Talk:Tree shaping/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Undue weight

The word Arborsculpture or variations thereof are being given WP:UNDUE weight in the article. Tree shaping has more book references available about this art form than Arborsculpture does, yet that is not reflected in the article. Not to mention various editors have an issue with the definition of arborsculpture link This undue weight occurred when some editors where trying to make a WP:Point during the survey about changing the title to Arborsculpture. Article before The word Arborsculpture and variations needs to be pruned back on the article. Blackash have a chat 09:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Arborsculpture is the term with the vast preponderance of reliable sources (2:1, easily). That is the measure we use as neutral editors. Tree shaping, as has been discussed repeatedly, much more commonly describes a different thing, as careful study of the references provided and sought for its use reveals clearly. The usage in the article of the word arborsculpture to describe the topic of the article is appropriate and its relative weight is not improper. I am not in favor of any more "pruning," at this time, nor of continued tiresome pressure from the same involved editor(s) to alter the content of the page, particularly surrounding the use of the word arborsculpture. Please give it a rest. duff 03:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Duff's "any more "pruning,"" seems to be implying there has been some pruning already, in point of fact the exact opposite is true. The word Arborsculpture was increased in a very pointy manner during the survey article before.

• Arborsculpture is the term with the vast preponderance of reliable sources (2:1, easily)
• In rebuttal, 2:1 is wrong as is reliable and vast.

1. In published books it more like 10:1 against arborsculpture. References to books and media, this will increase with time as it is a work in progress. Finding articles about the art form is difficult unless you already know of them, but I'm working on that.
2. Arborsculpture is a Wikipedia:Neologism, in reply Griseum resupplied this list but these links use the term. I have requested multiple times for sources that quote Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms "cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term,..." Silence is the deafening answer.
3. As to the reliability issue there are a few reliable sources, but most of these are the result of interviews with Richard Reames (creator of the word Arborsculpture) about his book/s both of which are self published, or give credit to Richard for his information. To quote Rror "The ones I can access (hey, I guess that makes them verifiable) all feature a photo of you, and are describing mostly your work. Not surprisingly 'your' term is used to describe your work. Rror (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)"
   1. Duff I know you claim Richard is an expert, but where can you verify that? Which experts state that he is also one and where are the peer reviews of his trees? Unless you can WP:PROVEIT he is not an expert. Richard Reames is just someone who WP:SELFPUBLISH book/s, and as such his books fall under the WP:POORSRC policy as do the interviews based on those books.

To sum up Arborsculpture is not as heavily represented in the real world as it is a the moment on the article. It's use is contested both as WP:UNDUE weight and as a neologism. Please read Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. quote "Where editors disagree about the use of these neologisms it is best to err on the side of not using them." Blackash have a chat 15:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

We have been over this, if the article name was a neologism the article should have been deleted. Is that what you are suggesting we do? Colincbn (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Colincbn please stop focusing on the title, I am talking about the usage of arborsculpture throughout the article itself. Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms also talks about using terms in articles quote "or use the term within other articles" Blackash have a chat 15:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying the word Arborsculpture is a neologism? What are your reasons? And if you are right then do you agree the article should have been deleted or merged into Living sculpture, which is what the policy on neologisms states we must do? Quite frankly all I can see is your continued campaign to rid WP of a term that is, in your mind, against your commercial interests. As such I have a hard time taking anything you say seriously as an editor. I know this is not "assuming good faith" but sometimes our assumptions are proven wrong. Colincbn (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yes arborsculpture is a neologism, all sources to date use the term and are not about the term. As one of the editors that wishs to use the word though out the article it is your WP:BURDEN to justify it conclusion when it is contested by other editors.
• No the article doesn't need deleting as there are plenty of reliable verifiable sources of Tree shaping used as a name for this art form. [1] or is 9 books and counting not enough for you, not to mention other media articles?

As you are aware this section is not to debate about the title of the article all over again, (Please don't fill this section with rhetoric about the title) I just read your comments to Martin and you clearly understand that I am discussing the use of Arborsculpture within the article and not the title. [2] Thou you are either confused or deliberately putting spin on my comments above. You seem to think I wish to remove Arborsaculpture altogether that would not be appropriate and you implying that it is what I'm trying to do is misleading to other editors. Blackash have a chat 02:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I think you have a conflict of interest where the word Arborsculpture is concerned and should recuse yourself from editing in regards to its usage in anyway whatsoever. That does not mean I even disagree with you about its usage. It simply means that your business interests and the interests of WP are at odds. If you remember I agreed with the closing of the move debate as No consensus. It was clear after seven days that a clear consensus had not arisen. However I also feel that your campaign against the word Arborsculpture has clouded the issue. Colincbn (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Colincbn I am contesting the amount of times that Arborsculpture appears in the article, as a editor who added Arborsculpture to the body of the article. It is up to you to justify the changes you want to have if the edit is contested. Claiming I have COI doesn't relieve you of this responsibility. "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 [3] Instead of trying to side track the discussion, discuss the weight that has been given to Arborsculpture in this article please. Blackash have a chat 10:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, the neologism policy pertains to dictionary-word articles, which this article is not, and thus it does not apply to this article. Please read the entire document AGAIN at WP:NOTADICTIONARY. We do not disagree about the 'use of a neologism'. This is not one. You disagree over whether it is one, and went so far as to ask for consult on that very point at the talk page for WP:NOTADICTIONARY. So what was the result? No consensus? So now you insist again, "oh, yes it is one." You have been demonstrated incorrect, so now stand down. How quickly forgotten. Please make a note or something. Also, as 2 whether or not Reames is an expert, even if we eliminated his one potentially non-expert source, and I'm not in agreement that we should, that's still 17:8, better than 2:1. Please stand down voluntarily. duff 05:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• WP:NOTADICTIONARY doesn't just talk about articles that are dictionary entries, it discusses using a neologism term within wikipedia articles please note the bold. Quote "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. 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."
• I'm not the only person that states Arborsculpture is a neologism. other editor's comments with links
• I created RfC about the term Arborsculpture, no new editors chose to comment, that doesn't mean no consensus that just means there was no interest in commenting. Duff states that it easy to prove Arborsculpture isn't a neologism then WP:PROVEIT.
• As most of the sources about Arborsculpture stem from Richard Reames and/or his books it needs to be establish that he is an expert for those sources to considered reliable until then the majority of the Arborsculpture citations are invalid. Blackash have a chat 10:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You have a clear conflict of interest where this term is concerned and should not edit WP in order to suppress it. If other non-involved editors decide not to use it that is fine. But you yourself should not be a part of that decision making process. I have said the same thing to Slowart. Colincbn (talk) 12:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Blackash, I can only repeat what Colin has said. You have a clear conflict of interest regarding the term 'arborsculpture' and I strongly suggest that you restrict your editing and comments to improving the article in other ways. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

As Wikipedia editors you are not willing to discuss the issue of the amount of weight Arborsculpture is given in the article. You are willfully ignoring policy guidelines to avoid discussing this point.

• When content you have added is contested, the WP:BURDEN is on you to justify its inclusion. (I've pointed this out earlier in this discussion.)
• Trying to stop me from discussing issues on the talk page by claiming I have a conflict of interest. (Goes against How to handle COI quote "Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute.")
  • I've started the section Undue weight on the talk page about the weight Arborsculpture is given in the article. You are not willing to give my views fair consideration.
    • Ratios have been throw around with no backed up evidence that Arborsculpture is as high referenced as stated. Majority of the references for Arborsculpture hinge on the fact Richard Reames (creator of the word) is an expert. When asked to WP:PROVEIT there has been some waffling from Duff but no evidence.
    • There have been attempts to side track into rhetoric about the title again. (This section is about the amount of weight the word Arborsculpture is given in this article compared to other names for the art form.)
    • When asked to focus on this issue, the COI card is brought into play again. (As I have chosen to talk about the issue here first, instead of just editing the article it is only a potential conflict.) The potential conflict lies in fact I'm Co-founder of Pooktre a name for the art work of my life partner and I (we don't use this word to brand onto other people's art). I am Becky Northey an artist in this art form who objects to being branded with someone else's name and method. Yes I do except commissions but what artist doesn't.

Back to the issue. Arborsculpture or variations thereof are being given WP:UNDUE weight in the article. This needs to be addressed. As you guys don't wish to discuss this issue I have gone up the dispute resolution line. I've listed on the NPOV noticeboard Blackash have a chat 13:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent idea. How will you explain to them that you have a strong commercial interest in the subject but everyone else is pushing their POV. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

NPOV review

I am here from the NPOV noticeboard.

I find RegentsPark's summary of the issue to well-cover the arguments for and against the use of the term arborsculpture. Tree shaping should be the article's title for now and as such, it should be the term used to describe the article's subject throughout the mainspace unless someone is referring to a specific type of tree shaping which has its own name.

I think that all instances of the word "arborsculpture" in this article ought to be changed to "tree shaping" to match the article's title unless there is a situation when the differences between the terms merit the use of the an alternative name over the main name. See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Treatment_of_alternative_names.

Tree_shaping#Alternative_names and Tree_shaping#Artistic_controversy need to be deleted entirely because these sections are a reflection of Wikipedia arguing and are without meaningful citations which show that this is a debate in the field. The citations which are there help to set an argument, but not to prove that one already exists. Blue Rasberry 15:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Be nice

Being WP:NICE is a Wikipedia rule. User:Duff has used the following language in this section: "continued tiresome pressure from the same involved editor", "Please give it a rest.", "Please read the entire document AGAIN" "We do not disagree... You disagree" "You have been demonstrated incorrect, so now stand down. How quickly forgotten. Please make a note or something." "Please stand down voluntarily."

user:Colincbn has used the following language in this section: "if the article name was a neologism the article should have been deleted.", "rid WP of a term that is, in your mind, against your commercial interests" "As such I have a hard time taking anything you say seriously as an editor"

I might say that there is other language that is not nice elsewhere. I do not like seeing this. I commend user:Blackash for stating a case then asking for uninvolved editor opinions instead of belittling anyone for their views instead of adding meaningful content to the discussion. Blue Rasberry 15:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

How can you say quoting WP policy is not being nice? As in "if the article name was a neologism the article should have been deleted."? This is exactly what the policy on neologisms says. As for "As such I have a hard time taking anything you say seriously as an editor" this is a simple statement of fact. I did not say I don't take her seriously or that I am not doing my utmost best to put my feelings aside and assume good faith, just that it is difficult considering the person in question is in obvious violation of one of the core principals of WP. Your use of "rid WP of a term that is, in your mind, against your commercial interests" is unfair as you are cutting my sentence in the middle and taking that part only as "what I said". The whole quote is "Quite frankly all I can see is your continued campaign to rid WP of a term that is, in your mind, against your commercial interests" I did not even say that was what she was doing, I only said that is what it looks like to me. In fact by taking my words out of context and using them as a weapon against me I feel you have been, well, not nice. Colincbn (talk) 02:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The entire article refers to a specific type of tree shaping which has its own name; that is precisely the trouble. That name is arborsculpture. Though I have no personal, emotional, or commercial involvement one way or the other, I strongly disagree with any further efforts to expunge the word arborsculpture from this article and from this encyclopedia. I find the effort disturbing. The vast preponderance of reliable sources, as cited, refer to the specific topic of the article as arborsculpture, not as tree shaping.

'Tree shaping' is the commercial funnel, not arborsculpture, which is a non-commercial and well-established word used in an encyclopedic article about the topic. The article is not about the word, which would be where the policy on neologisms would apply. It does not apply, and this has been clearly established. Now again, it is suggested from the same involved source that the word should be removed. There is not consensus to remove any instances of the word arborsculpture from this article. On the contrary, it has been agreed that the words can be used interchangeably within this article, in balance with their relative weight in common unambiguous English language usage, and that for now the title shall renain as it is. Please take time to read the citations themselves. This is the word for this craft and Blackash's long-standing, and yes, tiresome effort to expunge the word in favor of her own commercially registered trade name, Treeshapers, has not buffaloed the other neutral uninvolved editors of this page. I'm not going to be bullied by an involved editor with a clear conflict of interest, or any other editor, nor should any dedicated editor. The article's history details years now of conflict over the original name change to tree shaping, which was done without proper due process and then reinforced by that one single-purpose editor's dogged persistence and off-wiki manipulation of the web at large, using wikipedia as a lever to thwart a professional rival. This is improper. Neutral and uninvolved editors are aware of the conflict, have studied the issue carefully over several months, including reading all the diffs and comments, and sifting through mountainous stacks of spurious and self-directed citations, winnowing for the remaining reliable citations. These newer editors as well as some of the original editors, have reached consensus, which is reflected in the page content. We have moved forward with article improvement, leaving the title as it is for now and proceeding with apprppriately cited use of the correct word to describe the topic being described, as agreed by several, but not by Blackash. I am confident that fully informed editors will stand fast against the sort of insidious elimination of properly cited material that is being suggested here. Please read the policy on article name changes WP:Article titles#Considering title changes, as this is the applicable policy concerning the title. Also, please note that I too have clearly stated a neutral and well documented case and have solicited comment via RfC's myself, inviting several other uninvolved editors like myself to comment, which they, inluding Colincbn, have done. Hence the current consensus, with which Blackash, again, does not agree, so around we go again. There are more important articles to edit, and I've put in more than my share of effort on this one since March, to make it better. It is better. The several editors who came in from those RfCs now include Blueraspberry, which is great and a warm welcome to you, but opinions of editors don't change the cited facts. Existing editors do not wish to wrestle further with Blackash over her control of the page content, which was tedious, and prohibited, so most of us have moved on to more productive writing. You might not think that's nice, any of it...but it's factual, and Colincbn's also been diplomatic to a fault. I plan to improve the article more myself after a good breather from it, as I have many other interests that also engage. Peace. duff 02:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Tree shapers in not our trade name Pooktre is.

Duff it is amazing how often you insist you are uninvolved. I disagree you are involved, when shown evidence contrary to your belief that arborsculpture is name of the art form. You don't change your view. Example Duff's quote "Please present a single reliable source ... demonstrating the use of the term 'tree shaping' to describe this craft. I'd like to see one."

I gave not one, but multiple references [4] and still Duff insists that Arborsculpture is the name. This is the reaction of an involved editor.

Duff interchangeably within this article, in balance with their relative weight is the point I'm trying to discuss. Please WP:PROVEIT that Richard Reames is an expert or all sources that come from him that give weight to the word Arborsculpture as a generic name will be removed. Blackash have a chat 22:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

1) Duff obviously meant "uninvolved" in the sense of "I am not a artist who makes money from the artform this article is concerning". Hence, he does not have a "conflict of interest", in the way that you and Reames and other artists do.

2) Why is Reames' "expertise" suddenly being brought up? Are you an accredited "expert" in tree shaping?

3) Again, a preemptive request to please not edit the article to alter information regarding the word "arborsculpture", as you have a double conflict-of-interest: 1) you're an artist in the field this article is about, 2) you have a professional disagreement about this word in particular, and with the artist Reames in particular.

If you want to demonstrate good faith, you might like to add to the page you made of alternate names, the accumulated references to "arborsculpture", which section is currently noticeably empty. Just a suggestion. (Other editors might also like to do that). -- Quiddity (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no suddenly about it, I questioned Reames "expertise" when Duff was going through the references. [5] As most of weight for arborsculpture arises from Richard's books, classes or interviews it needs to be established that Richard Reames is an expert for those references to stand. Other wise the WP:SPS applies. Blackash have a chat 02:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Which of the characteristics at Expert#Contrasts and comparisons are you accusing your artistic colleague of not having?

10,000 hours, is a sometimes used figure. That amount could be accumulated in as little as 2-3 years. So yes, he is now an expert, and has been for a good long while, and only a Higher entity knows for exactly how long; but he could easily have been an "expert" by the time he first authored a book on the topic.

Secondly, SPS is not at all related to interviews (unless they're purely-self-published interviews, which would be a bit weird...) -- Quiddity (talk) 04:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Quiddity the question of Richard's expertise was only one of issues about Arborsculpture having too great a weight in the article.
• Quiddity the wording to note in WP:SPS is quote "established expert". It is not up to us to decide whether or not Richard is an expert that would be WP:OR. Wikipedia:Verifiability reliable source should be used to establish if he is an expert. When Duff was going though the cites and wanted to include Richard's book as a reliable source, I asked him WP:POVEIT, quoting WP:SPS as he hasn't do so I was assuming that he is unable to do so. Therefore the cites relying on Richard Reames's books (or interviews based on the books: example book reviews) for 3rd party claims should go. Blackash have a chat 10:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This bio of Richard Reames published by Western Chapter International Society of Arboriculture (published in connection with his appearance at their annual conference) clearly illustrates that he is considered an authority on tree shaping / arborsculpture (the bio uses the terms interchangeably). More importantly, the fact that he is an considered an expert on this particular matter should already be obvious to anyone informed about the ongoing issues with this Wikipedia article. Seriously. If not, a web search can determine it in about 40 seconds. This whole “...needs to be established that Richard Reames is an expert for those references to stand.” business instigated by User:Blackash at this stage of the game is an irrelevant protest not worthy of more attention. --Griseum (talk) 02:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course, a presenter would prepare their own bio for a conference. I dont think your source is reliable. Richard Reames is an expert on tree shapers not tree shaping. On page 195 of his book Arborsculpture he states "I dont know why it leans or why it did not grow balanced, but I am studing it with faith that I will learn." Same page "It is my deepest desire that others will feel inspired to carry this art form into the main stream. Is this a form of self promotion using wiki editors to achieve his deepest desire or is someone masturbating their ego?Sydney Bluegum (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Griseum your link to the bio was created for event advertisement. This is not a reliable source. Your suggestion of doing a web search is WP:OR. If a source is called into question the editors wanting to keep that source must WP:PROVEIT, using reliable published sources. Where are the published peer reviews of Richard Reames's trees (the ones created with Richard's own hands)? Who states that Richard Reames is an expert? The person claiming Richard is expert, what is their experience in this field of shaping trees? Their opinion would also need to be published in reliable source as well. Blackash have a chat 11:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As stated, this sub-debate is not worthy of more attention. --Griseum (talk) 06:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

For now I have changed or removed 3 instances that Arborsulpture was used in the article. I have started a new section where Duff when over the Alternative names citations and will be using Duff's example is a guide to sort out which citations to keep and which ones to strike out. page Blackash have a chat 14:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The campaign

Recent edits by Blackash diff are clearly a ongoing violation of [WP:COI] and [WP:NPV]. Blackash posted about this subject at NPOV noticeboard without receiving support. Blackash, can you refrain ? From...

• 1. Removing the word
• 2. Watering down the word with alternatives.
• 3. Trying to redefine the word.

You probably already understand that editing against rivals at Wikipedia should not be tolerated. Slowart (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Slowart/Reames as the creator of the word (Arborsculpture) you understandably object to anyone making changes you don't agree with. I asked for opinions, then worked at a compromise, I didn't remove all instances of the word Arborsculpture or even limit the use of the word to your section (Richard Reames) on the article. I believe I have created more balance of weight to the references for Arborsculpture as they stand at the moment.

• 1. Slowart please look above to NPOV_review to find the support for the changes, also SilkTork has previously stated that the usage of Arborsculpture should mainly be used in relation to your work.
• 2. Tree shaping is not an alternative, it is the title name.
• 3. In the diff you give, I haven't tried to redefine the word.

As you seem to think I am being unreasonable please take your disagreement up the dispute ladder. Blackash have a chat 01:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S You seem to be implying Arborsculpture is synonymous with Richard Reames. Blackash have a chat 01:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

As an independent editor with no connection or interest in the subject, but who has formed an opinion from careful study of the evidence, I agree with Slowart. There does seem to be a campaign to remove or reduce the use of the term 'arborsculpture'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Martin as Blue Rasberry pointed out you are not a neutral editor on this article. (NPOV noticeboard link) As an editor that has had an active role in the discussions for some months (since 2 June 2010), sometimes voicing your opinion to the point of rhetoric with out giving policy/s that support your position. This is not the behavior of an uninvolved editor. Blackash have a chat 15:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Going through references

I've started checking the references and I am working at sub page that Duff used for the alternative names cites [6]. The first ref doesn't even relate to the info it is citing for. I also going to go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to find out if a Press release can be used under the WP:SPS if so there is some info that can be used for the article. Blackash have a chat 13:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

First ref (American Friends grown homes) has been moved as it wasn't actually giving the info it was being referenced to. I've moved it down the page to where it matches text. Blackash have a chat 05:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Martk Primack's article Pleaching ref I agree with Duff that it is a reliable souce.

The cherraqunjee ref seems to use reliable sources for its article I would class it as reliable.

The india9 ref on it own wouldn't be very reliable but as a supplementary source to the cherraqunjee ref should be ok Blackash have a chat 11:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Forest and Shade Tree Pathology: Wood Decay is published by an expert and is therefore a reliable source. Blackash have a chat 03:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Arborsculpture: Horticultural Art Reliable source Blackash have a chat 11:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

A History of Grafting Reliable source Blackash have a chat 11:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Cassidy, Patti (August, 2008), "A Truly Living Art", Rhode Island Home, Living and Design Magazine (Swansea, Massachusetts: Home, Living & Design, Inc.): 26–27, http://www.rhodeislandhld.com/magazine/aug2008.pdf, retrieved 2010-06-15 This is a dead link and I can't find another copy online. So I leave this for a while, though I have removed the http link in the cite. The magazine's site state they may put it up at a later time. Or Slowart do you know where this is access to this online? Blackash have a chat 03:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Richard's book How to Grow a Chair Is self published should be ok as back up references, not as the main or only source for controversial points. Blackash have a chat 08:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Went to reliable sources and asked here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_86#Is_this_book_an_reliable_source_or_would_it_be_classed_as_self-published. About Richard's book Arborsculpture it is self published and WP:SPS applies. So this should be ok as back up other sources, not as the main or only source for controversial point. Can also be used about Richard Reames and his own activities. WP:SPS

Naming of art form

The place to have a discussion about this subject is here rather than in the article. There is clearly no consensus on this subject and a section with the above title was, quite rightly in my opinion, removed from the article. If left, such a section would quickly become an unseemly battleground to the detriment of the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree, Slowart (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree, I also think the section "Alternative names" should be either removed or extensively rewritten. Colincbn (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Cloincbn, please read [7] talks about creating a separate section when there are more than two alternative names. Blackash have a chat 12:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Martian it was not a discussion, it was cited text.

Disagree, Slowart’s removal of cited material is the wrong response. Either Martin or Colincbn should have replaced the section. Then pointed out to Slowart "verifiability, not truth” in WP:SOURCE, then further pointed out if Slowart felt the section naming of art form was unfairly representing one view, he should add the alternative view/s with citations. Please read WP:YESPOV. Please replace the section naming of art form and the text as I wrote it. Then add content of other views from reliable sources and in context to the original source/s. I believe my history shows that I am more than willing to discuss anything I disagree with. Blackash have a chat 12:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree you have been willing to discuss any issues that have come up. In this case It is less about sources than it is about writing in an encyclopedic style. If there are refs that can be used to show there is a dispute about the name that is fine. But they must be added carefully to avoid POV and to be in a style appropriate to the encyclopedia. Colincbn (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Colincbn this section was not about a dispute rather it was about the fact that no name has emerged for the art form. Mainly due to the fact there are not many people who create art with trees in this way. Those who do have named their own art or methods. The only person to use their own name for other's work was Richard and this was mentioned in this context. I also added about the first time a significant group got together as I thought it would be of interest to the reader.

Colincbn, please replace the naming of art form section. I believe if I did so, this edit would later be misrepresented to new uninvolved editors. I would appreciated it if then you, Slowart or Martin let me know which part of this section is not in the encyclopedic style and I post the reference quote and then could you (Colincbn) help me reword the sentence so that it is more encyclopedic. Blackash have a chat 03:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. First I would suggest that if we are to put a section like this in than we should combine it with the "Alternative names" section. There is really no need to have two sections about what is essentially the same thing. I also think we should trim some of the references down. Especially the ones attached to the arborsculpture entry. I understand why they were added and I sympathise, however we cite sources to show that what we are writing is verifiable and reliable, not to "prove a point". I think any more than three is unnecessary and two is most likely sufficient. I don't think we should put any "so and so thinks name A is stupid and so and so thinks name B is stupid" bits either. I think we can all agree that will simply lead to bad blood and an inevitable degrading down to mud slinging. We can say who uses what names and even why, keeping in mind that our role is not to judge and that we should give an appropriate level of "weight" to each name. I can give more time to this on Sunday or Monday (Japan time); tomorrow I am leading a tour to Nara and won't have much time to spend on it. Colincbn (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree the paragraph would work combined into the Alternative names section. Most of it could be at the start of that section. Yes, you are right (to save a blood letting) about removing "Ivan Hicks seems to feel the word arborsculpture is unwieldy to pronounce." from the paragraph. I agree the refs should be trimmed down. I don't really have any time until Tuesday Australian time zone either. Thanks for pointing out where the problem was. Blackash have a chat 05:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please add this text "Through out history there has been so few practitioners of this art-form, that there is no standard name. Every artist has a different name for their techniques. "It hasn't got a name: Richard Reames calls it arborsculpture." The first gathering of "accomplished tree shapers" took place at the World Expo 2005 Japan in the Growing Village pavillion." into the section Alternative names. Blackash have a chat 05:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind if I reworded it a bit? I can put up my suggestion in a few hours (I'm still at work). Colincbn (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I put up my suggestion after rewording to avoid things that I thought might be contentious. I am also moving some refs here so they don't get lost after I trim them. I have also taken out the pleaching entry as I think it is less a name for this art and more a technique used in it. Also it is covered elswhere in the article with links to its own page.

• Arborsculpture
• pleaching

Colincbn (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we can add the bit about the Aichi Expo with a good reference too. Colincbn (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I've put pleaching back as it is used as an alternative name as well, as being a technique used by some. Words can and do have more than one definition. I've also added some refs. This list was alphabetical, and Duff was very particular about the references, so I've added fact to the new additions and put the list back into alphabetical order.

Colincbn, I've changed the text. This is not about the artists agreeing to a name. It is about the cited fact that there is no standard name, every artist has a name for their art, Yet "Richard calls the whole art form arborsculpture". (This has many cites available). Blackash have a chat 23:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Blackash, Where can I find this ref ? McKie, Fred (April 20, 2005), "Warwick artist grows wooden 'jewels' for World Expo", The Southern Free Times.Can you quote the text that supports your addition ?Slowart (talk) 02:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Slowart which point do you want clarified as it is quite a lengthy newspaper article. I may take a couple of days to get back to you, once you've answered. Blackash have a chat 21:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to read the part that you feel justifies the inclusion of Throughout the course of this art-form's development there have been many names used to describe it. With there being so few practitioners, each with their own name for their techniques, the result has been no standard name for the art form to emerge. It's not written very well and I don't think it's fact. Slowart (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Slowart there are quite a few different points.

1.Throughout the course of this art-form's development there have been many names used to describe it.

This was Colincbn contribution, I agree with Colincbn as did you in your first book How to grow a chair page 14 quote "...all of these terms have attempted to describe an early 1900s approach to tree shaping..." So that can stay.

2.Few practitioners

The was not cited but I didn't think you or anyone would disagree. I believe you talk about rare nature of this art form is in your 2nd book Arborsculpture. As you know John Garthright traveled the world to find as many practitioners as he could for the world expo. In your 2nd book you list only 6 people as being accomplished tree shapers at the world expo. I really don't think this is a point of contention.

3.Practitioners having their own name

This is cited and I'll give the quote in a few days if this is the point your don't believe.

4.There isn't a standard name for the art form.

This is cited from the same article as above, and also has other cites available example Tricks with trees quote ""It hasn't got a name" published 2007 Blackash have a chat 01:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

3, is a half truth as many practisoner uses the word arborsculpture. 4 is a conclusion based on the book Tricks with Trees quote ""It hasn't got a name" that is followed by... "Richard Reames calls it arborsculpture." published 2007 written by Ivan Hicks. Here is an[excellent reference] that shows a standard name has emerged, at least in the world of horticulture, at university level as this link shows. Many of the ref's for arborsculpture, on the List of potential title names page also show a standard name has emerged. Slowart (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

3. It is not about the word arborsculpture. The reference is about the fact that all practitioners have their own name they use. As you know no artist uses the word Arborsculptuure in regards to their own work including Nirandr Boonnetr. We have two articles here, about him in the Sunday mail and they use his name living furniture for the art form.

4. It is not the only cite that there is not a standard name. Let's look at the full quote, " It hasn't got a name: Richard Reames calls it arborsculpture, which doesn't exactly fly out the mount; TREEGOSHING (tree growing and shaping) might be better."

The use of a word or words in an article doesn't prove that it is the standard name. Most of the refs you are pointing to are about you or your book big surprise they use your suggested name. Blackash have a chat 03:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Slowart/Reames please don't removed cite text just because you don't like it. Blackash have a chat 23:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding cited text that is not neutral, or try's to make your contentious point by using a citations is WP:TE tendentious editing. I returned the text to the last version created by Colincbn. Slowart (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

What is my contentious point? Blackash have a chat 01:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you just let neutral editors decide on the text ? Your writing on the main page about the name of this art has not been neutral. The enormous size of this talk page revolves around the name issue. I'm not the first editor to ask you to please give it a rest. Slowart (talk) 01:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not the name issue, rather it is the Arborsculpture issue that has filled up the talk pages here. Also multiple editors have stated that it is ok for me to be editing the Tree shaping article. Blackash have a chat 02:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Alternative names

"Throughout the history of this art-form there have been various names used to describe it. There are very few practitioners around the world, each with their own name for their techniques. The result has been no standard name for the art form to emerge.[60] Though Richard Reames calls the whole art form arborsculpture.[12]:14 [46] :120 The following names are the most commonly encountered:"

The above passage should be removed entirely. It is bias original research. I agree with Blue Rasberry below. Is there any more support for it's removal ? Slowart (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

"Tree_shaping#Alternative_names and Tree_shaping#Artistic_controversy need to be deleted entirely because these sections are a reflection of Wikipedia arguing and are without meaningful citations which show that this is a debate in the field. The citations which are there help to set an argument, but not to prove that one already exists. Blue Rasberry 15:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Slowart you are being a little bit naughty, you know Blue Rasberry wasn't commenting on the above paragraph. Blue Rasberry's comment relates to Duff's edition of un-cited text in this diff, which I removed as I agreed with Blue Rasberry in this instance diff. The above paragraph is cited text not original research.

Slowart, the appropriate thing to do is to go to NPOV noticeboard and ask for outside editor's to comment and link to this section. Though this time please state who you are, and don't misrepresent other editors comments. Blackash have a chat 01:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you share the text of the citation (60) that supports the statement ? Slowart (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Citation 60 is irrelevant to me because I do not accept the premise that the naming issue merits space in the article. This is what I was proposing in my statement here. Blue Rasberry 16:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Bluerasberry it is not appropriate to dismiss cited text.WP:V It is not about what you think is irrelevant. It is about what people can check in the references as to what has been published. I think there are a couple of relevant factors that you are not taking into account (I'm guessing it's mainly because you don't know them) as to whether or not the naming issue merits space.

1. There are only approximately 25 people in the world who practice this art form and have something to show, and that's including deceased practitioners like John Krubsack and Axel Erlandson. Each practitioner has a different method and name. As yet there is no standard anything.
2. Out of the 4 books published in English about this art form and it's practitioners, 3 of the books talk about the naming of the art-form also other media talks about the naming issue eg. newspapers and magazines. So on this basis the Alternative names needs to go back in.

• There also was a rare point of consensus to create the Alternative names section and remove all the Alternative names from the lead. One of the editors who had previously agreed, later put only arborsculpture back into the lead. If you believe the alternative names have too much prominence, maybe removing them from the lead would give less weight to them. Blackash have a chat 08:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Slowart (self outed as Richard Reames) Here are 4 quotes about the naming issue for the art form that you are already aware of.

Book How to grow a chair by Richard Reames

• Quote "Tree trunk topiary, botanical architecture, arbortopia - all of these terms have attempted to describe an early 1900s approach to tree shaping that goes beyond such traditional practices of topiary, bonsai and espalier. Tree trunk topiary is unlike all other techniques. And so it needs a term like no other. I call it Arborsculpture."

Book Arborsculpture by Richard Reames

• Quote "When I first started researching this art form, it was apparent that there was no single word to describe it and set it apart the other forms of art using live trees. I felt that this art form had advanced far enough to deserve its own unique word. With the publication of my first book How to Grow a chair, I coined the word "arborsculpture"
• Quote "The word "pleaching" is used by some as a substitute for arborsculpture,..."

Book Tricks with Trees by Ivan Hicks and Richard Rosenfeld

• Quote "It hasn't got a name: Richard Reames calls it arborsculpture, which doesn't exactly fly out the mount; TREEGOSHING (tree growing and shaping) might be better."

ref [60] Newspaper article in the Free Times by Fred McKie

• Quote "There is no standard name for the concept either. Though the Cooks call their work Pooktre - derived from his nickname "Pook" and "tree" - everyone involved has a different name for what they do. It has been suggested by an American that the artform should be called "arborsculpture" though Mr Cook is sticking with Pooktre and has stated that the world will ultimately decide. Blackash have a chat 08:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I object to the strongest possible terms to the continued page protecting by Blackash, who should read WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. I also object to the removal the word arborsculpture because it not the current title, thats a new one. Slowart (talk) 03:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Putting up cited text, that is a view shared by most of the books published (in english) is not page protecting and being willing to discuss my views and give quotes is not creating a battleground. Blackash have a chat 22:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll (Mediation)

I would like to run a simple poll to see if the editors here are willing to take this issue to mediation. Note: I have noticed that the Mediation Cabal tends to reffer issues to ArbCom if any involved editors refuse or oppose mediation. If you do oppose by all means state you do, but I also request you give your reasons (of course this request not binding in any way). Colincbn (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support I think the editors here are all well intentioned and the lack of disruptive editing or any kind of edit wars here lead me to belive mediation could lead to a quick and satisfactory resolution for all sides of the dispute. Colincbn (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support I can see your an optimist. :) Slowart (talk) 02:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• I dropped by here to see how matters were getting along, and am saddened (but not entirely surprised) that there is still an ongoing dispute over the use of the terms arborsculpture and tree shaping. Various editors have offered Third opinions, advice, assistance and informal mediation on this matter. I mediated for quite some time. So that route has already been explored. It appears that whatever decision is made regarding the use of arborsculpture and tree shaping, one party will object, therefore informal mediation via the Mediation Cabal is not appropriate - it would simply be perpetuating the existing problem. You may try stepping up to Wikipedia:Mediation Committee - that is accepted as the next stage in a dispute resolution. The Committee is a more formal mediation body. if people are serious about solving this dispute, then use Mediation Committee rather than Mediation Cabal. SilkTork *^YES! 09:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• I Support SlikTork’s idea about going to Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, though I really believe we should be trying to improve the article, but Colincbn, Martin, Slowart/Reames seem to feel they can’t move forward with the article until the use of Tree shaping/Arborsculpture is sorted out. If that is what is going to be mediated on, then yes I’ll support discussing the usage of Tree shaping/Arborsuclpture. Blackash have a chat 12:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think one of the reasons we feel this way is that if we expand the article the expansion will be used, as it has already, as a reason not to change the name to something more appropriate. And for the record I do not think Arborsculpture is the best name for the article. I think a descriptive phrase is better for now. But this is not the place to discuss that issue. I am glad you support mediation and I am perfectly willing to take this to the Mediation Committee instead of the Cabal if others feel that is the best route forward. Colincbn (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Committee... agree Slowart (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support mediation, But first, the section at Talk:Tree shaping/List of potential title names#Arborsculpture should be properly filled out (it is currently noticeably empty), so that anyone mediating has all the available facts to work with. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Committee... agree But I feel there should be no pre-set conditions as stated above by Quiddity. If anyone ( Slowart or Quiddity) feels this should be done then go ahead and do it.I am talking about the List of potential names# Arborsculpture. I feel that it would be a waste of time as Arborsculpture is a marketing funnel, is not neutral, is controversial and we have already been there. If the name is to be changed it should be "Tree training" as this meets all the policies as we have been discussing recently.The majority of editors have agreed to this at certain stages of the discussion.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I think silktork has said it right. The naming discussion is not going to be resolved through the mediation cabal because it is a weak form of mediation and, whatever the outcome, one side or the other is not going to accept it. The naming discussion has gone on fruitlessly for an excessively long time and, since it appears that even the alternative names suggested by colincbn are not getting sufficient traction, the mediation committee may be the only way to go. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

When is this going to the Mediation Committee? Blackash have a chat 05:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we have enough support for it, although I would have liked to hear from AfD Hero. I will put together a proposal tonight once I get home. Colincbn (talk) 08:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I am writing up the request now. But I think I will wait to post it tomorrow morning. It has a pretty specific format and I don't want to mess it up because I'm tired (I forgot I had a sign language class after work, in Japanese). Colincbn (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Going to the mediation committee is fine with me. Support. AfD hero (talk) 05:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems Colincbn may to too busy to start the process. I'll leave a comment on his talk page, but if he is too busy does someone else want to step up and start the process? I would be willing to do so but not until next week. Blackash have a chat 10:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

After looking at the requirements needed to approach the mediation committee, I think anyone who had not read the entire talk page archive could not do a good job. I think the place for this much too long running WP:TE and WP:Game really belongs with the WP:Arbitration Committee Slowart (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom tend to only get involved when people are doing "bad behavior", but do not intervene in editing questions such as what name to choose unless there are exceptional circumstances. Usually what happens is that you go to the mediation committee to get a ruling on the editing question, then some editors on the side that "lost" get angry, don't follow the decision, or generally act out. If there are only a few of them and they don't have "backup", then some random admin will ban them. If there are a lot of editors acting out and they do have "backup" (eg, friendly admins or influential editors), then instead the case goes to arbcom who generally, after much deliberation and rulings, bans them. Arbcom then also issues a poorly thought-out ruling that is bound to be taken way out of context in unrelated situations on other articles. AfD hero (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the assesment. Anyway I'd like to know if Colincbn is addressing the Mediation Committee ? FYI, a preponderance of reliable sources for arborsculpture can now be found @ Talk:Tree shaping/List of potential title names#Arborsculpture the best of lot, IMO being, [#16],[#10],[#8], many specifically label Axel Erlandson's work as arborsculpture. All the others are pretty good except #11, a press release by American friends of Tel Aviv University. Slowart (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I've listed with the Mediation Committee here but only put up Slowart and myself as we seem to be the core editors in disagreement, and being the editors involved from the beginning about the usage of the word Arborsculpture. Blackash have a chat 12:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Well that was interesting.. AfD hero (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)