User:Blackash/quotes

I am not the only one to categorize arborsculpture as the word for Richard Reames work. I am just the most recent Blackash 11:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

For full quotes follow the section links.

Some quotes with links 1. These quotes are from when the article's name was Arborsculpture Rewritten

..true nature of this entry - which is to promote a book. The word arborsculpture does not exist in any other context. Primack 05:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
It does not appear in the english dictionary or in any literature (apart from the book for which it was coined). It is not accepted as an alternative name for the art of pleaching by anyone, and should not be taken to mean anything which it is not. It is the title of a book - nothing more. 58.106.39.89 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

2. These quotes are from when the article's name was Arborsculpture No orighinal research

Arborsculpture is the title of a book, and it is, understandably, the intention of the author that this title become widespread enough to be used as a word in the english language, but to use the encyclopedia to achieve this end instead of letting the term develop naturally, and then documenting it, is not right. MPrimack 23:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

3 These quotes are from when the article's name was Arborsculpture Reames

..when doing some research we found that none of the artists who shape trees use Arborsculpture to describe their own work. Blackash 15:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Google Bonsai, 1000s of clubs and associations. Google Arborsculpture no clubs or associations, Arborsculpture comes from and points to Richard Reames. Blackash 04:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

4.Please read Articles for deletion Pooktre

Comment Tree shaping (especially bonsai) and Tree trimming should be looked into as alternative less secret topics. - Mgm|(talk) 11:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The issue is more complicated than I thought. Apparently there is no generally agreed-upon name for the practice of shaping trees. Arborsculpture appears to be associated with a single artist's work and book on the subject, and Pooktre is the method of another single artist. The proper course of action here is to move arborsculpture to a neutral name like Tree Shaping (as MgM suggests), and then merge and redirect the Pooktre article there. AfD hero 17:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree, neural term is needed, plus some rewriting to give a historic overview & different methods developed. Rror (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

5.Please read Move form Arborsculpture to Tree shaping for the full length quotes

You are right in that there is not enough content for Arborsculpture or Pooktre to have their own page. One page that has a neutral name for every one is much better. Blackash 03:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
"it became evident that a more neutral name was necessary." John Gathright, 06:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
"That word is no more nor less than the name chosen by Mr. Reames to describe what he has accomplished with his own hands. His recent efforts to center himself in the world of artists (some more accomplished or famous than himself) who are working with living plants and trees, by applying his brand to all their work, may someday succeed, but it does not appear to be the mission of Wikipedia to support such efforts...............So for now I must agree that ‘arborsculpture’ should be confined to Mr. Reames particular commercial work, books and art. The same would be true of Mr. Cooks ‘pooktre’, Mr. Nash’s Ash Dome, Mr. Ladd’s ‘extreme nature’ and my ‘Botanic Architecture’. Thank you for your consideration. MarkPrimack (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
R.Reames' Arbor sculpture...... I would prefer my work was not related to his definition at all. danladd.com Gourds1 02:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
there is no established name -> use most generic..Rror (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

5. passing comment on name

"Both names can be used for articles. Tree shaping has enough reliable sources, and so does Arborsculpture. An article termed Tree Shaping (actually, that should be Tree shaping - so I'll change that in a moment), would be about tree shaping in general, which would include Arborsculpture, bonsai, topiary, espalier, and pleaching. Each method of tree shaping would be discussed in WP:Summary style with a {{main}} link to the respective articles. As this article is currently set up to discuss tree shaping in general, this one should remain as the Tree shaping article, while anyone is free to set up the Arborsculpture article, which would be about the shaping of the trunks and branches of live trees, as practised by Richard Reames. If other people also use the term Arborsculpture it would be appropriate to also use their name in the article, with references. Where it would be inappropriate would be to use the term Arborsculpture to describe all forms of tree shaping." SilkTork *^YES! 20:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"I favour keeping the topic together in this article for now. I found a good source which states, inter alia, that "The concept of shaping living trees into useful objects known as tree shaping, arborsculpture, living art or pooktre...". This adequately demonstrates the variety of terms for the concept and it does not seem that any one of them is so dominant that we should exclude the others." Colonel Warden (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

6. Arborscuplture

"I've been asked to take a look at what is happening on this article. My observation is that tree shaping is about all types of tree shaping, including arborsculpture, bonsai, topiary, espalier, and pleaching. And that an editor could create an article on arborsculpture which would be about Richard Reames (as there are a number of sources for arborsculpture and Richard Reames. It would be acceptable to mention arborsculpture within tree shaping, and if there is significant material on arborsculpture in tree shaping, then arborsculpture would need to be mentioned in the lead per WP:Lead, as would Pooktre." SilkTork *^YES! 16:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

7. Requested move

The word arborsculpture has 3 problems. 1. Arborsculpture is strongly tied to Richard Reames. 2. Arborsculpture is a method of shaping trees. Arborsculpture is a Neologism. Blackash have a chat 10:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC) (for details follow the link above.)
The proposed title, arborsculpture, is a neologism and its meaning is not obvious at first glance. The existing title seems clear enough for our purposes. To help readers understand that they have come to the right place, we just need the various competing names to appear in bold face in the lead, per WP:LEAD#Abbreviations and synonyms. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Colonel Warden got it right: "Arborsculpture" isn't crystal clear as to what it means. It comes off as a little inside group, to be honest - as if only people who know the topic get the title. I'd stick with what we currently have. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I promised myself I'd stop participating in these stupid trivial wikipedia controversies, but I keep getting sucked back in. The term "tree shaping" has problems, but changing it to "arborsculpture" is not the way to go. It seems that every "tree shaping" artist uses a different word to describe what they do, whether that is "arborsculpture", "Pooktre", "botanic architecture", or whatever. Arborsculpture is the most popular, but it is still controversial and highly tied to the work and books of the artist who coined the term. It is not the place of wikipedia to choose one side of the debate over the other. AfD hero (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
While evidence was found for arborsculpture being used as a generic term for shaping trees, much more evidence was found for it being related to the work of Richard Reames. On the other hand, there was much more evidence found for tree shaping being a generic term, and while some tree shaping searches led to Pooktre, this was significantly fewer than the arborsculpture searches leading to Richard Reames. Our policies, guidelines and our sense of fairness and common sense lead to using the most neutral term, the most explanatory term for the general reader, and the term most used in reliable sources - and that is Tree shaping. SilkTork *YES! 17:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
This territorial feud does a disservice to its subject, and threatens to limit the value of the work described. I can understand the importance placed on naming something; it's a lot like founding a club- you then get to decide who can join, which guarantees your place at the center. .....

At the center of this subject is Axel Erlandson. His Tree Circus creations are the preeminent and unparalleled masterpieces of the field. The wikipedia article on Erlandson quotes me as saying, in 1981, that "I know of no other single person who has taken ornamental grafting to such an extreme, it is not just an oddity. It demonstrates an intriguing option for improving our environment by creating an absolutely unique space of living sculpture." Of course I said many things about Erlandson's work but, as his biographer, never used nor found the term 'arborsculpture'. Mr. Reames attended my lectures on Erlandson, and 'borrowed' portions of my original research. He was also familiar with my broader overview of the subject at hand, to which, in 1973, I had given the title 'Botanic Architecture'. At the time he requested access to my research (the early 1990's), he was using the term 'arborsculpture' to describe the work upon which he hoped to embark. That term does not adequately describe Erlandson's work, and I have been in communication with several practitioners mentioned in the article who feel the same. So it is important that the title not convey ownership of the subject, that it instead respect the unique and idiosyncratic natures of the individuals involved, and that it remain open enough to encourage full participation and exploration. Therefore I recommend that the 'plain English' title 'Tree Shaping' remain until such time that the subject does prove to be limited to 'sculpture' alone, or 'architecture' alone, or perhaps becomes a stand-alone 'art' of it's own.MarkPrimack (talk) 06:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

'In the article in Richard Reams bio section the writer infers that Axel Erlandsen called himself an arborsculptor. In Axel Erlandsens' letter to Ripley he states he trained trees and did tree training.

Wilma Erlandsen refers to her fathers work in her book as 'tree shaping'or 'circus trees'. The term Circus Trees was used to introduce the artform to the world at World Expo 2005. Richard Reams, in his book, branded Axel Erlandsen the first arborsculptor. When I google arborsculpture I am sent directly to Arborsmiths Studios and am encouraged to buy merchantdise.The word is obviously a marketing funnel. The word arborsculture has a gender bias.Sydney Bluegum (talk) (contribs) 13:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

8. Is it time for mediation

'It it obivous that you haven't googled 'arborsculpture' and followed the marketing funnel( that catchy phrase again)to Richard Reams...' Sydney Bluegum (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)