Talk:Tree shaping/Alternate names

Alternate names

this workspace was moved from the main talk page at Tree shaping, because it is large and was forcing too-tight archiving of the talkpage itself. It consists of extensive and exhaustive research into the many citations, some found valid, some not, supporting the use of various alternative names for arborsculpture.

Other names for tree shaping include: ref cite web|url=http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/12/slow_furniture.php |title=treehugger.com ref ref cite web|url=http://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&q=http://maps.google.com/maps/ms%3Fie%3DUTF8%26hl%3Dde%26t%3Dh%26oe%3DUTF8%26msa%3D0%26msid%3D108286284188878516638.00045c6a44607715cc529%26output%3Dkml&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=websearch |title= Google map of shaped trees }}ref

• arborsculpture/arborsculptor

"Arborsculpture is a method of bending and grafting shoots to create useful and eye-catching structures."

"Grafting to create unusual growth forms in a practice called arborsculpture involves intertwining and grafting together the stems of two or more plants in order to create domes, chairs, ladders, and other fanciful sculptures." and "Fig. 9.2. Arborsculpture of Alex Erlandson’s Tree Circus made in the 1940s."

"We also plan to demonstrate arborsculpture, which is a unique method of bending and grafting shoots to form unusual designs and structures. We plan to create a fruit tree chair, a three-sided ladder to make the high fruit more accessible, a gazebo, fences, and other structures.

In an industry newsletter article titled Arbor Sculpture, "A leading arborsculptor is American Richard Reames, who manages Arborsmith Studios in Oregon-..." and (re:Aichi)>"Also exhibited at this event were the Grown up Stools of the English arborsculptor, Dr. Cattle, pictured below."

:Primary name in the Golan patent. "The art of shaping living woody plants is known as arborsculpture, etc...."ref name=RootShapingpatent Citation| inventor1-last = Golan| inventor1-first = Ezekiel| title = Method and a kit for shaping a portion of a woody plant into a desired form| issue-date = 2008-02-12 Questionable Source| patent-number = 7328532| country-code = US| description = A method of shaping a portion of a woody plant into a desired form is provided. The method is effected by providing a root of a woody plant, shaping the root into the desired form and culturing the root under conditions suitable for secondary thickening of the root. ref

:In Richard Reames first book How to Grow a Chair he explains how other terms like Tree trunk topiary, botanical architecture and arbortopia have attempted to describe an approach to tree shaping that goes beyond such traditional practices as topiary, bonsai and espalier. "I call it Arborsculpture".ref name=Reames1/rp|14

• biotecture/biotechture

From a presentation on botanical engineering "The branch of architecture that deals with living structures is called 'biotecture' and was pioneered by the German landscape architect Rudolf Doernach."

:An alternate name in the Golan patent ref name=RootShapingpatent :Biotechture is also known as Earthship, which is sustainable living that incorporates passive solar heating, rainwater collection, greywater reuse, greenhouse gardening, composting toilets and recycled materials into the living area.http://www.greenhomebuilding.com/ezines/ezine1.htm

*botanic/botanical architecture :An alternate name in the Golan patent ref name=RootShapingpatent :Planting of evergreens to provide accommodation for outdoor theatrical entertainment.refBritannicaref :Mark Primack, who rescued much of Axel Erlandson's Tree Circus and is perhaps the most knowledgeable authority on those trees,ref name=Reames1 cite book|last=Reames|first=Richard|authorlink = Richard Reames|coauthors=Delbol, Barbara|title=How to Grow a Chair: The Art of Tree Trunk Topiary|date=1995|isbn=0-9647280-0-1 ref rp|18 lectures about Erlandson and his work as a visionary pioneer of "botanic architecture," refThe museum of Jurassic Technology.ref :Used in the book How to Grow a Chairref name=Reames1/rp|14 :Marcel Kalberer's experiments with "botanical architecture" reftranslation of site about Marcel Kalbererref :Growing a cover of plants vertically up exterior walls of buildings.refLiving wallref

*circus trees :Brand for Axel Erlandson's works of art (He called his roadside attraction the Tree Circus)ref Cite web|publisher=www.phancy.com|url=http://www.phancy.com/circus/%7Ctitle=Circus Treesref :Used by the Growing Village Pavilion at the world expo in Japan in 2005 ref http://www.expo2005.or.jp/en/venue/experience04.html ref refarchived page of Growing Village.comref

*eco-architecture :The concept of using trees and other plants as walls in sustainable buildings refwww.greenprophet.com ref

*green design architecture/eco-construction refbiotechture/eco-constructionref :Green wall systems for buildings and the built environment wherein plants are grown vertically in modular panels.refwww.biotecture.uk.comref

• grown furniture

From a presentation on botanical engineering that refers to several Cook/Northey & Cattle pieces as "grown furniture" and to Erlandson's ladder as "grown ladder"

*Grownup/Grown Up Furniture :Brand for the art works of Dr. Chris Cattle ref name=grownfurniturecattle1 cite web|url=http://www.grown-furniture.co.uk/%7Ctitle=Grown Furniture home page|publisher=Cattle, Chris|accessdate=2010-05-07ref

• These citations

were moved here from Cattle's bio subsection, where they were used in overkill scale to backup support for use of the term 'Grown up furniture' and 'Grownup furniture' to describe Cattle's stools, a point which is not disputed, and which his own website describing the stools thusly is adequate to support (so, left that cite in his mini-bio). They are archived here for posterity in case they should become useful at some future point, perhaps when/if a separate article on him is hatched out of the arborsculpture article. They were not scrupulously verified as were the balance of the citations noted on this page, so their use would still need to be scrutinized for WP:V and WP:RS.

*living art :An alternate name for "the concept of shaping living trees into useful objects"ref name=FriendsofTAU Cite web|publisher=American Friends of Tel Aviv University|url=http://www.aftau.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7595%7Ctitle=Eco-Architecture Could Produce "Grow Your Own" Homesref :Creating something practical, decorative, or both, using living plants, such as hanging vegetable gardens, vertical gardens, or succulent walls.refliving art projectsref

*Pooktre :Brand for the partnership and art works of Peter Cook and Becky Northey.

• pleaching

A synonym for arborsculpture

"unique pleached forest," referring to Axel Erlandson's art works

:"Pleaching is probably the term to use for this form of tree shaping" ref http://homebuilding.thefuntimesguide.com/2008/02/arborsculpture_tree_shaping.php ref

*tree trunk shaping :An alternate name in the Golan patent ref name=RootShapingpatent

*Tree Trunk Topiary :An alternate name in the Golan patent ref name=RootShapingpatent :A nursery that specializes in shaped trees ref http://www.treetrunktopiary.be/eng/ www.treetrunktopiary.be/eng ref :Subtitle of the book How to Grow a Chair: The Art of Tree Trunk Topiary and used inside the same book.ref name=Reames1

=Worksheet on citations that support the legitimacy of alternate names=

This may be a better way help. I could be wrong about some of these refs, but help and clues are available at the WP:RSN

==Cutting Edge: VWA Newsletter==

"Arbor Sculpture: "If you like I'll grow you a mirror"", The Cutting Edge; the Newsletter of the Victorian Woodworkers Association, Inc.: 16, June 2006, retrieved 2010-05-15 Questionable Source

Why is this magazine article a questionable source? Duff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Aha. It refers for our alternate names. Welp, gotta add that. Bad link too, fixing. [1]. Anybody feel free to ring in here...is this a questionable source because it is promotional in nature or for some other reason? I'll hit up RSN too.Duff (talk) 04:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This article was submitted by Richard Reames to Victorian Woodworkers Association newsleter's editor as a marketing tactic to brand Arborsculpture across our and Dr Chris Cattle's work and link back to himself. Blackash have a chat 13:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That is an unsourced claim, which I am not sure would be relevant anyway, as it could be claimed about nearly everything anyone has ever written for a magazine on any topic. The article does not show any byline, and on that basis it appears to have been written by editorial staff @ the paper; absent some other reliable indication to the contrary. Still standing by for comments from WP:RSN, submitted request @ 15:00, June 6, 2010 re: use at all five points cited in the article, including the citation in Alternate names for the use of (that word) in the generic sense as a name for the craft, crafters, etc. Duff (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

We didn't get a response on this request at RSN, so with counsel from User:Peregrine Fisher, I've relisted it there WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Cutting Edge: Victorian Woodworkers Association Newsletter in a slightly abbreviated form, as of 9:29 am PST on Monday June 21, 2010, and we await some comments once more. I have also re-fixed the link to the citation, back to a re-found pdf file instead of the flash file, as I was having trouble opening the swf. Duff (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Here are the responses to the 2nd request, also viewable now at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 67#The Cutting Edge: Victorian Woodworkers Association Newsletter:

Well, it's a newsletter, and there does seem to be an editor of some sort. I couldn't figure out who the author is. I would say it's not reliable for WP:BLP info or other controversial info, but it might be OK for basic woodworking info. It would be good to know the author, and whether they've been published elsewhere, or if they're an expert in the field. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you can safely source the first statement to [2]. Reames own site is probably the best source for bio information, including that he runs the nursery etc. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The quote from Cattle can also be sourced to Cattle's own website [3]. This is a reliable source of information on things said by Cattle - the newsletter is clearly just paraphrasing (a little) from the grown-furniture website.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

However, nowhere on Cattle's website does he describe what he does as arborisculpture, nor does he describe himself as an arborisculptor, so I'd be wary of using the newsletter as a source - since other sources seem to contradict it. Hope this helps. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I will do the best I can to integrate these suggestions effectively. Duff (talk) 10:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"treehugger.com is a Blog.

Blogs are not reliable sources. What is being referenced in the text of the aka's anyway? The other name tree shaping? The cite is plugged at the opener: "Other names for tree shaping include:[2][3]" Same exact question on the google map blog ref [2] What's referenced?? This one is out as a ref: does not support whatever it is pointed at as an aka for our topicDuff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"Google map of shaped trees One of the Contributors of this google map is User:Blackash". Yes one of 18 or more<blackash there http://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&q=http://maps.google.com/maps/ms%3Fie%3DUTF8%26hl%3Dde%26t%3Dh%26oe%3DUTF8%26msa%3D0%26msid%3D108286284188878516638.00045c6a44607715cc529%26output%3Dkml&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=websearch.

I'm going to be really surprised if a google map of any sort is a reliable source, it's not different than a blog. Who does the peer review on those? What is being referenced in the text of the aka's anyway? The other name tree shaping? The cite is plugged at the opener: "Other names for tree shaping include:[2][3]" Same exact question on the treehugger blog ref [2] What's referenced?? This one is out as a ref: does not support whatever it is pointed at as an aka for our topic. Duff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've placed a WP:RSN request for this source so we shall let the experts figure it out and report back.Duff (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The map contact is Peter Ganser a willow crafter who does fences and houses http://www.ganserpeter.de. Reames is listed too but without precise location...Is this Original Research by Peter Ganser? Did Pooktre join and add the three products or find themselves there? Duff (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Unanimous consensus from WP:RSN:

No. Dlabtot (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No, you can't back up that text with that source. You can't use that source for anything. I'd say it falls under WP:SPS. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

No, that's an anonymous WP:SPS. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"Arborsculpture: Horticultural Art Reliable source".

I expanded this citation to a full cite-periodical listing and also cited it elsewhere in the article, where appropriate. It refers to both Reames' and Erlandson's works as arborsculpture, so it's a good ref in support of arborsculpture as a generic name for the craft. Duff (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Mudge, Ken; Janick, Jules; Scofield, Steven; Goldschmidt, Eliezer E. (2009), "A History of Grafting", in Janick, Jules, Issues in New Crops and New Uses, Purdue University Center for New Crops and Plants Products, orig. pub. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 442–443 Reliable source

I noted the large file on the citation and cited it elsewhere in the article, where appropriate. It refers to Erlandson's works as arborsculpture, so it's a good ref in support of arborsculpture as a generic name for the craft. Duff (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Golan, Ezekiel, "Method and a kit for shaping a portion of a woody plant into a desired form", US A method of shaping a portion of a woody plant into a desired form is provided. The method is effected by providing a root of a woody plant, shaping the root into the desired form and culturing the root under conditions suitable for secondary thickening of the root. 7328532, issued 2008-02-12Questionable Source I hope to find some info on using patents as sources.

Patents are primary sources. Are there any third-party reliable verifiable sources that refer to this patent? If not this ref is out, as are any aka's dependent on it. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/For Fuel Freedom, Inc. "the argument that primary sources such as patents indicate notability is faulty" and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boris Volfson"No reliable third-party sources......Finally, patent (granted and applied) aren't reliable sources either." Duff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Further and more clear direction on this: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 10#Patent application as sources:"Patent applications, by themselves, represent absolutely nothing more that what the person who filed it claims to have invented. Patent offices do not require working prototypes, they no longer require models, and they don't review the design to make sure it makes sense. They're happy to take your money, and holding a patent doesn't actually mean anything until it's tested in court. So except when a patent has actually been reviewed an evaluated by independent experts, which does happen sometimes, it's no better than what the inventor posts on his personal blog" I removed this reference from the other names section and from the lead, as it is a primary source which can't be used to establish anything. However we have a problem in that it is the only reference we have for root shaping (besides the living root bridges), let alone aeroponic root shaping. I did some searching and came up dry, so for now I'm leaving the awkward "According to patent No. xxx" statement in, and sticking root shaping in the research box. Duff (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

http://www.soton.ac.uk/~doctom/talks/botanical-engineering.pdf page 15 Reliable source

Agree, reliable source for the article, but biotecture is not supported as an aka reference for the topic of this page. "The branch of architecture that deals with living structures is called 'biotecture' and was pioneered by the German landscape architect Rudolf Doernach." is on page 15; that illustrates grown buildings, noting that "the old 'weaving' technique used to construct these living structures is called 'pleaching'," so that's a valid reference for pleaching as a technique for building far more than just hedgerows. Pages 21-26 deal with Cook/Northey & Cattle pieces, referring to them as 'grown furniture' and Erlandson's ladder tree, referring to it as 'grown ladder'. I placed another new alt name for grown furniture...see if that seems like an aka for the art/craft or not. Maybe there are sub-genera of arborsculpture as applied, such as biotecture=living architecture/buildings, arbors, fences, gazebos, domes, etc.; grown furniture=chairs, stools, tables, mirrors, etc; live wood art=purely artistic fanciful stuff? Comments?Duff (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

http://www.greenhomebuilding.com/ezines/ezine1.htm e-zine Questionable Source

This site does not support the use of either of the words biotecture/biotechture as an aka for our topic. It is also an ezine, which is not a reliable source. This ref is out, as are any aka's dependent on itDuff (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/245100/green-theatre Britannica online, a "green theater" has greenery, big deal. Reliable source may be useful in a "Botanical architecture" or "Arbortecture" section. "various entrances screened by trimmed hedges." Hedged screenery for entrances to theatres? May be useful at hedge (barrier). This site does not support the use of the phrase botanical architecture as an aka for our topic. This ref is out, as are any aka's dependent on itDuff (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

== Reames1 ==

Reames, Richard; Delbol, Barbara (1995). How to Grow a Chair: The Art of Tree Trunk Topiary. ISBN 0-9647280-0-1. Self Published by a NON-Expert, Questionable Source Moriarty was not a expert in 1994 when he wrote "How to Grow a Chair"

Moriarty who? Where you find that name? The book states by Reames, Richard; Delbol, Barbara (authors) publisher is Arborsmith Studios (which is Richard Reames) with address. Distributed by Arborsmith Studios. So yes it is self published book but that is ok if it is Self-published as long as it meets the specific criteria. If it is found to be an unreliable source then all media interviews and articles online that are based on this book also should not be used.<Blackash there

Yah, gosh...You'd better get busy blogging that up, dear. Duff (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I did a search on title and Moriarty nothing please tell where you got this word. Blackash have a chat 14:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

::Sorry, Sherlock, just adding a touch of humor, breath. Your pal, Professor_Moriarty AKA Slowart (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC).

I didn't 'get the word'. Slowart did this citations work and a lot of it. His sig is at the bottom there, you'll note. Perhaps Moriarty is Reames' nickname? I don't know, but he's pretty obviously referring to the author, and has honestly assessed his own status as a newbie and the book as a questionable source. That's a non-issue. I did not say google it up. I said blog it up, and I was referring directly to your unsigned statement above (which I tagged with your username):"all media interviews and articles online that are based on this book also should not be used." and I was referring specifically to your voluminous blogging efforts to squash the use of the word arborsculpture. Or did you mean not used here at this article? Perhaps I misunderstood. If that's what you meant, where is the policy, chapter & verse, that states this? Keep in mind that any such policy would apply right across the board. Which citations specifically are you suggesting are "based on the book"? Duff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Self-published, self-admitted non-expert. Should be ok to use for the Reames bio portion only but not elsewhere, and particularly not as a source for establishing arborsculpture as an aka for our topic, though there may well be other reliable sources. This ref is out for that purpose and the article is not about Reames.Duff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

== Museum of Jurassic Technology ==

http://museumjt.stores.yahoo.net/trciofaxer.html The museum of Jurassic Technology. Advertisement Questionable Source

We should find out how much weight a museum site carries.<Blackash there

It's a store. Duff (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Click the home link leads to museum front page. So the store is part of their web site. Blackash have a chat 14:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

::::No, this link is an event advertisement; it's a commercial website, not a museum website, and they are selling tickets to his lectures, this is not a reliable source. Furthermore, read the hype on the link, it directly contradicts the use of the reference to support the use of Botanic architecture as an aka for our article topic: Primack discovered Erlandon’s neglected and dying trees in 1977, shortly after completing his Masters thesis on ‘Botanic Architecture’. There is no reference here, even if it was a reliable source, to him using this term to describe Erlandson's work. On the contrary, it states clearly that he hadn't discovered Erlandson's work until after writing his thesis by that name. While there may well be some reliable and verifiable reference out there to him branding Erlandson's work with that name post-1977, this ref is out for the purpose of establishing botanic architecture as another name for the craft, except as proof he wrote a masters thesis called botanic architecture pre-1977. Anybody got a link to the thesis? Erlandson's work could not be in it, because he discovered Erlandson AFTER, but it might still be a potentially useful ref for the rest of the article, if determined relevant, reliable if verifiable. It might clarify whether or not his thesis and it's title has got anything to do with our topic at all.Duff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

http://www.sanftestrukturen.de/HTML/links_texts.html Personal web site Questionable Source BTW this page requires no translation, English text is at the bottom.

Fixed that link here (No translation page, just direct, but still needs fixing in the actual refs, if it's even kept. This is what he calls what he does, not an aka for the craft of our topic. May be a good source for info about Kalberer if he's added as a minibio or full bio, but not beyond, and not to support an aka botanical architecture for our topic.Duff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

http://www.urbangardensweb.com/2009/09/15/botanical-architecture-london-hotel-grows-living-wall/ Living wall Blog Questionable Source

Blogs are unreliable sources. This one is out as a ref, and not to support botanical architecture as an aka for our topic Duff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

http://www.phancy.com/circus/ "Circus Trees". www.phancy.com Blog no author, Questionable Source

Blogs are unreliable sources. This one is out as a reliable ref, and not to support circus trees as an aka for our topicDuff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

http://www.expo2005.or.jp/en/venue/experience04.html Advertisement Questionable Source

Advertisements are unreliable sources. This one is out as a reliable ref, and not to support circus trees as an aka for our topicDuff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

http://web.archive.org/web/20061107062128/www.growingvillage.com/Circus_Trees_Growing_Village.htm Advertisement Questionable Source

Advertisements are unreliable sources. This link produces no archive anyway. This one is out as a reliable ref, and not to support circus trees as an aka for our topicDuff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

http://www.greenprophet.com/2008/08/31/2188/plantware-eco-architecture/ Press release Questionable Source originally from American Friends of Tel Aviv University\

Press Releases are unreliable sources. This one is out as a reliable ref, and not to support eco-architecture as an aka for our topicDuff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

http://www.consciousconsumers.net/wordpress/category/biotechture-eco-construction/ biotechture/eco-construction Blog, Questionable Source

Blogs are unreliable sources. This one is out as a reliable ref, and not to support green design architecture/eco-construction as an aka for our topicDuff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

http://www.biotecture.uk.com/ Advertisement Questionable Source

Advertisements are unreliable sources. This one is out as a reliable ref, and not to support biotecture as an aka for our topicDuff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

http://www.grown-furniture.co.uk/ "Grown Furniture home page" personnel web site, Questionable Source

Self-published, Should be ok to use for the Cattle bio portion only but not elsewhere, and particularly not as a source for establishing Grownup furniture as an alternate name for our topic. This is what he calls his works, not what the craft is known as. This ref is out for this purpose. That aka is out unless there is a reliable verifiable reference that uses Grownup furniture to describe the topic of our article. The article is not about Cattle.Duff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"Eco-Architecture Could Produce "Grow Your Own" Homes". American Friends of Tel Aviv University. Press release Questionable Source

Press Releases are unreliable sources. This one is out as a reliable ref, and not to support living art as an aka for our topicDuff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

http://goodtogrow.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/living-art-week-amazing-gardens-fascinating-plant-projects/ living art projects Blog, Questionable Source

Blogs are unreliable sources. This one is out as a ref, and not to support living art as an aka for our topicDuff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Reames, Richard (2005). Arborsculpture: Solutions for a Small Planet. Oregon: Arborsmith Studios. ISBN 0964728087. Self Published by a expert, Reliable Source by 2005 Moriarty had become an expert.

Umm who is Moriarty again? and who says he is an expert? Book says by Richard Reames (author) Copyright 2002 to Richard Reames, distributed by Arborsmith Studios. Ummm looks self published to me. It would need to follow the same outline as for How to grow a chair. Self-published Questionable Source

If it is found to be an unreliable source then all media interviews and articles online that are based on this book also should not be used.<Blackash there

Here again, get busy blogging away on that. 10 years later, same topic, much practice, not an expert? Who says he's not? O by the way, that's two instances in, gosh, an hour, of your misstating the publication dates of Reames' books. What's up with that? Reames1 HTGaChair is 1995, not 2005, and Reames2 ArborsculptureSFASP is 2005, not 2002. Please use the existing 2 ref names for correct citations to Reames' 2 books, with the rp template to indicate the page#, so that those sorts of misleading mistakes are eliminated, and please do not make up any more new ref names to describe these 2 books. Also please put your comments/research below each citation here and sign each of your posts with four tildes as usual/Thanks!.Duff (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The man himself, for a start. quote "Over the past 15 years I have developed the attitude that every tree I work on is an experiment or a learning opportunity. The inevitable mistakes become opportunities to advance the skills required to master the art". (An expert doesn't have inevitable mistakes, mistakes yes, but not ones that keep reappearing.) book Arborsculpture page 154. or when he states about our work, quote "I had no idea that such complicated detailed balanced work was possible." Just because you do something for 10 years doesn't mean you are expert. More to the point who says he is? (Can't use interviews based on the books either.) Please note the book has copyright 2002 First printing is April 2005. And to confuse matters more Richard had done a revised edition of his book Arborsculpture solutions for a small planet. So maybe we need 3 ref names so people can find the right book. Will do with signing. Blackash have a chat 15:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Experts make mistakes, it's inevitable. Everyone makes mistakes, it's inevitable. You make mistakes and so do I. Mistakes are inevitable. That's how people learn. Every day with trees is a day to learn, even for experts. And where does it say the same mistakes keep reappearing? Just because he was unaware of the quality of Peter's work and complimented him on it doesn't make him not an expert. I too, have been completely isolated from your work until participation on this article. It's also not any discredit to expertise to be honest enough to admit, especially in print, that one is fallible. On the contrary, it's a sign of maturity. That sounds a lot like original research and it's a spurious argument. It can certainly be argued that Reames was an expert by 2005 at the publication of his 2nd book in 2005. By that time the term arborsculpture was in widespread usage and not any longer considered a neologism as has been repeatedly alleged. Now we are here in 2010 and he's presumably learned from even more mistakes, like all of us, and is likely even more expert now than in 2005. The nouns arborsculpture and arborsculptor are even more deeply entrenched in the cultural vernacular, efforts to quash notwithstanding. There aren't that many living experts in this craft, and he's clearly one of 'em. So is Peter Cook, I'd say, and some others. Even if there was a reason to exclude this text as a reference for using the term as an aka (and I'm not sure there is), there are LOTS more third party sources that use it as the primary name for our topic.Duff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The question is who states Richard Reames is an expert? Where are the peer reviews of his shaped trees? (Can't use interviews based on the books either.) Blackash have a chat 15:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone else ring in please, on whether that is the question, and if it is, what is the best way to answer it conclusively without wasting any time? Duff (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The guideline at WP:SPS#Self-published sources (online and paper) guides thusly: Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. If this is indeed the appropriate standard, what are we looking for to establish that the standard has been met or hasn't? Does someone have to evaluate his trees, for heaven's sake? Wouldn't that be original research? Duff (talk) 01:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

http://homebuilding.thefuntimesguide.com/2008/02/arborsculpture_tree_shaping.php Blog Questionable Source

Blogs are unreliable sources. This one is out as a ref, and not to support pleaching as an aka for our topicDuff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

http://www.rainforestinfo.org.au/good_wood/pleachng.htm by Mark Primack Article by expert, could be a reliable source

Published by a third party, written by an expert, not covered in the article, a reliable source. Supports pleaching as an aka for our topic. Duff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

http://www.treetrunktopiary.be/eng/ personnel web site, advertisement, Questionable Source

Commercial website: "Tree Trunk Topiary is geared to the commercial market." Commercial websites are unreliable sources. This one is out as a ref, and not to support tree trunk topiary as an aka for our topicDuff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

There you go... like I said I could be wrong but... 99 questionable refs on the wall, you take one down, pass it around... 98 questionable refs on the wall... Slowart (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I will, so pass it on around. Duff (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The rest I'll comment on as you select them review. Blackash have a chat 09:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

There's my consensus where it applies. The threads need to be pulled back out of the aka names in the actual section above, and see what's left. We need to do the same process on the rest of the citations in the namespace. Ugh. I don't want to wrestle my way through those at this moment. Need rest. Peace out. Duff (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

So we don't destroy this lovely record of tedious labor, I will use the strikeout method to dis-plash the stricken cites. Duff (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I have done so, and we're not left with much. Comments? Duff (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)