Talk:Axel Erlandson

Permission

The text of this page was taken with permission from http://www.arborsmith.com/treecircus.html

Credit is given to the original site hosting this page:

www.arborsmith.com

Grant of permission message was posted to: permissions-en@wikimedia.org

It would be very useful to add the original images to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezekiello (talk • contribs) 22:25, December 29, 2006

Arborsculpture

User:Blackash objects to the inclusion of the word "arborsculpture" as a synonym for "tree shaping" because this user is a professional rival of the person who coined the word "arborsculpture" (see discussion at Talk:Tree shaping). Since Blackash has asked me to repeat the evidence that this is a generic term appropriate for use in this article, here is the list I made along with responses:

• ARBORSCULPTURE.ORG was the website of the NEAG Northeast Arborsculpture Group until just a few days ago.
• Science Frontiersmagazine has written an original article (not a Wikipedia clone) called "Arborsculpture: A Living Art - and the Art of Living" about what it says is "a process commonly called arborsculpture."
• Popular Science presents an article about "Israel's Tel Aviv University teaming up with eco-living company Plantware" and it is tagged: arborsculpture, architecture, eco tech, future tech, the environment. The article says "The process of shaping living trees to create objects, referred to as arborsculpture and pooktre" -- in this case going a little to far by using pooktre (which no one is claiming as a generic term) as a generic term as well. NB different versions of this article are all over the web under different electronic "mastheads" and sometimes different pictures.
• esciencenews.com has a version of the Tel Aviv article that offers this definition: "The concept of coaxing living trees into useful objects, sometimes called tree shaping, arborsculpture, living art or eco-architecture, isn’t new." As usual, there is no distinction between the term Reames coined and the other terms in circulation.
• US Patent 7328532 relates to the Tel Aviv University tree shaping just mentioned. According to the text of the patent: "The art of shaping living woody plants is known as "arborsculpture", "preaching", "tree trunk topiary", "tree trunk shaping", "botanical architecture", "biotechture" or "permaculture". Presently known living tree configurations include, but arenot limited to chairs, tables, benches, entrance arches, tunnels, symbols, fences, bridges, garden rooms and gazebos. The living constructs provide obvious aesthetic and environmental benefits." Arborsculpture seems to be the preferred term here as evidenced by "Presently, arborsculpture is practiced by manipulating growth of the above-ground tissues (e.g., stem and branches) using traditional horticultural techniques such as pruning, trimming, bending, framing and grafting." They mention "The principle methods whichare presently used in arborsculpture are described by R. Reames" and also say "Accordingly, the process of shaping living woody plants usingtraditional techniques is very time consuming, excessively laborious and very costly." which contradicts User:Blackash's claim that "arborculture" is some sort of inferior shortcut different from tree shaping in general. Whether or not Reames is an influential pioneer, an opportunistic villain or somewhere in between isn't part of my argument (I don't care) but it should at least be noted that, in general, his work is well-regarded.User:Blackash's claim that Reames work is an inferior shortcut might be valid -- I don't know. What's important is that the word Reames coined is NOT generally associated with a "shortcut method" nor indeed a particular method at all.
• Der Spigel, a magazine from Germany, says: companies like the Israeli firm, Plantware, have perfected these techniques as they have shaped trees into fruit bowls, toilet paper holders and street lamps; they call their work "arborsculpture." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griseum (talk • contribs) 05:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Department of Horticulture at Cornell University has a website about "Tree Sculpture" that says "Axel Erlandson’s tree circus is an amazing horticultural undertaking. Mr. Erlandson was an American arborsculptor who opened a horticultural attraction in 1947 featuring his uniquely shaped trees" Although Erlandson died in 1964, multiple independent sources all over the web call him an "arborsculptor" and his work "arborsculpture."
• Dr. Leonard Perry seems affiliated with the Department of Plant and Soil Science at the University of Vermont. In his paper on Axel Erlandson he says "Erlandson would not tell anyone his secrets of arbor sculpture...about 74 of his arboreal sculptures remained"
• Arborsculpture - An Emerging Art Form and Solutions to our Environment is a paper presented to the Faculty of the Landscape Architecture Program at the University of California, Davis. It is Erlandson's work, not Reames, which is primarily referenced. The paper gives this definition: "Arborsculpture is a naturally growing art form that is created by growing and shaping tree trunks and other woody plants into shapes as new layers of wood form. It is made for function, it is made as a creative outlet and it is made to explore plants as living organisms. Arborsculpture is a form of plant propagation that takes dedication, practice, experience, and knowledge of plant growth and structure. It is done using a technique called grafting which requires specific tools, and accessories. The trunks of the trees are grafted, bent, pruned and braced into shapes that are either ornamental or useful." Again, no distinction between techniques in regards to nomenclature.
• Urban Planning, Design and Development Newtorkoffers the following definition: "Arborsculpture, Treechitecture -- Civic amenities, public spaces, and even housing could one day be formed by living trees. Researchers are looking into this new idea." (Editor's note: Treechitecture? Groan!)
• Fair Oaks Horticulture Center of the University of California is using the term "arborsculpture" even for what appears to be merely traditional espalier demonstrating how popular and generic the term has become.
• The Journal of Mythic Arts tells us "arborsculpture, especially chairs, was the peculiar habit of John Krubsack, a prominent banker in the very small town of Embarrass, Wisconsin." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griseum (talk • contribs) 05:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• This (bloggy) site specifically lists Pooktre and others under the "arborsculpture" heading
• University of British Columbia Botanical Garden & Centre for Plant Research discussion forum shows arborsculpture is being used as a generic term
• Tree Artistry is essentially a high-end landscaping business that greets visitors to business website with words "Welcome to Tree Artistry Arborsculpture!"
• This is bloggy and partially-Wikipedia derived but it evidences people using arborsculpture as a generic term and even specifically referring to Axel Erlandson's work as "arborsculpture".
• 10 best trees and shrubs for arborsculpture is another article using arborsculpture as a generic term.
• Agriculture Views has an article called "Arborsculpture" that takes an extremely generic view that says, in part "arborsculpture is the technique of “sculpting” trees, or shaping and growing them in a certain shape. This technique is usually used in growing wood plants that can be used for landscaping, garden ornaments, plant decorations and for other aesthetic purposes.
• Dwell.com did an article about Reames in which the following definition was given: Arborsculpture is the art of shaping living trees into furniture, sculpture, and shelters. Part grazing and grafting, pleaching and patience, it exists in the shady area between landscaping, gardening, and furniture design. Arborsculpturists figure that anyone can shape objects out of dead wood, but it takes a special set of skills to make things out of living wood, to allow the tree to flourish as you meld it for a human purpose." The idea that the term arborsculpture should only be to (as Blackash/pooktre says below) "an instant, and inferior method of shaping trees" is absent from this definition and all definitions I located.
• CabinetMagazine.org also did a story specifically about Reames and also gives a generic definition: "Arborsculpture is the art of shaping tree trunks to create art and functional items through bending, grafting, pruning, and multiple planting." In my initial search, I excluded articles which refer to Reames whatso ever. I've gone back and included some as they offer explicit, relatively detailed, and decided generic definitions.
• Sawmill and bandmill blog uses the term generically as do other "bloggy" sites like [art.commongate.com/post/Extreme_Trees Extreme Trees] and this and this and hundreds more
• I'm not even sure what this is but the author here muses that Chinese footbinding "is really almost exactly the same thing as arborsculpture, only practiced on the human foot rather than a tree." Does ANYONE think this writer translates "arborsculpture" as "Richard Reames' particular method of tree shaping?" For realz, yo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griseum (talk • contribs) 05:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Here even a photo of Pooktre co-creator has been tagged "arborsculpture"
• Josienita Borlongan wrote an article about Axel Erlandson's work and calls it arborsculpture.
• American Arborsculpturist Axel Erlandson and His Extreme Trees is the subtitle of an article which says in part "Axel Erlandson's passion for sculpting trees, also known as arborsculpture, started out as a hobby for the amusement of himself and his family..."
• Axel Erlandson: An American Arborsculpturist is an article by the same author.
• University of California "Landscape & Turf News" has a short article called "Arborsculpture: Horticultural Art" in which Reames is referenced and in which Erlandson's work is called "Trees sculpted by a master of the art in the 1940s and 50s". There's absolutely no implication that Reames was doing one distinct thing, Erlandson another, and these two things need separate terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griseum (talk • contribs) 04:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• "Go get papers" offers examples of this term being used in academic papers about tree shaping in general
• I Dig My Garden, like many other gardening sites, has a "Arborsculpture" forum which is about tree shaping in general
• folks posting pics on Flickr] are using the term arborsculpture for various types of tree shaping including basic espalier.
• Treehugger.com has an article about tree shaping in which Reames is the main focus, but it also refers to "British arborsculpturer, Chris Cattle."
• Try Your Hand At Arborsculpture For A Fun Hobby is an article in which the work of Chris Cottle, Lois Walpole, Richard Reams and others are collectively called "arborsculpture".
• University of Tennessee has a site called "Environmental Semester." There is a link to the website of Dan Ladd. Ladd himself does not use the term arborsculpture on his site; he uses "botanical architecture" and "tree sculpting" instead. But in chosing a heading for the section which contains only Ladd's link, someone at U Tennessee chose to fall back on a better-known term and has entitled it "Arborsculpture: Gardening as an art form".
• Living Tree Sculpture aka Arbosculpture is very interesting because it shows people using the term arborsculpture as a generic term only to be "corrected" by Pooktre who says "we believe that the way Richard shapes trees is too damaging and leads to unpredictable results. Which is the reason that we don't wish to have our work confused with arbor sculpture." This specific, realworld agenda is revealed by Pooktre/Blackashe on Wikipedia here and elsewhere.
• The Art of Arborsculpture is an article picturing mostly Erlandson's work. Here Pooktre/Blackashe has commented "The peace symbol tree is the only tree that has been Arborsculptured, in this group of photos. Arborsculpture is one man's method of shaping trees. It is an instant, and inferior method of shaping trees. This peace tree shows the classic hallmarks of Arborsculpture. Uneven and stunted growth." Does ANYONE else make this distinction besides Blackash, a professional rival of the person who coined the word?

The evidence presented above is convincing that the term "arborsculpture" is also used in relation to tree shaping in general, and not always to the work of Richard Reames. I don't, as yet, follow the arguments that using the term arborsculpture in a general article on tree shaping would have any impact on Pooktre. If there is likely to be some confusion, then that should be made clear in the article. We would look for more clarity and information at all times - provided it can be reliably sourced. I am prepared to listen to an explanation of how using "arborsculpture" in the general sense of tree shaping would be confusing in an article on tree shaping. The article, as I understand it, is not about Pooktre, and the section about Pooktre doesn't mention arborsculpture, though the section on Reames does say that he coined the term. I feel that is clear enough, but would be interested in hearing more thoughts on this. SilkTork *^YES! 11:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)(pasted here by --Griseum (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC))

I agree that the evidence above suggests that the word "arborsculpture" has become a thoroughly generic term, at least as much as "tree sculpting" and "living art" and "botanical architecture", and as currently used is disconnected from any specific method. (Unless there is new evidence to the contrary). -- Quiddity (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC) (pasted here by --Griseum (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC))

Looking at the evidence supplied for Arborsculputre

I followed all the links supplied by -Griseum

• 37 links about Arborsculpture in use.
• 4 links go to the wrong place.
• 10 links lead to Richard Reames book/s (most of the verifiable sources)

1. Arborsculpture - An Emerging Art Form and Solutions to our Environmentpage 25
2. The Journal of Mythic Arts
3. This (bloggy) site yep stumbleupon has a link to Richard's book
4. This is bloggy and partially-Wikipedia derived video has the book at the end (have to check on Fri)
5. Agriculture Views
6. Dwell.com
7. CabinetMagazine.org
8. University of California "Landscape & Turf News" page 4
9. Try Your Hand At Arborsculpture For A Fun Hobby
10. "Go get papers" in this directory the book Arborsculpture- Solutions for a Small Planet, appears and Arborsculpture Class is mentioned a few times.

• 5 links lead to Richard Reames and/or his web site

1. Department of Horticulture at Cornell University
2. this
3. Axel Erlandson: An American Arborsculpturist does meantion Richard's books in passing.
4. Treehugger.com
5. Living Tree Sculpture aka Arbosculpture

That leaves 18 sites that use Arborsculpture in a generic term.

• 5 links use Arborsculpture as one in a series of alternative names

1. Popular Science
2. different versions
3. sometimes
4. esciencenews.com
5. US Patent 7328532

What is left is mainly blogs and personal web pages. Not really a strong case for Arborsculpture being independent of its originator, and these links are from a search of Arborsculpture with Richard Reames removed!!! How dominant must Richard Reames be in a normal search of Arborsculputre. Blackash (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC) pasted in from the Talk:Tree shaping section Discussion on Arborsculputre click show

Arborscuplture is a Neologism

Griseum You list proves my point. 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.

On the Talk:Tree shaping User:SilkTork (an admin) 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) at the end of sectionTree Shaping is an article about people who shape trees, history and methods. Alex Erlandson is mentioned here, as is Richard Reames who coined the word Arborsculpture. It is not appropriate to use the Arborsculture here, I will be asking for a Third opinion Blackash have a chat 00:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Response to third opinion request:

Thank you for staying civil in your discussion, and for requesting a third opinion before things got out of hand. Currently, "arborsculpture" is used exactly once in the article, in the introduction as a collective noun describing Axel Erlandson's work. As I see it, the best term to use as a noun to describe his work would be whatever term he himself used. If this was ever documented, I'd suggest citing the source and using that term. Absent any evidence of the term Mr. Erlandson preferred, why don't we just rephrase the sentence to avoid describing the trees themselves? For example, "This attraction was eventually named "The Tree Circus.", echoing the use of "attraction" from the prior sentence. If we absolutely must have a descriptive term for Erlandson's work, then I suggest using "tree shaping", as that is: The title of the Wikipedia article on this type of art, As discussed on Talk:Tree shaping, the most neutral term for it, as per the consensus already reached in a discussion arbitrated by an administrator, and As noted in the same discussion, the preferred term for related articles on this type of tree art. As for the interaction between the two of you, I see that you're both getting perilously close in some places to incivility and other wikiquette breaches. Why don't you take a break for a few days from editing articles that you're both involved in? It might give you both a chance to look at all of this with a new perspective.—--Darkwind (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Eligible for WP:3?

Was this point, the use of the term arborsculpture, elegible for WP:3? While more eyes are clearly better, I question the use of this wiki process due to the involvement of more than 2 editors in the dispute. At several points in the 3O process are found: "Third opinion is a means to request an uninvolved opinion regarding a content discussion involving two editors." & "This page is for resolving conflicting viewpoints involving only two editors." are the opening sentences of the first two paragraphs at Wikipedia:Third Opinion, and it goes on to note, "If no agreement can been reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute. Just below that, appears "If more than two editors are involved, 3O is not appropriate." The point is also bolded at #1 on the submission page. It's not clear how this slipped past User:Blackash, and perhaps 3O User:Darkwind missed the ongoing engagement between User:Slowart, User:Griseum, several other editors, and the requester, User:Blackash, both on this article page, and around the long and still-simmering dispute between several editors concerning the use of the same term on the page that was first entitled Arborsculpture, and was later changed to Tree shaping, on the apparent basis of a consensus of weariness, following protracted advocacy by Blackash. There are other options available where more than 2 editors disagree. Should those options have been exercised instead? Should they be exercised now, given the ongoing absence of consensus? Duff (talk) 07:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

1. At the time I asked for WP:3, only myself and Griseum had discussed this point [1] [2] like all disagreements the hub of the problem becomes clarified with discussion.....
2. Is it appropriate to have the word Arborsculpture any where on this page as it is a Neologism.
3. "protracted advocacy by Blackash" quote Duff, you need to read the history start here [3] I didn't "campaign" to have Arborsculpture changed other editors decided that for themselves Blackash have a chat 00:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Questions I would like answered

Darkwind, I appreciate your opinion even if differs from my own. Unfortunately I believe you might only be seeing the tip of the iceberg. I've walked away from these issues for weeks at a time. Things don't get any better.

• BlackAsh does not want a 3rd opinion, she wants a 6th opinion. Her views disagree with those of at least 4 other people.
• Here's the question no one has answered: If numerous people have referred to Erlandson's work as “arborsculpture” in published, verifiable sources,and 4 editors have agreed its an innoculous generic term, why should Wikipedia avoid this term in order to placate a SINGLE editor – Blackash. She is a professional rival of the person who coined the word “arbosculpture” and has stated clearly and repeatedly how this is related to a non-Wikipedia related agenda -- a HUGE WP:COI.
• Admin SilkTork was one of the 4 people who agreed “arborsculpture” is a generic term and said specifically “"The evidence presented above is convincing that the term "arborsculpture" is also used in relation to tree shaping in general, and not always to the work of Richard Reames…” User:Quiddity wrote "I agree that the evidence above suggests that the word "arborsculpture" has become a thoroughly generic term, at least as much as "tree sculpting" and "living art" and "botanical architecture", and as currently used is disconnected from any specific method. (Unless there is new evidence to the contrary)." User:SlowArt, the person who coined the word, says its generic.
• Admin SilkTork said that “tree shaping” would be a more appropriate term for the name of the article about this craft but this wasn't firmly evidence based; it was an intelligent decision made to close the lame debate and get on with life. I agreed, especially as renaming and moving the article doesn't improve Wikipedia. Calling the article "tree shaping" is not the same as forbidding the term "arborsculpture" to be used as a synonym.
• The fact that arborsculpture is a well-established generic term for the craft been determined (by evidence-based consensus) beyond doubt. However, Blackash’s continued objection are based upon her SINGULAR OPINION that it actually a specific method of achieving effects
• We’re not discussing abortion, racism or the Holocost here. Arborsculpture is NOT a “conversial” term. No where on the 'net is there any indication that it is. It is a term that ONE editor dislikes and is wiling to disrupt Wikipedia to censure. Do you know that Blashash has “chased” the word all over the internet in order to tell people that Wikipedia proves arborsculpture refers to what she calls an “inferior method?”
• It needs to be realized that the decision to exclude the term "arborsculpture" from this article will be mispresented elsewhere as "proof" that Blackash's opinion (i.e. that arborsculpture is an inferior METHOD of tree shaping) is a fact-based consensus. That's why I won't just drop this.
• Wikipedia is here to present info clearly and accurately, not to make sure that every single person who edits is content even if they are making incorrect assertions based on entirely inappropriate agendas. Bad behavior shouldn't be rewarded and blatant misuse of Wikipedia for real-life ajendas shouldn't be tolertated.
• QUOTE from Blackash: "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.)" 15:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• STATMENT from me: My only agenda is to disallow the misuse of Wikipedia.

In summary, why should we avoid verifiable references that call Erlandson's work "arborsculpture" to appease ONE editor with an un-verifiable OPINION that this word is in some way controversial? --Griseum (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The real Question

I will address each point in turn. First I like to thank Darkwind for taking the time to come and read our discussion/s I suggest this sentence

• Axel Erlandson (December 15, 1884 – April 28, 1964) was a Swedish American farmer who opened a horticultural attraction named "See the world's Strangest Trees Here" in 1947 featuring his uniquely shaped trees. This was eventually named "The Tree Circus."

I can reference this from the book "My father talked to trees" written by Axel's daugther Wilma Erlandson page 4 Copyright 2001 ISBN 0-9708932-0-5 Which would remove the word Arborsculpture from there but, it will just reappear else where on the Axel Erlandson article. My real question is... Is it appropriate to have the word Arborsculpture any where on this page as it is a Neologism. Blackash have a chat 04:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Griseum Questions/Statements

Sigh I have answer most of these before. I do so again, I will paraphrase to shorten the questions/statements

1.Question Why not use the word Arborsculpture.

• Answer Because it is a Neologism.

Rebuttal of Griseum comments:- Griseum had placed an WP:COI tag on Tree shaping because of me edit history of tree shaping SilkTork removed the COI tag stating "The COI is not clear." edit history tree shaping Whether or not I have a WP:COI it up to you justify the change quote "Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it". This quote is from [4]

2.Statement The fact that arborsculpture isn't a method has been determined (by evidence-based consensus) beyond doubt.

• Rebuttal That point has not yet been debated about on Tree shaping. It on the to do list. There are published references linking the word Arborsculpture with a particular shaping method.

3.Statement SilkTork opined that “tree shaping” might be a more appropriate term for the name of the article about this craft that decision not evidence based; it was an attempt to close the lame debate and get on with life. I have no problem with that. Allowing the article to be called "tree shaping" is not the same as forbidding the term "arborsculpture" to be used as a synonym.

• Rebuttal When going the round for the 2nd time about the name of the article, SilkTork quote "I am still willing to listen to alternatives, though my inclination is that Tree shaping is going to be the term that best fits Wikipedia's guidelines." SilkTork *YES! 01:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC) SilkTork
  • As to "forbidding the term "arborsculpture" 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)

4.Statement admin (SilkTork) was also one of the 4 people who agreed “arborsculpture” is a generic term.

• Rebuttal By the same information SilkTork said "pooktre" is a generic term.

5.Statement Arborsculpture is NOT a “conversial” term.....It is a term that ONE editor dislikes

• Rebuttal Yet again with this, I am not the only one with this issue just the most vocal Scan though Talk:Tree shaping the bulk of the talk is about the word Arborsculpture. Multiple editors have had issues with Arborsculpture. Thats a “conversial” term quotes with links

6.Statement To exclude the term "arborsculpture" from this article will be misrepresented elsewhere as "proof" that Blackash's opinion (i.e. that arborsculpture is an inferior METHOD of tree shaping) is a fact-based consensus.

• Rebuttal No where on Wikipedia does it say Arborsculputre is an inferior method, bit hard to point to something that is not there.

In summary, Multiple editors have had issues with the word Arborsculpture, google Arborsculpture it leads to Richard Reams and his book. Arborsculpture is a Neologism which Griseum's list shows. I asking Griseum to follow Wikipedia guidelines not my OPINION. Blackash have a chat 04:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Blackash is ignoring COI and NPOV

This is simply an ongoing blatant attack over multiple pages on a word I coined in the book "How to grow a Chair" in 1995, containing the first published (book) account of Erlandson's Bio. The word arborsculpture has been widely used since that date to reference Erlandson's work. By previous acknowledgement, blackash is Becky Northy and runs the web sites pooktre.com and treeshapers.com. For quite some time this editor has attempted to remove, (when that dosen't work) redefine, (when that dosen't work) trivialize the word arborsculpture. This campaign extends to hundreds of blogs [cybor-stalking] This editor admits [[5] to inviting 500 people to a discussion page and now refers to quotes from single edit accounts that responded. A contrived argument by an editor with an admitted COI should be viewed in that light and an independent assessment should be reached by any editor looking into the issue. Slowart (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Here is what I have stated about COI on the Tree shaping article quote "Having read the COI I can see that now the page has been changed from Arborscuplture to a neutral, generic, and descriptive name we now may come into COI. As the page is no longer about one method of shaping but the art form as a whole. Fortunately it was never my agenda to push our method of shaping. My only agenda if there is one is not to have our work branded with someone else's methods of shaping trees. With that in mind I will continue to edit as I have always endeavoured to reach a consensus with other editors. Blackash (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)"
• As to NPOV I have never tried to hide who I am and this gives other editors the freedom to decide for themselves how much weight to give to my arguments. Go to NOPV has a section on Bias "All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article."
• I did invite 500 people from our mailing list, it was a newbie editor mistake. The quote with links to editors with an issue about the word Arborsculpture was not a result that email, but as the history on Talk:Tree shaping shows it was editors before that time as well as editors with multiple use accounts have had issues with the word Arborsculpture.
• Google Aborsculpture it leads Richard Reames and his books which teaches a method of shaping trees. Axel N Erlandson trees are unachievable using the method lay out in the books.Blackash have a chat 22:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The real point

Is it appropriate to have the word Arborsculpture any where on this page as it is a Neologism.Blackash have a chat 22:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• As User:Slowart pointed out, the term "arborsculpture" was coined 15 years ago; this makes it not that much younger than terms like "internet" and "search engine." It's been used and defined in the press extensively. The term "tree shaping" (especially as it relates to the real life arborcultural practice rather than magical stuff done by elves in fantasy books) is far, far newer. Neologism is a subjective and relative term, but it is clear that User:BlackAsh isn't losing sleep because of "WP:NEO." Nor is that the “real point” as she just claimed. Rather, this editor is citing this policy because her "only agenda if there is one is not to have our work branded with someone else's methods of shaping trees" (even though the fact that "arborsculpture" is NOT a specific method has been concretely determined). I concur with the statements made above by User:Slowart that Wikipedia is only a component of a "ongoing blatant attack" by Northey using multiple websites, forums, etc. Erlandson's work is frequently, extensively, and verifiably discussed as being "arborsculpture". Therefore, including this word in this article improves Wikipedia. THAT'S the real point. --Griseum (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• "Neologisms may take decades to become "old", however." quote from Neologism Age of a word does not change it form being a neolegism.
• "Cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term, not books and papers that use the term." quote from Reliable sources for neologisms Griseum list all use the term Arborsculpture, the list is not about the term Arborsculpture. So Arborsculpture is still a Neologism
• Again there has been no discussion' about "arborsculpture" and a specific method. It is on the to do list of Talk:Tree shaping
• It what isn't said. The word Arborsculpture is not in the book "My Father Talked to Trees" written by Axel N Erlandson's daughter Wilma Erlandson.
  • Gilroy Gardens who own most of the surviving trees don't use the word Arborsculpture either. Both of these people are aware of Richard Reames and the word Arborsculpture as he has had contacted with both of them.
    • In Richard Reames's book, Arborsculpture Solutions to a small planet, Richard has acknowledged Mark Primack as being the leading authority on Axel Erlandson's trees Mark Primack has this to say about the word Arborsculpture quote " That word is no more nor less than the name chosen by Mr. Reames to describe what he has accomplished with his own hands. His recent efforts to center himself in the world of artists (some more accomplished or famous than himself) who are working with living plants and trees, by applying his brand to all their work, may someday succeed, but it does not appear to be the mission of Wikipedia to support such efforts." seach Mr Reames
• In short Arborsculpture is a Neologism which leads to Richard Reames, who teaches a method of shaping trees either in person or though his books. Axel N Erlandson trees are unachievable using these methods. Is it appropriate to have the word Arborsculpture any where on this page. Blackash have a chat 03:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing absence of consensus

As there are now more than two editors discussing this, it seems Duff's suggestion of following the Dispute resolution process would now be the way to go.

• I have stated why the placement of the word Arborsculpture in this article is not in the best interest of the reader here [6]
• I have given an alternative with references, which Slowart, Griseum and Duff have ignored. [7]
• I have repeatedly asked why is it appropriate to use the wording Arborsculpture on Axel Erlandson article when Arborsculpture is Neologism with my reasoning here [8].

There are now 3 editors who think it is not appropriate for the word Arborsculpture to appear on this article. Myself as above and here, Silktork here and now Darkwind here

• Wikipedia has clear guidelines regarding Neologisms, "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_neologisms

I'll start the process in a couple of days time Blackash have a chat 01:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• User:Blackash states that 3 editors don't want to include the term "arborsculpture" on this page. Myself, Slowart, Duff and Quiddity have stated that it may be used here. 4 is more than 3....am I missing something here? More importantly, numerous good sources ([9]) have been presented which show beyond doubt that the work of Erlandson has FREQUENTLY been refered to as "arborsculpture" in the media. Anyone else wish to opine? --Griseum (talk) 09:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That fact that arborsculpture fits the definition of neologisms (and other editors have stated so here) and your list proves arborsculpture fits WP:NEO. Blackash have a chat 09:52, 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 (who apparently thinks 4 is less than 3) 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 the Tree shaping article from Arborsculpture to tree shaping. 2.We don't care what the name of the art-form is as long as it doesn't have a method or leads to one person. 3. The only list you have given uses the word arborsculpture. You had to do original research which shows Arborsculpture in use, then determine the meaning of that use. From Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms quote "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". Why don't you list and link them then. Blackash have a chat 10:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's my answer to that. 7 people have opined whether or not the word "arborsculpture" is appropriate for THIS article. 4 say yes, 3 say no. If anyone ELSE wants to opine yes or no on this specific point, they should do so here. Turning this page into a mirror of the tragedy at Talk:Tree shaping is pointless. --Griseum (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is another. The word arborsculpture is appropriate for use in this article. This is not an article on the word and the word is not a neologism. The neologism rules apply to articles on neologisms, on the words themselves, not to articles that use the words. Go read it again, it's been explained to you easily a dozen times. Please do not duplicate your efforts on arborsculpture here, or anywhere else. Duff (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has clear guidelines regarding Neologisms, "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_neologisms Blackash have a chat 14:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has lots of clear guidelines, but arborsculpture is still not a neologism. Your definition is incorrect, this is a completely appropriate place to use the word, if it improves the article, and cite it properly. Read the whole page there to grasp the context within which the concept is expressed, maybe. I believe that 5 is also more than 3, but am willing to be schooled on that too. There is no prohibition against the use of the word in articles. Be bold. Ignore all rules if they block you from making wikipedia better. Also do this if someone else's concerted and forceful misunderstanding of rules blocks you from making wikipedia better. Just make it better. Duff (talk) 02:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about voting. The word Arborsculpture has been removed multiple times from this article, yes editors here have expressed that the word Arborsculpture should not be used here, several different editors have stated that Arborsculpture is a neologism and/or is not neutral name for the art form. Some examples multiple editors with quotes and links Survey to move Tree shaping to Arborsculpture

As the editor/s it is up to you to justify the changes you want to make if the edit is contested. I found this "Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it". This quote is from [10]. You need to WP:PROVEIT is not a neologism (don't just post the list of Griseum, his links to date have been books and papers that use the term.) and that arborsculpture is neutral. To quote Sydney Bluegum "When I google arborsculpture I am sent directly to Arborsmiths Studios and am encouraged to buy merchantdise. The word is obviously a marketing funnel." [11] Blackash have a chat 07:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Read. No response deserved. --Griseum (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I'm now taking up Duff's suggestion of following the Dispute resolution process. At Wikipedia:Dispute resolution one of the suggestions is to list the dispute on the appropriate policy page. As the dispute here centers around Arborsculpture and Neologism I have gone to Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary and listed on their talk page Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Neologisms Blackash have a chat 14:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Please note also that a new RfC on this very topic: whether the Arborsculpture article is or ever was an article about a neologism, was started today by the above poster, at Talk:Tree shaping#Request for comment, (arborsculpture is presently titled Tree shaping, another point of serious discussion). The existence of the new RfC was none too clearly disclosed either at this so-called '"spill over" (the related) Talk:Axel Erlandson page. I'm noting this wherever else the oddly vague reference is made, so that comments and discussions on this topic can be consolidated on the talkpage of the main article, rather than be spread thinly all over the wikiplace, and so that we can somehow conclude this tired discussion. The main body of the discussions and consensus building is taking place at the Arborsculpture eh, tree sharpening article talkpage, where thoughtful editors would love to welcome more thoughtful editors to that RfC, as well as to the still open & now 16-day old RfC on Editorial conflict. So, please drop on by! Good fun will surely be had by all. Please bring your own bong. :) Duff (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Axel Erlandson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070123120827/http://www.arborsmith.com/treecircus.html to http://www.arborsmith.com/treecircus.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090116234905/http://www.arborsmith.com/krubsack.html to http://www.arborsmith.com/krubsack.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Reproducibility

Apart from “talking to the trees”, how did he do this? I realize he considered it as a trade secret at the time but surely if he planned them out by designing them on paper, and worked with others, there would be some record of his methods and protocol... Also I find it hard to imagine that other clever botanists over the years haven’t figured out how to scientifically reproduce these effects?

Thanks for any information. Genetikbliss (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)