'''RfC''' Hi. I came here from the RfC and have read through the talk page (admittedly not all of it) and article. I agree with Martin that, at least for a little while, editors with a commercial interest should take a more hands off approach. Or if you do feel like contributing try to make it things like simple copy editing for better grammar and things like that. nothing contentious. I for one would like to expand and rewrite the section on [[Bonsai]]. I think the {{fact}} tags have gotten a bit out of hand, and it reads like a preemptive strike on anyone who feels the two art-forms are similar, not an unbiased comparison like it should be. I hope no one objects? [[User:Colincbn|Colincbn]] ([[User talk:Colincbn|talk]]) 02:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
'''RfC''' Hi. I came here from the RfC and have read through the talk page (admittedly not all of it) and article. I agree with Martin that, at least for a little while, editors with a commercial interest should take a more hands off approach. Or if you do feel like contributing try to make it things like simple copy editing for better grammar and things like that. nothing contentious. I for one would like to expand and rewrite the section on [[Bonsai]]. I think the {{fact}} tags have gotten a bit out of hand, and it reads like a preemptive strike on anyone who feels the two art-forms are similar, not an unbiased comparison like it should be. I hope no one objects? [[User:Colincbn|Colincbn]] ([[User talk:Colincbn|talk]]) 02:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
:Welcome Colin. Like you, I came here from the RfC to find a battle scene. There are two (at least) major contributors (Blackash and Slowart) to this article who have significant commercial interests in the subject. This naturally makes it difficult for them to contribute in a neutral manner.
:I have suggested that these two editors (and any others with a commercial interest in the subject) take a break from editing the article and talk page, whilst non-involved editors sort out some of the problems with the article resulting from previous, commercially centred, arguments. Not the least of the problems to be sorted out is the name of the article.
:To date, Slowart has agreed to my proposal but Blackash has not.
:Regarding your plan to rewrite the Bonsai section, it will be interesting to see what happens. If it works well, with no interference from the commercially interested, then maybe we could just get on with doing the same for the rest of the article without waiting for agreement. The [[bonsai]] article itself seems to show how a subject with considerable commercial interest can be written in a neutral manner. Good luck. [[User:Martin Hogbin|Martin Hogbin]] ([[User talk:Martin Hogbin|talk]]) 09:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Revision as of 09:22, 8 June 2010
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tree shaping article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Horticulture and Gardening on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Horticulture and GardeningWikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningTemplate:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningHorticulture and gardening articles
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
The lead was recently rewritten/reduced. Per WP:LEAD, "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article." Hence I recommend that most of the previous content be restored, but incorporating any necessary rewriting for style and accuracy. (To be specific: for a FA quality article, the lead should be able to be mostly copy&pasted as the summary blurb on the main page.) See the guideline page for further details. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, the top image was moved down to be next to the appropriate section, which I agree with, but we now lack a lead image. I'd suggest File:Neadle.jpg is possibly the most appropriate (it is interesting, it is created by an important historical figure in the art, and it is understandable at thumbnail-size and fullsize). Other suggestions welcome though. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the page before the changes [1] I had done some work on the Alternative names adding details about the names with references. Today the page is missing approximately 450 words of text. Whole sections have been removed. The two methods have been diluted and blended with some of the original references removed. There seems to be too many images to the text now and the lead is not a proper summary of the page. I feel the page has been effectively vandalized. @Slowart good luck with your lecture on arborsculpture at the International Society of Arboriculture. Blackashhave a chat15:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Quiddity on both need for and choice of image for the lead. Fully support expanding summary, but not by directly repeating content in the article. Blackash, the page has not been vandalized. With the exception of deleting a single reference that was neither intelligible nor functional, I was careful to keep all references both intact and with the statements they referenced. If I missed any, it was unintentional. If I somehow misconstrued their proper location, please set that right without adding back repetitive material. I DID remove a LOT of repetitive material, particularly the direct repetition in the lead of two paragraphs from the article. That's not summarizing. . I reorganized and consolidated a number of verbose, clunky, and grammatically incorrect sentences and paragraphs, in several sections, into concise statements and ideas that flow from one to the next, hopefully building and conveying the idea smoothly. Word count is not a measure of informative content. It's supposed to be a concise encyclopedic article about arborsculpture, now being referred to by consensus (this I assume) as tree shaping. It's not a book. It's not supposed to be a how-to manual. It's not "battle of the sculptors and the finer fractional points of their methods," nor is it a debate on whose artistic technique is more pure, nor whose book is more popular or true, nor who sells more mirrors. I strove for neutrality, well aware of the ongoing editing issues among the (IMO) way-too-involved author/editor/artist/arborists who currently monitor this page. For just a single sticky example, waxing on about one's own (or someone elses) worldwide acclaim is not only not encyclopedic, it's unseemly. It is made immeasurably more so by adding copious and ever-more-poorly formatted references to the insisted acclaim. Further, there are several sections I haven't yet hammered at, that need it. Most particularly the protracted sections comparing arborsculpture to (and from this reader's perspective, defending it from encroachment by) each and every other horticultural art & practice. These sorts of writing read tensely and uncomfortably, like an argument, detracting from the fascinating topic. There may indeed be too many images for the text. Perhaps one exemplary image per artist is enough after all. ;) Duff (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with Duff, you have lied, for example about only removing one reference, in the Alternative names section there were 5 references with text which you removed and no longer appear any where on the article. missing Alternative names section In the history editors have agreed not to have any alternative names in the lead. Alternative names section should be put back to follow Wikipedia:LEADAlternative names quote
"Separate section usage
Alternatively, if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line."
"you have lied??" Reiterating: "If I missed any, it was unintentional." Thanks for continuing to Assume good faith, because I'll appreciate a civil discussion. My only agenda is a better wikipedia article. Duff (talk) 07:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I never thought it was right to change the name of this article to tree shaping. The editor who changed the page FYI AfD hero ( no edits since 2-09). The article name was changed [[2]] during an AFD on a different page. if anyone is interested. You are right, I am way-too-involved, now that there is more than one other person with this page on their watchlist, I am happy be be uninvolved. Good work on the article.Slowart (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AKA Other Alternate Alternatives
Alternative names or Other names
I changed other names in the lead back to alternative names as alternative names is more commonly used than other names in wiki articles and the section name is alternative names.Blackashhave a chat03:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with that edit revert. Other names is more appropriate in this wikipedia article because the other names used (not the several recently added which are NOT synonymous) are strongly associated with the art and should not be burdened with the dismissive undertone of 'alternativeness'. Your campaign to diminish or discredit the use of the word arborsculpture, by any and all means, while promoting an pushing forward the repetitive use of your preferred trade names is transparent, itches, and has my attention. Please take a breather. Thanks. Duff (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative is the wording most in use though out Wikipedia articles.
The dismissive tone you think is there is also being applied to pooktre our "trade name" maybe the problem is not the tone but the fact you have a bias and you are seeing it in a more negative view than is warranted.
Does it make any more sense to you when you consider it here, in the context of yesterday's discussion? It's an attempt at a compromise. Maybe usage is different in Australia, but I don't think so, and it may just be a nuance of the English language with which you are unfamiliar. Alternate is less dismissive than alternative. Using the word alternative conveys an air of fringe-ness to all the names it refers to, which isn't conveyed so obviously by either of the words 'other' or 'alternate.' Let's get consensus on this before you revert it again, please. Duff (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate your innuendo that I don't understand large words. Here is a link to dictionary.com with alternate and it's meaning. Alternate is not the right word when used in the context that you are wanting to use it. Try a different compromise. Blackashhave a chat22:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I neither made nor meant any innuendo concerning "large words". My comment concerned the nuanced bias conveyed by the specific choice of the word Alternative. I was attempting to be as generous as possible in accommodating the possibilities that a) usage of the word Alternative in Australia may not be burdened with the same nuanced bias as its use is here, or b) that you may not be familiar with the bias inherent in its usage here and elsewhere, or c) if the nuanced bias is also present with usage of the word alternative in Australia, you may not be aware of it. Alternate conveys less bias than does Alternative. I stand by that preferred compromise, but also offer Synonyms and Synonymous Words as two other alternates with which I would also be satisfied as to neutrality. Duff (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Synonyms or Synonymous words seems to give to much weight to the names. Alternate is just wrong. I stand by that it should be Alternative names for the reasons listed above. Blackashhave a chat10:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welp, I don't mind waiting for further consensus to develop. Concerning your sense that any choice other than Alternative gives too "much weight to the names," I understand your perspective and why you have it, but I do not share your view. My sense, which is also open to change, is that the names treeshaping and Pooktre, have both been given entirely disproportionate weight for the topic, largely due to your directly involved and persistent influence. Less so (but still so) for the other "alternative names" dragged in to assert your case. I have expressed this clearly in previous comments. This is not bias. It is legitimate criticism and you've earned it. I get that you feel targeted, because you've placed a lot of your own energy in the article, but please recognize that doing so, in the way that you have, is improper. You'd be doing yourself and your reputation a huge favor to just accept that gracefully, learn from it, and move on. Eventually there probably will be separate articles spun out for Pooktre, for Reames, and for Cattle; you are all interesting and notable enough, I suspect, and YOU are going to have to learn to sit on your hands and restrain yourself from editing those too.
Other editors, including me, are working our way through a very long list of citations; many if not most of which are: added by you, duplicitous, oblique, poorly formatted, and missing key information. These factors alone cast serious doubt on the validity of the citations and that is why they are now under such intense scrutiny. Up until this point, that work has been complicated by your continued reverting of refs and facts that do not suit you, and you've made a lot of extra work. The task is to standardize formats on each reference, get all the cite info, read the material cited, verify its applicability to the content cited, and then properly analyze each individual citation for reliability. That will take some time, but it is crucial to fairly assessing how much weight is due in several areas. I trust that approach and your scholarly side should trust that approach too. Again, there is no hurry. If it doesn't get completely ironed out before your book release date, please just chalk it up to unpaid volunteers who must do other work (and even sleep!) at times, and who, you need to understand this, aren't doing this work to benefit you. Surely your 70+ tree shaping projects could benefit from your expert attention. Get some sleep, work on your own book bibliography, and avail yourself of some other legitimate avenues of marketing, OK? Not a big deal. Trust that the article will turn out well. You've done enough. Take comfort in the fact, if you can accept it, that I have no stake in the outcome, have nothing against you personally, am not professionally involved in your craft, and am working on the article solely for the purpose of making it better.Duff (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm so that's your compromise, putting in the wording you wanted in the first place. Are you trying to imply that I'm in a rush? Remember I watch trees grow. Blackashhave a chat11:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that was my compromise, and now you have ignored the above discussion and admin comments, to wit: "Quiddity: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." Instead of following Quiddity's suggestion, you have boldly reverted what has already been noted as controversial, in its entirety, to the term you prefer. As I have stated, it is non-neutral, as it conveys fringe-ness where there is no consensus to relegate all of the other names to fringe-status by choosing a less-than-neutral section titling term to infer this lack of weight upon the other names. Let's don't call it rushing, shall we? Let's call it instead, what it is: refusing to wait for consensus, refusing to take note of admin instruction (that's meaning 1b @ Merriam-Webster on the word 'instruction', "a direction calling for compliance"), and instead plunging on forward at the same or greater level of magnitude, as previously uncomfortably stated here. Here is only the most recent specific series of reversions I am referring to: here, here, and here.
Please inspect the meaning #4, at the main entry for alternate [3]. You will notice that the secondary meaning is the verb, which is the way you are interpreting it, based on your edit summary notes and comments here, however I am clearly not using the word 'alternate' as a verb. I am using it as an adjective: Alternate Names, which is an acceptable and comprehensible, neutral use. So is 'other', as in Other Names. Please inspect the meaning of the adjective 'other' at the main entry at 1b. [4]. This regards choice of an alternate neutral adjective for the adjective you have chosen, 'alternative', as in Alternative Names, which please also inspect at the main entry, meaning #3a [5]. That is the non-neutral message that the use of the word alternative conveys, and that I am specifically referring to. Your comments nestled in your edit summaries belong here, where the discussion is taking place concerning the use of these words. Please do not edit this back to the less neutral wording. If you can think of even more neutral wording, please suggest it here for consideration, rather than continuing the already years-long crusade to purge the word 'arborsculpture' and then failing that, marginalize any use of it. These are the alternating (used as a verb, here) patterns, and the context is still: Tree shaping as an article title is NOT neutral, because it is strongly associated with Becky Northey, Peter Cook, Pooktre, treeshapers.net, and a wide variety of other unreliable sources across the web which we can't cite in this article. This is the problem, clearly stated, I hope, and with sincere intent to resolve the tedious conflict of edit warring. Frankly, I think the entire section on Alternate names needs to come out and be worked on here on the Talk page, since it is being used to establish these points, with references, and is not really article-class material at this time. The legitimate other names, and only those which legitimately are used interchangeably, should remain in the article, in the lead, at least until such time as a fully developed Alternate or Other Names section can be flipped back in. There is no good reason to bury them at the bottom of the article, purge them from the article and all associated articles, and then proceed to margininalize their use. That's not the purpose of the article at all. Kinda long winded, but that's what needed to get said, so let's get some thoughts from as many editors both involved and especially uninvolved as possible, and try to build some consensus please. Remember, everybody else watches trees grow, too. Duff (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ Duff, I agree. I suspect that until we have more experienced editors here who won't put up with COI editing and make space for neutral editors to do their work, that the tedious discussions and point by point contentions will continue. Take heart, It has been said, the wheels of Wikipedia justice grind slowly, but they grind fine. When referring to editors edits try to use the diff's url, it was hard to see what you were talking about. I know it's all temporary but check the AFTAU press release and see if..."Used as an alternative name for "the concept of shaping living trees into useful objects" by the eco-architecture team at TAU/Plantware[1]" is correct. I think it could be a false assumption. It is not the word used by the eco-architecture team I'm pretty sure that the word string was just chosen by the writer not the team, probably after a quick visit to this wiki page. For a word to be called an alternative or alternate it should register substantial usage, not just on some blogs or other poor citations IMO. Sure I agree, remove the entire alternate section and see if there is anything there or is it just fluff?Slowart (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Section moved here for further development needed, if any
This is a sandbox for the Alternate names section. Please continue editing it here until consensus is reached that it is both of sufficient quality for publication AND needed in the main article.
"Arborsculpture is a method of bending and grafting shoots to create useful and eye-catching structures."[1]
"Grafting to create unusual growth forms in a practice called arborsculpture involves intertwining and grafting together the stems of two or more plants in order to create domes, chairs, ladders, and other fanciful sculptures." and "Fig. 9.2. Arborsculpture of Alex Erlandson’s Tree Circus made in the 1940s."[2]
"We also plan to demonstrate arborsculpture, which is a unique method of bending and grafting shoots to form unusual designs and structures. We plan to create a fruit tree chair, a three-sided ladder to make the high fruit more accessible, a gazebo, fences, and other structures.[3]
In an industry newsletter article titled Arbor Sculpture, "A leading arborsculptor is American Richard Reames, who manages Arborsmith Studios in Oregon-..." and (re:Aichi)>"Also exhibited at this event were the Grown up Stools of the English arborsculptor, Dr. Cattle, pictured below."[4]
:Primary name in the Golan patent. "The art of shaping living woody plants is known as arborsculpture, etc...."ref name=RootShapingpatent Citation| inventor1-last = Golan| inventor1-first = Ezekiel| title = Method and a kit for shaping a portion of a woody plant into a desired form| issue-date = 2008-02-12 Questionable Source| patent-number = 7328532| country-code = US| description = A method of shaping a portion of a woody plant into a desired form is provided. The method is effected by providing a root of a woody plant, shaping the root into the desired form and culturing the root under conditions suitable for secondary thickening of the root. ref
:In Richard Reames first book How to Grow a Chair he explains how other terms like Tree trunk topiary, botanical architecture and arbortopia have attempted to describe an approach to tree shaping that goes beyond such traditional practices as topiary, bonsai and espalier. "I call it Arborsculpture".ref name=Reames1/rp|14
biotecture/biotechture
From a presentation on botanical engineering "The branch of architecture that deals with living structures is called 'biotecture' and was pioneered by the German landscape architect Rudolf Doernach." [5]: 15
*botanic/botanical architecture:An alternate name in the Golan patent ref name=RootShapingpatent:Planting of evergreens to provide accommodation for outdoor theatrical entertainment.refBritannicaref:Mark Primack, who rescued much of Axel Erlandson's Tree Circus and is perhaps the most knowledgeable authority on those trees,ref name=Reames1 cite book|last=Reames|first=Richard|authorlink = Richard Reames|coauthors=Delbol, Barbara|title=How to Grow a Chair: The Art of Tree Trunk Topiary|date=1995|isbn=0-9647280-0-1 ref rp|18 lectures about Erlandson and his work as a visionary pioneer of "botanic architecture,"
refThe museum of Jurassic Technology.ref:Used in the book How to Grow a Chairref name=Reames1/rp|14:Marcel Kalberer's experiments with "botanical architecture" reftranslation of site about Marcel Kalbererref:Growing a cover of plants vertically up exterior walls of buildings.refLiving wallref
From a presentation on botanical engineering that refers to several Cook/Northey & Cattle pieces as "grown furniture" and to Erlandson's ladder as "grown ladder"[5]: 21–26
*living art:An alternate name for "the concept of shaping living trees into useful objects"ref name=FriendsofTAU Cite web|publisher=American Friends of Tel Aviv University|url=http://www.aftau.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7595%7Ctitle=Eco-Architecture Could Produce "Grow Your Own" Homesref:Creating something practical, decorative, or both, using living plants, such as hanging vegetable gardens, vertical gardens, or succulent walls.refliving art projectsref
*Pooktre:Brand for the partnership and art works of Peter Cook and Becky Northey.
*tree trunk shaping:An alternate name in the Golan patent ref name=RootShapingpatent
*Tree Trunk Topiary:An alternate name in the Golan patent ref name=RootShapingpatent:A nursery that specializes in shaped trees ref http://www.treetrunktopiary.be/eng/ www.treetrunktopiary.be/eng ref:Subtitle of the book How to Grow a Chair: The Art of Tree Trunk Topiary and used inside the same book.ref name=Reames1
^Mudge, Ken; Janick, Jules; Scofield, Steven; Goldschmidt, Eliezer E. (2009), "A History of Grafting"(PDF), in Janick, Jules (ed.), Issues in New Crops and New Uses, Purdue University Center for New Crops and Plants Products, orig. pub. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 442–443 {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^Ingels, Chuck (1999), "Fair Oaks Orchard Demonstration Project"(PDF), Slosson Report 98-99, University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources' Slosson Endowment for Ornamental Horticulture, pp. 442–443 {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ abFischbacher, Thomas (2007), "Botanical Engineering"(PDF), School of Engineering Sciences @ University of Southampton {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
=Worksheet on citations that support the legitimacy of alternate names=
This may be a better way help. I could be wrong about some of these refs, but help and clues are available at the WP:RSN
==Cutting Edge: VWA Newsletter==
"Arbor Sculpture: "If you like I'll grow you a mirror"", The Cutting Edge; the Newsletter of the Victorian Woodworkers Association, Inc.: 16, June 2006, retrieved 2010-05-15 Questionable Source
Aha. It refers for our alternate names. Welp, gotta add that. Bad link too, fixing. [6]. Anybody feel free to ring in here...is this a questionable source because it is promotional in nature or for some other reason? I'll hit up RSN too.Duff (talk) 04:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article was submitted by Richard Reames to Victorian Woodworkers Association newsleter's editor as a marketing tactic to brand Arborsculpture across our and Dr Chris Cattle's work and link back to himself. Blackashhave a chat13:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is an unsourced claim, which I am not sure would be relevant anyway, as it could be claimed about nearly everything anyone has ever written for a magazine on any topic. The article does not show any byline, and on that basis it appears to have been written by editorial staff @ the paper; absent some other reliable indication to the contrary. Still standing by for comments from WP:RSN, submitted request @ 15:00, June 6, 2010 re: use at all five points cited in the article, including the citation in Alternate names for the use of (that word) in the generic sense as a name for the craft, crafters, etc. Duff (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"treehugger.com is a Blog.
Blogs are unreliable sources. What is being referenced in the text of the aka's anyway? The other name tree shaping? The cite is plugged at the opener: "Other names for tree shaping include:[2][3]" Same exact question on the google map blog ref [2] What's referenced?? This one is out as a ref, and not to support whatever it is pointed at as an aka for our topicDuff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be really surprised if a google map of any sort is a reliable source, it's not different than a blog. Who does the peer review on those? What is being referenced in the text of the aka's anyway? The other name tree shaping? The cite is plugged at the opener: "Other names for tree shaping include:[2][3]" Same exact question on the treehugger blog ref [2] What's referenced?? This one is out as a ref, and not to support whatever it is pointed at as an aka for our topic. Duff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Arborsculpture: Horticultural Art Reliable source".
Mudge, Ken; Janick, Jules; Scofield, Steven; Goldschmidt, Eliezer E. (2009), "A History of Grafting", in Janick, Jules, Issues in New Crops and New Uses, Purdue University Center for New Crops and Plants Products, orig. pub. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 442–443 Reliable source
Golan, Ezekiel, "Method and a kit for shaping a portion of a woody plant into a desired form", US A method of shaping a portion of a woody plant into a desired form is provided. The method is effected by providing a root of a woody plant, shaping the root into the desired form and culturing the root under conditions suitable for secondary thickening of the root. 7328532, issued 2008-02-12Questionable Source I hope to find some info on using patents as sources.
Agree, reliable source for the article, but biotecture is not supported as an aka reference for the topic of this page. "The branch of architecture that deals with living structures is called 'biotecture' and was pioneered by the German landscape architect Rudolf Doernach." is on page 15; that illustrates grown buildings, noting that "the old 'weaving' technique used to construct these living structures is called 'pleaching'," so that's a valid reference for pleaching as a technique for building far more than just hedgerows. Pages 21-26 deal with Cook/Northey & Cattle pieces, referring to them as 'grown furniture' and Erlandson's ladder tree, referring to it as 'grown ladder'. I placed another new alt name for grown furniture...see if that seems like an aka for the art/craft or not.
This site does not support the use of either of the words biotecture/biotechture as an aka for our topic. It is also an ezine, which is not a reliable source. This ref is out, as are any aka's dependent on itDuff (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/245100/green-theatre Britannica online, a "green theater" has greenery, big deal. Reliable source may be useful in a "Botanical architecture" or "Arbortecture" section.
"various entrances screened by trimmed hedges." Hedged screenery for entrances to theatres? May be useful at hedge (barrier). This site does not support the use of the phrase botanical architecture as an aka for our topic. This ref is out, as are any aka's dependent on itDuff (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reames, Richard; Delbol, Barbara (1995). How to Grow a Chair: The Art of Tree Trunk Topiary. ISBN 0-9647280-0-1. Self Published by a NON-Expert, Questionable Source Moriarty was not a expert in 1994 when he wrote "How to Grow a Chair"
Moriarty who? Where you find that name? The book states by Reames, Richard; Delbol, Barbara (authors) publisher is Arborsmith Studios (which is Richard Reames) with address. Distributed by Arborsmith Studios. So yes it is self published book but that is ok if it is Self-published as long as it meets the specific criteria. If it is found to be an unreliable source then all media interviews and articles online that are based on this book also should not be used.<Blackash there
I didn't 'get the word'. Slowart did this citations work and a lot of it. His sig is at the bottom there, you'll note. Perhaps Moriarty is Reames' nickname? I don't know, but he's pretty obviously referring to the author, and has honestly assessed his own status as a newbie and the book as a questionable source. That's a non-issue. I did not say google it up. I said blog it up, and I was referring directly to your unsigned statement above (which I tagged with your username):"all media interviews and articles online that are based on this book also should not be used." and I was referring specifically to your voluminous blogging efforts to squash the use of the word arborsculpture. Or did you mean not used here at this article? Perhaps I misunderstood. If that's what you meant, where is the policy, chapter & verse, that states this? Keep in mind that any such policy would apply right across the board. Which citations specifically are you suggesting are "based on the book"? Duff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published, self-admitted non-expert. Should be ok to use for the Reames bio portion only but not elsewhere, and particularly not as a source for establishing arborsculpture as an aka for our topic, though there may well be other reliable sources. This ref is out for that purpose and the article is not about Reames.Duff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
::::No, this link is an event advertisement; it's a commercial website, not a museum website, and they are selling tickets to his lectures, this is not a reliable source. Furthermore, read the hype on the link, it directly contradicts the use of the reference to support the use of Botanic architecture as an aka for our article topic: Primack discovered Erlandon’s neglected and dying trees in 1977, shortly after completing his Masters thesis on ‘Botanic Architecture’. There is no reference here, even if it was a reliable source, to him using this term to describe Erlandson's work. On the contrary, it states clearly that he hadn't discovered Erlandson's work until after writing his thesis by that name. While there may well be some reliable and verifiable reference out there to him branding Erlandson's work with that name post-1977, this ref is out for the purpose of establishing botanic architecture as another name for the craft, except as proof he wrote a masters thesis called botanic architecture pre-1977. Anybody got a link to the thesis? Erlandson's work could not be in it, because he discovered Erlandson AFTER, but it might still be a potentially useful ref for the rest of the article, if determined relevant, reliable if verifiable. It might clarify whether or not his thesis and it's title has got anything to do with our topic at all.Duff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed that link here (No translation page, just direct, but still needs fixing in the actual refs, if it's even kept. This is what he calls what he does, not an aka for the craft of our topic. May be a good source for info about Kalberer if he's added as a minibio or full bio, but not beyond, and not to support an aka botanical architecture for our topic.Duff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are unreliable sources. This one is out as a ref, and not to support botanical architecture as an aka for our topic Duff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are unreliable sources. This one is out as a reliable ref, and not to support circus trees as an aka for our topicDuff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisements are unreliable sources. This one is out as a reliable ref, and not to support circus trees as an aka for our topicDuff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisements are unreliable sources. This link produces no archive anyway. This one is out as a reliable ref, and not to support circus trees as an aka for our topicDuff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Press Releases are unreliable sources. This one is out as a reliable ref, and not to support eco-architecture as an aka for our topicDuff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are unreliable sources. This one is out as a reliable ref, and not to support green design architecture/eco-construction as an aka for our topicDuff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisements are unreliable sources. This one is out as a reliable ref, and not to support biotecture as an aka for our topicDuff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published, Should be ok to use for the Cattle bio portion only but not elsewhere, and particularly not as a source for establishing Grownup furniture as an alternate name for our topic. This is what he calls his works, not what the craft is known as. This ref is out for this purpose. That aka is out unless there is a reliable verifiable reference that uses Grownup furniture to describe the topic of our article. The article is not about Cattle.Duff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Eco-Architecture Could Produce "Grow Your Own" Homes". American Friends of Tel Aviv University. Press release Questionable Source
Press Releases are unreliable sources. This one is out as a reliable ref, and not to support living art as an aka for our topicDuff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are unreliable sources. This one is out as a ref, and not to support living art as an aka for our topicDuff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reames, Richard (2005). Arborsculpture: Solutions for a Small Planet. Oregon: Arborsmith Studios. ISBN 0964728087. Self Published by a expert, Reliable Source by 2005 Moriarty had become an expert.
Umm who is Moriarty again? and who says he is an expert? Book says by Richard Reames (author) Copyright 2002 to Richard Reames, distributed by Arborsmith Studios. Ummm looks self published to me. It would need to follow the same outline as for How to grow a chair. Self-publishedQuestionable Source
If it is found to be an unreliable source then all media interviews and articles online that are based on this book also should not be used.<Blackash there
Here again, get busy blogging away on that. 10 years later, same topic, much practice, not an expert? Who says he's not? O by the way, that's two instances in, gosh, an hour, of your misstating the publication dates of Reames' books. What's up with that? Reames1 HTGaChair is 1995, not 2005, and Reames2 ArborsculptureSFASP is 2005, not 2002. Please use the existing 2 ref names for correct citations to Reames' 2 books, with the rp template to indicate the page#, so that those sorts of misleading mistakes are eliminated, and please do not make up any more new ref names to describe these 2 books. Also please put your comments/research below each citation here and sign each of your posts with four tildes as usual/Thanks!.Duff (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The man himself, for a start. quote "Over the past 15 years I have developed the attitude that every tree I work on is an experiment or a learning opportunity. The inevitable mistakes become opportunities to advance the skills required to master the art". (An expert doesn't have inevitable mistakes, mistakes yes, but not ones that keep reappearing.) book Arborsculpture page 154. or when he states about our work, quote "I had no idea that such complicated detailed balanced work was possible." Just because you do something for 10 years doesn't mean you are expert. More to the point who says he is? (Can't use interviews based on the books either.) Please note the book has copyright 2002 First printing is April 2005. And to confuse matters more Richard had done a revised edition of his book Arborsculpture solutions for a small planet. So maybe we need 3 ref names so people can find the right book. Will do with signing. Blackashhave a chat15:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Experts make mistakes, it's inevitable. Everyone makes mistakes, it's inevitable. You make mistakes and so do I. Mistakes are inevitable. That's how people learn. Every day with trees is a day to learn, even for experts. And where does it say the same mistakes keep reappearing? Just because he was unaware of the quality of Peter's work and complimented him on it doesn't make him not an expert. I too, have been completely isolated from your work until participation on this article. It's also not any discredit to expertise to be honest enough to admit, especially in print, that one is fallible. On the contrary, it's a sign of maturity. That sounds a lot like original research and it's a spurious argument. It can certainly be argued that Reames was an expert by 2005 at the publication of his 2nd book in 2005. By that time the term arborsculpture was in widespread usage and not any longer considered a neologism as has been repeatedly alleged. Now we are here in 2010 and he's presumably learned from even more mistakes, like all of us, and is likely even more expert now than in 2005. The nouns arborsculpture and arborsculptor are even more deeply entrenched in the cultural vernacular, efforts to quash notwithstanding. There aren't that many living experts in this craft, and he's clearly one of 'em. So is Peter Cook, I'd say, and some others. Even if there was a reason to exclude this text as a reference for using the term as an aka (and I'm not sure there is), there are LOTS more third party sources that use it as the primary name for our topic.Duff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question is who states Richard Reames is an expert? Where are the peer reviews of his shaped trees? (Can't use interviews based on the books either.) Blackashhave a chat15:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone else ring in please, on whether that is the question, and if it is, what is the best way to answer it conclusively without wasting any time? Duff (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline at WP:SPS#Self-published sources (online and paper) guides thusly: Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. If this is indeed the appropriate standard, what are we looking for to establish that the standard has been met or hasn't? Does someone have to evaluate his trees, for heaven's sake? Wouldn't that be original research? Duff (talk) 01:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are unreliable sources. This one is out as a ref, and not to support pleaching as an aka for our topicDuff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Published by a third party, written by an expert, not covered in the article, a reliable source. Supports pleaching as an aka for our topic. Duff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commercial website: "Tree Trunk Topiary is geared to the commercial market." Commercial websites are unreliable sources. This one is out as a ref, and not to support tree trunk topiary as an aka for our topicDuff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There you go... like I said I could be wrong but... 99 questionable refs on the wall, you take one down, pass it around... 98 questionable refs on the wall... Slowart (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's my consensus where it applies. The threads need to be pulled back out of the aka names in the actual section above, and see what's left. We need to do the same process on the rest of the citations in the namespace. Ugh. I don't want to wrestle my way through those at this moment. Need rest. Peace out. Duff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So we don't destroy this lovely record of tedious labor, I will use the strikeout method to dis-plash the stricken cites. Duff (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A recent edit here: diff, posted with the edit summary "(plant is not a suitable word please read http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plant I for one don't shape blue-green algae.)", changed the words 'perennial woody plant' in the lead, to the just the word 'tree' instead. This conflicts with prior established consensus by discussion of this very point. I've changed it back. The work encompasses more than just trees and that is why perennialwoody plant was chosen. Since the text substituted read perennialwoody plant, that summary and deletion is not entirely straightforward. The right dictionary reference should have been woody plant[7]. Plant is indeed an appropriate term; so is woody plant, and so is perennial woody plant...they are all appropriate. While not all of these projects involve trees, they do all involve plants or parts of plants.
This is also one of several reasons why the current article title is under serious discussion here. I will note this and link to this comment at that point on this talk page. It also should be noted that in the diff above, the editor chose to screen the entire article for the word 'plant', replacing it wherever found, with the word 'tree' or tree shaping, in what oddly appears to be an attempt to give undue weight both to the use of 'tree' (vs, say shrubs, vines, or roots, which are all frequently used in this craft), and to the argument for the use of the current title. I'm fixing that too. The article is boring with the same word repeated over & over for no other reason than to arm-wrestle over POV promotional naming. Synonyms are good and add interest. Duff (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Citations and the References Section
(Moved ongoing discussion sections here to consolidate discussions of citations and references)
Misunderstanding of References
Duff you seem to have misunderstood what the refs are for about the different trees, the ref that was originally there was for the fact that tree type was used to create a tree shaping not for correct "plant taxonomy", so please add your refs to existing ref, don't introduce a completely different wording with "plant taxonomy" as the only reason for it being there as the section is about Popular species for artists. Blackashhave a chat23:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you seem to have misunderstood the naming conventions used in both science and wikipedia. 1.Prunus myrobalan is an incorrect binomial. There is no such correct name for any tree in the Prunus genus. The scientific names of plants are not determined on the basis of popularity and we do not make them up and call them popularly used. That is why you do not find it listed at Prunus 2. The correct binomial for the tree commonly called Myrobalan Plum (if this is indeed the species that you hope to see referenced as a popular candidate for shaping in the section) is Prunus cerasifera, the one I edited it to and provided the reference for. 3. Wild Plum is not Myrobalan Plum, nor is it a common name for Myrobalan Plum. So. Which is the favored tree? Wild Plum or Myrobalan Plum? The correct species name should be used. If its all sorts of plums, then just Prunus (not wild, not myrobalan) is appropriate, but that's not what it conveys.Duff (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the misunderstanding, we were told by the Department of primary industries in Australia that the tree species we use most is wild plum which is a root stock used for grafting of fruit trees and it's botanical name was Prunus Myrobalan, which seemed understandable to the Japanese government when we inquired about importing live trees for the Expo. I will have to chase it up with the DPI here, it may take a while to find out the correct info. All the same the trees do need to be referenced in regards to shaping. Blackashhave a chat00:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed, the trees should be referenced, but identified correctly if they are to be identified. I don't know which species you or other artists use, and it would be original research anyway to just answer the question. One commonly used tree for Prunus rootstocks is Myrobalan Plum aka Cherry Plum (both are common names for the same species of tree). The binomial and specific name for the tree that is commonly known by those names is Prunus cerasifera. That may or may not be the species you commonly use. Wild Plum is a common name that is used in a great many places (maybe yours) to refer to a great many different trees (maybe yours), some of them not even plums. It's ambiguous and that's one of the troubles with common names; they can be misinterpreted. Using the correct scientific binomial is helpful because it is then known which species in particular is meant (if one particular species is meant at all). Common names are great but they vary and frequently refer to different plants by location. For example, you and I and everyone in Australia and Oregon might call it Purple Plum, and all of us may know exactly what it is and we may know this plant intimately enough to correctly identify it in the field. People in, say, South America may also call one particular tree the Purple Plum, but they might call our Purple Plum the Violin Plum, say. That would make it tough to get the valuable rootstock species unless you knew the scientific name of the stock offered. Some people in S. America might mistakenly label it Prunus violinus and you and I and our countryfolk might even find it at a nursery mistakenly labeled Prunus purpleii, but the one we are talking about (and trying to find for our arborsculpture projects, say) would still be Prunus cerasifera, and we could generally count on finding it reliably by that name, true to species (nevermind varieties and cultivars, but that is another important detail, perhaps). Scientific species names change sometimes too, but it's usually in an orderly and reasoned fashion, on the basis of significant scientific consensus, and we can usually count on a plant labeled Prunus cerasifera to be that very productive plum rootstock so useful for grafting other Prunus genus fruits. I'm totally FOR the list of popular arborsculpture species, and especially for their accurate naming. Duff (talk) 02:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quality of References
This point was made on my talk page, right after I started trying to straighten out some of the kinks in the refs section. It merits discussion here. I haven't yet sifted the archives for prior talk on this, if any. Please jump in and comment so we can all work in the direction of a really great and properly formatted refs section. The current iteration is hard to use and complicates verification.
Science Daily/AFTAU Citation
FYI- Science Daily takes press releases. Identified by the word "release" is in the Science Daily url. Are releases good sources?
Thanks for the original link. Not sure...What's the appropriate policy? That's part of what I was wondering. I will open that question on the talk page for discussion. I did not add the source. There are a bunch of new sources suddenly, with ref names that tend toward the obtuse. I am scratching my head for a better place to start; as article edits I make are being reverted very quickly, which is a little frustrating. Thought I'd start at the top & peruse all of these sources, straighten out the ref formatting mess, try to understand what's what, like that. For source #1, I expanded its refname= to improve clarity (it was just SD somethingsomething, and I had already run across it broken before), so I changed its template title to reflect cite info offered on the page, moved the full ref to first instance of it's use, tried to read the reference carefully and assess its application to the various places it's used in the article, and applied it, in particular, to instances of the use of the various alternate names, as suggested by Colonel Warden. Duff (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it is correct that press releases are likely bias and are poor refs, it would be wise, for the long run to base this article on good sources, more peer review and fact checked secondary and tertiary sources. Another poor ref in used here is Treeshapers.net as it is a personal web site.Slowart (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am removing this reference and the text it supports (which I wrote) from the aka list for tree shaping, because the text of the cited document, properly read, does not support the use of eco-architecture as an aka for tree shaping. Rather, the citation clearly states that eco-architecture will "use this concept (tree shaping aka A,B,&C) as the foundation of a new company." It builds upon our article's topic, but does not call itself tree shaping or any of the other names. Eco-architecture is the informal partnership's product.
This is the text:
Used as the primary name[1][citation needed] for the product of an informal scientific and commercial partnership betweeen Professors Yoav Waisel and Amram Eshel of the Sarah Racine Root Research Laboratory at Tel Aviv University and researchers at Plantware, a company founded in 2002. The researchers and scientists intend to use the concept of shaping living trees into useful objects. "the foundation of a new company that will roll out these structures worldwide." Certain species of trees grown aeroponically yield “soft roots,” which they intend to use to turn living trees into useful structures. According to Eshel, “The approach is a new application of the well-known botanical phenomenon of aerial root development.” and “Instead of using plant branches, this patented approach takes malleable roots and shapes them into useful objects for indoors and out.” Pilot projects in the United States, Australia and Israel include park benches for hospitals, playground structures, streetlamps and gates. Plantware's director of operations, TAU life sciences degreed Yaniv Naftalya and its CEO, engineer Gordon Glazer hope to grow a prototype aerial root home within ten years.[1]
We may be able to rework and work this useful information back in some other way, if it belongs somewhere in this article.
I am also moving a statement which I also wrote, using the same citation, from the end of the methods section, to the end of the lead, edited to more properly and accurately summarize the useful content of the reference cited, thus keeping the useful reference and giving it appropriate, but not excessive, weight.
The statement doesn't describe a method, so it doesn't belong in the Methods section. Please see the lead text for that change.
I'm going next to look at the other statements cited with this reference, to see if they are actually supported by the AFTAU ref and if not, how or if to keep them. Thoughts?
The useful information above points to a branch of this art called arbortecture or eco-architecture. Architecture with trees would be a natural division and alien the tree work of Arthur Wiechula, David Nash, Konstantin Kirsch, Marcel Kalberer...Just a thought. About the AFTAU ref, reliability is suspect, bias acknowledged by Quid (I think), confirm facts (if used) with reliable sources. Slowart (talk) 05:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reference Cleanup Update
I've just standardized the refs currently numbered 1-10. There are, as of right now, eighty sources total. Judging from the results of that effort so far, some of the remaining 70 will inevitably be consolidated, some likely into those first 10. I'd prefer to carefully move through that before we start dumping references, as tedious as it is, for the value of establishing appropriate weight. My fascination may be more tied to wanting to see the full scope of this come to light, and I'll defer to consensus either way. If additional citations are to be added, and they probably will be necessary, I'd dearly appreciate a careful perusal of existing cites to see if the one wanted already exists, is buried here in some form, and can just be used, instead of adding more ever-less-artfully crafted instances of the same slightly differently formatted cites. And finally, I think we have plenty of primary sources at this time. Thanks!Duff (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
removal of citation need
"The word has since become nearly synonymous with the art of tree shaping itself." From Richard Reames section.
I disagree that the references given are appropriate, as they don't state the word arborsculpture is synonymous with tree shaping. They use the word and you have done original research to come to the conclusion that means synonymous with. Going by that logic pooktre or grownup furniture should have something along the lines of same in their section. Blackashhave a chat 23:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC
Ok, the proper way to challenge that is with a verification request template, and I'll carefully read each reference and eliminate the ones that don't apply or change the text. The references noted, as far as I read, use the word AS the craft. Tree Shaping is a synonym created by artifice, registered as a domain name by...you, and applied to an established article on the craft to appease...you. I have in mind a rewording that is more accurate, but since its a term, not a living person, there's no hurry, so please let that stand challenged for a non-involved editor, maybe me, to tackle as time permits. Thanks.Duff (talk) 08:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was standard practice to use the [citation needed] tag when wanting someone to establish their statement isn't original research. The "verification request template" you talked about, WP:Requests for verification appears to be a page that is only kept for historical reasons quote "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant, or consensus on its purpose has become unclear." Blackashhave a chat01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Each one will have to be first standardized, then read and checked for applicability, then evaluated for reliability, then either kept or tossed. Stay tuned, but relax, because I am going to try to get to all of them and as I've mentioned, that will take some time. In the meantime, thanks to your efforts, it is not even close to unreferenced content, so no problem with its staying put in the bio section, unless your contention is that all of the above sources are unreliable in some way? If so, please discuss that here and we will strive to reach consensus on a proper approach to resolve that.Duff (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Duff quote "The references noted, as far as I read, use the word AS the craft." The references don't state that the word is interchangeable or synonymous with Tree shaping, they just use the word. Your comment, just reinforces that you had to come your own conclusion the word is synonymous with Tree shaping, which is original research.Blackashhave a chat01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They use the word as the craft. Please consult your dictionary reference for the meaning of the word synonym.Duff (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point is yes they use arborsculpture as a name for the art form. They don't state that arborsculpture is interchangeable with the word Tree shaping. That is your conclusion from reading multiple articles that are using the word arborsculpture. Blackashhave a chat11:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the point is yes. They use arborsculpture as a name or the name for the art form. Multiple articles from reliable sources (if they are) that are using the word arborsculpture as a name for the art form = at the very least, a synonym; more than likely = the name for the art form. I know you want to cast that as my synthesis, but you've spelled it out yourself, and so even you aren't fooled by that drivel, are you? If so, again, I suggest you consult your dictionary reference for the meaning of the word synonym. By the way, did you ever locate a source specifically stating that the phrase 'Tree shaping' was synonymous with arborsculpture or with "the art form" or with the craft? Same questions on pooktre. Same questions on the rest of the alternate names you have been working on in that section.Duff (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Using the word arborsculpture is not the same as saying that arborsculpture is a synonym of Tree shaping. The articles use arborsculpture, not state that the two words are one and the same. Show me where in the references it says Arborsculpture is interchangeable with the word Tree shaping, or synonymous with Tree shaping. If you can't, please remove the disputed sentence or I will have to ask for a 3rd opinion on this point. Also as you are the one wanting the wording of synonymous, it is up to you to find a source specifically stating that the phrase "Tree shaping' was synonymous with arborsculpture or the art form. Blackashhave a chat11:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Treeshapers.net was created to keep a history of the artists who shape trees. Please look each artists page and see if any one is branded. Also if I owned a business call "Tree shapers" and tried to sue "Tree shaping" for having a name to close to mine I would be more likely to get snow in hell than to win the case.
Point 1 above: Treeshapers.net was created by you. Its content is directly controlled by you. Citations to it, by you which are about you are not going to stand, and the reference itself, in its entirety may not withstand scrutiny. We await consensus on that, according to WP policy on such citations.
Point 2 above: Yup, you nailed it. That's exactly what's in question: The quality of the provided sources, and by extension, their relative weight in shaping consensus for the move. Duff (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Duff quote "applied to an established article on the craft to appease...you." Wrong again. Multiple editors came to a consensus [9] the article needed, to quote AfD hero "a generic, descriptive, and in current use". name.Blackashhave a chat01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't be implying that you are neutral when it can be seen here, here and by your continual use of arborsculpture into discussion when the word is not even needed here that you are not. Blackashhave a chat01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"...use of arborsculpture into discussion when the word is not even needed." I am agog at the blatancy of this statement, setting aside the grammar issue. It points to a comment I made previously on this Talk page, not even in the article mainspace. I am considering what response might be adequate and yet still diplomatic. There is a word or phrase for this kind of thing, but I am at a loss to articulate it. Blackash, since you've covered several areas of your concern, for continuity and for reduction of future reorganizing effort, I've interleaved my responses to your several questions. Accordingly I have also copy/pasted your sig from your single post at 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC) to identify your comments as belonging to this single post, at the points where your comments/questions precede my responses, so we don't lose track, and so there's no misunderstanding as to who said what when. This is extremely tedious. Please try to put your concerns under the sections where the matters are being discussed, so that concerns can reach resolution by consensus. I will try really hard to do the same. Thanks.Duff (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how any of the three links you provided demonstrate any bias or non-neutrality on my part, but I stand ready to be schooled by yet another neutral party. Each of them leads to an instance of my written use of the generic word arborsculpture. If you are asserting, and I think you might be, that the word arborsculpture should never again be used to refer to any of this work, in any context, by anyone, or that anyone who does use the word is biased and/or non-neutral, then in my opinion, you are not only too late to prevent that, but may actually be engaging in that most odious form of censorship which purposefully attempts to obliterate legitimately applied words from the lexicon of usage. Your purpose for doing so may be benign, but from where I'm sitting, it appears to be an effort to gain some commercial or other advantage over a rival artist/author, particularly given your continued insistence on editing a page where you are prominently featured. I look forward with great anticipation to your comments about it. My sincere protest is below and we will get to some sort of resolution, I am confident. Cheers.Duff (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? You have attempted to purge the word. Repeatedly. Your campaign is completely transparent and your 'demonstrations' serve only to cast a brighter light on your own actions. Are you really sticking to this?Duff (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further, this edit that you point to, here in which you reversed my edit adding the absent arborsculpture & tree shapers detail to the Expo 2005 article, is problematic. I reversed your revert at Expo 2005 (just) to the original text, which contained a functional redirect, which is permissible, by this wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. I've previously noted this very policy to you, in response to your comment on my User talk page at User talk:Duff#Arborsculpture. You claimed there, on 7:12 pm, 5 April 2010, to be unfamiliar at that point with the policy. I don't know if you found time to read it that night, as you noted you would, or at all, but you did acknowledge having noted my point. Please read it. Consensus on this page wasn't to eliminate all uses of the word arborsculpture. Your stalking of the word is what got my attention over here in the first place, so you know. I was working on improving the Arboriculture page, where coincidentally, similar, but less sophisticated efforts at commercial linking have been attempted and are constantly thwarted by adroit editors. When the See Also link there, which had been entitled Arborsculpture, was switched to Tree shaping, I thought, "Hmmm...WTF?" Before that, I hadn't read the Arborsculpture article, but I was peripherally familiar with arborsculpture by that name, having lived near Scotts Valley years ago when part of the interesting drama with Erlandson's site was underway. This article is the first I'd ever heard it called Tree shaping and until now, neither had I ever heard of Richard Reames, or you, or Pooktre<-Why is this business name a redirect, and by what consensus? Duff (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "original text" appeared on the expo page 2005 by you on the 02:48, 4 May 2010. You may have missed the discussion about not using alternative names on other pages. SilkTork quote
"* The consensus is that tree shaping is the most neutral of the widely used terms, and so that is the preferred term for use within this and related articles. SilkTork *YES! 16:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
It is also the most descriptive, which is very useful. SilkTork *YES! 16:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)" follow link bottom of section
You may have overlooked my first sentence there above: "...in which you reversed my edit adding the absent arborsculpture & tree shapers detail to the Expo 2005 article..." No secret there, so please don't cast it like I'm trying to hide something. I edited Expo2005. You reverted my edit, purging arborsculpture even though I used both terms in the short bullet point. I reverted it back, and generously tagged it as an AGF rollback. What SilkTork did not say, and a consensus that was not reached, was that the word arborsculpture should not be used, should be stalked and changed whenever and wherever found, and that past uses of it are fair game for deletion until complained about, whereupon at that time future uses are fair game for deletion. None of that was said. You got a really big inch, and you ran many miles. Preferred Term is not synonymic with Exclusive Term. Sadly, that is the policy you have been pursuing and enforcing. When you come to realize the ethical gravity of this, you will be disturbed by it too. Duff (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really want me to take the time to reference here all of the references, mostly provided by you, that refer to your business, and your business partnership? Spend some time reading the material you have cited and do not revert any cited factual information. Also, put this in your pipe and toke it: Pooktre is not an artist. Peter Cook is an artist and Becky Northey is an artist. Each has their own proper spot on the Chronology. Either or both might turn out to be notable enough to merit a separate article. So might Pooktre, but not as a bio, because it's not a living (nor a dead) artist. While to you, it is many things, which is good and fine, it's a business.Duff (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recent Removal of Citations Negates Citation Improvement Effort
Citation use in this article is sloppy and is a problem which is under serious consideration. We are working on improving citations and references for accuracy, relevance, and reliability. I am working on citations: standardizing refs and ref names and verifying that the cited statements are referenced accurately. I spent hours studying only a handful of the citations and references provided by others; trying to find, identify, verify, and correctly cite the specific statements referenced. I have also added a few new references which clearly support certain relevant statements, and cited those references accordingly.
Blackash has systematically removed a group of citations, as well as the content they cited, which do not support her position, both within sections that feature her prominently and within other sections where the content (previous to citation verification) tended to indirectly support her position. I am struggling to assume good faith. These are exceedingly disruptive acts and they do not make the article better. I request that each of these reverts of the citations I added are reverted back, as a first priority. Diffs for the changes of concern that I have found begin here [11], and continue here [12], here [13], here [14], and here [15].
These statements and their citations are parts of biographies of living persons. They are nested within this article where, by prior consensus, the bios are incubating for further development before being spun out as articles on their own merit. Each statement, and in some cases, each element within each statement, requires citation.
Many statements, references, and citations contained within this article have been heavily influenced by one editor's citing of external links to a) self-published material, b) sites over which that editor has either partial or complete editorial control, and c) sites whose content that editor has influenced, or does influence, including a blog article about that editor wherein the blog author notes having received a letter from that editor. These are not valid citations. Consensus over inclusion or dis-inclusion of content, and titling/naming of the article content they pertain to, has been reached on the basis of these faulty citations.
The neutrality of the current page title is again challenged (discussion above at Talk:Tree shaping#Proposal to Move: Arborsculpture or Tree Shaping and at several points in the 7 archives), on the basis that prior consensus on the re-titling was both reached without adequate discussion and that it hinged on these purportedly neutral citations, which are not in fact neutral. We have reached consensus to work on the citations first, which I agree with, but am now hesitant to continue, as it seems like wasted effort.
In any case, it is completely inappropriate for any editor, in particular one who is covered or featured prominently in an article, to exercise this level, or any level, of control over the cited content in that article, or any article. I object most strenuously to this activity. I request intervention and intend to pursue appropriate mediation if this is not resolved swiftly. Duff (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Regarding citation style, I'd quote the sentence beginning "If the material is particularly contentious..." at WP:CITE#Inline citations. (using citations mid-sentence should be a last resort)
Regarding reliability of sources, I agree with Duff completely.
Regarding the page title, I don't believe there could be a good consensus to move back to arborsculpture (currently), given the various comments from many of the artists mentioned in this article, at Talk:Tree_shaping/Archive_2#Move from Arborsculpture to Tree Shaping. Yes, it is a wonderfully appropriate sounding word (with a closeness to arboriculture, and a fairly obvious/intuitive meaning) however it has been objected to by numerous "experts" in this artistic field (assuming they were who they said they were). I don't believe there is enough fresh evidence to make a solid decision, one way or the other (but I'm open to slow persuasion). -- Quiddity (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being open Quid, when the time comes, I will offer some fresh evidence. We should of course use "good sources" as Colonel Warden says. Lets remember that the objections were derived from a mailing list of 500, they are single edits accounts admittedly invited by Blackash to comment. Cattle was asked to remove the word arborsculpture from his web site and he did so. Boonneter, Konstantin Kirsch and Herman Block are experts who all use the word arborsculpture. The usage that should be here has little to do with the so called experts it's what is being used in the University's the Tree Care Industry, Arborist and the Landscapers trade. Artist opinions like mine, are primary evidence and likely subject to bias.Slowart (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Slowart, as you know the page was moved and the subsequent discussion was well on its way before I made a newbie mistake of e-mailing our mailing list. As you also know Boonneter, is from Thailand and Konstantin Kirsch and Herman Block are from Germany and they were informed that Arborsculpture was standard English. Arborsculputre is a Neologism (my debate with supporting links) with strong links to you Richard Reames. Google arborsculpture. Blackashhave a chat13:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Duff if you are going to give diffs please do so I have linked the diffs with my thoughts when I made the changes.
1 Where do you get the idea we are a "partnership" in the business sense? I removed that and add some content.
2 I thought the use of multiple inline citations to the same reference was a bit excessive. Removed only multiple inline citations.
3 Two words before repeating the same inline citation? Really? Removed only one of references.
4 I thought the use of multiple inline citations to the same reference was a bit excessive. Removed no text thou, only the ref.
5I thought the use of multiple inline citations to the same reference was a bit excessive. Removed no text thou, only the ref.
@Duff quote "influenced by one editor's citing of external links" Please look at the article before all this debate started. :[16] Please note there are no links to treeshapers.net, also any links to pooktre linked straight the media page in the reference. Not material that I could "control". The article was open to editing by anyone at that time.
The article was changed because if you Google Arborsculpture it leads to Richard Reames and his methods. Arborsculpture is not neutral. Here is the last edit before article's name change [17] Ummm this was before all those "faulty citations"
Duff I asked you earlier not do this, but maybe you just missed it so I give the brief version here. Duff you are the one who has added at least 11 links to one of our sites, it seems you are planting evidence to make your statement true. Here is the diff of your changes [18]. Don't make changes and then say goodness me it's too heavily weighed this way. Please don't do this again. Blackashhave a chat13:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All content at Treeshapers.net is presumably based upon material from elsewhere, which is what we should be using. The site makes a fairly good external link, but a poor reference source for the purposes of our article.
I've never been able to get webcitation.org to work (possibly one of my browser extensions is interfering). That doesn't really matter, as treeshapers.net isn't a reliable source anyway, so the whole issue is moot.
I did get WebCite to work; it opened blank in Firefox, but opened clean in IE, which I keep for just such pesky sites. Anyhoozle, there was indeed a 404 error upon opening the site, at the very point when I was making the references requested, so that felt inky and was disconcerting. However, the page was restored within 5 minutes of that odd event, and upon comparison with the WebCite archived page, it was identical, a fact that is of great relief to me.
So...regarding these steps too:
yank the cites?
keep resultant unsourced content?
seek other sources to support it. Slowart contributed a stack or three.
toss what won't submit to verification?
bios: not keep resultant unsourced content?
finish what I started on tightening up the references section?
return the External Link for the treeshapers.net site.
Same policy with all sites cited which link to the artists covered?
Ditto with return of external links?...There are 1 or 2 others I treated as converted to references and so deleted from External Links.
Essentially yes, except regarding bios, where anything non-contentious can just be tagged with {citation needed}, for future sourcing.
WP:Primary references are fine, as long as used with care.
Yah, everyone involved in this artform create beautiful works. Hence we're all here, and trying to help inform the rest of the world! :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Short refs (and other citation styles) are good. I'm not familiar with them all, but anything consistent is fine. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am removing this entire statement about a living person, until and unless it can be properly sourced, (which I doubt, because I have searched carefully for another reliable source, but still welcome):
The first part of the sentence is not supported by the reference provided, if that reference even stands as a reliable source in the first place, which remains to be determined. The second part does not stand alone without the first partm and is referenced by a source (QSFMagazine) that is (so far) unavailable for verification, though welcome to be considered for reliability if available, hence the [verification needed] tag. How much does the sentence add anyway? Does it make the article any better? As a reader of an article about tree shaping, I don't find it a particularly valuable, compelling, informative, or encyclopedic statement.
"decided to grow a chair in 1987" which is what the farmshowmagazine article says verbatim, is not "started that same year," (as the year he had the idea, as referenced in the prior sentence, also with an unreliable reference, treeshapers.net, that we've already agreed to yank, and which statement also needs to be yanked unless a reliable reference for that can be found). This is the same point I intended to convey at our previous discussion regarding "When he/she had the idea" and we did reach consensus on that point. Again, when a person "decided" something around tree shaping, or "had an idea" to do something around tree shaping, is not going to be verifiable, no matter how many people or media outlets are told this by the person who supposedly decided or had an idea. That is original research and doesn't belong in the article. Any other editors or admins have thoughts on this?Duff (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Volz Reference
On the Volz/Queensland Smart Farmer citation, thank you Blackash for finally providing the link to the actual article, which you did at 2010-05-28T22:29:40 with this edit diff.
No thank you for your comment in the edit summary for your edit fixing the title of the citation:
"(Duff are you so are you bias you can't even use the real title in the ref if they use Tree shapers? The article title is" A Tree shaper's life" not On-farm Interview with Pooktre)" which you did just over an hour later at 2010-05-28T23:43:22, with this edit diff.
While the link to the article is appreciated, your exceptionally improper direct accusation of bias aimed at me, nestled in the edit summary for the edit wherein you changed the citation title to the correct article title, is both is both spurious and disingenuous, given that the article itself was not made available when you added the citation originally.
As you clearly are aware, previously the only source for this citation was pooktre...History of Pooktre http://www.pooktre.com/history_09.html, where only a brief summary of your meeting with Volz was provided; not the title of the article.
The only information you provided for the original duplicated citation was the title and date of the magazine, which is what I googled (Smart Farmer Magazine Pooktre) to find the information (only) on your website, which is where I found the name of the author, which I also googled ((Smart Farmer Magazine Pooktre Volz) and which still did not yield the original article.
This is why I chose to clarify the 2 separate ambiguous untitled citations you provided ("Queensland Smart Farmer, Oct./Nov. 2008 (Australia)" and "Magazine Smart farmer Oct nov 2008"; one of many I worked on) with the single more detailed citation, including a title "on-farm interview", derived from the information you provided on your website, in the absence of the article itself. It was neutral and accurate, but I far prefer the correct title and link. There's a WP rule on being nasty in the edit summaries, but I'll leave that to you to find and read. Please remember to be polite, edit honestly, and assume good faith.
I apologize for my hasty assumption which was based on your earlier behavior where you have shown a clear bias. For example by removing of Pooktre (and even our names) from our images in the article. Yet leaving the other images with names or alternative terms on them. I had the impression you had gone to our site, we have a media page that is easy to find that links images of Smart farmer article. I didn't link to the article on Tree shaping as I was been neutral and not doing "self promotion" Blackashhave a chat10:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Citation Styles
Refactoring bits of this discussion here first, from elsewhere on this page, for continuity.
Re: Citations: The template {{rp}} is strongly cautioned against unless absolutely necessary. Which alternative would you recommend, Duff (or anyone else knowledgeable on this)?
-- Quiddity (talk) 1:37 pm, 26 May 2010, last Wednesday (6 days ago) (UTC−7)
Re: Citations: Quiddity, with your ok, I'd like to move this comment and your response about citations up to the citations & references section of the discussion, under a heading like Citation Styles, so that that continuity of that discussion may be maintained. I recommend the {{rp}} template, and that is why I started using it, to solve an ongoing and exponentially increasing problem which is precisely the one described in the text for usage of the template. 'Strongly cautioned against' is a bit over the top. Here's what the warning says:
" Warning: This template should not be used unless necessary. In the vast majority of cases, citing page numbers in the ref code is just fine. This template is only intended for sources that are used many, many times in the same article, to such an extent that normal citation would produce a useless line in references or too many individual ones. Overuse of this template will make prose harder to read, and is likely to be reverted by other editors. Used judiciously, however, it is much less interruptive to the visual flow than full Harvard referencing and some other reference citation styles."
In particular (though there may be others), the 2 Reames references have been quoted from practically every page, on points which would not seem contentious but for the ongoing and one-sided attack on the word arborsculpture (not my choice to do so, but since it's a reliable source, it's a reasonable cite). I would otherwise say that the vast majority of citations to the Reames books are excessive, as are several other cases which still stand in the article today of unattractive CITATION OVERKILL. I can't readily verify any of the Reames citations, since I don't own those texts and they're not (AFAIK) available on the web, but assuming in good faith that the references are accurate and that the statements referenced are not direct quotes from the books, I'm ok with statements so cited. The messy and far-to-lengthy reference list is not ok and it is very difficult to verify anything in its present condition. This is what I stated I was going to try to resolve and started to do. I researched it carefully before deciding to use {{rp}}, because it is the best and most appropriate way to deal with these most copiously cited references. IMO, it is indeed necessary. If someone comes up with a better way that achieves the same goals, I'm good with that too. I am not ok with the deletion of the rp references (these are among my concerns as stated above). Edit summaries of "doesn't make sense" to explain these deletions are inadequate and unhelpful. Duff (talk) 2:38 am, 28 May 2010, last Friday (4 days ago) (UTC−7)
Feel free to refactor my comments for cohesive organization.
I'm only familiar with the basic cite templates; I'll try to research the alternatives sometime, but it might not be soon. Whatever you suggest, and are willing to implement, is fine by me :) More comments when I have time. -- Quiddity (talk) 11:49 am, 28 May 2010, last Friday (4 days ago) (UTC−7)
Done Both the refactoring of this discussion here and the {{rp|x}} template choice for multiple (say, more than 2) citations aimed at the same reference. It is simple and immediately follows each citation's closing ref tag. Duff (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Design options section
Section name switched back to Design Options, and here's why: I again replaced the bullet point approach with the flowed text in this section. It is preferred over the bullet point approach for a couple of reasons. Design alternatives are not restricted to three overlapping styles, but are instead wide open.
By overlapping, I mean that Architectural could easily fall under either Intended harvest or Living art.
Some relevant discussion on this occurred on my user page, prior to the recent original change I made, and so I'm clipping it to here for reference:
you asked Q: Are architectural projects ever designed for intentional harvest or always living art?
I've had another thought on this too: The boats. Your buddy's and this one [[20]]. Also those willow rod fences, etc. Hmmm. Where am I going with this...The splitting in the section on Styles is bugging me. Pretty soon I'll advocate for calling the whole article Basketry. Duff (talk) 01:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Architectural" use of trees is probably not a "Style" or a subset, Rudolph Doernach called the use of plants and trees for houses, biotecture.
Now we have Living art -verses- Intentional harvest, these are not "styles" this is an approach to the art. You can design a chair for harvest, by planting 4 legs or design your chair for staying alive and only planting one leg. Or even change your mind at any time or if anything dies and eventually they all die, then you save it if it's worth it, even if it's a one leg chair. Slowart (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the info is better titled: "Design Options"- Inclusions, functionality, symbols and letters, for harvest, for longevity, for architecture.Slowart (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The two different process of shaping tree trunks has been blended and merged. The ring barking part is not at all how it was written about in Richard's book. He stated 5 methods of ring barking to slow the growth of a dominant branch to allow a slower growing pathway to catch up. The plan is to keep the branch as part of the design, not to kill it off and later remove it.
I think we should follow the Bonsai style, change Methods to Techniques and have sub headings with appropriate text.
Suggested subheadings
Bending
bending 2-3 year old trees from 1 hour to whole afternoon.
Training
day to day guiding of the new growth of seedlings.
Framing
depending on which shaping technique being used, the framing is either to hold a bent mature tree in place or to support the growing tree.
Aeroponic roots
growing roots in a nutrient rich mist, to achieve lengths of 6 meter or more for shaping at a later date.
Creasing
using trees such as willow and poplar to be folded over upon themselves.
Grafting
to join branches or trees to create a design
Ring barking
used to achieve the slowing down of dominant branch allowing slower branches to catch up.
Pruning
mainly used to keep the design free of unwanted branches and to reduce the size of the canopy.
This is a very brief outline. Each section has a lot more information available in relation to Tree shaping.
We can work on the wording and refs for each section here first and then put it up on the front once we have consensus. I am not ready to start on this just yet as I want to find some more info about the different Alternative names first. After that I will do some more work on the techniques. Blackashhave a chat02:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1.'Ring barking' is just poor English (albeit common) for damaging a plant or branch of a plant by girdling it, which is why it redirects there. Girdling kills the branch. That's factual. We dont need to adhere to the wording chosen by any specific author or editor to convey the information clearly.
2.Oppose proposal to change the format of the methods section at this time. That is looking a lot like a how-to or guidebook, which we can't do. See WP:NOHOWTO Please sit on this idea for now, allow it to season a little, and work on finishing some of the other dangling and tedious matters, such as the backlog of tightening up poorly formatted and questionable references, left for others to untangle. For a start, read WP:CITE and its offshoots.
3.Furthermore, suggest strongly that involved editors should busy themselves with articles in which they are not involved, and should be allowing and encouraging non-involved editors to make such changes, instead of making such changes themselves, since it is so difficult to maintain NPOV and nobody likes having to arm wrestle over every point. Editors, especially involved editors, can do themselves a disservice by engaging so forcefully. Put what you think is important stuff on your own site (it's already disproportionately represented in the references section, by the way) and shape that site as you wish. Suggest it here if you wish to. Interested but uninvolved editors will find it, add it, and cite it if they find its reliable and relevant. That's how wikipedia is supposed to work. Duff (talk) 06:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ Duff I don't know where you got the idea I was going to rush in and start changing things when I stated that
I wanted to work elsewhere on the page first.
I wanted to work on one subheading at a time before putting it on the main article.
You shouldn't be implying that you are neutral when it can be seen here, here and by your continual use of arborsculpture into discussion when the word is not even needed here that you are not.
Duff's quote "your site....disproportionately represented in the references section" You are the one who has added at least 11 links to one of our sites, it seems you are planting evidence to make your statement true. Here is the diff of your changes [21]. I have always endeavored to reference media details instead of linking to our sites which I could easily have done on multiple instances. I also will search for new references when asked instead of taking the easy route and linking to the site you are complaining about. Don't make changes and then say goodness me it's too heavily weighed this way. Please don't do this again. Blackashhave a chat23:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon the belated reply. I had to give this one some serious thought. I did add the single citation to the bio page on treeshapers.net [Peter-Becky Bio http://www.treeshapers.net/peter-becky.html], and I did reference that single citation repeatedly in the several edits I made in the diff provided above, in the context of nailing down what was citeable and not in the Cook/Northey section. It seemed (and seems) the most appropriate citation for information in the Cook/Northey section of the bios. It was also the only citation found for some of the bio info presented and it's the only place in the article that a self-published source could be cited. However, that was not the citation I was referring to when I pointed out here on the talk page on the following day that the editors' sites were disproportionately represented in the references section. Instead, I was referring to the multiple other instances of citing the self-published material at both treeshapers.net and pooktre.com to reference statements outside of the section on Cook/Northey. I do apologize for any confusion that may have caused and for any misunderstanding that may have arisen over misconstruing of my motives for either of those edits. Duff (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison with other forms of living sculpture section
This section contains an odd line in the first paragraph of the topiary sub-section: "tree shaping is primarily the practice of manipulating stems and bonding trees together by grafting.": Is this a a new definition? Also, I've removed the Pleaching sub-section from this section: as written it's inaccurate, perhaps most importantly because pleaching is actually a method which is part of this art that we are writing about (not something else to be compared to), in the same way that shaping and bending are methods which are part of it, and in the same way that grafting or topiary, (less often perhaps) may be a part of it. See the Methods section for a place to perhaps fold it in. Here is the text I removed, for convenience, in case it is useful elsewhere:
====Pleaching====
Pleaching is similar to espalier, in that it trains rows of trees to grow in the vertical.[4]: 11–12 Pleaching is trees trained into raised hedge with flat planes and hedges,[5] and, therefore, is inaccurate way to describe tree shaping.[6]: 24 "
(Talk:Tree Shaping#References, is upthread: preexisting reflist.) Duff (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both the reinstatement of the poor text and the redeletion of the better text. Please point out a single instance of the asserted quote: "you don't get to pick and choose", or strike that assertion. Pleaching is not a related craft, it's part of the craft. Furthermore, I added the clearer and expanded text where it belongs, in the History section and that is referenced too. If it's morereferences that are sought on that, please just ask for some, as we have been doing. Please don't just delete my work over and over. Is there a good reason to delete the better and more expansive, connected text from the history section and replace it with brief and poor English in the lower and improper section? More information is better. I looked at the pleaching article and doesn't contain much other info, it's also poorly referenced & I may propose a merge of that to this article, since the information is about this craft.
The 2 sentences added back are really poor English, so please work that out first before putting it back anywhere. That's really more of a grammar issue. Also, the really nice continuous flow of the History section has been interrupted again, which clearly established the steps in the development of the idea and of the craft. While I accept that this may not have anything to do with how Pooktre developed, the article is not about Pooktre, and this is how the craft developed, and it is part of the history of this topic. Not part of a related topic, but a foundational element of the craft, in a way that topiary and bonsai are not, though these two are also forms of tree shaping, if that winds up remaining the title of this page.
Again, comments that belong here on the talk page for discussion are nestled in several edit summaries, where they can't be easily discussed.
These are the diffs and comments, associated with the re-insertion of really mediocre text, followed by the re-deletion of really good material:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tree_shaping&oldid=365621583 the edit summary:"(→Related art forms: It cited please don't remove. This meets WP:Verifiability)" (I didn't delete it for verifiability, but now that it's mentioned, all three cites are questionable for WP:Reliability, as you've noted yourself on two of them earlier this evening. Self-Published, remember? Can only be used in the part about the author, remember? I am challenging the third: http://www.plantedplants.com/?page_id=20 The post is poorly synthesized, AND It's a commercial landscaping business website: the information cited there is unreliable, incorrect, grammar-weak, not subject to peer review, and generally unscholarly.) Unless there are some reliable cites for that information + a decent rendition grammar-wise, it's out. I'll be refactoring this whole nugget to the cites section too.Duff (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The deleted, and better section from the history section was as follows:
Pleached trees. Drawing by Johnathan Webber. Commissioned work for the book How to Grow a Chair
"Pleaching is inosculation, when it is aided or initiated by humans.[7] In an early, labor-intensive, practical use of pleaching, woody plants are installed in the ground in lines, then shaped by trimming to form a flat plane above ground level. These installations are often designed and planted in parallel hedgerow or quincunx patterns. Branches are then woven or joined together at the design height. Their bark is wounded at the joins and bound together until they grow together, forming a raised grid upon which planks can be placed to support structures, perhaps above a floodplain.[7] In late medieval gardens through the 18th century, pleached allées were common in European gardens. The ornamental craft of topiary, the agricultural craft of espalier, and the arboricultural craft of arborsculpture all developed from the utilitarian practice of pleaching."
Artists' mini-bio section
Alphabetic or Chronological order of tree shapers?
I think putting the tree shapers into alphabetical order is the wrong way to go, it just seems to be an arbitrary way to sort them. The Tree shapers had been date ordered and I believe this is a more natural flow for an article and is of interest to the reader to know who did what and when. I would like for them to be put back into date order. Blackashhave a chat02:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't strongly disagree, though I do disagree. Who did what and when they did it is clearly asserted (and not at all well cited) in the text of each bio. The alphabet is not arbitrary in the slightest. It is orderly and neutral in the extreme. If the list is indeed in chronological order, that fact is not clearly stated nor readily evident (Take Wu, for example), and thus the order chosen (and very quickly reverted to) appears to be arbitrary and reads like non-neutral POV to the casual reader. How about allowing more time than an hour and a half for consensus to develop before reverting? There is no hurry. If editorial consensus is that the list of bios should be presented in chronological order, then that helpful fact belongs in a note at the head of the list of bios. Thanks Duff (talk) 09:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alphabetical would be closer to a NPOV for living artist anyway. The exact date someone started pruning or made a graft is IMO irrelevant.Slowart (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The relevance of chronological order doesn't change just because the artist is dead, the only difference I can see is the dead don't protest when branded. Slowart as you know this art form can involve large spans of time. So it would be of interest to the reader to have an idea of when an artist started creating their art. Blackashhave a chat22:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The recent change to including dates before names in the headings of the bios is confusing, unattractive, and does not improve the article. Who is being branded and how are they being branded? As tree shapers? The date a person 'had' an idea is not only not encyclopedic, it's not interesting and its not referenceable unless perhaps if there were some reliable reference to the person saying that they had a certain idea at a certain time...and for that, it's got to say that in the text, like this: "Theresa Shaper told interviewers on Fox News that she had the idea to rename Prunus cerasifera as Prunus myrobalan in 1962, but only began petitioning the scientific community about it in 2010, after having referred to her plants in print by the name she preferred since the mid 90's." When she manifested the idea in some referenceable way MIGHT be encyclopedic. Not when she claimed to have thought of it, and not how repeatedly she insisted that the idea came to her out of the blue and with complete obliviousness to others having similar ideas. Wikipedia is not a patent establishment forum. That debate belongs in court maybe, and we could reference such a case on this page, perhaps. We certainly don't establish a chronological order of bios on the basis of when we insist a person had a thought, or even when they say they had a thought. That's why alphabetical order was better, and it should go back to NPOV alphabetical order, keeping in each bio only properly cited material about the ideas and their dates. Unreferenced material is challenged and should be deleted if it can't be properly referenced with reliable sources. Duff (talk) 11:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe it is useful to list the people in chronological order. Most of our high-quality lists of people follow this convention, eg the Featured List of major opera composers. We could order the artists by year of first actively shaping trees, or by year of their birth. (I do agree that ordering by "year they claim to have thought of the idea" is inappropriate, even if explicitly stated and sourced). Any ordering that does not place Krubsack and Erlandson first in the list, seems like a poor solution. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with the dates out of the headers, I think the date should be at the start of each artists section. It would make sense to have the dating start from first shaping. Blackashhave a chat23:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the now named Chronology of the Craft the wording seems awkward. I think it should go back to Tree shapers and have the fact the artists are listed in chronological order in the starting sentence. The title as it is now could be talking about a number of different things.
I'm also not enthusiastic about this wording "Some notable artists were aware of and inspired by earlier artists" as this gives the impression that the artists were notable before they were inspired.
Although this is true "while others assert having discovered and developed their craft independently" I think the earlier wording of "The individual artists may not have been aware of their predecessors" is a more general wording and covers artists who not aware of earlier artists and haven't assert so, to be covered. With some artists it can not be established one way or the other. Blackashhave a chat00:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose reverting each of these changes and will be very pleased to explain why, if you will please move these comments into the 2 ongoing discussions about these very points, where consensus is developing, and please stop making a new section containing your ruling on several sections presently or previously involved in consensus building. Leaving others to do the work of refactoring comments and cleaning uo references wastes everyone's editorial time, confuses easily understandable positions, and erodes consensus. So quitit. Thanks Duff (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On a second look, all 3 belong with continuing discussion of the entire section @ Alphabetic or Chronological order of tree shapers, perhaps as subheadings?Duff (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Blackashhave a chat23:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Blackashhave a chat02:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"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 [23]Blackashhave a chat09:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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. Blackashhave a chat01:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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." Blackashhave a chat</span> 01:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brief discussion on arborsculpture, moved here from User:SilkTorks talkpage
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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 [24][25] and [[26]] 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.
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)[reply]
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. Blackashhave a chat03:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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!
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)[reply]
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. Blackashhave a chat10:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@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 thisthis 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)[reply]
@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 [27][28] 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. Blackashhave a chat01:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Blackashhave a chat10:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Blackashhave a chat01:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Blackashhave a chat03:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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. Blackashhave a chat05:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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...."
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)[reply]
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." Blackashhave a chat08:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
Edits to Tree shaping
I reduced the image of our chair tree and reduced the text as it is not in the lead and doesn't need to be so large.
I reduced the text on the bonsai tools, and moved it to try and help John Krubsack's image stay with his section.
I put the Alternative names back as it follows WP:LEAD and an earlier agreement in the history of this page. When Duff removed this section there were 5 references and text which were lost.
I linked alternative names section to the lead text as per WP:LEAD and removed the alternatives names as per WP:LEAD also as agreed in the history of the talk page to not have any alternative names in the lead.
I changed the formatting in the time needed as there are two different technique's time frames discussed and that wasn't clear. I also added some text.
I added fact to the archway in the time needed section as I couldn't find a time fame about the archway in either Richard's books or Wilma's books. Blackashhave a chat01:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images
Lead image
I think John Krubsack's chair would be a better image to use in the lead. It's the first known example of a grown chair. A unifying theme between tree shapers is to shape a tree/s to sit on.
John Krubsack
Axel Erlandson
Nirandr Boonnetr
One of the German Tree shapers I don't remember who, next week I'll find out who and put it here.
Pooktre (us)
Dr Christopher Cattle
Richard Reames
John Gathright
Mr Wu
Plantware (Ezekiel Golan and Yale Stav)
Dr Lois Walpole
People are fascinated by the concept of growing a chair as can be see by the fact Richard Reames titled his first book How to grow a chair. Out of all our images our chair and people trees are the ones that receive the most interest. Blackashhave a chat02:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hesitantly agree. I recently chose the Erlandson image for the lead, primarily because it shows a living shaped tree, which I thought to be an important aspect. (I was also unaware of the larger Krubsack chair image). Any clear and large image works for me. Actually, given the large size of the TableofContents box, we could easily fit two images in the lead. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support the empty sepia-tone Krubsack chair image as the lead. Classy, evocative shot. Support consideration of an alternate Erlandson image for the 2nd lead image, expecting both color and equivalent profundity. Duff (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, for now. The article is developing nicely and the images seem well distributed with the text at this point. Duff (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And so the default position is now just delete the images Blackash does not feel are needed in her article. Appalling. Duff (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Watermarked Images
These two images are not publishable due to their watermarks. Becky's Mirror and Person Tree. I'm removing them for now, per WP:WATERMARK and curiously also User Talk:Blackash#Watermarks. Please feel free to resubmit non-watermarked images, especially the mirror, which I've seen several better images of, without watermarks.
I'm also moving one of Blackash's questions (#5) from down below to this section, as it's about images, specific to this concern, and pertains in part to the image she has made an edit request on, pertaining to the citation used for the picture. Recaptioning can be discussed in this section on a case by case basis, once we have images that meet the requirements. That question is below. Duff (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(cc'd response and my additional request to here from my User talk:Duff page)
Thank you. Two questions (and I'm cc'g this to the existing discussion on this @ Talk:Tree shaping#Watermarked Images so we can continue this there.:
1. Can you please explain why the new person tree photo is 4x the KB that it originally was: 671KB vs 164KB on the watermarked photo? That seems odd for a photo of the same size: 733x550. An image of the same or very similar KB size would be much appreciated.
2. On the mirror, can you please submit a photo that is of just one image of the mirror, even if it's just cropping this photo in half? This looks most like a catalog image. You have more flattering images of this piece, again, by the way, and it is a beauty. Also, just a note for comparison, this image increased in KB size too, but not nearly by the same order of magnitude. 68KB-->100KB
1. Umm it must have been the way I saved it. I'll work on it.
2. This piece is done in the round and that is why it has the front and back view. For the catalog look would it help if it was on a white back ground instead. Also this mirror is never for sale.Blackashhave a chat14:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image Citations
5) In the caption of this image Pooktre mirror frame shaped from its roots at planting in 1996 and as it grew, harvested in 2004, finished in 2005 and exhibited at the World's Fair Expo 2005 [8] on the right (taken from the front page) is a reference used that was a marketing tactic by Richard Reames to brand Arborsculpture across our work and link back to himself. Please change this ref for this one Citation| title = "Warwick artist grows wooden 'jewels' for world Expo"| magazine = The southern Free Times Newspaper.| pages = 20| page=4| date = 20th April 2005| url = | accessdate =
This sentence, "Dr. Christopher Cattle grew the idea of training and grafting trees to shape as they grow when searching for a way of making an articles of furniture more sustainably in the late 1970s, [32] [33] and started his first planting of furniture in 1996." has several small problems. The references provided are helpful.Duff (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I'm Becky Northey, I edit on Tree shaping article and there is a section on my partner and I. The issue of COI was brought up to SilkTork *YES! about my editing on Tree shaping. He responded by removing the COI tag stating "The COI is not clear" here is the diff
Duff has edited the section about my partner and I, adding references from a site (treeshapers.net) that he knew I created. After having done so he accused me of quote "your site....disproportionately represented in the references section". Here is a brief version of my reply, Duff you have added 11 links to the site, not me. Finishing with "Don't make changes and then say goodness me it's too heavily weighed this way. Please don't do this again." Here is the link, please go to near the bottom of this section where Duff Oppose my suggestion.
(I'm summarising here) He accused me of manipulating the article to my own benefit again here. I had reposted my earlier comment in case he missed it in the length of the talk page, asking him not to do this again.
Tonight I went though the history and found the page, were Duff created the evidence. Here is the diff last block of red text. In Duff's next edit he adds the same reference multiple times in our section here.
Here is the page before [29].
Duff has an agenda to reinstate the article back to its original title. Even though multiple editors at different times have stated that the original title was not neutral. Duff has manufactured evidence, to prove I have a COI. Blackashhave a chat 15:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I've already posted this at the Administrators notice board please go there to discuss this, Thank you Blackashhave a chat16:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commented. Perhaps Duff might like to apologize, here, if he agrees that a mistake was made.
Hopefully we can move on, and get back to just writing an article (and/or planting and tending plants!). The new section on War-Khasi people is great. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the tag at the top, is this the appropriate forum for this discussion? This is the first time I've dealt with such an action, so I'm not sure if I'm expected to respond or not. Planting evidence is a pretty serious accusation. It is also an unbelievably clever and wickedly ironic pun, in context. My agenda is better writing, a better article, and a better Wikpedia. I prefer to work on just the article and I continue to seek consensus at Talk:Tree shaping on a variety of apparently-contentious issues, including now the precise nature of my stupidity. I sincerely apologize for any good-faith-based misunderstanding, which I am prepared to assume is what has occurred. I am also prepared to fully defend my own good faith in the appropriate forum, if we truly need to spend that time in that way.Duff (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was no mistake but part of a planned tactic, to bring into question the validity of any information that I have or will find about Tree shaping and associated issues.
That's a pretty serious accusation too, and again, made in an inappropriate place. It is untrue and I would like it retracted. Duff (talk) 02:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Enough. The folks at WP:AN are used to ignoring "the dramah", so if you both stop adding fuel to the fire, it will go out, rapidly.
Almost nobody ever gets an WP:Apology the exact way that they want it. We're all imperfect humans.
If anyone feels the need to lash out further, then it's time to WP:Breathe.
I removed the business context from our section as the use of partnership has multiple meanings. Peter Cook and I are life partners and I have always used the word partner to refer to our relationship as marriage is against my religion. So unsurprisingly media has used the word partnership when they talk about how we got together before we named our art.
Why are there a heap of un referenced trees in the plant species section? We get e-mails all the time from people requesting what tree types to use for tree shaping. I think only trees that can be referenced to have been used for tree shaping should be in this section. Otherwise people will believe that all trees in this list are viable for shaping. Until someone has actually done testing with a particular tree species you don't know whether it is viable or not. The testing can take anywhere between 2 to 10 years to find out whether a particular tree species is viable. I would think trees that are successful with the espalier could also be put into this list.
I am going to start working on the methods section initially I am going to start working each subheading in my user sandbox. Hopefully this will be less disruptive to other editors on the actual article. Blackashhave a chat02:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Point 1: I don't agree with this change, and the text you've substituted is both non-encyclopedic and unreferenced. Again you have removed at least one citation, as well as the content it cited, which does not support your position, both within sections that feature you prominently and within other sections where the content (previous to citation verification) tended to indirectly support your position.
This source (which also cites the very next statement in the article):
cites the statement that you have removed again, which you had demanded a reference for previously, above, at Talk:Tree shaping#removal of citation need(near the bottom there, your PS), and which I provided.
All of those references cited which refer to Pooktre as a partnership, and there are quite a few, are thus re-confirmed by you (thank you) as unreliable, based in small part on your own dismissal of them as reliable sources for the cited and verified information that you have deleted. Most of them have already been so determined. Is the information you have added (again), about yourself, attributable to a reliable published source? If so please cite it or remove the statement from the BLP. Every statement attributed herein to those unreliable sources or any other unverifiable sources is hereby challenged, and if unsupported by some other verifiable and reliable source, should be removed. Please recall this recent discussion at Talk:Tree shaping#Recent Removal of Citations Negates Citation Improvement Effort. Any other editors' comments?
Point 2: Citations added for each species added (and some previously listed), though I really expected that this information would be non-contentious. Viability is not one of the standards required for inclusion in the article. It means something really different than verifiability. What's everyone else think?
Point 3:Before you invest too much effort in this, I think the Methods & Styles sections could easily be combined, thereby avoiding all How-To stuff completely. What's everyone else think?Duff (talk) 08:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Point 1:- I am not contesting the reliability of the media references. I am contesting your interpretation of the word partnership.
I just checked my diffs The only citation I removed was tree shaping from Alternative names section diff. From what you have said it sounds like I removed citations from Pooktre section and else where. Please put up the diffs.
Point 2:- Quote from article "Useful plants for shaping include:" with out references that the trees have been shaped how do you know they are useful?
Point 3:- There are very different processes of shaping trees. All processes can be used to achieve any of the styles. So I think the styles and the methods section, should remain separate. Blackashhave a chat11:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Point 1. Okay, I'll explain again and again if necessary, in as much detail as is apparently necessary, but this is a tedious waste of editing time:
Here is where I added the citation to an already existing reference to the fact that Pooktre is a partnership.
here is where, in deference to Blackash's complaint of too many inline references, I reduced their repeat, noting in the edit summary "Remvd repeated inline citations (which I put in response to req, perhaps overzeal.); the facts as estab'd & ref'd are clearly cited enough to merit 1 instance there of the cites.Looks better 2."
and finally,
here is where Blackash deleted the formerly inline cited fact.
Technically, no, Blackash did not remove that cite, but she did remove that properly cited information after lobbying for fewer repeated inline cites, gaining some consensus, and then removing several others throughout the article on her own without allowing consensus to develop. Here is a recent flurry of examples: here, here, here, and here. This, followed by deleting the information that was formerly properly, if somewhat excessively, cited, is a pattern that is familiar and destructive. Discovery of this pattern in the long history of editing on this article is why the multiple inline citations were used: BECAUSE THE CONTENT IS OBVIOUSLY CONTENTIOUS. Please put the citations and the information back as you found it.
These two artists both create works for sale and perform consulting, etc. as Pooktre. That's a business partnership. If Pooktre is to be mentioned in the bio, it is completely reasonable to identify it as what it is, and I don't see any reliable cites to the contrary.
If Pooktre was only a personal relationship between the artists (which clearly it is not) then Pooktre would not be notable at all. For the purposes of this article, I could not care less about the terms of the personal relationship, so [30] as a reference for including information about the 'life partnership' is a) moot, and b) a blog post anyway, to which you have obviously contributed and quite recently, too...it's dated March 11, 2010...let's see that's 2 days ago. No one can dispute your alacrity at getting your marketing information out there and hyping your products and services. You do that really well. But it does not make for reliable, verifiable, or encyclopedic content. The current revision is awkward, the particular nature of the personal relationship is not notable, it doesn't contribute to making either artist notable, it it doesn't make the article better. Although I do agree that it's great and compelling information for the two artists' own site, if they choose to reveal these personal details about themselves to their own readership, which clearly they do. As a non-involved editor, it's not something I'd include or cite. The fact of the partnership Pooktre has been properly referenced, to the extent that it is so far possible to cite it. If the reference farmshowmagazine, (and this is the citation, again):
is found to be unacceptable, then all citations to it get tossed, and statements based on it that can't be verified through some other reliable source (which so far this one can't) also get tossed. No cherry-picking facts, no controlling information about oneself, and y'can't have it both ways. Is or isn't the farmshowmagazine reference valid? It's an interview with the 2 artists. Please consider and can we reach consensus please?
Point 2: Please follow the link to the citation which was provided, at your request. It's a good one. Other people have discovered other inosculate trees, and that information is extremely useful to readers. Every species may not work out in every geographical area (or even survive in many geographical areas), but that's not the standard. Again, not viability, but verifiability.
Point 3:Let's see what other consensus emerges, please, on a concise and compelling consolidation of the styles and methods sections. Duff (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Point 1:- Thank you for acknowledging I didn't remove any citations from our section.
Pooktre is a name we created to name our art.
This retrieved 2010-05-08 ref Farm Show Magazine Doesn't use the words business, partnership or partner, it does talk about our home and calls us a couple twice in a 400-450 word article.
Duff quote "These two artists both create works for sale and perform consulting, etc. as Pooktre. That's a business partnership"
Wrong. We use Pooktre as the name of our art, when it comes to payment for our services or tree art, SharBrin Publishing Pty Ltd is the company that handles this aspect of our lives. Pete and I are not even partners in this company, he is a shareholder only while I am the director.
Here is an older comment about our life and trees. By Reames/Slowart Title Arborsmith newsletter- #18 Full Moon August 2006
"Adventures downunder.
Last April I took a trip to Australia to visit Pook and Becky http://www.pooktre.com and see first hand there work with trees. Now judging from the photos I had seen I suspected that these two were shaping trees using techniques that allowed much more detail than anyone on earth had tried before. I can honestly say that it’s true. As I stood in front of one of Pook’s chairs I was literally moved to tears. I had no idea that such complicated detailed balanced work was possible. And yet right in front of my eyes grew perfectly formed living shapes of a wild imagination. Pook and Becky approach the art from a jewelers perspective without influence from Axel Erlandson's work, the work that inspired me.
Pook and Becky were fantastic hosts, letting me hang out for a week and imbibe their relaxed life style. Barbecues by the creek, hikes around the property, rustic amenities not much different than my own life, in fact the similarities in our lifestyles were so numerous that meeting Pook was like meeting myself who happened to grow up on the other side of the world. As much as I would like to share the finer points of what I learned there about shaping trees, I think it’s best to let Pook and Becky reveal or guard what they know in there own way.
Pook’s harvested and polished work has the potential to create a really unique art show; I envision seeing his work at the finest of art galleries."
Ummm we are a couple who called our art Pooktre. You did state these sections are bios. Bios regularly go into who married who or who they lived with (if babies are involved) and their children's names. If you wish to insist that Pooktre was created to name a business rather than to name our art we will have to go to dispute resolution as there doesn't seem to be a compromise available.
Point 2:- Pleaching is a little different to tree shaping in that it is not a great loss if a tree has a tendency to drop it's branches. For example # Eucalyptus camaldulensis River Red Gum does have a tendency to self prune. Which would be disastrous to a planned design. I think having the different species would work if this sentence was changed "Useful plants for shaping include:"
In a roundabout technicality-based and really itchy way, yes. You are welcome.
Try this on (again): "Pooktre is a creative partnership". I find several reliable references to that specific wording and would be satisfied with that for the purposes of THIS article. The incubating bios can please hold the babies for now and hold the Ptd/Ltd details too (off-topic, for THIS article) until the spinoff into actual independent bios, whereupon you really oughtta let someone else find & develop that info so you don't run into this same morass of wasted time and reasonable accusations surrounding COI.
I am not insisting that Pooktre is a business. I am insisting that you have a commercial interest in pooktre and treeshapers, and stand to benefit from the extinguishment of use of the word arborisculpture, which you define as a brand. Sharbrin Publishing is the registered domain name holder for www.pooktre.com. You are the Contact and Manager. Here is the whois on that: [31]. That is another name of your business and Pooktre is a trademark of your business, possibly an unregistered one, that you or partner or your child(ren) or your company own, use to identify your craft, and would be smart to defend. You have a commercial interest in it. It is your trademark. You are attempting to split hairs here, but as I noted above, "creative partnership" is a satisfactory phrase which is verifiable with reliable secondary sources. Here are a couple of good citations for the compromise "creative partnership,": the existing reference ref named TLink and also this one The Cutting Edge; June 2006 newsletter of the Victorian Woodworkers Association, which will bear additional mining also, so be prepared for that. There is no confusion out here about the fact that the two of you are in business together making Pooktre, nor that you are engaged in a very productive creative partnership. Pooktre is one highly specialized, independently developed (and hopefully branded) form (among at least several other forms) of arborisculpture (it should have the i), which itself is not a brand, but is a broadly developing and very craftsmanlike form of tree shaping, which in turn is a category that encompasses many horticultural practices, like arborisculpture, bonsai, espalier, and topiary. Surely there are highly specialized and independently developed forms of each of these, too.
Point 2
To pleach is to plait.
tr.v., pleached, pleach·ing, pleach·es.
1. To plait or interlace (branches or vines, for example), especially in making a hedge or an arbor.
2. To shade or border with interlaced branches or vines.
(Middle English plechen, from Old North French plechier, probably from Latin plectere.)
It's a very old horticultural practice, not necessarily restricted to woody plants and not even strictly limited to plants: in meaning #1...one could pleach hair or straw. It is thus (debate-ably) not a form of arborisculpture and clearly not a brand.
It isn't really all that controversial.
Also, add pooktre.com to the list of not-reliable sources for the purposes of sourcing this article. Statements which reference it must be referenced by some other reliable source or yanked. So please get busy on fixing those citations and replacing them with proper secondary sources. =)
Yes, Mr. Reames wrote a fine and glowing piece about you two, he surely did. And you two do spectacular work, you surely do. You can and should be very proud. It speaks for itself. Let it please, at Wikipedia.
While its not established that all arborisculptures involve a planned design, clearly pooktres do.
Still, I'm game to refine & improve the sentence you referred to about the species, and I like where you went with it. How about this: "These wood-forming plants are known to inosculate naturally:"Duff (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Point one:- In our section I will put "couple" in as it is used in the references and this is after all a bio.
This reference The Cutting Edge; June 2006 newsletter of the Victorian Woodworkers Association, you give doesn't use the word creative partnership and it is a classic example how closely tied Richard Reames is to the word Arborsculpture. I will address my comments about the linkage in the section about Arborsculpture.
"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.
Point two:- As to the tree species I was just referring to the fact the way it was written it gives the impression one can achieve a shaped tree with any of these species. Your suggested sentence "These wood-forming plants are known to inosculate naturally" is fine.Blackashhave a chat02:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
Example COI Blackash please read link. It has been repeatedly found that I don't. Example Griseum stated he put the tag COI on the article because of me. The tag was removed as the COI was not clear.
Example "apparently abandoned her (or their) sandbox project" my edit history shows that each day I edit here I do some work on my sandbox.
Example "recent flurry of edits" I'm editing about the same amount on the article now as when you where editing as well.
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. Blackashhave a chat02:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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, 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). Blackashhave a chat08:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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: [32] 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)[reply]
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?
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Editor with a potential for a conflict of interest is still entitled to edit, The editor must take care, which we have.
We have never tried to hide who we are. (Pooktre)
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.
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 [33] 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. Blackashhave a chat11:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)
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.
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.
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)[reply]
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[34] 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".[35][36] 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)[reply]
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.
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.
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.
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."
This template must be substituted.
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.
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)[reply]
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. Blackashhave a chat13:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Blackashhave a chat13:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)
(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.)
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
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)[reply]
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.[[37]] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Blackashhave a chat07:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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. Blackashhave a chat12:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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. Blackashhave a chat12:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 perennialwoody 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Blackashhave a chat12:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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. Blackashhave a chat12:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do these edits here also seem odd? [38] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 perennialwoody 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Having seen how things have been going here for a while I would suggest that the only way this article can get out of the rut that it is currently in is for all editors with any commercial interest in this subject to take a break whilst some uninvolved editors sort the article out based on normal WP principles and policies. The editors with commercial interests could then return to editing the article on the basis of adding useful information, rather than fighting over commercial interests.Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support assuming you mean a break from editing the main space, not the talk pages. I will of course continue to refrain from editing on the article, and would like to see this same restraint from Blackash here and at Axel Erlandson and John Krubsack. I don't support a later return to editing... unless someone beside myself is watching.Slowart (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant a break from both the main space and the talk pages. The problem is that otherwise all discussion turns into arguments about commercial benefit and self-promotion. WP is not obliged to provide equal self-promotion and commercial benefits to all participants, the content should be based only on what reliable sources say about the subject. Neutrality should mean that we do not give undue prominence to any one method or principle of the process, not that everyone gets an equal chance to promote their business.
Clearly, all editors with a commercial interest in the subject would have to agree to withdraw from all discussion relating to this article, for this suggestion to work. Other articles are best dealt with through their own talk pages. Attempts transfer self-promotional material from this article to another would be quite obvious. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and No.
I would agree to not edit the main space if there was a real truce and each point could be discussed by all on the talk page and then the change put up. Doing this would keep it clear, what the consensus was and any new editors could then follow, the for and against points and therefore decide which points are valid in their view. The points should be brief and to the point, not an essay in the making.
I think you are missing the point of my suggestion here, which is that those with a commercial interest in the page should withdraw completely. Discussing each point with the current editors is a bad idea because every discussion seems to end up revolving around some point of commercial or personal interest. Such interests should play no part in editing WP pages. I am therefore suggesting that you withdraw completely from all editing for a short while. This is not a criticism of you or anyone else here, it is just that a personal rivalry seem to have built up that makes cooperative editing impossible. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree because, for example if I hadn't changed plant to tree, which means Duff wouldn't have reverted it. Martin may not have pick up that it was an issue, and an opinion was called for. Blackashhave a chat13:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Martin, I'm willing to let you have this talk page to yourself but, consider that there are 2 tags at the top of this page. "A contributor to this article, may be covered by or significantly related to this article... I assumed this this would help editors know to take anything these 2 assumed "self promoters with commercial interests" said with a grain of salt, and you should ! Better to assume everything is quite now that Duff and Martin and Quiddy are around keep things good, while still allowing for self expression, suggestions, links, photos, and venting from the conflicted...but only if it's really needed. Slowart (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to have this talk page all to myself, I am suggesting that, for a short while we have only editors with no commercial or personal interest in the subject to here. I guess that would allow Duff and Quiddy to stay together with any other uninvolved editors we could persuade to join us. Your point about potential commercial interests is exactly the reason that I am suggesting this move. Commercial and personal interests need to be completely removed from the scene for a while. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RfC Hi. I came here from the RfC and have read through the talk page (admittedly not all of it) and article. I agree with Martin that, at least for a little while, editors with a commercial interest should take a more hands off approach. Or if you do feel like contributing try to make it things like simple copy editing for better grammar and things like that. nothing contentious. I for one would like to expand and rewrite the section on Bonsai. I think the [citation needed] tags have gotten a bit out of hand, and it reads like a preemptive strike on anyone who feels the two art-forms are similar, not an unbiased comparison like it should be. I hope no one objects? Colincbn (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome Colin. Like you, I came here from the RfC to find a battle scene. There are two (at least) major contributors (Blackash and Slowart) to this article who have significant commercial interests in the subject. This naturally makes it difficult for them to contribute in a neutral manner.
I have suggested that these two editors (and any others with a commercial interest in the subject) take a break from editing the article and talk page, whilst non-involved editors sort out some of the problems with the article resulting from previous, commercially centred, arguments. Not the least of the problems to be sorted out is the name of the article.
To date, Slowart has agreed to my proposal but Blackash has not.
Regarding your plan to rewrite the Bonsai section, it will be interesting to see what happens. If it works well, with no interference from the commercially interested, then maybe we could just get on with doing the same for the rest of the article without waiting for agreement. The bonsai article itself seems to show how a subject with considerable commercial interest can be written in a neutral manner. Good luck. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
^ abCite error: The named reference FriendsofTAU was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference farmshowmagazine was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference QSFMagazine was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference Reames1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Done Both the refactoring of this discussion here and the {{rp|x}} template choice for multiple (say, more than 2) citations aimed at the same reference. It is simple and immediately follows each citation's closing ref tag. Duff (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
