Talk:Tree shaping/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Tree shaping. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Discussion on Arborsculputre

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)

Arborsculpture - An Emerging Art Form and Solutions to our Environmentpage 25
The Journal of Mythic Arts
This (bloggy) site yep stumbleupon has a link to Richard's book
This is bloggy and partially-Wikipedia derived video has the book at the end (have to check on Fri)
Agriculture Views
Dwell.com
CabinetMagazine.org
University of California "Landscape & Turf News" page 4
Try Your Hand At Arborsculpture For A Fun Hobby
"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

Department of Horticulture at Cornell University
this
Axel Erlandson: An American Arborsculpturist does meantion Richard's books in passing.
Treehugger.com
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

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 (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It is essential to include "arborsculpture" in the lead

May we please stop pretending? Anyone reading this talk page and noticing edits like this knows this latest "alternate names" controversy has nothing to do with anxiety over the correct interpretation of WP:LEAD and has everything to do with disagreement over the word “arborsculpture.” Please note:

Evidence that indicates "arborsculpture" may in fact be the preferred term (as well as the long debate about whether "arborsculpture" or "tree sculpture" should be the name of the article itself) are overwhelming reasons for including "arborsculpture" in the lead.
The recommendation about what to do if there are more than two alternative names is merely that: a recommendation. It's obvious that a recommendation about how to approach a situation where multiple names are known isn’t intended to veto common sense or to stop us from making the right decisions to improve Wikipedia.
Even if it was a policy (which it definitely is not) it would still be subject to mega-policy that tells us not to let such things stop us from improving Wikipedia.
There are thousands of well-written Wikipedia articles heavily edited by multiple users where more than three terms are part of the intro as in this example.
However, since terms like "biotechture", "botanical architecture" and the others are all in a distant third place, I don't care if they are in the lead or not. Editors often chose to create a separate section so that individual names can be commented on or because individual citation of multiple names makes the lead look messy. We have freedom of choice in this regard.
A wikilawyer might argue the that the previously-quoted recommendation that "names should not be moved back to the first line" doesn't exclude the possibility that a name might be remain in the lead. While it would be an error to focus on the wording of the recommendation, my point is there are countless articles which have more than one name in the lead in addition to a section on alternative names. If someone chooses to keep "arborsculpture" in the lead and create an "other names" section there's plenty of precedent. Again I don't care.
I removed the tree chair photo accidentally; thanks in advance to SilkTork or whoever else puts in back in.

The last thing I want to do is micromanage this article. In fact, although once I planned to fix the clumsy prose that comprises the bulk of it, now I yearn to never edit or even think about this article again. I get zero joy from having "won" the argument about whether "arborsculpture" was a neutral world or not; I'm merely disgusted by the whole experience and eager for it to become a distant memory. But I care about Wikipedia too much. In the past four years I've spent hundreds if not thousands of hours here. I have made over 26,000 edits, worked to prevent vandalism, tutored new editors, and produced over 150 DYKs (I'm proud to say that's a rare achievement). I do this because I sincerely believe Wikipedia is a unique and important repository/dispensary of human knowledge the likes of which the world has never seen. Even as I write this message, I'm wasting time and energy that could be better spent creating new articles or making bad articles better. But if content will suffer because "arborsculpture" is being treated prejudicially, I'm obliged speak up because "NPOV is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia". --Griseum (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As to the preferred term I can find published refs for Tree shaping and not just about us.

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."
"Perhaps the Druids were great tree-shapers" and "Even though arborsculpture didn't have a name until I coined the term in 1995, there are historical examples of tree-shaping" [1]

Please note that Tree shaping is used in the context of a name for the whole art form.

If you want, I can find lots more published refs for the term Tree shaping, I won't be able to do so until Mon night though. Blackash (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Decision

I've looked again at the arguments for and against using arborsculpture in the lead, and I find that there is evidence from reliable sources of the use of arborsculpture as a generic term for tree-shaping. I am aware that the term is used by Reames to relate to his own work, and has been the term he has used when talking about and promoting his work. That is fine, because how the word got into reliable sources as a generic term is not important - what matters is that it is used, and we have evidence for it. And, of course, the article should be written in such a way to differentiate Reames' Arborsculpture from Peter Cook and Becky Northey's Pooktre, if these methods are different.

I have also decided above that there is evidence in reliable sources for pooktre to be used as a generic term for tree-shaping. So it would be appropriate to use both terms in the lead sentence. I don't see the value of going back over this again, but if anyone feels that I have misread the sources given here, then I suggest contacting one of the editors listed here to ask for a second opinion. SilkTork *^YES! 16:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Pooktre article

[...] Your careful thorough discussion here is a relief and gives me the strong impression the original title change[2] was mishandled, please comment. [...] Slowart (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

At the time I became involved in this article it was about tree shaping in general. I wasn't aware until I looked at that link that there had been an AfD on Pooktre, and that the Pooktre article had been merged into this one. Interesting. Looking at the deleted Pooktre article I can see why there was concern about it - the references were not well presented, and the article was not written in a neutral manner. That the previous Pooktre article should have been deleted does not mean that a future one would be if it was appropriately written and sourced. Looking back at this article (under the name Arborsculpture), it has always been a general article about tree shaping. My position has not changed. I still feel that an article could be written on both Pooktre and Richard Reames. The articles would need to be neutral and well sourced, and have to withstand a challenge to their notability. It's certainly doable. Though my recommendation is that this article is first built, and then those articles can be broken off from this one in WP:Summary style if people so wish. I do not, however, wish to get involved in the creating of those articles! SilkTork *^YES! 00:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

About Pooktre having it's own article I think Robinh at the Pooktre Afd made a valid point that without a discussion of Pooktre's method for shaping the trees, the article can have little interest on it own. Thou we have more references for WP:NOTABLE now, I think it is better to have Pooktre within the Tree shaping article rather than creating a stub about Pooktre. Blackash have a chat 05:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Restored

I have restored content to the Pooktre redirect. This content should be expanded by someone else other than Blackash so as to avoid peacocky expressions like "has continued to gain international attention" that seem to be more about promoting than informing. It is appropriate to add a "main article: Pooktre" link to the Cook and Northey section of our "tree shaping" article. It would also be appropriate to reduce the amount of content devoted to Pooktre in the "tree shaping" article as it just repeats what is said in the article devoted to Pooktre. If anyone thinks the Pooktre method still is not notable enough for its own article we can take it to AfD. BTW, It may also be appropriate to devote an article to Richard Reames as he seems to be the most notable living tree shaper. --Griseum (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a relevant point to add (with appropriate citation) to both articles would be the fact that one (?) of the creators of Pooktre has stated that she considers "arborsculpture" to be a term appropriate only for the methods of Richard Reames and that she considers Pooktre and the methods used by Reames to be diametrically opposed. I suggest this not because I want the world to see anyone's dirty laundry but because some will seek out these two articles precisely for clarification about this specific point as BlackAsh has already referred countless individuals and entire forums to Wikipedia about the naming issue specifically. If included, this fact should be phrased gently and encyclopedically and should not give readers the impression that BlackAsh did something bad or whatever. --Griseum (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Griseum as your comments show above, you have created Pooktre page to achieve a goal. It seems you don't care if you make extra work for others. Hardly surprising considering your hostile attitude towards Pooktre from the start. Blackash have a chat 12:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

My goal is to improve Wikipedia (and prevent blatant misuse of Wikipedia) whereas Blackash has said explicitly and repeatedly that her goal is not to have the word coined by Reames applied to her work -- a fact I’ve refrained from mentioning for weeks. Blackash might better turn her efforts to finding hard evidence about word usage (as I did) rather than trying to read people’s minds, resorting to ad hominen attacks, or repeating the threadbare opinions that have been expressed up and down this page this past ~~24 hours~~ 3 months. --Griseum (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I want this stopped

For future editors please note

208.91.137.19 is IP address used by Slowart who is Richard Reames (Outed himself on his Reames account)
Griseum has edited under these IP address 208.59.93.238 / 96.233.40.199 (Outed himself within the history of this page)
Arborscuplture like Pooktre is a Neologism please read WP:NEO so we need to be careful not to give WP:undue weight to these words.
Scan though the history the bulk of the talk is about the word Arborsculpture. Multiple editors have had issues with it quotes with links

Blackash have a chat 07:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

In Blackash's last series of edits, she referred to me "outing myself." I first edited the “tree shaping” article on January 18th under an IP address. For three days around the end of January I was at another location so my edits appeared as a different IP address. When I went back to the previous address and realized there might be some confusion, I stated I was the same person so there would be no confusion. No big deal, right? Blackash launched a sockpuppet investigation against me and referred to me “outing myself” somewhere between 10 and 20+ times since. I have repeatedly objected to both the wording and the insinuation of this “outing” characterization. On February 8 I created the "Griseum" user name, clearly announcing that I had done so. I do not object to any efforts to avoid confusion nor with pointing that 7 weeks ago I edited under an IP address. But I consider the continued use of this "outing" phrase and what in insinuates, now almost 2 months later, an indirect personal attack meant to cast suspicion on my methods and motives. I want this stopped. --Griseum (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

When a new editor come in and tries to read this talk page, it is easy to think that there are 6 different editors when there is only 2. When editors know certain comments are linked they can decide for themselves how much weight to give an argument. Blackash have a chat 10:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph of Wikipedia:Harassment is applicable. If Blackash insinuates one more time, anywhere on Wikipedia, that I at anytime tried to conceal my identity I will make formal complaints against this editor. Otherwise I consider this matter closed. --Griseum (talk) 11:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I put the “outing” and where so that other editors know that I'm not outing you which is against Wikipedia policy Blackash have a chat 11:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Have we made any progress here in 3 months?

Have we made any progress here in 3 months? Blackash is still firmly opining that "arborsculpture" refers to the methods used by Richard Reames. Reames (User:SlowArt) said it doesn't. I said it doesnt and presented an exhaustive list of evidence which can now be found at Talk:Tree shaping/Archive 4. In response to that evidence:

User:SilkTork wrote "The evidence presented above is convincing that the term "arborsculpture" is also used in relation to tree shaping in general, and not always to the work of Richard Reames..."
In response to that same evidence, User:Quiddity wrote "I agree that the evidence above suggests that the word "arborsculpture" has become a thoroughly generic term, at least as much as "tree sculpting" and "living art" and "botanical architecture", and as currently used is disconnected from any specific method. (Unless there is new evidence to the contrary)."

Why are trying so hard to placate an editor that ignores the evidence-based consensus of 4 other people? --Griseum (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk about twisting the truth, you Griseum are the one who started the whole lead discussion again. So if you are sick of talking about it, live with the compromisers that are there and lets move on to the next point. Blackash have a chat 21:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)