Talk:Tree shaping

Sock accusations

I don't think Blackash responded on my talkpage about that topic of the "4 second error", though I questioned her comment first. Anyhow, I went and looked at the response given at the section there entitle User Talk:Sydney Bluegum#Griseum/Reames, and basically it is an extremely suggestive accusation that Griseum and Slowart are one and the same person. I looked at all the diffs and the links provided, and frankly, I'm a little confused. Was the mistake Griseum made, one of simply misreading the ip address in the HI comment, thinking it was his own somewhat similar IP address, then catching his mistake? If that's what happened, what is the big deal? SilkTork did a checkuser apparently, and found they were unconnected. They surely do not (to me) seem like even similar editors. Suggesting that Reames is Griseum, and is involved in a complicated scheme using scrubs to evade detection of socks is pretty serious. It definitely does not AGF and should not be left out there hanging. There has also already been at least one formal sock puppet investigation on this article, instigated by Blackash, and that was found to be without merit, if I remember correctly. I'm not entirely convinced either that Blackash and Sydney Bluegum aren't socks (or meats, or roles) fabricating the entire sidewindy mess. So what is the proper procedure to force all those cards face up, once and for all? It's leaving a really bad taste in my mouth. Duff (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

If you think you can support it, you can file a request for a checkuser at WP:RFCU. — e. ripley\^talk 22:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, who knows? Still, reluctantly, and only in the spirit of 'all cards on the table now, face up' and 'let's move on suspicion-free', I have taken your advice and asked them to please sort it all out, here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/96.233.40.199/Archive#03 July 2010, where I added it to the previous related case investigation, as instructed. My sincerest apologies for any further disruption this may cause to any of the parties involved and/or to the improvement of this article. It is intended to end the existing and persistent disruptions, of this specific nature, only. Duff (talk) 06:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The submission has been assigned a new case, separate from the previous incident, but linked, and now waiting for clerk attention at [1]. Duff (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Me cutting and pasting the incorrect IP address in a message is the entire story of that. For User:Blackash to still be making insinuations based on that is per her character. To address a comment made by User:Sydney Bluegum, I don’t have “cohorts” involved with this page. I have nothing in common with other editors involved with this page under than shared concern and indignation about Becky Northey’s deliberate mis-use of Wikipedia. This inappropriate term of use of the term “cohorts” seems to disparage those editors who have given their time to improve Wikipedia rather than mis-using it for a selfish agenda. By the way, Northey does more that argue about big things, like the name of the article. When these skirmishes settle down and most people look away, she goes back to micromanaging the article as if she owned it – the main reason the article flows so poorly.--Griseum (talk) 00:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The case has been re-listed for a second CU opinion as of 7/8/2010. Standing by. Griseum & Slowart may both wish to comment and/or submit evidence, or not, at [2]. duff 02:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

 DonePer the CU staff all accounts are  Unrelated, so let's put that stuff to bed for good please. duff 08:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus ignored? Why?

This comment was made today by Blackash, above, in a (now-stale?) discussion thread on this page Talk:Tree shaping#Shaping woody plants?.

By your continual use of the wording uninvolved editors came to a consensus implies all the other editors in the survey were involved which is not true. There were other uninvolved editors who did not agree with you. Blackash have a chat 08:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel this should be nailed down firmly, again, so here we go again, for the umpteenth record:

No such implication was intended, though you may color it as you wish. Nonetheless, a clear consensus did emerge as noted, (one you might call broad, though not sweeping, nor unanimous, which, again, is not required or even desired as an outcome), during a protracted 4-step process of consensus-building beginning at Proposal to Move, and then again during the RfC which was needed after that discussion, and then again during the subsequent discussions on changing the page title, and then again during the Rfm which culminated in a very clear consensus, between the following editors: User:MDVaden, User:Griseum, User:Duff, User:Colincbn, User:Martin Hogbin, User:Slowart, User:Quiddity, and I believe, also User:Johnuniq, which I will be very pleased to summarize AGAIN, with quotes, if that's really necessary, in another new section, as time permits. This consensus and the process to get to it passed the smell test, the vote test, the vast-preponderance-of-reliably-sourced-citations test, the WP:CONSENSUS test and the WP Policy test. What more proof or demonstration could anyone possibly need? duff 18:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the only editor to get this vibe from Duff's repeated statements of "given the consensuses that were reached by non-involved editors" Regents Park's reply to Duff hinted at it quote "made by all uninvolved editors" [3]

The fact the you and a group of editors have a consensus that the article should be moved to Arborsculpture didn't bear fruit in Duff's requested move Give it 12 months or so and see how things stand then about the word arborsculpture. Let work on improving the article. Blackash have a chat 07:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't feed the trolls. As the reciprocal self censoring offer has been rejected, I'll briefly chime in. @ Sydney Bluegum what is your connection to this topic ? Why have are you here ? Single purpose accounts at this stage of the title debate will be suspect of course, same for the new ISP # accounts. Well reasoned, well cited varifiable sources and statements should now trump emotions and quick favors from friends.

It is important to note that the article was vastly improved and expanded by 4 times over by editors who disagree with the current title and prefer 'arborsculpture' instead of 'Tree shaping'! @ Regents Park, Your conclusion may have been flawed IMHO, when you said (archive 9)"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." I think the policy you refer to was written with assumption that improvements and expansion were done by a multiplicity of editors who likely agree with the title, this was not the case at all.

COMMON NAME Policy says, "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article." Logically, a move back to the original stable name of 'arborsculpture' will resolve this issue that was crated by WP bold move. Reverting the bold move may be the solution to the problem. Slowart (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverting the bold move is the solution to the problem; I concur.

Re: preceding critique of fruit-bearing: It bore adequate fruit to the task, and no, thank you, (Re: 12 month wait and free advertising of the trademark/service mark in the interim.) Instead, we'll proceed as planned, K? Please stop attempting to exert any influence on the page title and/or content, Ms. Blackash. Your pressure is unwelcome. Read this carefully: Vast preponderance of reliable sources. I know this because I actually have been working on and improving the article, studiously, as you are well aware, and which you should not (please) also do, as implied by your "Let work on improving the article." By the way, is the omission of the 's from that, any indication that you meant "let me", instead of "let us", like let's? If so, please know that enough eyes have this page on their watchlist now that no further shenanigans will stand, and keep that in mind. Peace. duff 19:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys Regents Park has clearly stated in hasty close what to do if you disagree with the result of Requested move dispute resolution process

Either take the recommended action about the title or stop talking about it. Blackash have a chat 08:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, gal, No, there is also the option to talk about it, and there is no big hurry, as long as its done right. I have that link, thank you. Again, let me reiterate: Please stop attempting to exert influence on the page title and/or content, including the content of discussions on the talk page, and the directions taken by other editors relative to this page, Ms. Blackash. Your suggestions and ideas are welcome, but your pressure is unwelcome.duff 07:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Blackash has, from my outsider's viewpoint, demonstrated a better understanding of our naming guidelines (and a greater ability to separate the content of one's comments from the person making it) than many of those opposing her. As such, I would consider her suggestion to be a wise one. Filling this talk page with rhetoric or quite plainly false assertions that there is consensus for a move is not conducive to getting some action here. FWIW I saw the suggestion "tree art" on the previous talk archive which looks uncontroversial, if you'd like to restart the naming discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

How many more than eight in agreement would you call a consensus for a move to arborsculpture, the name with the vast preponderance of reliable sources cited for it? Those are not false assertions, much less plainly false ones. Those are repeatedly demonstrated and well-documented facts, and continuing to suggest or assert otherwise makes no sense. It's therefore not clear what your definitions of 'non-controversial' and 'consensus' might be, though one valuable approach might be to read how wikipedia defines those concepts, WP:CONSENSUS.

Blackash herself restarted the matter on July 5 but did not like the result, so now proposes to control the discussion by hushing it. Please note the comment copied to start this new section, to be nailed back down, rather than just leaving it dangling, posted late onto the end of a stale prior discussion),

Thanks for staying neutral, Thumperward, and you are right about this: there is no need for further rhetoric from 'any' quarter, as action is already underway, as previously stated, on the basis of the evidence already documented. I support a simultaneous two-pronged approach: vigorous article improvement by uninvolved editors and effective reduction of involved editor page management. There are several 'outside' viewpoints, including mine, from editors who 'do' work on this article, in support of that approach.

Same objections to 'tree art' as previously clearly stated (and consensus there as well: two opposed, one neutral, and even the submitter withdrew support for the submission, and agreed with the opposition, making 3 opposed & one neutral; you can study that survey here: Talk:Tree shaping/Archive 10#Survey for a move to Tree art). That proposed title is only slightly less problematic than is the current title, which also has a clearly established serious commercial conflict. These objections are partially similar to problems with current title:

• From the "clearly descriptive and precise" angle, this specific craft involves not just any trees, but only live ones, and also not only trees, but any live woody plants (including shrubs and woody vines (which are not trees), of which some are inosculant.
• Also, though some is, it ain't all art; so this proposed title failed all of those tests.
• Also, from the common usage angle, no reliable sources call it that. We are not supposed to be busily thinking up new terms for what has already been named. "Wikipedia reflects but does not prescribe current usage". Arborsculpture "is the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article." There already is an "obvious common name for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources", so finding consensus to support it (or to support some other name) is both unnecessary and inappropriate. When is 2:<1 of reliable sources not a significant proportion?

Before we embark on another complete waste of editing time, re-re-reinventing a well-functioning wheel, might I suggest that instead, we all go read these carefully:

The main policy on article naming:

• Wikipedia:Article naming, particularly at Wikipedia:Article naming#Considering title changes, including its footnote; and at Wikipedia:Article naming#Neutrality and article titles; and at Wikipedia: Article naming#common names, including its footnote, which specifies clearly that in this Wikipedia policy, "common names" means "commonly used names."

and come back and discuss it again a slightly later moment, when we're not all burned out on the wrestling match with the involved editor? Meanwhile, parties that should be following possible COI policies can just go ahead and follow them, and see what good develops under all these dedicated eyes and fingers. duff 21:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Duff you seem confused, I didn't restart the discussion about the title but was commenting on your insistence on using terminology such as uninvolved editors came to a consensus and what that seems to imply.
• Arborsculpture is not the common English-language name of the subject of the article. Tree shaping and variations was and is used as a descriptive or generic name for the art. references to books for Tree shaping and variations. Please see Undue weight for more detail.Blackash have a chat 13:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

New Basket Tree image

Very nice shot and thank you for it, Slowart!duff 19:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I have made a comment re sock puppet accusation on the relevant page. Slowart -I cant believe you have talked about the very nice shot and thanked duff for it when you asked me the question Why have are you here? I dont understand the question and I dont have to explain what when, how, or why, I am involved. People makes mistakes and I dont think it should be thrown up at them. The arbour sculpture camp seem to attack editors rather than comment on the content. The title 'New Basketree' Should it be Basket tree ? Sydney Bluegum (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Read it again, please, Sydney Bluegum. That was my comment, thanking User:Slowart for the cool new image submitted. As for the section title, it matched the original image's filename, and isn't a big deal on talkpages (or on image filenames), but I've fixed this talkpage section heading so it won't confuse anyone else. I left a comment on your talkpage as well, on the editorial issue.duff 08:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight

The word Arborsculpture or variations thereof are being given WP:UNDUE weight in the article. Tree shaping has more book references available about this art form than Arborsculpture does, yet that is not reflected in the article. Not to mention various editors have an issue with the definition of arborsculpture link This undue weight occurred when some editors where trying to make a WP:Point during the survey about changing the title to Arborsculpture. Article before The word Arborsculpture and variations needs to be pruned back on the article. Blackash have a chat 09:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Arborsculpture is the term with the vast preponderance of reliable sources (2:1, easily). That is the measure we use as neutral editors. Tree shaping, as has been discussed repeatedly, much more commonly describes a different thing, as careful study of the references provided and sought for its use reveals clearly. The usage in the article of the word arborsculpture to describe the topic of the article is appropriate and its relative weight is not improper. I am not in favor of any more "pruning," at this time, nor of continued tiresome pressure from the same involved editor(s) to alter the content of the page, particularly surrounding the use of the word arborsculpture. Please give it a rest. duff 03:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Duff's "any more "pruning,"" seems to be implying there has been some pruning already, in point of fact the exact opposite is true. The word Arborsculpture was increased in a very pointy manner during the survey article before.

• Arborsculpture is the term with the vast preponderance of reliable sources (2:1, easily)
• In rebuttal, 2:1 is wrong as is reliable and vast.

1. In published books it more like 10:1 against arborsculpture. References to books and media, this will increase with time as it is a work in progress. Finding articles about the art form is difficult unless you already know of them, but I'm working on that.
2. Arborsculpture is a Wikipedia:Neologism, in reply Griseum resupplied this list but these links use the term. I have requested multiple times for sources that quote Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms "cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term,..." Silence is the deafening answer.
3. As to the reliability issue there are a few reliable sources, but most of these are the result of interviews with Richard Reames (creator of the word Arborsculpture) about his book/s both of which are self published, or give credit to Richard for his information. To quote Rror "The ones I can access (hey, I guess that makes them verifiable) all feature a photo of you, and are describing mostly your work. Not surprisingly 'your' term is used to describe your work. Rror (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)"
   1. Duff I know you claim Richard is an expert, but where can you verify that? Which experts state that he is also one and where are the peer reviews of his trees? Unless you can WP:PROVEIT he is not an expert. Richard Reames is just someone who WP:SELFPUBLISH book/s, and as such his books fall under the WP:POORSRC policy as do the interviews based on those books.

To sum up Arborsculpture is not as heavily represented in the real world as it is a the moment on the article. It's use is contested both as WP:UNDUE weight and as 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." Blackash have a chat 15:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

We have been over this, if the article name was a neologism the article should have been deleted. Is that what you are suggesting we do? Colincbn (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Colincbn please stop focusing on the title, I am talking about the usage of arborsculpture throughout the article itself. Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms also talks about using terms in articles quote "or use the term within other articles" Blackash have a chat 15:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying the word Arborsculpture is a neologism? What are your reasons? And if you are right then do you agree the article should have been deleted or merged into Living sculpture, which is what the policy on neologisms states we must do? Quite frankly all I can see is your continued campaign to rid WP of a term that is, in your mind, against your commercial interests. As such I have a hard time taking anything you say seriously as an editor. I know this is not "assuming good faith" but sometimes our assumptions are proven wrong. Colincbn (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yes arborsculpture is a neologism, all sources to date use the term and are not about the term. As one of the editors that wishs to use the word though out the article it is your WP:BURDEN to justify it conclusion when it is contested by other editors.
• No the article doesn't need deleting as there are plenty of reliable verifiable sources of Tree shaping used as a name for this art form. [4] or is 9 books and counting not enough for you, not to mention other media articles?

As you are aware this section is not to debate about the title of the article all over again, (Please don't fill this section with rhetoric about the title) I just read your comments to Martin and you clearly understand that I am discussing the use of Arborsculpture within the article and not the title. [5] Thou you are either confused or deliberately putting spin on my comments above. You seem to think I wish to remove Arborsaculpture altogether that would not be appropriate and you implying that it is what I'm trying to do is misleading to other editors. Blackash have a chat 02:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I think you have a conflict of interest where the word Arborsculpture is concerned and should recuse yourself from editing in regards to its usage in anyway whatsoever. That does not mean I even disagree with you about its usage. It simply means that your business interests and the interests of WP are at odds. If you remember I agreed with the closing of the move debate as No consensus. It was clear after seven days that a clear consensus had not arisen. However I also feel that your campaign against the word Arborsculpture has clouded the issue. Colincbn (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, the neologism policy pertains to dictionary-word articles, which this article is not, and thus it does not apply to this article. Please read the entire document AGAIN at WP:NOTADICTIONARY. We do not disagree about the 'use of a neologism'. This is not one. You disagree over whether it is one, and went so far as to ask for consult on that very point at the talk page for WP:NOTADICTIONARY. So what was the result? No consensus? So now you insist again, "oh, yes it is one." You have been demonstrated incorrect, so now stand down. How quickly forgotten. Please make a note or something. Also, as 2 whether or not Reames is an expert, even if we eliminated his one potentially non-expert source, and I'm not in agreement that we should, that's still 17:8, better than 2:1. Please stand down voluntarily. duff 05:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Slowart comments moved from User talk:RegentsPark

The article was created with the name arborsculpture and is the most accepted name for this art as found in a preponderance of reliable variable sources. The Home Orchard Purde university horticulture department *University of California Cooperative Extension*Horticultural Reviews *Grad Thesis *University of California press When you said... “pooktre title as well as the arborsculpture title appear to get almost the same Google hits (not a minority viewpoint here!)” ? no one was suggesting using "Pooktre" as a title. Total Google web hits on arborsculpture or tree shaping won’t tell us much at all due to marketing. Tree shaping on the web is one thing, but [tree shaping on Google books] and [tree shaping on Google scholar] is quite a different search. Both show many "tree shaping" hits but all appear to describe some other practice in fruit tree industry. [Arborsculpture on Google Books] has many hits specific to the topic of this page with some [Google scholar arborsculpture] hits. If being nutral and fair is important then [arborsculpture Google Image] clearly shows that arborsculpture is used to describe the work of many of the various artist, where as "tree shaping" is used to describe the work of Pooktre almost exclusively.[google images tree shaping] You also said.“Finally, there seems to be no question that arborsculpture is a term coined by an individual practitioner of the art.” This fact would not exclude the word from being used in a title. Thanks for looking a bit longer and deeper into this, Slowart (talk) 05:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Slowart, you are focusing on only a few of the arguments in my close decision. I have read it again, linked here for your reference, and believe that my close was correct because the weight of the arguments were in favor of not moving it to Arborsculpture. I believe that was the consensus from the long and extend move discussion. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I focused on just a few of your arguments, the ones I found relevant. Not to say any of them are irrelevant. Did you look at the new evidence using Google Book,Scholar and Image? Slowart (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me just say, as someone who feels policy clearly states the article should have remained "Arborsculpture", I still agree with the closing of the move at that time as No consensus. That is very different from a consensus not to move. The fact seems clear that there are editors with vested interests involved in this debate and those editors will continue to disrupt the debate process until they voluntarily, or forcibly, refrain from involving themselves in this article. There was clearly no consensus either way during the move debate. However there was not only no consensus but no debate at all for the original move. Policy is clear, but that policy cannot be carried out in this atmosphere. Colincbn (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Your right Colincbn about consensus. As I'm one of the editors with a vested interest, I'm outa here, sorry. Please note this thread of the discussion I was trying to have with RegntsPark, was just moved over here, my apologizes. Slowart (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I am still here and completely agree with Colin. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I also remain and also concur with Colincbn, Martin Hogbin, & Slowart on all points stated. duff 05:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Fantasy or Reality

The article needs to reflect reality (real Photos) not fantasy (drawings of what people think they can grow or achieve). Many books have drawings that reflect people's imagination but that is not what the tree shaping artform is about. RR in his book says the tree people are highly significant so why is the photo not there? Becky's Mirror was at World Expo 2005 and is the first harvested piece with shaped roots. This mirror is a world first so why was the photo removed? The article has the word arborsculture woven through it. One of the editors on their talk page suggested that the article be changed to reflect the title as a way of getting the title changed back to arborsculpture. In the archives, when the article was a quarter of the size that it is now, the word arborsculpture appeared more than thirty times. Does this mean now the article is 4 times bigger, the word arborsculpture will appear more than 120 times - Does this mean the article is becoming more balanced? I originally came on to learn about methods and successful tree trainers eg Chris Cattle and his well balanced little stools. Now I am forced to take sides in this debate to find this knowledge. I have commented on this before and will raise it again. Arborsculpture when googled is a marketing funnel for RR and his books and other merchandise. He states in his bio he coined the word in 1995. He has branded other artists against their will. I would like to see a recent photo of a chair - not the drawing of the chair that was in his first book. Even a photo of the house would be good. Other editors say Pooktre is commercial I have not found any evidence of this or any attempt at marketing when looking at Pooktre. Pooktre state they will collaborate with others.