Talk:Tree shaping/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Article name

This section will be moved to archive 6 within the next few days. SilkTork *^YES! 14:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Is tree shaping neutral?

Just when I thought the dust was about to settle, Slowart has "upped the ante" by arguing that it is in fact “tree shaping" which is the non-neutral term.

I disagree. In fact it's too neutral i.e. it’s not specific enough and IMO would be better as a disambiguation page. I think if we ambushed 10 random people and asked them to define it, we’d hear several mentions of topiary, bonsai and so forth.
I even think SilkTork’s recent report on Google hits indicates that “tree shaping” is a bit more WP:NEO-ish and quite less popular than “arborsculpture.” Many of the "tree shaping" hits are about setting up an artifical Christmas tree.
That being said, “C’mon, really?” When I discovered this article, Blackash was using it to as a tool so she could go to other websites, oppugn Slowart’s work, claim that “arborsculpture” was the non-neutral term, and then point to the Wikipedia article as proof. That’s documented, but now she can’t do that anymore, for which Slowart should be relieved (even if Slowart’s feelings had zero to do with my reasons for getting involved).
In order prevent a misuse of this article, I paid a cost in time, energy, and annoyance I’m eager to forget. I’m yearning to leave well enough alone. Don't you two have trees to shape/sculpt?

For Slowart , Blackash, and myself, this article is a "wrong version" of sorts. But it’s a compromise that doesn’t disserve anyone nor misrepresent any facts to our readers and that's what's important. --Griseum (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The title should be neutral, this is exactly the point: a generic term to get you started with this topic.
It not about how many Google hits there are, it is about using verifiable with citations to reliable sources. Tree shaping has these which I have already offered to do. Blackash (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You said this before but I'm still not sure what you're trying to prove at this stage. Are you still claiming "arborsculpture" is not a neutral term? That won't be possible. Or are you trying to prove that "tree shaping" is a neutral term? If so, I wouldn't bother since it seems most of us already agree on that point. --Griseum (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Griseum, your efforts are above and beyond what any volunteer could be expected to do, I'm thankful that you are bringing a NPOV to the article, It's been to long. I nominate you for one of those fancy awards! I sympathize, remembering a major effort on my part just to remove derogatory comments about myself from the page. I can live with the page the way it is now.
As to the title, it's been said "arborsculpture" could be it's own page and that could make the whole point mute. The current page title is being misused as evidence of consensus for Tree shaping over Arborsculpture. Maybe there is nothing to do about that. Or maybe a title change to something less general and more neutral like "Shaping the woody parts of Trees", "Shaping and Grafting Trees"? The editors with a NPOV may want to consider this, while the patient is on the operating table.... or not. To be clear I can live with the page the way it is now.
I have a question, is it permissible to use the word arborsculpture in a sentence somewhere in the body of this article and in the body of other related articles, like Axel Erlandson's biography and grafting ? Slowart (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Response to Slowart

Arborculpture definitely can not be its own page. User:SilkTork (who is an administrator) previously agreed with the exhaustive evidence I presented proving that "tree shaping" and "arborsculpture" are different terms for the same thing. We do not have two articles about the same subject.
Since "tree shaping" and "arborsculpture" are equivalent terms, they may be used more or less interchangeably. I have to say “more or less” because there would be some situations that require special consideration. For example, to say “Becky Northey is an arborsculptor from Australia” would be a terrible word choice given the efforts of that person to disassociate themselves from the term. If we said that we’d be cheating our readers. Instead we might say something like, “Becky Northey, an artist who considers her work entirely separate arborsculpture, is from Australia.”
" Since "tree shaping" and "arborsculpture" may be used more or less interchangeably, there is nothing to prevent “arborsculpture” from appearing in the article again, for example, under the heading for Cottle’s work. However, I don’t see how that improves Wikipedia. I recommend you "live with the page the way it is now" as you have said.
Since "tree shaping" and "arborsculpture" may be used more or less interchangeably, there is nothing to prevent “arborsculpture” from appearing in other articles. But although it may be true that this word has been purged from elsewhere on Wikipedia for the wrong reasons, that isn’t enough reason to reverse it. Such a reversal, like any edit, must be done specifically to improve Wikipedia.
For example, if the word “tree shaping” appears three or four times in one paragraph, it might improve the flow of writing (and hence improve Wikipedia) to change some usages. Here’s a hypothetical paragraph:

John Doe is a tree shaper from Wales. He has been tree shaping since 2002. His tree shaping has gotten attention from the media and he has published two books with photographs of his tree shaping.

There are infinite options in improving this. The following is not bad, but it is not ideal:

John Doe is a tree shaper from Wales who has been practicing this craft since 2002. His methods have gotten attention from the media and he has published two books with photographs of his arborsculpture.

The problem with that last example is the casual reader can’t necessarily know from that context that we are still talking about the same thing. They might think, for example, that the photos contain pictures of sculptures carved from tree trunks with a chainsaw. Here’s a better option:

John Doe is a tree shaper from Wales who has been practicing this craft since 2002. His methods have gotten attention from the media and he has published two books with photographs of the arborsculpture he produces.

At least to my “ear”, that last example reduces the chance of confusion. The point is, anytime we make a change we have to look carefully at the entire context. To arbitrarily change, for example, every 5th occurrence of “tree shaping” to “arborsculpture” would almost certainly be a disaster.
The grafting article currently has the following text:

Ornamental and functional, tree shaping uses grafting techniques to join separate trees or parts of the same tree to itself. Furniture, hearts, entry archways are examples. Axel Erlandson was a prolific tree shaper who grew over 75 mature specimens.

That does sounds fine. But look what happens when we change the second use of “tree shaper” to “arborculptor”:

Ornamental and functional, tree shaping uses grafting techniques to join separate trees or parts of the same tree to itself. Furniture, hearts, entry archways are examples. Axel Erlandson was a prolific arborsculptor who grew 75 mature shaped and grafted trees.

That passage is not as clear as the first one. Unless you already know these terms are synonyms, that demands that the reader pause for a moment and think “a prolific what? Oh it must be another term for tree shaping.” The current text is good enough.
As for the Axel Erlandson article, given the length of text there the non-inclusion of the term “arborsculpture” is unquestionably a contrivance. “Arborsculpture” is a popular term used again and again and again to described Erlandson’s work, yet the word is conspicuously absent from this article. Someone should “work it into the text” at least once.
That being said, you (Slowart) aren’t the appropriate person to be working “arborsculpture” into that or any other article since you coined the word and that’s a WP:COI.
But (and I hate to say this) you can go right ahead and edit it if you want. I’ve recently observed an editor exploiting the fact that WP:COI is an extremely limped-dicked policy. It doesn’t prevent people with the most grossly obvious conflicts of interest imaginable from making edits whenever and wherever they want. It mostly appeals to individual strength of character and if someone ignores the appeal, it’s everyone else’s tough luck.
In fact, if you want, you can run around Wikipedia and insert as many uses of “arborsculpture” into as many articles as you possibly can. Editors can revert your changes based on the pattern they observe, and in return you can make their lives miserable arguing about each one’s merits individually because policy indicates that every edit be judged on its own merits vis-à-vis improving Wikipedia. Most editors will judge someone’s edits very prejudicially once they know you have a COI but they must ultimately fall back upon other policies and guidelines in arguing about the edits themselves.
If someone were to “run around Wikipedia” doing what I just described, it probably wouldn’t be long before they came to the attention of an Administrator eager to suspend them. They can’t suspend the person for WP:COI, but if an Admin wants to take someone out of the game they’ll almost always can find a reason to justify it. While other admins are unlikely to be sympathetic, the person can still appeal. Etc etc etc.
Please don't do what I just described! Wikipedia limps but it does move forward. It may have taken months, but a very serious problem with this article has been fixed. Misusers of Wikipedia can continue in one scheme or another for months, sometimes years. Eventually, right triumphs. Misusers drain 1000s of manhours from the community, but ultimate they meet with failure. --Griseum (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Griseum (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I only asked because every instance of the word arborsculpture had been removed by an single editor about a year ago, just after the name change. I agree with everything you said except the part about arborsculpture being it's own page. I only mentioned that because that is the first thing Silktork said,

...My feeling then, and it would be the same today, is that tree shaping would be about all types of tree shaping, including arborsculpture, bonsai, topiary, espalier, and pleaching. And that an editor could create an article on arborsculpture which would be about Richard Reames. It would be acceptable to mention arborsculpture within the article on tree shaping, and if there is significant material on arborsculpture in the article, then arborsculpture would need to be mentioned in the lead per WP:Lead. Does that help? SilkTork *YES! 16:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have taken WP:COI to heart as I believe my edit history shows, my reputation is more important to me. Thank You, you have absolutely been key to fixing the serious problems with this article. Slowart (talk) 07:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

Name of article (cont)

I recall that somebody wanted to review the article name. I think it was because it was felt that arborsculpture is more widespread than "tree shaping". These things are difficult to judge when a name is also associated with a person. We are looking at the generic term, rather than an associated brand. "Tree shaping" -Reames 125,000. "Arborsculpture" -Reames 24,400. There are possibly other ways of counting, but we have already been through this and I was satisfied then that Tree shaping is the most neutral and appropriate and helpful name, and I would need a lot of convincing to change the name at this stage. SilkTork *^YES! 17:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see my last comments under "Closing discussion on the lead section." Unfortunately, I can not consider discussion on the lead section closed if that means going with the bizarre current version that uses Pooktre TWICE – one as a proper noun, once as a generic term. --Griseum (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes please review the neutrality of Tree Shaping as the title. "Pooktre Tree Shapers" 72,600 Pooktre -Tree Shapers 15,800. While Arborsculpture is the term exclusively used by most professionals in the tree care field in the U.S., and at university in the U.S. perhaps just having it in the lead is enough I don't know. If the titled of this page was correctly changed from Arborsculpture to Tree shaping due to the strong connection Reames has to the word Arborsculpture then "Tree shaping" has an equal or stronger connection to "Pooktre Tree Shapers". One way to find a solutions is to take a poll, show a picture of one of Axel Erlandsons trees and ask "what is the most recognized name for this art form."Slowart (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Tree shaping and Tree shapers has been used though out published media for a long time. In fantasy books to describe people who shape trees. It has been used in Richard Reames books to describe the art form. Quote from page 14 Arborsculpture Solution to Small Planet "Tree trunk topiary, botanical architecture, arbortopia -all of these terms have attempted to describe an early 1900s approach to tree shaping that goes beyond such traditional practices of topiary, bonsai and espalier.".........This is not the only time Richard has used the wording of Tree shaping, shaping trees or Tree shapers, in his books.

@Slowart/Richard We have been using Tree shapers because I read a lot of fantasy, and the wording is descriptive and generic with no method linked to it. Blackash have a chat 13:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guidelines on naming articles are here: Wikipedia:Article titles. While quite inventive, we don't conduct polls, as that would be considered original research. We use reliable sources and common sense. While we are aware that Wikipedia can be used as a promotional tool by individuals, organisations and local bands, and so take care that what we include is reliable and sourced and worded in a neutral way, we cannot avoid sometimes having articles on organisations and individuals and using their names. I have said that I think that a case can be made for having an article on Arborsculpture/Richard Reames, and the same I feel is true of Pooktre; though at this point it might be more helpful to everyone concerned if material and information on Reames and on Pooktre were dealt with and built up in this article before being split out into standalone article. As this article is intended to discuss the work of both Reames and Pooktre it seems appropriate for it to have a name that is fairly neutral as well as being widely used by reliable sources and is helpful to the general reader. Tree shaping is a clear enough term that in itself explains what it is about. Other terms that are also used, such as arborsculpture and living art, are less clear, and/or less widely used, and/or are more closely associated with an individual than the term tree shaping. However, having looked at the results of the Google search for "Pooktre Tree Shapers", and also noticing that the site treeshapers.net is linked to Pooktre via Blackash being an admin, I will consider alternative suggestions. SilkTork *^YES! 22:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is good idea to focus on this article and get it to a high standard before creating others.

Some words that had been suggested before

Tree shaping and Tree trimming were originally suggested by Mgm To me tree trimming is just another way of saying topiary.
Tree trainers (or maybe Tree training?) I originally suggested this as was also descriptive and generic, I have seen it here and there around the web but not in published media.
Tree Trunk Shaping Richard originally suggested this, AfD hero and Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth brought up the point that it fails to take into account the shaping of limbs and roots and I agree with their thoughts on this.
Shaping trees wasn't suggested but it is used alot when talking about the trees. I have seen this in published media.

Really as long a the name is generic and descriptive we don't care which word is used for the name of the article. Blackash have a chat 06:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"Tree training" as a title for this wiki page sounds good to me.Slowart (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm pleased that you both agree on something. However, I don't see evidence for "Tree training" being used in relation to what you guys are doing. "Tree training" appears to be used for shaping fruit trees, in much the same way that vines are trained. I don't think it would be appropriate to make up a name, or assume a name being used for something else. I'm still willing to hear other alternatives. SilkTork *^YES! 20:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Consider "Tree trunk topiary" or "Live tree sculpture"Slowart (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"Live tree sculpture" gets 3 Ghits, while "Tree trunk topiary" is linked to Reames and another company. I am still willing to listen to alternatives, though my inclination is that Tree shaping is going to be the term that best fits Wikipedia's guidelines. SilkTork *^YES! 01:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"Shaping trees" is at least neutral, is descriptive, and has 42,0000 g hits.Slowart (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I like your thinking; however, our guidelines indicate we use nouns or noun phrases rather than verbs - WP:VERB. Even if we changed it now to "Shaping trees", what would happen is that someone would at some point turn that verb phrase back into the noun phrase "Tree shaping" citing the appropriate policy. We are less flexible regarding policies than we are guidelines. While common sense in applying policies is encouraged, bending our policies to fit commercial concerns is not something we could accept, and would reflect badly on me if I agreed to it. I am still prepared to look at alternatives. SilkTork *^YES! 08:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Honestly I don't think it will server the readers to create yet another article title other than Arborsculpture. Your careful thorough discussion here is a relief and gives me the strong impression the original title change[1] was mishandled, please comment. Neutrality and total g-hits are mutually exclusive, no useful term is absent a promoter. I could not find any guideline or policy about neutrality in Wikipedia:Article titles using total g-hits IMO is a pitfall as this field is largely self promoted and tends to go viral due to the strength of the photos. WP:GOOGLETEST suggests using google books in these cases. Google books- Tree shaping has 494 hits and the first 20 at least have nothing to do with this subject but are about bonsai but mostly about practices in the fruit tree industry. Google books- Arborsculpture has 15 hits all expressly about this subject. This article was stable as Arborsculpture since March 2006 the title change to Tree shaping on 10 January 2009. The perplexing point about this whole thing is your repeated statement, that there can be an article titled Arborsculpture just like this one was before 1-10-09 and that there can be a Pooktre article like there was before it was deleted. So it appears as if we were on the right track..... shrug (please note there is a repeating sentence in paragraph 3 and 4 and a circular reference for Erlandson in the history section.) Slowart (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

At the time I became involved in this article it was about tree shaping in general. I wasn't aware until I looked at that link that there had been an AfD on Pooktre, and that the Pooktre article had been merged into this one. Interesting. Looking at the deleted Pooktre article I can see why there was concern about it - the references were not well presented, and the article was not written in a neutral manner. That the previous Pooktre article should have been deleted does not mean that a future one would be if it was appropriately written and sourced. Looking back at this article (under the name Arborsculpture), it has always been a general article about tree shaping. My position has not changed. I still feel that an article could be written on both Pooktre and Richard Reames. The articles would need to be neutral and well sourced, and have to withstand a challenge to their notability. It's certainly doable. Though my recommendation is that this article is first built, and then those articles can be broken off from this one in WP:Summary style if people so wish. I do not, however, wish to get involved in the creating of those articles! SilkTork *^YES! 00:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I accept that your position has not changed. Can you please comment specifically on the title change from arborsculpture to tree shaping, [2]as this is point I wanted to understand. The editor Afd_hero who made the title change has not edited since June 8 2009. You have acknowledged the close relationship between Pooktre and Tree shaping. Afd_hero changed the title to Tree Shaping apparently assuming it was neutral.Slowart (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Richard/Slowart a few points I would like to make.

When you said This article was stable as Arborsculpture since March 2006 until the title change to Tree shaping on 10 January 2009. The talk page tells a different story, multiple editors had issues with the title. In point of fact the article was so heavily branded with the word Arborsculpture that the word appears at least 26 times in a 1245 word article (not counting the Title, Refs or external links). "Arborsculpture" article as it was before I created the article Pooktre.
When SilkTork did a Google search they check out "Pooktre Tree shapers" not "Pooktre Tree shaping" as you are suggesting.
At the time of the title change Tree shaping was not linked to us.
This is a very small field so most words will be linked to someone or become linked though use.
As we have the photos that amaze people and go viral (as you pointed out) any name chosen for the art form is going to become linked to us.
At least Tree shaping is a generic term that leads in multiple directions on a Google search. Blackash have a chat 11:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

By suggesting that "shaping trees" is an appropriate title while "tree shaping" is not, SlowArt seems to me to be making the same counterproductively POV-based error that Blackash has been making for months -- disliking a term because it was popularized by a rival. I remained chagrined that two people discussed in this article are taking such an active hand in deciding its content and are thereby forcing an admin to play King Solomon. This is not the spirit of Wikipedia. In case my position on the name has been forgotten, I consider both "tree shaping" and "arborsculpture" as appropriate titles for this article but since it is already called "tree shaping" I don't think changing the title improves Wikipedia. I believe that “Pooktre” is probably notable enough for its own article now. The fact that this is due to Blackash’s efforts at self-promotion, an activity for which she maligned SlowArt, is ironic but irrelevant. --Griseum (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I realized that finding a neutral word for the title was not only impossible but counterproductive and compromise saves the baby. While arborsculpture is more widely applied to the art in general, I agree any other name would be counterproductive.208.91.137.19 (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The consensus is that Tree shaping is the best fit out of an awkward selection. SilkTork *^YES! 14:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead section

Following the guidance of Wikipedia:Lead#Alternative_names, here are two suggestions for the opening sentence.

Tree shaping, known by several alternative names, is the practice of growing and shaping trunks, branches and roots of trees and other woody plants.
Tree shaping or arborsculpture, known by several alternative names, is the practice of growing and shaping trunks, branches and roots of trees and other woody plants.

Once again I ask that people focus on the article and not on the editors. Civility is very important, and continuous and deliberate breaches of civility which disrupt the editing of this article could lead to blocking or banning. Let us niot go down that route. If you get angry at something said, then do not comment. Go off, make a cup of tea, or do some gardening. Only come back to Wikipedia when you are calm and able to deal with the article itself, not the comments of other editors. I have struck all the above comments that have added nothing to our discussion. SilkTork *^YES! 12:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Predictably enough, I consider only the second one appropriate. --Griseum (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the first works, as there are multiple refs for the other names as well. If Griseum thinks that arborsculpture needs more weight, why not write a few sentences about the word in the alternative name section with refs. Blackash (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Tree shaping was agreed as the title for the article as a widely used and neutral term.

There are 13,700 Ghits for tree shaping

30,600 for "pooktre"
24,800 for arborsculpture *4,240 for "botanic architecture"
272 for "botanic sculpture"
22 for "botanic furniture"

"Living Art" is more difficult, it throws up 411,000 which includes graphic artists and tattooists. "living art" +tree produces 96,500, but a lot of that is for Bonsai. Take out bonsai and it comes to 36,200, but that includes carvings. It does seem to be a popular term though.

"Tree sculpture" appears to mainly include sculpting which would be outside the scope of this article. It gets 57,700 Ghits.

I think we have established that arborsculpture is a recognised and widely used term for tree shaping in general, and it gets more Ghits than tree shaping so I feel would be appropriate in the lead sentence. Pooktre gets more Ghits than arborsculpture and is a redirect to this article, so it should get a mention in the lead, though as it is a specific name for the work of Peter Cook and Becky Northey is there is a problem with using it in the lead sentence?

The other terms appear to be problematic or have low usage. How about:

Tree shaping (also known as arborsculpture and Pooktre and several other names) is the practice of growing and shaping trunks, branches and roots of trees and other woody plants.

Comments. SilkTork *^YES! 19:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Since "pooktre" is not a generic term and was never even claimed to be, to indicate otherwise would be a confusing error. I think Blackash did and/or does agree. The suggested verbiage sans "and Pooktre" works well. --Griseum (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Pooktre is a business name, it is advertised as a unique method and should not be in the lead at all.
Consider using this photo at the top of the page Neadle.jpg, Pooktre is represented by three photos, Erlandson's work has one image, this would help balance the article IMO.Slowart (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

in response to "Tree shaping was agreed as the title for the article as a widely used and neutral term." I think [location in time of this pages name change] (inside of an article for deletion comment box) a non-nutral name for this was accidentally tossed out as a generic term to replace arborsculpture for the title. Later justified as (something to get us started)while Tree shaping and Tree shapers was in use, as in "Pooktre Tree Shapers". Wide ranging comments followed by single edit accounts produced no change. A real neutral name could be found for this articles title. Tree shaping is not neutral. Slowart (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Tree shaping has been used though-out published media including Richard Reames book as a word to describe the art form, long before we sarted using the wording tree shapers. Blackash (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Pooktre does have refs, but we have tried to link it to our method but not always successfully. If you think the article really needs to have some alternative names in the lead then yes have both Arborsculpture and Pooktre. Blackash (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The placement of chair tree photo was choosen by someone else. To grow a chair is a common theme among people who shape trees. Blackash (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Current version of lead is fine with me.Slowart (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Arborsculpture impact on Pooktre

Silktork said that quote "I don't, as yet, follow the arguments that using the term arborsculpture in a general article on tree shaping would have any impact on Pooktre." SilkTork *YES! 11:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The impact comes because the word Arborsculpture leads to Richard Reames and his book/s. These products teach a method which can't delever.
These methods can't produce trees like the work of Axel Erlandson, Pooktre and others who use the gradual shaping method. By having Arborsculpture across other people's work, gives creditability to the person that Arborsculpture leads to. Which is Richard Reames, (editer slowart also know as Reames) this person then sells a method on that misunderstanding.

The campaign to brand our trees with Arborsculpture for creditability has started. Yesterday a blog appeared with photo's of our trees, a method was given and the word Arborsculpture was linked in with the method. We contacted the owner they informed us quote "information given to me". Fortunately they removed the method.

The word Arborsculpture leads to Richard Reames and his books.

Google Arborsculpture all the leads on the front page lead to Richard and his books.
Even the photos at the top of google search for Arborsculpture lead to Richard Reames.

Out of these photos two are not real the rest are created by the gradual shaping method and not by the methods as descibed in Richard Reames book/s.

Search bonsai it doesn't lead to one person, but is all over the web.

A word that leads to one person is not a neutral term but a lead device for selling.

If Arborsculpture is to appear in the lead when it has strong ties to one person, then put Pooktre in the lead as well. At least then both methods are represented in the lead.

Tree shaping (also known as arborsculpture and Pooktre and several other names) is the practice of growing and shaping trunks, branches and roots of trees and other woody plants.

or better yet

Tree shaping, known by several alternative names, is the practice of growing and shaping trunks, branches and roots of trees and other woody plants.

Blackash (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I am in favour of including both aborscupture and Pooktre in the lead, though I would like to see more evidence of Pooktre being used as a generic term in the same way that evidence was supplied of aborscupture being used as a generic term. We do have precedent for this - see Ballpoint pen in relation to biro, and Vacuum cleaner in relation to hoover. SilkTork *^YES! 11:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What about my main point that Arborsculpture is still strongly linked to Richard Reames and there-fore not a neutral term? Blackash (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

We have been given plenty of evidence to show that the term is also used in a generic sense, and that makes it appropriate to use in a generic sense. While the article is in the early stages and needs more work, I am able to pick up the notion from the lead that tree shaping is not just one method, and then the article explains the different methods and the main people involved in tree shaping. If you feel that people may still be confused, then it would be appropriate to make distinctions clearer in the article. I am not sure how withholding the information is going to benefit understanding.

All editors involved here should please also bear in mind that Wikipedia is a factual and neutral encyclopedia which aims to provide for free the sum of human knowledge. It is not intended to be a promotional tool for any company; while we are aware that positive mention on Wikipedia can increase traffic to a business, and negative mention can have a negative impact, we are concerned only with verifiable facts and producing a neutral, balanced and accurate article. The business impacts of a Wikipedia article should not be a consideration, unless it can be seen that the article is untrue or misleading.

Arborsculpture is both a generic term in general use, and is the name that Reames uses to describe his tree-shaping. I feel that is clear in the article, and is appropriately sourced. We have clear precedent on this dual usage with Biro/biro and Hoover/hoover.

Pooktre gets quite a few Ghits, so I see a value to having that name mentioned as early as possible. People seeing the name Pooktre, may come here to find out more. Currently a search for pooktre leads to an article in which the name is not mentioned in the lead. The section in which Pooktre is mentioned has a subsection name of "Peter Cook and Becky Northey", which is possibly unhelpful, as the artists' names are not as well known as the name of their tree shaping method.

I would like to see some sources to support the use of Pooktre as a generic term for tree shaping, so we can use

Tree shaping (also known as arborsculpture and Pooktre and several other names) is the practice of growing and shaping trunks, branches and roots of trees and other woody plants.

as the opening sentence. If sources can't be found, then we can drop Pooktre from the lead sentence, but include it in the lead paragraph talking about specific tree shapers:

Early tree shapers were John Krubsack, who made the first known "living chair" in 1914, and Axel Erlandson who opened a horticultural attraction called the Tree Circus in 1947.[3] Contemporary tree shapers include Richard Reames, Dr. Christopher Cattle, and artists Peter Cook and Becky Northey who use a method they term "Pooktre".

I think it can be one or other other, or even both. SilkTork *^YES! 10:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

only the second version is accurate. important point, "Arborsmith Studios" is to Richard Reames as "Pooktre" is to Peter Cook/Becky Northy as "Grownup furniture" is to Dr. Christopher Cattle. Having said that, I'm o.K. with your second version of lead, only if your sure it's important to lead the article with one living artist business name but not the others. Why was this page linked to "pooktre" in the first place ? An AFD outcome ?Slowart (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Links for Pooktre

pooktree.com was registed in 2008-04-09 is a bonsai and plant selling site, our site pooktre.com was registed Apr 2005

google maps Worldwide Constructions of Living Trees Pooktre listed as alternative name.

Living growing architecture Has article about the living architecture. Pooktre appears as one of the Alternative names.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2002 Fab Tree Hab Pooktre appears as one of the Alternative names. Similar article

About incorporating trees into every day life Pooktre appears as one of the Alternative names. Similar post

"the craft is, essentially, construction with living plants" Pooktre appears as one of the Alternative names.

[3] Talking about Pooktre and quote "We have someone much closer to us who does that too. He coined the term "Arborsculpture""

Richard Reames peace tree is ironically listed Pooktre

forum Pooktre appears as one of the Alternative names.

Axel Erlandson tree listed Pooktre

online dictionary Pooktre is the entry. quote The concept of shaping living trees into useful objects. Alternatives are listed.

quote Another art similar to pooktre is the arboculture. Appers to be typeo as from then on they talk about Arborsculpture.

Pooktre appears as one of the Alternative names and give an description of shaping is given

Pooktree and Arborsculpture used together Any one belive Pooktree is not releated to Pooktre?

This is a grass root reaction and not a result of us branding. Blackash (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The proper noun "Pooktre"

In case there's any confusion, according to the creators of Pooktre:

We evolved our techniques of shaping trees in complete isolation from the rest of the world. With our techniques we know what will work or not and we can reproduce any of our pieces. Which we have done with our favorites. Pooktre only relates to our techniques [empahsis added], in short we have mastered the art of Pooktre.source

Pooktre is the particular brand of tree shaping that Peter and Becky have pioneered. That's why it is capitalized. It's not appropriate for inclusion in the lead. The latest burp of complaints about the word “arborsculpture” is not even worth addressing. --Griseum (talk) 09:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Use of both arborsculpture and pooktre in lead

There is evidence in reliable sources for pooktre (lower case p) to be used as a generic term for tree-shaping. So it would be appropriate to use both arborsculpture and pooktre in the lead sentence.

Is this acceptable:

Tree shaping (also known as arborsculpture and pooktre and several other names) is the practice of growing and shaping trunks, branches and roots of trees and other woody plants.

For the tree shapers paragraph there is the opportunity to highlight that Reames uses the "Arborsculpture" name, this alerts readers to a possible connection between the use of the arborsculpture term and Reames, and also sets up the opportunity to explain the distinction later in the article.

Is this acceptable:

Early tree shapers were John Krubsack, who made the first known "living chair" in 1914, and Axel Erlandson who opened a horticultural attraction called the Tree Circus in 1947.[3] Contemporary tree shapers include Richard Reames with his "Arborsculpture", Dr. Christopher Cattle, and artists Peter Cook and Becky Northey who use a method they term "Pooktre".

The alternative is:

Early tree shapers were John Krubsack, who made the first known "living chair" in 1914, and Axel Erlandson who opened a horticultural attraction called the Tree Circus in 1947.[3] Contemporary tree shapers include Richard Reames, Dr. Christopher Cattle, and artists Peter Cook and Becky Northey who use a method they term "Pooktre".

Please give your thoughts. SilkTork *^YES! 16:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

OK I fine with arborsculputre and pooktre being in the lead, it not about how we use the word is it. It about how other people use the word/s. I think by having Arborsculpture linked to Richard and Pooktre linked to us, address my concern about the strong linkage of the words to their creators. Blackash (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I see the following:

Example 1: Not acceptable at all as it implies that Pooktre is a general term. I’ve seen no evidence of this and if there is evidence it’s the result of the confusion regarding these terms. Cook & Northey capitalize this term and specifically said "Pooktre only relates to our techniques." [4] That’s definitive. It’s an error in logic to believe that "arborsculpture" and "Pooktre" are the same type of term and should be treated the same.
Example 2: The phrase "Richard Reames with his Arborsculpture" belies the fact that this term is a generic one that's very rarely capitalized. This phrasing ignores the exhaustive evidence I've brought forward and essentially brings us back to where we started, i.e. using Wikipedia to promote the false idea that the term arborsculpture isn't used for anyone's work but Reames.
Example 3: This is fine as long assuming the current intro "Tree shaping, also known as arborsculpture, living art, botanical architecture and various other terms" is left intact.

Thanks! --Griseum (talk) 02:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Example 3 is the only accurate alternative, but it is not balanced. To add balance and fairness for the artist who don't use computers for guerrilla marketing, I suggest this,

Early tree shapers were John Krubsack, who grew the first known "living chair" in 1914, and Axel Erlandson who opened a horticultural attraction called the Tree Circus in 1947.[3] Contemporary tree shapers include Dan Ladd, David Nash, Richard Reames, Dr. Christopher Cattle, Nirandr Boonnetr, Peter Cook and Becky Northey.

To be balanced, I think either all the artists fictitious business names should be listed or none listed.Slowart (talk) 05:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

@Griseum. Ex 1. The use of pooktre (lower case p) in the lead sentence is based on the sources provided above in the sub-section - Talk:Tree_shaping#List_of_Links_for_Pooktre - which I put into the collapsed section. You can expand the section by clicking on "show" to the right of the "Extended content" bar. Some of the sources are the same as those used for showing that arborsculpture is used as a generic term. Essentially if you find that those sources are not acceptable for using pooktre, then they would also not be acceptable for using arborsculpture. The use of Pooktre with capitalisation is to be used in the article to refer specifically to Cook & Northey. This is in line with what the sources say, and what has happened with biro/Biro and hoover/Hoover.

@Griseum. Ex 2. Using arborsculpture with a capital was my attempt to differentiate between when the term is used in a genetic sense and when it is used to refer to Reames work, as the word is mainly associated with Reames. However, I accept that the attempt was inelegant, and I will look into a different solution to offer.

@Slowart. Ex 3. I don't wish to get into having a long list in the lead, though I take your point that my selection of which contemporary tree shapers are the most notable may be challenged. Can we agree on which three contemporary tree shapers are most notable?

I'd like Griseum to check the sources and confirm that pooktre is used generically for tree shaping. I will present an alternative to using "Richard Reames with his Arborsculpture", though before that, there needs to be some agreement, based on Wikipedia's notability criteria, as to which three contemporary tree shapers are the most notable. I have suggested Richard Reames, Dr. Christopher Cattle, and Pooktre, but that was purely based on the amount of information contained in the article. Those were the three who had the most information, so I assumed it was accepted by the contributors to the article that those three were the most important. I will, however, do some research of my own and give an updated view. SilkTork *^YES! 08:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

SilkTork, thanks for still being involved with this. If you are 10% as sick of it as I am, you have my sympathy. What I see is some evidence of Pooktre being mis-used as a generic term. These misuses are outweighed by sources that specifically say whose work it is that "Pooktre" describes. You’ve stated “if you find that those sources are not acceptable for using pooktre, then they would also not be acceptable for using arborsculpture” but I am heartily disagreeing with that assumption. Cook & Northey have specifically and definitely said "Pooktre only relates to our techniques.” To my recollection, BlackAsh hasn’t contradicted this statement once. Rather, continued objections about the current text are still hinged upon the incorrect notion that neither Pooktre nor arborsculpture are generic terms (“Pooktre like Arborsculpture has strong links back to the creator of the word” etc. etc.) If BlackAsh is willing to say that the work of Reames, Erlandson, and Cottle can also be considered “pooktre” then it’s a whole new ball game. It’s my understanding, however, that they rightfully wish to have the term Pooktre refer to their techniques exclusively. ...Peter Cook and Becky Northey who use a method they term "Pooktre" (or similar phrasing) is the only acceptable way to include the term "Pooktre" in the lead. --Griseum (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

@Griseum, SilkTork has made the point that it is not what I or Peter say the word Pooktre means. The point is how people are using the word. Blackash (talk) 07:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I’m fairly confident that I could produce enough evidence that people strongly tend use "Pooktre" as a non-generic term to blow this out of the water. However, if this is the route you want to go, let’s go ahead! If I register Pooktre.net or BestPooktre.com (or whatever) and start shaping trees according to Reames’ method you and Peter have no problem with this? Good to know. Please note Mr. Reames can also now refer to himself as a pooktre artist since you say it’s a generic term. I see this as a beautiful example of “cutting off your nose to spit your face”, but if you want to summarily abandon the rights to the trademark term you’ve worked so hard to protect, I’m literally delighted to help you do that. Therefore, I agree that “pooktre” is a generic term which is not associated with a method. Since we’re handling “arborsculpture” and “pooktre” as generic terms, it’s appropriate to refer to Reames as “...who coined the term arborsculpture” and Cook/Northey as “..who coined the term pooktre.” All references to “Pooktre style” and “Pooktre methods” must be removed from this article as we’ve now agreed that pooktre has become a generic term. Note that this is not problematic as, like the Cook/Northey team, neither Reames nor Krubsack nor Erlandson have a specific name for their methods. NB - There is zero evidence that arborsculpture and pooktre take on different meanings when capitalized so inventing that distinction to suit our purposes just won't work. --Griseum (talk) 08:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Give someone enougf rope... The list Talk:Tree_shaping#List_of_Links_for_Pooktre offered as evidence of a grassroots use, is not evidence. # 1 is an advertiser sniping on a common misspeling of a high traffic site. #2 a map that blackash worked on.#3 The text referred to is in the popup box not the article, the string of alternative names for the art originated or propagated as a (unsolicited) press release for a company called Plantware around the time that opposition to arborsculpture started being expressed in this article. [5] Listing all available words was one way to skirt the issue. #4 is labeled as Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2002 Fab Tree Hab, only the thumbnail is from Mitchell Joachim- Fab Tree Hab, MIT, nothing about MIT in the text. The text in this article is the press release I mentioned, it ran in many blogs and online mags and propagating the list of alternatives. I'll skip the rest but the last one is the best. Pooktree and Arborsculpture used in proper aliment together. [6] To be respectful, it's not something I'd write or say but I understand how it's true.Slowart (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It needs to be noted that the 2nd most common name for the art after arborsculpture, is pleaching google image search separates the sloppy copy easily found on the web, from the subject photos acuracy. arborsculpture has the broadest representation. Pleaching is next. To improve the article the lead could be Tree shaping, also known as arborsculpture and pleaching and various other terms. I think including lots of alternative names just waters down the significance of the useful words. Image search on botanical architecture and living art brings up zero or few photos of what were talking about.Slowart (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Closing discussion on the lead section

I've been doing searches on different names - arborsculture, tree shaping, living art, etc, combined with the contemporary practitioners. Richard Reames and Pooktre get most hits with whatever pairing - hits usually in the thousands, followed by Becky Northey, Peter Cook, and Dan Ladd - though here we are talking hits around 900 - 400 each. Cattle gets just over 100; Nash and Mr Wu get hits of less than 100 each. It seems that Reames and Pooktre are the most well known, and Becky Northey and Peter Cook are known by name as well as by Pooktre. The next practitioner, though significantly less well known than Reames and Pooktre, is Dr. Christopher Cattle, who also gets a significant mention in the article. I am comfortable that we have the appropriate names in the lead given the amount of coverage in the article, and the recognition factor on the internet, and in publications.

We already have an article on Pleaching, which appears to be a slightly different thing, as it is quite specific, whereas tree shaping and arborsculture are more open, varied and creative.

I have made some changes to the lead in line with consensus on the contentious wording. WP:Consensus does not mean everyone agrees, but that the most reasonable view upheld by most people and in line with Wikipedia guidelines is the one that is carried forward. I had also made a comment in the lead about the living trees, and differentiated them from the more recent ornamental tree shaping.

I am satisfied with the wording. I feel it is fair, appropriate, and in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I would like now to draw a line under that and look at some other issues that people may wish to discuss. If I recall, the next item was the name of the article. Somebody wanted to review that. I will open a new section at the bottom of the page for that discussion. SilkTork *^YES! 16:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Pooktre

The current lead has "pooktre" in it twice -- once as a supposedly generic term, and once as a proper noun. This is outrageously unacceptable. Was my last group of comments (24 February 8:48) even read? Griseum (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your comments were read. I am happy with the dual use of Pooktre for reasons I have explained. I am still considering a way of making it clear that aborscultpture was coined by Reames, which I have indicated in my comments above. There was an objection to using the term with a capital letter, which I accept.

When we have finished working through all the issues and have got the article to a state which is acceptable by consensus, I will get an uninvolved admin to look over this talkpage and the article as a double check. For now, we are are drawing a line under this issue and moving on to the name of the article. SilkTork *^YES! 19:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reading my comments. I am not interested in the renaming debate; the current name is fine. As for the current use of the Pooktre/pooktre in the lead...twice...I'll state politely and firmly that this isn't even close to a balanced solution. --Griseum (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The first reference [7] is a press release. It says "releases" in the url. The second [8] reference is a patent application, neither I think is a reliable source.Slowart (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

@Griseum. Your objections are noted, and will no doubt be considered by the second admin, though I feel you might have more success with your objection if you explained your reasons a bit more. For myself I cannot see how it is unhelpful to a general reader to have a word used twice in a lead, especially when the use is designed to aid understanding and clarity. I will get around to explaining that arborsculpture is associated with Reames. It's on my to-do list. SilkTork *^YES! 22:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC) @Slowart. I've looked again, and both are reliable sources, though I am unsure of the usefulness of the patent application as a source. I would be happy for us to look into the question of sources below. This section however is for the wording of the lead, and I have closed this discussion. I will collapse this section when I have added the sentence about Reames and arborsculpture. SilkTork *^YES! 22:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Use of terms

I have made an adjustment to the lead in which I indicate the terms that are most identified with the leading tree shapers. This is intended to be both neutral and explanatory.

Contemporary tree shapers include Richard Reames who uses the term "arborsculpture", Dr. Christopher Cattle who uses the phrase "grown furniture", and artists Peter Cook and Becky Northey who use the term "Pooktre" for the method they use.

At some point it would be worth revisiting the Alternative names section and writing that up in prose, explaining the usage of the terms, when they were coined, and who is most associated with the term.

Unless there is further legitimate objection, I will close this section in a day or so. SilkTork *^YES! 08:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that having more detail about each word in the Alternative section would be good. Blackash have a chat 13:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The Lead (continued)

I want to be clear that the current lead is not acceptable. The idea that Pooktre when capitalized is a proper noun and when not capitalized is a generic term is an editorial invention not supported by verifiable references. Further, while Pooktre has sometimes been used imprecisely so as to imply it’s a generic term, there are stronger indications it is not. The Pooktre website identifies it as a specific method. Even this very Wikipedia article uses “Pooktre method” and similar phraseology repeatedly. The notion that the word “arborsculpture” and the word “Pooktre” should be treated the same is erroneous. I don’t consider this matter closed, and as much as I genuinely appreciate SilkTork’s involvement in this boring and unpleasant discussion, it isn’t any one administrator’s prerogative to unilaterally make judgments of this kind. There is no potential for consensus here. What we have are two professional rivals, one neutral editor, and one neutral admin. These matters need to go to wider discussion. --Griseum (talk) 12:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I have steered a common sense and fair course that conforms to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I do think that individual concerns about how much the other company is using their name are a little bit exaggerated, and are really of no interest to the general reader. Wikipedia articles should not be edited with the intention of gaining commercial or financial advantage, but really, look at what has been written - "Tree shaping (also known as arborsculpture and pooktre and several other names) is the practice of growing and shaping trunks, branches and roots of trees and other woody plants." Now, reasonably, what commercial or financial advantage is genuinely being created in that sentence? Given that we have examined several sources and debated the matter thoroughly, and agreed that Pooktre and arborscultpture are strongly associated with tree shaping, and that both Pooktre and arborscupture are discussed within the article, what advantage do you seriously think is being gained by anyone to use the term pooktre in an article in which Pooktre is being discussed anyway? The matter has been reasonably discussed, and I have said that I will ask another admin to look over the matter. There is a point when objections cease to be constructive. Let us move on to other matters. The question of the lead, as regards this particular discussion that I am moderating, is closed - we have used Wikipedia:Negotiation and reached an appropriate Wikipedia:Consensus. You are free to look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and start a discussion in another arena, though, as dispute resolution is already in place, and as the person moderating the discussion has stated that the outcome of this discussion will be independently assessed anyway, then it might be seen that your impatient actions would be disruptive. SilkTork *^YES!

I can understand why you would like to move past the matter of the lead. Now please try to understand my reluctance: When this discussion is done, and you have handed down your decisions, unless I am wrong the independent assessment that will follow will be one other admin taking a relatively quick look at it and essentially hand-stamping your decision. At that point, this whole matter becomes characterized as “a consensus which two admins have previously approved” – in a sense, these matters become written in ink rather than pencil. I disagree that we have reached an appropriate Wikipedia:Consensus, but I may be wrong. We have four people in this discussion. If both Slowart and Blackash are satisfied with the lead, then that’s 3 out of 4 people who are satisfied. If this is the case, then I’m satisfied too and I won’t object again (it would surprise me if Slowart agreed to this, but I’d be gladded to be outvoted and done with my responsibility). Your question about commercial or financial advantage is a very fair one. I don’t think there is any. The Blackash/Slowart rivalry seems to be more about spite than dollars. As for what my specific objection is, we’re switching back and forth between “pooktre” and “Pooktre” in a way that is confusing to readers. If I came to this article with fresh eyes, I would think that one form or the other was a typo. I think including the word “Pooktre” in the lead is appropriate as part of the existing “who use the term ‘Pooktre’ for the method they use” phrase. (Everyone see that word “method” again?) The current lead seems more about making Blackash and SlowArt equally (un)happy than honestly serving our readers – and that’s exactly why I said you’ve been forced into a King Solomon role. Anyway, here’s my alternative suggestion for our belabored lead:

Tree shaping is the practice of growing and shaping trunks, branches and roots of trees and other woody plants…(text text text)...Contemporary tree shapers include Richard Reames who coined the term "arborsculpture", Dr. Christopher Cattle who uses the phrase "grown furniture", and Peter Cook and Becky Northey who use the term "Pooktre" for the method they use.

Note that this suggestion uses arborsculpture and Pooktre each once (rather than each twice). There's no need to call Northey and Cook "artists". Aren't they all artists? It's more useful to say that Reames coined "arborsculpture" than to say "who uses the term arborsculpture" as the first implies this term is generic and the second implies it isn't. The version I just suggested is in no way my druthers; it gives considerably less prominence to the word “arborsculpture” than either SlowArt or I have advocated, but in being very close to the form you currently suggest perhaps you’ll find it acceptable. If so, I'm pretty sure I'm done with this article entirely. --Griseum (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

From my vantage point, I know for a fact that pooktree/arborsculpture is NOT a biro/Ballpoint pen or xerox/copy sort of a situation. The string of text that inspired the use of the word (lower case) "pooktre" in the lead was a erroneous press release that was just widely placed and copied. If it is permanent here then perhaps in a few years the name will become synonymous with arborsculpture. The new suggestion by Griseum is much better. I realize this subject is closed at the moment, I add my 0.2 cents for the benefit of the next administration. Slowart (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

pooktre like arborsculpture has been used as a generic term instead of Tree shaping. By the same token, Arborsculpture is linked though published media to an instant/quick tree shaping method, and Pooktre is linked to a Gradual/Slow tree shaping method. Which SilkTork tried to address by quote "We have clear precedent on this dual usage with Biro/biro and Hoover/hoover". Blackash have a chat 10:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If Blackash accepts that wording we can move on. SilkTork *^YES! 22:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The lead needs to address the Alternative names, we should follow the WP:LEAD guideline Separate section usage and in this section it would be appropriate to address who created what, when and how the words are linked to their creators plus the public use of these words if appropriate. Which can be done in the Alternative name section with References. So the lead paragraph could read like this:-

Tree shaping also known by several alternative names is the practice of growing and shaping trunks, branches and roots of trees and other woody plants.[1][2] By grafting, shaping, and pruning the woody trunks or guiding branches, trees are made to grow into ornamental or useful shapes. Tree shaping is related to espalier, bonsai, pleaching and, less directly, to topiary.

Now for the 2nd paragraph of the lead, as the names Arborsculpture, Grown Furniture and Pooktre are better known than the people it would make more sense to use them instead. Then within the body of the article at section Tree shapers, these names could be used instead of individuals names. This would enable people to more easily research any given practitioner and their trees. Google Mr Wu 3,000,000 hits. It be hard to find the right one.

Amongst the earliest forms of practical tree-shaping are the living root bridges of Cherrapunji in northeast India. Early ornamental tree shapers were John Krubsack, who grew the first known "living chair" in 1914, and Axel Erlandson who opened a horticultural attraction called the Tree Circus in 1947.[3] Contemporary practitioners include "arborsculpture", "grown furniture" and "Pooktre" Blackash have a chat 11:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Referring to "arborsculpture" and "grown furniture" as practitioners is obviously incorrect grammar. I have ceded much; Let's be done soon. This is way more LAME than it needs to be. If SilkTork and SlowArt think my suggested lead is acceptable why do we need an okay from BlackAsh when she is basing her arguments on an understanding of the word "arborsculpture" which has been disproven? --Griseum (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Griseum you are right about the grammar it should be practices not practitioners
Griseum Your suggestion doesn't address the Alternative names at all.(you just removed the Alternatives) Which means when the page is open to normal editing again, you stick in whatever your think and start another edit war. Better to address the Alternative names use now, and we should follow the WP:LEAD guideline Separate section usage as you Griseum and Slowart agree that you would rather not have Arborsculpture in the lead if Pooktre is there too. Blackash have a chat 22:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I am opening up the article for the lead to be adjusted along the various lines suggested above. Any disagreements should be discussed on this talkpage rather than reverted on the article. Edit warring will lead to the article being locked again. SilkTork *^YES! 15:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

One thing at a time

I note that discussion tends to get scattered with new suggestions being added. I will only deal with one item at a time. When we are finished with that item we can move onto the next one. Let's deal with the wording of the lead first, when that is agreed we can look at the name of the article, then the question of which image to use in the lead. SilkTork *^YES! 11:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Can I please add to the list.

To expand the Instant tree shaping method and the Gradual tree shaping method I have published refs.
Also can we put back the list of the trees I can get refs. Blackash (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I approve of the current lead. There's no indication that arborculture isn't a popular and generic name. This has been proven far above and beyond Wikipedia requirements. There's no indication that anyone considers pooktre a generic name. There's major indications that a dead horse is being beaten with a very ineffective stick. I don't care what photo is used. --Griseum (talk) 04:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Current lead is good.Slowart (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I have poven that Arborsuclpture leads to Richard Reames.
Having Arborsculpture in the lead is a misrepresentation of it's neutrality.
For a WP:NPOV the word needs have some text about the fact Arborsculpture leads from and to Richard Reames. Mentioning this in the lead would be messy, the appropriate place for this would the in Alternative names section.

I can get links that show Pooktre being used as the general name, but I don't think it is appropriate as Pooktre like Arborsculpture has strong links back to the creator of the word, and having either name in the lead is misleading the reader of the article. Blackash (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi I have only just found this discussion after being interested in the artform for a long time. I have read Richard Reames books and have tried a few specimens/projects without much success. I have read with interest the banter that has gone on over the artform and it seems that egos have come into play. Surely for the sake of the artform, which has been used by a few people over a long period of time, a resolution needs to be forthcoming. I would be more interested in learning more about the methods involved Sydney Bluegum (talk) 08:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Sydney Bluegum.

Repeating sentence and circular reference

[...] (please note there is a repeating sentence in paragraph 3 and 4 and a circular reference for Erlandson in the history section.) Slowart (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not see a repeating sentence. There is information in the main body which is also in the lead - but that is part of the structure of a Wikipedia article. The lead is meant to be a mini-article, providing all the important information. Sort of like the Micropædia and Macropædia of the Encyclopædia Britannica - see WP:Lead. Is that what you meant? What is the circular reference for Erlandson in the history section? SilkTork *^YES! 00:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

(1) Lead- Amongst the earliest forms of practical tree-shaping are the living root bridges of Cherrapunji in northeast India. History- Amongst the earliest forms of tree-shaping are the living root bridges of Cherrapunji in northeast India.

(2) I think this ref is circular [9] because it is a clone of the Axel Erlndsons wikipedia page [10]Slowart (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

(1) The way that Wikipedia articles are constructed is that the lead is a summary of the main body, so inevitably everything in the lead will be an echo of what is in the main body - however, I totally accept that a word for word sentence repeat is very crude.

(2) I think the question about the cite is quite pertinent, and an examination of the sources used would be useful. Treeshapers.net and pooktre.com are both registered to Sharbrin Publishing, for which Becky Northey is named as contact and manager. WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:SELFPUB are the relevant sections in the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. SilkTork *^YES! 15:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

While we are talking about Axel Erlandson

On the 15 February 2010 Griseum clumsily placed the wording of Arborsculpture into Axel Erlandson page. The way the word is used and in what context gives the impression that Arborsculpture was around before The Tree Circus. Here is the diff. I would like this section changed back to how it was. I didn't do so myself as I didn't want to have another edit war, and things needed sorting out here first. Now seems like a good time to bring this up. Blackash have a chat 06:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It has been determined that arborsculpture is a generic term that is not capitalized. Its inclusion in any article about the shaping of woody plants is appropriate. When discussing something that happened in the past we do not limit ourselves to vocabulary words that were in circulation at that time. Also, as regards to the usefulness verus the clumsiness of my edit, and Blackash's request to change it "back to how it was", it should be noted that prior to my edit the Erlandson article had no link to "tree shaping" -- the very activity for which he is notable -- except in the "see also" section. --Griseum (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The placement of Arborsculpture on the page doesn't improve the page, and misleads the reader by confusing the time line.

Was

Axel Erlandson (December 15, 1884 – April 28, 1964) was a Swedish American farmer who opened a horticultural attraction in 1947 featuring his uniquely shaped trees. The attraction was eventually named "The Tree Circus."

Changed to

Axel Erlandson (December 15, 1884 – April 28, 1964) was a Swedish American farmer who opened a horticultural attraction in 1947 featuring his uniquely shaped trees. This collection of arborsculpture was eventually named "The Tree Circus."

Could read

Axel Erlandson (December 15, 1884 – April 28, 1964) was a Swedish American farmer who opened a horticultural attraction named "See the world's Strangest Trees Here" in 1947 featuring his uniquely shaped trees. This was eventually named "The Tree Circus."

and I can Reference that. Can you Reference that Arborsculpture was used before the attraction was named "The Tree Circus" Blackash have a chat 11:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I have already responded to Blackash's objection. --Griseum (talk) 11:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

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. SilkTork *^YES! 16:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Opened up for editing

I am aware that I have not been active on this issue for over two weeks. I have read through all the posts and commented where a response was necessary, and archived where a thread was dead or not helpful. I have reorganised comments slightly so that individual issues are kept together and so are easier to follow. I will now unprotect the article as there are a number of edits that people wish to make, and I'd like to see how you guys make out. If you are not sure about an edit you wish to make, then discuss it on this talkpage first. If you don't agree with an edit someone else has made, then don't revert, but come and discuss it on this talkpage. If there is any edit warring then I will lock the article again. SilkTork *^YES! 16:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for spending the time to mediate and I will continue to edit the way you suggest. Blackash have a chat 00:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Relationship or Distinctions

Griseum manually changing the text is still reverting, you need to raise your issues here. Relationship means

noun

1. a connection, association, or involvement.

2. The condition or fact of being related; connection or association. found on http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Relationship on

where Distinction means

noun

1. a marking off or distinguishing as different:

2. the recognizing or noting of differences;

3. a distinguishing factor, attribute, or characteristic. found http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Distinction

Ummmm the words used in the paragraphs are of Topiary, Espalier, Pleaching and Bonsai

Topiary the wording used is "By contrast" and "whereas shaped-tree"
Espalier the wording used is "but shaped-tree projects are not" and "espalier-trained trees are not known"
Pleaching the wording used is "but pleaching is limited" and "it is not"
Bonsai the wording used is "Bonsai avoids", "Shaped trees is almost the opposite concept" and "would not be the true nature of bonsai." these are differentiating statements. Not statements showing how the different practices are similar.

In summary Distinctions from ...... is better than Relationship to ..... because the paragraphs below the heading are about the differences not how they are related. Blackash have a chat 22:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning both similarities and differences improves Wikipedia. --Griseum (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks the sentence in the section "Compared with other methods" address my point. Blackash have a chat 23:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

References

What are Wikipedia's policies regarding removing of referenced text form an article? Blackash have a chat 22:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If you're referring to a particular action by another editor then you'd be best highlighting that first than asking for rules and then arguing that someone's broken them. That said, this falls under the general guidelines for article content; it depends how reliable the source is, how relevant the text in question is to a particular section and how much weight is being given to particular viewpoints. It is a common fallacy that articles are simply agglomerations of facts. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me the general outline. The ref they removed is not of great importance, I just was concerned about other parts of the article I know they would like to remove. Blackash have a chat 22:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Alternative names section

As the lead no longer address that Arborsculpture is strongly linked to Richard Reames this needs to be added in the Alternative names section.
As pooktre has been found to be a generic word it also needs to be address in the Alternative names section. Blackash have a chat 22:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Approaches to tree shaping

I have added some content with refs to the Instant tree shaping. Next I will add some content to Gradual tree shaping. Blackash have a chat 15:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Interpreting references as a way to push an agenda is inappropriate. I object in the strongest possible terms to the latest attempt at re-defining of the word arborsculpture. Instant tree shaping ???Slowart (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Slowart, make any all changes you deem appropriate to reflect our fact-based consensus that arborsculpture is a term rather than a technique. Blackash hasn't budged one iota from her singular, wrong, un-referenced and obviously WP:COI-fueled stance that it is other than a generic term. --Griseum (talk) 10:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Moving on

I am taking this off my watch-list. If you have disagreements about how the article is to proceed please discuss the issue on this talkpage in civil terms. If you find that the discussions are not making progress or there is too much unpleasant language, please get in touch with me. But please do make the effort to sort it out among yourselves first. I do feel that as long as you are putting the needs of the reader first at all times then you won't go far wrong. Warm regards. SilkTork *^YES! 18:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate SilkTork's involvement with these issues. I would, however, like to see another admin get involved rather than drag SilkTork back into it, should that become necessary. As Blackash is completely ignoring consensus and has been inserting text about “the Arborsculpture technique” into the article, further intervention may well be needed. This version, as last edited by Blackash, uses the term arborsculpture as if it is a technique not once or twice, but four times. Each use is capitalized so as to enforce the misconception Blackash is trying to forcefeed Wikipedia readers. This is a blatant, rather than a subtle, disregard for what has been examined, discussed, and decided here over recent months. --Griseum (talk) 05:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Referenced material

@ Griseum I object to you removing referenced material again with out discussion. Do you have access to both of Richard Reame's books? Blackash have a chat 07:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

- If the books by Reames supported Blackash’s real life agenda to portray “arborsculpture” as a technique rather than a generic word, Blackash would have brought that evidence forward during these past three months of debate. Instead, Blackash seems determined to proceed as if the last 3 months never happened. Obviously, attaching a footnote to something does not justify saying whatever one wants. If Blackash would like to discuss Reames’ techniques specifically, they may be referred to as “Reames’ techniques” or similar. Better yet, Blackash should respect our WP:COI and WP:NPOV policies and divert her energy into shaping trees rather than trying to shape public opinion about her professional rivals through misuse of Wikipedia. --Griseum (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I have never debated that Arborsculpture isn't a generic word, just that Arborsculpture also has a method linked to it. Again do you have access to Richard Reames books? Blackash have a chat 21:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Both User:Slowart and myself have access to Reames' book. I'm not going to debate Blackash about a matter that has been already been determined unless verifiable, published sources are produced that necessitate a re-examination of previous consensus. This matter has gotten beyond ridiculous and further discussion, if any, probably belongs at the WP:COI noticeboard. --Griseum (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As Slowart is the author Richard Reames, logically he has both books. I assume you accidentally left the s off book. Here are two quotes using Arborsculpture in the context of being a technique.

"I've developed some theories as to why particular Arborsculpture techniques are more successful than others." quote from How to grow a chair page 57.
"Should a portion of the design outgrow another portion, the fast-growing section can be slowed through the Arborsculpture techniques of ring barking and scoring, more completely described in Chapter 4." quote from How to grow a chair page 57.

Please note that in both instances Arborsculpture appears with capital A in the middle of the sentence. These quotes are not the only times that the word Arborsculpture appears in the context of being a method. Blackash have a chat 07:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Now don't be silly, every instance of the word in the self published book "How to Grow a Chair" is capitalized. Could have been the '92 word processor or an error or an editorial style choice, no matter. To infer your own meaning by using ref and quotes is disingenuous. Editing anything about yourself or rivals is the best path to having your edits scrutinized for non-nutrality.Slowart (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

@Slowart, Be that as it may, the word Arborsculpture is still used in the context of being a technique. Blackash have a chat 21:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"Techniques" according to those 2 quotes. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that "arborsculpture" was (now and always) a generic/alternative name for the art of "tree shaping" (i.e. one could use any methods one wanted to shape vegetable matter, and call the resulting piece "arborsculpture"). Hence, in the 2 quotes given above, one could replace the word "arborsculpture" with the words "tree shaping", and it would mean exactly the same thing.

In contrast, Cook and Northey refer to a selective set of methods as "Pooktre", but have acknowledged that outside sources have continually confused this distinction by using the term generically (using "Pooktre" as a synonym for "tree shaping").

Is that mostly accurate? (brief replies preferred. I've read some but not all of the last 6 months of discussion. I understand there are further ramifications/contexts, but just want to get my core understanding straight first). Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

In 1995 Richard Reames published a book titled How to grow a chair, coining the word Arborsculpture. Along with his specific methods of shaping trees, there by linking the word Arborsculpture to his methods. To date he still teaches his methods by having Arborsculpture classes. [11] [12] Richard use capitalize A with Arborsculpture, both on this page and though out his site, but I sure that will quickly change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackash (talk • contribs) 00:53, 21 April 2010

Which edits exactly are being disputed (which references were removed)? Blackash: Please link 1 or more diffs concisely (like this: [13]) so that we all know what the issues are. Thanks. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

There are many changes made that we disagree with, can we work one step at a time please. [14] Arborsculpture techniques of ring barking, is in Richard Reames first book How grow chair. In this book he use the word both for himself and in a generic way. In both books he teaches a method of shaping trees. Blackash have a chat 22:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Are there any methods of tree shaping that "Arborsculpture" specifically excludes? Historically, and/or currently? That seems to be the core difference that Pooktre is claiming it is differentiated by - the exclusion of specific methods.

This is how I remember/understand it, (very possibly incorrectly):

Reames would like to call the result, of any method that shapes trees, an "Arborsculpture".

In contrast, when Cook and Northey make their "Pooktre" works (and in any of their teachings), they specifically choose to not use certain tree shaping methods.

I'm sipping wine after a long day, and truely hoping for a "Yes", or "Not even close", or "Close, but this/that aspect needs tweaking", type of answer. I've spent almost 20 minutes now reworking and shortening this post... I'm purposefully not trying to re-establish the specifics beyond this. yet. I think I know that too, but want to get this straight, first. ;) Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes- it's the result not the method that makes an arborsculpture, imho. (Slight tweak) assuming it's not one of the established "Tree shaping" arts like espalier or pleaching or bonsai or the new "arbortecture". Interjecting logic ? now that's a twist.Slowart (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes and No:- Richard Reames is happy to use other artists work and call it arborsculpture as it builds creditability for him, and leads people to his web site.
For the No part..., It appears that Richard doesn't want his own trees to resent arborsculpture. To explain, when the article was named Arborsculpture. article at that time Being a naive editor, I thought it would be better if the article had more examples of trees shaped using Arborsculpture techniques. I put 2 images of Richard Reames trees on the wiki article, he removed them immediately and stated correctly that we didn't have copy right.Blackash have a chat 12:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't revert

I made quite a lot of changes with references. Griseum then removed most references and gave permission to Slowart for "damage control". The changes Griseum has done show a clear bias for arborsculpture and he does anything he can to justify pulling down the different methods.

SilkTork had been quite clear about not reverting someone's edits but to discuss the edits. Which Griseum has made clear he will not do, by removing multiple references that I put up and then basically stone walling me. Thou I should not be surprised because this was his behave before SilkTork locked the article. Clearly Griseum will change my edits because I made them not because they are wrong. Blackash have a chat 12:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Back to the point

One sentence at a time please. Because of the multiple changes it is hard to use diffs. I've added a reference section to the talk page below. Here is one of the sentences that Griseum removed the references from and some of the text.

Arborsculpture techniques of ring barking. ^[1] There are five different methods ^[2] for slowing the growth of a dominant branch in a Arborsculpture design. ^[3] From simple scoring to complete removal of 3/8in (1cm) wide band of bark. ^[2]

Here are quotes for each reference.

"I've developed some theories as to why particular Arborsculpture techniques are more successful than others." ref 1
"Should a portion of the design outgrow another portion, the fast-growing section can be slowed through the Arborsculpture techniques of ring barking and scoring, more completely described in Chapter 4." ref 1
"This illustration shows the five methods for impeding the movement of nutrients in phloem." ref 2
"For example, to prevent a branch form becoming more dominant than the others, remove a small strip of bark...." ref 3
"...to understand how to successfully create Arborsculpture designs through grafting, pruning and ring barking,...." ref 3
"Scoring is easiest for the beginner" ref 2
"Removal of a complete ring of bark, 1cm or 3/8 inch wide." ref 2

I believe that I maintained the context of the quotes with my sentence. These are published references and this should be in the article. Blackash have a chat 12:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

References

^ Richard Reames book How to grow a chair the art of Tree Trunk Topiary page 57
^ ^a ^b How to grow a chair the art of Tree Trunk Topiary page 70
^ How to grow a chair the art of Tree Trunk Topiary page 69

Analogy

Okay. This is an analogy, for how I see it. Using an analogy is generally a bad idea; I offer my apologies, for not being able to explain it clearly any other way. Hopefully it is clear. :)

Begin analogy:

If this article/dispute were about making sculptures out of mineral substances (eg clay), Then:

Over the years, some artists, and some press-articles, have referred to the entire artform by names such as: "Claysculpture", "Mudsculpture", "Molded Mud", and "Clay shaping".
Richard Reames wants to call the entire artform "Silicasculpture".
Peter Cook and Becky Northey want to call a specific-subset of the artform - let's say, "only if human hands are used to do the clay-sculpting, not if metal tools are used" - by the appellation "Pookay" (as in, Peter Cook clay sculpture). This "what tools are used" is a legitimate distinction, though a bit esoteric from any outsider's pointofview.
The quotes above, from the books about "Silicasculpture" by Reames, describe how to use certain metal tools to shape clay.
The "usage of metal tools" is not exclusive to "Silicasculpture". In fact, various people who call their artform "Mud molding" also use metal tools. However, Pookay practitioners don't ever use metal tools (and feel quite strongly about metal tool use).

End of analogy.

I had 3 tangents, but I'll save them for later, if needed.

I'll stop there, lest I ramble on for hours... Hope that helps. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Not close:- There are less then a hand full of people in the world who can accurately repeat their designs with their own process, and one of those people is dead (Axel Erlandson). None of these people to date have published their techniques. In this art form it can take 10 years to find out that an idea or technique doesn't work or that it does. Tree shaping as a field is still in it's infancy. This is not a mature practice with lots of published research. There is no standed practice among tree shapers, as yet.
Richard Reames is notable because he wrote the first book with a method of shaping a tree into a chair. In 1995 he coined the word Arborsculpture, because he had some theories and he believed the art-form was mature enough for a name of his choosing, (even thou there where other names already in use). Richard states in his 2005 book that he doesn't know why his tree is not balanced and that he views all his trees as experiments. (The info about Richard I can reference from Richard books) Blackash have a chat 12:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I could just have said: Ring barking seems to be a fairly standard horticultural technique. It has no special connection with "Arborsculpture", as far as I can tell. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

In Horticulture, Ring barking is done on branches to increase fruit size. There is much debate about this subject, and the resulting death of branches from this technique.
In Richard's book, Ring barking has a specific use because it is for balancing the design, (not fruit size) It would be of interest to people wanting to know about achieving balance. Blackash have a chat 11:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ring barking is a technique that alters the growth of a plant. Similarly, the technique of "pruning to bud" is used to alter the growth of a plant. (Whether the "pruning to bud" is used to increase the number of branches in order to produce more fruit, or if it is used in order to produce new material for "sculpting", or any other specific reason, is immaterial). Any and all of these "plant growth altering" techniques could be applied to bonsai (if one were a philistine without due regard for bonsai aesthetics and tradition ;)

If Reames wrote book(s) that mention a technique, but that doesn't make it 'his' technique. Any book that covered the full-selection of "plant growth altering" techniques would be likely to include a mention of ring barking, though whether the book recommended using it for any reason, and/or cautioned against using it for any reason, would be a decision of the author (based on data available to the author).

In the art of writing, the use of logical quotation is one available "technique". Wikipedia's styleguide recommends using this technique in our articles (WP:LQ), but that doesn't make it a "Wikipedia technique". It's a technique available to all writers. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I searched online and in the library, I couldn't find anywhere where it suggests that ring barking should be used as a means of balancing the growth of a tree. Thou I did find out that ring barking is used by some Bonsai people to promote new roots on a branch to start a new bonsai. Back to the point, Richard's 1st book is the only one I know of that recommends ring barking as a form of control to achieve a balanced design. 10 years later in Richard's 2nd book he seems to believe it is still an experimental process rather than a normal procedure.

As I didn't want to be unfairly accused again, to quote Slowart "Interpreting references as a way to push an agenda is inappropriate". I put up my sentence with the quotes, so other editors could decide and comment about of my sentence. As no-one has commented on my sentence with the references, I am going to assume that my sentence is accurate to the quotes and put it up on the page. Wikipedia content is about verifiable references is it not? Blackash have a chat 13:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not an "Arborsculpting technique" (regardless of how Reames phrases it in his book), it's a horticultural technique, being applied for a different purpose (exactly the same way as it is in the bonsai reference you describe...). Ring barking = plant growth altering technique. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not at all unfair. A quote out of context from a self published book will not stand. The context you have ignored, you have already pointed out... From the book..."I've developed some theories as to why particular Arborsculpture techniques are more successful than others." ref 1. ::Your edit attempts to label a theory as an arborsculpture technique. Try this "In his first self published book written in 1995, Reames theorizes that ring barking could help control the speed of growth and size development of branches and trunks." But what's the point? I't important to only edit where you can be completely neutral as non-neutral edits suck up everyones time for no good reason, and that is what is unfair!Slowart (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you both refrain from boldly editing anything to do with each others work. Suggest edits on the talkpage, for that content. WP:TIND. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree, I should have just said, please refrain from editing about yourself or rivals. I dint mean to suggest the addition of that sentence, sorry.Slowart (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Quiddity's strong suggestion to both involved artists. Pick new unrelated topic areas to edit for awhile please. ;\ Duff (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't "boldly" edit, I put up my sentence on the talk page and no-one chose to comment on my sentence. I don't read minds so if you have an issue you need to say so. How is my sentence wrong to the references? Blackash have a chat 09:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The sentence was misleading, as it implied that "ring barking" was an "Arborsculpture technique", which is not the case (as we've established just above). It is actually a "technique used in A/arborsculpture and various other activities", which is an utterly different meaning.

As for not commenting on it, my entire analogy and subsequent comments were a reply. You refactored/split it to here, under a new heading, but it's still a reply to your "Back to the point" section.

I suggest we move on to a new discussion topic, unless you have any new points to make about ring barking. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

If the wording Arborsculpture technique was the issue why didn't you remove it and leave the references? Using the book that talks about ring barking in context of shaping trees make more sense that using a web page that talks about how to get better coffee beans. For now it doesn't matter as the text about ring barking is so changed from what I put up as to be unrecognizable and is now original research as doesn't match the book or text in the coffee reference. Blackash have a chat 15:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

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 put back into the lead about the Tree shapers as they are a main section in the article and need to be in the summary. WP:Lead says: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article."
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. Blackash have a chat 01:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Sentence structure

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)

Your new sentence seems to cover the bases, Thank you, I had only done minor rewording of the original sentence. Blackash have a chat 23:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Manufactured evidence of COI

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 [15].

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. Blackash have 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 Blackash have a chat 16:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

This was my response at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Manufactured evidence of COI:

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)

Let's move on. Duff (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This is my response at to Quiddity at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Manufactured evidence of COI

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.

When I tried to post it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Manufactured evidence of COI I run into edit conflict and had to re-post which I did before reading the new comment. Blackash have a chat 23:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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.

Mountain molehill. So it goes. This too shall pass. No reply needed, return to editing. Please :) -- Quiddity (talk) 03:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Moving on

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. Blackash have a chat 02:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

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):

"Money Making Ideas to Boost Farm Income: Artists Shape Trees into Furniture and Art", Farm Show Magazine: 9, vol.32 no.4, june/august 2008, archived from the original on unknown date, http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:wIzx8ZvyptYJ:www.pooktre.com/pdf/09.pdf+Pooktre+Australia+business+listing&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShMmIiNXLAK_8-4NqCp4yBdhlHWNm74dzjyRFVBVkPBYbkYSrs4zYok-jziCpbVZEkwxQ3m_75ICOiPzqwaEsjH1VMefalYsCWEb99StcD3hRhJiMZT1zubEX5Ma1TfTKIQbUy4&sig=AHIEtbQ42sQuAmPrngvKyvjoml5flwUa6A, retrieved 2010-05-08

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)

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.

How about this http://irvingparkgardenclub.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/tree-shapers/ for life partners?

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. Blackash have a chat 11:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

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 [16] 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):

"Money Making Ideas to Boost Farm Income: Artists Shape Trees into Furniture and Art", Farm Show Magazine: 9, vol.32 no.4, june/august 2008, archived from the original on unknown date, http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:wIzx8ZvyptYJ:www.pooktre.com/pdf/09.pdf+Pooktre+Australia+business+listing&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShMmIiNXLAK_8-4NqCp4yBdhlHWNm74dzjyRFVBVkPBYbkYSrs4zYok-jziCpbVZEkwxQ3m_75ICOiPzqwaEsjH1VMefalYsCWEb99StcD3hRhJiMZT1zubEX5Ma1TfTKIQbUy4&sig=AHIEtbQ42sQuAmPrngvKyvjoml5flwUa6A, retrieved 2010-05-08

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)

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:"

Maybe something like this..."These plants have shown a tendency to self graft " Blackash have a chat 14:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Point 1

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: [17]. 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)

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.Blackash have a chat 02:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Duff which references exactly are you talking about that link to pooktre.com? Blackash have a chat 06:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

[1] Richard Reames book How to grow a chair the art of Tree Trunk Topiary page 57

[ring-2] How to grow a chair the art of Tree Trunk Topiary page 70

[ring_barking-3] How to grow a chair the art of Tree Trunk Topiary page 69

[1]

[2]

[3]