Jump to content

Talk:Tree shaping/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5


Rewritten

I have rewritten this page to reflect the true nature of this entry - which is to promote a book. The word arborsculpture does not exist in any other context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Primack (talk • contribs) 05:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It does not appear in the english dictionary or in any literature (apart from the book for which it was coined). It is not accepted as an alternative name for the art of pleaching by anyone, and should not be taken to mean anything which it is not. It is the title of a book - nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.39.89 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That was true, before you wrote the article. "When" you wrote the article, the word existed in references and online resources by the hundreds. I was aware of the coined word before I heard of that book. And have practiced this since the 70's myself. That's why I'm helping to get this page under way. For the "art of arborsculpture" as a whole.
Wikipedia has a warning against changing article names, due to the detriment of other articles which link to it already. And now there are quite a few linking to this one. Since this article's short title matches the broad art, and not the book, it would be ideal for you to start a second article about the book itself. In the meantime, the short title and content here are now perfectly suited for the overall practice of the craft. Mdvaden 19:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
If you start a page on the book, it will be easy to internally link to it. If you need help with the second page, let me know. Look up M.D. Vaden of Oregon and email. I don't always look at my talk page here, or revisit every article I tinker on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdvaden (talk • contribs) 19:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is already used to include several entries for new books and since it even has a category for them, it may be in the spirit of the encyclopedia to include a site which is, promotional by nature. However, it fraudulent to present the entry as encyclopedic in the way in which it was edited before, for, if wikipedia condones entries that serve as marketing for the author and the author wishes to so forward himself by presenting his work on the free encyclopedia then the wording of the entry should reflect this desire and not present a consensus of the usage of a word which does not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Primack (talk • contribs) 20:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Try signing your posts with tildes or the button, please. Mdvaden 22:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the concensus of the word does exist. It's also the only term being used on the major arborist and gardening forums to convey and define the art. I've been watching posts for a couple of years now, and see no other name used for the art. Reames book and name basically has etched in culture, the first modern name, and only currently used name, for the art. From reading the opening paragraph, I can't see anything that seems to promote the book as encyclopedic for content. But the author's notoriety, and writing are historical now. Apparently even HGTV has covered his work on television so I learned at the HGTV site this week. So whether or not Reames would care about marketing, as an arborist and educator, I'd include the book and author myself from the historical perspective: the intiating point for the name arborsculpture. Mdvaden 22:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply to un-signed

I have re rewritten the page to take more neutral perspective. Before changing the parameters of the page we can discuss the issue. I agree about a page for the book Arborsculpture Solutions for a Small Planet I would like to see your contribution there. If you would like to voice an opinion to remove this page entirely because you think the article was created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign then that can also be discussed. The word arborsculpture and it's derivatives like arbosculptor and arborsculpting are in general use. The word exists with a life of it’s own well outside the title of the book. The word has been adopted quickly due to a lack of any other precise term. The word pleaching has a definition that does not include growing furniture and what not. Anyone can find confirmation of these claims with a web search. Google shows over 16,000 references even when the word Reames is subtracted. Many articles can be found with no reference at all to "Reames" or "arborsmith" or the book but these blogers and writers describe the art of shaping trees as Arborsculpture. For example see article written in July 2004 well before the book was published. http://www.builditplans.com/Blog/2004/07/arborsculpture-trees-from-your-wildest.html 69.19.14.43 03:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Richard Reames


Arborsculpture my views

I must disagree on the article and definition on a few points. Point 1: Arborsculpture is not an art in itself. It is a technique of shaping tree trunks. It is also a technique used in the art of topiary. Clearly defined in the English dictionary as the art of training of trees and shrubs to grow to ornamental shapes. The dividing line between art and craft is “form before function”. Some of the related pieces are art and some are craft. Art is determined by what is created not how it’s made. E.G. If you bent your tree trunks into ornamental shapes, this would be art. However if you bend your tree trunks into a chair, this would be a functional item therefore is craft not art. Point 2: The word Arborsculpture was made up by an American gentleman. Axel Elanderson, who pioneered this technique of shaping tree trunks. However I feel this was a mistake in his English. The correct category for his work was and is Topiary. The techniques he uses should be called Arborisculpture or Pleaching. These are not a dictionary recognised words but Arborisculpture is a follow on from the word Arboriculture meaning “the cultivation of trees and shrubs”. The word Arbor has nothing much to do with shaping trees. The word Arbour is a place shaded by trees. I feel the only reason Arborsculpture is still being used is because the authors of the books mentioned are following Axel Elanderson’s original mistakes. Pleaching is also a commonly used, very old word in England. This is also a technique similar to Arborisculpture/Arborsculpture and is also encompassed in the art of topiary.Topiarysteve000 11:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I partially agree and disagree. If a person does "Arborsculpture" with a knowledge of grafting, trunk growth (cambium tissue development, etc..), then it falls within the scope of arborist skills. Its horticulture, but very much within the confines of woody plants - Arboriculture. See my notes added below. Consider that "Bonsai" was no more than a Tree in a Pot, concept (Whoopty Doo) at one point in time. But it took hold in culture, manipulating trees in a special way to keep them dwarf. Nothing too original horticulturally, except to apply skill and patiences and keep them in pots.Mdvaden 03:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Ain't no way Arborsculpture is Topiary. In all my years in the trade, there is no way I could related it substantially to the images on the Wikipedia Topiarypage. Those topiary are PRODUCED SHAPES WITH FOLIAGE, whereas Arborsculture leans heavily to PRODUCE SHAPES WITH TRUNKS. Enormous difference, and I'm a bit surprised to see that point missed.Mdvaden 03:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply to- Arborsculpture my views

Steve, I agree about the point on the difference between art and craft and have added "art and craft technique" to the definition. Also that arborsculpture is under the topiary umbrella. I believe the common usage of the word "topiary" in the U.S. evokes the image of "evergreens with shaped foliage" although in other parts of the world this may not be the case. An important fact about Point 2. Axel Erlandson did not call his work with trees anything specific. If he did I am unaware of it. Had Erlandson named his art and craft then this discussion would not be taking place. I have not seen any evidence that he wrote or used the word pleaching and the conjunction "arborsculpture" was my doing in 1994 after realizing there was no specific word to describe the art and craft and clearly (in my mind anyway)it deserved it's own unique word. So It was my mistake to have not considered Arborisculpture as the correct spelling. I appreciate your view and input. 69.19.14.41 18:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Richard Reames

See my long comment below regarding this page and conflict of interest. I believe the article deserves a place, whether by book, or by craft. Arborsculpture may not be a college class, nor in many books, but I've been finding reference to it under that name on the internet - if merely due to the book's influence. Personally, as an expert in the field, I'd be willing to recognize the art under that name. A name has to start somewhere. And a name would help. I've seen some of the work, done the same thing myself, and actually live in the same region as the book's author (have not met). Personally, I see no other expert in the craft who has any other name that's better, or that predates it. The book's author has the expert skills to be worthy of recognition for the craft. If only one person in the world "BLEW GLASS" vases, would "Glass blowing" be worthy of extermination because only one or handful of people did it? So I offer that an art can be recognized whether one person or a thousand people do it. And this art - say Arborsculptute - is real, documented, taught and practiced. So let's give it a name, and if no grander authority comes up with a better name, let it be so.Mdvaden 03:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No original research

One of the guidelines to content on the free encyclopedia, is "No original research". See No original research for the full and updated details as to this principle, and I am of the opinion that the entry "Arborsculpture" is in breach of this principle - according to arguments which I have detailed in previous entries to this discussion. The crux of the matter lies in the fact that the free encyclopedia is a collaborative effort made by all of humanity, to document existing knowledge. Therefore, creating entries that are not considered knowledge whilst portraying the term as such is a misuse of the encyclopedia. Should the term "Arborsculpture" be in widespread use in the future, I would have no such objection to its inclusion as an encyclopedic entry describing a method or an art - yet this is not currently the case. Arborsculpture is the title of a book, and it is, understandably, the intention of the author that this title become widespread enough to be used as a word in the english language, but to use the encyclopedia to achieve this end instead of letting the term develop naturally, and then documenting it, is not right. Fortunately for the author, wikipedia allows the promotion of book titles and has a special category for it. I suggest that the category of this entry be re-edited to "Books 2005" and that the text be changed to reflect that real, and not the desired, meaning of this word. As this dispute is, quite naturally a stalemate between two opposing opinions - I would like to invite the Mediation Cabal to an informal mediation of this dispute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MPrimack (talk • contribs) 23:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

I offer that the use of the term in relation to the book and the craft, is now in use on the internet enough to merit it's foothold in society. No horticultural skill like "Topiary" provides a name for it, and the craft exists, and therefore should have a name. I'm an expert in the field, and use the name "Arborsculpture" at seminars, speaking engagements to garden clubs, and also in the classes I taught at the local Community College. My name is Mario Vaden M. D. Vaden of Oregon, and I offer that I professionally recognize this as an art and choose the name "Arborsculpture", finding no better alternative name than that. It is not topiary.Mdvaden 03:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

conflict summary- one point of view

Two newbe editors, both with a Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest One (primack and mprimack) changed the article (without discussion) changing the encyclopedia entry into a book review with category change, see April 13th edit.

The other editor (reames) myself, also with Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest re-writes and returns encyclopedia entry and now offers to limit future contributions to arborsculpture to only talk, images and fixing vandalism.

primack states arborsculpture should not be a page due to no original research reames can site worldwide usage in all media forms including World Exop 2005. reames asks for experienced wikiepedans to consider if arborsculpture should be deleted, moved or improved ? 69.19.14.20 00:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reames

I DISPUTE "no original research". The techniques used in "arboriculture" can be documented other ways, even if it's using other books. For example, branches can be manipulated in Bonsai similarly. The principles can be documented, if not the name and craft alsoMdvaden 03:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
It appears here, that a couple of people are trying to evaluate this, who may have limited exposure to horticulture and the techniques used in pruning arts. Not a lack of of exposure, but limited by being unaware of some of the deeper cultures of the trade.Mdvaden 03:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Create the article's case page instructions

Put the MedCab request tag on the talk page of the dispute. Insert subst:Medcab-request at the top of the page. Do not mark the edit as minor. Save the page. 

Create the article's case page.

The resulting box at the top of the article should contain a link to "Preloaded case page". Click that link to open the article's case page. A preloaded form and some instructions will appear. Fill out the form. Please be concise. Save the page.


Cases are listed by a bot. Your case will be added to the list during the next scheduled update. Also, it may take up to several weeks for a MedCab mediator to take on your case. Please be patient.

Conflict of Interest: Experienced Certified Arborist Opinion

I just added a fragment of info to the article which in basically unbiased about how Arborscupture - and Bonsai - trees retain their shape. And I decided to give some opinion on this article considering the mentions of conflicts of interest.

My background first. I've been in horticulture since 1980, and have pruned since 1975. I'm a Certified Arborist, Certified Landscape Technician with a college education in Landscape Technology, which included Arboriculture and Horticulture classes. One of my college instructors was a genuine Bonsai Master from Japan. At one point in time, I practiced Bonsai and what's called Arborsculpture for quite a few years. I've performed over 3,000 residential contracts, pruned 2 country clubs worth of trees entirely, and pruned at 2 university campuses. Some forestry volunteer work, and some orchard work.

I'd like to pose a question first - Is Bonsai worthy of an article? Consider that "Bonsai" may not have existed once. At what point did it become Bonsai? But it did originate, and remains today. Is arborsculpture the same? Did it begin, and is it in existence today, substantially enough to recieve recognition as it's own art?

If you read my contribution to the article, you will see that arborsculture relies on the same principle of Bonsai. They both need new layers of wood to grow and assume the new position to hold the stems as desired. Is that an art, or merely the result of plant growth?

But one thing that does stand out about "Arborsculpture", is that many projects become projects like arbors, chairs, benches, etc.. And, once SOME of these projects are made - say grafted and grown - they can be cut loose from the root system and used or sold as furniture. In that form, they would would not be living, but would be furniture or items. In that form, they would be CONSTRUCTED items, where the BOND may be accomplished by grafting of tissue, which is basically impossible by any other construction methods. Only welding would be similar, but it just doesn't compare to a bond made by cell division. Furniture made by arborsculpture, may well deserve its own name.

Personally, I have no problem with it recieving some kind of recognition, as long as an article explains the the over-lap it has with other practices like topiary. Or, the horticultural skills it utilizes like pruning.

In one way, nothing is very unique about it. Pruning already exists. Grafting already exists. Manipulating plants already exists. It absolutely relies on plant growth (cell division and wood layers development). But in another way, its so restricted to shapes, funiture and items (as opposed to food), that it may as well have its own name.

The reason I think a name is merited, is due to the need to learn it, research it, and become inspired by ideas used in it. In other words, Arborsculpture projects are not within the normal vision and scope of the average home gardener who prunes shrubs and trees. If a person wants to learn how to accomplish making a bench out of a dozen trees, HOW WILL THEY LEARN... WILL WHERE THEY GO... to see examples, to learn of the principles? They cannot "look-up" PRUNING. They cannot search for "TOPIARY". They cannot search for "VINEYARD", nor "orchard", nor "arboriculture", nor "arborist", nor horticulture. There is virtually no clear avenue by which they may seek Arborsculpture, unless the TERM of ARBORSCUPTURE is offered a place in culture. By searching that word, and reading those books and articles, people may learn of the skill.

Personally, I find little profit in it, although I may give it a whirl again to impress a few neighbors. But some people really enjoy this craft. And I believe that people can learn a lot about plants and plant growth by the practice.

So, all-in-all, I'll offer my vote to keep the article retained, as long as it doesn't lead people to believe that some practices like manipulating plants in "nifty" ways are limited to some Arborsculpturist. It's merely one special way of utilizing horticultural skills. M. D. Vaden of Oregon (you can find my background any time, searching with that name on the web).Mdvaden 03:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


Similar to Espallier, but maybe not "related"

Espalier is typically a "2 dimensional" pruning practice, but Arborsculpture tends to be very 3 dimensional. I suggest maybe saying "similar" to topiary.Mdvaden 04:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

2007-07-27 Automated pywikipediabot message

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 02:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


Full Article now, well beyond Dictionary definition

Removed template from page top which said to delete it if this page was expanded beyond a dictionary definition size. That has occured. This is now an article length page.Mdvaden 06:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit August 16, 2007 grammar + "tree"

Noticed an unsigned comment in discussion today, and another separate edit to the article, maybe by someone else. Not sure if the other person's edit was informative. It tended to lean away from projecting understanding of approximate timelines. Anyway, left most of their edit alone.

Did eliminate "tree" from next to "species" because not all arborscupture are trees. Shrubs or vines can be used too. Also added comment about "bracing", since other editor seemed to focus on "grafting" which is only part of the shaping.Mdvaden 23:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"According to this book" deleted

I deleted the phrase "according to the book by the same name" because this article is progressing on the basis that arborsculpture is now a widely used word on the media, by arborists and on the internet. So its more practical to just state what the art is. A single book is not needed as the basis anymore.Mdvaden 23:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

'Biotechture'?

What about 'Biotechture' (which is not yet a Wikipedia entry)? Clearly we are dealing with ways of managing trees and other living systems beyond the original fields of 'topiary', 'bonsai', and 'espalier', etc. people are building SHELTERS with these techniques. How long will this take to make it into print dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc.? This is the BEAUTY of Wikipedia! Keith Morris earthsurfing(at)yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.252.245.167 (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tree shaping. 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) 13:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tree shaping. 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) 09:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tree_shaping/Archive_1&oldid=1027889224"