This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
For approximately three months I fought to have the word "arborsculpture" included in the lead as it's clearly a prominent term for this subject matter. The debate was moderated by administrator User:SilkTork with the result being that the word would be included. It's no surprise that the word isn't in the lead now. The single minded determination of Blackash to micromanage this article to serve an admitted real world agenda is beyond anything which should be tolerated. As can be seen in this edit user Blackash wrote "My only agenda if there is one is not to have our work branded with someone else's methods of shaping trees.(Arborsculpture which has a method linked to it.)" Repeat: My only agenda...is not to have our work branded...Arborsculpture.” How much clearer can that be? In my opinion, if this editor cared about improving Wikipedia they would have recused themselves from editing this article long ago rather than continuing – by force, by stealth, and by every method in between – to shamelessly manipulate this article for a crystal clear real world agenda. --Griseum (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Another deliberate attempt to mislead, under moderation Arborsculpture was in the lead, until you Griseum insisted that the lead sentence was unacceptable and you suggested to remove all alternative names from the lead. SilkTork's attempt close discussion of lead, with arborsculpture in lead Link Griseum restarting the discussion about the lead. Link and this section here is where Griseum suggested a new lead with all the alternative names removed.
Ok, I don't get the above comment, but it comes off as slyly suggestive of something. What, I don't know. However, moving straight back to content, I agree with both of you that arborsculpture belongs in the lead (a rare point of consensus), so I'm going to be WP:BOLD and stick 'er back in there. Standing by for WP:BRD, if any further is needed. I also want to make very clear that use of the term 'Tree shaping', even as an aka for the craft described (let alone as a title), was not found to be well supported by reliable sources. That discussion continues above. How shall we handle the other alternate names that did pass muster? Stick them in there too? Duff (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
WP: BRD I fixed the lead per this current consensus and per WP:MOS#Abbreviations and synonyms. I see that the immediate prior edit included the word pooktre as an aka, which is definitely not supported by consensus nor facts. Inclusion of the word pooktre in either the lead or the aka section is not supported by the extensive research done on aka's and sources for those aka's, it having been firmly established, by a variety of reliable sources including the artists themselves, as a tradename or brand specifically referring to the partnership and art works of Peter Cook and Becky Northey. See Talk:Tree shaping#Alternate names. It is mentioned in the section on those artists, where it is appropriate and should stay. Duff (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
"We are fine with leaving out 'who call their work Pooktre.'
"The new section I put I followed the WP:LEAD section separate section usage quote "if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names" As can be seen by the list there is more than three alternate names."
"I removed the alternate names from the lead becuse that is what is recommended in the separate section usage quote "Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line.",
That statement occured prior to the link provided by Blackash above, purporting that User:Griseum was the source of that change on 23 March 2010, and it occurred only after Blackash had strongly advocated for the inclusion of a third name, Pooktre, as an aka in the lead, which has since proven to be not supported by reliable sources as an aka anyway.
Griseum accepted reluctantly, to move on. His quote there, "The version I just suggested is in no way my druthers.", was obviously an effort to find some sort of consensus and move on.
Blackash has firmly advocated against moving the aka's back into the lead, when it suited their purposes, and now suggest by finger-pointing that they cannot recollect their own advocacy. You can't have it both ways. I don't know how many times it needs to be stated that Wikipedia is not a marketing source, it's an encyclopedia, but there I have reminded Blackash again.
This is another good example of the sort of time-wasting and divisive arguments that have been dragging on at this article's talk page since the two people who are Blackash began editing it, which, as I have mentioned before, was with this delightful (and also exemplary) edit: diff. Further action is forthcoming, just as soon as I figure out the most effective and diplomatic approach. Duff (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Ummm you love to confuse, at the start of moderation I stated that having any alternative name in the lead was not following WP:LEAD. Though discussion an consensus was reach that Pooktre here like Arborsculpture hereis used in the generic sense and both should be in the lead. We stated that we believed having either in the lead gives WP:Undue weight to both words. After more discussions we stated quote "OK I fine with arborsculputre and pooktre being in the lead, it not about how we use the word is it. It about how other people use the word/s. I think by having Arborsculpture linked to Richard and Pooktre linked to us, address my concern about the strong linkage of the words to their creators. Blackash (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)" SilkTork then tried to close the discussion on the lead section. here After this Griseum quote "This is outrageously unacceptable. Was my last group of comments (24 February 8:48) even read? Griseum (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)" After more discussion Griseum suggest this quote Anyway, here’s my alternative suggestion for our belabored lead:
Tree shaping is the practice of growing and shaping trunks, branches and roots of trees and other woody plants…(text text text)...Contemporary tree shapers include Richard Reames who coined the term "arborsculpture", Dr. Christopher Cattle who uses the phrase "grown furniture", and Peter Cook and Becky Northey who use the term "Pooktre" for the method they use.......... (date stamped --Griseum (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC) ) here.
To which I stated quote "The lead needs to address the Alternative names, we should follow the WP:LEAD guideline Separate section usage and in this section it would be appropriate to address who created what, when and how the words are linked to their creators plus the public use of these words if appropriate. Which can be done in the Alternative name section with References. So the lead paragraph could read like this:-
Tree shaping also known by several alternative names is the practice of growing and shaping trunks, branches and roots of trees and other woody plants.[1][2] By grafting, shaping, and pruning the woody trunks or guiding branches, trees are made to grow into ornamental or useful shapes. Tree shaping is related to espalier, bonsai, pleaching and, less directly, to topiary."
Which is how it played out. Griseum had in put part of the consensus, I changed it to the full consensus. Since Duff doesn't like that change we go back to having a link to alternative names as per WP:LEAD quote from "Alternatively, if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names". Blackashhave a chat 23:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
The fact that arborsculpture is much more than "one of many terms" has been determined by 6 months of debate. I have replaced it as part of the first sentence. I would also consider the text I suggested 3 months ago to be acceptable. --Griseum (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Tree shaping is the process of pruning trees to maintain a natural shape. This is by far the most common use of this term. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Please keep the list clear
I strongly suggest moving this article to a temporary but clearly neutral and descriptive home before starting a discussion on a new name, which is likely to take a long time. Please do not move my comments. We need to do one thing at a time. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about commenting above you in the wrong order, I put the heading back in as I wish to keep that section easy to read and check, you chose to ignore this twice. Please only add title suggestions and references to List of potential title names section. Blackashhave a chat 09:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Please don't comment in the above section, I would like to kept it clear and easy to read and check the references for other editors. Blackashhave a chat 08:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Why move the page twice? Why not just discuss the alternatives now and settle on a neutral name? Blackashhave a chat 08:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Because we all know that discussion may take a very long time, during which this article would remain with a title that describes something completely different from the actual subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
There are references for the use of Tree shaping in published media about this art form. Some of which are about Richard Reames trees and others and not to do with Pooktre. Which I'll start listing soon. To move the article is disruptive when you plan to move it again later. There is Wikipedia:NORUSH we can take the time to find neutral name first. Blackashhave a chat 08:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
It is an easily verifiable fact that 'Tree shaping' means something completely different. Phone any arborist and ask the if they can do some tree shaping. Not one of them will be expecting to do the work described in this article. You are defending the indefensible. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
A word can have more than one meaning which is why we have dictionaries. I will be adding the references for Tree shaping and other options, thus other editors can decide for themselves which word seems appropriate to them. Blackashhave a chat 09:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The term may indeed have more than one meaning but one, 'The pruning of trees to obtain an natural shape', is vastly more common and notable. Just ask any arborist or look on Google.
We do not contrive to find "accurate" titles that nobody in the real world uses. That rules out all of the "Shaping plants..." titles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
That is exactly what WP polict tells us to do in cases of disputed naming of new convepts like this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia's core policy WP:NPOV section Article naming quote "might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view" Which is why tree shaping was picked in the first place, it is broader material and it had been used by published media about this art form. Blackashhave a chat 11:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
To quote Colonel warden, "Naming conflicts are common on Wikipedia - for a recent example, see Big Ben. Accordingly, there is extensive guidance on the matter. WP:NAMECON, MOS:TM and WP:NEO seem most relevant. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2009(UTC)" Good info here. Blackashhave a chat 12:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Once again WP policy says: "If it has never been stable, or unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." Also I believe editors with a clear conflict of interest should avoid editing or attempting to influence debate regarding this article. Colincbn (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Once again, it was contentious before the name change, and has had controversy about the definition of arborsculpture though out the history of this talkpage. Here is summary of the different comments with links. Lets focus on finding neutral name instead of going over the old arborsculpture debate. Suggest a title that meets WP:NAMECON or find references for one of the other suggestions, as at this time it is not suitable for arborsuclpture to be the title.Blackashhave a chat 14:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Proposal to move to 'Shaping Forming plants through inosculation to form useful or artistic items' pending further discussion
As the independent editor who closed the proposal to move this article back to 'Arborsculpture' to made the astonishing decision not to do so and the current title is not neutral and means something completely different I propose to move this article to a the neutral title of 'Shaping plants through inosculation to form useful or artistic items' as required by WP policy unless there is a clear consensus not to do so.
I have slightly changed the title to completely remove any contentious words. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The article should remain with that title until the issue of return to 'Arborsculpture' has been finally settled by mediation, arb--Griseum (talk) 03:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)itration, or some other means. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I looked at the suggestions above and think "Shaping plants through inosculation" is better. If someone shaped a plant to be not useful or artistic, the result would still be suitable for this article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I think if you drop that out then this article becomes a clone of Living sculpture. You would have to include Bonsai, Pleaching and Espalier as well, which the article clearly states this is not. Colincbn (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Do we have any examples of the arborsculpture that doesn't uses inosculation? It is easy to imagine we might have trees shaped to resemble corkscrews or whatever without inosculation being involved. As much as I detest the way a single COI-fueled editor has turned everyone else attempts to improve this article into a major battle, I didn't have a huge problem with the title until User:Martin Hogbin convinced me that the term "tree shaping" is already in use for something else. Typing "tree shaping is" (in quotation marks) into a search engine and seeing the results will demonstrate that User:Martin Hogbin is very correct and therefore the current title must NOT remain in place. --Griseum (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Support I think WP policy is clear on this issue, and while I would have preferred to move to the original name this seems the next best option. Colincbn (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Another option is "Shaping plants to form useful or artistic items" if insoculation is not always used.Colincbn (talk) 01:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Too longwinded and obscure. AfD hero (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Insoculation is not always used. Axel Erlandson has some that aren't grafted, we also have some that don't use insoculation. Blackashhave a chat 08:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
There are always exceptions but 'inosculation' is the only common feature of nearly all the work described in this article. If the subject is not sufficiently distinctive then it must me merged or deleted. This is a temporary move so that we can consider those options from a neutral position. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
While the current name has got to go, I would advocate a less wordy term. "Insoculation sculpture" maybe? But that reeks of us creating a neologism to suit our purposes. Isn't there a word that has been used by the media and by academia for over a decade? Yes there is. That word is “arborsculpture,” but a lone woman in Australia seems to be devoting her life to bullying people into believing that word “controversial,” or a neologism, or doesn't translate well into Japanese (yes, I am serious, that was one of her arguments) or whatever she can come up with on the spot to obstruct its usage. So where does that leave us? --Griseum (talk) 03:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
@Griseum Please stop lying, there is controversy about the definition of arborsculpture as can be see though out the history of this talk page. I created this list for you when you made this accusation before, link to of some of the editors with issues about Arborsculpture and if you don't like that list look up in the section above about changing the title section. Blackashhave a chat 07:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
How about biotecture, I started researching this word and it has been around in published media since the late 70's. It may be suitable.
Tree Circus and grown furniture was used at the world expo Japan in 2005, but it will take time to get the published references in English. There are others, maybe the way to go about this is to create a list of the different suggestions and have editors voice which ones may be worth researching.
I'll start a new section with some suggestions and find references please feel free to add to the list either names or references. I will start with tree shaping as there are references for it use in this art form, I also start listing some references I found for biotecture. Blackashhave a chat 07:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Arborsculpture has already been ruled out as can be seen in the section of Requested move and had a huge discussion, Please let focus the other suggestions. Blackashhave a chat 08:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Nothing has been ruled out. The editor who closed the request to move simply did not make the move. Once we are moved to a neutral title we can begin a sober and fair discussion of possible snappier titles. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Multiple editors opposed the move to arborsculpture, it not like you and others didn't get to make your points about arborsculpture. Let discuss some options that are neutral instead of going over the same old ground again and again.Blackashhave a chat 11:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Multiple editors would have also opposed the move to Tree shaping as well, but they were never given the chance. Colincbn (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I have now moved the article to an obviously neutral but rather cumbersome title pending further discussion on a better titleMartin Hogbin (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I see that this was a good faith effort to select a non-controversial lily pad to step upon, but ick. I don't care for this (even temporary) title, not least due to the duplicitous use of the words forming and form. I should have rang in on this earlier, but was otherwise occupied. I also see that the page has been returned to its still-unacceptable title. Forward we go. Duff (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Alternative title names
Is any editor still interested is discussing alternative title names? I will continue to find references for the suggested titles for other editors to reference back to if and when there is a sensible discussion about a neutral title. Blackashhave a chat 07:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The last naming discussion was inconclusive. But notice that nearly everyone really involved with actually editing this article, except for User:Blackash, believes "arborsculpture" would be the best title. A few less-involved and less-informed editors have been fooled into thinking this is a controversial term by User:Blackash's campaign of misinformation. If not for User:Blackash's blatant, shameless, inexcusably COI-fueled involvement with this article, it would be called “arborsculpture” and no one would question it. When our conversation becomes based on verifiable printed sources rather than User:Blackash's flimsy arguments, the article will be renamed “arborsculpture.” We've thought about other names before and none are as prominent, specific, or self-explanatory as “arborsculpture.” IMO, to waste time and energy investigating the possibility of other names would be further capitulation to User:Blackash's incessant bullying. As soon as it is “Wiki-legal” to again propose a name change to arbosculpture, let's do it, and let's show everyone the sources I found. User:Blackash's rebuttal is as flimsy as it was in February 2010 and I don't expect it to get much better. --Griseum (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I am interested in an examination of the current consensus for moving the article to Arborsculpture. Martin, you suggest that there is a consensus of editors who visit here regularly who hold this view. Could you please collect their names and post them in a separate section? I realize this is tedious work but it's necessary. It will help to enforce the consensus if we have this information centrally-located. There's nothing not "wiki-legal" about proposing the page move right now, today, if you can show a consensus to do so. Of course others who support specific other suggestions should also be listed. I don't think someone who has said they don't like arborsculpture, or some other name, but who provided no preferred alternative, should be counted, given the length of time that this dispute has gone on. It's time to find a resolution. — e. ripley\talk 19:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, and also agree with both Griseum and Martin Hogbin. Here goes... Duff (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Consensus already established to move the page back to Arborsculpture
Not at all tedious, as the work is already done. I made the same statement above (as does Griseum, about consensus having already been reached, both prior to and during the RfM) and I compiled most of the names yesterday, as noted in my comment. That consensus was shared by User:Mdvaden, User:Griseum, User:Duff, User:Colincbn, User:Martin Hogbin, User:Slowart, User:Quiddity, and possibly also User:Johnuniq. There may be others who also expressed the same sentiment. Yes, there were dissenters, most notably User:Blackash. I chose the RfM process, post-consensus, instead of just moving it back per clear policy, given the amount of heat the move back to the original name, even per WP policy, was sure to generate from one loud source (which it did, and from that source). E. Ripley, I take your point made earlier about the proper approaches to solve the underlying problem, and will pursue those as well. Thank you for the guidance on that. I am curious, was your arrival here in response to any particular wikiproject request or other process? Duff (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I saw this listed on the RFC page. Just happenstance. — e. ripley\talk 01:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Right on. We asked for more new eyes at each of the interested wikiprojects, as well as via the RfC, and I wondered which approach had been more productive. Thanks for jumping in! Duff (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
With regards to Arborsculpture, we just had this discussion a few days ago, and the result was not to move it there. If you don't like the result, then thats a sad day for you. Either escalate to a higher level of dispute resolution or drop the subject. AfD hero (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean by 'the result was not to move it there'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I see you do not want to answer this question. Let me remind how the article got to be moved to 'Tree shaping' in the first place. On 10 January 2009, you said, 'Since, as far as I can tell, the term "arbosculpture" is not universally agreed upon in the tree-shaping community or the media, I moved the page to the more generic name "tree shaping". I think this is solid reasoning, but I would also like to hear your side of the story. But first lets take this to the Tree Shaping talk page'. That was the decision. An arbitrary decision taken by you, against all WP policy to move the page. No RfC, no consensus, just your personal decision. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Until someone presents proper written SOURCES indicating that “arborsculpture” is not a perfectly good name for this article I see no reason to stop working towards having it renamed. The fact that some barely-involved editors agree with the OPINIONS of User:Blackash, an editor whose behavior should concern any conscientious Wikipedia, doesn't impress me. I am also concerned about the source of some of the opinions tallied. It may be helpful to look at edit histories.User:MarkPrimack ([1]) seems to be someone with a RL grudge/COI against toward Richard Reames. User:Sydney Bluegum, who confusingly said "The word arborsculture has a gender bias" has exactly 3 edits. Whereas the statements of people who just stopped in to opine aren't something we totally disregard, these particulars concern me. There is every indication that until the title of the article itself is changed to “arborsculpture”, User:Blackash will continue to misuse Wikipedia to establish the notion that the term “arborsculpture” is a specific and inferior method of creating unusally-shaped trees. --Griseum (talk) 22:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
AfD hero, you are mistaken in assuming that I have any emotional connection to the outcome of these proceedings or to the title or content of the article. I neither 'like' nor 'don't like' the outcome of the RfM. I have nothing at stake whatsoever. I have made quite clear, as have other editors, that we do indeed intend to proceed further, or escalate, to use your term. That process is well underway. The RfC and then the RfM were both part of that continuing process. So, no, we won't be dropping the subject.
The result of the recent RfM was incorrect, but then so was the result of that other earlier proceeding, which you were so BOLD about: Not an RfM as it should have been, but a instead a slick but poorly informed move on your part, reaching out from an RfD for Pooktre, which changed the original name without discussion. Still, I appreciate the opportunity to learn, particularly from your mistake there, how to proceed carefully and diplomatically through the appropriate processes of dispute resolution, and I will continue to do so, at the speed my own budget for both time and gasoline will allow.
Please note that e. ripley has suggested yet another approach, involving clearly inventorying the already-extant consensus which preceded the RfM. I think that is a great idea. I addressed it directly, and so forward we go.
I will always prefer the approach that wastes the least editorial time, for obvious reasons. Still, I'm in no hurry at all. The wheels of justice at wikipedia turn slow but grind fine, right? Hopefully that does not bring you a sad day. Cheers! Duff (talk) 01:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Please provide links to the mediation or dispute resolution pages you have listed tree shaping on. AfD hero (talk) 05:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Pending further discussion on a final title. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Oppose (please make another suggestion if you oppose Tree art)
Nope. Some of the same troubles as with tree shaping: Not just trees, and this would include dead trees. Also not just art. Live woody plant craft is right on point for descriptiveness, but only as a temporary title...but I am fairly sure it's not worth the trouble to move the article twice anyway, and it has no sources either. Arborsculpture has a large consensus (which I have recompiled again, above, in response to a request to do so), and a long list of reliable sources that demonstrate its common usage to describe the craft (which have also been recompiled repeatedly and are cited all across the article)! It is not a method, it is not a neologism, it is not a trademark, and it is not associated with any one artist more strongly than any other (Reames is relatively unknown, period). These points have been conclusively demonstrated. No evidence or reliable sources have been presented to demonstrate otherwise. I am not for ignoring that enormous amount of work by multiple editors, citing, demonstrating, and proving all this to be true over a period of years, now. I am for pursuing it closely according to policy. WP:Article titles#Considering title changes specifies this choice. There is no fully-informed argument that supports an exception to that policy. Return to original name; wrongly switched with inappropriately minimal study and discussion. Duff (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Duff, I agree with you, but sometimes I allow reality to cloud my judgment. I tried moving the article to a clearly neutral and reasonably accurate descriptive name only to find that an admin immediately reverted my move, without discussion or consensus, and then locked the page. I agree that 'Tree art' is a bad title. It does not in any way separate the subject of this article from dozens of other possible ways in which trees might be used for art and it has no general usage whatsoever for this subject. On the other hand 'Tree art' does not have any obvious commercial connection and it is not a term commonly used by arborists to mean something other than the subject of this article.
WP policy is quite clear on what the title of this article should be but unfortunately many that come here are persuaded otherwise by specious arguments and intensive campaigning. Even the opinion of new, previously uninvolved editors who have taken the trouble to do a bit of background research is not given any weight or credence. What can we do? The current title is unacceptable. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Neutral
Pros: Neutral, descriptive, not associated with non-artistic tree shaping. Cons: not used in sources (so far as I can tell), overly broad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afd hero (talk • contribs)
Oppose
Why are we trying to be creative in thinking up new terms for what has already been named? I have seen zero verifiable evidence that support's the opinion of User:Blackash that the term “arborsculpture” is a specific method, a neologism, and a proprietary name. --Griseum (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Tree Shaping (Art) + disambiguation page, Section 2
Section break for convenience (continuation of previous section)
Let me remind everyone that this section is purely for discussion of the pros and cons of "Tree shaping (art)" + disambiguation, and not to discuss any other titles (arborsculpture, tree art, etc). If you want to do that go a different section. It should be clear by now that such discussion will inevitably lead to bickering and walls of text rehashing points already discussed.
Now with that out of the way, I submit the following updated points against "Tree shaping (art)". So as to not put words in anyone's mouth, I will simply mention the issue in a bullet point without interpretation or endorsement.
1) Artistic vs. non-artistic use of the term.
2) Behavior and commercial aspects related to editor blackash.
3) Dispute over sources and real-world usage of the term.
4) Use of plants other than trees.
5) WP:Article naming#Considering title changes.
If anyone disagrees with this characterization, or has any additional points, please post below. AfD hero (talk) 10:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Oppose the creation of "Tree shaping (art)" + disambiguation for the same reasons I oppose the current title of the article and I oppose efforts to look for new alternatives before sources invalidating the obvious title ("arborsculpture") are produced. Well-intentioned efforts to make everyone happy have mired this article for far too long. While compromise is our bread and butter, ultimately we are here to improve Wikipedia per policy not to make all interested parties equally (un)happy.--Griseum (talk) 10:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Crazy I am hard pressed to think of a more ridiculous idea, to intentionally use a phrase that is widely used in the same industry to mean something different and then need a disambiguation page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
This is point 1) above. Do you have anything new to add? AfD hero (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
This is not a vote. If you wish to talk about "arborscultpure", that is a fine topic, but do so in another section.AfD hero (talk) 10:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
We don't vote on Wikipedia, we opine, and I was giving my opinion. I mentioned “arborsculpture” in passing because it's 100% germane to my reasons for disagreeing with your suggestion. If you don't want opinions about your suggestion please explain what you do want. I see no indications that your trying to be anything other than helpful and would, therefore, try to oblige. --Griseum (talk) 10:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Your point appears to be "For reasons X Y and Z, I think arborsculpture is the best". That's fine, but its really about arborsculpture and not at all about "tree shaping (art)". I'm trying to break it down here and give everyone a chance to make their points about each topic without having everyone start bickering over stuff we've already discussed. This is your chance to say why you think "tree shaping (art) is not good. AfD hero (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Two distinct (but somewhat pleached) problems
From my perspective, there are two problems slowing development of a quality page, in no particular order:
The article name
An obstreperous editor(s)
Neither is intractable. Neither is dependent on the other. One is perhaps more disturbing than the other; which one? We need to move forward, so which shall we handle first? Should we ignore both? Ignore either? Are there additional concerns? I'd really like to help get this article to GA status as soon as possible. Please convey your thoughts on the best way forward. Duff (talk) 14:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Images
Lead image
I think John Krubsack's chair would be a better image to use in the lead. It's the first known example of a grown chair. A unifying theme between tree shapers is to shape a tree/s to sit on.
John Krubsack
Axel Erlandson
Nirandr Boonnetr
One of the German Tree shapers I don't remember who, next week I'll find out who and put it here.
Pooktre (us)
Dr Christopher Cattle
Richard Reames
John Gathright
Mr Wu
Plantware (Ezekiel Golan and Yale Stav)
Dr Lois Walpole
People are fascinated by the concept of growing a chair as can be see by the fact Richard Reames titled his first book How to grow a chair. Out of all our images our chair and people trees are the ones that receive the most interest. Blackashhave a chat 02:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I hesitantly agree. I recently chose the Erlandson image for the lead, primarily because it shows a living shaped tree, which I thought to be an important aspect. (I was also unaware of the larger Krubsack chair image). Any clear and large image works for me. Actually, given the large size of the TableofContents box, we could easily fit two images in the lead. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I moved John Krubsack's chair to the lead, I left Axel's image there for now. I think a colour photo would be nice as the second lead image maybe another one of Axel's trees but in colour? Blackashhave a chat 00:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Support the empty sepia-tone Krubsack chair image as the lead. Classy, evocative shot. Support consideration of an alternate Erlandson image for the 2nd lead image, expecting both color and equivalent profundity. Duff (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Number of Images
If any more images are moved onto the Tree shaping article, I think the page should have a gallery section for the images. Blackashhave a chat 00:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, for now. The article is developing nicely and the images seem well distributed with the text at this point. Duff (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
And so the default position is now just delete the images Blackash does not feel are needed in her article. Appalling. Duff (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Watermarked Images
These two images are not publishable due to their watermarks. Becky's Mirror and Person Tree. I'm removing them for now, per WP:WATERMARK and curiously also User Talk:Blackash#Watermarks. Please feel free to resubmit non-watermarked images, especially the mirror, which I've seen several better images of, without watermarks.
I'm also moving one of Blackash's questions (#5) from down below to this section, as it's about images, specific to this concern, and pertains in part to the image she has made an edit request on, pertaining to the citation used for the picture. Recaptioning can be discussed in this section on a case by case basis, once we have images that meet the requirements. That question is below. Duff (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
(cc'd response and my additional request to here from my User talk:Duff page)
I've removed the water marks, links to the files here and here. Blackashhave a chat 04:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Two questions (and I'm cc'g this to the existing discussion on this @ Talk:Tree shaping#Watermarked Images so we can continue this there.:
1. Can you please explain why the new person tree photo is 4x the KB that it originally was: 671KB vs 164KB on the watermarked photo? That seems odd for a photo of the same size: 733x550. An image of the same or very similar KB size would be much appreciated.
2. On the mirror, can you please submit a photo that is of just one image of the mirror, even if it's just cropping this photo in half? This looks most like a catalog image. You have more flattering images of this piece, again, by the way, and it is a beauty. Also, just a note for comparison, this image increased in KB size too, but not nearly by the same order of magnitude. 68KB-->100KB
1. Umm it must have been the way I saved it. I'll work on it.
2. This piece is done in the round and that is why it has the front and back view. For the catalog look would it help if it was on a white back ground instead. Also this mirror is never for sale.Blackashhave a chat 14:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
2. A single image, the best you've got, is preferred. Readers can imagine the back, as they do with the other images on the article. Your photo notes state that you've combined two images to create this one. If you do not wish to submit another better photo, then please pick one of the two for this article, because undue weight is weighing quite heavily by now. I'm pretty sure you can see that if you step back and consider carefully. If you'd rather not include it at all, that would be ok too, though it's lovely. Duff (talk) 09:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Image Citations
5) In the caption of this image Pooktre mirror frame shaped from its roots at planting in 1996 and as it grew, harvested in 2004, finished in 2005 and exhibited at the World's Fair Expo 2005 [1] on the right (taken from the front page) is a reference used that was a marketing tactic by Richard Reames to brand Arborsculpture across our work and link back to himself. Please change this ref for this one Citation| title = "Warwick artist grows wooden 'jewels' for world Expo"| magazine = The southern Free Times Newspaper.| pages = 20| page=4| date = 20th April 2005| url = | accessdate =
This change is on hold, pending submission for consideration of a single image of the mirror. I mildly object to changing the current citation (should that photo be re-submitted and then selected for use), as the claim against the current citation (above) is an unsourced claim, having little relevance, if any, to the facts cited by the extant and verifiable citation. The current full reference directly cites all the information in the caption, is easily accessible to WP:Verify, and is adequate to the task of citing the caption. Duff (talk) 05:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
This beautiful image was found on commons and clearly illustrates one of Reames' chairs. It is used in Blackash's sandbox only at this time. The author is noted as Blackash, with credit offered to Arborsmith.com. I don't get it. Please explain. Is Blackash the artist? Is this a tracing? What is the nature of this image and how and when was it created? Is there any reason not to use this in the article? Duff (talk) 05:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes I'm the artist, it's not a tracing. I drew this with my own hands. It is representation drawing of Richard Reames living bench chair. As the drawing is based on a real arborsculpture I thought it should be credited to Arborsculpture.com. So go ahead and use it.Blackashhave a chat 08:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Well that is pretty impressive. You are a talented sketch artist. Duff (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Objection to hasty close
I feel the move request was closed far too hastily (1 hour) without the closer possibly having fully appreciated the scope of the problem and its discussions. I have posted a message at User Talk:RegentsPark, requesting that admin to reconsider and take a little more time to more fully consider the issues. Yes, there is a backlog at Requested moves and yes, it is important to keep things moving forward over there, but this is not a good solution. Keeping the page title as it is violates several wikipedia policies and guidelines, as clearly articulated by several editors in the discussion above, and I don't feel that either the editing atmosphere at this page or the page itself will benefit from leaving the title as it stands. Duff (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
This is what I posted on the closer's page:
Hello RegentsPark. While I appreciate your help in moving things forward, you have closed a discussion on this page move, I feel, too hastily. Given the easily hundreds of hours that have gone into the discussion, just on the move itself, let alone during what clearly was a 3 year long battle on the page itself, it is difficult to imagine that you might have adequately considered, much less fully appreciated the depth of the issues discussed, in one hour of study for your closing. The reason I say this is that it took me almost 2 months to understand what had happened after I started working on that page this past April.
One point that you have clearly not addressed is the fact that the phrase 'tree shaping', which was arbitrarily and capriciously chosen in the first place, off the discussion page and completely without consensus, is itself not at all neutral. Your closing explanation seems to conflate the trade name Pooktre, with the phrase used to re-title the page. Pooktre is an established trade name of the questionable editors. It is not at all generic, nor in common usage, and is thus not under any consideration as a title for the page. Clear consensus was already reached that the current page title is unsatisfactory. We have carefully and clearly documented, concerning the phrase 'tree shaping' that:
1. This phrase is being used inappropriately and not generically, by one pair of involved editor/author/artists, posting under a single user name, in a long and nasty campaign both on and off-wiki, to benefit themselves and disparage another editor/author/artist, and
2. This phrase is also, perversely enough, in well-entrenched common usage to describe a different subject: arboriculture, a point that was raised early on and had strong consensus.
I do understand that it is entirely your option to re-list or not, and to move or not, based on the strength of the arguments for & against, but do you not think, given the consensuses that were reached by non-involved editors and also given that the discussion is ongoing or has not reached a reasonable conclusion, that relisting would have been more appropriate in this case?
I agree with Martin Hogbin that a closing discussion is needed to reach further consensus. Without one that is satisfactory to all participating editors, and not just to the one involved editor who precipitated the original and very suspicious change, I feel that the editing atmosphere on that page is unlikely to improve and thus that the page itself is likely to suffer, not least in terms of content dilution. A page titled 'tree shaping' can no longer describe the specific and fascinating art that the article content presently describes (and which is and has been for many decades practiced by those artists detailed therein), but must instead also encompass fully all the myriad other arboricultural practices inherent in the actual activities of shaping trees. There would be no reason (or space) in such an article to include any of these inosculation artists, or their craft, at all. See?Duff (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
(od) My rationale for what I think is the consensus decision is fairly detailed and considers arguments made by all uninvolved editors as well as those made by involved editors. Every contentious move discussion leaves one side or the other unhappy. You can either live with it (from wikipedia's point of view that would be ideal!) or, if you are convinced that the current title is a travesty, you can take whatever next steps you consider appropriate in the [[WP:DR|dispute resolution process]. Either way, I don't see any new arguments being made here that warrant continuing the RM discussion. (Note: To be honest, I am a little takenaback that you consider my spending upward of an hour on the close 'hasty'.) --RegentsPark (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I was not aware that anyone here had agreed that RegentsPark should make a final decision on whether to move this article. That decision should be made according to a consensus of editors here and who have actually participated in this discussion. There is a clear consensus, which is in full accordance with WP policy, to move this page and I suggest that we do so. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
RegentsPark, I am convinced that the current title is a travesty and I do intend to pursue it further if necessary (as you have also suggested); I believe with the support of several other neutral uninvolved editors who participated extensively in the discussion and did reach a clear consensus, one which you have not acknowledged or respected in your close. I am also going to return the original initial discussion paragraph to the top of the closing discussion, from whence it was apparently inadvertently omitted. Note: Please do not be taken too far aback, dear RegentsPark, as I meant (and mean) no personal offense whatsoever to you. As I said, and I meant it sincerely, I appreciate your effort. However, I and several other editors have invested an ENORMOUS amount of time in careful research, discovery, discussion, and preparation for this very juncture. I am certain that none of us, including you, wishes that editorial time to have been invested in vain. Frankly, and don't be disturbed by this either please, because it is no insult: I understand that you took the responsibility for getting this RfM close over with, but nobody reads that fast for comprehension. Nobody. While one hour might be painstakingly long to close the vast majority of RfM's, IMHO, this one is not one of those. This page and its editors have already endured much and have continued to make improvements to the article and to the broader Wikipedia at the same time, albeit under great duress. We need a set of eyes with enough time to give this article's title quackery a full and in-depth consideration, given the serious matters presented herein. Thank you again for your time. Duff (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Martin Hogbin, while I share your view, and though that is an exceedingly tempting proposal, I personally do not wish to run afoul of community norms as established by the dispute resolution process, which I am furiously familiarizing myself with at present, having never previously so engaged. If you can show me where your approach is appropriate, given the course that we are currently on and the point we seem to have reached in it, I am all ears...eh, eyes. Let's discuss it. Duff (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
It is clear to me that the article cannot remain as 'Tree shaping' as that means something else. If we cannot reach a consensus to move it back to 'Arborsculpture' then I will propose a move to a properly neutral and descriptive title as proposed above. Nealy all the objections to the earlier proposed move were based on suggestions that 'Arborsculpture' is not neutral. I will shortly propose a move to a neutral title if there is no strong objection from a significant fraction of editors. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
(od) Martin Hogbin, FYI, contested move discussions are closed by editors who are uninvolved in the discussion and who No user, whether an administrator or otherwise, should ever close a requested move discussion they participated in except if the discussion reaches a unanimous result after a full listing period (seven days) (from Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions). When a move is listed on WP:RM, it includes the explicit assumption that someone not connected with the discussion will close it. The discussants have no say in who that editor will be. --RegentsPark (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I am so far in favor of pursuing the current move proposal, back to the original and quite neutral title, further up the DR chain of command, rather than establishing a whole new set of arguments to support a different and less well-established neutral phrase as a name for the article. Is there any good reason not to proceed up the line? On a point of etiquette/policy, RegentsPark, can you please advise: Is the editorial staff at this page under any specific obligation not to go ahead and do this move ourselves (or some other move, as has been suggested) based upon the clear evidence presented and consensuses that were established around that evidence, rather than upon your (let's call it) prompt decision not to do the move for us? If we are under such an obligation (I'm thinking we might be), could you specify what that obligation is, please, so that all fine editors can understand clearly what our responsibilities and limitations are, if any? Also, given the easily anticipated contest of any other proposed move, is it correct to assume that a different move proposal, as suggested and already discussed in detail as an other option, would also need at this point to endure another similar (at least) 7 day process at RfM? Thanks.Duff (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Duff, generally once a move request is settled by an independent editor it would be disruptive to move the article as you suggest. (It also reeks of bad faith since you filed the original move request!) Since the move has been closed, the proper approach is to go up the chain of dispute resolution. For example, you could take the case to the [[WP:MC}Mediation committee]] for a formal mediation process. I would suggest that that is the way to go if you want to force further consideration of Arborsculpture as a title. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
RegentsPark, thank you for the clarification. Please note that no one is 'reeking of bad faith', including me. I did file the original move request, and I do stand behind it firmly, but I was not the origin of the suggestion to go ahead and move it post-close. I responded here clearly to that suggestion, that I thought such an approach might be problematic and would seek further guidance. My question here to you, following that suggestion having been broached, was intended to seek that guidance from you, on protocol, so as not to be disruptive. Thank you again for providing that guidance. Duff (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I've stricken the bad faith portion of my earlier response. (I don't believe you are acting in bad faith and that implication was not intended.)--RegentsPark (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Whereas focusing on edits rather than editors is a Wikipedia guideline, it is a single editor – User:Blackash – that has made this article “controversial” and has wasted hundreds of hours of her fellow editors' time. Therefore, the subject of this post is User:Blackash herself.
I consider the recent statement made by "Griseum Please stop lying" to be a violation of Wikipedia:Civility. It is also ironic considering the source. I would characterize User:Blackash as someone who has spent 6 months clumsily “inventing truths” to serve a real life agenda. Since User:Blackash seems to believe "Griseum Please stop lying" is an appropriate thing to write, I am going to be a little more direct, and indeed a little less civil, than I have been up to this point.
The number of times that people have asked User:Blackash not to insert her comments out of sequence might number in the dozens. To what proportion this indicates a lack of mental acuity and to what proportion it is an extension of her general disrespect for Wikipedia is unclear. I hope she will eventually comply with this childishly simple guideline.
Also, it would be useful if User:Blackash would make shorter comments which are more carefully proofed for grammatical sense. I am not asking for perfect spelling and grammar, but there have been dozens of times when I have read a sentence from User:Blackash that has left me wondering, “What the hell is she even trying to say?” Maybe it's me who has a problem comprehending the written word? It isn't.
I have lost count of how many people have asked User:Blackash to recuse herself from editing this article. The amount of other editors' time she has wasted with her COI-fueled obsession with micromanaging this article is a disgrace.
I consider User:Blackash's refusal to recuse herself from this article to be a huge “Fuck You” to all of us. I brought this case to the COI noticeboard 6 months ago and no one showed interest in addressing what is happening here. That is a very different thing than if people disagreed that she has a gross COI. Perhaps this matter should again be brought to that noticeboard to address what has been going on here.
I am interested to know if other editors feel User:Blackash should continue deciding the form and content of this article. --Griseum (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I am a relative newcomer at this article, and I make no ultimate judgment myself about participating users' conduct, but given that at least one person is concerned and the view that Blackash has a COI is relatively widespread, perhaps it's time to open a user conduct Request for Comments. It is an early step in having sanctions imposed on disruptive editors — e. ripley\talk 16:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
To your question about whether Blackash should be topic-banned, of course everybody is welcome to their opinions, but as simple editors we don't have the power to decide to exclude someone from participation somewhere on Wikipedia. That would have to be decided by the Arbitration Committee, which will not hear any case before certain types of dispute resolution are at least attempted -- including a user conduct RFC, which is why I mentioned it above. — e. ripley\talk 17:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
First Griseum implied I only edit this article. Which wasn't true then or now. [2]
Then Griseum put a COI tag on the article, which was later removed with edit summary of COI is not clear
I then attempted reaching a consensus, I suggest we get Editor assistance to help and also started working though the changes to work with Griseum who just ignored any comments, and just refused to reply. I asked things like "Apart from bad grammar what is your issue with this sentence? Grammar can be fixed. Thou not by me :-)"
Griseum than stated I had a COI [3] and rejected my edits because quote "which are grammatically incorrect or sound like they are written by someone who hasn't quite mastered the English language" and yet Griseum seemed unable or unwilling to fix them. [4]
Griseum makes broad sweeping arguments and doesn't give links, so no one can check his statements.
Griseum again accused me of leading quote "a campaign to have "tree shaping" rather than "arborsculpture" as the title of the article" under recap plus other stuff. To which I rebutted and give links move from arborsculpture and AFD Pooktre
I called a Truce to which Griseum made all the changes he wanted with edit summary of (supposed compromise does not reflect any of the edits i feel are important. WTF?) diff
Then a bit more discussion.
So yes Griseum knew there are multiple editors that have an issue with the word Arborsculpture. ::*Griseum has shown hostility to me from the start.
Point of note if you go and read the history Please note that editor 208.59.93.238 and 96.233.40.199 are Griseum they self outed.
Griseum quote "insert her comments", it has been 3 times and was to do with edit conflict each time.
Griseum quote "lost count of how many people have asked User:Blackash to recluse herself from editing this article" I check for you and let you know. Blackashhave a chat 18:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
As most of editors don't have any of the books on the subject it a bit hard for them know what is said in reference and citations.
As most of the article is not about Pooktre there isn't a COI.
I don't edit war, I will call for a truce rather that push my point of view. Which each time has resulted the article giving undue weight to one neologism.
How are you going to know when some of the editors will lead you up the garden path, as some will lie?
I not pushing to get Pooktre more noticed that others neologisms on the page. Blackashhave a chat 18:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Pooktre is not a neologism it is clearly a trade name, as in 'Pooktre tree shapers'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Check your definition again, quote Neologisms Neologisms are often directly attributable to a specific person, publication, period, or event. I don't think anyone disagrees we created the word Pooktre. Blackashhave a chat 07:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
5 Proofs of COI
I don't care about User:Blackash's flimsy, confusing, inaccurate, and valueless “rebuttal.” I walked away from this article for 3 months to let others mold it and/or see what was really happening here. Now I want to know what other editors think about this situation. In driving home the fact that User:Blackash has a COI that is disrupting Wikipedia, I would focus on the following 5 points:
User:Blackash is mentioned prominently in the article and is a person professionally and publicly involved with this craft.
User:Blackash made the statement on Wikipedia “My only agenda if there is one is not to have our work branded with someone else's methods of shaping trees. I don't care if the name of the artform as a whole is Tree shaping or Tree training etc... these name don't have a method link to them. Arborsculpture is linked to a method.” That is a written confession of a motive entirely separate from improving Wikipedia.
User:Blackash is ignoring the multiple verifiable written sources which indicate arborsculpture is certainly not a specific method. Even in the recent naming discussion she put forth the misinformation that “Arborsculpture is a method of shaping trees.”
User:Blackash repeatedly says that the word arborscupture “leads to” Richard Reames because many web searches of the word “arborsculpture” lead to pages where he is mentioned. He is often mentioned because he is a published author and lecturer with almost 20 years involvement in this craft. She is a lesser-known, less accomplished professional rival who actively works to discredit Reames (see next point).
User:Blackash is chasing the word “arbosculpture” around the internet, telling people it doesn't apply to the work of people such as Erlandson, and directing them to the Wikipedia article that she herself is editing as proof of her claim. (examples)
If this isn't manifested COI to the detriment of Wikipedia, what is? --Griseum (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
This is not the place for this sort of discussion. Please move it to a user conduct RFC. — e. ripley\talk 20:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
That may be one of the only options that we have left. That or COI noticeboard. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Re: method. Blackash is still pushing the idea that there is a method associated with arborsculpture. I was looking for pictures of non-inosculated but shaped trees at commons, and found File:Chair1.jpg, where I had to fix this misinformation. Just noting. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I share the view that User:Blackash should not continue deciding or influencing the form and content of this article, nor of related articles. A link will be provided soon to the draft RfC/U, so that those who also share that view can help make it a good tight RfC/U. Interested participants can study the process at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. Duff (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Axel Erlandson
Based upon the opinion of User:Blackash that the term “arborsculpture” is a specific method, a neologism, and a proprietary name, this term has been deliberately excluded from the article on Axel Erlandson. While the term “arborsculpture” postdates Erlandson's work, the fact that NUMEROUS media sources have used it to refer to his work is concretely verifiable. Editors keeping abreast of the situation here may also wish to see what's been said at Talk:Axel Erlandson. --Griseum (talk) 09:27, 28 June 2010 (UT
I'm not the only editor who states the arborsculpture is a neologism. (Other editors here) "Where editors disagree about the use of these neologisms it is best to err on the side of not using them." quote form Wikipedia:Avoid_neologismsBlackashhave a chat 09:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Rather than use a supposed “neologism” coined almost 20 years ago – a widely-circulated term approximately as old as the terms “internet” and “world wide web” – User:Blackash would have us use a term for something else (the pruning of trees for practical purposes) which she and her partner are seeking to redefine to match the name of their website and their business. Shall we oblige? By the way, the policy on neologisms doesn't even apply here as the term “arborsculpture” has been used in more verifiable secondary sources than anyone could possibly count. Anyone in doubt should read the policy. --Griseum (talk) 10:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
As you know time is not the deciding factor on whether or not a word is a nelolgism, quote "Neologisms may take decades to become "old", however". Tree shaping is used for this art form in published books. 1. We didn't change this article from Arborsculpture to tree shaping. 2.We don't care what the name of the art-form is as long as it's doesn't have a method or leads to one person. 3. The only list you have given uses the word arborsulpture. You had to do original research which shows Arborsculpture in use, then determine the meaning of that use. From Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term, not books and papers that use the term. Blackashhave a chat 10:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Half-false, false, and false (1,2,& 3) On NEO, Yer missin it, but yer quotin' it. Odd. You are beating a dead horse here with the same faulty stick you have been banging for over a year. Your efforts are considered bullying and inappropriate. Do you get it? Anyway, this debacle has spread to infect Axel Erlandson, Arboriculture, Expo 2005, and probably other articles. I say we stop now and stop it now. Duff (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
General comment: Without commenting on whether or not arborsculpture is a neologism, note that the 'avoid neologisms' policy applies to articles - not to references within articles. There is no reason why a well sourced word, neologism or not, cannot be used in the text of an article. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Quote from Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms "The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles." Isn't this stating not to use a term within other articles until secondary sources become availabe? Blackashhave a chat 22:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
My reading of this is that it refers solely to articles on neologisms. So, where it says "the term does not need to be in wikipedia", the intent is that the term should not be in wikipedia in the form of an article. The section on neologisms is a part of the 'wikipedia is not a dictionary' policy which refers solely to definitional articles.--RegentsPark (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
If the policy on neologisms applied to this situation, which it doesn't, we have a deluge of secondary sources to justify its inclusion. By quoting policy that so OBVIOUSLY not does apply to the situation at hand User:Blackash continues to waste hundreds of hours of editorial efforts than could be spent elsewhere. Sometimes I think this isn't really even a real debate and that we are all being trolled as part of some inhumane experiment to see how long people will attempt to reason with someone who is cartoonishly unreasonable. --Griseum (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Mwahh-ah-ah-aahhh....maybe. "Cartoonishly unreasonable"...I am filing that one away for future battles. I'm also fixin yer note above, because I am sure that this is what you meant. Spank if incorrect. Duff (talk) 03:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
A deluge of secondary sources that are about the term arborsculpture? Griseum's links to date have been books and papers that use the term. Blackashhave a chat 09:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Wow
Wow. Really? Wow. W:OR and W:V are essentially opposites, and W:N we are not debating. User:Blackash, if your intention was to make me feel so sorry for you that I'd walk away for a while out of sheer embarassment for both of us, you've suceeded. --Griseum (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, WP:BREATHE, of course, but stay tuned loosely (at least) please, because clearly this problem has got to get solved. Duff (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Section Discussions
Lead section
The lead was recently rewritten/reduced. Per WP:LEAD, "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article." Hence I recommend that most of the previous content be restored, but incorporating any necessary rewriting for style and accuracy. (To be specific: for a FA quality article, the lead should be able to be mostly copy&pasted as the summary blurb on the main page.) See the guideline page for further details. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Secondly, the top image was moved down to be next to the appropriate section, which I agree with, but we now lack a lead image. I'd suggest File:Neadle.jpg is possibly the most appropriate (it is interesting, it is created by an important historical figure in the art, and it is understandable at thumbnail-size and fullsize). Other suggestions welcome though. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Here is the page before the changes [5] I had done some work on the Alternative names adding details about the names with references. Today the page is missing approximately 450 words of text. Whole sections have been removed. The two methods have been diluted and blended with some of the original references removed. There seems to be too many images to the text now and the lead is not a proper summary of the page. I feel the page has been effectively vandalized. @Slowart good luck with your lecture on arborsculpture at the International Society of Arboriculture. Blackashhave a chat 15:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Quiddity on both need for and choice of image for the lead. Fully support expanding summary, but not by directly repeating content in the article. Blackash, the page has not been vandalized. With the exception of deleting a single reference that was neither intelligible nor functional, I was careful to keep all references both intact and with the statements they referenced. If I missed any, it was unintentional. If I somehow misconstrued their proper location, please set that right without adding back repetitive material. I DID remove a LOT of repetitive material, particularly the direct repetition in the lead of two paragraphs from the article. That's not summarizing. . I reorganized and consolidated a number of verbose, clunky, and grammatically incorrect sentences and paragraphs, in several sections, into concise statements and ideas that flow from one to the next, hopefully building and conveying the idea smoothly. Word count is not a measure of informative content. It's supposed to be a concise encyclopedic article about arborsculpture, now being referred to by consensus (this I assume) as tree shaping. It's not a book. It's not supposed to be a how-to manual. It's not "battle of the sculptors and the finer fractional points of their methods," nor is it a debate on whose artistic technique is more pure, nor whose book is more popular or true, nor who sells more mirrors. I strove for neutrality, well aware of the ongoing editing issues among the (IMO) way-too-involved author/editor/artist/arborists who currently monitor this page. For just a single sticky example, waxing on about one's own (or someone elses) worldwide acclaim is not only not encyclopedic, it's unseemly. It is made immeasurably more so by adding copious and ever-more-poorly formatted references to the insisted acclaim. Further, there are several sections I haven't yet hammered at, that need it. Most particularly the protracted sections comparing arborsculpture to (and from this reader's perspective, defending it from encroachment by) each and every other horticultural art & practice. These sorts of writing read tensely and uncomfortably, like an argument, detracting from the fascinating topic. There may indeed be too many images for the text. Perhaps one exemplary image per artist is enough after all. ;) Duff (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Disagree with Duff, you have lied, for example about only removing one reference, in the Alternative names section there were 5 references with text which you removed and no longer appear any where on the article. missing Alternative names section In the history editors have agreed not to have any alternative names in the lead. Alternative names section should be put back to follow Wikipedia:LEADAlternative names quote
"Separate section usage
Alternatively, if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line."
It is not appropriate to have removed the Alternative names section and put the list of names back in the lead. Blackashhave a chat 02:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I have multiple issues with your edits. I see now that it wasn't simple vandalism but a tactical step in a planed agenda. Blackashhave a chat 02:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
"you have lied??" Reiterating: "If I missed any, it was unintentional." Thanks for continuing to Assume good faith, because I'll appreciate a civil discussion. My only agenda is a better wikipedia article. Duff (talk) 07:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
To be clear, I never thought it was right to change the name of this article to tree shaping. The editor who changed the page FYI AfD hero ( no edits since 2-09). The article name was changed [[6]] during an AFD on a different page. if anyone is interested. You are right, I am way-too-involved, now that there is more than one other person with this page on their watchlist, I am happy be be uninvolved. Good work on the article.Slowart (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
AKA Other Alternate Alternatives
Alternative names or Other names
I changed other names in the lead back to alternative names as alternative names is more commonly used than other names in wiki articles and the section name is alternative names.Blackashhave a chat 03:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with that edit revert. Other names is more appropriate in this wikipedia article because the other names used (not the several recently added which are NOT synonymous) are strongly associated with the art and should not be burdened with the dismissive undertone of 'alternativeness'. Your campaign to diminish or discredit the use of the word arborsculpture, by any and all means, while promoting an pushing forward the repetitive use of your preferred trade names is transparent, itches, and has my attention. Please take a breather. Thanks. Duff (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Alternative is the wording most in use though out Wikipedia articles.
The dismissive tone you think is there is also being applied to pooktre our "trade name" maybe the problem is not the tone but the fact you have a bias and you are seeing it in a more negative view than is warranted.
Which ones are you saying were just recently added? Blackashhave a chat 00:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Alternative or Alternate
(moved following comment from new section @ the bottom up to and as a subheading of the discussion it pertains to)
Changing Alternative to Alternate doesn't make sense. Blackashhave a chat 00:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Does it make any more sense to you when you consider it here, in the context of yesterday's discussion? It's an attempt at a compromise. Maybe usage is different in Australia, but I don't think so, and it may just be a nuance of the English language with which you are unfamiliar. Alternate is less dismissive than alternative. Using the word alternative conveys an air of fringe-ness to all the names it refers to, which isn't conveyed so obviously by either of the words 'other' or 'alternate.' Let's get consensus on this before you revert it again, please. Duff (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't appreciate your innuendo that I don't understand large words. Here is a link to dictionary.com with alternate and it's meaning. Alternate is not the right word when used in the context that you are wanting to use it. Try a different compromise. Blackashhave a chat 22:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I neither made nor meant any innuendo concerning "large words". My comment concerned the nuanced bias conveyed by the specific choice of the word Alternative. I was attempting to be as generous as possible in accommodating the possibilities that a) usage of the word Alternative in Australia may not be burdened with the same nuanced bias as its use is here, or b) that you may not be familiar with the bias inherent in its usage here and elsewhere, or c) if the nuanced bias is also present with usage of the word alternative in Australia, you may not be aware of it. Alternate conveys less bias than does Alternative. I stand by that preferred compromise, but also offer Synonyms and Synonymous Words as two other alternates with which I would also be satisfied as to neutrality. Duff (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Synonyms or Synonymous words seems to give to much weight to the names. Alternate is just wrong. I stand by that it should be Alternative names for the reasons listed above. Blackashhave a chat 10:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Welp, I don't mind waiting for further consensus to develop. Concerning your sense that any choice other than Alternative gives too "much weight to the names," I understand your perspective and why you have it, but I do not share your view. My sense, which is also open to change, is that the names treeshaping and Pooktre, have both been given entirely disproportionate weight for the topic, largely due to your directly involved and persistent influence. Less so (but still so) for the other "alternative names" dragged in to assert your case. I have expressed this clearly in previous comments. This is not bias. It is legitimate criticism and you've earned it. I get that you feel targeted, because you've placed a lot of your own energy in the article, but please recognize that doing so, in the way that you have, is improper. You'd be doing yourself and your reputation a huge favor to just accept that gracefully, learn from it, and move on. Eventually there probably will be separate articles spun out for Pooktre, for Reames, and for Cattle; you are all interesting and notable enough, I suspect, and YOU are going to have to learn to sit on your hands and restrain yourself from editing those too.
Other editors, including me, are working our way through a very long list of citations; many if not most of which are: added by you, duplicitous, oblique, poorly formatted, and missing key information. These factors alone cast serious doubt on the validity of the citations and that is why they are now under such intense scrutiny. Up until this point, that work has been complicated by your continued reverting of refs and facts that do not suit you, and you've made a lot of extra work. The task is to standardize formats on each reference, get all the cite info, read the material cited, verify its applicability to the content cited, and then properly analyze each individual citation for reliability. That will take some time, but it is crucial to fairly assessing how much weight is due in several areas. I trust that approach and your scholarly side should trust that approach too. Again, there is no hurry. If it doesn't get completely ironed out before your book release date, please just chalk it up to unpaid volunteers who must do other work (and even sleep!) at times, and who, you need to understand this, aren't doing this work to benefit you. Surely your 70+ tree shaping projects could benefit from your expert attention. Get some sleep, work on your own book bibliography, and avail yourself of some other legitimate avenues of marketing, OK? Not a big deal. Trust that the article will turn out well. You've done enough. Take comfort in the fact, if you can accept it, that I have no stake in the outcome, have nothing against you personally, am not professionally involved in your craft, and am working on the article solely for the purpose of making it better.Duff (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Ummm so that's your compromise, putting in the wording you wanted in the first place. Are you trying to imply that I'm in a rush? Remember I watch trees grow. Blackashhave a chat 11:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Right, that was my compromise, and now you have ignored the above discussion and admin comments, to wit: "Quiddity:I strongly agree that Blackash should not be editing this article with anywhere near the current magnitude. Blackash, I suggest you reread Wikipedia:COI#Non-controversial edits." Instead of following Quiddity's suggestion, you have boldly reverted what has already been noted as controversial, in its entirety, to the term you prefer. As I have stated, it is non-neutral, as it conveys fringe-ness where there is no consensus to relegate all of the other names to fringe-status by choosing a less-than-neutral section titling term to infer this lack of weight upon the other names. Let's don't call it rushing, shall we? Let's call it instead, what it is: refusing to wait for consensus, refusing to take note of admin instruction (that's meaning 1b @ Merriam-Webster on the word 'instruction', "a direction calling for compliance"), and instead plunging on forward at the same or greater level of magnitude, as previously uncomfortably stated here. Here is only the most recent specific series of reversions I am referring to: here, here, and here.
Please inspect the meaning #4, at the main entry for alternate [7]. You will notice that the secondary meaning is the verb, which is the way you are interpreting it, based on your edit summary notes and comments here, however I am clearly not using the word 'alternate' as a verb. I am using it as an adjective: Alternate Names, which is an acceptable and comprehensible, neutral use. So is 'other', as in Other Names. Please inspect the meaning of the adjective 'other' at the main entry at 1b. [8]. This regards choice of an alternate neutral adjective for the adjective you have chosen, 'alternative', as in Alternative Names, which please also inspect at the main entry, meaning #3a [9]. That is the non-neutral message that the use of the word alternative conveys, and that I am specifically referring to. Your comments nestled in your edit summaries belong here, where the discussion is taking place concerning the use of these words. Please do not edit this back to the less neutral wording. If you can think of even more neutral wording, please suggest it here for consideration, rather than continuing the already years-long crusade to purge the word 'arborsculpture' and then failing that, marginalize any use of it. These are the alternating (used as a verb, here) patterns, and the context is still: Tree shaping as an article title is NOT neutral, because it is strongly associated with Becky Northey, Peter Cook, Pooktre, treeshapers.net, and a wide variety of other unreliable sources across the web which we can't cite in this article. This is the problem, clearly stated, I hope, and with sincere intent to resolve the tedious conflict of edit warring. Frankly, I think the entire section on Alternate names needs to come out and be worked on here on the Talk page, since it is being used to establish these points, with references, and is not really article-class material at this time. The legitimate other names, and only those which legitimately are used interchangeably, should remain in the article, in the lead, at least until such time as a fully developed Alternate or Other Names section can be flipped back in. There is no good reason to bury them at the bottom of the article, purge them from the article and all associated articles, and then proceed to margininalize their use. That's not the purpose of the article at all. Kinda long winded, but that's what needed to get said, so let's get some thoughts from as many editors both involved and especially uninvolved as possible, and try to build some consensus please. Remember, everybody else watches trees grow, too. Duff (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
@ Duff, I agree. I suspect that until we have more experienced editors here who won't put up with COI editing and make space for neutral editors to do their work, that the tedious discussions and point by point contentions will continue. Take heart, It has been said, the wheels of Wikipedia justice grind slowly, but they grind fine. When referring to editors edits try to use the diff's url, it was hard to see what you were talking about. I know it's all temporary but check the AFTAU press release and see if..."Used as an alternative name for "the concept of shaping living trees into useful objects" by the eco-architecture team at TAU/Plantware[1]" is correct. I think it could be a false assumption. It is not the word used by the eco-architecture team I'm pretty sure that the word string was just chosen by the writer not the team, probably after a quick visit to this wiki page. For a word to be called an alternative or alternate it should register substantial usage, not just on some blogs or other poor citations IMO. Sure I agree, remove the entire alternate section and see if there is anything there or is it just fluff?Slowart (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Section moved here for further development needed, if any
This is a sandbox for the Alternate names section. Please continue editing it here until consensus is reached that it is both of sufficient quality for publication AND needed in the main article.
Alternate names
This large section was moved to a subpage of this talkpage, to allow less-tight archiving of the entire talk page. It can be accessed easily for consult or continued work, if needed, at Talk:Tree shaping/Alternate names
Woody Plant vs Tree
A recent edit here: diff, posted with the edit summary "(plant is not a suitable word please read http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plant I for one don't shape blue-green algae.)", changed the words 'perennial woody plant' in the lead, to the just the word 'tree' instead. This conflicts with prior established consensus by discussion of this very point. I've changed it back. The work encompasses more than just trees and that is why perennialwoody plant was chosen. Since the text substituted read perennialwoody plant, that summary and deletion is not entirely straightforward. The right dictionary reference should have been woody plant[10]. Plant is indeed an appropriate term; so is woody plant, and so is perennial woody plant...they are all appropriate. While not all of these projects involve trees, they do all involve plants or parts of plants.
This is also one of several reasons why the current article title is under serious discussion here. I will note this and link to this comment at that point on this talk page. It also should be noted that in the diff above, the editor chose to screen the entire article for the word 'plant', replacing it wherever found, with the word 'tree' or tree shaping, in what oddly appears to be an attempt to give undue weight both to the use of 'tree' (vs, say shrubs, vines, or roots, which are all frequently used in this craft), and to the argument for the use of the current title. I'm fixing that too. The article is boring with the same word repeated over & over for no other reason than to arm-wrestle over POV promotional naming. Synonyms are good and add interest. Duff (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Citations and the References Section
(Moved ongoing discussion sections here to consolidate discussions of citations and references)
Misunderstanding of References
Duff you seem to have misunderstood what the refs are for about the different trees, the ref that was originally there was for the fact that tree type was used to create a tree shaping not for correct "plant taxonomy", so please add your refs to existing ref, don't introduce a completely different wording with "plant taxonomy" as the only reason for it being there as the section is about Popular species for artists. Blackashhave a chat 23:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
No, you seem to have misunderstood the naming conventions used in both science and wikipedia. 1.Prunus myrobalan is an incorrect binomial. There is no such correct name for any tree in the Prunus genus. The scientific names of plants are not determined on the basis of popularity and we do not make them up and call them popularly used. That is why you do not find it listed at Prunus 2. The correct binomial for the tree commonly called Myrobalan Plum (if this is indeed the species that you hope to see referenced as a popular candidate for shaping in the section) is Prunus cerasifera, the one I edited it to and provided the reference for. 3. Wild Plum is not Myrobalan Plum, nor is it a common name for Myrobalan Plum. So. Which is the favored tree? Wild Plum or Myrobalan Plum? The correct species name should be used. If its all sorts of plums, then just Prunus (not wild, not myrobalan) is appropriate, but that's not what it conveys.Duff (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about the misunderstanding, we were told by the Department of primary industries in Australia that the tree species we use most is wild plum which is a root stock used for grafting of fruit trees and it's botanical name was Prunus Myrobalan, which seemed understandable to the Japanese government when we inquired about importing live trees for the Expo. I will have to chase it up with the DPI here, it may take a while to find out the correct info. All the same the trees do need to be referenced in regards to shaping. Blackashhave a chat 00:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, agreed, the trees should be referenced, but identified correctly if they are to be identified. I don't know which species you or other artists use, and it would be original research anyway to just answer the question. One commonly used tree for Prunus rootstocks is Myrobalan Plum aka Cherry Plum (both are common names for the same species of tree). The binomial and specific name for the tree that is commonly known by those names is Prunus cerasifera. That may or may not be the species you commonly use. Wild Plum is a common name that is used in a great many places (maybe yours) to refer to a great many different trees (maybe yours), some of them not even plums. It's ambiguous and that's one of the troubles with common names; they can be misinterpreted. Using the correct scientific binomial is helpful because it is then known which species in particular is meant (if one particular species is meant at all). Common names are great but they vary and frequently refer to different plants by location. For example, you and I and everyone in Australia and Oregon might call it Purple Plum, and all of us may know exactly what it is and we may know this plant intimately enough to correctly identify it in the field. People in, say, South America may also call one particular tree the Purple Plum, but they might call our Purple Plum the Violin Plum, say. That would make it tough to get the valuable rootstock species unless you knew the scientific name of the stock offered. Some people in S. America might mistakenly label it Prunus violinus and you and I and our countryfolk might even find it at a nursery mistakenly labeled Prunus purpleii, but the one we are talking about (and trying to find for our arborsculpture projects, say) would still be Prunus cerasifera, and we could generally count on finding it reliably by that name, true to species (nevermind varieties and cultivars, but that is another important detail, perhaps). Scientific species names change sometimes too, but it's usually in an orderly and reasoned fashion, on the basis of significant scientific consensus, and we can usually count on a plant labeled Prunus cerasifera to be that very productive plum rootstock so useful for grafting other Prunus genus fruits. I'm totally FOR the list of popular arborsculpture species, and especially for their accurate naming. Duff (talk) 02:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Quality of References
This point was made on my talk page, right after I started trying to straighten out some of the kinks in the refs section. It merits discussion here. I haven't yet sifted the archives for prior talk on this, if any. Please jump in and comment so we can all work in the direction of a really great and properly formatted refs section. The current iteration is hard to use and complicates verification.
Science Daily/AFTAU Citation
FYI- Science Daily takes press releases. Identified by the word "release" is in the Science Daily url. Are releases good sources?
Original article is here.[[11]] Slowart (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the original link. Not sure...What's the appropriate policy? That's part of what I was wondering. I will open that question on the talk page for discussion. I did not add the source. There are a bunch of new sources suddenly, with ref names that tend toward the obtuse. I am scratching my head for a better place to start; as article edits I make are being reverted very quickly, which is a little frustrating. Thought I'd start at the top & peruse all of these sources, straighten out the ref formatting mess, try to understand what's what, like that. For source #1, I expanded its refname= to improve clarity (it was just SD somethingsomething, and I had already run across it broken before), so I changed its template title to reflect cite info offered on the page, moved the full ref to first instance of it's use, tried to read the reference carefully and assess its application to the various places it's used in the article, and applied it, in particular, to instances of the use of the various alternate names, as suggested by Colonel Warden. Duff (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Press releases are primary sources, with higher probabilities of bias. Follow WP:PRIMARY, and make any possible bias clear, if informative. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
That press release ref had been used earlier to justify stuff, it's a primary source, lets dump it.Slowart (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
There are different points of information in the lead which point is it? Blackashhave a chat 23:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
If it is correct that press releases are likely bias and are poor refs, it would be wise, for the long run to base this article on good sources, more peer review and fact checked secondary and tertiary sources. Another poor ref in used here is Treeshapers.net as it is a personal web site.Slowart (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARYPrimary source section under the subheading of Our policy says quote "A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge." Blackashhave a chat 23:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I am removing this reference and the text it supports (which I wrote) from the aka list for tree shaping, because the text of the cited document, properly read, does not support the use of eco-architecture as an aka for tree shaping. Rather, the citation clearly states that eco-architecture will "use this concept (tree shaping aka A,B,&C) as the foundation of a new company." It builds upon our article's topic, but does not call itself tree shaping or any of the other names. Eco-architecture is the informal partnership's product.
This is the text:
Used as the primary name[2][citation needed] for the product of an informal scientific and commercial partnership betweeen Professors Yoav Waisel and Amram Eshel of the Sarah Racine Root Research Laboratory at Tel Aviv University and researchers at Plantware, a company founded in 2002. The researchers and scientists intend to use the concept of shaping living trees into useful objects. "the foundation of a new company that will roll out these structures worldwide." Certain species of trees grown aeroponically yield “soft roots,” which they intend to use to turn living trees into useful structures. According to Eshel, “The approach is a new application of the well-known botanical phenomenon of aerial root development.” and “Instead of using plant branches, this patented approach takes malleable roots and shapes them into useful objects for indoors and out.” Pilot projects in the United States, Australia and Israel include park benches for hospitals, playground structures, streetlamps and gates. Plantware's director of operations, TAU life sciences degreed Yaniv Naftalya and its CEO, engineer Gordon Glazer hope to grow a prototype aerial root home within ten years.[2]
We may be able to rework and work this useful information back in some other way, if it belongs somewhere in this article.
I am also moving a statement which I also wrote, using the same citation, from the end of the methods section, to the end of the lead, edited to more properly and accurately summarize the useful content of the reference cited, thus keeping the useful reference and giving it appropriate, but not excessive, weight.
The statement doesn't describe a method, so it doesn't belong in the Methods section. Please see the lead text for that change.
I'm going next to look at the other statements cited with this reference, to see if they are actually supported by the AFTAU ref and if not, how or if to keep them. Thoughts?
The useful information above points to a branch of this art called arbortecture or eco-architecture. Architecture with trees would be a natural division and alien the tree work of Arthur Wiechula, David Nash, Konstantin Kirsch, Marcel Kalberer...Just a thought. About the AFTAU ref, reliability is suspect, bias acknowledged by Quid (I think), confirm facts (if used) with reliable sources. Slowart (talk) 05:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
designshell.com blog
This reference, cite web|url=http://www.designshell.com/articles/living-trees-living-art-pooktre.html%7Ctitle=Living Trees, Living Art |accessdate=2009-05-08, which was used to support the statement "Design and setup are fundamental to the success of all such pieces.", cites a blog, containing a self-published and glowing post by our resident editor/covered artist @ Pooktre, as evidenced by the url and the specific content of the self-post. Not a reliable source to support anything at all. I have deleted the reference, am noting it here, and have left the statement it supported as I believe it to be a non-controversial statement, though whether leaving it in improves the article...?? Duff (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
treeshapers.net self-pub
This reference, cite web|url=http://treeshapers.net/ezekiel-yale.html |title=Tree roots |publisher=Treeshapers.net |date= |accessdate=2010-04-13, which was used to support the inclusion of Ficus (fig) in the Species section, cites a self-published website authored by our resident covered artists/editors @ Pooktre. Not a reliable source to support anything outside of the section covering the artists/editors themselves. I have replaced the reference with an existing citation, ref name Cherrapunjee, which clearly establishes the potential of Ficus to inosculate, and am noting it here for posterity. Duff (talk) 05:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
This reference, cite web|url=http://treeshapers.net/nirandr-boonnetr.html |title=Life Furniture |publisher=Treeshapers.net |date=1996-01-16 |accessdate=2010-04-13, which was used to support the inclusion of both Psidium (Guava) & Tectona grandis (Teak) in the Species section, cites a self-published website authored by our resident covered artists/editors @ Pooktre. Not a reliable source to support anything outside of the section covering the artists/editors themselves. I have replaced the guava reference with an existing citation, ref name Reames2, which clearly notes that this is an inosculate species (which Boonnetr uses) but am unable to locate a RS for the teak as inosculate, though I believe that Boonnetr does indeed use this species as well, according to more than one not-RS. Can anyone help find one RS for teak inosculation and/or Boonnetr using teak? Anyhow, I'm removing the treeshapers.net citation from that piece of information, but leaving the piece of information at the Species section: Tectona grandis:Teak, with a citation needed tag. Duff (talk) 06:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
This reference, ref name=treeshapers cite web|url=[12].|title=Pooktre by PeterCook/Becky Northey|publisher=Northey, Becky|accessdate=2010-05-05 (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5pVaujskD), used as the only source available to support these statements (and also used as supplementary backup to support other statements):
"In 1988, Cook planted a wattle intended for harvest as a potted plant stand.[35]"
"Becky Northey joined Cook in 1995.[35] "
"...and they design and grow trees trained in the shape of human beings, which they call people trees.[35]"
now produces a 404 error, which presumably means that the site's editor, Becky Northey aka User:Blackash, has taken the page down. Curiously, also, the WebCite link to the archived version of the page cited notes that archives created between April 23rd, 2010 and May 10th, 2010 (which this one was) are currently unavailable (and have been unavailable for over a month), 2b made available shortly.
These citations, to a self-published website by the artist(s) in this mini-bio, are restricted to being used in the context of a (albeit mini-bio) Biography of Living Persons? The statements were used there pointedly to establish the chronological order of prominent arborsculptors, a point which has been the subject of dispute, and of extensive citation research. How should this appropriately be handled? Shall we wait until WebCite recovers the data, or tag the statements as needing citations, or pull the statements? Duff (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Bricks & Mortar Magazine
This reference, <ref name=B&Mmagazine>{{Citation| last = | first = | title = Pooktre| magazine = Bricks & Mortar Magazine| pages = | year = 2008| Edition 24 | url = | archiveurl =| archivedate =| accessdate = }}</ref>, which was provided in response to a citation needed tag and was used as the sole reference to support the inclusion of the statement, "He started the very next day, with 7 willow cuttings.", is vague and is still not verifiable. I don't even find any reference online to such a magazine, though more information, such as its publisher and a url, would be extremely helpful. If a reliable source can be found for the first statement, and not an interview of the artists saying it is so, which is basically what its inclusion here consists of, then we can return it to the bio, properly sourced, if it is deemed needed and an improvement to the article. Until such time, I have removed it and noted it here, as the challenge has not been addressed and as it is at present, unverifiable. I'm not sure such a statement even can be verified adequately.
It was also used to support the inclusion (with 2 other cites) of the prior statement, "Peter Cook became inspired to grow a chair in 1987, after visiting three figs trees twisted together." The prior statement has 2 other citations, so doesn't really need a third anyway, since that would be OVERKILL, and so the statement stays in, on that basis, but the ref name B&M tag has been removed. Duff (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Reference Cleanup Update
I've just standardized the refs currently numbered 1-10. There are, as of right now, eighty sources total. Judging from the results of that effort so far, some of the remaining 70 will inevitably be consolidated, some likely into those first 10. I'd prefer to carefully move through that before we start dumping references, as tedious as it is, for the value of establishing appropriate weight. My fascination may be more tied to wanting to see the full scope of this come to light, and I'll defer to consensus either way. If additional citations are to be added, and they probably will be necessary, I'd dearly appreciate a careful perusal of existing cites to see if the one wanted already exists, is buried here in some form, and can just be used, instead of adding more ever-less-artfully crafted instances of the same slightly differently formatted cites. And finally, I think we have plenty of primary sources at this time. Thanks!Duff (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
removal of citation need
"The word has since become nearly synonymous with the art of tree shaping itself." From Richard Reames section.
I disagree that the references given are appropriate, as they don't state the word arborsculpture is synonymous with tree shaping. They use the word and you have done original research to come to the conclusion that means synonymous with. Going by that logic pooktre or grownup furniture should have something along the lines of same in their section. Blackashhave a chat 23:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC
Ok, the proper way to challenge that is with a verification request template, and I'll carefully read each reference and eliminate the ones that don't apply or change the text. The references noted, as far as I read, use the word AS the craft. Tree Shaping is a synonym created by artifice, registered as a domain name by...you, and applied to an established article on the craft to appease...you. I have in mind a rewording that is more accurate, but since its a term, not a living person, there's no hurry, so please let that stand challenged for a non-involved editor, maybe me, to tackle as time permits. Thanks.Duff (talk) 08:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I thought it was standard practice to use the [citation needed] tag when wanting someone to establish their statement isn't original research. The "verification request template" you talked about, WP:Requests for verification appears to be a page that is only kept for historical reasons quote "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant, or consensus on its purpose has become unclear." Blackashhave a chat 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
No, that is not the template I meant. Sorry for the confusion. This is the template [verification needed].Duff (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Each one will have to be first standardized, then read and checked for applicability, then evaluated for reliability, then either kept or tossed. Stay tuned, but relax, because I am going to try to get to all of them and as I've mentioned, that will take some time. In the meantime, thanks to your efforts, it is not even close to unreferenced content, so no problem with its staying put in the bio section, unless your contention is that all of the above sources are unreliable in some way? If so, please discuss that here and we will strive to reach consensus on a proper approach to resolve that.Duff (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Duff quote "The references noted, as far as I read, use the word AS the craft." The references don't state that the word is interchangeable or synonymous with Tree shaping, they just use the word. Your comment, just reinforces that you had to come your own conclusion the word is synonymous with Tree shaping, which is original research.Blackashhave a chat 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
They use the word as the craft. Please consult your dictionary reference for the meaning of the word synonym.Duff (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The point is yes they use arborsculpture as a name for the art form. They don't state that arborsculpture is interchangeable with the word Tree shaping. That is your conclusion from reading multiple articles that are using the word arborsculpture. Blackashhave a chat 11:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the point is yes. They use arborsculpture as a name or the name for the art form. Multiple articles from reliable sources (if they are) that are using the word arborsculpture as a name for the art form = at the very least, a synonym; more than likely = the name for the art form. I know you want to cast that as my synthesis, but you've spelled it out yourself, and so even you aren't fooled by that drivel, are you? If so, again, I suggest you consult your dictionary reference for the meaning of the word synonym. By the way, did you ever locate a source specifically stating that the phrase 'Tree shaping' was synonymous with arborsculpture or with "the art form" or with the craft? Same questions on pooktre. Same questions on the rest of the alternate names you have been working on in that section.Duff (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Using the word arborsculpture is not the same as saying that arborsculpture is a synonym of Tree shaping. The articles use arborsculpture, not state that the two words are one and the same. Show me where in the references it says Arborsculpture is interchangeable with the word Tree shaping, or synonymous with Tree shaping. If you can't, please remove the disputed sentence or I will have to ask for a 3rd opinion on this point. Also as you are the one wanting the wording of synonymous, it is up to you to find a source specifically stating that the phrase "Tree shaping' was synonymous with arborsculpture or the art form. Blackashhave a chat 11:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
No, that is not the domain name I was referring to. Sorry for the confusion. Let's take a good close look at the whois on treeshapers.net instead, shall we? Accessed 2010-05-07. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5pYlO5zQs) Duff (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Treeshapers.net was created to keep a history of the artists who shape trees. Please look each artists page and see if any one is branded. Also if I owned a business call "Tree shapers" and tried to sue "Tree shaping" for having a name to close to mine I would be more likely to get snow in hell than to win the case.
Tree shaping has been used in published sources, which is part of the original reason for the move. Blackashhave a chat 11:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Point 1 above: Treeshapers.net was created by you. Its content is directly controlled by you. Citations to it, by you which are about you are not going to stand, and the reference itself, in its entirety may not withstand scrutiny. We await consensus on that, according to WP policy on such citations.
Point 2 above: Yup, you nailed it. That's exactly what's in question: The quality of the provided sources, and by extension, their relative weight in shaping consensus for the move. Duff (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Duff quote "applied to an established article on the craft to appease...you." Wrong again. Multiple editors came to a consensus [13] the article needed, to quote AfD hero "a generic, descriptive, and in current use". name.Blackashhave a chat 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
You have referenced a consensus that was reached off-article, during and as part of an AfD pertaining to an article about yourself, not about this article, which is part of my concern, as I have expressed under the heading above Talk:Tree shaping#Proposal to Move: Arborsculpture or Tree Shaping(where this comment of yours and mine belongs)Duff (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok we go into detail there at a later time. Blackashhave a chat 11:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
You shouldn't be implying that you are neutral when it can be seen here, here and by your continual use of arborsculpture into discussion when the word is not even needed here that you are not. Blackashhave a chat 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Anyone see a pattern here ? [[14]] Slowart (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
"...use of arborsculpture into discussion when the word is not even needed." I am agog at the blatancy of this statement, setting aside the grammar issue. It points to a comment I made previously on this Talk page, not even in the article mainspace. I am considering what response might be adequate and yet still diplomatic. There is a word or phrase for this kind of thing, but I am at a loss to articulate it. Blackash, since you've covered several areas of your concern, for continuity and for reduction of future reorganizing effort, I've interleaved my responses to your several questions. Accordingly I have also copy/pasted your sig from your single post at 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC) to identify your comments as belonging to this single post, at the points where your comments/questions precede my responses, so we don't lose track, and so there's no misunderstanding as to who said what when. This is extremely tedious. Please try to put your concerns under the sections where the matters are being discussed, so that concerns can reach resolution by consensus. I will try really hard to do the same. Thanks.Duff (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Noted and will try to endeavor to do the same.Blackashhave a chat 11:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I fail to see how any of the three links you provided demonstrate any bias or non-neutrality on my part, but I stand ready to be schooled by yet another neutral party. Each of them leads to an instance of my written use of the generic word arborsculpture. If you are asserting, and I think you might be, that the word arborsculpture should never again be used to refer to any of this work, in any context, by anyone, or that anyone who does use the word is biased and/or non-neutral, then in my opinion, you are not only too late to prevent that, but may actually be engaging in that most odious form of censorship which purposefully attempts to obliterate legitimately applied words from the lexicon of usage. Your purpose for doing so may be benign, but from where I'm sitting, it appears to be an effort to gain some commercial or other advantage over a rival artist/author, particularly given your continued insistence on editing a page where you are prominently featured. I look forward with great anticipation to your comments about it. My sincere protest is below and we will get to some sort of resolution, I am confident. Cheers.Duff (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Not saying it shouldn't be used, just demonstrating that you do have a bias. Blackashhave a chat 11:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Are you serious? You have attempted to purge the word. Repeatedly. Your campaign is completely transparent and your 'demonstrations' serve only to cast a brighter light on your own actions. Are you really sticking to this?Duff (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Further, this edit that you point to, here in which you reversed my edit adding the absent arborsculpture & tree shapers detail to the Expo 2005 article, is problematic. I reversed your revert at Expo 2005 (just) to the original text, which contained a functional redirect, which is permissible, by this wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. I've previously noted this very policy to you, in response to your comment on my User talk page at User talk:Duff#Arborsculpture. You claimed there, on 7:12 pm, 5 April 2010, to be unfamiliar at that point with the policy. I don't know if you found time to read it that night, as you noted you would, or at all, but you did acknowledge having noted my point. Please read it. Consensus on this page wasn't to eliminate all uses of the word arborsculpture. Your stalking of the word is what got my attention over here in the first place, so you know. I was working on improving the Arboriculture page, where coincidentally, similar, but less sophisticated efforts at commercial linking have been attempted and are constantly thwarted by adroit editors. When the See Also link there, which had been entitled Arborsculpture, was switched to Tree shaping, I thought, "Hmmm...WTF?" Before that, I hadn't read the Arborsculpture article, but I was peripherally familiar with arborsculpture by that name, having lived near Scotts Valley years ago when part of the interesting drama with Erlandson's site was underway. This article is the first I'd ever heard it called Tree shaping and until now, neither had I ever heard of Richard Reames, or you, or Pooktre<-Why is this business name a redirect, and by what consensus? Duff (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The redirect was suggested and added at the Pooktre AFD [page] Slowart (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The "original text" appeared on the expo page 2005 by you on the 02:48, 4 May 2010. You may have missed the discussion about not using alternative names on other pages. SilkTork quote
"* The consensus is that tree shaping is the most neutral of the widely used terms, and so that is the preferred term for use within this and related articles. SilkTork *YES! 16:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
It is also the most descriptive, which is very useful. SilkTork *YES! 16:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)" follow link bottom of section
You may have overlooked my first sentence there above: "...in which you reversed my edit adding the absent arborsculpture & tree shapers detail to the Expo 2005 article..." No secret there, so please don't cast it like I'm trying to hide something. I edited Expo2005. You reverted my edit, purging arborsculpture even though I used both terms in the short bullet point. I reverted it back, and generously tagged it as an AGF rollback. What SilkTork did not say, and a consensus that was not reached, was that the word arborsculpture should not be used, should be stalked and changed whenever and wherever found, and that past uses of it are fair game for deletion until complained about, whereupon at that time future uses are fair game for deletion. None of that was said. You got a really big inch, and you ran many miles. Preferred Term is not synonymic with Exclusive Term. Sadly, that is the policy you have been pursuing and enforcing. When you come to realize the ethical gravity of this, you will be disturbed by it too. Duff (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
P.S Why do you think Pooktre is a business name? Blackashhave a chat 11:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Do you really want me to take the time to reference here all of the references, mostly provided by you, that refer to your business, and your business partnership? Spend some time reading the material you have cited and do not revert any cited factual information. Also, put this in your pipe and toke it: Pooktre is not an artist. Peter Cook is an artist and Becky Northey is an artist. Each has their own proper spot on the Chronology. Either or both might turn out to be notable enough to merit a separate article. So might Pooktre, but not as a bio, because it's not a living (nor a dead) artist. While to you, it is many things, which is good and fine, it's a business.Duff (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Recent Removal of Citations Negates Citation Improvement Effort
Citation use in this article is sloppy and is a problem which is under serious consideration. We are working on improving citations and references for accuracy, relevance, and reliability. I am working on citations: standardizing refs and ref names and verifying that the cited statements are referenced accurately. I spent hours studying only a handful of the citations and references provided by others; trying to find, identify, verify, and correctly cite the specific statements referenced. I have also added a few new references which clearly support certain relevant statements, and cited those references accordingly.
Blackash has systematically removed a group of citations, as well as the content they cited, which do not support her position, both within sections that feature her prominently and within other sections where the content (previous to citation verification) tended to indirectly support her position. I am struggling to assume good faith. These are exceedingly disruptive acts and they do not make the article better. I request that each of these reverts of the citations I added are reverted back, as a first priority. Diffs for the changes of concern that I have found begin here [15], and continue here [16], here [17], here [18], and here [19].
These statements and their citations are parts of biographies of living persons. They are nested within this article where, by prior consensus, the bios are incubating for further development before being spun out as articles on their own merit. Each statement, and in some cases, each element within each statement, requires citation.
Many statements, references, and citations contained within this article have been heavily influenced by one editor's citing of external links to a) self-published material, b) sites over which that editor has either partial or complete editorial control, and c) sites whose content that editor has influenced, or does influence, including a blog article about that editor wherein the blog author notes having received a letter from that editor. These are not valid citations. Consensus over inclusion or dis-inclusion of content, and titling/naming of the article content they pertain to, has been reached on the basis of these faulty citations.
The neutrality of the current page title is again challenged (discussion above at Talk:Tree shaping#Proposal to Move: Arborsculpture or Tree Shaping and at several points in the 7 archives), on the basis that prior consensus on the re-titling was both reached without adequate discussion and that it hinged on these purportedly neutral citations, which are not in fact neutral. We have reached consensus to work on the citations first, which I agree with, but am now hesitant to continue, as it seems like wasted effort.
In any case, it is completely inappropriate for any editor, in particular one who is covered or featured prominently in an article, to exercise this level, or any level, of control over the cited content in that article, or any article. I object most strenuously to this activity. I request intervention and intend to pursue appropriate mediation if this is not resolved swiftly. Duff (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I strongly agree that Blackash should not be editing this article with anywhere near the current magnitude. Blackash, I suggest you reread Wikipedia:COI#Non-controversial edits.
Regarding citation style, I'd quote the sentence beginning "If the material is particularly contentious..." at WP:CITE#Inline citations. (using citations mid-sentence should be a last resort)
Regarding reliability of sources, I agree with Duff completely.
Regarding the page title, I don't believe there could be a good consensus to move back to arborsculpture (currently), given the various comments from many of the artists mentioned in this article, at Talk:Tree_shaping/Archive_2#Move from Arborsculpture to Tree Shaping. Yes, it is a wonderfully appropriate sounding word (with a closeness to arboriculture, and a fairly obvious/intuitive meaning) however it has been objected to by numerous "experts" in this artistic field (assuming they were who they said they were). I don't believe there is enough fresh evidence to make a solid decision, one way or the other (but I'm open to slow persuasion). -- Quiddity (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for being open Quid, when the time comes, I will offer some fresh evidence. We should of course use "good sources" as Colonel Warden says. Lets remember that the objections were derived from a mailing list of 500, they are single edits accounts admittedly invited by Blackash to comment. Cattle was asked to remove the word arborsculpture from his web site and he did so. Boonneter, Konstantin Kirsch and Herman Block are experts who all use the word arborsculpture. The usage that should be here has little to do with the so called experts it's what is being used in the University's the Tree Care Industry, Arborist and the Landscapers trade. Artist opinions like mine, are primary evidence and likely subject to bias.Slowart (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
@Slowart, as you know the page was moved and the subsequent discussion was well on its way before I made a newbie mistake of e-mailing our mailing list. As you also know Boonneter, is from Thailand and Konstantin Kirsch and Herman Block are from Germany and they were informed that Arborsculpture was standard English. Arborsculputre is a Neologism (my debate with supporting links) with strong links to you Richard Reames. Google arborsculpture. Blackashhave a chat 13:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Duff if you are going to give diffs please do so I have linked the diffs with my thoughts when I made the changes.
1 Where do you get the idea we are a "partnership" in the business sense? I removed that and add some content.
2 I thought the use of multiple inline citations to the same reference was a bit excessive. Removed only multiple inline citations.
3 Two words before repeating the same inline citation? Really? Removed only one of references.
4 I thought the use of multiple inline citations to the same reference was a bit excessive. Removed no text thou, only the ref.
5I thought the use of multiple inline citations to the same reference was a bit excessive. Removed no text thou, only the ref.
@Duff quote "influenced by one editor's citing of external links" Please look at the article before all this debate started. :[20] Please note there are no links to treeshapers.net, also any links to pooktre linked straight the media page in the reference. Not material that I could "control". The article was open to editing by anyone at that time.
The article was changed because if you Google Arborsculpture it leads to Richard Reames and his methods. Arborsculpture is not neutral. Here is the last edit before article's name change [21] Ummm this was before all those "faulty citations"
Duff I asked you earlier not do this, but maybe you just missed it so I give the brief version here. Duff you are the one who has added at least 11 links to one of our sites, it seems you are planting evidence to make your statement true. Here is the diff of your changes [22]. Don't make changes and then say goodness me it's too heavily weighed this way. Please don't do this again. Blackashhave a chat 13:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
All content at Treeshapers.net is presumably based upon material from elsewhere, which is what we should be using. The site makes a fairly good external link, but a poor reference source for the purposes of our article.
I've never been able to get webcitation.org to work (possibly one of my browser extensions is interfering). That doesn't really matter, as treeshapers.net isn't a reliable source anyway, so the whole issue is moot.
I did get WebCite to work; it opened blank in Firefox, but opened clean in IE, which I keep for just such pesky sites. Anyhoozle, there was indeed a 404 error upon opening the site, at the very point when I was making the references requested, so that felt inky and was disconcerting. However, the page was restored within 5 minutes of that odd event, and upon comparison with the WebCite archived page, it was identical, a fact that is of great relief to me.
So...regarding these steps too:
yank the cites?
keep resultant unsourced content?
seek other sources to support it. Slowart contributed a stack or three.
toss what won't submit to verification?
bios: not keep resultant unsourced content?
finish what I started on tightening up the references section?
return the External Link for the treeshapers.net site.
Same policy with all sites cited which link to the artists covered?
Ditto with return of external links?...There are 1 or 2 others I treated as converted to references and so deleted from External Links.
Also, credit where due: Geez, this woman has got a BEEUtiful garden: [23]Duff (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Essentially yes, except regarding bios, where anything non-contentious can just be tagged with {citation needed}, for future sourcing.
WP:Primary references are fine, as long as used with care.
Yah, everyone involved in this artform create beautiful works. Hence we're all here, and trying to help inform the rest of the world! :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Short refs (and other citation styles) are good. I'm not familiar with them all, but anything consistent is fine. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I am removing this entire statement about a living person, until and unless it can be properly sourced, (which I doubt, because I have searched carefully for another reliable source, but still welcome):
The first part of the sentence is not supported by the reference provided, if that reference even stands as a reliable source in the first place, which remains to be determined. The second part does not stand alone without the first partm and is referenced by a source (QSFMagazine) that is (so far) unavailable for verification, though welcome to be considered for reliability if available, hence the [verification needed] tag. How much does the sentence add anyway? Does it make the article any better? As a reader of an article about tree shaping, I don't find it a particularly valuable, compelling, informative, or encyclopedic statement.
"decided to grow a chair in 1987" which is what the farmshowmagazine article says verbatim, is not "started that same year," (as the year he had the idea, as referenced in the prior sentence, also with an unreliable reference, treeshapers.net, that we've already agreed to yank, and which statement also needs to be yanked unless a reliable reference for that can be found). This is the same point I intended to convey at our previous discussion regarding "When he/she had the idea" and we did reach consensus on that point. Again, when a person "decided" something around tree shaping, or "had an idea" to do something around tree shaping, is not going to be verifiable, no matter how many people or media outlets are told this by the person who supposedly decided or had an idea. That is original research and doesn't belong in the article. Any other editors or admins have thoughts on this?Duff (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Volz Reference
On the Volz/Queensland Smart Farmer citation, thank you Blackash for finally providing the link to the actual article, which you did at 2010-05-28T22:29:40 with this edit diff.
No thank you for your comment in the edit summary for your edit fixing the title of the citation:
"(Duff are you so are you bias you can't even use the real title in the ref if they use Tree shapers? The article title is" A Tree shaper's life" not On-farm Interview with Pooktre)" which you did just over an hour later at 2010-05-28T23:43:22, with this edit diff.
While the link to the article is appreciated, your exceptionally improper direct accusation of bias aimed at me, nestled in the edit summary for the edit wherein you changed the citation title to the correct article title, is both is both spurious and disingenuous, given that the article itself was not made available when you added the citation originally.
As you clearly are aware, previously the only source for this citation was pooktre...History of Pooktre http://www.pooktre.com/history_09.html, where only a brief summary of your meeting with Volz was provided; not the title of the article.
The only information you provided for the original duplicated citation was the title and date of the magazine, which is what I googled (Smart Farmer Magazine Pooktre) to find the information (only) on your website, which is where I found the name of the author, which I also googled ((Smart Farmer Magazine Pooktre Volz) and which still did not yield the original article.
This is why I chose to clarify the 2 separate ambiguous untitled citations you provided ("Queensland Smart Farmer, Oct./Nov. 2008 (Australia)" and "Magazine Smart farmer Oct nov 2008"; one of many I worked on) with the single more detailed citation, including a title "on-farm interview", derived from the information you provided on your website, in the absence of the article itself. It was neutral and accurate, but I far prefer the correct title and link. There's a WP rule on being nasty in the edit summaries, but I'll leave that to you to find and read. Please remember to be polite, edit honestly, and assume good faith.
I apologize for my hasty assumption which was based on your earlier behavior where you have shown a clear bias. For example by removing of Pooktre (and even our names) from our images in the article. Yet leaving the other images with names or alternative terms on them. I had the impression you had gone to our site, we have a media page that is easy to find that links images of Smart farmer article. I didn't link to the article on Tree shaping as I was been neutral and not doing "self promotion" Blackashhave a chat 10:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I accept your apology, though your assumptions about my "earlier behavior" and "clear bias" are also faulty. No branding. Simple. WP sound and without controversy. Is it your assumption that anyone who plainly disagrees with one or many of your positions is biased and that your positions are neutral? Duff (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Citation Styles
RP template for cites to multiple page #'s of the same book
Refactoring bits of this discussion here first, from elsewhere on this page, for continuity.
Re: Citations: The template {{rp}} is strongly cautioned against unless absolutely necessary. Which alternative would you recommend, Duff (or anyone else knowledgeable on this)?
-- Quiddity (talk) 1:37 pm, 26 May 2010, last Wednesday (6 days ago) (UTC−7)
Re: Citations: Quiddity, with your ok, I'd like to move this comment and your response about citations up to the citations & references section of the discussion, under a heading like Citation Styles, so that that continuity of that discussion may be maintained. I recommend the {{rp}} template, and that is why I started using it, to solve an ongoing and exponentially increasing problem which is precisely the one described in the text for usage of the template. 'Strongly cautioned against' is a bit over the top. Here's what the warning says:
" Warning: This template should not be used unless necessary. In the vast majority of cases, citing page numbers in the ref code is just fine. This template is only intended for sources that are used many, many times in the same article, to such an extent that normal citation would produce a useless line in references or too many individual ones. Overuse of this template will make prose harder to read, and is likely to be reverted by other editors. Used judiciously, however, it is much less interruptive to the visual flow than full Harvard referencing and some other reference citation styles."
In particular (though there may be others), the 2 Reames references have been quoted from practically every page, on points which would not seem contentious but for the ongoing and one-sided attack on the word arborsculpture (not my choice to do so, but since it's a reliable source, it's a reasonable cite). I would otherwise say that the vast majority of citations to the Reames books are excessive, as are several other cases which still stand in the article today of unattractive CITATION OVERKILL. I can't readily verify any of the Reames citations, since I don't own those texts and they're not (AFAIK) available on the web, but assuming in good faith that the references are accurate and that the statements referenced are not direct quotes from the books, I'm ok with statements so cited. The messy and far-to-lengthy reference list is not ok and it is very difficult to verify anything in its present condition. This is what I stated I was going to try to resolve and started to do. I researched it carefully before deciding to use {{rp}}, because it is the best and most appropriate way to deal with these most copiously cited references. IMO, it is indeed necessary. If someone comes up with a better way that achieves the same goals, I'm good with that too. I am not ok with the deletion of the rp references (these are among my concerns as stated above). Edit summaries of "doesn't make sense" to explain these deletions are inadequate and unhelpful. Duff (talk) 2:38 am, 28 May 2010, last Friday (4 days ago) (UTC−7)
Feel free to refactor my comments for cohesive organization.
I'm only familiar with the basic cite templates; I'll try to research the alternatives sometime, but it might not be soon. Whatever you suggest, and are willing to implement, is fine by me :) More comments when I have time. -- Quiddity (talk) 11:49 am, 28 May 2010, last Friday (4 days ago) (UTC−7)
Done Both the refactoring of this discussion here and the {{rp|x}} template choice for multiple (say, more than 2) citations aimed at the same reference. It is simple and immediately follows each citation's closing ref tag. Duff (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Radio and TV Interview Citations
Listing a gang of them under a single citation makes them difficult, if not impossible to verify. This reference is a case in point, presently @ #52:
52. Radio interviews about Grownup Furniture
BBC radio 5 live CC with David Davies. Transmitted in "the Magazine" March 1996
BBC radio Wales CC with Rebecca John. Transmitted in 'Good morning Wales' September 12, 1997
CBC radio 1 CC with Arthur Black. Transmitted in "Basic Black" November 6 & 13, 1999
Radio Deutsche Welle (Colne) CC with Paul Chapman. Transmitted in English language service "Science & technology" November 16, 1998
(Sky News in their general interest news syndicated to USA on November 17, 1999, with Lucy Chator and November 3, 2002, with Jonathan Samuels.)
One way to standardize the citation is with cite episode (from Wikipedia:Citation templates). I like this way because it's easy to duplicate and requires only the title to use it. Thus, a full radio/tv citation could contain much more verification information, if available, and would look something like this:
{{Cite episode
| title =
| episodelink =
| url =
| series =
| serieslink =
| credits =
| network =
| station =
| city =
| airdate =
| began =
| ended =
| season =
| seriesno =
| number =
| minutes =
| transcript =
| transcripturl= }}
Can we get consensus that this is a good place to start for such citations?
Further, on this particular citation, supporting Cattle's bio info (but not sure which info or the content of the interviews) where it currently points is the last remaining WP:OVERKILL instance (way too many cites). There are other cites there that are more easily verifiable, and I'd like to keep say 2 of those, as per Martin Hogbin's suggestion, and move the rest, if they can be verified as supporting the use of the term grown furniture to refer generically to our topic, to that alternate name in the alternate names section, as I did with the arborculture overkill cites. I don't really want to format all those radio citations, but will knock it out if the consensus to both these is yes, and the citations are verifiable and not just fluff. If unverifiable or deemed fluff, let's say we pitch 'em. Thoughts? Duff (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Design options section
Section name switched back to Design Options, and here's why: I again replaced the bullet point approach with the flowed text in this section. It is preferred over the bullet point approach for a couple of reasons. Design alternatives are not restricted to three overlapping styles, but are instead wide open.
By overlapping, I mean that Architectural could easily fall under either Intended harvest or Living art.
Some relevant discussion on this occurred on my user page, prior to the recent original change I made, and so I'm clipping it to here for reference:
you asked Q: Are architectural projects ever designed for intentional harvest or always living art?
As far as I know, they are all intended to remain living. Slowart (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I've had another thought on this too: The boats. Your buddy's and this one [[24]]. Also those willow rod fences, etc. Hmmm. Where am I going with this...The splitting in the section on Styles is bugging me. Pretty soon I'll advocate for calling the whole article Basketry. Duff (talk) 01:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
"Architectural" use of trees is probably not a "Style" or a subset, Rudolph Doernach called the use of plants and trees for houses, biotecture.
Now we have Living art -verses- Intentional harvest, these are not "styles" this is an approach to the art. You can design a chair for harvest, by planting 4 legs or design your chair for staying alive and only planting one leg. Or even change your mind at any time or if anything dies and eventually they all die, then you save it if it's worth it, even if it's a one leg chair. Slowart (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Snortle. One-leg chair. Average lifespan of Prunus cerasifera? 20 years, a very short century. Duff (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Maybe the info is better titled: "Design Options"- Inclusions, functionality, symbols and letters, for harvest, for longevity, for architecture.Slowart (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Better. Lemmesee here. Further consolidation in order. Duff (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The two different process of shaping tree trunks has been blended and merged. The ring barking part is not at all how it was written about in Richard's book. He stated 5 methods of ring barking to slow the growth of a dominant branch to allow a slower growing pathway to catch up. The plan is to keep the branch as part of the design, not to kill it off and later remove it.
I think we should follow the Bonsai style, change Methods to Techniques and have sub headings with appropriate text.
Suggested subheadings
Bending
bending 2-3 year old trees from 1 hour to whole afternoon.
Training
day to day guiding of the new growth of seedlings.
Framing
depending on which shaping technique being used, the framing is either to hold a bent mature tree in place or to support the growing tree.
Aeroponic roots
growing roots in a nutrient rich mist, to achieve lengths of 6 meter or more for shaping at a later date.
Creasing
using trees such as willow and poplar to be folded over upon themselves.
Grafting
to join branches or trees to create a design
Ring barking
used to achieve the slowing down of dominant branch allowing slower branches to catch up.
Pruning
mainly used to keep the design free of unwanted branches and to reduce the size of the canopy.
This is a very brief outline. Each section has a lot more information available in relation to Tree shaping.
We can work on the wording and refs for each section here first and then put it up on the front once we have consensus. I am not ready to start on this just yet as I want to find some more info about the different Alternative names first. After that I will do some more work on the techniques. Blackashhave a chat 02:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
1.'Ring barking' is just poor English (albeit common) for damaging a plant or branch of a plant by girdling it, which is why it redirects there. Girdling kills the branch. That's factual. We dont need to adhere to the wording chosen by any specific author or editor to convey the information clearly.
2.Oppose proposal to change the format of the methods section at this time. That is looking a lot like a how-to or guidebook, which we can't do. See WP:NOHOWTO Please sit on this idea for now, allow it to season a little, and work on finishing some of the other dangling and tedious matters, such as the backlog of tightening up poorly formatted and questionable references, left for others to untangle. For a start, read WP:CITE and its offshoots.
3.Furthermore, suggest strongly that involved editors should busy themselves with articles in which they are not involved, and should be allowing and encouraging non-involved editors to make such changes, instead of making such changes themselves, since it is so difficult to maintain NPOV and nobody likes having to arm wrestle over every point. Editors, especially involved editors, can do themselves a disservice by engaging so forcefully. Put what you think is important stuff on your own site (it's already disproportionately represented in the references section, by the way) and shape that site as you wish. Suggest it here if you wish to. Interested but uninvolved editors will find it, add it, and cite it if they find its reliable and relevant. That's how wikipedia is supposed to work. Duff (talk) 06:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
@ Duff I don't know where you got the idea I was going to rush in and start changing things when I stated that
I wanted to work elsewhere on the page first.
I wanted to work on one subheading at a time before putting it on the main article.
You shouldn't be implying that you are neutral when it can be seen here, here and by your continual use of arborsculpture into discussion when the word is not even needed here that you are not.
Duff's quote "your site....disproportionately represented in the references section" You are the one who has added at least 11 links to one of our sites, it seems you are planting evidence to make your statement true. Here is the diff of your changes [25]. I have always endeavored to reference media details instead of linking to our sites which I could easily have done on multiple instances. I also will search for new references when asked instead of taking the easy route and linking to the site you are complaining about. Don't make changes and then say goodness me it's too heavily weighed this way. Please don't do this again. Blackashhave a chat 23:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Pardon the belated reply. I had to give this one some serious thought. I did add the single citation to the bio page on treeshapers.net [Peter-Becky Bio http://www.treeshapers.net/peter-becky.html], and I did reference that single citation repeatedly in the several edits I made in the diff provided above, in the context of nailing down what was citeable and not in the Cook/Northey section. It seemed (and seems) the most appropriate citation for information in the Cook/Northey section of the bios. It was also the only citation found for some of the bio info presented and it's the only place in the article that a self-published source could be cited. However, that was not the citation I was referring to when I pointed out here on the talk page on the following day that the editors' sites were disproportionately represented in the references section. Instead, I was referring to the multiple other instances of citing the self-published material at both treeshapers.net and pooktre.com to reference statements outside of the section on Cook/Northey. I do apologize for any confusion that may have caused and for any misunderstanding that may have arisen over misconstruing of my motives for either of those edits. Duff (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Comparison with other forms of living sculpture section
This section contains an odd line in the first paragraph of the topiary sub-section: "tree shaping is primarily the practice of manipulating stems and bonding trees together by grafting.": Is this a a new definition? Also, I've removed the Pleaching sub-section from this section: as written it's inaccurate, perhaps most importantly because pleaching is actually a method which is part of this art that we are writing about (not something else to be compared to), in the same way that shaping and bending are methods which are part of it, and in the same way that grafting or topiary, (less often perhaps) may be a part of it. See the Methods section for a place to perhaps fold it in. Here is the text I removed, for convenience, in case it is useful elsewhere:
====Pleaching====
Pleaching is similar to espalier, in that it trains rows of trees to grow in the vertical.[5]: 11–12 Pleaching is trees trained into raised hedge with flat planes and hedges,[6] and, therefore, is inaccurate way to describe tree shaping.[7]: 24 "
(Talk:Tree Shaping#References, is upthread: preexisting reflist.) Duff (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Duff as you keep telling me "you don't get to pick and choose" well neither do you. This subheading of pleaching meets WP:Verifiability so I putting it back. Blackashhave a chat 11:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Oppose both the reinstatement of the poor text and the redeletion of the better text. Please point out a single instance of the asserted quote: "you don't get to pick and choose", or strike that assertion. Pleaching is not a related craft, it's part of the craft. Furthermore, I added the clearer and expanded text where it belongs, in the History section and that is referenced too. If it's morereferences that are sought on that, please just ask for some, as we have been doing. Please don't just delete my work over and over. Is there a good reason to delete the better and more expansive, connected text from the history section and replace it with brief and poor English in the lower and improper section? More information is better. I looked at the pleaching article and doesn't contain much other info, it's also poorly referenced & I may propose a merge of that to this article, since the information is about this craft.
The 2 sentences added back are really poor English, so please work that out first before putting it back anywhere. That's really more of a grammar issue. Also, the really nice continuous flow of the History section has been interrupted again, which clearly established the steps in the development of the idea and of the craft. While I accept that this may not have anything to do with how Pooktre developed, the article is not about Pooktre, and this is how the craft developed, and it is part of the history of this topic. Not part of a related topic, but a foundational element of the craft, in a way that topiary and bonsai are not, though these two are also forms of tree shaping, if that winds up remaining the title of this page.
Again, comments that belong here on the talk page for discussion are nestled in several edit summaries, where they can't be easily discussed.
These are the diffs and comments, associated with the re-insertion of really mediocre text, followed by the re-deletion of really good material:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tree_shaping&oldid=365621583 the edit summary:"(→Related art forms: It cited please don't remove. This meets WP:Verifiability)" (I didn't delete it for verifiability, but now that it's mentioned, all three cites are questionable for WP:Reliability, as you've noted yourself on two of them earlier this evening. Self-Published, remember? Can only be used in the part about the author, remember? I am challenging the third: http://www.plantedplants.com/?page_id=20 The post is poorly synthesized, AND It's a commercial landscaping business website: the information cited there is unreliable, incorrect, grammar-weak, not subject to peer review, and generally unscholarly.) Unless there are some reliable cites for that information + a decent rendition grammar-wise, it's out. I'll be refactoring this whole nugget to the cites section too.Duff (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The deleted, and better section from the history section was as follows:
Pleached trees. Drawing by Johnathan Webber. Commissioned work for the book How to Grow a Chair
"Pleaching is inosculation, when it is aided or initiated by humans.[8] In an early, labor-intensive, practical use of pleaching, woody plants are installed in the ground in lines, then shaped by trimming to form a flat plane above ground level. These installations are often designed and planted in parallel hedgerow or quincunx patterns. Branches are then woven or joined together at the design height. Their bark is wounded at the joins and bound together until they grow together, forming a raised grid upon which planks can be placed to support structures, perhaps above a floodplain.[8] In late medieval gardens through the 18th century, pleached allées were common in European gardens. The ornamental craft of topiary, the agricultural craft of espalier, and the arboricultural craft of arborsculpture all developed from the utilitarian practice of pleaching."
Artists' mini-bio section
Alphabetic or Chronological order of tree shapers?
I think putting the tree shapers into alphabetical order is the wrong way to go, it just seems to be an arbitrary way to sort them. The Tree shapers had been date ordered and I believe this is a more natural flow for an article and is of interest to the reader to know who did what and when. I would like for them to be put back into date order. Blackashhave a chat 02:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Chronological ordering is more informative than alphabetical. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't strongly disagree, though I do disagree. Who did what and when they did it is clearly asserted (and not at all well cited) in the text of each bio. The alphabet is not arbitrary in the slightest. It is orderly and neutral in the extreme. If the list is indeed in chronological order, that fact is not clearly stated nor readily evident (Take Wu, for example), and thus the order chosen (and very quickly reverted to) appears to be arbitrary and reads like non-neutral POV to the casual reader. How about allowing more time than an hour and a half for consensus to develop before reverting? There is no hurry. If editorial consensus is that the list of bios should be presented in chronological order, then that helpful fact belongs in a note at the head of the list of bios. Thanks Duff (talk) 09:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Alphabetical would be closer to a NPOV for living artist anyway. The exact date someone started pruning or made a graft is IMO irrelevant.Slowart (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The relevance of chronological order doesn't change just because the artist is dead, the only difference I can see is the dead don't protest when branded. Slowart as you know this art form can involve large spans of time. So it would be of interest to the reader to have an idea of when an artist started creating their art. Blackashhave a chat 22:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The recent change to including dates before names in the headings of the bios is confusing, unattractive, and does not improve the article. Who is being branded and how are they being branded? As tree shapers? The date a person 'had' an idea is not only not encyclopedic, it's not interesting and its not referenceable unless perhaps if there were some reliable reference to the person saying that they had a certain idea at a certain time...and for that, it's got to say that in the text, like this: "Theresa Shaper told interviewers on Fox News that she had the idea to rename Prunus cerasifera as Prunus myrobalan in 1962, but only began petitioning the scientific community about it in 2010, after having referred to her plants in print by the name she preferred since the mid 90's." When she manifested the idea in some referenceable way MIGHT be encyclopedic. Not when she claimed to have thought of it, and not how repeatedly she insisted that the idea came to her out of the blue and with complete obliviousness to others having similar ideas. Wikipedia is not a patent establishment forum. That debate belongs in court maybe, and we could reference such a case on this page, perhaps. We certainly don't establish a chronological order of bios on the basis of when we insist a person had a thought, or even when they say they had a thought. That's why alphabetical order was better, and it should go back to NPOV alphabetical order, keeping in each bio only properly cited material about the ideas and their dates. Unreferenced material is challenged and should be deleted if it can't be properly referenced with reliable sources. Duff (talk) 11:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I still believe it is useful to list the people in chronological order. Most of our high-quality lists of people follow this convention, eg the Featured List of major opera composers. We could order the artists by year of first actively shaping trees, or by year of their birth. (I do agree that ordering by "year they claim to have thought of the idea" is inappropriate, even if explicitly stated and sourced). Any ordering that does not place Krubsack and Erlandson first in the list, seems like a poor solution. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine with the dates out of the headers, I think the date should be at the start of each artists section. It would make sense to have the dating start from first shaping. Blackashhave a chat 23:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Mr. Wu [[26]] only ref I know of.Slowart (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Tone needs Changing
In the now named Chronology of the Craft the wording seems awkward. I think it should go back to Tree shapers and have the fact the artists are listed in chronological order in the starting sentence. The title as it is now could be talking about a number of different things.
I'm also not enthusiastic about this wording "Some notable artists were aware of and inspired by earlier artists" as this gives the impression that the artists were notable before they were inspired.
Although this is true "while others assert having discovered and developed their craft independently" I think the earlier wording of "The individual artists may not have been aware of their predecessors" is a more general wording and covers artists who not aware of earlier artists and haven't assert so, to be covered. With some artists it can not be established one way or the other. Blackashhave a chat 00:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I oppose reverting each of these changes and will be very pleased to explain why, if you will please move these comments into the 2 ongoing discussions about these very points, where consensus is developing, and please stop making a new section containing your ruling on several sections presently or previously involved in consensus building. Leaving others to do the work of refactoring comments and cleaning uo references wastes everyone's editorial time, confuses easily understandable positions, and erodes consensus. So quitit. Thanks Duff (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I am happy to move it and then discuss it but which two discussions are you talking about? Blackashhave a chat 01:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
On a second look, all 3 belong with continuing discussion of the entire section @ Alphabetic or Chronological order of tree shapers, perhaps as subheadings?Duff (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Refactoring archive sections
Kslotte (talk·contribs) recently refactored the archive pages, and I reverted. If there is consensus, and it's verified that any links to the moved sections are correct, it may be reasonable. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 17:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no links to archive pages that have been broken. --Kslotte (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
This archive is 430kB long and is getting hard to navigate and edit. That are the reasons for adding archive pages and implementing auto-archiving. --Kslotte (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not clear to me what was done. Which archive? There are 8 archives. No one should be needing to edit in an archive. If it's about the most recent archive, just start a new one for the next archiving party. Is there a standard for length of archive? What is that standard? Duff (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I was configuring the automatic archiving of this page, to make this page shorter and easier for navigation and editing. I also moved some content between the 8 archives to make pages lighter for navigation. But Arthur reverted all my changes, because you probably don't want it. I feel this a bit silly to have to ask for consensus to make discussion on this page easier. --Kslotte (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I shouldn't have reverted Kslotte's change in the archiving parameters, but there's no good reason to refactor the archives. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 22:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I took a look and understand (when you pointed that out for me) the concern about archive re-factoring. Your re-factor reverts are accepted from my side. --Kslotte (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
It is silly Kslotte, but consensus on this page has been a slippery thing to hold on to. Thanks for helping. I would still welcome a clear answer to the above 2 questions, or a point to the right information, if possible. Also, where are the archive settings for this page located? Is that an admin function? ;) Duff (talk) 04:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
My config change is auto-archiving of 14 days old threads instead of the old 20 days value. That will reduce this talk page size a bit as a beginning. I interpret that Arthur's "Perhaps" as I can put this configs back. By Wikipedia guidelines and recommendations pages longer 50kB should be archived, so it is according to guidelines to start reducing bit by bit from current 430kB. --Kslotte (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
One problem we may have with the new setting at 10 days, is that discussions aren't solving in 10 days. Perhaps the big chart can be moved to a clearly linked subpage of this page? How is that done? Duff (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The days starts counting from latest response (archival after 10 days of inactivity). A sub-page can be done by easily copy pasting into Talk:Tree shaping/Somesubpagename and place some type of link and text to it at the top. --Kslotte (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I have been WP:BOLD and set archving to 10 days (old value 14 days). That should reduce the size of this talk page and will make editing and navigation lighter. --Kslotte (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Tree Shaping (Art) + disambiguation page
So far the main point against tree shaping is that the word is used for 2 different things (artistic and non artistic shaping of trees). This is a common problem on wikipedia, and the generally accepted solution is to create a disamgibuation page and append a descriptive word in parentheses. Eg: Tree Shaping (Art) / Tree Shaping (Artistic) / Tree Shaping (Living Sculpture) / etc. AfD hero (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
It is crazy to use a new term (tree shaping) to refer to the subject of this article then need a disambiguation page to distinguish it from an existing use of the same term. Secondly 'tree shaping' is not neutral, it has been promoted by Pooktre Tree Shapers. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
No, the main point is that the original page name arborsculpture was changed to tree shaping, in error, by Afd hero, without proper protocol and without adequate study on his part, goaded by Blackash, who had and has a blatant commercial agenda and should not be editing or exerting influence on titling or content of this article or associated topics at all. Please read WP:Article naming#Considering title changes, WP:COI, WP:GAME and please read the entire archives surrounding this discussion, when you find the time. I fully expect AfD hero to recognize this gaff soon and make it right, and not by creating ever-more complex ways to avoid acknowledging that fact. Duff (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is no consensus to move the page to Arborsculpture, so your protestations contrariwise are largely useless, unless you want to try to have ArbCom consider the matter. If you aren't interested in trying to find consensus around another phrase (such as Tree art), then you might as well get the arbcom process started at WP:RFAr. Anything else is a waste of time, IMO. — e. ripley\talk 21:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
In response to Duff, I'm making a good faith effort to get the best name for the article, and you keep making unfounded accusations against me instead of addressing my points. This section is for discussion of the potential title "Tree Shaping (Art)".
In response to Martin, tree shaping appears to be in current use to describe the artistic shaping of woody plants, so it's not like it appeared out of thin air. The main selling point of "tree shaping" over other titles is that it's actually used in many sources. It is true that most people in England use the term to describe something else, but that's OK. This problem happens all the time on wikipedia, and we just make a disambiguation page. AfD hero (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Tree shaping is used worldwide to mean something other than the subject of this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi to E. Ripley: Consensus does not require unanimity. There surely is (and has been) consensus as defined here at Wikipedia: WP:CONSENSUS. Also, you just asked above for that to be demonstrated, which I did, just below your request [[Talk:Tree shaping#Consensus already established to move the page back to Arborsculpture]], and per your request. This is not a protest. So we're clear, speaking only for myself, I'm not at all angry. It is a discussion. I have not missed a stitch of it. Please note that I am the 2nd to participate after Martin in his new survey, and that I have made yet another suggestion of yet another neutral name (I have made several such suggestions during this process). I do not know how you could have the idea that I am not interested in trying to find consensus, frankly. Regarding further processes to get started, it is my understanding that we have enough consensus around RfC/U on the main source of the problem to proceed there, and partly on your suggestion. My request for Editorial assistance yielded the same reccommendation. I have thus begun a draft in my userspace, as recommended in the instructions for that process. If there is consensus around listing at WP:RFAr or WP:AN/I simultaneously, that has yet to emerge...but if that's the consensus, I'm willing to educate myself on those as well, and proceed there too, if that's appropriate. We are in WP:NORUSH though, and one primary contributor is a few days into a 2 week wikibreak. Duff (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't require unanimity, but it does require a majority. RegentsPark seems to think that there is no consensus for moving things to Arborsculpture, and for the moment his opinion on this question is the one that matters. So, either we need to select another phrase to try to build consensus around (as he suggested -- in fact Tree art was his suggestion), or move to ArbCom IMO to see if they will enforce the original rules that state that when there's a naming conflict, it should default to the earliest name. There doesn't really need to be a consensus about filing an ArbCom request; what it requires is someone willing to bring the case, and a couple other editors to certify it. I'm reasonably sure you'd meet that minimum threshold, although that doesn't necessarily mean that they'll consider the case. — e. ripley\talk 02:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
On your first point, I don't want to come across as argumentative at all, E., but that's not right either, is it? According to WP:CONSENSUS, "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority. Editors decide outcomes during discussion, polls are regarded as structured discussions rather than votes." Am I misunderstanding or is there more to know?
Furthermore, there were 7, possibly 8 in consensus (I noted those names above, by your request)...so even if the deal was by majority (which i think it is specifically not), how many would you see as a majority? Was this even analyzed?
I will go and study the ArbCom process, and I agree, the minimum threshold would likely be met. However, my understanding was that it was appropriate to try all other forms of dispute resolution as necessary or appropriate, before ArbCom...and that they were looking for that to have been done. I haven't read it carefully ever, nor even scanned it in awhile. Is that not your understanding, or is there a good reason why AN/I or some other less severe mediation should not be first? Would that be wasted time or well-spent time at this point, I suppose, is my question. Duff (talk) 04:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
E. Ripley, I have looked at WP:RFAR/G and if I'm reading it right, submission to ArbCom at this point would be jumping over 3 still-available lesser steps of dispute resolution, and would thus require some acceptable explanation (presumably one which met one of the noted exceptions...this does not seem to fit), as to why. Those approaches are WP:ANI, WP:RfC/U, and WP:MEDIATION. Do you see this differently? Duff (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
In general consensus is not supposed to be a vote, but in practical terms, all it takes is one more person on one side than another to "win" an edit war, considering 3RR. I'm not suggesting edit warring, but while our policy on consensus is in some ways nebulous and a bit of a moving target, the three revert rule is quite clear. In any case, I haven't personally judged whether there's a consensus or not (I have yet to see that examined/broken out, frankly), I've only observed that RegentsPark, who currently holds the keys to unlocking the page for moving, believes there isn't. Given this fact, continuing to argue amongst ourselves, or proceed as if there is an accepted consensus for moving to arborsculpture, is worse than useless, it's a waste of time unless people involved suddenly change their minds, which I doubt will happen. In that case, what's left is to either build consensus around another name or look to ArbCom.
A user conduct RFC, while it might ultimately be useful in examining the behavior of certain contributors here no matter what happens with this specific article, is not going to magically produce a consensus to move this article. Even if the people described as problems here were suddenly removed from the equation, it would not create a consensus to move the article to Arborsculpture. Though I suggested a user conduct RFC originally as an interim step, that was mostly because people here suggested that there was one person who was an obstacle to finding a way forward. I had presumed, then, that an eventual arbcom case would focus on this one user's behavior as a balm for the article, and naturally a user-focused ArbCom case would need a user conduct RFC to be conducted first. But after observing discussions here I no longer think one user's problematic editing is the only problem here or even the main problem in terms of why this article remains where it is. (This is not a judgment about whether certain editors are problematic in general, only an observation that certain potentially problematic editors are not the only things keeping this article in its current location. To the extent that editors are problematic across multiple articles, then a user conduct RFC certainly would be warranted before bringing an arbcom case about their conduct more broadly, and that's something you may still want to explore.) Put plainly, I no longer see a user conduct RFC as necessary in moving to an arbcom case for this article, because despite the protestations here, the problem is not one contributor being obstreperous, the problem is -- quite simply -- that there does not appear to be an accepted consensus to move the page. If there were, it would be able to be moved immediately no matter what one problematic editor thought. I have been involved here now for probably about two weeks and in that time no one has been able to prove a consensus of editors to do anything, which of course is the problem. However, ArbCom can decide whether or not they want to enforce the points some people have made here that the move to Tree shaping gwas done improperly in the first place. Perhaps they will agree and decide to reverse it. Perhaps they won't. Perhaps they won't even hear the case. To me, though, it's the clearest way forward absent building consensus around another name besides the ones that have been suggested so far. Before taking the case, they want to see other attempts to resolve the dispute -- whatever those attempts might be -- which are numerous and many as far as I have seen. There have been RFCs, there have been administrators involved, there's been reams of discussion stretching over months. No one would disagree that people here have tried and failed to resolve the dispute thusfar. There is no "do a, then do b, then do c" prescription. They just don't want to see someone bringing a case frivolously.
ANI could be a place to post a query but I don't think it will achieve a good result for anybody. Generally speaking the admins at ANI do not want to see content disputes brought there, and often enough if there is not a discrete problem you're asking the administrator community to resolve, they will not look kindly upon the request and dismiss it as a content dispute that needs dispute resolution, not administrator attention. Furthermore, there is already an administrator active here who has taken some administrative actions in direct response to the dispute, and you will basically be asking the administrator community to overrule his decision, which could also be taken poorly. You may find an administrator willing to be WP:BOLD and undo RegentsPark's protection and move the article back to its original place, but IMO that's a long shot and has more of a chance of engendering ill will for no good effect. — e. ripley\talk 12:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi to AfD hero: I am in no way suggesting that you are acting in bad faith. I firmly believe that both you and RegentsPark acted in good faith and with good intent, based on the information you had time to consider. You were both wrong, though, and clearly not fully informed enough to have made the proper decision. Let me be clear though, speaking for myself, I am not at all angry, so please do not come away with that impression. No harm, no foul, truly. Please specify the unfounded accusations you feel I have made and any points I have not responded to, so we can get clear on that too...Have we had some sort of misunderstanding? I have responded directly to you, in detail, as best I understand your comments thus far. Please note my detailed response to your last request to "Please provide links to the mediation or dispute resolution pages you have listed tree shaping on." I do not yet see that you have responded, so perhaps you haven't read it yet. As for getting the best name for the article, we already have it, and it's the original title. There are a few also-rans that might work, but one containing the phrase 'tree shaping is not going to fly, and thus I oppose this submission, due to the already previously clearly stated problems with the current title: namely
1. commercial use of that phrase and POV pushing, on and off wiki, to denote a particular art duo, by that art duo.
2. The term is in far more common general usage to describe an other thing...not just in England...any comprehensive US Yellow Pages yields the same result and so does google, and they are not shaping live woody plants into useful or ornamental objects and structures, those listings...They are trimming trees. ::
3. The subject of the article is not restricted to trees, obviously. Nor is it restricted to art, obviously. ::None of these problems are addressed by this choice.
Regarding the emergence of the term 'tree shaping' to describe this craft, indeed that usage did not appear out of thin air, but out of the POV pushing of the artists at Pooktre, who co-opted it from its standard usage, which they were clearly aware of when they registered the domain name treeshapers.net (finding treeshapers.com already taken by a company of arborists who do general tree maintenance and care, and not this craft). They have attempted to take ownership of the phrase and indeed of the craft itself, in addition to this article, for their own commercial interests, using frequent WP:INCIVILITIES, breaching several key policies of Wikipedia, including WP:GAME, WP:OWN and WP:COI. All of the whois information and registration dates are documented here too. Please present a single reliable source (and not one that traces directly to Blackash's well-documented internet campaign both on and off wiki, to disparage Reames and take ownership of the phrase and the craft and this page) demonstrating the use of the term 'tree shaping' to describe this craft. I'd like to see one. We dug through dozens of spurious resources, eliminating many which were just clearly not RS, using RSN where there was some doubt and reaching consensus point by point. NOT ONE reliable resource was found or presented. NOT ONE! It's all documented here, if you've got the time, and has been re-referenced again and again and again.
Those are the references you based your original decision on, and they were faulty, which you would have found out, had you placed the matter of the change up for discussion on the talk page where it belonged, instead of being bold. That should have been an WP:RfM, clearly, based on the ongoing discussions that were underway on the page, and the policy concerning even potentially controversial name change page moves. You overstepped there. That was a mistake. Big Deal. But your action led directly to a great deal of upheaval and that continues today, with each editor who comes along and firmly participates in the page, and bothers to read the loooong history of conflict emanating from a single source. They also meet that conflict today, and it's not making article improvement any easier or any fun. It's inappropriate. If you see it differently, please explain and show me where the policy supports you instead, and I swear I will eat my hat. ;) Duff (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Tree shaping references
Duff you asked for references for Tree shaping related to this art form, that pre-date the name change and don't have to do with Pooktre. To date I have found nine, mostly though Google books. Please note these are before July 2008. The article was moved on 10 January 2009. There are more references for Tree shaping as a term for this art form after this date as well.
The garden book
Planting Design
My father "Talked to Trees
Tradition and innovation in French garden art: chapters of a new history
How to grow a chair The art of Tree Trunk Topiary
Arborsculpture Solutions for a Small Planet
Organic Gardening: The Natural No-Dig Way
Tricks with Trees
Between earth and sky: our intimate connections to trees
Here is my summary of the points made against "Tree Shaping (Art)" so far:
1) Non-artistic use of the term so overwhelmingly outweighs artistic use, that even a disambiguation page is not enough.
2) The use of "tree shaping" in sources is contested.
3) An editor who supports the term has allegedly engaged in questionable behavior, and stands to gain if the term is used.
4) The term is not sufficiently broad, as woody plants other than trees are occasionally used.
If anyone disagrees with this characterization, or has any additional points, please post below. AfD hero (talk) 05:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
As a staunch advocate of verifiability, I think the biggest problem with “tree shaping” is that is being used instead of the more obvious, popular, specific and descriptive alternative (i.e. “arborsculpture”) and we have seen no SOURCES evidencing that there is anything wrong with using this more obvious, popular, specific and descriptive alternative. --Griseum (talk) 08:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I have these refinements and one additional high-priority point to submit, but otherwise the above seems accurate:
1) ...such that use of the term as a title renders the topic unrecognizable to readers, adds ambiguity, and is inconsistent with usage in reliable English-language sources; all three contrary to WP:TITLE. (see nutshell)
3) It's not if the term is used. The term is used, right now, in the current title, which you moved the page to, and thus the two editors(plural), who post as a single user name, have gained the commercial advantage they sought, and they continue to do so at this time, by touting their victory at Wikipedia all over the web and even bragging about it repeatedly here; truly an appalling display of gaming.
4) The word 'occasionally' is not supported by me, nor by the vast array of source material cited. At least one of the covered artists uses primarily shrubs, by their own clear statements, and woody vines are also commonly used for this craft. Please note that two of the species listed as inosculant are vines, and several are shrubs. All are cited, with citations that withstood scrutiny. 'Commonly' would be more accurate.
Duff's misinformation at work again. I believe Duff checked all the references on the Tree shaping article, but as Tree shaping it self wasn't referenced he didn't check any references for Tree shaping, of which there are quite a few I have started to list them above in Alternative title names.As this is now in question I spent my time getting the references for tree shaping, please give me more than a day or two to do so. Blackashhave a chat 08:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Ignoring your first little jab, there's WP:NORUSH and there's nothing relevant at the link you provided. Did you mean to indicate your chart at Talk:Tree shaping#List of potential title names, perhaps? Also, I'm reminding you again to please quit callin' me 'he'. Even my gender is neutral. Duff (talk) 09:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Still waiting to find out how to address you when I don't use your name. Thank you for giving the correct section. Blackashhave a chat 10:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
The lengthy information presented at [27] seems like a ridiculous waste of the presenter's time. Are we actually supposed to look at a quote like “"...a spiral table is shaped from red alder” and translate that into justification for not changing the name of this article back to the perfectly acceptable term “arborsculpture?” --Griseum (talk) 09:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Who knew you were waiting? Wait no more. Duff, the editor, this editor, that editor, that friggin' editor....I'll accept any of these and many others. Just lay off the gender pasting completely please. It'll force you to become a better writer. Duff (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
