Jump to content

Talk:Topiary

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is "sexy" topiary worth the space?

[edit]

Moved this text here: "Topiary can also express sexual themes. Gillian Greensite, director of UC Santa Cruz's rape prevention and counseling program, has been trimming her 20 foot (6 m) tall hedges to resemble a phallus and testicles (or, depending on one's perspective, breasts) since the late 1980s. In 2002, an offended neighbor filed a complaint with the police. Upon investigation, the police declined to intervene due to Greensite's rights to free speech and artistic expression [1]" Is this local item informative? --Wetman 11:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I'd have to say that whether it's informative or not, it's certainly not all that relevant to an article on topiary. The medium of the expression isn't the important thing in this situation. If it's relevant anywhere, it would probably be in an article about artistic expression or some such. -- Zawersh 02:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Various issues to broaden topic

[edit]

1) T'would be great to expand the article, as tagged. Vis-a-vis verification, if folks in the know could identify specific statements are needing citations, that would be helpful. I shade from being unclear as to intent (What is the purpose of identifying "sub-shrubs", as such?), to factuality (There's significant Western topiary less than 10 cm tall?), to feeling that academic license from published sources has been imported into this encyclopedia article ("Classical Greece" and "Republican Rome"? This is a sort of shorthand for saying "Ancient civilizations that Westerners view as being important to modern Western civilization"?) It would be better to stick with the facts, such as "widespread interest in Western topiary appears to be rooted in the 16th century", or whatever the case may be. I can't help feeling that we just don't know about earlier topiary. It must have occurred to cavemen that this could be done.

2) Shaping plants, and placing them in a larger garden context has been a Japanese passion, at least, for centuries. Less POV would be helpful. (The Wiki link to bonsai does not agree with the statement made in this article that their pruning was on pines, for the purpose of expressing wind and weather.) Statements such as "cloudlike forms of clipped growth are designed to be best appreciated after a fall of snow" are subjective and misleading -- there is cloud-pruning in areas where it never snows.

3) An example of a conversational academic assertion that needs a reference, or to be redone, is the section on "Decline in the 18th century". It's interesting that Pope criticized topiary, but it's hard to swallow that he, single-handedly, "killed" a fashion. As for "swept the English garden clean of its hedges", etc., that's hyperbole. Misleading, or perhaps completely in error.

It is fashionable in certain historical writing for the author to make broad, pedantic statements about his impressions of historical trends (in lieu of statistical facts), but since someone else could make equally broad, pedantic statements in an entirely different direction, they can't be viewed as the impartial and verifiable statements that Wikipedia prefers.

Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 02:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We await your well-documented additions, which will be an inspiration to us.--Wetman (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to be as specific as possible, since I'm not a gardener, and can't provide a comprehensive perspective. Just as examples, it doesn't take special knowledge to see that this article, for example, contradicts the Wiki article on Bonsai. And I happen to know two large public formal Japanese gardens with cloud-pruning where it never snows -- so it can't be held that they are designed to be appreciated in the snow.
The topic seems interesting, so I was expressing a hope that some of the more subjective material could be replaced with that of more substance.
Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. well, perhaps someone else will take fire from your suggestions.--Wetman (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sing-songy tone

[edit]

This article uses a rather lyrical tone, waxes a bit poetic in spots, runs wordy in spots, and has more than one fifty cent word thrown in for special effect. The voice is not consistent with the rest of Wikipedia, IMHO. I may take a stab at editing, but wanted to explain the tag I added. Janus303 (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Topiary. 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:

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) 07:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Topiary&oldid=1194883599"