seek consensus for possible further action, given the well-recorded, long and sordid history. This RfC>RfM process was started in an effort to proceed carefully through the appropriate steps, as outlined in WP policies for addressing such challenges. Duff (talk) 02:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I (obviously) disagree with your take on the subject. When I came across the AfD, I knew nothing about "tree shaping". What I saw were two pages about the same subject - Pooktre and Arborsculpture. A little research indicated that Pooktre was associated with one artist, Arborsculpture with another, botanical architecture with a third, tree circus with a fourth, etc. I saw that Arborsculpture was a neologism intended to describe the subject as a whole, but it had not fully caught on and was still highly controversial among some circles. Furthermore, when I looked on the Arborsculpture page I saw a ton of neutral editors mentioning the problems with Arborsculpture, and basically a single person - the artist who made up the term - defending the name.
In such a situation, wikipedia must remain neutral. We simply mention the controversy without endorsing either side. This is a foundational principle. Some other editors associated with the AfD mentioned that, in the case of a neologism about a notable subject, the proper course of action is to give the subject a generic descriptive name. This is a policy. The term "tree shaping" was mentioned since it is neutral and also used in some sources. Taking all this into account, I made a bold move and took the action I still think was right. AfD hero (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AfD hero, I have taken three liberties: 1. moved your comment to the point in time in this part of the discussion when it occurred, for clarity and continuity. 2. indented it (and thus necessarily also Colincbn's comment) for the same goal. 3. Corrected the five instances of your spelling of the word in question from 'arbosculpture' to 'arborsculpture' (for the same goal: cornfusion reduction) which is I think what you must have meant, since 'arbosculpture' was never the name of the article, nor was it ever in discussion to be the name of the article. I've noticed that you've used the spelling before several times, and I've left it, thinking it just a typo, but now I'm beginning to wonder whether that might be part of your confusion on the issue. If that's not what you meant, please set me straight. Duff (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. While I understand AfD hero's point, being bold is not meant to override finding consensus. I think it shows well for the people in this discussion that no one else feels that it does or we would have an edit war on our hands. The fact is before making the move AfD should have put a tag up and looked for input. I know he was operating under good faith, I just feel he did not follow the best strategy. If you have a point to make about policy please see the section below which details what the WP policies regarding the issues under discussion here are. If you think I have left anything out or misunderstood something please respond down there. As far as "Tree shaping" goes, it is not descriptive nor is it used to mean this specific art in the vast majority of reliable sources. Therefore arbitrarily deciding to name the art "Tree shaping" in WP is clearly unacceptable. And of course you are right; WP does have a policy about what to name articles: "Editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. If it has never been stable, or unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub". Colincbn (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard the term "tree shaping" used by those in the industry exactly as Martin Hogbin's above links show: tree shaping is the judicious removal of branches and dead wood in order to encourage a tree to grow as naturally as possible given its circumstances. That practice has nothing to do with this article. The arguments to oppose renaming the article as Arborsculpture need to be presented in executive summary form (or provide a link to such a summary). All I have seen so far is a claim that the Arborsculpture name promotes some interest. What concise evidence supports that? Is there anything else? Johnuniq (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP policy is all that really matters (mostly)
The way I see it there is only one thing that really matters in this debate: "What does WP policy say". I don't care about this craft, I have never done it, I don't know anyone who does it, I have never bought or even seen it in my life. I even went to the Aichi expo in Japan (I live in Aichi) and never saw Blackash's Pooktre exhibit. I don't care. I do care about WP as a whole and helping articles comply with WP policy is a great way to help the project. So here is what I think based on this standpoint.
The current title is unacceptable for multiple reasons pointed out above, the strongest of which is that the term "Tree shaping" means something else. However there are multiple options that are acceptable:
Return to the original name Arborsculpture; The article was created as "Arborsculpture" and existed as such for quite a while before being renamed to "Tree shaping" with no discussion or consensus. However there is even less usage of this new term in the available sources and it also falls under the exact same rules as a neologism. Some have argued that it is "more general" but nowhere in WP policy is there any wording that implies using a more general name is preferable to a neologism. In fact this clearly falls under the WP policy on original research, as we are choosing the name ourselves and specifically not using the most commonly referenced name. WP policy clearly states to use the first non-stub title whenever possible.
Delete the article as a neologism; If, as some editors have proposed, the term "Arborsculpture" is a neologism then WP policy calls for this article's deletion. With one caveat: if this is a "notable topic which is well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists" then is those rare cases "it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title." which leads to my next point.
Rename to a descriptive title; If the above conditions are in fact true then a name that describes what this craft is, even if it is long and awkward is what WP policy demands. Now myself and others have put suggestions forward as to a neutral unambiguous title. If this is the path that is decided upon the discussion should become about which of these is the best option. Those with suggestions they feel are better than those already presented are of course encouraged to put them forth.
Merge into Living sculpture; I am beginning to think this is the best option. If the terms most used to describe this craft are neologisms then rather than loosing the information by deleting, or choosing one company's name over another we can simply move all of this into the already existing article that covers all forms of this craft in a broader sense. No information is lost from WP, this debate will come to an end, and no editors with clear conflicts of interest will be able to control the title to best suit their own commercial enterprise.
I think I have covered all possibilities that conform to WP policy. Colincbn (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, I have taken the liberty of correcting the spelling you used from 'arborasculpture' to 'arborsculpture', which is the original title and, I believe, what you intended. Shoot me now too, if appropriate. ;) Duff (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch, *hangs head in shame* (-_-) Thanks for fixing it. And thank god seppuku is outlawed... Colincbn (talk) 04:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As another disinterested editor I agree. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My (MDV) opinion is Return to the original name Arborsculpture - Even pruning like doing apple trees would be tree shaping and shows further why "tree shaping" was a step in the wrong direction. I don't do arborsculpture, but am trained with any component it uses. The short existence of the name is not a problem. For example, had Wikipedia started 2 years after the first human went into space and the title "astronaut", we would see no problem using a new name astronaut. The merge with Sculpture as "living sculpture" is interesting. Sculpture is often a one time deal, Arborsculpture may need continual maintenance. Yet there is a resemblance. On the other hand, woodworking is not generally sculpture, even though sculpture can use woodworking. And I've done years of woodworking, which involves cutting, merging, moistening and shaping, staining and more. That's partially why I think Arborsculpture could be in its own category. My second preference would be the merge into Living Sculpture. In some ways, woodworking may be a good example to look at as we decide this. A vast amount of woodworking is very sculpture-like. But there was also Pattern Making like where woodworkers used to make a gear for a tractor out of wood prior to the casting process in manufacturing. That profession was replaced by computerized technology, but was the highest echelon of woodworking skill. But the pattern maker woodworking could hardly be considered scupture.Mdvaden (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a main contributor, the originator of the RfC & the RfM, and yet still just another disinterested editor, I agree also. My opinion, in order of preference, is precisely the same order as noted by both MDVaden and Martin Hogbin, with the last two options being options of only last resort. If Colincbn's proposed solutions are in order of preference, then the four of us have consensus (so far) on the preferred solution, which is a return to the original article name. Please also carefully note the compiled concise history of the original improper name change at Talk:Tree shaping#The reason, above, which I shall anchor shortly. Duff (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think all the above solutions follow WP policy and are therefore are equally valid. If I was to list the order of which options I personally feel best fulfill our goal of creating an encyclopedia I would list in the order Martin suggests above. Colincbn (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto what Colincbn said (except, without deletion as an option. WP:NEO is not relevant here. The word arborsculpture is provably accepted, by all the usage in reliable sources listed previously, and also, this article is not on the word "arborsculpture" itself. NEO is primarily about delineating the appropriateness of articles like Truthiness and Jihobbyist where the article is about the word itself). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good and well-stated point; one that I didn't quite grasp from reading WP:NEO. Maybe it needs an edit or two also. Furthermore, I note (peripherally, because I take your point that NEO is not relevant here) that the two words you cite, Truthiness and Jihobbyist, were coined in 2005 & 2008, respectively; and that nonetheless both articles about both words themselves, stood the test of NEO, as evidenced by their continued existence on Wikipedia. Duff (talk) 00:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So is there anyone who disagrees with the above interpretation of Wp policy, and if so in what ways? Colincbn (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note. I'm here after seeing this on RFC. It seems like discussions here are proceeding apace, and I have read some of the past discussions, but am refraining from comment for the moment. Mostly just wanted to let people know that I've watchlisted the article and will make comments as I think I can be helpful. — e. ripley\talk 19:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Objection to hasty close
I feel the move request was closed far too hastily (1 hour) without the closer possibly having fully appreciated the scope of the problem and its discussions. I have posted a message at User Talk:RegentsPark, requesting that admin to reconsider and take a little more time to more fully consider the issues. Yes, there is a backlog at Requested moves and yes, it is important to keep things moving forward over there, but this is not a good solution. Keeping the page title as it is violates several wikipedia policies and guidelines, as clearly articulated by several editors in the discussion above, and I don't feel that either the editing atmosphere at this page or the page itself will benefit from leaving the title as it stands. Duff (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I posted on the closer's page:
Hello RegentsPark. While I appreciate your help in moving things forward, you have closed a discussion on this page move, I feel, too hastily. Given the easily hundreds of hours that have gone into the discussion, just on the move itself, let alone during what clearly was a 3 year long battle on the page itself, it is difficult to imagine that you might have adequately considered, much less fully appreciated the depth of the issues discussed, in one hour of study for your closing. The reason I say this is that it took me almost 2 months to understand what had happened after I started working on that page this past April.
One point that you have clearly not addressed is the fact that the phrase 'tree shaping', which was arbitrarily and capriciously chosen in the first place, off the discussion page and completely without consensus, is itself not at all neutral. Your closing explanation seems to conflate the trade name Pooktre, with the phrase used to re-title the page. Pooktre is an established trade name of the questionable editors. It is not at all generic, nor in common usage, and is thus not under any consideration as a title for the page. Clear consensus was already reached that the current page title is unsatisfactory. We have carefully and clearly documented, concerning the phrase 'tree shaping' that:
1. This phrase is being used inappropriately and not generically, by one pair of involved editor/author/artists, posting under a single user name, in a long and nasty campaign both on and off-wiki, to benefit themselves and disparage another editor/author/artist, and
2. This phrase is also, perversely enough, in well-entrenched common usage to describe a different subject: arboriculture, a point that was raised early on and had strong consensus.
I do understand that it is entirely your option to re-list or not, and to move or not, based on the strength of the arguments for & against, but do you not think, given the consensuses that were reached by non-involved editors and also given that the discussion is ongoing or has not reached a reasonable conclusion, that relisting would have been more appropriate in this case?
I agree with Martin Hogbin that a closing discussion is needed to reach further consensus. Without one that is satisfactory to all participating editors, and not just to the one involved editor who precipitated the original and very suspicious change, I feel that the editing atmosphere on that page is unlikely to improve and thus that the page itself is likely to suffer, not least in terms of content dilution. A page titled 'tree shaping' can no longer describe the specific and fascinating art that the article content presently describes (and which is and has been for many decades practiced by those artists detailed therein), but must instead also encompass fully all the myriad other arboricultural practices inherent in the actual activities of shaping trees. There would be no reason (or space) in such an article to include any of these inosculation artists, or their craft, at all. See?Duff (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(od) My rationale for what I think is the consensus decision is fairly detailed and considers arguments made by all uninvolved editors as well as those made by involved editors. Every contentious move discussion leaves one side or the other unhappy. You can either live with it (from wikipedia's point of view that would be ideal!) or, if you are convinced that the current title is a travesty, you can take whatever next steps you consider appropriate in the [[WP:DR|dispute resolution process]. Either way, I don't see any new arguments being made here that warrant continuing the RM discussion. (Note: To be honest, I am a little takenaback that you consider my spending upward of an hour on the close 'hasty'.) --RegentsPark (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware that anyone here had agreed that RegentsPark should make a final decision on whether to move this article. That decision should be made according to a consensus of editors here and who have actually participated in this discussion. There is a clear consensus, which is in full accordance with WP policy, to move this page and I suggest that we do so. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RegentsPark, I am convinced that the current title is a travesty and I do intend to pursue it further if necessary (as you have also suggested); I believe with the support of several other neutral uninvolved editors who participated extensively in the discussion and did reach a clear consensus, one which you have not acknowledged or respected in your close. I am also going to return the original initial discussion paragraph to the top of the closing discussion, from whence it was apparently inadvertently omitted. Note: Please do not be taken too far aback, dear RegentsPark, as I meant (and mean) no personal offense whatsoever to you. As I said, and I meant it sincerely, I appreciate your effort. However, I and several other editors have invested an ENORMOUS amount of time in careful research, discovery, discussion, and preparation for this very juncture. I am certain that none of us, including you, wishes that editorial time to have been invested in vain. Frankly, and don't be disturbed by this either please, because it is no insult: I understand that you took the responsibility for getting this RfM close over with, but nobody reads that fast for comprehension. Nobody. While one hour might be painstakingly long to close the vast majority of RfM's, IMHO, this one is not one of those. This page and its editors have already endured much and have continued to make improvements to the article and to the broader Wikipedia at the same time, albeit under great duress. We need a set of eyes with enough time to give this article's title quackery a full and in-depth consideration, given the serious matters presented herein. Thank you again for your time. Duff (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Martin Hogbin, while I share your view, and though that is an exceedingly tempting proposal, I personally do not wish to run afoul of community norms as established by the dispute resolution process, which I am furiously familiarizing myself with at present, having never previously so engaged. If you can show me where your approach is appropriate, given the course that we are currently on and the point we seem to have reached in it, I am all ears...eh, eyes. Let's discuss it. Duff (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear to me that the article cannot remain as 'Tree shaping' as that means something else. If we cannot reach a consensus to move it back to 'Arborsculpture' then I will propose a move to a properly neutral and descriptive title as proposed above. Nealy all the objections to the earlier proposed move were based on suggestions that 'Arborsculpture' is not neutral. I will shortly propose a move to a neutral title if there is no strong objection from a significant fraction of editors. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(od) Martin Hogbin, FYI, contested move discussions are closed by editors who are uninvolved in the discussion and who No user, whether an administrator or otherwise, should ever close a requested move discussion they participated in except if the discussion reaches a unanimous result after a full listing period (seven days) (from Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions). When a move is listed on WP:RM, it includes the explicit assumption that someone not connected with the discussion will close it. The discussants have no say in who that editor will be. --RegentsPark (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am so far in favor of pursuing the current move proposal, back to the original and quite neutral title, further up the DR chain of command, rather than establishing a whole new set of arguments to support a different and less well-established neutral phrase as a name for the article. Is there any good reason not to proceed up the line? On a point of etiquette/policy, RegentsPark, can you please advise: Is the editorial staff at this page under any specific obligation not to go ahead and do this move ourselves (or some other move, as has been suggested) based upon the clear evidence presented and consensuses that were established around that evidence, rather than upon your (let's call it) prompt decision not to do the move for us? If we are under such an obligation (I'm thinking we might be), could you specify what that obligation is, please, so that all fine editors can understand clearly what our responsibilities and limitations are, if any? Also, given the easily anticipated contest of any other proposed move, is it correct to assume that a different move proposal, as suggested and already discussed in detail as an other option, would also need at this point to endure another similar (at least) 7 day process at RfM? Thanks.Duff (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Duff, generally once a move request is settled by an independent editor it would be disruptive to move the article as you suggest. (It also reeks of bad faith since you filed the original move request!) Since the move has been closed, the proper approach is to go up the chain of dispute resolution. For example, you could take the case to the [[WP:MC}Mediation committee]] for a formal mediation process. I would suggest that that is the way to go if you want to force further consideration of Arborsculpture as a title. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
For approximately three months I fought to have the word "arborsculpture" included in the lead as it's clearly a prominent term for this subject matter. The debate was moderated by administrator User:SilkTork with the result being that the word would be included. It's no surprise that the word isn't in the lead now. The single minded determination of Blackash to micromanage this article to serve an admitted real world agenda is beyond anything which should be tolerated. As can be seen in this edit user Blackash wrote "My only agenda if there is one is not to have our work branded with someone else's methods of shaping trees.(Arborsculpture which has a method linked to it.)" Repeat: My only agenda...is not to have our work branded...Arborsculpture.” How much clearer can that be? In my opinion, if this editor cared about improving Wikipedia they would have recused themselves from editing this article long ago rather than continuing – by force, by stealth, and by every method in between – to shamelessly manipulate this article for a crystal clear real world agenda. --Griseum (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another deliberate attempt to mislead, under moderation Arborsculpture was in the lead, until you Griseum insisted that the lead sentence was unacceptable and you suggested to remove all alternative names from the lead. SilkTork's attempt close discussion of lead, with arborsculpture in lead Link Griseum restarting the discussion about the lead. Link and this section here is where Griseum suggested a new lead with all the alternative names removed.
Ok, I don't get the above comment, but it comes off as slyly suggestive of something. What, I don't know. However, moving straight back to content, I agree with both of you that arborsculpture belongs in the lead (a rare point of consensus), so I'm going to be WP:BOLD and stick 'er back in there. Standing by for WP:BRD, if any further is needed. I also want to make very clear that use of the term 'Tree shaping', even as an aka for the craft described (let alone as a title), was not found to be well supported by reliable sources. That discussion continues above. How shall we handle the other alternate names that did pass muster? Stick them in there too? Duff (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP: BRD I fixed the lead per this current consensus and per WP:MOS#Abbreviations and synonyms. I see that the immediate prior edit included the word pooktre as an aka, which is definitely not supported by consensus nor facts. Inclusion of the word pooktre in either the lead or the aka section is not supported by the extensive research done on aka's and sources for those aka's, it having been firmly established, by a variety of reliable sources including the artists themselves, as a tradename or brand specifically referring to the partnership and art works of Peter Cook and Becky Northey. See Talk:Tree shaping#Alternate names. It is mentioned in the section on those artists, where it is appropriate and should stay. Duff (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"We are fine with leaving out 'who call their work Pooktre.'
"The new section I put I followed the WP:LEAD section separate section usage quote "if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names" As can be seen by the list there is more than three alternate names."
"I removed the alternate names from the lead becuse that is what is recommended in the separate section usage quote "Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line.",
That statement occured prior to the link provided by Blackash above, purporting that User:Griseum was the source of that change on 23 March 2010, and it occurred only after Blackash had strongly advocated for the inclusion of a third name, Pooktre, as an aka in the lead, which has since proven to be not supported by reliable sources as an aka anyway.
Griseum accepted reluctantly, to move on. His quote there, "The version I just suggested is in no way my druthers.", was obviously an effort to find some sort of consensus and move on.
Blackash has firmly advocated against moving the aka's back into the lead, when it suited their purposes, and now suggest by finger-pointing that they cannot recollect their own advocacy. You can't have it both ways. I don't know how many times it needs to be stated that Wikipedia is not a marketing source, it's an encyclopedia, but there I have reminded Blackash again.
This is another good example of the sort of time-wasting and divisive arguments that have been dragging on at this article's talk page since the two people who are Blackash began editing it, which, as I have mentioned before, was with this delightful (and also exemplary) edit: diff. Further action is forthcoming, just as soon as I figure out the most effective and diplomatic approach. Duff (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm you love to confuse, at the start of moderation I stated that having any alternative name in the lead was not following WP:LEAD. Though discussion an consensus was reach that Pooktre here like Arborsculpture hereis used in the generic sense and both should be in the lead. We stated that we believed having either in the lead gives WP:Undue weight to both words. After more discussions we stated quote "OK I fine with arborsculputre and pooktre being in the lead, it not about how we use the word is it. It about how other people use the word/s. I think by having Arborsculpture linked to Richard and Pooktre linked to us, address my concern about the strong linkage of the words to their creators. Blackash (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)" SilkTork then tried to close the discussion on the lead section. here After this Griseum quote "This is outrageously unacceptable. Was my last group of comments (24 February 8:48) even read? Griseum (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)" After more discussion Griseum suggest this quote Anyway, here’s my alternative suggestion for our belabored lead:[reply]
Tree shaping is the practice of growing and shaping trunks, branches and roots of trees and other woody plants…(text text text)...Contemporary tree shapers include Richard Reames who coined the term "arborsculpture", Dr. Christopher Cattle who uses the phrase "grown furniture", and Peter Cook and Becky Northey who use the term "Pooktre" for the method they use.......... (date stamped --Griseum (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC) ) here.
To which I stated quote "The lead needs to address the Alternative names, we should follow the WP:LEAD guideline Separate section usage and in this section it would be appropriate to address who created what, when and how the words are linked to their creators plus the public use of these words if appropriate. Which can be done in the Alternative name section with References. So the lead paragraph could read like this:-
Tree shaping also known by several alternative names is the practice of growing and shaping trunks, branches and roots of trees and other woody plants.[1][2] By grafting, shaping, and pruning the woody trunks or guiding branches, trees are made to grow into ornamental or useful shapes. Tree shaping is related to espalier, bonsai, pleaching and, less directly, to topiary."
Which is how it played out. Griseum had in put part of the consensus, I changed it to the full consensus. Since Duff doesn't like that change we go back to having a link to alternative names as per WP:LEAD quote from "Alternatively, if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names". Blackashhave a chat 23:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that arborsculpture is much more than "one of many terms" has been determined by 6 months of debate. I have replaced it as part of the first sentence. I would also consider the text I suggested 3 months ago to be acceptable. --Griseum (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tree shaping is the process of pruning trees to maintain a natural shape. This is by far the most common use of this term. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal to move to 'Shaping plants through inosculation to form useful or artistic items' pending further discussion
As the independent editor who closed the proposal to move this article back to 'Arborsculpture' to made the astonishing decision not to do so and the current title is not neutral and means something completely different I propose to move this article to a the neutral title of 'Shaping plants through inosculation to form useful or artistic items' as required by WP policy unless there is a clear consensus not to do so.
The article should remain with that title until the issue of return to 'Arborsculpture' has been finally settled by mediation, arb--Griseum (talk) 03:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)itration, or some other means. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the suggestions above and think "Shaping plants through inosculation" is better. If someone shaped a plant to be not useful or artistic, the result would still be suitable for this article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you drop that out then this article becomes a clone of Living sculpture. You would have to include Bonsai, Pleaching and Espalier as well, which the article clearly states this is not. Colincbn (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have any examples of the arborsculpture that doesn't uses inosculation? It is easy to imagine we might have trees shaped to resemble corkscrews or whatever without inosculation being involved. As much as I detest the way a single COI-fueled editor has turned everyone else attempts to improve this article into a major battle, I didn't have a huge problem with the title until User:Martin Hogbin convinced me that the term "tree shaping" is already in use for something else. Typing "tree shaping is" (in quotation marks) into a search engine and seeing the results will demonstrate that User:Martin Hogbin is very correct and therefore the current title must NOT remain in place. --Griseum (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think WP policy is clear on this issue, and while I would have preferred to move to the original name this seems the next best option. Colincbn (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another option is "Shaping plants to form useful or artistic items" if insoculation is not always used.Colincbn (talk) 01:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Too longwinded and obscure. AfD hero (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Insoculation is not always used. Axel Erlandson has some that aren't grafted, we also have some that don't use insoculation. Blackashhave a chat 08:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While the current name has got to go, I would advocate a less wordy term. "Insoculation sculpture" maybe? But that reeks of us creating a neologism to suit our purposes. Isn't there a word that has been used by the media and by academia for over a decade? Yes there is. That word is “arborsculpture,” but a lone woman in Australia seems to be devoting her life to bullying people into believing that word “controversial,” or a neologism, or doesn't translate well into Japanese (yes, I am serious, that was one of her arguments) or whatever she can come up with on the spot to obstruct its usage. So where does that leave us? --Griseum (talk) 03:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Griseum Please stop lying, there is controversy about the definition of arborsculpture as can be see though out the history of this talk page. I created this list for you when you made this accusation before, link to of some of the editors with issues about Arborsculpture and if you don't like that list look up in the section above about changing the title section. Blackashhave a chat 07:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about biotecture, I started researching this word and it has been around in published media since the late 70's. It may be suitable.
Tree Circus and grown furniture was used at the world expo Japan in 2005, but it will take time to get the published references in English. There are others, maybe the way to go about this is to create a list of the different suggestions and have editors voice which ones may be worth researching.
I'll start a new section with some suggestions and find references please feel free to add to the list either names or references. I will start with tree shaping as there are references for it use in this art form, I also start listing some references I found for biotecture. Blackashhave a chat 07:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of potential title names
Here is a list of suggested titles for this art form.
This section should just list the names and any references if found, and leave the talking about the suitability of the titles to the above section.
Tree shaping
Shaping plants through inosculation to form useful or artistic items
Shaping plants through inosculation
Shaping plants to form useful or artistic items
Insoculation sculpture
Biotecture
Tree Circus
Grown furniture
I strongly suggest moving this article to a temporary but clearly neutral and descriptive home before starting a discussion on a new name, which is likely to take a long time. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
^ abCite error: The named reference FriendsofTAU was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference farmshowmagazine was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference QSFMagazine was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference Reames1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
DoneThe Alternate names section has been moved here to the talk page at Talk:Tree shaping#Alternate names for further work until consensus is arrived at that it is ready for the main article space, if at all. Consensus so far, based on all information that has been provided, leans toward that the alternate names section is an agenda-driven effort, both to dilute the actual other name(s) for this art and to self-promote. BTW, howz the book coming? ("The title of our book is “Pooktre knowledge to grow shaped trees”), right? Duff (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
