Talk:Tree shaping

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. [1] 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. [2] 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)

Colincbn I am contesting the amount of times that Arborsculpture appears in the article, as a editor who added Arborsculpture to the body of the article. It is up to you to justify the changes you want to have if the edit is contested. Claiming I have COI doesn't relieve you of this responsibility. "Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it". This quote is from [3] Instead of trying to side track the discussion, discuss the weight that has been given to Arborsculpture in this article please. Blackash have a chat 10:33, 26 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)

• WP:NOTADICTIONARY doesn't just talk about articles that are dictionary entries, it discusses using a neologism term within wikipedia articles please note the bold. Quote "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles."
• I'm not the only person that states Arborsculpture is a neologism. other editor's comments with links
• I created RfC about the term Arborsculpture, no new editors chose to comment, that doesn't mean no consensus that just means there was no interest in commenting. Duff states that it easy to prove Arborsculpture isn't a neologism then WP:PROVEIT.
• As most of the sources about Arborsculpture stem from Richard Reames and/or his books it needs to be establish that he is an expert for those sources to considered reliable until then the majority of the Arborsculpture citations are invalid. Blackash have a chat 10:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You have a clear conflict of interest where this term is concerned and should not edit WP in order to suppress it. If other non-involved editors decide not to use it that is fine. But you yourself should not be a part of that decision making process. I have said the same thing to Slowart. Colincbn (talk) 12:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Blackash, I can only repeat what Colin has said. You have a clear conflict of interest regarding the term 'arborsculpture' and I strongly suggest that you restrict your editing and comments to improving the article in other ways. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

As Wikipedia editors you are not willing to discuss the issue of the amount of weight Arborsculpture is given in the article. You are willfully ignoring policy guidelines to avoid discussing this point.

• When content you have added is contested, the WP:BURDEN is on you to justify its inclusion. (I've pointed this out earlier in this discussion.)
• Trying to stop me from discussing issues on the talk page by claiming I have a conflict of interest. (Goes against How to handle COI quote "Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute.")
  • I've started the section Undue weight on the talk page about the weight Arborsculpture is given in the article. You are not willing to give my views fair consideration.
    • Ratios have been throw around with no backed up evidence that Arborsculpture is as high referenced as stated. Majority of the references for Arborsculpture hinge on the fact Richard Reames (creator of the word) is an expert. When asked to WP:PROVEIT there has been some waffling from Duff but no evidence.
    • There have been attempts to side track into rhetoric about the title again. (This section is about the amount of weight the word Arborsculpture is given in this article compared to other names for the art form.)
    • When asked to focus on this issue, the COI card is brought into play again. (As I have chosen to talk about the issue here first, instead of just editing the article it is only a potential conflict.) The potential conflict lies in fact I'm Co-founder of Pooktre a name for the art work of my life partner and I (we don't use this word to brand onto other people's art). I am Becky Northey an artist in this art form who objects to being branded with someone else's name and method. Yes I do except commissions but what artist doesn't.

Back to the issue. Arborsculpture or variations thereof are being given WP:UNDUE weight in the article. This needs to be addressed. As you guys don't wish to discuss this issue I have gone up the dispute resolution line. I've listed on the NPOV noticeboard Blackash have a chat 13:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent idea. How will you explain to them that you have a strong commercial interest in the subject but everyone else is pushing their POV. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

NPOV review

I am here from the NPOV noticeboard.

I find RegentsPark's summary of the issue to well-cover the arguments for and against the use of the term arborsculpture. Tree shaping should be the article's title for now and as such, it should be the term used to describe the article's subject throughout the mainspace unless someone is referring to a specific type of tree shaping which has its own name.

I think that all instances of the word "arborsculpture" in this article ought to be changed to "tree shaping" to match the article's title unless there is a situation when the differences between the terms merit the use of the an alternative name over the main name. See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Treatment_of_alternative_names.

Tree_shaping#Alternative_names and Tree_shaping#Artistic_controversy need to be deleted entirely because these sections are a reflection of Wikipedia arguing and are without meaningful citations which show that this is a debate in the field. The citations which are there help to set an argument, but not to prove that one already exists. Blue Rasberry 15:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Be nice

Being WP:NICE is a Wikipedia rule. User:Duff has used the following language in this section: "continued tiresome pressure from the same involved editor", "Please give it a rest.", "Please read the entire document AGAIN" "We do not disagree... You disagree" "You have been demonstrated incorrect, so now stand down. How quickly forgotten. Please make a note or something." "Please stand down voluntarily."

user:Colincbn has used the following language in this section: "if the article name was a neologism the article should have been deleted.", "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 might say that there is other language that is not nice elsewhere. I do not like seeing this. I commend user:Blackash for stating a case then asking for uninvolved editor opinions instead of belittling anyone for their views instead of adding meaningful content to the discussion. Blue Rasberry 15:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

How can you say quoting WP policy is not being nice? As in "if the article name was a neologism the article should have been deleted."? This is exactly what the policy on neologisms says. As for "As such I have a hard time taking anything you say seriously as an editor" this is a simple statement of fact. I did not say I don't take her seriously or that I am not doing my utmost best to put my feelings aside and assume good faith, just that it is difficult considering the person in question is in obvious violation of one of the core principals of WP. Your use of "rid WP of a term that is, in your mind, against your commercial interests" is unfair as you are cutting my sentence in the middle and taking that part only as "what I said". The whole quote is "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" I did not even say that was what she was doing, I only said that is what it looks like to me. In fact by taking my words out of context and using them as a weapon against me I feel you have been, well, not nice. Colincbn (talk) 02:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The entire article refers to a specific type of tree shaping which has its own name; that is precisely the trouble. That name is arborsculpture. Though I have no personal, emotional, or commercial involvement one way or the other, I strongly disagree with any further efforts to expunge the word arborsculpture from this article and from this encyclopedia. I find the effort disturbing. The vast preponderance of reliable sources, as cited, refer to the specific topic of the article as arborsculpture, not as tree shaping.

'Tree shaping' is the commercial funnel, not arborsculpture, which is a non-commercial and well-established word used in an encyclopedic article about the topic. The article is not about the word, which would be where the policy on neologisms would apply. It does not apply, and this has been clearly established. Now again, it is suggested from the same involved source that the word should be removed. There is not consensus to remove any instances of the word arborsculpture from this article. On the contrary, it has been agreed that the words can be used interchangeably within this article, in balance with their relative weight in common unambiguous English language usage, and that for now the title shall renain as it is. Please take time to read the citations themselves. This is the word for this craft and Blackash's long-standing, and yes, tiresome effort to expunge the word in favor of her own commercially registered trade name, Treeshapers, has not buffaloed the other neutral uninvolved editors of this page. I'm not going to be bullied by an involved editor with a clear conflict of interest, or any other editor, nor should any dedicated editor. The article's history details years now of conflict over the original name change to tree shaping, which was done without proper due process and then reinforced by that one single-purpose editor's dogged persistence and off-wiki manipulation of the web at large, using wikipedia as a lever to thwart a professional rival. This is improper. Neutral and uninvolved editors are aware of the conflict, have studied the issue carefully over several months, including reading all the diffs and comments, and sifting through mountainous stacks of spurious and self-directed citations, winnowing for the remaining reliable citations. These newer editors as well as some of the original editors, have reached consensus, which is reflected in the page content. We have moved forward with article improvement, leaving the title as it is for now and proceeding with apprppriately cited use of the correct word to describe the topic being described, as agreed by several, but not by Blackash. I am confident that fully informed editors will stand fast against the sort of insidious elimination of properly cited material that is being suggested here. Please read the policy on article name changes WP:Article titles#Considering title changes, as this is the applicable policy concerning the title. Also, please note that I too have clearly stated a neutral and well documented case and have solicited comment via RfC's myself, inviting several other uninvolved editors like myself to comment, which they, inluding Colincbn, have done. Hence the current consensus, with which Blackash, again, does not agree, so around we go again. There are more important articles to edit, and I've put in more than my share of effort on this one since March, to make it better. It is better. The several editors who came in from those RfCs now include Blueraspberry, which is great and a warm welcome to you, but opinions of editors don't change the cited facts. Existing editors do not wish to wrestle further with Blackash over her control of the page content, which was tedious, and prohibited, so most of us have moved on to more productive writing. You might not think that's nice, any of it...but it's factual, and Colincbn's also been diplomatic to a fault. I plan to improve the article more myself after a good breather from it, as I have many other interests that also engage. Peace. duff 02:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Tree shapers in not our trade name Pooktre is.

Duff it is amazing how often you insist you are uninvolved. I disagree you are involved, when shown evidence contrary to your belief that arborsculpture is name of the art form. You don't change your view. Example Duff's quote "Please present a single reliable source ... demonstrating the use of the term 'tree shaping' to describe this craft. I'd like to see one."

I gave not one, but multiple references [4] and still Duff insists that Arborsculpture is the name. This is the reaction of an involved editor.

Duff interchangeably within this article, in balance with their relative weight is the point I'm trying to discuss. Please WP:PROVEIT that Richard Reames is an expert or all sources that come from him that give weight to the word Arborsculpture as a generic name will be removed. Blackash have a chat 22:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

1) Duff obviously meant "uninvolved" in the sense of "I am not a artist who makes money from the artform this article is concerning". Hence, he does not have a "conflict of interest", in the way that you and Reames and other artists do.

2) Why is Reames' "expertise" suddenly being brought up? Are you an accredited "expert" in tree shaping?

3) Again, a preemptive request to please not edit the article to alter information regarding the word "arborsculpture", as you have a double conflict-of-interest: 1) you're an artist in the field this article is about, 2) you have a professional disagreement about this word in particular, and with the artist Reames in particular.

If you want to demonstrate good faith, you might like to add to the page you made of alternate names, the accumulated references to "arborsculpture", which section is currently noticeably empty. Just a suggestion. (Other editors might also like to do that). -- Quiddity (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no suddenly about it, I questioned Reames "expertise" when Duff was going through the references. [5] As most of weight for arborsculpture arises from Richard's books, classes or interviews it needs to be established that Richard Reames is an expert for those references to stand. Other wise the WP:SPS applies. Blackash have a chat 02:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Which of the characteristics at Expert#Contrasts and comparisons are you accusing your artistic colleague of not having?

10,000 hours, is a sometimes used figure. That amount could be accumulated in as little as 2-3 years. So yes, he is now an expert, and has been for a good long while, and only a Higher entity knows for exactly how long; but he could easily have been an "expert" by the time he first authored a book on the topic.

Secondly, SPS is not at all related to interviews (unless they're purely-self-published interviews, which would be a bit weird...) -- Quiddity (talk) 04:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Quiddity the question of Richard's expertise was only one of issues about Arborsculpture having too great a weight in the article.
• Quiddity the wording to note in WP:SPS is quote "established expert". It is not up to us to decide whether or not Richard is an expert that would be WP:OR. Wikipedia:Verifiability reliable source should be used to establish if he is an expert. When Duff was going though the cites and wanted to include Richard's book as a reliable source, I asked him WP:POVEIT, quoting WP:SPS as he hasn't do so I was assuming that he is unable to do so. Therefore the cites relying on Richard Reames's books (or interviews based on the books: example book reviews) for 3rd party claims should go. Blackash have a chat 10:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This bio of Richard Reames published by Western Chapter International Society of Arboriculture (published in connection with his appearance at their annual conference) clearly illustrates that he is considered an authority on tree shaping / arborsculpture (the bio uses the terms interchangeably). More importantly, the fact that he is an considered an expert on this particular matter should already be obvious to anyone informed about the ongoing issues with this Wikipedia article. Seriously. If not, a web search can determine it in about 40 seconds. This whole “...needs to be established that Richard Reames is an expert for those references to stand.” business instigated by User:Blackash at this stage of the game is an irrelevant protest not worthy of more attention. --Griseum (talk) 02:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course, a presenter would prepare their own bio for a conference. I dont think your source is reliable. Richard Reames is an expert on tree shapers not tree shaping. On page 195 of his book Arborsculpture he states "I dont know why it leans or why it did not grow balanced, but I am studing it with faith that I will learn." Same page "It is my deepest desire that others will feel inspired to carry this art form into the main stream. Is this a form of self promotion using wiki editors to achieve his deepest desire or is someone masturbating their ego?Sydney Bluegum (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Griseum your link to the bio was created for event advertisement. This is not a reliable source. Your suggestion of doing a web search is WP:OR. If a source is called into question the editors wanting to keep that source must WP:PROVEIT, using reliable published sources. Where are the published peer reviews of Richard Reames's trees (the ones created with Richard's own hands)? Who states that Richard Reames is an expert? The person claiming Richard is expert, what is their experience in this field of shaping trees? Their opinion would also need to be published in reliable source as well. Blackash have a chat 11:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As stated, this sub-debate is not worthy of more attention. --Griseum (talk) 06:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

For now I have changed or removed 3 instances that Arborsulpture was used in the article. I have started a new section where Duff when over the Alternative names citations and will be using Duff's example is a guide to sort out which citations to keep and which ones to strike out. page Blackash have a chat 14:13, 8 September 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. Sydney Bluegum (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydney Bluegum (talk • contribs) 12:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(You need to add a blank line between paragraphs in order to get a linebreak. I've done this for you. However your paragraphs are still very confusing with mixed topics.)

The images were removed purely because of WP:WATERMARK. Now that Blackash has uploaded copies without a watermark, they could be put back in. (File:Person-tree.jpg and File:Becky's Mirror.jpg) I agree that the person tree image should be replaced. However, I hope a better image of the mirror (or a different "inclusioned" piece) could be added, as that mirror image looks odd (because of the cropped-background and fake-reflections).

You're not "forced to take sides" anywhere at Wikipedia.

Pooktre's commercial end is at http://www.pooktre.com/collaboration.htm , keyword "commissioned". -- Quiddity (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

On word count: fantasy. As of this moment, the words 'shape' & 'shaping occur' 39 times in the article, including the current article name. The words 'arborsculpture' and 'arborsculptor' occur only 14 times, including once as the title of the book by that name noted in the text of the article, which is a significant reduction in the use of the term compared with the previously 1/4 size article mentioned.

Arborsculpture is a noun and the topic of the article; not a "marketing funnel," and repeating that catchy phrase every couple of weeks won't make it one. Perhaps that could be given a rest. It is indeed woven through the article, and rightfully so, as 'arborsculpture' is the term for the craft that has by far the most reliable source citations using it to describe the work detailed herein. The citations are what matters and other editors, including myself, have sounded them carefully to be certain that they are indeed reliable source citations.

So yes, we are working toward balance and appropriate weighting of terms now. A careful read of these talkpage archives will make clear that this follows a protracted and well-documented episode of the complete removal of the word, from this and several other articles, in a deliberate effort by Becky Northey, a professional rival of the word's coiner, to curtail all uses of the word, both here at Wikipedia and on the countless other sites across the internet where the word is used. Many sharp eyes are now watching to ensure that this does not occur again, at least here, as such efforts are insidious and considered improper uses of Wikipedia. You can read the full history of that, if you are that interested, in the archives of this talkpage. Otherwise, there's no need to feel forced in any way to take a stand on anything here, or take sides in any debate. One can read, edit, improve, challenge, comment, etc. as one sees fit, or not do any of that, and it's all warmly welcomed. Taking sides is not what we are here for at all.

Reames himself doesn't state anything in his bio, though he does comment here on the talkpage occasionally. He has largely withdrawn from contributing to both the article and the talkpage, as he has a self-admitted conflict of interest, by virtue of the fact that he is covered in the article. Northey is obligated to do the same, but refuses to recuse herself. Other editors wrote Reames' bio, based on the usual: reliable sources. It would be improper for him (or anyone) to write an autobiography. He coined the word. Of that there is no dispute, is there? If so, let's see a reliable source citation for such a dispute, or please put that to rest also.

I'm not clear on which drawing(s) Sydney Bluegum is protesting, as Weichula's inosculation sketch is the only drawing in the article at this time (and the only image we have for Weichula, so let's not delete it). Does it feel like something else is missing from the article, based on what a reader comes to learn? As a (mostly) reader of Wikipedia, what seems to be omitted from the article, if there's anything specific to describe, besides particular photos?

As for Pooktre, of course it is a commercial entity, but nonetheless, as has been stated many times before here by various editors and admins (and I agree): Pooktre is probably notable enough to merit its own article (as do many other commercial entities); one written from a completely neutral point of view, based on reliable sources, and submitted by a non-involved editor or editors interested enough to spend editorial time on it. I fail on that last point only, but surely someone will eventually pursue it. Meanwhile, it would not be appropriate to plaster the one company name back all over this article again, if that is what is suggested. A single prominent and well-detailed mention of the business name of one pair of artists, in the mini-bio of the relevant persons, is adequate for the purposes of an encyclopedic article about arborsculpture. duff 09:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Sydney Bluegum, it seems you are continuing with the irrelevant argument that since the word “arborsculpture” is associated with RR, we shouldn't use it. This wouldn't be an relevant issue if he was dead for 100 years and it isn't a relevant issue now. If you wish to comment further, please take the time and effort to leave comments that we can all understand. --Griseum (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite simply, I am talking about the fact that photos have not been put back and Drawings are not proof of tree training. I have not seen any recent photos of Richard's work. After 17 years a drawing just doesn't cut it for me . I was not protesting -simply making a statement . The drawing by Perreal 1516 in fantasy and created by his imagination.

Please do not tell me what to do as I have spent $s and time and you are supposedly uninvolved but I read the 4 seconds on sockpuppet. Sydney Bluegum (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced the Person tree image - everyone should feel free to improve the caption.

Regarding the mirror: I explained just above, why I don't believe the mirror image should be replaced, so I won't repeat that here. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it time for mediation?

I think that if a consensus cannot soon be reached we may need to take the issues here to Mediation or Arbitration. I prefer mediation at first as they seem to be less heavy handed and more focused on helping editors to "get along", while ArbCom seams to be focused on administrative action like page protection and topic bans. I think we can work out our different stances through discussion, and we might get some use out of bringing in the "mediation cabal". Colincbn (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that the editors here could get along or participate in any reasonable discussion. Every time anyone tries, the discussion gets filibustered by the same talking points repeated over and over. I'm also skeptical that the people here would actually respect any decisions reached by the mediation cabal, considering the past history of such things in this article. AfD hero (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This article has already been through an appropriate dispute resolution process and that was an RfC. Several new editors, including Colinbc and myself came here as a result and all agreed that one person here was pushing a commercial interest against all the evidence. Somehow that one editor got a number of others to support their PoV. All that is needed is an admin to take a proper look through the page history and at some of the evidence provided and then take the appropriate action, which is to move the article to arborsculpture and warn editors about pushing their commercial PoV. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it should be moved to arborsculpture, and neither do several other neutral editors including at least 2 admins. Blackash didn't brainwash me or them. People who disagree with moving the article came up with their opinion through a reasoned consideration of the evidence, just as you have done, except they came to a different conclusion. The atmosphere here is so hostile that people opposed to moving the article have slowly but steadily left to pursue other less stressful things. AfD hero (talk) 11:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I would be interested to know your reasoning for keeping the article in its current home 'Tree shaping', which is a term used by arborists worldwide to mean something completely different from the subject of this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't be serious... We've had this discussion over and over and over. I'm not going to contribute to another cycle of rehashing the same old points. AfD hero (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I am perfectly serious. If you do not want to answer my question perhaps you could direct me to wher you have answered it before. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean by 'arborists world wide to mean something completely different ' Martin Hogbin. Arborsculpture to me means to sculpt(carve or cut ) usually with a chainsaw or a tool called an arborteck to create a model out of a log. It it obivous that you have'nt googled 'arborsculpture' and followed the marketing funnel( that catchy phrase again)to Richard Reams who you seem hell bent on promoting.AfD hero Please explain to the contributors of the page that you are not talking about editor Blackash. I am going to include a few other alternative names on the list.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course. The term 'Tree shaping' is in common use to mean the general pruning of trees to obtain a good natural shape. That is not what this article is about. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD, Martin has followed the term to various locations around the web. He has researched this craft a lot in the last few months. So have I. He asked a question about the term "Tree Shaping". He did not even mention the word "Aroborsculpture" while he was asking it. I know I am not "promoting" Reames, I have never met him, never read one of his books, nor am I likely to do either. I am simply worried that there are some WP Policies being ignored, and as Martin has said "Tree Shaping means something else".

The first and main policy I am worried about is this one:

"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".

Please note this is Policy, not a guideline or an essay. This is what makes WP work. Without following these the whole thing falls apart. Now I don't think when you changed the title without posting a Request for Move you realized how much controversy would be stirred up. I think you simply thought it was a quick way to avoid controversy. But that is not what has happened, for various reasons. At this point I think policy is clear that the move should be reverted and then a real discussion on whether a new name is necessary can commence. I don't even care what it ends up being, but I would vote against "Tree Shaping" as that is not what this article is about.

As for "Hostility". Let me say that even though I disagree with Blackash on some points, and I have been frustrated because of it, I don't "dislike" her. In fact I am 100% sure that on almost any other topic we would have the same or similar opinions. I think she has a conflict of interest and that is making it hard for her to separate what is good for her craft from what is good for WP. I also think she believes I "support Reames". I find that unfortunate because I have told him the exact same things as I have told her in regards to his CoI. I am also not saying the article name should remain "Arborsculpture" forever or even for the foreseeable future. I am saying the name should be kept per-policy until a successful RM to change it is completed. Because that is WP Policy. That is my sole reason for my current stance. And I believe Martin's is the same. Colincbn (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

As a owner of a 4000 stone fruit orchard I employ workers to prune trees. I do not tell them to shape the trees. The desired result is a vase shaped tree to promote a good crop. This is a completely different process to what the article is about. If tree shaping has too many applications then what about tree training.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Correct but irrelevant. 'Tree shaping' is the term routinely used in English-speaking countries to describe the pruning of, mainly ornamental, trees to maintain a good natural shape. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Martin a word can have more than one definition, which is why in the real world we have dictionaries, and why Wikipedia has disambiguation pages. Blackash have a chat 15:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Rather than a disambiguation page I would vote for a descriptive title that does not need disambiguation. I would much prefer reverting to the original name, per-policy, while we work it out. However, if we can all agree to work together amicably to quickly resolve the issue I would be willing to concede that point. Colincbn (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Why choose a title that needs a disambiguation page? There must me a suitable neutral title that we could use, at least while we decide on a final home. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Why not just seriously discuss alternatives to Arborsculpture and Tree shaping instead of just moving the page temporarily? Colincbn you have mentioned Tree training as title idea, this wording has been brought up before. Both Slowart and I have agreed to it. I think SydneyBlueGum may have mentioned it but I can't remember where. There are some references to it being used in this art form, though not as many as Tree shaping. Tree training Blackash have a chat 17:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Careless editing

This was the first sentence of the article as I found it today: "Tree shaping, also known as arborsculpture,tree training,botanical architecture, grown furniture and several other names, is the art of training living trees and other plants and their roots cultivated into ornamental shapes and structures." Everyone makes mistakes, but poor marks to whoever was so concerned about “improving” this article that they turned the introductory sentence into grammatical non-sense. --Griseum (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

After editing for as long as you have been I think you know who you awarded the poor marks too. But in case you are not sure it was I. This is ironic as we all make mistakes. Please do not throw stones in glass houses particularly when you can't spell the word "incompehensible" add an r and stop the scarcism. If you want me to leave, as you seem to tell others quite often, be nice to me and I'll get bored and leave the soap opera. I see myself mainly as an end user of Wiki and would like to have proper and correct information. While reading Wiki some articles use 'also known as' and then list the names. 'Commonly called' is fine. I used the policy Manual of Style (lead section)and followed No 2 for the example for the lead sentence. I put back in trees, roots and reconfigured the sentence so it should be comprehensible to everyone. Instead of criticising, compromise and improve my edits so I can learn by your example.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing Griseum's spelling of comprehensible was a typo, but seriously Sydney, this kind of harping is just petty. I know this article is frustrating and things have gotten heated, but everybody needs to remember WP:CIV. We should be speaking with one another as if we were in polite company, which we are. — e. ripley\^talk 18:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)