Jump to content

Talk:Tree shaping/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Gluttonous trees

"Gluttonous trees", which I now know (according to this article) is more correctly termed "inclusion", needs some better citations - a random photo gallery and the blog boingboing[1] are insufficient.

I see that the original popularizer of the term "gluttonous trees" has since clarified that he wishes everyone would use the names "Gourmand Trees" ("Arbres Gourmands") or "Coexisting trees".[2][3] However, he hasn't done a good job of saturating the media with these appellations, so I can't easily google a good (WP:RS) reference for any of those names, except for his site. (Possibly his site is sufficient? Not sure).

Other people have referred to them as "omnivorous trees" and "carnivorous trees". If any RS can be found, those terms might also be worth a passing mention.

(On the other hand, these are all referring to accidental inclusions, so perhaps the whole sentence mentioning gluttonous trees should be removed. (I added it.) Hmm.) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to remove it. Blackash have a chat 09:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to Move: Arborsculpture or Tree Shaping

I've read the AfD and the archived discussions on this talk page, including moderators comments. A lot of energy has been spent around this page and pooktre. My sense is that Arborsculpture was a more descriptive and compelling article title. I am not inclined to agree that the word is a neologism, if it ever was. Tree shaping is, IMO, a more confusing and ambiguous term. It is too narrow, in that arborsculpture encompasses not only trees, but all living woody plants (shrubs, vines, etc.), including their roots, as does the art described. It is simultaneously too vague, in that 'shaping' obviously can be construed to encompassing trees which are subjected to bonsai, topiary, even arboriculture, etc., if you take my point. That is why the (IMO) excessive comparison section is now necessary, is to resolve this inherent naming ambiguity. The word arborsculpture inherently communicates part of the heart of the art, which is arboriculture, the definition of which is inclusive of all woody plants. The artists doing these works are performing arboriculture to do them, in the keenest sculptural sense, each one of them. Credit wherever coining credit is due. Bravo to the crafters and their craft. I have no skin in that game and don't own any of those books. Arborsculpture has, like it or don't, come to mean this distinct (and yet broad) thing, as differentiated from the rest of those fine trunk and foliage shaping arts. Please type agree or disagree (bold) before your comments on the proposal to change the name back to Arborsculpture, as this is an attempt to re-evaluate the consensus on that change on its own talk page, where that discussion belongs, so that people who watch this page (and who weren't necessarily watching the pooktre page) can receive notice on their watchlists of the proposal to change back. Please also remember to indent comments with the progressive # of colon sign(s) to maintain continuity and readability. Also, finally, if your personal signature is HUGE, couldja consider reducing it to normal size, so it doesn't so tend to convey undue weight? Thanks! Duff (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Duff you are misrepresenting several different issues. Here are 3 of them for example
  • "spent around this page and pooktre" (most of energy spent has been about arborsculpture, pooktre article had a short life twice before we asked for it to be deleted)
  • "excessive comparison section is now necessary" (this was on the article when it was titled Arborsculpture)
  • "Credit wherever coining credit is due" (and yet you change Dr Chris Cattle from having the idea to being inspired? not really giving credit where it is due.) There are more but I leave that for another time.

Disagree about moving. Google arborsculpture it leads to one person Richard Reames. Arborsculpture is Neolegism please follow link where I discuss the Neologism of arborsculpture and link to the appropriate Wikipedia policies. Blackash have a chat 02:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose I oppose a move unless and until we have good evidence for the new title. This evidence should be examples of good sources which indicate a preponderance for the usage. I have added such a source - The Home Orchard - to the lead in support of the names arborsculpture and tree trunk topiary. Let us have more such sources please. I have also put the various alternate titles for this practise in bold face as this is our usual style. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This is an unnecessary and potentially disruptive proposal which I shall ask Duff to withdraw and everyone to simply ignore. SilkTork *YES! 10:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Agree Duff's well reasoned argument should not be ignored. This page was seriously disrupted long ago. I think the issue will return and return as new editors arrive and wounder why this article title has a general category "Tree shaping" Yet describe an art referred to most often by the specific name arborsculpture.Slowart (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment @Slowart (Richard Reames), at present arborsculpture is only one word in group of Neologisms that are used to refer to the art form. SilkTork proved that pooktre is also generic. As pooktre leads to us, arborsculpture leads to you. It would be inappropriate to have either word as the overall name of the art form. Blackash have a chat 23:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
1) There is a clear difference in "generic-ness". The word "Arborsculpture" is intended to be generic. In contrast, you would prefer that "Pooktre" be the name for a specific subset of "tree shaping" (anything that does not include "fast" methods of shaping).
2) According to google results (not a strong criterion to base things on, but a legitimate datum to be aware of...): "Arborsculpture" is strongly tied to Reames. "Pooktre" is strongly tied to Cook&Northey. "Tree shaping" is also fairly strongly tied to Cook&Northey (via your registration of treeshapers.net and by referring to the practice as "Pooktre Tree Shaping" in many interviews/articles).
So, none of these is unbiased. The whole issue is complicated. I don't think now is a good time to reexamine the issue. If it is to be examined again, then the prior discussions need to be much more extensively linked/summarized (beyond the 1 sentence mention that Duff has given). I don't think now is a good time to reexamine the issue. Give it a few months. (Personally, I think of them collectively as "Tree circus", for a variety of reasons that I won't attempt to explain.) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
It is complicated. Tree shaping is closely linked to us because we have the images people want to publish. If the name had been changed to Tree training instead of Tree shaping we would still have the same problem except it would be Tree training linked to us.
You may be interested to know that before the world expo in Japan we where asked if we wanted Pooktre or Circus Trees for the overall name of the art form. We felt that as Axel N. Erlandson had done his trees first, grown even and balanced pieces, that we where happy to have our trees associated with his. So in Japan at the Expo the art form was called Circus trees. Blackash have a chat 02:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
"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." Quote form WP:NEO These links have one thing in common they all use the word arborsculpture. One of the citations also uses the wording Tree shaping and other one has a method linked to the word arborsculpture. Quote "plans to demonstrate arborsculpture, which is a unique method of bending and grafting" form [4] Blackash have a chat 09:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
That section of WP:NEO is to do with establishing the notability of articles where a word itself is the topic, eg Agitprop, Google (verb), etc. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
My sentence must be a bit out of date as on the WP:NEO it has "particular term or concept" in the sentence. So it not just where the word itself is the topic but also a concept. Blackash have a chat 01:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Yet again they use the word. Quote WP:NEO "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." Blackash have a chat</span> 01:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Brief discussion on arborsculpture, moved here from User:SilkTorks talkpage

Silk, you removed the word arborsculpture from [Axel Erlandson]'s bio. here are 9 academic sources describing Erlandsons work as arborsculpture. Any chance the word can be use in the bio ? *Master Gardeners *.edu*American Society of Landscape Architects*Purde university horticulture department *University of California Cooperative Extension*Horticultural Reviews *Grad Thesis *University of California pressSlowart (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
So, are we to understand that the word arborsculpture should not be used in the article? Should only be used in certain sections? Should only be used to describe one artist's work? Should only be used to describe the work of those artists who do not object to the use of the word? Why should or shouldn't any or all of the other alternate names be used in the article? I seek understanding. How does this compare with usage of alternate names in other Wikipedia articles? Please explain the distinction. Could you please respond to this on the Talk page, at your convenience?Duff (talk) 08:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I have been slow to respond to both these queries - I am on Wiki only briefly at the moment, and usually to do some research for off-Wiki work I am doing. I had hoped to withdraw myself from the Tree shaping article and allow it to develop organicaly. I am on the whole in favour of the work Duff has been doing, though slightly concerned about Duff's interest in using the term arborsculpture in place of tree shaping, as it is the arborscupture term which has been the primary cause of disputes. There was a period of discussion and research conducted into the term. A summary of that would be that the term was coined by Richard Reames, and is associated with that person. Reames has used the term when talking about tree shaping, and so the term has been adopted by neutral commentators as a generic term for tree shaping. I have said right from the start that I feel it would be appropriate for an article to be created on either Richard Reames or Arborsculpture, which deals with Richard Reames' tree shaping/arborsculture work. But that the article we now know as Tree shaping should be about tree shaping in general, including its history before Reames' involvement, and to include mention of and links to other known forms of tree shaping, such as Bonsai and Pleaching. As the arborsculture term has an association with one person, then prominent use of the term can gain that person some commercial/prestige advantage, which would be against the spirit and the policies of Wikipedia. As we have an acceptable neutral alternative, which also has the advantage of being more descriptive for the general reader, of "tree shaping", that is the term to be prefered. This is not to say that the arborsculpture term is banned - on the contrary, I feel it is highly appropriate to use the word in both describing Reames' work, and also as part of an explanation that there are alternative terms in use. Also, I don't wish for people to get into an edit war over the term, so if there is a long term use of the word in an article, that use should remain. But if arborsculpture has been used to replace tree shaping, or has been inserted additionally into a sentence without adding any meaning, then it should be removed, as such use can be construed as looking for commercial or prestige advantage. I made a comment on this earlier, which can be found in the archives of the Tree shaping talkpage:

I think it would be disruptive to engage in an edit war on other articles over which term to use, "tree shaping" or "arborsculpture". I would favour "tree shaping" as that is the term we have agreed is the least problematic however, if arborsculpture is currently used appropriately in an article I feel it can be left there. Where there is an example of both "tree shaping" and "arborsculpture" being used in the same or consecutive sentences to no meaningful effect, then "tree shaping" is to be preferred. I have amended Axel Erlandson to remove arborsculpture.

The above explains, I think, the removal of arborsculpture in the Axel Erlandson article. The history of that article shows that the term arborscultpture was introduced needlessly, and the article worked well then without the term, and works well now.

I think this also explains why I recently ammended a use of the term arborscupture in the Tree shaping article. WP:Promotion and WP:Promotional give some loose guidance on this. SilkTork *YES! 10:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting around to this. The logic that arborsculpture is preferred over tree shaping due to the advantage it gives Reames, needs to be equally applied to the advantage "tree shaping" confers on Pooktre, As in Pooktre Tree Shapers. It seams to me advantages aside, I'm NOT here to promote, I am here to defend the attack on the organic growth of the word by a professional rival. You have to admit the last two editors in the last three months user Griesum and user Duff have had to battle it out with a COI editor. You have pressure a cooker on the stove, arborsculpture is organically growing, (is in current use by university's and tree industry professionals) user balckash is trying to keep a lid on it, I suspect the pressure will keep building. I am hoping you have tools or suggestions for involving a mediator or three. At this point neutral editors and mediators need to improve the page rather than to compromise it to death in the hopes of ending edit wars that just lead to more wars. I have more to say, unless other say it first, but I'll keep this one brief. Respectfully Slowart (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to respond, Silktork. I respect your opinion and I thank you for the nod to the work I have done recently on the (now) Tree shaping article. I find the topic meaningful. I am confused by the extent to which the use of the term in the article disturbs you, but I accept that it does. I understand clearly your desire to move on, because I've read all the archives on the page carefully, including your past efforts to mediate the controversy, which are laudable. It has been a wrestle to get even some of my most seemingly non-controversial edits to stick on that page. Questioning the authority or challenging the control of the dominant editor has led to several instances of necessary conflict resolution in the form of complaints to admins from the controlling editor. She's determined, I'll give her that. I've moved your comment into the pre-existing subsection by the same title, upwords on this page, to keep it with the several other comments about arborsculpture, so I don't lose track.
The word used outside Wikipedia and Blackash's circle of offended artists, to describe the topic that is now being called tree shaping, at Wikipedia and on several websites over which Blackash exerts influence or control, is arborsculpture. Arborsculpture as a concept has transcended Reames' work and encompasses the topic with little controversy, except here, whether the artists who do the work prefer the word or do not. One particular artist, Becky Northey, who also, as you know, is a prolific editor of the article, feels quite strongly about it. She has taken it upon herself to stir up and maintain controversy about it among other live wood sculpting artists, creating a false 'branding' association with the term. She has exerted an entirely inappropriate influence over first the titling and now the content of the article, in which she and her work is prominently featured. She is strongly associated with the phrase "Tree shaping," and you've caved to her extremely persistent, dramatic but fallacious argument. I haven't. Becky Northey aka Blackash is the registered domain name owner of the websites [5] [6] and [[7]] and has well-documented on-topic book writing plans of her own. This is clearly stated on her own websites and on other websites, lots of bloggy stuff too, where her campaign to stalk the use of the word arborsculpture and promote the use of the word of Pooktre is readily evident if sought. I understand why she would prefer to coin her own word. It has become the focus of some mirth among the larger circle of artists, tree people, and designers. Though I acknowledge that there are some live tree crafters who now claim to have been made to feel branded by the word, any one of those artists, if notable, would be considered an involved editor and an acknowledged expert in the field, and not certainly permitted to exert the level of manipulation of both language material from reliable sources which were not considered as you were coming to your awareness of the topic.and content that one editor here has enjoyed. Fortunately, there is plenty of source
As a 25 year veteran of the tree industry and a former resident of the Santa Cruz County area, during the Tree Circus dissolution, I was quite familiar with the term arborsculpture and what it describes and with Alex Erlandson's work, though until I read the article I had not heard of Richard Reames or known of his books. Tree shaping is a new one on me, and not an acceptable compromise as the title of this craft, particularly given the profound influence that one editor has had on the attempted dissolution of the widespread acceptance of the terminology.
First, the work goes well beyond trees, which are one type of woody plant, generally including those woody plants that exceed 6 meters and have single or few trunks, to include shrubs and vines which are also sculpted into useful and ornamental things, so in that sense, your compromise choice is awkward and doesn't accurately or adequately encompass the scope of the practice. A similar debate emerged and was resolved at arboriculture, which is a very closely related field of practice (the planting and care of woody plants, especially trees) that also has experienced some controversy (though not nearly so narrowly and not over what to call it). There, it's the big-tree workers who wish to consider arboriculture their domain and to relegate those who perform arboriculture on other smaller woody plants do the domain of mere gardeners.
Second, the work doesn't always involve 'shaping' per se, as in David Ladd's inclusions-based work in which he is not doing any shaping, but instead is deliberately stimulating the formation of reaction wood.
Third, an article by the name Tree shaping, must include fully expanded explorations of, not just mention, but full discussions of equal, if not far outweighing weight of the topics pleaching, pruning, arboriculture, topiary, bonsai, and the myriad other ways that people shape trees and that trees shape themselves. Similarly. arborsculpture is one particular form of living sculpture.
I'm an avid pruner; a retired tree worker who made a good living for many years pruning and caring for backyard fruit and ornamental trees, shrubs, and vines. I'm not an arborsculptor, though I have twisted up quite a few arbors and carved out a few bears with a chainsaw. I certainly do shape trees, by pruning them for deadwood and high vitality, and I do this daily. You'd have to include my work with trees under a general title of tree shaping, but I submit that it's more of a category than an individual craft. I now own a small nursery and vegetable farm and when there's a surplus I'm a market gardener. I'm still an arborist. I'm also a lover of good words and few are as delicious as arborsculpture is in describing the nature of this craft, which sometimes reaches the level of an art. It's why the word has caught on so profoundly among the broader field of those who know and love wood and the plants that make it. Even if Reames wanted his work or his name to be solely associated with the word, which he doesn't particularly seem to, it would be irrelevant at this point, as the word has achieved general usage. I don't mind and I hereby submit Livewood sculpting, Tree sculpting, Xylem influence, and best of all arborisculpture (more properly constructed perhaps), as three options which are more neutral than and possibly more both more comprehensive and more specific than tree shaping, but only if we are determined to deny the common usage of the prevalent word.
The idea of that is itching at me though, as are the broader implications of the determined elimination of very specific and descriptive words from the lexicon and their substitution with more ambiguous terms instead. There's an inherent muddying there that I will resist and resist again, as necessary and as my faculties and time permit. The initial title switching was a disruptive act, in my opinion, and it has continued to reverberate disruption.
Arborsculpture is the word most commonly used to describe the craft, including Erlandson's work, in scholarly publications and reliable sources that discuss it. Not just a few and certainly not just in Reames' books anymore. SilkTork, with few exceptions, only those who've been influenced directly or indirectly by Becky Northey call this thing tree shaping. I'm not at all satisfied with that, particularly now that I've read the whole history, long and short.
The way I know it, arborsculpture is one practical application of arboriculture, as are topiary, bonsai, and espalier, each with a different goal. Its focus is training live xylem to form reaction wood and thereby create objects, using a variety of tools and evolving practices including grafting and pleaching to shape and form the objects. Arborsculpture relies on grafting, pleaching, and arboriculture to usefully wield certain woody plant characteristics over time. It is also paradoxically the antithesis of arboriculture, in that its focus is not directly the welfare of individual plants, but more the successful coaxing of them to form live wood in the shape of the objects that humans find most useful or attractive. Arborsculpture is accomplished by human physical manipulation of live wood, sometimes gentle, other times not. Humans, in their symbiotic engagement with wood producing plants, have evolved the capacity to imagine and encourage these useful behaviors and responses in them, and trees have evolved the capacity to behave and respond accordingly, in much the same way as they have accommodated wasps with their galls.
I find it fascinating that of the four times you used the word arborsculpture in your response, it was spelled correctly only once. Blackash tends to butcher the spelling, notably in citations, and it has caught my attention more than once. Maybe it's inadvertent, and if so, mea culpa, but SilkTork, is that purposeful? I welcome Quiddity's ongoing involvement and his openness to presentation of a well-reasoned argument and evidence to the contrary, and I also welcome yours, should it emerge. Blackash is wrong (though well-practiced at what she is doing) and has ruined any possible neutrality that Tree shaping might have enjoyed in my mind.
That said, I want to make this clear: I don't have any skin in it either way. I only want a better and more definitive article, one that is truly based on a preponderance of reliable secondary sources. I don't prefer the word arborsculpture, instead I know the word and the scope of the work. There's a difference which may strike you as subtle, or not, but know that I have no emotional or financial investment at stake whatsoever in what this topic is called; just a fully absorbed interest in everything having to do with plants, especially woody plants, and an equally profound interest in human language and the ways it is used.

Cheers. Duff (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

That was very well explained. Essentially, I completely agree with almost everything.
I've considered suggesting new/unused neutral terms too, but came to the same conclusion that an unreferenced neologism (or protologism) would be inappropriate and unhelpful.
The spelling/grammar here has been consistently erratic, I'd suggest ignoring that ;) (I could point you elsewhere, for examples of famous people with far worse commands of sentence construction. At least the participants here are all comprehensible!)
I see some similarity between this dispute, and the dispute that is waiting to happen at Schmidt Sting Pain Index vs Starr sting pain scale. Over there, I'm still waiting for feedback on what the wider professional entomological community uses.
My ideal result here, would be that we use "arborsculpture" and "tree shaping" interchangeably within the article. (Without reviewing all the archived discussions, but from memory - ) They appear to both be very generically and widely used to define the artform, with regard to contemporary and historical pieces and people. They should be used interchangeably in exactly the way that "lift" and "elevator" are used at Elevator. However, I don't have any idea how to resolve what article title this article should have; perhaps that policy page does.
Hope that helps. I'll continue to watch and read everything, and chime in when I believe I have something worth saying. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Duff the mispelling of Arborsculpture seems to have started with Griseum he would spell as arborsculture, sometimes.
Duff this reference The Cutting Edge; June 2006 newsletter of the Victorian Woodworkers Association you gave, it is a classic example of the linkage between Richard Reames and Arborsculpture. This article was submitted by Richard Reames to www.vwa.org.au. This article talks about Richard and features images from both us at Pooktre and Dr Chris cattle with some text. Yet the only artist website that is given is Richard Reames. He uses other artist's images to lead to his web site, selling books describing the arborsculpture techniques a process of shaping trees which cannot achieve the results that lead people to the site in first place. Richard Reames has deliberately created this linkage between his name and the word arborsculpture so that he can reap the benefits of anyone branded with the word arborsculpute. Blackash have a chat 03:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Quiddity you seem to be ignoring these guidelines WP:Promotion and WP:Promotional. When a search of Arborsculpture is done it leads to Richard Reames hardly a neutral word. Blackash have a chat 01:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not ignoring them. I'm taking into account the fact that the term "arborsculpture" is very widely used to describe the artform, and has been for over a decade, even outside of the people that Reames or yourself have been in contact with.
For example, this is one of my old bookmarks, (right underneath this one). It's a good word. It's widely used in our reality. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The example links you give are not outside of people Reames and myself have had contact with. The site was created for the Growing Village World Expo 2005. The Chief producer was John Garthright, who in 2000 had commission Richard Reames to fly to Japan to do a planting and shaping of 1200 trees, (John informed us the trees failed due to the Aborsculpture extreme bending methods used). This is what he had to say about the name change on the talk page.

"TreeShaping?

I have followed the present discussion about allocating a neutral name to the art and craft of grafting trees into unique and artistic forms. To be completely honest it causes me to reminisce back to 2003 when I first took on the position of Chief Producer for the Growing Village. The art of grafting and shaping trees is both ancient and modern. It can be both artistic and practical. There are various ecological perspectives as well as potential for tree damage and tree abuse.

In my research and preparations for the World Expo, I had the opportunity to meet and work with Mr. Richard Reames. I was very impressed with his passion for the Circus Trees history and his efforts to re-introduce the techniques and theories of previous people who grafted and shaped trees. Richard also coined a very interesting and catchy word "arborsculpture"


Originally, it was my intent to use the Arborsculture name for the Growing Village but, after further educating myself and visiting grafting artists and crafts persons around the globe it became evident that a more neutral name was necessary. With much deliberation and thought, (Odious Expo Committee meetings) it was voted that we accredit Richard Reames' research, efforts, and uniquely shaped trees by calling his work Arborsculpture. We would also use the original historically significant name of Circus Trees for Erlandson's trees and Unique and Artistic trees. Chairs and Furniture would be " Growing Furniture" Living and practicing artists could chose their own branding for their craft. It became evident during the expo after reviewing the comments of literally millions of people that we were correct.

Personally, I feel that this field is still young and exciting. There is great diversity in the practices, methods, and outcomes for this unique art form. Tree Shaping would seem neutral and generic to me! I would also encourage individual branding by all of the artists and practitioners'.

My vision is: this art form will only grow in appeal and popularity but there will be a time when we refer to individuals styles and techniques in the same way that we recognize a Picaso or Monet as an artist and style of art.

I recognize the need for a generic name and Tree Shaping does fit the criteria. I hope that there be efforts to also promote the uniqueness, diversity and history of the individual artist, researchers, and people who have helped to grow this exciting and visionary form of Arbor-Art!

Growing Villages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.86.240.106 (talk) 06:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)" Taken from Move from Arborsculpture Blackash have a chat 08:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Solicited opinions from uninformed single edit accounts of friends, carry no weight. If Dr. John Gathright, had the time or inclination to read the wikipeda policies like COI and NPOV, catch up on the discussion here, investigate the long sordid edit history, he would IMO, be appalled at the censorship and hostile editing environment you have created. If this were a forum then we would weigh the expert testimony of all our friends and newsletter subscribers, mine included not just yours. This is not a forum, or a place to attack the work and character of your adversary. Slowart (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Slowart/Reames those are rather large assumptions you are making. As you know you introduced us to John Gathright, and have had more interactions with him than we've had. He has a PHD in Bio Agricultural Science and has traveled the world researching different artists who shape trees, for the Growing village Expo 2005 Japan. Blackash have a chat 10:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
@Blackash. Why is is it necessary for you to continually use my legal name over and over here? Feels like harassment to me. It is true I got you your job at the World Expo. Dr. Gathright wanted to use the word arborsculpture for the whole art on the English side of the expo web site. Quid's web archive links this this Illustrates your objection.
About Dr. Gathright, perhaps it is an assumption, but not a big leap, your edit history and editing conflicts with the last 2 major contributors to this article, Griseum and Duff Your page protecting should be blocked to save Wikipedia editor another hundred hours of volunteer effort to create a neutral article. I would be happy to except equal blockage. Wikipedia works when people cooperate and work together, attempting to censor and marginalize the organic spread of a word violates the policy of COI, NPOV and your extensive online comment box spam [online campaign] violates common decency. Slowart (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
@Slowart, because you regularly talk about Richard Reames in the third person. Periodically I will clarifying who you are so that new editors will understand that you created the word Arborsculpture and can decide for themselves how much weight to give your arguments regarding the importance of the word Arborsculpture.
Dr. Gathright was walking a diplomatic tightrope between you and his team who had experiences with the Arborsculpture techniques of shaping trees. Which is why the word Arborsculpture wasn't used at the expo. The pages you linked to were created when you were pushing John to use the word/s Arborsculptor or Arborsculpture at the world expo. Here are some links to the Growing village's main pages [8][9] quote "We will create a park area of wonderfully shaped trees known as "growing furniture" or "circus trees" and communicate their joy." Dr Gathright did comment (on the Tree shaping talk page) they (growing village committee) were thinking of using Arborsculpture but decided that Arborsculpture should just relate to Richard Reames work and that a neutral name was needed for the art form. Your work didn't appear at the expo and hence the word Arborsculpture wasn't used at all. Blackash have a chat 01:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Back to arborsculpture

Returning the title to it's original stable version is one practicle way to pop this pimple. The best of the academic references support the title "arborsculpture". The title was changed from arborsculpture without fair notice or fair discussion, it needs to be re-examined. Slowart (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Slowart you created the word Arborsculpture and you have made it clear you want the word as the name for the whole art-form. When a search is done on Arborsculpture it leads straight to you Richard Reames. Arborsculpture also has published process of shaping trees. Therefore it is not appropriate to have this word as the overall name for the art-form. Blackash have a chat 10:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Pop the pimple. Enough hostility. Arborsculpture defines the art form. I get a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach now, each time this article comes up on my watchlist. Duff (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Quote from Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_naming "encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality" Arborsculpture leads to Richard Reames, and had a method linked to it. It is not neutral. Blackash have a chat 01:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Where a term leads or if someone has a method has nothing to do it, with just a smidgen of critical thinking, Tree shaping also leads to you and your methods also. Fortunately we have verifiable evidence of neutrality. Editors, please look at [this] search useing "Tree shaping" If you are unfalmilar with with the tree work of the various artist, the count of Pooktre images in the first 20 images are as follows, 12 for Pooktre, 4 unrelated to our subject, 2 Axel Erlandson,1 Germany university, 1 Dougherty, 0 Richard Reames. Now compare with [this] image search using "arborsculpture", the fist 20 images contain, 6 for Axel Erlandson, 3 Pooktre, 2 Reames, 2 Bio park Okinawa, 1 Golan, 1 Fab tree Hab, 1 Kirsch 0 unrelated. What term exhibits the highest degree of neutrality ?
This page titled "Arborsculpture" was created by User:Ezekiello April 2006, 33 months later the title was changed without notice, by a group of editors working on an[AFD] for "Pooktre". When the debate over the title change occurred about Jan 10 2009, the discussion was basicly ended when User:Rror Wrote... "This is exactly the point: a generic term to get you started with this topic." Rror (talk) 01:19, 11 2009 January (UTC) Tree shaping wes intended to "to get you started" that was 16 months ago. A good start has been made and the page is better than it was. Proposal, revert to the original title, see if the climate changes.
@User:SilkTork If you find the time to stop by, I request that you withdraw your unhelpful "please ignore" suggestion. Your thoughts about COI on your user page are noted, I think this is an exceptional case requiring a hard-line approach. P.S. please note the handy i search box at the top of this page returns only "labeled for reuse" on the images search. Slowart (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Slowart, Thank you acknowledging that Arborsculpture has a method. You use the term Tree shaping in both of your books. You even use tree shapers. There are multiple references of the term tree shaping used in published media. "verifiable evidence of neutrality" how about just typing in Arborsculpture in search (which is what most people would do), Oh look it leads to Richard Reames. I have a suggestion, why don't you spend the next 12 months disengaging yourself from the word Arborsculpture. That would address some of the argument against having the word Arborsculpture as the title. Thou it still leaves that fact Arborsculpture teaches a process of shaping trees, which is unique to Arborsculpture.
Yet again you are trying to mislead, it not what you write but what you leave out. As you know, we both personally know editer User:Ezekiello. You and User:Ezekiello worked together on the this article both before and during your visit to us in march 2006. When you and User:Ezekiello stayed at our place, you both were so excited about Wikipedia that you guys did some editing on the article to demonstrate how Wikipedia works to me and Pete. Blackash have a chat 01:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no such acknowledgment in the statement above yours. We've thoroughly established that "arborsculpture" is both intended to be, and is widely used as, a generic term - it covers the whole artform. Not any specific method(s).
Look: All tree sculpting artists use 1) grafting 2) pruning and 3) bending/shaping/training.
You specifically want to quibble over the nuances of bending/shaping, as regards Pooktre vs not-Pooktre. That's fine, you can define your protologism however you wish. But arborsculpture is generic.
Everybody wants the honour of naming the artform, and it's getting tiresome. Bringing up this "methods" non-argument repeatedly is not helping. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I did a dictionary search on protologism no results but Wiktionary did and basically it means the same as neologism.
A word can be both generic and specific as can be seen by Bio and bio. I'm stating that Arborsculpture is both. We didn't choose the name of this article, we even suggested other words. We don't care what the over all name of art form is as long as the word chosen doesn't have a method or leads to one artist Arborsculpture does both.
Quiddity you removed my first reference and text to a technique of Arborsculpture, which has a unique outcome and is specific only to Arborsculpture tree shaping. The fact that a method is linked to Arborsculpture is highly relevant as it is not appropriate to use this word for artists who grow shaped trees that are achieved using a different process, that what is described in both Richard Reames's books. In point of fact the process from these books cannot achieve Axel Erlandson trees, Dr Chris Cattle, Pooktre and others. We don't bend trees, To have Arborsculpture as the overall name is both misleading and uninformative to anyone genuinely interested in the art form.
I also have other techniques that I will reference that are unique to Arborsculpture. I understand that you don't like the idea that Arborsculpture is both generic and a specific method of shaping trees, which is why I created my sandbox so editors can have a look at finished result and then decide if it appropriate for the article. Blackash have a chat 03:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
(Presumably you mean this edit) - Ring barking is not an "arborsculpture technique". It is a horticultural/arboricultural technique. It is described in the book by Reames, as are other methods for shaping trees, but that does not make it his technique. Horticultural. This is a WP:DEADHORSE, please stop beating it. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes that is what I was referring to please find me a horticultural reference that recommends the complete removal of 3/8in (1cm) wide band of bark as a means to slow the growth down of one branch, or even one that recommend the complete removal of 3/8in (1cm) wide band of bark for any reason other than killing a tree. If not then it is unique to Arborsculpture. Blackash have a chat 05:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
In a very quick web search, I see that some standard girdling knives are 1/8 - 3/16 of an inch. So even if that is the maximum size ever used in fruit tree girdling, it just means Reames experimented with twice the standard diameter (which, given that his intent was not to increase fruit yield, is hardly surprising). I'm not buying it. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Darn sidetracked. Not sure if it is worth it but, according to the book The Complete Book of Pruning 1992 Coombs,Blackburn-Maze Cracknell and Bentley, Page 23 Under the section "Other methods of controlling growth" subsection "Complete girdling or ringing" Says "Remove a complete ring of bark about 1cm or 3/8in wide. After a seasons growth the wound will be covered in a rough growth of callus...."
Can we talk about the title yet ?Slowart (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
It's absolutely worth it, if only to stop the misinformation of "arborsculpture has a technique" being propagated elsewhere. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Quiddity for clarifying your POV that arborsculpture has no technique. It explains your lack of acceptance for cited text, removed refs and text which you replaced with a reference which talks about how to get better coffee beans. I'm sorry I when into so much detail in this earlier discussion plus the next two sections when you had already made up your mind. Wikipedia:Verifiability quote "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Blackash have a chat 08:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

We found cites, as requested, that ring barking (even at wide diameters) is not unique to Reames' book. We pointed out before that the sentences that read "... the Arborsculpting techniques ..." are ambiguous, and could legitimately be read as meaning "... the horticultural techniques ...".
If it had been found that wide ring barking was unique to Reames' book, then I would be quite happy to agree with you, but it isn't. If you have further points to make, regarding unique methods/techniques of Arborsculpture, then please make them. Calling my neutrality into question doesn't advance your point. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Stalking the word Plant

A recent series of edits appear designed to weight this discussion by stalking all instances of the word 'plant' in the article and replacing them with the word 'tree' and 'Tree', with erratic placement of the capitalized version. This is referenced at 1.1.2 Talk:Tree shaping#Woody Plant vs Tree and has been reverted/fixed.

List of changes Blackash

I'm starting a new section for the list of changes I would like made or done. I haven't done these myself due to the fact I'm trying to not run into COI. There is no rush, Pete and I watch trees grow after all.

  1. pooktre in the list of Alternative names should have text and references similar the other words. Here the list that was used to find that pooktre is generic as well specific to our art.
  2. In our section Peter Cook and Becky Northey it's say quote "In 1996, after nine years of Peter's experimentation, isolated from awareness of any other tree shapers, he and Becky created the name Pooktre to distinguish the artistic works emerging from their creative partnership from those of other artists." I have asked the editor who created this sentences to justify it. Which they don't seem willing to do so. Give it a couple of weeks or month.
    1. We didn't create Pooktre to distinguish as we didn't know about anyone at that time. Pooktre was just a name for our art. This sentence contradicts itself. I think it would be fine as "In 1996, after nine years of Peter's experimentation, isolated from awareness of any other tree shapers, he and Becky created the name Pooktre for their art."


{{3O}} 3.I think the word Pooktre should be in the lead sentence of our section. As SilkTork pointed out our art is better known as Pooktre. Maybe something like "Pooktre is a word created to name the art work of Australian artists Peter Cook and Becky Northey who are a couple who live in South East Queensland."

4.I think the dates of the first tree shaped by each artist would be of interest to readers. Previously I had put the dates in the heading but 2 other editors didn't like the look of it. I still think it is a valid to have the dates more prominent in each section than they are. Not sure the best way to go about this.


I add more once these are sorted out one way or the other, please feel free to reply after each numbered section. Blackash have a chat 05:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Question #5 refactored to Talk:Tree shaping#Image Citations in the images section, with copied datestamp & sig. Duff (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
1.  DoneThe Alternate names section has been moved here to the talk page at Talk:Tree shaping#Alternate names for further work until consensus is arrived at that it is ready for the main article space, if at all. Consensus so far, based on all information that has been provided, leans toward that the alternate names section is an agenda-driven effort, both to dilute the actual other name(s) for this art and to self-promote. BTW, howz the book coming? ("The title of our book is “Pooktre knowledge to grow shaped trees”), right? Duff (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok I've list the alternative names back on the page, while we work on what text works here on the talk. Blackash have a chat 13:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
2.  Done No need to give it any time at all...as noted in responses to your questions at Talk:Tree shaping#Recent Gutting of Article also, this edit has been made: distinguish...other artists...all out. Duff (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Umm, Thanks for finally replying. Thanks, for removing the distinguish...other artists, thou we didn't know about other methods either when we named our art, you know it goes with the whole thing of not knowing about other artists. Blackash have a chat 13:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
3.  Done As also noted @ Talk:Tree shaping#Recent Gutting of Article, a single instance of the brand Pooktre to refer to Pooktre is adequate. No further branding is necessary, thanks. Duff (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Ummm, I stated that it should be in our lead sentence, it also should be with the images of our art. I ask for 3rd opinion Thanks. Blackash have a chat 13:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
4.  Done Those dates are indeed of interest, which is why each little bio contains them, and quite prominently. They are the very basis for the Chronology itself. The best way to go about that topic, clearly, is to consider the fact that the other editors didn't care for the look of the dates in the headings a consensus on that point and leave it at that. Please note also at Talk:Tree shaping#Recent Gutting of Article my comment about the sticky matter of Becky Northey 1995. Duff (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Ummm I did state that other editors didn't like the look, I also stated the dates should be more prominent then they are. Maybe if the dates are set out the same in each section? Look forward to any suggestions. Blackash have a chat 13:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent Gutting of Article

I don't have time to fix this right now, but the recent gutting of photos, text, valid references, and reference page numbers from the article by one involved editor, will not stand. User(s):Blackash has been warned repeatedly to not do these types of destructive, disruptive edits, and to refrain from editing material about herself (or themselves). She (or they) have apparently abandoned her (or their) sandbox project and returned to previously cautioned against behavior. Strongly recommend that User(s):Blackash, cease this and instead study citation methods, particularly how to form a proper page numbered and non-repetitive reference, as a first priority. The recent flurry of edits, over several days, by User(s):Blackash, is not aimed at a better article and it is not a better article. The editing environment on this page is dishearteningly hostile. Please stop gutting the article. Nobody has time to go back and argue again, point-by-point, over each of these self-serving changes, many of which had already been decided by consensus. Not that long ago, we had a pretty good article. What a disappointment. Duff (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Duff here is another way that you are similar to Slowart and Griseum, you come in with wide sweeping generalizations, it appears with the intent to mislead new editors.

It would be nice if you would give details as to which references that link to www.pooktre.com you don't like when asked to, so they can be fixed or changed. Blackash have a chat 02:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: COI: Blackash, you very clearly have a potential conflict of interest, simply by being a primary part of the subject matter of this article. Also, you clearly have an actual and strong conflict of interest, because you have a real-life dispute with another person who is part of the subject matter of this article. Nobody has ever said that you do not have any conflict of interest. What was agreed (in February), was that the way the article was worded, didn't warrant it having a {{COI}} banner at the top (meaning: the information was properly presented with a NPOV). You absolutely must follow the instructions at Wikipedia:COI compliance#Editors who may have a conflict of interest, when editing this article, or any article that is extremely closely related to you.
That said, I don't have any specific problems at this moment, though I haven't had time to look through all the diffs. I would specifically caution you against making any edits to content that is about yourself/Peter/Pooktre or about Reames, without checking at the talkpage first.
Duff: I do have to agree that there were many sweeping generalizations in your initial post in this thread. More diffs please!
Re: Columns: The code for columns only works in some browsers. See Template:Reflist#Browser_support_for_columns. Please keep this in mind when structuring content for visual aesthetics alone.

((Quiddity's comment on citations here, refactored upthread to Talk:Tree shaping#Citation Styles))

@Quiddity, there are multiple edits, that I would liked changed but because of the potential for a conflict of interest I haven't done them. Would it be alright if I list them here tomorrow for you to look though? (Tonight is my night off). Blackash have a chat 08:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Always fine. I can't promise I'll get to them immediately, but slow and steady wins the race. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

((Quiddity's comment on citations here, refactored upthread to Talk:Tree shaping#Citation Styles))

Re: diffs to specify my specific generalizations, I wish I had the time to copy and paste every diff here for you, but the copy/paste function is lame on the mouse I am currently using and it is simply not reasonable to waste that much frustrating time. As a suggestion, please start here: [10] and roll forward, revision by revision, as I did, and witness the scope of the continuing and expanding gutting, deleting, removal of references, and editing of material about one's self, in the manner that I experienced it. Sorry, but for the time being, that's the best I can do. Duff (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

((Duff's comment on citations here, refactored upthread to Talk:Tree shaping#Citation Styles))

Quiddity, I didn't create the columns for the visual aesthetics, but to make reading of that section easier. My understanding is browsers that don't support the formatting of columns, will just show the section how it would normal appear. I checked in Internet Explorer and had no trouble, just showed each section as one long column.
  • Duff the confusion about the formatting of {{{1}}} template lead to, the "doesn't make sense" I removed : 14  which I replaced with in-half hour, or for 4 edits.
  • 'majority of citations to the Reames books are excessive, 16 references from two books with different pages referred to, out of (I guessing here) 250-300 citations, would not seem excessive.
  • Duff what is your problem with Pete and me being a couple, the ref even states that we are a couple. You did state these sections are bios.
  • As for not having time, just put up one diff each week or fortnight that you disagree with, and then a consensus can be reached about that particular edit.
  • But before you start doing that please answer my questions,
    • "In 1996, after nine years of Peter's experimentation, isolated from awareness of any other tree shapers, he and Becky created the name Pooktre to distinguish the artistic works emerging from their creative partnership from those of other artists." We didn't create Pooktre to distinguish as we didn't know about anyone at that time. Pooktre was just a name for our art. This sentence contradicts itself. Where can you cite we created the word Pooktre to distinguish ourselves from someone else?
    • You seem to want the references fixed, for the third time which references exactly are you talking about that link to pooktre.com? Blackash have a chat 02:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I went through some diffs. I'm not sure about these edits:

Fix/replace as you deem necessary.

Most of the rest looks fine. A few sentences need copyediting, but that's par for the course. (particularly the last sentence in the arborsculpture list in the Alternative_names section). Anything else? -- Quiddity (talk) 05:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

  • No problem at all, and a handsome couple at that. Just that Becky Northey and Peter Cook should not be editing anything about themselves or anyone with whom they have a potential COI (nor should any other people covered in the article) and I stickle on correct spelling, grammar, and verifiable statements from reliable sources. One thing though, and you are NOT going to like this: Becky Northey belongs at 1995 in the chronology, if Becky Northey is indeed noteable. Not sure how to proceed on this point, as I see the potential stickiness that is about to arise, but facts are facts...it's verifiable from multiple reliable sources. What would you do about it? Anyone?
  • One diff per fortnight would be far too slow to keep up with the flurry, so I'll list 'em as I see 'em and trust that they will be self-evident.
    • I altered the text you refer to there & I think it should be satisfactory in that regard.
    • I am referring to all statements which are supported by citations that either involve self-published material, including but not limited to those at either pooktre.xxx or treeshapers.xxx, and also those that are incorrectly ref-named pooktre-x or treeshapers-x. The Pooktre brand is all over this article and that shat stops now. It is inappropriate for reasons that have been outlined in detail, repeatedly, by a variety of editors. No self-promotion! Clear?
I think that's everything. Now, how about resubmitting some unbranded images to replace the deleted branded images of the mirror and people trees? Cheers. Duff (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Editor with a potential for a conflict of interest is still entitled to edit, The editor must take care, which we have.
  1. We have never tried to hide who we are. (Pooktre)
  2. We have endeavored to make the article more balanced by adding other artists, and relevant content. edit before my first edit with the renamed article, some examples diff, diff, and diff. There is not shortage of these types of edits.
  3. We have always been willing to discuss our pov and even had our pov changed. (I can go and find some if you want.)
  • SilkTork aslo pointed out that Wikipedia asks for experts to edit.
  • If you had followed the links to treeshapers.net you know that we haven't branded other artist's pages on the site with pooktre and the only place treeshapers.net appears in the the address bar example [11] Please remember that I can edit this site however I want and yet all the artists (including Richard Reames) who replied to my email where happy with pages and any changes they asked for where made. I believe this site is a good demonstration of my neutrality. Blackash have a chat 11:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
No, it is not "editor must take care" & I'm going to explain it again point by point:
Becky Northey and Peter Cook should not be editing anything about themselves or anyone with whom they have a potential COI (nor should any other people covered in the article). Here are some of only the most recent firmly worded instructions to jog your memory, again:
"I strongly agree that Blackash should not be editing this article with anywhere near the current magnitude. Blackash, I suggest you reread Wikipedia:COI#Non-controversial edits."- Quiddity (talk) 7:08 pm, 7 May 2010, Friday (29 days ago) (UTC−7)
and
"Re: COI: Blackash, you very clearly have a potential conflict of interest, simply by being a primary part of the subject matter of this article. Also, you clearly have an actual and strong conflict of interest, because you have a real-life dispute with another person who is part of the subject matter of this article. Nobody has ever said that you do not have any conflict of interest. What was agreed (in February), was that the way the article was worded, didn't warrant it having a {{COI}} banner at the top (meaning: the information was properly presented with a NPOV). You absolutely must follow the instructions at Wikipedia:COI compliance#Editors who may have a conflict of interest, when editing this article, or any article that is extremely closely related to you."Quiddity (talk) 11:49 am, 28 May 2010, last Friday (4 days ago) (UTC−7)
  1. You are two people editing as and hiding behind one user name, Blackash, which purports openly to be both Becky Northey & Peter Cook (both featured at this time in the article) which is prohibited, for a start. Please read WP:ROLE. Since you most frequently claim to be Becky, Peter Cook needs to get his own user account and/or the "we say" stuff needs to slip away.
  2. Setting aside grammar, style, spelling and punctuation, which others can and must edit correctly for an encyclopedia, those edits aren't bad, but the third diff, you are editing on your own bit, which is not permitted. There has been really really really no shortage of that sort of thing, nor of mercilessly editing your confirmed professional rival, which is also not permitted.
  3. You seem to be completely missing the point that your POV is not welcome in the article. Neither is mine. Neither is the POV of any editor on wikipedia. We must strive to be NEUTRAL. That is exactly the dealio with Wikipedia, and while I know that you are accustomed to editorial freedom and control over your own publishing project (and you should be)... here, it is just not proper. Go read those policies Quid pointed you at.
  • Wikipedia does want experts to edit, under specific conditions. Are one or both of you asserting that you are an expert? You don't have to disclose, but are either of you or both asserting some advanced degree or professional credential? This would surprise me, as you went a long ways out of your way to insist that Pooktre is not a business. Still, if so, here is some guidance on that: WP:EXPERT & WP:EXR
  • No, please remember that you cannot edit this site however you want. You have got to follow the rules just like everybody else. Also remember that the incident involving "all the artists (including Richard Reames) who replied to [your] email [, who] where happy with pages and [for whom] any changes they asked for where made." was one that is most strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. It resulted in several single-edit one-topic posts and served to bolster your already cooked-up position, but did not earn you any glory. You have frequently referred to it as your "newbie mistake", so I must assume that you understood at some point that it was not ok to do that, per WP:MEAT. Off-wiki meatpuppetry is not something to be proud of.
You can do whatever you want on your own site, in your own book, on every blog you can find to post on that will allow it, in your own garden, etc., but this is not your garden. This is OUR garden, all of us, with you, and there are garden rules and policies aimed at joyous and productive encyclopedia writing for all. You don't get to say how it goes and then call everyone who won't bow biased and then wrestle for control of article content for years. Do you get it? Duff (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Unprotect

I have been asked to completely unprotect this article, and I will do so. If there are problematic edits as a result of this unprotecting, please get in touch and I will restore the semi-protection. SilkTork *YES! 15:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, cool! No more angry pink thingy. That goes a long way already. Thanks.Duff (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution now: Threats and discouragements to editing in edit summaries

Before we go any further down this road, I will seek dispute resolution now. If everyone could please pause for a moment, I want other eyes here to look at this, and the last series of edits.

Here are the diffs for the discouragements and threats. I'm stopping editing; I can't waste time like this. It's just too discouraging and I'm paying for gas to keep the generator running to run the computer. I calmly oppose most of the reverts that have been done for the second time his morning, to what was again shaping up to be a pretty good article, sez me.

(cur | prev) 2010-06-02T04:17:59 Blackash (talk | contribs) (48,552 bytes) (→Design options: Bullet points clarify the three different forms within this art form and they are cited, please don't remove again) (undo)

(cur | prev) 2010-06-02T04:32:13 Blackash (talk | contribs) (49,072 bytes) (→Related art forms: It cited please don't remove. This meets WP:Verifiability) (undo)

(2010-06-02T05:15:03 Blackash (talk | contribs)(Duff please leave Alternative don't change back to Alternate or I will take you to dispute resolution.)

Duff (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Tree shaping editorial conflict

There is an ongoing problem (several years) at Tree shaping, which was formerly Arborsculpture. There's a BLP related aspect also, with an involved editor (or an involved couple using the same User) controlling their own nested mini-bio. There are multiple naming issues. Several admins have attempted to mediate between a well-warned but still editing-and-reverting-at-great-magnitude involved editor who aggressively controls the page and several well-meaning non-involved editors, including most recently myself, as well as another involved editor. There are 7 archives worth of arguing, but the current talk page contains the gist of my experience with the page. There are multiple incivilities and I am at the fullest stretch of my diplomacy. The issues are simple, but tedious reading will be necessary to appreciate the full scope. I'd love to help get this article to good article status and keep it there, but the editing environment is too exhausting for me to continue and we need dispute resolution of some appropriate type. Duff (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Update: RfC & now RfM on Arborsculpture

We could sure use a few more eyes and green fingers to consider the facts and help us reach consensus at the article currently being called tree shaping, which started out as arborsculpture and which is the craft of cultivating and training trees, shrubs, and vines to grow into ornamental shapes, useful implements, and structures. It has a project tag for us here, and I got wind of it over at arboriculture back in April. I've since edited a lot, and also finally initiated a request for comment, surrounding an involved & covered artist-editor having maintained a commercially motivated hostile editing environment over a period of years. This yielded a few new editors now, including myself, who reached consensus in a proposal to change the page title to proceed with a requested move to consider the page move back to its original name, which may end up in mediation or not, depending on whether some consensus can be firmly established, and there is some. Meanwhile, the article is moving in new directions and getting much better, though it's a wrestle, and it may be due for a re-appraisal as to quality anyway. Thanks very much, if you can help us out over there. Duff (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you give me some clue what this dispute is about. I have had a quick look around an cannot see what exactly what is disputed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Practically every edit results in some sort of dispute. I think I started editing on this page in April? Maybe earlier...after a wordstalking incident on the word arborsculpture at Arboriculture. This article has come a long way, but has been a truly frustrating and anti-collaborative experience, the first such environment I've encountered firsthand on Wikipedia in six years. I'm really struggling to keep up with the many facets of it here on the talk page, keep this page factored properly, whilst also improve the article. Have you had time to flip through the last few days of diffs and/or the content of this page, most recently the section just upwind of this one? I'm also now aware that the editor in question has also initiated dispute resolution today via 3rd opinion, as noted upthread, which is good because our regular admin contributor Quiddity (whose most recent comments here bear reading) is not in today. There are COI & POV & autobiographical insistence & verifiability and reliability issues, as well as lots of accusations. My concern goes way beyond the 3rd opinion request point, though that's a good example of one aspect of what's going on...tip of the iceberg, if you will. Consensus is elusive with the one editor, to put it diplomatically, and I'm now not responding as positively as I like to. Does that help at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duff (talk • contribs) 02:33, 3 June 2010
Having witnessed, over the last three years, many many inappropriate edits, comments and actions by one editor. I should try to explain what is happening. User:Blackash is the account of Pooktre (Becky Northy) and myself, Slowart is the account of Arborsmith Studios and Richard Reames. We both grow trees. I published a book in 1995 and coined the word arborsculpture to unite the field. Northy has a issue with the word "arborsculpture" and charges me with branding others work with my word to get there busness or web traffic. Northy has crated a hostile editing environment as evidenced by not just the new editor Duff, but the last editor who made this comment about the edit war, this will give you a bit of clue.[[12]] See comments on his user page.User:Griseum Here is a bunch of evidence of a much wider[effort] by this one contentious editor, a pointed campaign to stop the organic growth of a word (that has been in use for many years in academic and professional circles to describe the whole art form) and redefine it. Slowart (talk) 05:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for those two summaries. I do not think any editor is going to be interested in trying to resolve three years of undefined historical argument. However, I am a keen gardener, and experienced WP editor, with no special knowledge of tree shaping and certainly no strongly held opinions on the subject. I am happy to stick around for a while and give a neutral third opinion on the future edits if that would be of help. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Yay! More eyes! Thanks Martin. Duff (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Welcome and Thank you Martin Hogbin. Blackash have a chat 04:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Note: I'm not an admin (not that admins are meant to have any more influence than non-admins). :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I propose a truce as the article page stands now. This article is better than it was. Let's agree to discuss one point of contention at a time before making a change to the article. We would be happy to discuss whatever you like to nominate to be changed on the article. Blackash have a chat 07:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I am surprised that there should be so much in contention in an article on tree shaping. I can only presume that it was essentially commercial content. The article is quite commercially orientated as it stands and my advice to those concerned would be to keep a low profile to avoid attracting too much interest There are many editors who adopt a strong line against self promotion in WP. So yes, a truce on contentious editing is a very good idea.
There is some collateral damage from earlier edit wars that should be attended to. The place to make points is on the talk page, not in the article, for example no point needs 9 references. I would suggest that multiple references are pruned down to at most two, the most authoritative, and an online reference.
There must be much more non-contentious material that could be added, such as further details on techniques. I suggest that you all try to turn this article from a battle ground into a good WP article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Please can you be more specific, which parts are you referring to as being commercially orientated? Blackash have a chat 11:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe that discussion "one point of contention at a time" as Blacksash suggests is a page protection strategy. If editors here want to "beat some more dead horse" I'll reluctantly read along. I propose a truce, between Blackash and the main space of this page. During this truce, the collateral damage from earlier edit wars can be attended to. Slowart (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Support this version of the truce and approach to housekeeping. Duff (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
"page protection strategy" No it a good way to gain consensus and new editors can follow the for and against points and therefore decide which points are valid in their view. A one sided truce is not a truce. Blackash have a chat 12:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I am still have in difficulty in understanding what this conflict is all about. Who wants to change what, and why? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The main issue, IMO is the title. Please read the section 2.1 Brief discussion on arborsculpture, moved here from User:SilkTorks talkpage. Explicitly Duff's well articulated reply to SilkTork. Slowart (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Arborsculpture is not in my dictionary but it seems a much better term that 'tree shaping' to me. It certainly does have some commercial connections (it gets 37,000 hits on Google whilst 'arborculture -reames -arborsmith' gets only 8,200). On the other hand it is a nice descriptive term that seems to be moving into common usage. I presume it is not being claimed as a trademark by anyone. All new words have to be coined by someone.
The problem with 'Tree shaping' is that this term is ambiguous. It is in common use to refer to the pruning of trees into shape. A Google search on 'tree shaping' brings up (in the UK at least) eight sponsored links on the first page, none of which is offering to provide the services described in this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Some background information. This is a very small field approximately 18-20 people around the world who do this and 3 are dead. (There are likely some not know about yet.)
In light of the different comments by Slowart and Duff I think it is worth repeating my stated comments again.
  • We don't care what the name of the art form is as long as it is not linked to a method or has strong ties to one person.
  • Arborsculpture can be both a generic word and a word that relates to a process of shaping trees. Example biro/Biro and hoover/Hoover.
  • Axel N Erlandson, Dr Chris Cattle, Our trees (Pooktre) and others are unachievable using the techniques as described in Richard Reames books "How to grow a chair" and "Arborsculpture".
  • As far as we are concerned Pooktre only relates to our artwork and is not the name for the art form as a whole.
  • We did not instigate the name change. Here is move from Arborsculpture to Tree shaping section.
The word arborsculpture has 3 problems,
1. Arborsculpture is a method of shaping trees, please have a look in my sandbox, The Instant tree shaping is the suggested heading for the arborsculpture process. This heading may need to be changed, but that can wait. It is very rough but the references are there and I'm only adding text I can cite in regards to this point. I'm using Bonsai as a guide for style of this section.
2. Arborsculpture is strongly tied to Richard Reames, and is therefore not neutral. Lets use Martin Hogbin's example, arborsculpture "gets 37,000 hits on Google whilst 'arborsculpture -reames -arborsmith' gets only 8,200". Pooktre gets 39,800 hits on Google whilst 'pooktre -becky -northey -peter -cook -rebecca gets only 8,710. It seems Pookte is moving into common usage, but using this as a way of establishing whether or not a person is linked to a word is deceptive both for Pooktre and Arborsculpture. Please have a look at this list for Arborsculpture. Originally created by Griseum from a search with Richard Reames removed from the results. I went though and followed each link and summarised the links into groups. Richard Reames is still a dominant presence within the links. Realistically how many people will search Arborsculpture with any words removed? I believe it is reasonable to assume most people would just type Arborsculpture in a search and that leads straight to Richard Reames and his methods of shaping trees.
3. Arborsculpture is a Neologism, quote from Neologism "Neologism is a newly coined word that may be in the process of entering common use, but has not yet been accepted into mainstream language" Length of time is not an issue either quote "When a word or phrase is no longer "new", it is no longer a neologism. Neologisms may take decades to become "old", however. Opinions differ on exactly how old a word must be to cease being considered a neologism." Please read Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms.

Tree shaping has been used in published media before the name change, used many times by Richard Reames in his books. As long as the title doesn't have a method linked to it we don't care what the name is. We even have made some suggestions, for example Tree training was one, also pleaching may work or maybe this article should be under Espalier. None of these lead to one person. Blackash have a chat 12:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


Latest edits

I am puzzled by some of the latest edits to the article made by Duff. Some seem to be making some kind of point that I do not quite understand. In particular, the change of 'trees' to 'perennial woody plants' seems odd. Few would consider that term to include trees. I 'trees' is considered too narrow, the I suggest 'trees and shrubs'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You are close to the heart of the trouble here. Please see my detailed reasoning documenting this change, above, under the lead section at Talk:Tree shaping#Woody Plant vs Tree and Talk:Tree Shaping#Stalking the word Plant, as well as the full discussion at Talk:Tree shaping#Proposal to Move: Arborsculpture or Tree Shaping. With your permission, I'm planning to refactor this question to Talk:Tree shaping#Woody Plant vs Tree, so we can somehow come to some sort of well documented, stable consensus that might allow the article to move forward. I'm documenting a disturbing editing pattern that is the very reason why I called out for help in the RfC in the first place. I'm open to great new ideas. Duff (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, I hope it is OK to insert my comments amongst your post. In the articles I regularly edit this is the norm but some people regard it as bad etiquette. If anyone objects please let me know.Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm copypasting your sig (and mine) accordingly, so we don't get lost. Otherwise, when everyone else does the same thing, and they will!...we get lost. ;) Duff (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Secondly, unless everyone insists otherwise, I have not come here as an arbitrator or referee, so nobody needs my permission to do anything. My aim is just to give an outside, uninvolved view on the subject. I still feel like someone who has walked in a on a WWI battleground and wondered how so much damage can be done over so little. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I can appreciate that sense. Likewise. I don't like to just blithely refactor comments without consult...and I want to try to keep the page organized in a way that will promote coherent process toward (and reach!) consensus. I want to submit that it may be well past time for an arbitrator and referee, but if this is not your role, that is ok to. More eyes is good.Duff (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread what you said. Please refactor as you suggest. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not clear on what about that term doesn't suggest trees, though. All trees, shrubs, and vines are plants. Trees and shrubs is too narrow too...because the craft includes vines and the roots of all of these as well, and it's unwieldy conveyed as 'trees, shrubs, vines and their roots'...but that's what it is. Too, few would consider roots at all, which are becoming a big part of the craft/art, whatever you want to call it. Thus it is perennial woody plants which certainly does include trees (and which is worth a read). Still, you can't just say that over and over, any more than you can say 'trees and shrubs and vines, etc.' over and over, and we can't seem to get to the simple and elegant arborsculpture yet either (where this article started, by the way)....So, where appropriate...trees, woody plants, plants, lignified plants, shrubs, live wood, etc., is what I've been strongly working toward. Please consider the related discussion and honing at arboriculture where the same discussion unfolded over what it's all about, this wood thing. Duff (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I am sure that your term is technically correct but it would not suggest trees to me. Why not just 'trees, shrubs, and vines' the? These terms would be naturally taken to include the roots. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Let's try it and see if it works and sticks. I assume that you mean in the lead sentence. Duff (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I see no problem in giving further details in an appropriate paragraph where it might be pointed out that the process can be applied to some perennial woody plants that are not trees, shrubs or vines but surely this detail need not be in the lead. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Here again, let's give it a whirl. Though there are few perennial woody plants which are not trees, shrubs, or vines...not sure if I misconveyed that.Duff (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Plants are defined in the Oxford dictionary as , Member of the vegetable kingdom; small plant (other than trees and shrubs). Trees, shrubs or vines is fine. Blackash have a chat 12:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
No, your reference defines 'plant' as follows (and formatted thusly), at [this link http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1278596;jsessionid=96E4AC80BFA367DA60BD43350B9A968E#m_en_us1278596]:
noun. 1. a living organism of the kind exemplified by trees, shrubs, herbs, grasses, ferns, and mosses, typically growing in a permanent site, absorbing water and inorganic substances through its roots , and synthesizing nutrients in its leaves by photosynthesis using the green pigment chlorophyll.
a small organism of this kind, as distinct from a shrub or tree:garden plants
This may explain why no link was provided for your version, or not. In any case, the phrase in the lead was perennial woody plants, and consensus was that to change that to trees, shrubs, and vines, added clarity. Please see the (hopefully short) continuing discussion below. Duff (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Meanwhile, we are working on sorting out all these crazy citations for other names for the art/craft, which were used to influence the original debate that led to the name change, which originated and concluded off this page in an AfD process on the article Pooktre, and most of which are turning out to have been (and be) unreliable sources. See above at Talk:Tree shaping#Section moved here for further development needed, if any. Duff (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Duff I thought you stated you had carefully read the history? It was not these "crazy citations" that led to the name change. Move from arborsculpture to Tree shaping It also had something to do with how the article looked at the time. Arborsculpture Blackash have a chat 12:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Same contention over use of the word shaping vs sculpting can be seen over the years. Same contention over other names/alternate names/alternative names and what to call them and how many to include and where to place them...all in major flux all the time. Some artisans/crafters <--also even this naming is somewhat contentious> like this, others that. Two editors, writing under one username, both covered under one mini-bio in this article, both involved editors on this article, who (quite referenceably, and well documented, if one reads the whole current Talk page) intend to publish a book entitled "Pooktre method of shaping trees" insists that arborsculpture is a brand, and not a generic term, which in fact it has indeed become. This does not work for those two editors, because by gosh, Reames might sell another book that might be theirs to sell, if they ever publish the dang thing. It's a ridiculous debate. I don't like wordstalkers. That has been the pattern, and it's the one that needs to be broken. Duff (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest that, if you get some more outside editors from the RfC, you get just the uninvolved editors to make a decision on the article name. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that's's gonna take an act of congress, but we'll keep working on those citations and see what's left.Duff (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Duff thank you for changing the title of our book, even though you had earlier quoted the correct title "Knowleadge to grow shaped trees on the talk page. I won't mention it again.Duff (talk) 02:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Mea culpa. I don't know what I was thinking there & I did get it close the first time...So that's Pooktre: Knowleage to grow shaped trees[13]. I won't mention it again.
It's about the fact that Richard sells a method of weaving trees and calls it Arborsculpture. Then brands everyone with the word arborsculpture, to lend credibility to his methods. These methods can't achieve trees like Axel Erlandson. Blackash have a chat 12:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Do these edits here also seem odd? [14] Please take a look at the article just before that change, and I guarantee that it will seem a lot less odd to have made the changes that I did.
My edit concertedly reverted that pesky muddying changing that insists, ad nauseum, "Nope, it's trees, because anything else would both sink us all in shaping blue green algae and also jeopardize the POV titling matter, which has been cast as a professional rivalry, and which shall remain cast in concrete forever, no matter what is accurate. because after all, there are books soon to be published by that more ambiguous and yet still narrower name." I'm an uninvolved editor too, also keen on trees especially and gardening in general, but also way keen on fairness, collaborative editing, good writing, and accurate descriptions. Duff (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The edit on the patent reference (Golan patent) was just wrong. The patent description was quoted, as required for a patent citation, and indeed did use the phrase twice. A point that should also be noted is that we have later discovered that the patent (any patent) is a primary source and thus may not even be used as a reference for what it is claimed to cite on this page. That is one of the many details that has emerged from the citation work referenced above at Talk:Tree shaping#Section moved here for further development needed, if any. Duff (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
So who exactly objects to 'trees, shrubs, and vines' and why? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know that anyone does object to that specific wording, yet. I don't, as I noted. I rolled that out in the lead at your suggestion yesterday and it stands today. Duff (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
That is far better than plant/s I go and change the rest of the article to echo this wording. Blackash have a chat 12:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
No, mindlessly echoing the wording without thought for the context of its use is not what is called for. Further, the terminology used was woody plant, specifically perennial woody plant, so let's keep it honest, k? Try popping this into your search engine: define:woody plant [Here's a link http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Awoody+plant&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&client=firefox-a&rlz=1R1GGLL_en___US382]. Also, please read the wikipedia article, which was wikilinked (and is just above, there), entitled woody plant, if there is really still confusion about the term. Is anyone confused to the point of thinking that the article is about vegetables? I am going to go back through the article and sort out the recent reversion by Blackash, who is refusing to step back from the article, clearly, and which eliminated all instances of use of the words 'plant' & 'woody plant', and substituting instead rather careless placement of the words tree(s), shrub(s), & vine(s), except in some cases of blatantly POV editing. The consensus is not that these words (plants and woody plants) should be eliminated from the article. That was an incendiary move, familiarly provocative and extremely unwelcome. Duff (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tree_shaping/Archive_8&oldid=1252111479"