Talk:Tree shaping

Section Discussions

Lead section

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)

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)

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. Blackash have a chat 15:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

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:LEAD Alternative 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. Blackash have a chat 02:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I have multiple issues with your edits. I see now that it wasn't simple vandalism but a tactical step in a planed agenda. Blackash have a chat 02:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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.Blackash have a chat 03:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

• 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? Blackash have a chat 00:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

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. Blackash have a chat 00:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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. Blackash have a chat 22:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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. Blackash have a chat 10:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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. Blackash have a chat 11:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

@ 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)

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.

Alternate names

This large section was moved to a subpage of this talkpage, to allow less-tight archiving of the entire talk page. It can be accessed easily for consult or continued work, if needed, at Talk:Tree shaping/Alternate names

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 perennial woody plant was chosen. Since the text substituted read perennial woody plant, that summary and deletion is not entirely straightforward. The right dictionary reference should have been woody plant[6]. 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)

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. Blackash have a chat 23:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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. Blackash have a chat 00:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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.[[7]] Slowart (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

What stuff? Blackash have a chat 01:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The lead.Slowart (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

There are different points of information in the lead which point is it? Blackash have a chat 23:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

WP:PRIMARY Primary 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." Blackash have a chat 23:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

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 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.

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?

Duff (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Blackash have 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)

• I thought it was standard practice to use the 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." Blackash have a chat 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not the template I meant. Sorry for the confusion. This is the template .Duff (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok I changed the tag. Blackash have a chat 11:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Great! These are the eight references you've already provided, that apparently support the point:

• Cassidy, Patti (April/May 2006). Art to Grow. Acreage Life (Canada). p. 17. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help);
• Cassidy, Patti (August, 2008) "A Truly Living Art". Rhode Island Home, Living and Design, p. 28;
• Cassidy, Patti (January/February 2009) "Planting Your Future", Hobby Farm Home, p. 74;
• Fore, Joshua. (Issue #20) "How to Grow a Chair". Cabinet, p. 27];
• May, John (Spring/Summer 2005) "The Art of Arborsculpture" Tree News (UK), p. 37;
• Nestor, James (February 2007). Branching Out, Dwell p. 96];
• "Tree Stories", Fantasy Trees show #103; and
• "Offbeat America" #OB310 (First aired Dec. 4, 2006).

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)

• 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.Blackash have a chat 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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. Blackash have a chat 11:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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. Blackash have a chat 11:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Duff quote "Tree Shaping is a synonym created by artifice, registered as a domain name by...you" Wrong treeshaping.com has nothing to do with me and never did.Blackash have a chat 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

1. 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.
2. Tree shaping has been used in published sources, which is part of the original reason for the move. Blackash have a chat 11:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

• Duff quote "applied to an established article on the craft to appease...you." Wrong again. Multiple editors came to a consensus [8] the article needed, to quote AfD hero "a generic, descriptive, and in current use". name. Blackash have a chat 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

Ok we go into detail there at a later time. Blackash have a chat 11:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• 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. Blackash have a chat 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone see a pattern here ? [[9]] Slowart (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

"...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)

Noted and will try to endeavor to do the same.Blackash have a chat 11:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

Not saying it shouldn't be used, just demonstrating that you do have a bias. Blackash have a chat 11:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

The redirect was suggested and added at the Pooktre AFD [page] Slowart (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

After you give me the Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken I read it and stopped changing the already existing instances of the wording. The one I changed was your new placement of the wording, I just assumed you missed the above consensus in the history. Blackash have a chat 11:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Um, no. see above.

P.S Why do you think Pooktre is a business name? Blackash have a chat 11:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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 [10], and continue here [11], here [12], here [13], and here [14].

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)

Support Slowart (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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. Blackash have a chat 13:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

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. :[15] 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 [16] 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 [17]. Don't make changes and then say goodness me it's too heavily weighed this way. Please don't do this again. Blackash have a chat 13:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

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.

Next steps are: more writing, more references, more Article development. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

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: [18] Duff (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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):

"He started that same year but nothing grew as expected."

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 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)

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" Blackash have a chat 10:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I've had another thought on this too: The boats. Your buddy's and this one [[19]]. 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)

"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)

Snortle. One-leg chair. Average lifespan of Prunus cerasifera? 20 years, a very short century. Duff (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

Better. Lemmesee here. Further consolidation in order. Duff (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Duff (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Methods Section

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. Blackash have a chat 02:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

@ Duff I don't know where you got the idea I was going to rush in and start changing things when I stated that

1. I wanted to work elsewhere on the page first.
2. 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 [20]. 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. Blackash have a chat 23:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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. Pleaching is trees trained into raised hedge with flat planes and hedges, and, therefore, is inaccurate way to describe tree shaping." (Talk:Tree Shaping#References, is upthread: preexisting reflist.) Duff (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

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. Blackash have a chat 11:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

The deleted, and better section from the history section was as follows:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tree_shaping&oldid=365622797 the edit summary:"(→History: This article is about Tree shaping, pleaching is related and and is appropriate to have a sentence or two which we do below, pledging already has its own article.)

The material removed was

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. 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. 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. Blackash have a chat 02:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Chronological ordering is more informative than alphabetical. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. Blackash have a chat 22:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. Blackash have a chat 23:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Wu [[21]] only ref I know of.Slowart (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Tone needs Changing

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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. Blackash have a chat 00:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

I am happy to move it and then discuss it but which two discussions are you talking about? Blackash have a chat 01:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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. Blackash have a chat 02:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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? Blackash have a chat 00:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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. Blackash have a chat 00:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

(cc'd response and my additional request to here from my User talk:Duff page)

I've removed the water marks, links to the files here and here. Blackash have a chat 04:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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.Blackash have a chat 14:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

Image Citations

1. 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

   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 =

Blackash have a chat 05:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• This change is on hold, pending submission for consideration of a single image of the mirror. I mildly object to changing the current citation (should that photo be re-submitted and then selected for use), as the claim against the current citation (above) is an unsourced claim, having little relevance, if any, to the facts cited by the extant and verifiable citation. The current full reference directly cites all the information in the caption, is easily accessible to WP:Verify, and is adequate to the task of citing the caption. Duff (talk) 05:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

New Image found on Commons File:Chair1.jpg

Chair 1?

This beautiful image was found on commons and clearly illustrates one of Reames' chairs. It is used in Blackash's sandbox only at this time. The author is noted as Blackash, with credit offered to Arborsmith.com. I don't get it. Please explain. Is Blackash the artist? Is this a tracing? What is the nature of this image and how and when was it created? Is there any reason not to use this in the article? Duff (talk) 05:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I'm the artist, it's not a tracing. I drew this with my own hands. It is representation drawing of Richard Reames living bench chair. As the drawing is based on a real arborsculpture I thought it should be credited to Arborsculpture.com. So go ahead and use it.Blackash have a chat 08:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well that is pretty impressive. You are a talented sketch artist. Duff (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• 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)

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)

There are published references for Tree shaping used as the generic word for the art form. Blackash have a chat 11:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

• Comment SilkTork found P pooktre to be generic here link Blackash have a chat 10:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I note that you have capitalised the term. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry habit, it was made clear, it is not about how we use the word. It's about how other people use the word. Blackash have a chat 11:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

It is not about how we use the word it about how others use it. Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth Blackash have a chat 12:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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". Blackash have a chat 00:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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. Blackash have a chat 10:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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. Blackash have a chat 10:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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) Blackash have a chat 10:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

• 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. Blackash have a chat 10:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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. Blackash have a chat 11:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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. Blackash have a chat 23:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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.Blackash have a chat 02:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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". Blackash have a chat 00:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Reames Blackash have a chat 01:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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." Link Blackash have a chat 02:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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." Blackash have a chat 01:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

• 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.
• 2. Our custom is to use verifiable reliable sources. *Master Gardeners *.edu*American Society of Landscape Architects*Purde university horticulture department *University of California Cooperative Extension*Horticultural Reviews *Grad Thesis *University of California press I tried to find equally good sources to support the title "Tree shaping" book search with Tree shaping scholer search with "Tree shaping" but look for yourself, "Tree shaping" is just what Martin said is, a common generic term for something completely different at least in the world of tree professionals and academia.
• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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 [22], 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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 Blackash have a chat 10:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

What about "Shaping plants through inosculation to form useful or artistic items"? Colincbn (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. Blackash have a chat 01:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I think Vegaswikian's suggestion of refining the title with brackets would work. Blackash have a chat 10:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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: [23]. 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)

I have done it manually. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you kindly, Martin Hogbin. Duff (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

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'.

Note the url of the first one one [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] search on each page for 'shaping'

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)

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.

Remember, our goal here is to provide all sides of the issue from a neutral point of view and not try to push one side or the other. AfD hero (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC) From section of talk page. Move from Arborsculpture to Tree Shaping.

Also from the section above quote blackash "Tree shaping is in common use, It been used by people who shape trees and others.

Some examples

• On web site Aharon Naveh used the wording 'shaping tree trunks' and doesn't use Arborsculpture. http://www.geocities.com/aharonaveh22/arbor1.htm

• 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. Blackash have a chat 01:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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.

Her first identifiable post on the article as a registered user was on 12-10-2006, with this delightful [diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tree_shaping&action=historysubmit&diff=93358592&oldid=83868904], an excellent harbinger of the 3 1/2 years to come. This was a year & a half before registering her domain name, treeshapers.net.

Her first foray into the Talk page that I can discern in the archives is at Talk:Tree shaping/Archive 2#'Reames' following two incidents that occurred on August 13, 2008 (diffs [here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tree_shaping&diff=prev&oldid=231854115] and [here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tree_shaping&diff=next&oldid=231854115]) of her having uploaded copyrighted photos belonging to another editor (Reames/Slowart, also self-outed, repeatedly), and those photos having been deleted by their owner. This was 2 months after registering her domain name, treeshapers.net, and what ensued thereafter in the discussion is a pretty good detailing of where the real fight over the article name change began.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Ouch, *hangs head in shame* (-_-) Thanks for fixing it. And thank god seppuku is outlawed... Colincbn (talk) 04:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

As another disinterested editor I agree. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

My preference, in order would be:

1. Return to the original name Arborsculpture
2. Rename to a descriptive title
3. Merge into Living sculpture
4. Delete the article as a neologism Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

RegentsPark, thank you for the clarification. Please note that no one is 'reeking of bad faith', including me. I did file the original move request, and I do stand behind it firmly, but I was not the origin of the suggestion to go ahead and move it post-close. I responded here clearly to that suggestion, that I thought such an approach might be problematic and would seek further guidance. My question here to you, following that suggestion having been broached, was intended to seek that guidance from you, on protocol, so as not to be disruptive. Thank you again for providing that guidance. Duff (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've stricken the bad faith portion of my earlier response. (I don't believe you are acting in bad faith and that implication was not intended.)--RegentsPark (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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.

What Griseum says about Blackash says more about Griseum than Blackash. I haven't forgotten your 4 sec lapse Richard Reames Blackash have a chat 07:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Further, at Talk:Tree shaping/Archive 5#Article protected, I find the following (unsigned) quote dating to about February 11-12, 2010, from the two users who use User:Blackash:

"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)

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:

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". Blackash have a chat 23:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Proposal to move to 'Shaping Forming 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.

I have slightly changed the title to completely remove any contentious words. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

Too longwinded and obscure. AfD hero (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Insoculation is not always used. Axel Erlandson has some that aren't grafted, we also have some that don't use insoculation. Blackash have a chat 08:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

There are always exceptions but 'inosculation' is the only common feature of nearly all the work described in this article. If the subject is not sufficiently distinctive then it must me merged or deleted. This is a temporary move so that we can consider those options from a neutral position. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• 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)

@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. Blackash have a chat 07:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• 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. Blackash have a chat 07:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Arborsculpture has already been ruled out as can be seen in the section of Requested move and had a huge discussion, Please let focus the other suggestions. Blackash have a chat 08:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing has been ruled out. The editor who closed the request to move simply did not make the move. Once we are moved to a neutral title we can begin a sober and fair discussion of possible snappier titles. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Multiple editors opposed the move to arborsculpture, it not like you and others didn't get to make your points about arborsculpture. Let discuss some options that are neutral instead of going over the same old ground again and again.Blackash have a chat 11:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Multiple editors would have also opposed the move to Tree shaping as well, but they were never given the chance. Colincbn (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I have now moved the article to an obviously neutral but rather cumbersome title pending further discussion on a better title Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I see that this was a good faith effort to select a non-controversial lily pad to step upon, but ick. I don't care for this (even temporary) title, not least due to the duplicitous use of the words forming and form. I should have rang in on this earlier, but was otherwise occupied. I also see that the page has been returned to its still-unacceptable title. Forward we go. Duff (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

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.

I'm planning to move this entire chart section to a /subpage of this talkpage, clearly linked at this section, as its so big that it requires too-tight archiving of the rest of the talkpage to accomodate it within the normal limits of page size. Please see discussion at Talk:Tree shaping#Refactoring archive sections.Duff (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done This chart can now be reached easily at Talk:Tree shaping/List of potential title names. Duff (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Please keep the list clear

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. Please do not move my comments. We need to do one thing at a time. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about commenting above you in the wrong order, I put the heading back in as I wish to keep that section easy to read and check, you chose to ignore this twice. Please only add title suggestions and references to List of potential title names section. Blackash have a chat 09:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't comment in the above section, I would like to kept it clear and easy to read and check the references for other editors. Blackash have a chat 08:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Why move the page twice? Why not just discuss the alternatives now and settle on a neutral name? Blackash have a chat 08:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Because we all know that discussion may take a very long time, during which this article would remain with a title that describes something completely different from the actual subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

There are references for the use of Tree shaping in published media about this art form. Some of which are about Richard Reames trees and others and not to do with Pooktre. Which I'll start listing soon. To move the article is disruptive when you plan to move it again later. There is Wikipedia:NORUSH we can take the time to find neutral name first. Blackash have a chat 08:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It is an easily verifiable fact that 'Tree shaping' means something completely different. Phone any arborist and ask the if they can do some tree shaping. Not one of them will be expecting to do the work described in this article. You are defending the indefensible. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

A word can have more than one meaning which is why we have dictionaries. I will be adding the references for Tree shaping and other options, thus other editors can decide for themselves which word seems appropriate to them. Blackash have a chat 09:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The term may indeed have more than one meaning but one, 'The pruning of trees to obtain an natural shape', is vastly more common and notable. Just ask any arborist or look on Google.

• We do not contrive to find "accurate" titles that nobody in the real world uses. That rules out all of the "Shaping plants..." titles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly what WP polict tells us to do in cases of disputed naming of new convepts like this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's core policy WP:NPOV section Article naming quote "might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view" Which is why tree shaping was picked in the first place, it is broader material and it had been used by published media about this art form. Blackash have a chat 11:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

To quote Colonel warden, "Naming conflicts are common on Wikipedia - for a recent example, see Big Ben. Accordingly, there is extensive guidance on the matter. WP:NAMECON, MOS:TM and WP:NEO seem most relevant. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2009(UTC)" Good info here. Blackash have a chat 12:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again WP policy says: "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." Also I believe editors with a clear conflict of interest should avoid editing or attempting to influence debate regarding this article. Colincbn (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again, 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. Lets focus on finding neutral name instead of going over the old arborsculpture debate. Suggest a title that meets WP:NAMECON or find references for one of the other suggestions, as at this time it is not suitable for arborsuclpture to be the title.Blackash have a chat 14:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Blackash

Whereas focusing on edits rather than editors is a Wikipedia guideline, it is a single editor – User:Blackash – that has made this article “controversial” and has wasted hundreds of hours of her fellow editors' time. Therefore, the subject of this post is User:Blackash herself.

• I consider the recent statement made by "Griseum Please stop lying" to be a violation of Wikipedia:Civility. It is also ironic considering the source. I would characterize User:Blackash as someone who has spent 6 months clumsily “inventing truths” to serve a real life agenda. Since User:Blackash seems to believe "Griseum Please stop lying" is an appropriate thing to write, I am going to be a little more direct, and indeed a little less civil, than I have been up to this point.
• The number of times that people have asked User:Blackash not to insert her comments out of sequence might number in the dozens. To what proportion this indicates a lack of mental acuity and to what proportion it is an extension of her general disrespect for Wikipedia is unclear. I hope she will eventually comply with this childishly simple guideline.
• Also, it would be useful if User:Blackash would make shorter comments which are more carefully proofed for grammatical sense. I am not asking for perfect spelling and grammar, but there have been dozens of times when I have read a sentence from User:Blackash that has left me wondering, “What the hell is she even trying to say?” Maybe it's me who has a problem comprehending the written word? It isn't.
• I have lost count of how many people have asked User:Blackash to recuse herself from editing this article. The amount of other editors' time she has wasted with her COI-fueled obsession with micromanaging this article is a disgrace.
• I consider User:Blackash's refusal to recuse herself from this article to be a huge “Fuck You” to all of us. I brought this case to the COI noticeboard 6 months ago and no one showed interest in addressing what is happening here. That is a very different thing than if people disagreed that she has a gross COI. Perhaps this matter should again be brought to that noticeboard to address what has been going on here.

I am interested to know if other editors feel User:Blackash should continue deciding the form and content of this article. --Griseum (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I am a relative newcomer at this article, and I make no ultimate judgment myself about participating users' conduct, but given that at least one person is concerned and the view that Blackash has a COI is relatively widespread, perhaps it's time to open a user conduct Request for Comments. It is an early step in having sanctions imposed on disruptive editors — e. ripley\^talk 16:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

To your question about whether Blackash should be topic-banned, of course everybody is welcome to their opinions, but as simple editors we don't have the power to decide to exclude someone from participation somewhere on Wikipedia. That would have to be decided by the Arbitration Committee, which will not hear any case before certain types of dispute resolution are at least attempted -- including a user conduct RFC, which is why I mentioned it above. — e. ripley\^talk 17:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Griseum ummm let's have look where you stated in Talk:Tree_shaping/Archive_3

• First Griseum implied I only edit this article. Which wasn't true then or now. [30]
• Then Griseum put a COI tag on the article, which was later removed with edit summary of COI is not clear
• I then attempted reaching a consensus, I suggest we get Editor assistance to help and also started working though the changes to work with Griseum who just ignored any comments, and just refused to reply. I asked things like "Apart from bad grammar what is your issue with this sentence? Grammar can be fixed. Thou not by me :-)"
• Griseum than stated I had a COI [31] and rejected my edits because quote "which are grammatically incorrect or sound like they are written by someone who hasn't quite mastered the English language" and yet Griseum seemed unable or unwilling to fix them. [32]
• Griseum makes broad sweeping arguments and doesn't give links, so no one can check his statements.
• Griseum again accused me of leading quote "a campaign to have "tree shaping" rather than "arborsculpture" as the title of the article" under recap plus other stuff. To which I rebutted and give links move from arborsculpture and AFD Pooktre
• Again I asked Griseum to justify you edit changes.
• I called a Truce to which Griseum made all the changes he wanted with edit summary of (supposed compromise does not reflect any of the edits i feel are important. WTF?) diff
• Then a bit more discussion.
• So yes Griseum knew there are multiple editors that have an issue with the word Arborsculpture. ::*Griseum has shown hostility to me from the start.
• Point of note if you go and read the history Please note that editor 208.59.93.238 and 96.233.40.199 are Griseum they self outed.
• Griseum quote "insert her comments", it has been 3 times and was to do with edit conflict each time.
• Griseum quote "lost count of how many people have asked User:Blackash to recluse herself from editing this article" I check for you and let you know. Blackash have a chat 18:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• As most of editors don't have any of the books on the subject it a bit hard for them know what is said in reference and citations.
• As most of the article is not about Pooktre there isn't a COI.
• I don't edit war, I will call for a truce rather that push my point of view. Which each time has resulted the article giving undue weight to one neologism.
• How are you going to know when some of the editors will lead you up the garden path, as some will lie?
• I not pushing to get Pooktre more noticed that others neologisms on the page. Blackash have a chat 18:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Pooktre is not a neologism it is clearly a trade name, as in 'Pooktre tree shapers'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Check your definition again, quote Neologisms Neologisms are often directly attributable to a specific person, publication, period, or event. I don't think anyone disagrees we created the word Pooktre. Blackash have a chat 07:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

5 Proofs of COI

I don't care about User:Blackash's flimsy, confusing, inaccurate, and valueless “rebuttal.” I walked away from this article for 3 months to let others mold it and/or see what was really happening here. Now I want to know what other editors think about this situation. In driving home the fact that User:Blackash has a COI that is disrupting Wikipedia, I would focus on the following 5 points:

1. User:Blackash is mentioned prominently in the article and is a person professionally and publicly involved with this craft.
2. User:Blackash made the statement on Wikipedia “My only agenda if there is one is not to have our work branded with someone else's methods of shaping trees. I don't care if the name of the artform as a whole is Tree shaping or Tree training etc... these name don't have a method link to them. Arborsculpture is linked to a method.” That is a written confession of a motive entirely separate from improving Wikipedia.
3. User:Blackash is ignoring the multiple verifiable written sources which indicate arborsculpture is certainly not a specific method. Even in the recent naming discussion she put forth the misinformation that “Arborsculpture is a method of shaping trees.”
4. User:Blackash repeatedly says that the word arborscupture “leads to” Richard Reames because many web searches of the word “arborsculpture” lead to pages where he is mentioned. He is often mentioned because he is a published author and lecturer with almost 20 years involvement in this craft. She is a lesser-known, less accomplished professional rival who actively works to discredit Reames (see next point).
5. User:Blackash is chasing the word “arbosculpture” around the internet, telling people it doesn't apply to the work of people such as Erlandson, and directing them to the Wikipedia article that she herself is editing as proof of her claim. (examples)

If this isn't manifested COI to the detriment of Wikipedia, what is? --Griseum (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place for this sort of discussion. Please move it to a user conduct RFC. — e. ripley\^talk 20:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That may be one of the only options that we have left. That or COI noticeboard. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: method. Blackash is still pushing the idea that there is a method associated with arborsculpture. I was looking for pictures of non-inosculated but shaped trees at commons, and found File:Chair1.jpg, where I had to fix this misinformation. Just noting. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I share the view that User:Blackash should not continue deciding or influencing the form and content of this article, nor of related articles. A link will be provided soon to the draft RfC/U, so that those who also share that view can help make it a good tight RfC/U. Interested participants can study the process at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. Duff (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Undid move and move protected

Please note that a WP:RM request was filed and that several uninvolved editors, including the editor (me!) who closed it, felt that Tree shaping was a better title than Arborsculpture. At this point, choosing a bizarre title that will make little sense to readers reeks of WP:POINT. My suggestion, as before, is that if you believe that Tree shaping is neither descriptive nor neutral of the art form, then you go through some process for selecting a title that is descriptive, neutral and meaningful. I'd also suggest that if you have no intention of following due process after the outcome of a move discussion, it is perhaps better not to list an article at requested moves. In the meantime, I've reverted the move and move protected the article. Let's not go overboard here. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

RegentsPark, I believe that your decision to revert my move and lock the page as 'Tree shaping' is an abuse of your administrator privileges. The name was chosen and agreed by several editors, as you will see if you look at the discussion, as a neutral and descriptive term as required by WP policy in cases like this. I am not sure what right you have as an admin to determine the title of article bases solely on your own preference.

Perhaps you have not yet worked out what this article is all about but it is, in fact, about forming plants through inosculation to form useful or artistic items. The fact that you find this meaningless shows your lack of understanding of the subject.

I came to this page recently along with several other editors, all of whom have no special interest in this subject, in response to an RfC. All the editors who came from that RfC agreed, after looking through the article history, doing some research into the subject, and discussing ideas with other editors that the current title was wrong. You came here, before several editors had properly presented their cases, and made an arbitrary decision not to move. Now you have locked the page.

It has become increasingly obvious to me that one editor here (who has a business called Pooktre Tree Shapers) has a major conflict of interest and should retire from editing until the title is agreed. This is what you should be sorting out. Regarding your comments on resolving this issue, the original editors did go to dispute resolution, several new editors came here and the unanimous decision of the new uninvolved editors was to move the article back to the original name, from which it improperly moved, of arborsculpture. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I do have to agree that the title "Forming plants through inosculation to form useful or artistic items" is utterly unwieldy and inappropriate. I should have said so earlier.

Personally, I still believe the article should be treated like elevator, which uses the terms "elevator" and "lift" interchangeably.

The terms "tree shaping" and "arborsculpture" are by far the two most common names for this artform - and, given that "tree shaping" is ambiguous, it would make the most sense to

1) title the page "Arborsculpture"

2) list "tree shaping" as the other main name in the lead

3) add a {{Distinguish}} disambiguation hatnote pointing out the potential confusion with the term "tree shaping" as used for general arboriculture.

That's my 2¢. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems RegentsPark has forgotten some WP policies in doing the revert/protect. I understand he/she is an admin but that does not mean they are infallible. WP policy is clear on the issues under discussion. Anything besides a discussion of WP policy is pointless. The policies that most typify this debate are:

• WP policy clearly states to use the first non-stub title whenever possible: "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."
• WP Policy clearly states title length is not a reason to rename: "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."
• And while the essay I just don't like it, is not a policy it makes a good point: All that matters is following policy, not whether or not we like what the policy leads us to.

I urge RegentsPark, and all editors, to define their actions by which policies those actions are intended to uphold, as no other reasoning is relevant to a WP debate. Colincbn (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe that RegentsPark has acted improperly in closing the move request prematurely and locking this page. I intend to raise the matter on the administrator's noticeboard. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think he/she was operating in good faith. I imagine after seeing the move his revert/protect was a kneejerk reaction to what he thought was a bad faith edit. Once he/she responds here I think we can have an honest discussion about what WP policy says. Colincbn (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(od) Hi all. It seems fairly obvious that Forming plants through inosculation to form useful or artistic items is not workable as a title and it appears pointy which is why I moved the article back to Tree shaping (and locked it). If the alternative title was seriously meant, I suggest a quick read of WP:Title#Deciding an article title . I will be happy to unprotect the article if you can arrive at a consensual title that is neither absurd nor unclear or even a reasonable assurance that the article will not be moved without due process (an RfC or some dispute resolution process). You need to follow a process because of the closure of the move request and what you should not do is to move the article to a different title and what you should definitely not do is move it to a title that is absurd in its lack of clarity. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The alternative title was seriously meant as a neutral and descriptive title. The problem is that the subject of this article is somewhat obscure (unlike the term 'tree shaping', which is in regular use by arborists to mean something completely different). While there is no agreement on exactly what the subject of the article is, it is clear that the distinguishing feature of what is described here the the joining of branches together or 'inosculation'. Without that it is very difficult to distinguish the subject from pruning or training and without the 'useful or artistic items' it is difficult to distinguish this subject from pleaching.

Regarding dispute resolution process let me repeat, there was an RfC and the clear consensus amongst new uninvolved editors (including myself) was to return the article to its original title. This process was completely wrecked by one editor who has a business called 'Pooktre tree shapers" and finally by your premature decision to close the discussion and refuse the move.

Regarding WP:Title, there is no well know term for what is a very obscure subject, practised by only a handful of organisations worldwide (unlike tree shaping). The best term, according to that policy would be 'arborsculpture'. Unfortunately, that was title was blockaded by Blackash.

You can surely see the anger that your actions caused to a number of disinterested editors who came here in response to an RfC to try to resolve this dispute when you closed the discussion before all the evidence had been presented. Your presence her would be welcome to help decide on a suitable title for this article based on WP policy rather than the commercial advantage of one editor. On thing is for sure 'Tree shaping is unacceptable for two reasons, firstly it is being pushed by an editor from 'Pooktre tree shapers' who clearly has a conflict of interest, and secondly because the term is in verifiable widespread use to mean something other than the subject of this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Martin, to be honest, I see a number of disinterested editors who argue that Arborsculpture is not an appropriate title, Col Warden, Sikktork, HelloAnnyong, to name a few, so your assertion of a clear consensus amongst uninvolved editors does not seem correct to me. Regardless of that, if all this makes you angry then perhaps a WP:Wikibreak is in order because acting in anger is not productive. Meanwhile there is no need for haste, a discussion is ongoing, and the article can be moved whenever a consensus emerges.--RegentsPark (talk) 01:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The editors you name are not disinterested, they were specifically requested to comment here by Blackash, have a look at their talk pages. They came, gave brief statements in support of Blackash then went away. Please read through this history again and you will see, as I did, a campaign by one editor to prevent the obvious and original name for this subject from being used. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Martin, regardless of how they got here, you cannot choose to ignore their views. Not the least because all three, and you can add chris cunningham as a fourth, are unlikely editors to be pushing a pov. I've just finished rereading the discussion above and stand by my decision that the consensus is not to rename the article arborsculpture. It's not like I'm alone in this. I note that colincbn says somewhere above I think it is clear at this point there is no consensus to rename to arborsculpture, Vegaswikian says that he/she thinks it will be closed as 'no consensus'. I understand that you're upset with the closure (though as a disinterested editor you should not be!) but I think you should accept this judgement and move on. There are many occasions where a consensus has been declared against my views - always 'unfairly' of course :-) - but it is hard to be a productive wikipedia editor if you hold on things the way you are doing here. Work on a simple alternative title if you think Tree shaping is too close to Pooktre (Tree art?) but my suggestion is to forget about arborsculpture for the time being. --RegentsPark (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If 'Tree art ' is your suggestion for a neutral name that is fine with me, and probably many others. Let us move it to there. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a decent descriptive term. — e. ripley\^talk 13:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, I wrote on everyone's talk page. Out of about 30 I did miss a couple, which (thank you) you messaged about the move. Blackash have a chat 10:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"Shaping woody plants?"

• User:Martin Hogbin is correct that the current title shouldn't remain in place, even temporarily, now that we know the term “tree shaping” is already in use by the horticultural community for the practice of regular, mundane, pruning practices (see?) Would “Shaping woody plants” be a satisfactory (perhaps temporary) name? It is almost synonymous with the current title, is is identical in grammatical form, and it avoids the problem just mentioned. --Griseum (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that "Shaping woody plants" does not really describe the subject of this article very clearly. That term could apply to tree shaping (the term being used properly here) or topiary. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The assertion in question is not correct, and even if it were then the proposed alternative is an absolute no-go as we go not invent new terms to cover subjects. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

What assertion is not correct? WP policy tells us to use a neutral and descriptive name. That is what I did. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The assertion that the current title is improper because it is used for mundane pruning practices. Non-notable additional uses for a title are irrelevant. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

If that is some vain attempt at wikilawyering, I suggest that you do not give up your day job. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of the problem here seems to be that we're talking about something practiced by so few people that there really isn't an accepted generic description. In most cases, in a situation like the one I've just described, the article would be merged in with something else (like tree shaping) -- something that covers the range of the way that people manipulate trees and other living items into something else. But now that people have been fighting and arguing over it for so long, it probably doesn't seem like a desirable option for folks who have been most involved. I hesitate to bring it up because of that, but is it not possible to just create a broader article here, and have this be one section of it? I think that's what Chris was getting at above. — e. ripley\^talk 16:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

What would we merge it with? Pleaching? I think there is a distinctive enough subject here for it to have its own article. What would you suggest we call it? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with the current title? It seems broad enough to encompass trimming, pleaching and whatever other means by which trees are shaped, each with its own subsection. It seems grasping at straws to try to invent a new title that satisfies no one just to fork the content off. — e. ripley\^talk 17:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we deal with all forms of shaping of trees here? Pruning and pleaching already have their own articles. This article is clearly about the forming plants through inosculation to form useful or artistic items. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Why not? Wouldn't it be preferable to the current muddle? — e. ripley\^talk 18:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You are talking about a whole reorganisation of WP articles on dealing with trees. Other editors might quite like their articles as they are. Anyway it would probably make the overall article too large. There no muddle here just one problem, which is that one editor will not accept 'arborsculpture'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been here long enough to judge for myself whether that's an accurate portrayal of the way consensus falls (though I have no reason to think that you aren't accurately describing it), but if that's the case, I have to ask -- why then all the drama? If a consensus of several editors exists to rename it Arborsculpture, with just one person dissenting, then it's time to move it to Arborsculpture. If one person doesn't like it, that's pretty much too bad, with all due respect. If he's edit warring over it, then bring Wikipedia's policies to bear in enforcing the consensus. Of course this depends on there being an actual consensus. Can this be demonstrated? If so I would recommend that we show it to RegentsPark and ask him to make the move. Consensus does not mean unanimity, and though that's the desired outcome, there are limits to how much people should seek to accommodate dissenters, particularly if this has been going on for years. — e. ripley\^talk 20:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Though out the history of this page (the first comment is about the definition of arborsculpture Link) there has been controversy about the definition of Arborsculpture from multiple editors Link to editors with quotes and links to the original comments. Or read the 8 Requested move * 8.1 Survey Multiple uninvolved editors opposed the move from Tree shaping to Arborsculpture. Read RegentsPark reply to Martin just above Shaping woody plants heading. Blackash have a chat 04:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(od)No. I am not for muddling the topic by broadening it, though the living sculpture article might benefit from further development in that spirit. This article is about this specific art-craft of purposefully directing the growth of living wood over time, into designed shapes and objects, using simple and well-established arboricultural techniques such as grafting, pleaching, inosculation, pruning, girdling, bending & weighting, light control, carving, and a variety of other techniques which are also commonly used in a variety of other combinations to do a variety of other things with plants, both woody and not.

The article is not about general tree shaping, and not about other delightfully specialized artistic and craftsmanlike outputs such as bonsai & espalier either. It's not restricted to trees but is practiced using the living, growing wood of a variety of woody plants, including vines and shrubs. It's not absolutely neccessary to inosculate, though that's a frequently chosen technique.

It's not narrowly practiced by a few vaguely notable people...most gardeners have given this a shot. They have been coached to, even, in a broad array of resources, many cited in this article. Both scholarly and mainstream reliable sources, as well as reams of (documented here) bloggy resources and the image search at google, tag this, arborisculpture. All notable artists have surely benefitted from this tagging and from the (again) rising profile of the practice, as has the curious (and burgeoning) experimental gardening community at large.

This particular craft, which sometimes rises to the level of an art, has been practiced for at the very, very least, hundreds of years. Probably it has risen, developed, and fallen into obscurity and decay in countless cycles; whenever the living members of families of primates and woody plants have cohabitated the earth in any spatial proximity whatsoever, as it readily sugests itself. It can easily be done without tools, requiring not even metal to accomplish, and even a child can bend live willow stems, and tie them, and wait.

Over the last 15 years, since the coining of the word by an otherwise relatively obscure fellow gardener, it has come to be known as arborsculpture, in the absence of a prior or better collective term. The word is simple, easily understood and grasped as a concept by anyone with a basic education in English, and plainly used, it posseses an elegance of its own. Meanwhile, that same guy has apparently continued practicing the craft and done pretty well with it while other artists, too, have flourished. I don't think we should be trying any more to find new and different ways to stifle the already-established usage of a darn good word to describe it. It's too bad that the Pooktre artists, talented as they clearly are, cannot yet find a way to recognize and embrace their own place within this astonishingly diverse and yet so specifically characteristic art form, but they cannot be permitted to influence, let alone drive the content of this article in their quest for fame. Duff (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

A clear consensus emerged and can easily be demonstrated, among committed multi-subject editors, that the original article name was the way to go, both style-wise and WP-wise.

I initiated the dispute resolution process with an RfC on editorial conflict, after studying the issue carefully and coming to the reluctant conclusion that a single username had been demonstrated clearly as the near-exclusive source of the entire conflict. This brought in several neutral editors, an old Single Purpose Account or 3, and debateably, a few weak socks.

After studying carefully the citations, arguments, and archival history of both discussions and page changes, and after extensive immediately recent discussions and corrections, and for all of the reasons heretofore repeatedly stated, that consensus was shared by MDVaden, Griseum, Duff, Colincbn, Martin Hogbin, Slowart and others, which I'll try to add when I get to a desktop computer tonight. I have proceeded through asking for individual advice in a personal editorial assistance request. I selected the RfM process, only after establishing clear consensus for the move, because by that time there could be no doubt whatsover that the move would be contested and highly likely to generate controversy from the anticipated quarter. It's persistence and sheer volume throughout discussions has made article improvement a struggle, which it should not be.

RegentsPark is another valuable contributor who dove boldly into the prompt closing of the RfM, a necessary part of the process, and he possibly remains unconvinced, as have a few other good editors from the RfC who've scanned the situation. It's long-term, and will take time to properly evaluate. It's very likely to need arbitration at some point, in my view. We have discussed this matter extensively and narrowed possible future actions to either or both of a couple of appropriate courses, which I need to go back & look at to summarize, including noticeboards, mediations, & arbitrations.

I have and shall continue to edit the article as time permits, in favor of a better article. Duff (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to push for fame we have already appeared on T.V. in multiple countries and in media around the world before we became active on Wikipedia. Blackash have a chat 05:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

While that may be true, your actions on Wikipedia, and off-wiki concerning your actions on Wikipedia, demonstrate otherwise. Duff (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Have to love the way you give broad sweeping statements with no links, so we have to take your word for this aswell. Blackash have a chat 05:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Or you could search the archives or your own recollection. How many times should such proofs need to be presented?Duff (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Duff why did you list this article for a survey about moving Tree shaping to Arborsculpture, if you are not going to except the decision that came from the listing? It appears from your list of editors the only uninvolved editors are the ones that agree with you about Arborsculpture.Blackash have a chat 05:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• 1. I listed the article at RfM according to protocol, instead of just moving it, because that is the proper procedure, as part of the dispute resolution process, unlike the procedure that originally changed the name. Please read up on WP:DR if you're not already familiar, which I am convinced you are. Duff (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
  2. Yes, as requested, that was a list of the names involved in the consensus for a return to the original name, so yes, that list is indeed the names of those who do agree with each other about that. Problem? Duff (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is the current title unacceptable?

Some have pondered “why is the current title unacceptable? Why are people making such a big deal out of this?” I want to answer those questions.

• “Tree shaping” is used in the arborculture industry to refer to the mundane pruning and maintainence of trees. It might logically also refer to the pleaching, bonsai, topiary and any number of other practices. “Arborsculpture,” by contrast, certainly does not refer to anything accept what this article is about.
• Whereas the recent renaming discussion was inconclusive, there has been no verifiable evidence showing that the term arborsculpture is, as User:Blackash asserts with manic zeal, “controversial.” Nor does it refer to a specific method, as she also asserts. The opinions of editors have value, but those opinions do not outweigh the importance of verifiable evidence.
• If it wasn't for User:Blackash's inappropriate involvement with this article for inappropriate motives, the article would be called “arborsculpture” and all of us would be thinking about something else. For the past 6 months I have been stating that the name of this article (arborsculpture vs tree shaping) wasn't an issue of contention for me as long as the article reflects the fact that these terms are essentially synonymous. I now believe the title itself needs to be changed because...
• There is every indication that User:Blackash will continue to misuse Wikipedia to spread the misinformation that (as she says) “Arborsculpture is one man's method of shaping trees. It is an instant, and inferior method of shaping trees.” (see how she is using Wikipedia to support her attacks against Reames?) Recent edits made my User:Blackash show beyond doubt that she continues to reject the consensus among administrators and others editors that the term arborsculpture does not refer to a specific method.
• Currently, we are “not allowed” to use the term arborsculpture on other Wikipedia pages, such as the Axel Erlandson article (because of User:Blackash's objections) DESPITE the numerous sources (some listed below) which identify the work of Erlandson and others as "arborsculpture".
• This is a big deal because journalists and scholars use Wikipedia and the decisions we make here are will shape human thought and vocabulary for generations to come. We have a "sacred trust" that carries a weighty responsibility with it. The word “arbosculpture” has been accepted by the world at large as a generic term. User:Blackash does not want Wikipedia to reflect that fact. User:Blackash wants Wikipedia to reflect her OPINION so that her opinion will become accepted as fact. That is a very bad and very serious thing. --Griseum (talk) 06:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

But is Arborsculpture REALLY a neutral and generic term?

Verifiable evidence in numerous printed sources without affiliation to the people in question indicate that it is neutral and generic. I have asked User:Blackash to produce sources, or even a SINGLE published source, indication that the term “arborsculpture” refers to a method, is a proprietary name for Reames' work, or is “controversial.” User:Blackash has not produced any sources. By contrast, in Feb 2010, I found the following:

• ARBORSCULPTURE.ORG was the website of the NEAG Northeast Arborsculpture Group until just a few days ago. (current Feb 2010)
• Science Frontiersmagazine has written an original article (not a Wikipedia clone) called "Arborsculpture: A Living Art - and the Art of Living" about what it says is "a process commonly called arborsculpture."
• Popular Science presents an article about "Israel's Tel Aviv University teaming up with eco-living company Plantware" and it is tagged: arborsculpture, architecture, eco tech, future tech, the environment. The article says "The process of shaping living trees to create objects, referred to as arborsculpture and pooktre" -- in this case going a little to far by using pooktre (which no one is claiming as a generic term) as a generic term as well. NB different versions of this article are all over the web under different electronic "mastheads" and sometimes different pictures.
• esciencenews.com has a version of the Tel Aviv article that offers this definition: "The concept of coaxing living trees into useful objects, sometimes called tree shaping, arborsculpture, living art or eco-architecture, isn’t new." As usual, there is no distinction between the term Reames coined and the other terms in circulation.
• US Patent 7328532 relates to the Tel Aviv University tree shaping just mentioned. According to the text of the patent: "The art of shaping living woody plants is known as "arborsculpture", "preaching", "tree trunk topiary", "tree trunk shaping", "botanical architecture", "biotechture" or "permaculture". Presently known living tree configurations include, but arenot limited to chairs, tables, benches, entrance arches, tunnels, symbols, fences, bridges, garden rooms and gazebos. The living constructs provide obvious aesthetic and environmental benefits." Arborsculpture seems to be the preferred term here as evidenced by "Presently, arborsculpture is practiced by manipulating growth of the above-ground tissues (e.g., stem and branches) using traditional horticultural techniques such as pruning, trimming, bending, framing and grafting." They mention "The principle methods which are presently used in arborsculpture are described by R. Reames" and also say "Accordingly, the process of shaping living woody plants using traditional techniques is very time consuming, excessively laborious and very costly." which contradicts User:Blackash's claim that "arborsculpture" is some sort of inferior shortcut different from tree shaping in general. Whether or not Reames is an influential pioneer, an opportunistic villain or somewhere in between isn't part of my argument (I don't care) but it should at least be noted that, in general, his work is well-regarded.User:Blackash's claim that Reames work is an inferior shortcut might be valid -- I don't know. What's important is that the word Reames coined is NOT generally associated with a "shortcut method" nor indeed a particular method at all.
• Der Spigel, a magazine from Germany, says: companies like the Israeli firm, Plantware, have perfected these techniques as they have shaped trees into fruit bowls, toilet paper holders and street lamps; they call their work "arborsculpture." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griseum (talk • contribs) 05:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Department of Horticulture at Cornell University has a website about "Tree Sculpture" that says "Axel Erlandson’s tree circus is an amazing horticultural undertaking. Mr. Erlandson was an American arborsculptor who opened a horticultural attraction in 1947 featuring his uniquely shaped trees" Although Erlandson died in 1964, multiple independent sources all over the web call him an "arborsculptor" and his work "arborsculpture."
• Dr. Leonard Perry seems affiliated with the Department of Plant and Soil Science at the University of Vermont. In his paper on Axel Erlandson he says "Erlandson would not tell anyone his secrets of arbor sculpture...about 74 of his arboreal sculptures remained"
• Arborsculpture - An Emerging Art Form and Solutions to our Environment is a paper presented to the Faculty of the Landscape Architecture Program at the University of California, Davis. It is Erlandson's work, not Reames, which is primarily referenced. The paper gives this definition: "Arborsculpture is a naturally growing art form that is created by growing and shaping tree trunks and other woody plants into shapes as new layers of wood form. It is made for function, it is made as a creative outlet and it is made to explore plants as living organisms. Arborsculpture is a form of plant propagation that takes dedication, practice, experience, and knowledge of plant growth and structure. It is done using a technique called grafting which requires specific tools, and accessories. The trunks of the trees are grafted, bent, pruned and braced into shapes that are either ornamental or useful." Again, no distinction between techniques in regards to nomenclature.
• Urban Planning, Design and Development Newtorkoffers the following definition: "Arborsculpture, Treechitecture -- Civic amenities, public spaces, and even housing could one day be formed by living trees. Researchers are looking into this new idea." (Editor's note: Treechitecture? Groan!)
• Fair Oaks Horticulture Center of the University of California is using the term "arborsculpture" even for what appears to be merely traditional espalier demonstrating how popular and generic the term has become.
• The Journal of Mythic Arts tells us "arborsculpture, especially chairs, was the peculiar habit of John Krubsack, a prominent banker in the very small town of Embarrass, Wisconsin." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griseum (talk • contribs) 05:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• This (bloggy) site specifically lists Pooktre and others under the "arborsculpture" heading
• University of British Columbia Botanical Garden & Centre for Plant Research discussion forum shows arborsculpture is being used as a generic term
• Tree Artistry is essentially a high-end landscaping business that greets visitors to business website with words "Welcome to Tree Artistry Arborsculpture!"
• This is bloggy and partially-Wikipedia derived but it evidences people using arborsculpture as a generic term and even specifically referring to Axel Erlandson's work as "arborsculpture".
• 10 best trees and shrubs for arborsculpture is another article using arborsculpture as a generic term.
• Agriculture Views has an article called "Arborsculpture" that takes an extremely generic view that says, in part "arborsculpture is the technique of “sculpting” trees, or shaping and growing them in a certain shape. This technique is usually used in growing wood plants that can be used for landscaping, garden ornaments, plant decorations and for other aesthetic purposes.
• Dwell.com did an article about Reames in which the following definition was given: Arborsculpture is the art of shaping living trees into furniture, sculpture, and shelters. Part grazing and grafting, pleaching and patience, it exists in the shady area between landscaping, gardening, and furniture design. Arborsculpturists figure that anyone can shape objects out of dead wood, but it takes a special set of skills to make things out of living wood, to allow the tree to flourish as you meld it for a human purpose." The idea that the term arborsculpture should only be to (as Blackash/pooktre says below) "an instant, and inferior method of shaping trees" is absent from this definition and all definitions I located.
• CabinetMagazine.org also did a story specifically about Reames and also gives a generic definition: "Arborsculpture is the art of shaping tree trunks to create art and functional items through bending, grafting, pruning, and multiple planting." In my initial search, I excluded articles which refer to Reames whatso ever. I've gone back and included some as they offer explicit, relatively detailed, and decided generic definitions.
• Sawmill and bandmill blog uses the term generically as do other "bloggy" sites like [art.commongate.com/post/Extreme_Trees Extreme Trees] and this and this and hundreds more
• I'm not even sure what this is but the author here muses that Chinese footbinding "is really almost exactly the same thing as arborsculpture, only practiced on the human foot rather than a tree." Does ANYONE think this writer translates "arborsculpture" as "Richard Reames' particular method of tree shaping?" For realz, yo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griseum (talk • contribs) 05:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Here even a photo of Pooktre co-creator has been tagged "arborsculpture"
• Josienita Borlongan wrote an article about Axel Erlandson's work and calls it arborsculpture.
• American Arborsculpturist Axel Erlandson and His Extreme Trees is the subtitle of an article which says in part "Axel Erlandson's passion for sculpting trees, also known as arborsculpture, started out as a hobby for the amusement of himself and his family..."
• Axel Erlandson: An American Arborsculpturist is an article by the same author.
• University of California "Landscape & Turf News" has a short article called "Arborsculpture: Horticultural Art" in which Reames is referenced and in which Erlandson's work is called "Trees sculpted by a master of the art in the 1940s and 50s". There's absolutely no implication that Reames was doing one distinct thing, Erlandson another, and these two things need separate terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griseum (talk • contribs) 04:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• "Go get papers" offers examples of this term being used in academic papers about tree shaping in general
• I Dig My Garden, like many other gardening sites, has a "Arborsculpture" forum which is about tree shaping in general
• folks posting pics on Flickr] are using the term arborsculpture for various types of tree shaping including basic espalier.
• Treehugger.com has an article about tree shaping in which Reames is the main focus, but it also refers to "British arborsculpturer, Chris Cattle."
• Try Your Hand At Arborsculpture For A Fun Hobby is an article in which the work of Chris Cottle, Lois Walpole, Richard Reams and others are collectively called "arborsculpture".
• University of Tennessee has a site called "Environmental Semester." There is a link to the website of Dan Ladd. Ladd himself does not use the term arborsculpture on his site; he uses "botanical architecture" and "tree sculpting" instead. But in chosing a heading for the section which contains only Ladd's link, someone at U Tennessee chose to fall back on a better-known term and has entitled it "Arborsculpture: Gardening as an art form".
• Living Tree Sculpture aka Arbosculpture is very interesting because it shows people using the term arborsculpture as a generic term only to be "corrected" by Pooktre who says "we believe that the way Richard shapes trees is too damaging and leads to unpredictable results. Which is the reason that we don't wish to have our work confused with arbor sculpture." This specific, real world agenda is revealed by Pooktre/Blackashe on Wikipedia here and elsewhere.
• The Art of Arborsculpture is an article picturing mostly Erlandson's work. Here Pooktre/Blackash has commented "The peace symbol tree is the only tree that has been AArborsculptured in this group of photos. Arborsculpture is one man's method of shaping trees. It is an instant, and inferior method of shaping trees. This peace tree shows the classic hallmarks of Arborsculpture. Uneven and stunted growth." Does ANYONE else make this distinction besides Blackash, a professional rival of the person who coined the word?
• I've included some sites that are "bloggy". While blogs and other user-derived content sites carry relatively little weight in arguments over Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability there is nothing forbidding us from thinking about what we find there. "Arborsculpture" is a young word if we're trying to determine how people at large are using it for real, no BS, let's not blind ourselves.

OPINIONS about whether “arbosculpture” is controversial and method specific should be backed up by evidence from printed sources. Otherwise, they have about as much value as someone's OPINION that NYC, rather than Albany, is the capitol of New York State. It doesn't matter if 10,000 editors have the OPINION that NYC is the state capitol. Wikipedia text is supposed to be based on written sources. --Griseum (talk) 06:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Arborsculpture has multiple problems, but major fault is arborsculpture does not meet Wikipedia's core policy of neutrality WP:NPOV. Google arborsculpture it leads straight Richard Reames and his products. Google a word like bonsai it leads all over the web not to a practitioner of bonsai. Here is your list below with every linked checked and the bulk of them lead to Richard Reames especially the verifiable sources. Blackash have a chat 07:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S.As to methods please look in my sandbox [33]. I have text with references Blackash have a chat 07:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the evidence supplied for Arborsculputre

I followed all the links supplied by -Griseum

• 37 links about Arborsculpture in use.
• 4 links go to the wrong place.
• 10 links lead to Richard Reames book/s (most of the verifiable sources)

1. Arborsculpture - An Emerging Art Form and Solutions to our Environmentpage 25
2. The Journal of Mythic Arts
3. This (bloggy) site yep stumbleupon has a link to Richard's book
4. This is bloggy and partially-Wikipedia derived video has the book at the end (have to check on Fri)
5. Agriculture Views
6. Dwell.com
7. CabinetMagazine.org
8. University of California "Landscape & Turf News" page 4
9. Try Your Hand At Arborsculpture For A Fun Hobby
10. "Go get papers" in this directory the book Arborsculpture- Solutions for a Small Planet, appears and Arborsculpture Class is mentioned a few times.

• 5 links lead to Richard Reames and/or his web site

1. Department of Horticulture at Cornell University
2. this
3. Axel Erlandson: An American Arborsculpturist does meantion Richard's books in passing.
4. Treehugger.com
5. Living Tree Sculpture aka Arbosculpture

That leaves 18 sites that use Arborsculpture in a generic term.

• 5 links use Arborsculpture as one in a series of alternative names

1. Popular Science
2. different versions
3. sometimes
4. esciencenews.com
5. US Patent 7328532

What is left is mainly blogs and personal web pages. Not really a strong case for Arborsculpture being independent of its originator, and these links are from a search of Arborsculpture with Richard Reames removed!!! How dominant must Richard Reames be in a normal search of Arborsculputre. Blackash have a chat 07:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Blackash, I am sure that most neutral editors will agree with me when I say that I really do not care about Richard Reames. I do not care that he coined the term 'arborscuplture', he coined it as a generic term, not as a trade name. What I do care about is that sufficient evidence has been produced to show that this word is in general use to refer to the subject of this article. There may be slight differences between how some see arborsculpture and and how some others view the topic but the subject is already very narrow and specialised that even finer distinctions are not desirable. Many references lead back to Richard Reames, that is just too bad, he happened to coin the term that most people use to describe this subject. Get over it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I asked for sources

I asked for SOURCES showing that arborsculpture was specific method or was a "controversial term." And...(wait for it)...User:Blackash]] presents NONE. At a glance, User:Blackash's rebuttal looks like it might have value (it has math, right?) But follow those links yourself and see what you find. So what if arborsculpture is listed as one of several terms when it is obviously the most popular term? Are national magazines (like Popular Science, an award-winning publication founded in 1872), huge media conglomerates (like MSNBC, per this link) and respected universities sources we don't consider when deciding matters on Wikipedia? Is the proof that both hobbyists and academics are comfortable with the term "arborsculpture" going to be ignored? User:Blackash likes to say that the word arborsculpture "leads" to Reames? I still don't exactly understand that statement. Is it comparable to how "tree shaping" is related to "Pooktre tree shapers" - a business operated by User:Blackash and Peter Cook? It bothers User:Blackash that Reames' long association with the practice of arborsculpture/whatever means his name is often mentioned in association with it. Tough luck for User:Blackash. What does that have to do with what we name the article? I have PROVEN that arborsculpture is not a method, nor is it specific to the work of Richard Reames. There are no indications it is controversial, except for the fact that User:Blackash doesn't like it . Therefore, "arborsculpture" it is the title we should use. That should be the end of the debate. --Griseum (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Alternative title names

Is any editor still interested is discussing alternative title names? I will continue to find references for the suggested titles for other editors to reference back to if and when there is a sensible discussion about a neutral title. Blackash have a chat 07:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• The last naming discussion was inconclusive. But notice that nearly everyone really involved with actually editing this article, except for User:Blackash, believes "arborsculpture" would be the best title. A few less-involved and less-informed editors have been fooled into thinking this is a controversial term by User:Blackash's campaign of misinformation. If not for User:Blackash's blatant, shameless, inexcusably COI-fueled involvement with this article, it would be called “arborsculpture” and no one would question it. When our conversation becomes based on verifiable printed sources rather than User:Blackash's flimsy arguments, the article will be renamed “arborsculpture.” We've thought about other names before and none are as prominent, specific, or self-explanatory as “arborsculpture.” IMO, to waste time and energy investigating the possibility of other names would be further capitulation to User:Blackash's incessant bullying. As soon as it is “Wiki-legal” to again propose a name change to arbosculpture, let's do it, and let's show everyone the sources I found. User:Blackash's rebuttal is as flimsy as it was in February 2010 and I don't expect it to get much better. --Griseum (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I am interested in an examination of the current consensus for moving the article to Arborsculpture. Martin, you suggest that there is a consensus of editors who visit here regularly who hold this view. Could you please collect their names and post them in a separate section? I realize this is tedious work but it's necessary. It will help to enforce the consensus if we have this information centrally-located. There's nothing not "wiki-legal" about proposing the page move right now, today, if you can show a consensus to do so. Of course others who support specific other suggestions should also be listed. I don't think someone who has said they don't like arborsculpture, or some other name, but who provided no preferred alternative, should be counted, given the length of time that this dispute has gone on. It's time to find a resolution. — e. ripley\^talk 19:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and also agree with both Griseum and Martin Hogbin. Here goes... Duff (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus already established to move the page back to Arborsculpture

New section, per the above request from e. ripley

Not at all tedious, as the work is already done. I made the same statement above (as does Griseum, about consensus having already been reached, both prior to and during the RfM) and I compiled most of the names yesterday, as noted in my comment. That consensus was shared by User:Mdvaden, User:Griseum, User:Duff, User:Colincbn, User:Martin Hogbin, User:Slowart, User:Quiddity, and possibly also User:Johnuniq. There may be others who also expressed the same sentiment. Yes, there were dissenters, most notably User:Blackash. I chose the RfM process, post-consensus, instead of just moving it back per clear policy, given the amount of heat the move back to the original name, even per WP policy, was sure to generate from one loud source (which it did, and from that source). E. Ripley, I take your point made earlier about the proper approaches to solve the underlying problem, and will pursue those as well. Thank you for the guidance on that. I am curious, was your arrival here in response to any particular wikiproject request or other process? Duff (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw this listed on the RFC page. Just happenstance. — e. ripley\^talk 01:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Right on. We asked for more new eyes at each of the interested wikiprojects, as well as via the RfC, and I wondered which approach had been more productive. Thanks for jumping in! Duff (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

With regards to Arborsculpture, we just had this discussion a few days ago, and the result was not to move it there. If you don't like the result, then thats a sad day for you. Either escalate to a higher level of dispute resolution or drop the subject. AfD hero (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by 'the result was not to move it there'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you do not want to answer this question. Let me remind how the article got to be moved to 'Tree shaping' in the first place. On 10 January 2009, you said, 'Since, as far as I can tell, the term "arbosculpture" is not universally agreed upon in the tree-shaping community or the media, I moved the page to the more generic name "tree shaping". I think this is solid reasoning, but I would also like to hear your side of the story. But first lets take this to the Tree Shaping talk page'. That was the decision. An arbitrary decision taken by you, against all WP policy to move the page. No RfC, no consensus, just your personal decision. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Until someone presents proper written SOURCES indicating that “arborsculpture” is not a perfectly good name for this article I see no reason to stop working towards having it renamed. The fact that some barely-involved editors agree with the OPINIONS of User:Blackash, an editor whose behavior should concern any conscientious Wikipedia, doesn't impress me. I am also concerned about the source of some of the opinions tallied. It may be helpful to look at edit histories.User:MarkPrimack ([34]) seems to be someone with a RL grudge/COI against toward Richard Reames. User:Sydney Bluegum, who confusingly said "The word arborsculture has a gender bias" has exactly 3 edits. Whereas the statements of people who just stopped in to opine aren't something we totally disregard, these particulars concern me. There is every indication that until the title of the article itself is changed to “arborsculpture”, User:Blackash will continue to misuse Wikipedia to establish the notion that the term “arborsculpture” is a specific and inferior method of creating unusally-shaped trees. --Griseum (talk) 22:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD hero, you are mistaken in assuming that I have any emotional connection to the outcome of these proceedings or to the title or content of the article. I neither 'like' nor 'don't like' the outcome of the RfM. I have nothing at stake whatsoever. I have made quite clear, as have other editors, that we do indeed intend to proceed further, or escalate, to use your term. That process is well underway. The RfC and then the RfM were both part of that continuing process. So, no, we won't be dropping the subject.

The result of the recent RfM was incorrect, but then so was the result of that other earlier proceeding, which you were so BOLD about: Not an RfM as it should have been, but a instead a slick but poorly informed move on your part, reaching out from an RfD for Pooktre, which changed the original name without discussion. Still, I appreciate the opportunity to learn, particularly from your mistake there, how to proceed carefully and diplomatically through the appropriate processes of dispute resolution, and I will continue to do so, at the speed my own budget for both time and gasoline will allow.

Please note that e. ripley has suggested yet another approach, involving clearly inventorying the already-extant consensus which preceded the RfM. I think that is a great idea. I addressed it directly, and so forward we go.

I will always prefer the approach that wastes the least editorial time, for obvious reasons. Still, I'm in no hurry at all. The wheels of justice at wikipedia turn slow but grind fine, right? Hopefully that does not bring you a sad day. Cheers! Duff (talk) 01:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Please provide links to the mediation or dispute resolution pages you have listed tree shaping on. AfD hero (talk) 05:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Gladly, though I was under the impression (based upon your comments) that you must have been following along carefully. Not long after my attention was called to this page on 4 April 2010 with this series of edits [diff] at the Arboriculture article and after about a month of improving the article and studying most of its mainspace & talk histories carefully, I initiated the discussion here Talk:Tree shaping/Archive 8#Proposal to Move: Arborsculpture or Tree Shaping on 1:29 pm, 29 April 2010, Thursday (1 month, 28 days ago) (UTC−7). After nearly two months of really uncomfortable editing, and fully consensus driven at all steps, I initiated an RfC concerning ongoing Editorial conflict here Talk:Tree shaping#Editorial conflict at 9:39 am, 2 June 2010, Wednesday (25 days ago) (UTC−7) following threats and discouragements to editing documented at 9:08 am, 2 June 2010, Wednesday (25 days ago) (UTC−7) here Talk:Tree shaping#Dispute resolution now: Threats and discouragements to editing in edit summaries. RfC coordination distributed that (RfC) request here Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies#Talk:Tree shaping, here Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Art, architecture, literature, and media#Talk:Tree shaping, and here Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, sports, and culture#Talk:Tree shaping. I requested help determining whether one of many questionable sources was reliable here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 66#Customized Google Map as a source for evidence that certain words are or aren't legitimate aka's for another word at 3:23 pm, 2 June 2010, Wednesday (25 days ago) (UTC−7). I made a similar request about another questionable source here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 66#The Cutting Edge: Victorian Woodworkers Association Newsletter at 15:00, June 6, 2010, and getting no helpful comments, I relisted it here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 67#The Cutting Edge: Victorian Woodworkers Association Newsletter at 9:30 am, 21 June 2010, last Monday (6 days ago) (UTC−7), which did yield helpful comments. The resulting discussions and consensuses reached led to me starting a new section at Talk:Tree shaping#Proposal to change page title at 6:38 pm, 8 June 2010, Tuesday (19 days ago) (UTC−7), which led to further consensus and the initiation of the formal RfM process. I initiated the RfM here Talk: Tree shaping#Requested Move at 7:49 pm, 9 June 2010, Wednesday (18 days ago) (UTC−7). I requested further input from the interested Wikiprojects here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening#RfC & now RfM on Arborsculpture at 10:45 pm, 12 June 2010, Saturday (15 days ago) (UTC−7), and here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#RfC & now RfM on Arborsculpture at 11:01 pm, 12 June 2010, Saturday (15 days ago) (UTC−7). I initiated a request for Editorial assistance here User talk:PhilKnight#Editor assistance on 11:31 pm, 20 June 2010, last Sunday (7 days ago) (UTC−7). I, with several other editors, am now seriously considering an RfC/U for editorial misconduct over a period of years, also with some consensus. If you have any other questions, please ask, as I will be very pleased to answer them. Duff (talk) 10:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Survey for a move to Tree art

Support moving to Tree art

1. Pending further discussion on a final title. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose (please make another suggestion if you oppose Tree art)

1. Nope. Some of the same troubles as with tree shaping: Not just trees, and this would include dead trees. Also not just art. Live woody plant craft is right on point for descriptiveness, but only as a temporary title...but I am fairly sure it's not worth the trouble to move the article twice anyway, and it has no sources either. Arborsculpture has a large consensus (which I have recompiled again, above, in response to a request to do so), and a long list of reliable sources that demonstrate its common usage to describe the craft (which have also been recompiled repeatedly and are cited all across the article)! It is not a method, it is not a neologism, it is not a trademark, and it is not associated with any one artist more strongly than any other (Reames is relatively unknown, period). These points have been conclusively demonstrated. No evidence or reliable sources have been presented to demonstrate otherwise. I am not for ignoring that enormous amount of work by multiple editors, citing, demonstrating, and proving all this to be true over a period of years, now. I am for pursuing it closely according to policy. WP:Article titles#Considering title changes specifies this choice. There is no fully-informed argument that supports an exception to that policy. Return to original name; wrongly switched with inappropriately minimal study and discussion. Duff (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Duff, I agree with you, but sometimes I allow reality to cloud my judgment. I tried moving the article to a clearly neutral and reasonably accurate descriptive name only to find that an admin immediately reverted my move, without discussion or consensus, and then locked the page. I agree that 'Tree art' is a bad title. It does not in any way separate the subject of this article from dozens of other possible ways in which trees might be used for art and it has no general usage whatsoever for this subject. On the other hand 'Tree art' does not have any obvious commercial connection and it is not a term commonly used by arborists to mean something other than the subject of this article.

WP policy is quite clear on what the title of this article should be but unfortunately many that come here are persuaded otherwise by specious arguments and intensive campaigning. Even the opinion of new, previously uninvolved editors who have taken the trouble to do a bit of background research is not given any weight or credence. What can we do? The current title is unacceptable. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Pros: Neutral, descriptive, not associated with non-artistic tree shaping. Cons: not used in sources (so far as I can tell), overly broad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afd hero (talk • contribs)

Oppose

1. Why are we trying to be creative in thinking up new terms for what has already been named? I have seen zero verifiable evidence that support's the opinion of User:Blackash that the term “arborsculpture” is a specific method, a neologism, and a proprietary name. --Griseum (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Refactoring archive sections

Kslotte (talk · contribs) recently refactored the archive pages, and I reverted. If there is consensus, and it's verified that any links to the moved sections are correct, it may be reasonable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no links to archive pages that have been broken. --Kslotte (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This archive is 430kB long and is getting hard to navigate and edit. That are the reasons for adding archive pages and implementing auto-archiving. --Kslotte (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what was done. Which archive? There are 8 archives. No one should be needing to edit in an archive. If it's about the most recent archive, just start a new one for the next archiving party. Is there a standard for length of archive? What is that standard? Duff (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I was configuring the automatic archiving of this page, to make this page shorter and easier for navigation and editing. I also moved some content between the 8 archives to make pages lighter for navigation. But Arthur reverted all my changes, because you probably don't want it. I feel this a bit silly to have to ask for consensus to make discussion on this page easier. --Kslotte (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I shouldn't have reverted Kslotte's change in the archiving parameters, but there's no good reason to refactor the archives. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I took a look and understand (when you pointed that out for me) the concern about archive re-factoring. Your re-factor reverts are accepted from my side. --Kslotte (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It is silly Kslotte, but consensus on this page has been a slippery thing to hold on to. Thanks for helping. I would still welcome a clear answer to the above 2 questions, or a point to the right information, if possible. Also, where are the archive settings for this page located? Is that an admin function?  ;) Duff (talk) 04:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

My config change is auto-archiving of 14 days old threads instead of the old 20 days value. That will reduce this talk page size a bit as a beginning. I interpret that Arthur's "Perhaps" as I can put this configs back. By Wikipedia guidelines and recommendations pages longer 50kB should be archived, so it is according to guidelines to start reducing bit by bit from current 430kB. --Kslotte (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

One problem we may have with the new setting at 10 days, is that discussions aren't solving in 10 days. Perhaps the big chart can be moved to a clearly linked subpage of this page? How is that done? Duff (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The days starts counting from latest response (archival after 10 days of inactivity). A sub-page can be done by easily copy pasting into Talk:Tree shaping/Somesubpagename and place some type of link and text to it at the top. --Kslotte (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Tree Shaping (Art) + disambiguation page

So far the main point against tree shaping is that the word is used for 2 different things (artistic and non artistic shaping of trees). This is a common problem on wikipedia, and the generally accepted solution is to create a disamgibuation page and append a descriptive word in parentheses. Eg: Tree Shaping (Art) / Tree Shaping (Artistic) / Tree Shaping (Living Sculpture) / etc. AfD hero (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It is crazy to use a new term (tree shaping) to refer to the subject of this article then need a disambiguation page to distinguish it from an existing use of the same term. Secondly 'tree shaping' is not neutral, it has been promoted by Pooktre Tree Shapers. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the main point is that the original page name arborsculpture was changed to tree shaping, in error, by Afd hero, without proper protocol and without adequate study on his part, goaded by Blackash, who had and has a blatant commercial agenda and should not be editing or exerting influence on titling or content of this article or associated topics at all. Please read WP:Article naming#Considering title changes, WP:COI, WP:GAME and please read the entire archives surrounding this discussion, when you find the time. I fully expect AfD hero to recognize this gaff soon and make it right, and not by creating ever-more complex ways to avoid acknowledging that fact. Duff (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is no consensus to move the page to Arborsculpture, so your protestations contrariwise are largely useless, unless you want to try to have ArbCom consider the matter. If you aren't interested in trying to find consensus around another phrase (such as Tree art), then you might as well get the arbcom process started at WP:RFAr. Anything else is a waste of time, IMO. — e. ripley\^talk 21:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

In response to Duff, I'm making a good faith effort to get the best name for the article, and you keep making unfounded accusations against me instead of addressing my points. This section is for discussion of the potential title "Tree Shaping (Art)".

In response to Martin, tree shaping appears to be in current use to describe the artistic shaping of woody plants, so it's not like it appeared out of thin air. The main selling point of "tree shaping" over other titles is that it's actually used in many sources. It is true that most people in England use the term to describe something else, but that's OK. This problem happens all the time on wikipedia, and we just make a disambiguation page. AfD hero (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi to E. Ripley: Consensus does not require unanimity. There surely is (and has been) consensus as defined here at Wikipedia: WP:CONSENSUS. Also, you just asked above for that to be demonstrated, which I did, just below your request [[Talk:Tree shaping#Consensus already established to move the page back to Arborsculpture]], and per your request. This is not a protest. So we're clear, speaking only for myself, I'm not at all angry. It is a discussion. I have not missed a stitch of it. Please note that I am the 2nd to participate after Martin in his new survey, and that I have made yet another suggestion of yet another neutral name (I have made several such suggestions during this process). I do not know how you could have the idea that I am not interested in trying to find consensus, frankly. Regarding further processes to get started, it is my understanding that we have enough consensus around RfC/U on the main source of the problem to proceed there, and partly on your suggestion. My request for Editorial assistance yielded the same reccommendation. I have thus begun a draft in my userspace, as recommended in the instructions for that process. If there is consensus around listing at WP:RFAr or WP:AN/I simultaneously, that has yet to emerge...but if that's the consensus, I'm willing to educate myself on those as well, and proceed there too, if that's appropriate. We are in WP:NORUSH though, and one primary contributor is a few days into a 2 week wikibreak. Duff (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't require unanimity, but it does require a majority. RegentsPark seems to think that there is no consensus for moving things to Arborsculpture, and for the moment his opinion on this question is the one that matters. So, either we need to select another phrase to try to build consensus around (as he suggested -- in fact Tree art was his suggestion), or move to ArbCom IMO to see if they will enforce the original rules that state that when there's a naming conflict, it should default to the earliest name. There doesn't really need to be a consensus about filing an ArbCom request; what it requires is someone willing to bring the case, and a couple other editors to certify it. I'm reasonably sure you'd meet that minimum threshold, although that doesn't necessarily mean that they'll consider the case. — e. ripley\^talk 02:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

On your first point, I don't want to come across as argumentative at all, E., but that's not right either, is it? According to WP:CONSENSUS, "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority. Editors decide outcomes during discussion, polls are regarded as structured discussions rather than votes." Am I misunderstanding or is there more to know?

Furthermore, there were 7, possibly 8 in consensus (I noted those names above, by your request)...so even if the deal was by majority (which i think it is specifically not), how many would you see as a majority? Was this even analyzed?

I will go and study the ArbCom process, and I agree, the minimum threshold would likely be met. However, my understanding was that it was appropriate to try all other forms of dispute resolution as necessary or appropriate, before ArbCom...and that they were looking for that to have been done. I haven't read it carefully ever, nor even scanned it in awhile. Is that not your understanding, or is there a good reason why AN/I or some other less severe mediation should not be first? Would that be wasted time or well-spent time at this point, I suppose, is my question. Duff (talk) 04:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

E. Ripley, I have looked at WP:RFAR/G and if I'm reading it right, submission to ArbCom at this point would be jumping over 3 still-available lesser steps of dispute resolution, and would thus require some acceptable explanation (presumably one which met one of the noted exceptions...this does not seem to fit), as to why. Those approaches are WP:ANI, WP:RfC/U, and WP:MEDIATION. Do you see this differently? Duff (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

In general consensus is not supposed to be a vote, but in practical terms, all it takes is one more person on one side than another to "win" an edit war, considering 3RR. I'm not suggesting edit warring, but while our policy on consensus is in some ways nebulous and a bit of a moving target, the three revert rule is quite clear. In any case, I haven't personally judged whether there's a consensus or not (I have yet to see that examined/broken out, frankly), I've only observed that RegentsPark, who currently holds the keys to unlocking the page for moving, believes there isn't. Given this fact, continuing to argue amongst ourselves, or proceed as if there is an accepted consensus for moving to arborsculpture, is worse than useless, it's a waste of time unless people involved suddenly change their minds, which I doubt will happen. In that case, what's left is to either build consensus around another name or look to ArbCom.

A user conduct RFC, while it might ultimately be useful in examining the behavior of certain contributors here no matter what happens with this specific article, is not going to magically produce a consensus to move this article. Even if the people described as problems here were suddenly removed from the equation, it would not create a consensus to move the article to Arborsculpture. Though I suggested a user conduct RFC originally as an interim step, that was mostly because people here suggested that there was one person who was an obstacle to finding a way forward. I had presumed, then, that an eventual arbcom case would focus on this one user's behavior as a balm for the article, and naturally a user-focused ArbCom case would need a user conduct RFC to be conducted first. But after observing discussions here I no longer think one user's problematic editing is the only problem here or even the main problem in terms of why this article remains where it is. (This is not a judgment about whether certain editors are problematic in general, only an observation that certain potentially problematic editors are not the only things keeping this article in its current location. To the extent that editors are problematic across multiple articles, then a user conduct RFC certainly would be warranted before bringing an arbcom case about their conduct more broadly, and that's something you may still want to explore.) Put plainly, I no longer see a user conduct RFC as necessary in moving to an arbcom case for this article, because despite the protestations here, the problem is not one contributor being obstreperous, the problem is -- quite simply -- that there does not appear to be an accepted consensus to move the page. If there were, it would be able to be moved immediately no matter what one problematic editor thought. I have been involved here now for probably about two weeks and in that time no one has been able to prove a consensus of editors to do anything, which of course is the problem. However, ArbCom can decide whether or not they want to enforce the points some people have made here that the move to Tree shaping gwas done improperly in the first place. Perhaps they will agree and decide to reverse it. Perhaps they won't. Perhaps they won't even hear the case. To me, though, it's the clearest way forward absent building consensus around another name besides the ones that have been suggested so far. Before taking the case, they want to see other attempts to resolve the dispute -- whatever those attempts might be -- which are numerous and many as far as I have seen. There have been RFCs, there have been administrators involved, there's been reams of discussion stretching over months. No one would disagree that people here have tried and failed to resolve the dispute thusfar. There is no "do a, then do b, then do c" prescription. They just don't want to see someone bringing a case frivolously.

ANI could be a place to post a query but I don't think it will achieve a good result for anybody. Generally speaking the admins at ANI do not want to see content disputes brought there, and often enough if there is not a discrete problem you're asking the administrator community to resolve, they will not look kindly upon the request and dismiss it as a content dispute that needs dispute resolution, not administrator attention. Furthermore, there is already an administrator active here who has taken some administrative actions in direct response to the dispute, and you will basically be asking the administrator community to overrule his decision, which could also be taken poorly. You may find an administrator willing to be WP:BOLD and undo RegentsPark's protection and move the article back to its original place, but IMO that's a long shot and has more of a chance of engendering ill will for no good effect. — e. ripley\^talk 12:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi to AfD hero: I am in no way suggesting that you are acting in bad faith. I firmly believe that both you and RegentsPark acted in good faith and with good intent, based on the information you had time to consider. You were both wrong, though, and clearly not fully informed enough to have made the proper decision. Let me be clear though, speaking for myself, I am not at all angry, so please do not come away with that impression. No harm, no foul, truly. Please specify the unfounded accusations you feel I have made and any points I have not responded to, so we can get clear on that too...Have we had some sort of misunderstanding? I have responded directly to you, in detail, as best I understand your comments thus far. Please note my detailed response to your last request to "Please provide links to the mediation or dispute resolution pages you have listed tree shaping on." I do not yet see that you have responded, so perhaps you haven't read it yet. As for getting the best name for the article, we already have it, and it's the original title. There are a few also-rans that might work, but one containing the phrase 'tree shaping is not going to fly, and thus I oppose this submission, due to the already previously clearly stated problems with the current title: namely

• 1. commercial use of that phrase and POV pushing, on and off wiki, to denote a particular art duo, by that art duo.
• 2. The term is in far more common general usage to describe an other thing...not just in England...any comprehensive US Yellow Pages yields the same result and so does google, and they are not shaping live woody plants into useful or ornamental objects and structures, those listings...They are trimming trees. ::
• 3. The subject of the article is not restricted to trees, obviously. Nor is it restricted to art, obviously.  ::None of these problems are addressed by this choice.

Regarding the emergence of the term 'tree shaping' to describe this craft, indeed that usage did not appear out of thin air, but out of the POV pushing of the artists at Pooktre, who co-opted it from its standard usage, which they were clearly aware of when they registered the domain name treeshapers.net (finding treeshapers.com already taken by a company of arborists who do general tree maintenance and care, and not this craft). They have attempted to take ownership of the phrase and indeed of the craft itself, in addition to this article, for their own commercial interests, using frequent WP:INCIVILITIES, breaching several key policies of Wikipedia, including WP:GAME, WP:OWN and WP:COI. All of the whois information and registration dates are documented here too. Please present a single reliable source (and not one that traces directly to Blackash's well-documented internet campaign both on and off wiki, to disparage Reames and take ownership of the phrase and the craft and this page) demonstrating the use of the term 'tree shaping' to describe this craft. I'd like to see one. We dug through dozens of spurious resources, eliminating many which were just clearly not RS, using RSN where there was some doubt and reaching consensus point by point. NOT ONE reliable resource was found or presented. NOT ONE! It's all documented here, if you've got the time, and has been re-referenced again and again and again.

Those are the references you based your original decision on, and they were faulty, which you would have found out, had you placed the matter of the change up for discussion on the talk page where it belonged, instead of being bold. That should have been an WP:RfM, clearly, based on the ongoing discussions that were underway on the page, and the policy concerning even potentially controversial name change page moves. You overstepped there. That was a mistake. Big Deal. But your action led directly to a great deal of upheaval and that continues today, with each editor who comes along and firmly participates in the page, and bothers to read the loooong history of conflict emanating from a single source. They also meet that conflict today, and it's not making article improvement any easier or any fun. It's inappropriate. If you see it differently, please explain and show me where the policy supports you instead, and I swear I will eat my hat. ;) Duff (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Tree shaping references

Duff you asked for references for Tree shaping related to this art form, that pre-date the name change and don't have to do with Pooktre. To date I have found nine, mostly though Google books. Please note these are before July 2008. The article was moved on 10 January 2009. There are more references for Tree shaping as a term for this art form after this date as well.

1. The garden book
2. Planting Design
3. My father "Talked to Trees
4. Tradition and innovation in French garden art: chapters of a new history
5. How to grow a chair The art of Tree Trunk Topiary
6. Arborsculpture Solutions for a Small Planet
7. Organic Gardening: The Natural No-Dig Way
8. Tricks with Trees
9. Between earth and sky: our intimate connections to trees

For more information on each reference please go to Book details with quotes from each source. Blackash have a chat 09:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is my summary of the points made against "Tree Shaping (Art)" so far:

1) Non-artistic use of the term so overwhelmingly outweighs artistic use, that even a disambiguation page is not enough.

2) The use of "tree shaping" in sources is contested.

3) An editor who supports the term has allegedly engaged in questionable behavior, and stands to gain if the term is used.

4) The term is not sufficiently broad, as woody plants other than trees are occasionally used.

If anyone disagrees with this characterization, or has any additional points, please post below. AfD hero (talk) 05:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• As a staunch advocate of verifiability, I think the biggest problem with “tree shaping” is that is being used instead of the more obvious, popular, specific and descriptive alternative (i.e. “arborsculpture”) and we have seen no SOURCES evidencing that there is anything wrong with using this more obvious, popular, specific and descriptive alternative. --Griseum (talk) 08:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have these refinements and one additional high-priority point to submit, but otherwise the above seems accurate:

1) ...such that use of the term as a title renders the topic unrecognizable to readers, adds ambiguity, and is inconsistent with usage in reliable English-language sources; all three contrary to WP:TITLE. (see nutshell)

3) It's not if the term is used. The term is used, right now, in the current title, which you moved the page to, and thus the two editors(plural), who post as a single user name, have gained the commercial advantage they sought, and they continue to do so at this time, by touting their victory at Wikipedia all over the web and even bragging about it repeatedly here; truly an appalling display of gaming.

4) The word 'occasionally' is not supported by me, nor by the vast array of source material cited. At least one of the covered artists uses primarily shrubs, by their own clear statements, and woody vines are also commonly used for this craft. Please note that two of the species listed as inosculant are vines, and several are shrubs. All are cited, with citations that withstood scrutiny. 'Commonly' would be more accurate.

5) A move to any other page name than the original page name was and would be contrary to the policies stated at WP:Article naming#Considering title changes. Duff (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Duff's misinformation at work again. I believe Duff checked all the references on the Tree shaping article, but as Tree shaping it self wasn't referenced he didn't check any references for Tree shaping, of which there are quite a few I have started to list them above in Alternative title names.As this is now in question I spent my time getting the references for tree shaping, please give me more than a day or two to do so. Blackash have a chat 08:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring your first little jab, there's WP:NORUSH and there's nothing relevant at the link you provided. Did you mean to indicate your chart at Talk:Tree shaping#List of potential title names, perhaps? Also, I'm reminding you again to please quit callin' me 'he'. Even my gender is neutral. Duff (talk) 09:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting to find out how to address you when I don't use your name. Thank you for giving the correct section. Blackash have a chat 10:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The lengthy information presented at [35] seems like a ridiculous waste of the presenter's time. Are we actually supposed to look at a quote like “"...a spiral table is shaped from red alder” and translate that into justification for not changing the name of this article back to the perfectly acceptable term “arborsculpture?” --Griseum (talk) 09:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Who knew you were waiting? Wait no more. Duff, the editor, this editor, that editor, that friggin' editor....I'll accept any of these and many others. Just lay off the gender pasting completely please. It'll force you to become a better writer. Duff (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Tree Shaping (Art) + disambiguation page, Section 2

Section break for convenience (continuation of previous section)

Let me remind everyone that this section is purely for discussion of the pros and cons of "Tree shaping (art)" + disambiguation, and not to discuss any other titles (arborsculpture, tree art, etc). If you want to do that go a different section. It should be clear by now that such discussion will inevitably lead to bickering and walls of text rehashing points already discussed.

Now with that out of the way, I submit the following updated points against "Tree shaping (art)". So as to not put words in anyone's mouth, I will simply mention the issue in a bullet point without interpretation or endorsement.

1) Artistic vs. non-artistic use of the term.

2) Behavior and commercial aspects related to editor blackash.

3) Dispute over sources and real-world usage of the term.

4) Use of plants other than trees.

5) WP:Article naming#Considering title changes.

If anyone disagrees with this characterization, or has any additional points, please post below. AfD hero (talk) 10:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose the creation of "Tree shaping (art)" + disambiguation for the same reasons I oppose the current title of the article and I oppose efforts to look for new alternatives before sources invalidating the obvious title ("arborsculpture") are produced. Well-intentioned efforts to make everyone happy have mired this article for far too long. While compromise is our bread and butter, ultimately we are here to improve Wikipedia per policy not to make all interested parties equally (un)happy.--Griseum (talk) 10:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Crazy I am hard pressed to think of a more ridiculous idea, to intentionally use a phrase that is widely used in the same industry to mean something different and then need a disambiguation page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This is point 1) above. Do you have anything new to add? AfD hero (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not a vote. If you wish to talk about "arborscultpure", that is a fine topic, but do so in another section.AfD hero (talk) 10:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• We don't vote on Wikipedia, we opine, and I was giving my opinion. I mentioned “arborsculpture” in passing because it's 100% germane to my reasons for disagreeing with your suggestion. If you don't want opinions about your suggestion please explain what you do want. I see no indications that your trying to be anything other than helpful and would, therefore, try to oblige. --Griseum (talk) 10:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Your point appears to be "For reasons X Y and Z, I think arborsculpture is the best". That's fine, but its really about arborsculpture and not at all about "tree shaping (art)". I'm trying to break it down here and give everyone a chance to make their points about each topic without having everyone start bickering over stuff we've already discussed. This is your chance to say why you think "tree shaping (art) is not good. AfD hero (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Axel Erlandson

Based upon the opinion of User:Blackash that the term “arborsculpture” is a specific method, a neologism, and a proprietary name, this term has been deliberately excluded from the article on Axel Erlandson. While the term “arborsculpture” postdates Erlandson's work, the fact that NUMEROUS media sources have used it to refer to his work is concretely verifiable. Editors keeping abreast of the situation here may also wish to see what's been said at Talk:Axel Erlandson. --Griseum (talk) 09:27, 28 June 2010 (UT

I'm not the only editor who states the arborsculpture is a neologism. (Other editors here) "Where editors disagree about the use of these neologisms it is best to err on the side of not using them." quote form Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms Blackash have a chat 09:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Rather than use a supposed “neologism” coined almost 20 years ago – a widely-circulated term approximately as old as the terms “internet” and “world wide web” – User:Blackash would have us use a term for something else (the pruning of trees for practical purposes) which she and her partner are seeking to redefine to match the name of their website and their business. Shall we oblige? By the way, the policy on neologisms doesn't even apply here as the term “arborsculpture” has been used in more verifiable secondary sources than anyone could possibly count. Anyone in doubt should read the policy. --Griseum (talk) 10:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

As you know time is not the deciding factor on whether or not a word is a nelolgism, quote "Neologisms may take decades to become "old", however". Tree shaping is used for this art form in published books. 1. We didn't change this article from Arborsculpture to tree shaping. 2.We don't care what the name of the art-form is as long as it's doesn't have a method or leads to one person. 3. The only list you have given uses the word arborsulpture. You had to do original research which shows Arborsculpture in use, then determine the meaning of that use. From Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms 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. Blackash have a chat 10:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Half-false, false, and false (1,2,& 3) On NEO, Yer missin it, but yer quotin' it. Odd. You are beating a dead horse here with the same faulty stick you have been banging for over a year. Your efforts are considered bullying and inappropriate. Do you get it? Anyway, this debacle has spread to infect Axel Erlandson, Arboriculture, Expo 2005, and probably other articles. I say we stop now and stop it now. Duff (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

General comment: Without commenting on whether or not arborsculpture is a neologism, note that the 'avoid neologisms' policy applies to articles - not to references within articles. There is no reason why a well sourced word, neologism or not, cannot be used in the text of an article. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Quote from Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms "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." Isn't this stating not to use a term within other articles until secondary sources become availabe? Blackash have a chat 22:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

My reading of this is that it refers solely to articles on neologisms. So, where it says "the term does not need to be in wikipedia", the intent is that the term should not be in wikipedia in the form of an article. The section on neologisms is a part of the 'wikipedia is not a dictionary' policy which refers solely to definitional articles.--RegentsPark (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If the policy on neologisms applied to this situation, which it doesn't, we have a deluge of secondary sources to justify its inclusion. By quoting policy that so OBVIOUSLY not does apply to the situation at hand User:Blackash continues to waste hundreds of hours of editorial efforts than could be spent elsewhere. Sometimes I think this isn't really even a real debate and that we are all being trolled as part of some inhumane experiment to see how long people will attempt to reason with someone who is cartoonishly unreasonable. --Griseum (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Mwahh-ah-ah-aahhh....maybe. "Cartoonishly unreasonable"...I am filing that one away for future battles. I'm also fixin yer note above, because I am sure that this is what you meant. Spank if incorrect. Duff (talk) 03:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

A deluge of secondary sources that are about the term arborsculpture? Griseum's links to date have been books and papers that use the term. Blackash have a chat 09:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow

Wow. Really? Wow. W:OR and W:V are essentially opposites, and W:N we are not debating. User:Blackash, if your intention was to make me feel so sorry for you that I'd walk away for a while out of sheer embarassment for both of us, you've suceeded. --Griseum (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, WP:BREATHE, of course, but stay tuned loosely (at least) please, because clearly this problem has got to get solved. Duff (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Two distinct (but somewhat pleached) problems

From my perspective, there are two problems slowing development of a quality page, in no particular order: The article name An obstreperous editor(s) Neither is intractable. Neither is dependent on the other. One is perhaps more disturbing than the other; which one? We need to move forward, so which shall we handle first? Should we ignore both? Ignore either? Are there additional concerns? I'd really like to help get this article to GA status as soon as possible. Please convey your thoughts on the best way forward. Duff (talk) 14:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment

There is a naming dispute about the word arborsculpture, on the Tree shaping article. The dispute has spilled over onto related articles, as some editors believe the word is a neologism and shouldn't be used on other articles. Arborsculpture was coined by Richard Reames in his first book in 1995 to rename the art-form of Tree shaping. Other editors disagree that arborsculpture is a neologism and wish to use the word on related articles to Tree shaping. For example Talk:Axel_Erlandson is mostly a discussion about the neologism of the word arborsculpture. There was a request to move Tree shaping to Arborsculpture here. There is a huge discussion going on there ranging over various issues.

I'm asking for some opinions about arborsculpture and the Wikipedia's policies on neologisms to settle this dispute. I have also posted this comment on Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Neologisms.

Please note that I am Becky Northey Co-founder of Pooktre one of the artists talked about on the tree shaping article and also have a web site called www.treeshapers.net about all the different artists in this art form. Blackash have a chat 15:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• comment Now that was helpful. More heads are better. Warm welcome if you just came in. I'm a non-commercially interested and non-covered regular neutral editor at this page, having begun to work on it back in April of this year. Here's my take, concisely:

Arborsculpture is not a neologism and this is not a dictionary article. This article is not and apparently never was an effort to define a new word, which is what the WP:NEO policy speaks to, at WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Neologisms. The policy is therefore not applicable to this article. The article does not purport to be a dictionary definition of the word itself, nor, clearly, is it an article about a new word. This article is encyclopedic and covers a specific, describable, distinct craft, the products of that craft, its history, and its craftspeople, all of which and whom the words arborsculpture and arborsculptor have come to describe in the vast preponderance of carefully cited reliable sources. These demonstrate conclusively the common and prevalent usage, in present time and for over 15 years, of the word arborsculpture to describe the works of nearly every known 20th & 21st century practitioner of this craft. Significant policies which are applicable include WP:Article titles#Considering title changes and WP:NPOV#Article naming.

User:AfD hero WP:BOLDly moved this article from its original stable name, Arborsculpture to Tree shaping in January 2009, without appropriate due process, in the midst of another closely-entwined naming controversy. The actions came from within an otherwise routine WP:AfD proceeding for a WP:POV fork from this article to Pooktre. Because of that confusion and the WP:RfM ommission, the bold decision to move was based on several incorrect premises, faulty assumptions, and later-demonstrated-to-be unacceptable sources; in direct contradiction with the significant Wikipedia policies noted above, dealing directly with such moves. That move and the disruption that it caused, has precipitated well over a year of editorial conflict, both on and disturbingly wide-off-wiki, all of which has caused a fair amount of dissatisfaction and a copious amount of wasted time for many neutral editors who have contributed to the page over that time.

One two involved covered editors using a largely single-purpose WP:ROLE account insist that the word arborsculpture is a neologism and on that fallacious argument, refuse to allow it to be used on other articles, reverting its usage wherever found. It has been a struggle to use the word at all in its own article.

No reasonable, well-sourced, NPOV argument has been presented that demonstrates NEO applies, nor that this article somehow warrants an exception to the relevant policies. Recent properly conducted RfC's and an RfM yielded more heads and broad (but not unamnimous) WP:CONSENSUS, which was overruled by yet another prompt-but-poorly-informed decision, unduly weighted by the WP:OWNing influence of the same involved editors. The article should be returned immediately to its original and wholly neutral name, and the matter made right, as supported by WP:RS, WP:V, and yes, still broad, but non-unanimous CONSENSUS. Duff (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Further, warm welcome to editors from Talk:Axel Erlandson, and from Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Neologism where this discussion was also broached, but instructions were not at all clear that the New RfC is here. Let's try to keep the discussion on this talkpage, please. Please note that there is an RfC for Editorial conflict underway as well, as of now 16 days into a 30 day listing. I have noted this clearly at both locations & standing by for further spillage, eh...invitage.. ah...Roger. Over & out.Duff (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Blackash, you say, Arborsculpture was coined by Richard Reames in his first book in 1995 to rename the art-form of Tree shaping. This implies that the art form described by this article was generally known as tree shaping before 1995. Can you support this? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Please note how tree shapers and tree shaping are used as a default name for this art form and it's practitioners in this quote of Richard Reames's "Perhaps the Druids were great tree-shapers, but since wood doesn't preserve well, the evidence may have rotted long ago. Even though arborsculpture didn't have a name until I coined the term in 1995, there are historical examples of tree-shaping. The oldest evidence we have is a five-by-seven inch illumination from 1516 by Jean Perréal, titled Nature Objects to the Alchemist's Errors." Interview of Richard Reames for Cabinet magazine.

Richard also uses Tree shaping as the default name of the art form in his first book where his gives his reasoning for calling it Arborsculpture.

Here is a quote from one of Axel Erlandson's letters 1953 "Regarding the strange or odd shaped trees being grown by me..."

It seems when someone is trying to described the art form they use tree shaping or shaped trees, as a way to help the others get a visual image in their mind. Blackash have a chat 09:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I have been trying to comment but had problems with the system. Hope this works. It seems to me the article has been vandalized. The word Arborsculpture is creeping in everywhere even related articles as if some kind of platform is being built. It seems to be a concerted effort to spread a cancer through the article. The photos have been pulled down. It seems to me that some editors are trying to provoke a conflict of interest for Blackash. Richard Reams' bio includes more artists who he has labelled arborsculptors. Why isn't the arborsculptress Blackash included? I just Googled arborsculpture(37,000 hits ) and Pooktre (42,000) I can see what,s happening.203.192.130.94 (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems like you have a very strong opinion on 'arborsculpture'. Do you have any connection with the subject of this article and why do you have such strong views? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

User:203.192.130.94 claims that this article is being vandalized, although by whom and and in what way that fits WP:Vandal is unclear. Similarly, the phrase “provoke a conflict of interest for Blackash” is so cryptic I can only guess at its intended meaning. If User:203.192.130.94 is objecting to the use of the word “arborsculpture” in the Axel Erlandson article, we have multiple, verifiable, written sources to justify it inclusion. Does anyone care about sources anymore? If Reames excluded the Pooktre team from his personal web page that might be because they have used countless online resources, Wikipedia and various gardening forums included, to marginalize his contributions and discredit his methods. Why WOULD he want to include them? More importantly, how is Reames inclusion or exclusion of the Pooktre team from his website relevant to our conversation? It is interesting that User:203.192.130.94 refers to User:Blackash as "the arborsculptress Blackash"...that rather drives home the point most of us have been trying to make. Regarding ghits: since the Pookre team uses the term "Pooktre" as a brand name and evidence that anyone uses the word "Pooktre" to refers to the work of other artists is non-existent, "arborsculpture" and "Pooktre" are categorically different terms and a ghit count is irrelevant. --Griseum (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to log in. Griseum - I am not talking about RR's personal page, it is the Tree shaping article I am referring to. I thought a Bio was suppose to be about an individual not the stable of artists he has branded under his label.Peter Cook is included in that stable. I am wondering why Peter Cook is included without Beccy Northy. What I see happening is certain editors change the article to such a degree that if Blackash edits and reverts then it would be a conflict of interest for her. It seems that it is done by Griseum and co-horts. I hope this clears up anything that might have been criptic. Martin Hogbin - I am interested in the art form and am interested in different techniques of tree training. I have lived on an orchard and have tried a few experiments over the years not with much success. My comment about the arborsculptress was very tongue in cheek. I was discussed by the language used on Blackash's talk page. It seems she is trying to do the right thing by coming up with ideas and suggestions which I feel are relevant to the discussion and others (you know who you are )seem to twist things around and quibble about every little thing. From the talk pages of thoses others it can be seen that they are plotting and scheming. Phrases such as 'what are we going to do now ' are examples of this. Is Griseum Slowart and RR the same person. It seems to me they are. Blaskash PLEASE EXPLAIN the 4 sec comment.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 07:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for clarifying. I am not RR. In regards to RR's article, mention of people he trained should be based on sources. Not having looked at the sources in regards to this particular question, I don't have an opinion about what other artists should be mentioned in the article about RR. Rehashing why so many editors object strongly to User:Blackash would be unnecessarily repetitive.--Griseum (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)