Talk:Tree shaping methods

How I got to starting this page

Due to an inquiry into some of the refs at Tree shaping talk about methods section. [1] I did some research and have found a whole lot more refs. I've put them on my subpage [2] It's was also where I saved related refs to this field and where I've been doing some working out of wording. Blackash (talk) 00:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

This page should not be speedy deleted because...

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (The content came from Tree shaping originally The text was created based on the refs linked to each part. All images on this page were also given to Wikipedia by their respective owners. So this is not a copyright issue to the linked page. Most likely that page sourced their content from the parent article Tree shaping. Given they link to the Tree shaping page.

I did some research and have found a whole lot more refs, just recently due to an inquiry into some of the refs at Tree shaping talk about methods section. [3] I've put them on my subpage [4] I created this page as I plan to expand this topic giving the amount of content I found in the refs listed plus what was already at tree shaping I thought it was time to follow an earlier suggestion to create a new page for the methods. ) --Blackash (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Derogatory comments about rivals

It is not ethical or right to invent original research that defames your rivals and publishes it here. Slowart (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Slowart, I agree with you that articles should not be used to pigeon hole the work of rivals into a methodology that is not what they engage in their work, even if they did do so in past experiments. To do so is NPOV. Netherzone (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia content follows the refs while also being guided by the other WP policies. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable. Which the content that Slowart removed was. The citations used, are not the only ones supporting that content. SilkTork and RegentsPark would you mind weighing in whether this diff of Slowart's was appropriate. MollyPollyRolly you may be interested in this discussion. Blackash (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Reference 3 ("Using nature in architecture: Building a living house with mycelium and trees") goes to [5], which has no article. Is this the article which should be at Reference 3: [6]? SilkTork (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for updating Ref 3 to this better link. Blackash (talk) Blackash (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Reference 18 ("Tree Shaping") goes to [7], which is a commercial website advertising tree care services. Per WP:VENDOR, we have limited use for such sources. It would be preferable to find a more reliable source. SilkTork (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Having read the article, "Using nature in architecture: Building a living house with mycelium and trees", which was used as a source to support the wording "Thou(gh) easy to do(,) the drawbacks to this method are many.[3][18] For example, the tree's response to the efforts of the practitioner is difficult to forecast.[3]", I find the wording to be acceptable. I assume that Slowart was unable to verify the wording because the link was not active. However, assuming good faith is something we do urge people to follow on Wikipedia.

Slowart - a more appropriate response when coming upon a statement you disagree with which is inadequately sourced, is to seek clarification either from the contributor, or more generally, perhaps by raising the issue on the talk page or by using one of the templates we have, such as Template:Clarify. Reverting the sourced work of others, especially in contentious areas, can result in unnecessary friction and drama. Also, when seeking clarification, you must use neutral wording and comment on the content not the contributor.

Netherzone - There is much about you I like and admire, and I can see you becoming an admin at some point in the future. However, if you wish to give advice and opinions on matters, it is generally regarded as more helpful to first understand the issue, and then to give "informed" advice, otherwise you are simply pouring petrol on fire. If a user makes a remark which is essentially a personal attack on another user, accusing them of writing derogatory comments, and inventing original research, please look more closely into the matter before agreeing with them, otherwise you could be included in any sanctions if the matter escalates. This is not a warning, just advice from one Wikipedian to another. SilkTork (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Reference 18. I added as example of horticulturalist usage of the terminology and as a secondary cite I thought it was ok. Off the top of my head there is the article I was asked to write for permaculture ukMy idea is to only use this as supporting ref. I do have others and I will swap out reference 18 with better source, on my next editing day. Blackash (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

As you wrote the Permaculture article it would be better if someone else added it. As I know one of the directors at Permaculture it would not be appropriate for me to be the one who adds it. SilkTork (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I think Primary WP:PRIMARY would apply, as does WP:NPOV and WP:COI. I believe that instant tree shaping and gradual tree shaping as subject headers and anything derogatory about others methods should be removed or require WP:TERTIARY sources. Otherwise it would be tempting to just get things published and then come here to make the page say whatever you want it to say. Slowart (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

You don't need url for every source. If it has a DOI or PMC/PMID they'll work just as fine.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The last source had no author (I checked), but I did found the link and added.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 00:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Reference 35 is also dubious as it leads to this: A Chinese website about factories. Now, there is a site which features some Sculpturefest 2008 woodwork, but it's not reliable either. I also looked into the author, and the first thing that popped up was this along with Find A Grave mention. None of those are also reliable, and none of those mention the tree that it suppose to source.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for info about DOI. I'll remember that for future use. Magazines and Newspapers sometime give no author byline. Reference 35 would have cited an online article. Some of these refs were done over 10 years ago. Next editing day I'll check all the older refs and see if I can find them online. Archive.org may have a copies. Way back when I didn't know create a backup there. So I'll hunt up the old sources and if I can't find them, I'll either use a different ref that cites the same thing or remove the cite and content as appropriate Blackash (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

MollyPollyRolly Would you please look over this article I wrote for permaculture uk If you think it has value that can be added to the article would you please do so. Blackash (talk) 09:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Will see what I can do.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

MollyPollyRolly I've checked and updated the refs to No.23 I'll check the rest on my next editing day.Blackash (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Blackash: Reference #37 still sends me to a Chinese factory site. Should I remove it?--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

No thanks please leave for now. I had systematically checked all the refs from No.1 through to ref 23. On my next editing day I will check all the refs from 23 and onwards. So I'll get ref 37 done then. Blackash (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

MollyPollyRolly I've now updated Ref 37. It surprisingly took a few hours to find an online version of it. Blackash (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Addition

• What I think should be added:
• There are two design approaches to arborsculpture, one approach is where the tree(s) is grown to be cut and dried after attaining the desired size. The other design approach allows the tree(s) to mature in the outdoor landscape. These design approaches are illustrated by the work of John Krubsack and Axel Erlandson respectively. :
• https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/687/5/055035/metaOommen , :

Slowart (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

References

I agree that with the finished project, the design choice of whether to have the shaping as harvesting piece or to remaining living should have a section on this page. I also know of some other refs that I could add to this new section. Thanks for these refs I'll added them to my ref page that I'm systemically working through and I'm happy to add this content. Blackash (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I've started a new section headed Designing on the main page. I plan to incorporate Slowart's idea about the harvested and living. I've just started getting the refs together over at my working ref page I'm getting a group of knowledge together before creating the content so that it reflects the bulk of refs. Blackash (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I've started only using a few refs for now. There are plenty of refs to do with the design section. I know I don't have all of them listed at my page. Will work on getting them together and then do some more content adding on Designing section later. Blackash (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

My edit request is no longer in the que. My edit request was not added to the page. I was looking for an editor without a COI to add the edit to the page, if they agree the reference supports such wording. Now what? Slowart (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I have looked at the Ansel Oommen site, but I struggle to fit it in with anything to distinguish it from what was said in an identical article: https://web.archive.org/web/20131112051949/http://www.permaculture.co.uk/articles/artful-science-tree-shaping.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 00:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The reference supports the use of the the noun "arborsculpture". There are many tertiary references to the word being used for this subject. If the word can not be added with this many academic references, I would appreciate knowing why. [8] Slowart (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

There are refs for Arborsculpture to do with a method.

• Ref quote Instant Tree Shaping, also known as Arborsculpture (mature trees bent into the desired shape and held until cast),...
• Ref quote "INSTANT SHAPING Also known as ‘Arborsculpture’. Trees are bent into the desired shape, and held in that position until cast"

There are also refs linking Richard Reames to the Instant method.

• Ref quote There is instant tree shaping, ... which is a three dimensional form of pleaching and practised by arborist Richard Reames.
• Ref quote REAMES, R IS SAID TO BE THE PIONEER OF ARBORSCULPTURE ACCORDING TO THIS BOOK AND IS ALSO ARGUABLY THE MOST POPULAR DESIGNER OF THIS METHOD TOO This magazine is referencing a book I co-authored [9] (Sorry about all caps but that how it was written)

Given the info above, plus using Richards' books, and other refs that are available a section titled Process of tree shaping, similar to Christopher cattle and Full Grown could be built at Richard Reames article. Blackash (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I believe a neutral point of view reading of these [10] academic citations show how "Arborsculpture" is being used by reliable secondary sources, for this whole art form. [11], without any connection to "Richard Reames" (myself). These 3 citations support the use of the word "arborsculpture" as an alternative noun within the article. Academic references are preferred over self-published references. Another secondary reliable source from Cornell University, a Textbook, page 442 [12] large PDF says..."to create unusual growth forms in a practice called arborsculpture involves intertwining and grafting together the stems of two or more plants in order to create domes, chairs, ladders, and other fanciful sculptures (Fig. 9.2)" photos of Axel Erlandson trees. Slowart (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• What I think should be changed: the term instant tree shaping should be removed.
• Why it should be changed:The term is derogatory, it is original research. This citation

is a primary research paper and therefor is a poor source. The section in question cites the book how to grow a chair I have the book in front of me, and it does not support the research paper. The paper appears to draw from this web site. . The other citations are unavailable to review. and this one is a single artist interview, self sourced and therefor is poorly sourced. The section under instant mentions 2 living persons (myself) Richard Reames and David Nash. I object in the strongest terms to having my art labeled as "instant" when in reality it requires many years and tends to degrade and trivialize my work.

• Change this

Instant tree shaping It uses mature trees, perhaps 6–12 ft. (2–3.5 m) long and 3-4in (7.6–10 cm) in trunk diameter. An instantaneous form is created by bending, weaving and sometimes cutting or marking the trees into the desired shape. Then the shaping is held in place till the tree has grown enough annual rings to hold the shape, effectively casting it permanently into place. Understanding a tree's fluid dynamics is important to achieving the desired result.

• Remove thisThough easy to do, the drawbacks to this method are many; for example, the tree's response to the efforts of the practitioner is difficult to forecast.

• To this

Sapling bending One method uses thin saplings, perhaps 6–12 ft. (2–3.5 m) long and 3-4in (7.6–10 cm) in trunk diameter. A form is created by bending and or weaving into the desired shape. Then the shape is held in place till the tree has grown enough annual rings to hold the shape, effectively casting it permanently into place.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

References

Slowart (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Could you please suggest the references to support this? Would they be the same as those in the Tree shaping article....see below. If the content is copy-pasted, it requires attribution. What is the source for the the second and third sentence?

One method is to use flexible saplings 2 to 3 m (6.6 to 9.8 ft). A form is created by bending and or weaving into the desired shape. Then the shape is held in place till the tree has grown enough annual rings to hold the shape, effectively casting it permanently into place. {citation needed}

What about the derivative drawing? Should that be removed, replaced or retained?

Netherzone (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

References

The second and third sentences, I dont know if it's verbatim or not but I found this in a single artist interview

" The frame holds the trees for a few years until the tree casts that form through its growth. It’s just a matter of the trees getting older and growing together with some gentle pruning to keep them growing in the right direction." it is from Cabinet magazine https://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/20/foer_reames.php

I suppose the derivative drawing need to be replaced as they are not allowed. Slowart (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Netherzone Please refrain from removing cited content. I've also reformatted the reference, that you and I both agreed as a peer reviewed scholarly journal is a very reliable source. This isn't the only source of the wording Instant tree shaping linked to this method of shaping trees. Blackash (talk) 08:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Slowart please link to where it states drawings aren't allowed. I did find to quote "as long as the user-created format does not mimic the exact style of the original work" at Wikipedia:Image_use_policy And the 3 drawings are different than the original.

• The style is clearly different than photos.
• Some previous editors had stated that the drawings were good. And should be in the article.
• They have the background removed, which more clearly shows the shapes of the trees.
• Chair/stool was chosen so the reader can comparing like to like
• Something to sit on is a very common theme in this field.

And as such should remain. Blackash (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Slowart, Where is the term Instant tree shaping used in a derogatory manner?

The reference is the reporter talking, as others have told you this makes it a secondary source.

As you know that multiple references for this term and method were checked and checked and found to be secondary sources and are not original research.

There are multiple sources, but I had read some where years ago here at wiki pages to not clutter the readers experience. That 2 refs should be ok maybe 3.....

In references it as been reported that chair or the peace sign can be bent up in an hour or afternoon. It also talks about the cast taking years. All referenced. Wiki about WP:VNT Blackash (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

A response has not yet been received for this question.

Reply 27-JUN-2023

  Request closed for inactivity  

• The edit requestor has not posted any replies over the past 7 weeks (48 days in total).
• Discussion is often a key component to implementing edits, and requests may be adversely affected when they fail to garner input from either reviewing or requesting editors. In light of this — and as a safeguard — this request has been declined as needing discussion.
• The COI editor is urged to revive stalled communications by making contact with local editors on those editor's own talk pages, and then by moving those discussions back to this talk page.
• The COI editor may also wish to broadcast requests for edits at the talk pages of the WikiProjects which govern this article. Those projects are usually listed at the top of an article's talk page.

Regards,  Spintendo  01:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)