Talk:Tree shaping

Lead section

The lead was recently rewritten/reduced. Per WP:LEAD, "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article." Hence I recommend that most of the previous content be restored, but incorporating any necessary rewriting for style and accuracy. (To be specific: for a FA quality article, the lead should be able to be mostly copy&pasted as the summary blurb on the main page.) See the guideline page for further details. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Secondly, the top image was moved down to be next to the appropriate section, which I agree with, but we now lack a lead image. I'd suggest File:Neadle.jpg is possibly the most appropriate (it is interesting, it is created by an important historical figure in the art, and it is understandable at thumbnail-size and fullsize). Other suggestions welcome though. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is the page before the changes [1] I had done some work on the Alternative names adding details about the names with references. Today the page is missing approximately 450 words of text. Whole sections have been removed. The two methods have been diluted and blended with some of the original references removed. There seems to be too many images to the text now and the lead is not a proper summary of the page. I feel the page has been effectively vandalized. @Slowart good luck with your lecture on arborsculpture at the International Society of Arboriculture. Blackash have a chat 15:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Quiddity on both need for and choice of image for the lead. Fully support expanding summary, but not by directly repeating content in the article. Blackash, the page has not been vandalized. With the exception of deleting a single reference that was neither intelligible nor functional, I was careful to keep all references both intact and with the statements they referenced. If I missed any, it was unintentional. If I somehow misconstrued their proper location, please set that right without adding back repetitive material. I DID remove a LOT of repetitive material, particularly the direct repetition in the lead of two paragraphs from the article. That's not summarizing. . I reorganized and consolidated a number of verbose, clunky, and grammatically incorrect sentences and paragraphs, in several sections, into concise statements and ideas that flow from one to the next, hopefully building and conveying the idea smoothly. Word count is not a measure of informative content. It's supposed to be a concise encyclopedic article about arborsculpture, now being referred to by consensus (this I assume) as tree shaping. It's not a book. It's not supposed to be a how-to manual. It's not "battle of the sculptors and the finer fractional points of their methods," nor is it a debate on whose artistic technique is more pure, nor whose book is more popular or true, nor who sells more mirrors. I strove for neutrality, well aware of the ongoing editing issues among the (IMO) way-too-involved author/editor/artist/arborists who currently monitor this page. For just a single sticky example, waxing on about one's own (or someone elses) worldwide acclaim is not only not encyclopedic, it's unseemly. It is made immeasurably more so by adding copious and ever-more-poorly formatted references to the insisted acclaim. Further, there are several sections I haven't yet hammered at, that need it. Most particularly the protracted sections comparing arborsculpture to (and from this reader's perspective, defending it from encroachment by) each and every other horticultural art & practice. These sorts of writing read tensely and uncomfortably, like an argument, detracting from the fascinating topic. There may indeed be too many images for the text. Perhaps one exemplary image per artist is enough after all. ;) Duff (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with Duff, you have lied, for example about only removing one reference, in the Alternative names section there were 5 references with text which you removed and no longer appear any where on the article. missing Alternative names section In the history editors have agreed not to have any alternative names in the lead. Alternative names section should be put back to follow Wikipedia:LEAD Alternative names quote

"Separate section usage Alternatively, if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line."

It is not appropriate to have removed the Alternative names section and put the list of names back in the lead. Blackash have a chat 02:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I have multiple issues with your edits. I see now that it wasn't simple vandalism but a tactical step in a planed agenda. Blackash have a chat 02:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"you have lied??" Reiterating: "If I missed any, it was unintentional." Thanks for continuing to Assume good faith, because I'll appreciate a civil discussion. My only agenda is a better wikipedia article. Duff (talk) 07:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I never thought it was right to change the name of this article to tree shaping. The editor who changed the page FYI AfD hero ( no edits since 2-09). The article name was changed [[2]] during an AFD on a different page. if anyone is interested. You are right, I am way-too-involved, now that there is more than one other person with this page on their watchlist, I am happy be be uninvolved. Good work on the article.Slowart (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to Move: Arborsculpture or Tree Shaping

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

Duff you are misrepresenting several different issues. Here are 3 of them for example

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

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

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

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

• I second SilkTork's comment. (I want to say more, I shall refrain). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Agree Duff's well reasoned argument should not be ignored. This page was seriously disrupted long ago. I think the issue will return and return as new editors arrive and wounder why this article title has a general category "Tree shaping" Yet describe an art referred to most often by the specific name arborsculpture.Slowart (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment @Slowart (Richard Reames), at present arborsculpture is only one word in group of Neologisms that are used to refer to the art form. SilkTork proved that pooktre is also generic. As pooktre leads to us, arborsculpture leads to you. It would be inappropriate to have either word as the overall name of the art form. Blackash have a chat 23:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

1) There is a clear difference in "generic-ness". The word "Arborsculpture" is intended to be generic. In contrast, you would prefer that "Pooktre" be the name for a specific subset of "tree shaping" (anything that does not include "fast" methods of shaping).

2) According to google results (not a strong criterion to base things on, but a legitimate datum to be aware of...): "Arborsculpture" is strongly tied to Reames. "Pooktre" is strongly tied to Cook&Northey. "Tree shaping" is also fairly strongly tied to Cook&Northey (via your registration of treeshapers.net and by referring to the practice as "Pooktre Tree Shaping" in many interviews/articles).

So, none of these is unbiased. The whole issue is complicated. I don't think now is a good time to reexamine the issue. If it is to be examined again, then the prior discussions need to be much more extensively linked/summarized (beyond the 1 sentence mention that Duff has given). I don't think now is a good time to reexamine the issue. Give it a few months. (Personally, I think of them collectively as "Tree circus", for a variety of reasons that I won't attempt to explain.) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It is complicated. Tree shaping is closely linked to us because we have the images people want to publish. If the name had been changed to Tree training instead of Tree shaping we would still have the same problem except it would be Tree training linked to us.

You may be interested to know that before the world expo in Japan we where asked if we wanted Pooktre or Circus Trees for the overall name of the art form. We felt that as Axel N. Erlandson had done his trees first, grown even and balanced pieces, that we where happy to have our trees associated with his. So in Japan at the Expo the art form was called Circus trees. Blackash have a chat 02:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Preponderance of good sources - *Purde university horticulture department *University of California Cooperative Extension*Horticultural Reviews *Grad Thesis *University of California press Slowart (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

"To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term, not books and papers that use the term." Quote form WP:NEO These links have one thing in common they all use the word arborsculpture. One of the citations also uses the wording Tree shaping and other one has a method linked to the word arborsculpture. Quote "plans to demonstrate arborsculpture, which is a unique method of bending and grafting" form [3] Blackash have a chat 09:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That section of WP:NEO is to do with establishing the notability of articles where a word itself is the topic, eg Agitprop, Google (verb), etc. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

My sentence must be a bit out of date as on the WP:NEO it has "particular term or concept" in the sentence. So it not just where the word itself is the topic but also a concept. Blackash have a chat 01:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• More good sources. *Master Gardeners *.edu*American Society of Landscape Architects Slowart (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yet again they use the word. Quote WP:NEO "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles." Blackash have a chat</span> 01:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Edits to Tree shaping

1. 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.
2. I reduced the text on the bonsai tools, and moved it to try and help John Krubsack's image stay with his section.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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."
6. 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.
7. 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)

Lead image

I think John Krubsack's chair would be a better image to use in the lead. It's the first known example of a grown chair. A unifying theme between tree shapers is to shape a tree/s to sit on.

• John Krubsack
• Axel Erlandson
• Nirandr Boonnetr
• One of the German Tree shapers I don't remember who, next week I'll find out who and put it here.
• Pooktre (us)
• Dr Christopher Cattle
• Richard Reames
• John Gathright
• Mr Wu
• Plantware (Ezekiel Golan and Yale Stav)
• Dr Lois Walpole

People are fascinated by the concept of growing a chair as can be see by the fact Richard Reames titled his first book How to grow a chair. Out of all our images our chair and people trees are the ones that receive the most interest. Blackash have a chat 02:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I hesitantly agree. I recently chose the Erlandson image for the lead, primarily because it shows a living shaped tree, which I thought to be an important aspect. (I was also unaware of the larger Krubsack chair image). Any clear and large image works for me. Actually, given the large size of the TableofContents box, we could easily fit two images in the lead. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I moved John Krubsack's chair to the lead, I left Axel's image there for now. I think a colour photo would be nice as the second lead image maybe another one of Axel's trees but in colour? Blackash have a chat 00:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Support the empty sepia-tone Krubsack chair image as the lead. Classy, evocative shot. Support consideration of an alternate Erlandson image for the 2nd lead image, expecting both color and equivalent profundity. Duff (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Number of Images

If any more images are moved onto the Tree shaping article, I think the page should have a gallery section for the images. Blackash have a chat 00:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, for now. The article is developing nicely and the images seem well distributed with the text at this point. Duff (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Methods

The two different process of shaping tree trunks has been blended and merged. The ring barking part is not at all how it was written about in Richard's book. He stated 5 methods of ring barking to slow the growth of a dominant branch to allow a slower growing pathway to catch up. The plan is to keep the branch as part of the design, not to kill it off and later remove it.

I think we should follow the Bonsai style, change Methods to Techniques and have sub headings with appropriate text. Suggested subheadings

• Bending

bending 2-3 year old trees from 1 hour to whole afternoon.

• Training

day to day guiding of the new growth of seedlings.

• Framing

depending on which shaping technique being used, the framing is either to hold a bent mature tree in place or to support the growing tree.

• Aeroponic roots

growing roots in a nutrient rich mist, to achieve lengths of 6 meter or more for shaping at a later date.

• Creasing

using trees such as willow and poplar to be folded over upon themselves.

• Grafting

to join branches or trees to create a design

• Ring barking

used to achieve the slowing down of dominant branch allowing slower branches to catch up.

• Pruning

mainly used to keep the design free of unwanted branches and to reduce the size of the canopy.

This is a very brief outline. Each section has a lot more information available in relation to Tree shaping.

We can work on the wording and refs for each section here first and then put it up on the front once we have consensus. I am not ready to start on this just yet as I want to find some more info about the different Alternative names first. After that I will do some more work on the techniques. Blackash have a chat 02:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

1.'Ring barking' is just poor English (albeit common) for damaging a plant or branch of a plant by girdling it, which is why it redirects there. Girdling kills the branch. That's factual. We dont need to adhere to the wording chosen by any specific author or editor to convey the information clearly.

2.Oppose proposal to change the format of the methods section at this time. That is looking a lot like a how-to or guidebook, which we can't do. See WP:NOHOWTO Please sit on this idea for now, allow it to season a little, and work on finishing some of the other dangling and tedious matters, such as the backlog of tightening up poorly formatted and questionable references, left for others to untangle. For a start, read WP:CITE and its offshoots. 3.Furthermore, suggest strongly that involved editors should busy themselves with articles in which they are not involved, and should be allowing and encouraging non-involved editors to make such changes, instead of making such changes themselves, since it is so difficult to maintain NPOV and nobody likes having to arm wrestle over every point. Editors, especially involved editors, can do themselves a disservice by engaging so forcefully. Put what you think is important stuff on your own site (it's already disproportionately represented in the references section, by the way) and shape that site as you wish. Suggest it here if you wish to. Interested but uninvolved editors will find it, add it, and cite it if they find its reliable and relevant. That's how wikipedia is supposed to work. Duff (talk) 06:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

@ Duff I don't know where you got the idea I was going to rush in and start changing things when I stated that

1. I wanted to work elsewhere on the page first.
2. I wanted to work on one subheading at a time before putting it on the main article.

You shouldn't be implying that you are neutral when it can be seen here, here and by your continual use of arborsculpture into discussion when the word is not even needed here that you are not.

Duff's quote "your site....disproportionately represented in the references section" You are the one who has added at least 11 links to one of our sites, it seems you are planting evidence to make your statement true. Here is the diff of your changes [4]. I have always endeavored to reference media details instead of linking to our sites which I could easily have done on multiple instances. I also will search for new references when asked instead of taking the easy route and linking to the site you are complaining about. Don't make changes and then say goodness me it's too heavily weighed this way. Please don't do this again. Blackash have a chat 23:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Alphabetic or Chronological order of tree shapers?

I think putting the tree shapers into alphabetical order is the wrong way to go, it just seems to be an arbitrary way to sort them. The Tree shapers had been date ordered and I believe this is a more natural flow for an article and is of interest to the reader to know who did what and when. I would like for them to be put back into date order. Blackash have a chat 02:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Chronological ordering is more informative than alphabetical. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't strongly disagree, though I do disagree. Who did what and when they did it is clearly asserted (and not at all well cited) in the text of each bio. The alphabet is not arbitrary in the slightest. It is orderly and neutral in the extreme. If the list is indeed in chronological order, that fact is not clearly stated nor readily evident (Take Wu, for example), and thus the order chosen (and very quickly reverted to) appears to be arbitrary and reads like non-neutral POV to the casual reader. How about allowing more time than an hour and a half for consensus to develop before reverting? There is no hurry. If editorial consensus is that the list of bios should be presented in chronological order, then that helpful fact belongs in a note at the head of the list of bios. Thanks Duff (talk) 09:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Alphabetical would be closer to a NPOV for living artist anyway. The exact date someone started pruning or made a graft is IMO irrelevant.Slowart (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The relevance of chronological order doesn't change just because the artist is dead, the only difference I can see is the dead don't protest when branded. Slowart as you know this art form can involve large spans of time. So it would be of interest to the reader to have an idea of when an artist started creating their art. Blackash have a chat 22:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The recent change to including dates before names in the headings of the bios is confusing, unattractive, and does not improve the article. Who is being branded and how are they being branded? As tree shapers? The date a person 'had' an idea is not only not encyclopedic, it's not interesting and its not referenceable unless perhaps if there were some reliable reference to the person saying that they had a certain idea at a certain time...and for that, it's got to say that in the text, like this: "Theresa Shaper told interviewers on Fox News that she had the idea to rename Prunus cerasifera as Prunus myrobalan in 1962, but only began petitioning the scientific community about it in 2010, after having referred to her plants in print by the name she preferred since the mid 90's." When she manifested the idea in some referenceable way MIGHT be encyclopedic. Not when she claimed to have thought of it, and not how repeatedly she insisted that the idea came to her out of the blue and with complete obliviousness to others having similar ideas. Wikipedia is not a patent establishment forum. That debate belongs in court maybe, and we could reference such a case on this page, perhaps. We certainly don't establish a chronological order of bios on the basis of when we insist a person had a thought, or even when they say they had a thought. That's why alphabetical order was better, and it should go back to NPOV alphabetical order, keeping in each bio only properly cited material about the ideas and their dates. Unreferenced material is challenged and should be deleted if it can't be properly referenced with reliable sources. Duff (talk) 11:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I still believe it is useful to list the people in chronological order. Most of our high-quality lists of people follow this convention, eg the Featured List of major opera composers. We could order the artists by year of first actively shaping trees, or by year of their birth. (I do agree that ordering by "year they claim to have thought of the idea" is inappropriate, even if explicitly stated and sourced). Any ordering that does not place Krubsack and Erlandson first in the list, seems like a poor solution. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with the dates out of the headers, I think the date should be at the start of each artists section. It would make sense to have the dating start from first shaping. Blackash have a chat 23:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Wu [[5]] only ref I know of.Slowart (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Tone needs Changing

1. In the now named Chronology of the Craft the wording seems awkward. I think it should go back to Tree shapers and have the fact the artists are listed in chronological order in the starting sentence. The title as it is now could be talking about a number of different things.
2. I'm also not enthusiastic about this wording "Some notable artists were aware of and inspired by earlier artists" as this gives the impression that the artists were notable before they were inspired.
3. Although this is true "while others assert having discovered and developed their craft independently" I think the earlier wording of "The individual artists may not have been aware of their predecessors" is a more general wording and covers artists who not aware of earlier artists and haven't assert so, to be covered. With some artists it can not be established one way or the other. Blackash have a chat 00:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I oppose reverting each of these changes and will be very pleased to explain why, if you will please move these comments into the 2 ongoing discussions about these very points, where consensus is developing, and please stop making a new section containing your ruling on several sections presently or previously involved in consensus building. Leaving others to do the work of refactoring comments and cleaning uo references wastes everyone's editorial time, confuses easily understandable positions, and erodes consensus. So quitit. Thanks Duff (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to move it and then discuss it but which two discussions are you talking about? Blackash have a chat 01:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

On a second look, all 3 belong with continuing discussion of the entire section @ Alphabetic or Chronological order of tree shapers, perhaps as subheadings?Duff (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

alternative names or other names

I changed other names in the lead back to alternative names as alternative names is more commonly used than other names in wiki articles and the section name is alternative names.Blackash have a chat 03:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with that edit revert. Other names is more appropriate in this wikipedia article because the other names used (not the several recently added which are NOT synonymous) are strongly associated with the art and should not be burdened with the dismissive undertone of 'alternativeness'. Your campaign to diminish or discredit the use of the word arborsculpture, by any and all means, while promoting an pushing forward the repetitive use of your preferred trade names is transparent, itches, and has my attention. Please take a breather. Thanks. Duff (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Alternative is the wording most in use though out Wikipedia articles.
• The dismissive tone you think is there is also being applied to pooktre our "trade name" maybe the problem is not the tone but the fact you have a bias and you are seeing it in a more negative view than is warranted.
• Which ones are you saying were just recently added? Blackash have a chat 00:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Alternative or Alternate

(moved following comment from new section @ the bottom up to and as a subheading of the discussion it pertains to)

Changing Alternative to Alternate doesn't make sense. Blackash have a chat 00:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Does it make any more sense to you when you consider it here, in the context of yesterday's discussion? It's an attempt at a compromise. Maybe usage is different in Australia, but I don't think so, and it may just be a nuance of the English language with which you are unfamiliar. Alternate is less dismissive than alternative. Using the word alternative conveys an air of fringe-ness to all the names it refers to, which isn't conveyed so obviously by either of the words 'other' or 'alternate.' Let's get consensus on this before you revert it again, please. Duff (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your innuendo that I don't understand large words. Here is a link to dictionary.com with alternate and it's meaning. Alternate is not the right word when used in the context that you are wanting to use it. Try a different compromise. Blackash have a chat 22:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I neither made nor meant any innuendo concerning "large words". My comment concerned the nuanced bias conveyed by the specific choice of the word Alternative. I was attempting to be as generous as possible in accommodating the possibilities that a) usage of the word Alternative in Australia may not be burdened with the same nuanced bias as its use is here, or b) that you may not be familiar with the bias inherent in its usage here and elsewhere, or c) if the nuanced bias is also present with usage of the word alternative in Australia, you may not be aware of it. Alternate conveys less bias than does Alternative. I stand by that preferred compromise, but also offer Synonyms and Synonymous Words as two other alternates with which I would also be satisfied as to neutrality. Duff (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Synonyms or Synonymous words seems to give to much weight to the names. Alternate is just wrong. I stand by that it should be Alternative names for the reasons listed above. Blackash have a chat 10:38, 8 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)

Citations and the References Section

(Moved ongoing discussion sections here to consolidate discussions of citations and references)

Misunderstanding of References

Duff you seem to have misunderstood what the refs are for about the different trees, the ref that was originally there was for the fact that tree type was used to create a tree shaping not for correct "plant taxonomy", so please add your refs to existing ref, don't introduce a completely different wording with "plant taxonomy" as the only reason for it being there as the section is about Popular species for artists. Blackash have a chat 23:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you seem to have misunderstood the naming conventions used in both science and wikipedia. 1.Prunus myrobalan is an incorrect binomial. There is no such correct name for any tree in the Prunus genus. The scientific names of plants are not determined on the basis of popularity and we do not make them up and call them popularly used. That is why you do not find it listed at Prunus 2. The correct binomial for the tree commonly called Myrobalan Plum (if this is indeed the species that you hope to see referenced as a popular candidate for shaping in the section) is Prunus cerasifera, the one I edited it to and provided the reference for. 3. Wild Plum is not Myrobalan Plum, nor is it a common name for Myrobalan Plum. So. Which is the favored tree? Wild Plum or Myrobalan Plum? The correct species name should be used. If its all sorts of plums, then just Prunus (not wild, not myrobalan) is appropriate, but that's not what it conveys.Duff (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the misunderstanding, we were told by the Department of primary industries in Australia that the tree species we use most is wild plum which is a root stock used for grafting of fruit trees and it's botanical name was Prunus Myrobalan, which seemed understandable to the Japanese government when we inquired about importing live trees for the Expo. I will have to chase it up with the DPI here, it may take a while to find out the correct info. All the same the trees do need to be referenced in regards to shaping. Blackash have a chat 00:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, the trees should be referenced, but identified correctly if they are to be identified. I don't know which species you or other artists use, and it would be original research anyway to just answer the question. One commonly used tree for Prunus rootstocks is Myrobalan Plum aka Cherry Plum (both are common names for the same species of tree). The binomial and specific name for the tree that is commonly known by those names is Prunus cerasifera. That may or may not be the species you commonly use. Wild Plum is a common name that is used in a great many places (maybe yours) to refer to a great many different trees (maybe yours), some of them not even plums. It's ambiguous and that's one of the troubles with common names; they can be misinterpreted. Using the correct scientific binomial is helpful because it is then known which species in particular is meant (if one particular species is meant at all). Common names are great but they vary and frequently refer to different plants by location. For example, you and I and everyone in Australia and Oregon might call it Purple Plum, and all of us may know exactly what it is and we may know this plant intimately enough to correctly identify it in the field. People in, say, South America may also call one particular tree the Purple Plum, but they might call our Purple Plum the Violin Plum, say. That would make it tough to get the valuable rootstock species unless you knew the scientific name of the stock offered. Some people in S. America might mistakenly label it Prunus violinus and you and I and our countryfolk might even find it at a nursery mistakenly labeled Prunus purpleii, but the one we are talking about (and trying to find for our arborsculpture projects, say) would still be Prunus cerasifera, and we could generally count on finding it reliably by that name, true to species (nevermind varieties and cultivars, but that is another important detail, perhaps). Scientific species names change sometimes too, but it's usually in an orderly and reasoned fashion, on the basis of significant scientific consensus, and we can usually count on a plant labeled Prunus cerasifera to be that very productive plum rootstock so useful for grafting other Prunus genus fruits. I'm totally FOR the list of popular arborsculpture species, and especially for their accurate naming. Duff (talk) 02:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality of References

This point was made on my talk page, right after I started trying to straighten out some of the kinks in the refs section. It merits discussion here. I haven't yet sifted the archives for prior talk on this, if any. Please jump in and comment so we can all work in the direction of a really great and properly formatted refs section. The current iteration is hard to use and complicates verification.

FYI- Science Daily takes press releases. Identified by the word "release" is in the Science Daily url. Are releases good sources?

Original article is here.[[6]] Slowart (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the original link. Not sure...What's the appropriate policy? That's part of what I was wondering. I will open that question on the talk page for discussion. I did not add the source. There are a bunch of new sources suddenly, with ref names that tend toward the obtuse. I am scratching my head for a better place to start; as article edits I make are being reverted very quickly, which is a little frustrating. Thought I'd start at the top & peruse all of these sources, straighten out the ref formatting mess, try to understand what's what, like that. For source #1, I expanded its refname= to improve clarity (it was just SD somethingsomething, and I had already run across it broken before), so I changed its template title to reflect cite info offered on the page, moved the full ref to first instance of it's use, tried to read the reference carefully and assess its application to the various places it's used in the article, and applied it, in particular, to instances of the use of the various alternate names, as suggested by Colonel Warden. Duff (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Press releases are primary sources, with higher probabilities of bias. Follow WP:PRIMARY, and make any possible bias clear, if informative. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That press release ref had been used earlier to justify stuff, it's a primary source, lets dump it.Slowart (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

What stuff? Blackash have a chat 01:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The lead.Slowart (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

There are different points of information in the lead which point is it? Blackash have a chat 23:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If it is correct that press releases are likely bias and are poor refs, it would be wise, for the long run to base this article on good sources, more peer review and fact checked secondary and tertiary sources. Another poor ref in used here is Treeshapers.net as it is a personal web site.Slowart (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY Primary source section under the subheading of Our policy says quote "A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge." Blackash have a chat 23:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

removal of citation need

"The word has since become nearly synonymous with the art of tree shaping itself." From Richard Reames section. I disagree that the references given are appropriate, as they don't state the word arborsculpture is synonymous with tree shaping. They use the word and you have done original research to come to the conclusion that means synonymous with. Going by that logic pooktre or grownup furniture should have something along the lines of same in their section. Blackash have a chat 23:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC

Ok, the proper way to challenge that is with a verification request template, and I'll carefully read each reference and eliminate the ones that don't apply or change the text. The references noted, as far as I read, use the word AS the craft. Tree Shaping is a synonym created by artifice, registered as a domain name by...you, and applied to an established article on the craft to appease...you. I have in mind a rewording that is more accurate, but since its a term, not a living person, there's no hurry, so please let that stand challenged for a non-involved editor, maybe me, to tackle as time permits. Thanks.Duff (talk) 08:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• I thought it was standard practice to use the tag when wanting someone to establish their statement isn't original research. The "verification request template" you talked about, WP:Requests for verification appears to be a page that is only kept for historical reasons quote "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant, or consensus on its purpose has become unclear." Blackash have a chat 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not the template I meant. Sorry for the confusion. This is the template .Duff (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok I changed the tag. 203.217.46.60 (talk) 11:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Duff quote "The references noted, as far as I read, use the word AS the craft." The references don't state that the word is interchangeable or synonymous with Tree shaping, they just use the word. Your comment, just reinforces that you had to come your own conclusion the word is synonymous with Tree shaping, which is original research.Blackash have a chat 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

They use the word as the craft. Please consult your dictionary reference for the meaning of the word synonym.Duff (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The point is yes they use arborsculpture as a name for the art form. They don't state that arborsculpture is interchangeable with the word Tree shaping. That is your conclusion from reading multiple articles that are using the word arborsculpture. Blackash have a chat 11:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Duff quote "Tree Shaping is a synonym created by artifice, registered as a domain name by...you" Wrong treeshaping.com has nothing to do with me and never did.Blackash have a chat 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not the domain name I was referring to. Sorry for the confusion. Let's take a good close look at the whois on treeshapers.net instead, shall we? Accessed 2010-05-07. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5pYlO5zQs) Duff (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Treeshapers.net was created to keep a history of the artists who shape trees. Please look each artists page and see if any one is branded. Also if I owned a business call "Tree shapers" and tried to sue "Tree shaping" for having a name to close to mine I would be more likely to get snow in hell than to win the case.
2. Tree shaping has been used in published sources, which is part of the original reason for the move. Blackash have a chat 11:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Duff quote "applied to an established article on the craft to appease...you." Wrong again. Multiple editors came to a consensus [7] the article needed, to quote AfD hero "a generic, descriptive, and in current use". name. Blackash have a chat 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You have referenced a consensus that was reached off-article, during and as part of an AfD pertaining to an article about yourself, not about this article, which is part of my concern, as I have expressed under the heading above Talk:Tree shaping#Proposal to Move: Arborsculpture or Tree Shaping(where this comment of yours and mine belongs)Duff (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok we go into detail there at a later time. Blackash have a chat 11:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• You shouldn't be implying that you are neutral when it can be seen here, here and by your continual use of arborsculpture into discussion when the word is not even needed here that you are not. Blackash have a chat 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone see a pattern here ? [[8]] Slowart (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

"...use of arborsculpture into discussion when the word is not even needed." I am agog at the blatancy of this statement, setting aside the grammar issue. It points to a comment I made previously on this Talk page, not even in the article mainspace. I am considering what response might be adequate and yet still diplomatic. There is a word or phrase for this kind of thing, but I am at a loss to articulate it. Blackash, since you've covered several areas of your concern, for continuity and for reduction of future reorganizing effort, I've interleaved my responses to your several questions. Accordingly I have also copy/pasted your sig from your single post at 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC) to identify your comments as belonging to this single post, at the points where your comments/questions precede my responses, so we don't lose track, and so there's no misunderstanding as to who said what when. This is extremely tedious. Please try to put your concerns under the sections where the matters are being discussed, so that concerns can reach resolution by consensus. I will try really hard to do the same. Thanks.Duff (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Noted and will try to endeavor to do the same.Blackash have a chat 11:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how any of the three links you provided demonstrate any bias or non-neutrality on my part, but I stand ready to be schooled by yet another neutral party. Each of them leads to an instance of my written use of the generic word arborsculpture. If you are asserting, and I think you might be, that the word arborsculpture should never again be used to refer to any of this work, in any context, by anyone, or that anyone who does use the word is biased and/or non-neutral, then in my opinion, you are not only too late to prevent that, but may actually be engaging in that most odious form of censorship which purposefully attempts to obliterate legitimately applied words from the lexicon of usage. Your purpose for doing so may be benign, but from where I'm sitting, it appears to be an effort to gain some commercial or other advantage over a rival artist/author, particularly given your continued insistence on editing a page where you are prominently featured. I look forward with great anticipation to your comments about it. My sincere protest is below and we will get to some sort of resolution, I am confident. Cheers.Duff (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Not saying it shouldn't be used, just demonstrating that you do have a bias. Blackash have a chat 11:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Further, this edit that you point to, here in which you reversed my edit adding the absent arborsculpture & tree shapers detail to the Expo 2005 article, is problematic. I reversed your revert at Expo 2005 (just) to the original text, which contained a functional redirect, which is permissible, by this wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. I've previously noted this very policy to you, in response to your comment on my User talk page at User talk:Duff#Arborsculpture. You claimed there, on 7:12 pm, 5 April 2010, to be unfamiliar at that point with the policy. I don't know if you found time to read it that night, as you noted you would, or at all, but you did acknowledge having noted my point. Please read it. Consensus on this page wasn't to eliminate all uses of the word arborsculpture. Your stalking of the word is what got my attention over here in the first place, so you know. I was working on improving the Arboriculture page, where coincidentally, similar, but less sophisticated efforts at commercial linking have been attempted and are constantly thwarted by adroit editors. When the See Also link there, which had been entitled Arborsculpture, was switched to Tree shaping, I thought, "Hmmm...WTF?" Before that, I hadn't read the Arborsculpture article, but I was peripherally familiar with arborsculpture by that name, having lived near Scotts Valley years ago when part of the interesting drama with Erlandson's site was underway. This article is the first I'd ever heard it called Tree shaping and until now, neither had I ever heard of Richard Reames, or you, or Pooktre<-Why is this business name a redirect, and by what consensus? Duff (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The "original text" appeared on the expo page 2005 by you on the 02:48, 4 May 2010. You may have missed it on the talk page but SilkTork quote

"* The consensus is that tree shaping is the most neutral of the widely used terms, and so that is the preferred term for use within this and related articles. SilkTork *YES! 16:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It is also the most descriptive, which is very useful. SilkTork *YES! 16:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)" follow link bottom of section

After you give me the Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken I read it and stopped changing the already existing instances of the wording. The one I changed was your new placement of the wording, I just assumed you missed the above consensus in the history. Blackash have a chat 11:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S Why do you think Pooktre is a business name? Blackash have a chat 11:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent Removal of Citations Negates Citation Improvement Effort

Citation use in this article is sloppy and is a problem which is under serious consideration. We are working on improving citations and references for accuracy, relevance, and reliability. I am working on citations: standardizing refs and ref names and verifying that the cited statements are referenced accurately. I spent hours studying only a handful of the citations and references provided by others; trying to find, identify, verify, and correctly cite the specific statements referenced. I have also added a few new references which clearly support certain relevant statements, and cited those references accordingly.

Blackash has systematically removed a group of citations, as well as the content they cited, which do not support her position, both within sections that feature her prominently and within other sections where the content (previous to citation verification) tended to indirectly support her position. I am struggling to assume good faith. These are exceedingly disruptive acts and they do not make the article better. I request that each of these reverts of the citations I added are reverted back, as a first priority. Diffs for the changes of concern that I have found begin here [9], and continue here [10], here [11], here [12], and here [13].

These statements and their citations are parts of biographies of living persons. They are nested within this article where, by prior consensus, the bios are incubating for further development before being spun out as articles on their own merit. Each statement, and in some cases, each element within each statement, requires citation.

Many statements, references, and citations contained within this article have been heavily influenced by one editor's citing of external links to a) self-published material, b) sites over which that editor has either partial or complete editorial control, and c) sites whose content that editor has influenced, or does influence, including a blog article about that editor wherein the blog author notes having received a letter from that editor. These are not valid citations. Consensus over inclusion or dis-inclusion of content, and titling/naming of the article content they pertain to, has been reached on the basis of these faulty citations.

The neutrality of the current page title is again challenged (discussion above at Talk:Tree shaping#Proposal to Move: Arborsculpture or Tree Shaping and at several points in the 7 archives), on the basis that prior consensus on the re-titling was both reached without adequate discussion and that it hinged on these purportedly neutral citations, which are not in fact neutral. We have reached consensus to work on the citations first, which I agree with, but am now hesitant to continue, as it seems like wasted effort.

In any case, it is completely inappropriate for any editor, in particular one who is covered or featured prominently in an article, to exercise this level, or any level, of control over the cited content in that article, or any article. I object most strenuously to this activity. I request intervention and intend to pursue appropriate mediation if this is not resolved swiftly. Duff (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Support Slowart (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree that Blackash should not be editing this article with anywhere near the current magnitude. Blackash, I suggest you reread Wikipedia:COI#Non-controversial edits.

Regarding citation style, I'd quote the sentence beginning "If the material is particularly contentious..." at WP:CITE#Inline citations. (using citations mid-sentence should be a last resort)

Regarding reliability of sources, I agree with Duff completely.

Regarding the page title, I don't believe there could be a good consensus to move back to arborsculpture (currently), given the various comments from many of the artists mentioned in this article, at Talk:Tree_shaping/Archive_2#Move from Arborsculpture to Tree Shaping. Yes, it is a wonderfully appropriate sounding word (with a closeness to arboriculture, and a fairly obvious/intuitive meaning) however it has been objected to by numerous "experts" in this artistic field (assuming they were who they said they were). I don't believe there is enough fresh evidence to make a solid decision, one way or the other (but I'm open to slow persuasion). -- Quiddity (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for being open Quid, when the time comes, I will offer some fresh evidence. We should of course use "good sources" as Colonel Warden says. Lets remember that the objections were derived from a mailing list of 500, they are single edits accounts admittedly invited by Blackash to comment. Cattle was asked to remove the word arborsculpture from his web site and he did so. Boonneter, Konstantin Kirsch and Herman Block are experts who all use the word arborsculpture. The usage that should be here has little to do with the so called experts it's what is being used in the University's the Tree Care Industry, Arborist and the Landscapers trade. Artist opinions like mine, are primary evidence and likely subject to bias.Slowart (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

@Slowart, as you know the page was moved and the subsequent discussion was well on its way before I made a newbie mistake of e-mailing our mailing list. As you also know Boonneter, is from Thailand and Konstantin Kirsch and Herman Block are from Germany and they were informed that Arborsculpture was standard English. Arborsculputre is a Neologism (my debate with supporting links) with strong links to you Richard Reames. Google arborsculpture. Blackash have a chat 13:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Duff if you are going to give diffs please do so I have linked the diffs with my thoughts when I made the changes.

1 Where do you get the idea we are a "partnership" in the business sense? I removed that and add some content.

2 I thought the use of multiple inline citations to the same reference was a bit excessive. Removed only multiple inline citations.

3 Two words before repeating the same inline citation? Really? Removed only one of references.

4 I thought the use of multiple inline citations to the same reference was a bit excessive. Removed no text thou, only the ref.

5I thought the use of multiple inline citations to the same reference was a bit excessive. Removed no text thou, only the ref.

• @Duff quote "influenced by one editor's citing of external links" Please look at the article before all this debate started. :[14] Please note there are no links to treeshapers.net, also any links to pooktre linked straight the media page in the reference. Not material that I could "control". The article was open to editing by anyone at that time.
• The article was changed because if you Google Arborsculpture it leads to Richard Reames and his methods. Arborsculpture is not neutral. Here is the last edit before article's name change [15] Ummm this was before all those "faulty citations"
• Duff I asked you earlier not do this, but maybe you just missed it so I give the brief version here. Duff you are the one who has added at least 11 links to one of our sites, it seems you are planting evidence to make your statement true. Here is the diff of your changes [16]. Don't make changes and then say goodness me it's too heavily weighed this way. Please don't do this again. Blackash have a chat 13:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)