Talk:Tree shaping/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 → Archive 15

List of potential title names

Here is a list of suggested titles for this art form. This section should just list the names and any references if found, and leave the talking about the suitability of the titles to the above section.

I'm planning to move this entire chart section to a /subpage of this talkpage, clearly linked at this section, as its so big that it requires too-tight archiving of the rest of the talkpage to accomodate it within the normal limits of page size. Please see discussion at Talk:Tree shaping#Refactoring archive sections.Duff (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done This chart can now be reached easily at Talk:Tree shaping/List of potential title names. Duff (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Some type of link and text could be made at the top of this talk page. Text sugestion? I can take care of making it sticky (will not be archived). --Kslotte (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
That would be extremely helpful, as it would also be for the other large section moved to a subpage: Talk:Tree shaping/Alternate names noted at Talk:Tree shaping#Alternate names. As for appropriate text, I am not sure that I can be neutral on that, so I'm going to let you use your best neutral judgment. Here is a summary, and it's probably also less neutral than it could be.
  • 'Alternate names' is User:Slowart and User:Duff's (me) immediately recent and completed collaborative project of vetting all of the mostly-wiggy citations used to support inclusion/non-inclusion of valid/invalid alternate names and changing/not changing the title of the page.
  • 'List of potential title names' is User:Blackash's subsequent, even-more-recent and continuing independent effort to re-justify the inclusion of those names and citations, and many other names and citations, with quotes and citations that have not been vetted by anyone.
Whether taken individually or together, they represent an enormous amount of wasted editing time & I'd frankly just as soon not look at either of them again. Still, I recognize the importance of keeping them for posterity, but is it absolutely necessary to sticky them? Maybe they should be archived. They would still be equally accessible and are referenced multiple times in the text of the talk page. Duff (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Please create a link for the table of references about title names and make it sticky. Thus enabling any new editors, easy access to references for the different titles, as Duff and other editors have seemed dissatisfied with the outcome of their last move title survey and this information will most likely be needed again. Blackash have a chat 08:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
If a sticky link is to be created to [[Talk:Tree shaping/List of potential title names for that table of references, then a sticky link must also be created, in chronological prominence, as they occurred, to the much more extensive and rigorous vetting of citations for supposed generic title names discussion at [[Talk:Tree shaping/Alternate names. Kslotte, can you help us with those stickies, please? duff 18:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Undid move and move protected

Please note that a WP:RM request was filed and that several uninvolved editors, including the editor (me!) who closed it, felt that Tree shaping was a better title than Arborsculpture. At this point, choosing a bizarre title that will make little sense to readers reeks of WP:POINT. My suggestion, as before, is that if you believe that Tree shaping is neither descriptive nor neutral of the art form, then you go through some process for selecting a title that is descriptive, neutral and meaningful. I'd also suggest that if you have no intention of following due process after the outcome of a move discussion, it is perhaps better not to list an article at requested moves. In the meantime, I've reverted the move and move protected the article. Let's not go overboard here. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

RegentsPark, I believe that your decision to revert my move and lock the page as 'Tree shaping' is an abuse of your administrator privileges. The name was chosen and agreed by several editors, as you will see if you look at the discussion, as a neutral and descriptive term as required by WP policy in cases like this. I am not sure what right you have as an admin to determine the title of article bases solely on your own preference.
Perhaps you have not yet worked out what this article is all about but it is, in fact, about forming plants through inosculation to form useful or artistic items. The fact that you find this meaningless shows your lack of understanding of the subject.
I came to this page recently along with several other editors, all of whom have no special interest in this subject, in response to an RfC. All the editors who came from that RfC agreed, after looking through the article history, doing some research into the subject, and discussing ideas with other editors that the current title was wrong. You came here, before several editors had properly presented their cases, and made an arbitrary decision not to move. Now you have locked the page.
It has become increasingly obvious to me that one editor here (who has a business called Pooktre Tree Shapers) has a major conflict of interest and should retire from editing until the title is agreed. This is what you should be sorting out. Regarding your comments on resolving this issue, the original editors did go to dispute resolution, several new editors came here and the unanimous decision of the new uninvolved editors was to move the article back to the original name, from which it improperly moved, of arborsculpture. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I do have to agree that the title "Forming plants through inosculation to form useful or artistic items" is utterly unwieldy and inappropriate. I should have said so earlier.
Personally, I still believe the article should be treated like elevator, which uses the terms "elevator" and "lift" interchangeably.
The terms "tree shaping" and "arborsculpture" are by far the two most common names for this artform - and, given that "tree shaping" is ambiguous, it would make the most sense to
1) title the page "Arborsculpture"
2) list "tree shaping" as the other main name in the lead
3) add a {{Distinguish}} disambiguation hatnote pointing out the potential confusion with the term "tree shaping" as used for general arboriculture.
That's my 2¢. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
It seems RegentsPark has forgotten some WP policies in doing the revert/protect. I understand he/she is an admin but that does not mean they are infallible. WP policy is clear on the issues under discussion. Anything besides a discussion of WP policy is pointless. The policies that most typify this debate are:
  • WP policy clearly states to use the first non-stub title whenever possible: "If it has never been stable, or unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub."
  • WP Policy clearly states title length is not a reason to rename: "it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title."
  • And while the essay I just don't like it, is not a policy it makes a good point: All that matters is following policy, not whether or not we like what the policy leads us to.
I urge RegentsPark, and all editors, to define their actions by which policies those actions are intended to uphold, as no other reasoning is relevant to a WP debate. Colincbn (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe that RegentsPark has acted improperly in closing the move request prematurely and locking this page. I intend to raise the matter on the administrator's noticeboard. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I think he/she was operating in good faith. I imagine after seeing the move his revert/protect was a kneejerk reaction to what he thought was a bad faith edit. Once he/she responds here I think we can have an honest discussion about what WP policy says. Colincbn (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(od) Hi all. It seems fairly obvious that Forming plants through inosculation to form useful or artistic items is not workable as a title and it appears pointy which is why I moved the article back to Tree shaping (and locked it). If the alternative title was seriously meant, I suggest a quick read of WP:Title#Deciding an article title . I will be happy to unprotect the article if you can arrive at a consensual title that is neither absurd nor unclear or even a reasonable assurance that the article will not be moved without due process (an RfC or some dispute resolution process). You need to follow a process because of the closure of the move request and what you should not do is to move the article to a different title and what you should definitely not do is move it to a title that is absurd in its lack of clarity. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The alternative title was seriously meant as a neutral and descriptive title. The problem is that the subject of this article is somewhat obscure (unlike the term 'tree shaping', which is in regular use by arborists to mean something completely different). While there is no agreement on exactly what the subject of the article is, it is clear that the distinguishing feature of what is described here the the joining of branches together or 'inosculation'. Without that it is very difficult to distinguish the subject from pruning or training and without the 'useful or artistic items' it is difficult to distinguish this subject from pleaching.
Regarding dispute resolution process let me repeat, there was an RfC and the clear consensus amongst new uninvolved editors (including myself) was to return the article to its original title. This process was completely wrecked by one editor who has a business called 'Pooktre tree shapers" and finally by your premature decision to close the discussion and refuse the move.
Regarding WP:Title, there is no well know term for what is a very obscure subject, practised by only a handful of organisations worldwide (unlike tree shaping). The best term, according to that policy would be 'arborsculpture'. Unfortunately, that was title was blockaded by Blackash.
You can surely see the anger that your actions caused to a number of disinterested editors who came here in response to an RfC to try to resolve this dispute when you closed the discussion before all the evidence had been presented. Your presence her would be welcome to help decide on a suitable title for this article based on WP policy rather than the commercial advantage of one editor. On thing is for sure 'Tree shaping is unacceptable for two reasons, firstly it is being pushed by an editor from 'Pooktre tree shapers' who clearly has a conflict of interest, and secondly because the term is in verifiable widespread use to mean something other than the subject of this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Martin, to be honest, I see a number of disinterested editors who argue that Arborsculpture is not an appropriate title, Col Warden, Sikktork, HelloAnnyong, to name a few, so your assertion of a clear consensus amongst uninvolved editors does not seem correct to me. Regardless of that, if all this makes you angry then perhaps a WP:Wikibreak is in order because acting in anger is not productive. Meanwhile there is no need for haste, a discussion is ongoing, and the article can be moved whenever a consensus emerges.--RegentsPark (talk) 01:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The editors you name are not disinterested, they were specifically requested to comment here by Blackash, have a look at their talk pages. They came, gave brief statements in support of Blackash then went away. Please read through this history again and you will see, as I did, a campaign by one editor to prevent the obvious and original name for this subject from being used. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Martin, regardless of how they got here, you cannot choose to ignore their views. Not the least because all three, and you can add chris cunningham as a fourth, are unlikely editors to be pushing a pov. I've just finished rereading the discussion above and stand by my decision that the consensus is not to rename the article arborsculpture. It's not like I'm alone in this. I note that colincbn says somewhere above I think it is clear at this point there is no consensus to rename to arborsculpture, Vegaswikian says that he/she thinks it will be closed as 'no consensus'. I understand that you're upset with the closure (though as a disinterested editor you should not be!) but I think you should accept this judgement and move on. There are many occasions where a consensus has been declared against my views - always 'unfairly' of course :-) - but it is hard to be a productive wikipedia editor if you hold on things the way you are doing here. Work on a simple alternative title if you think Tree shaping is too close to Pooktre (Tree art?) but my suggestion is to forget about arborsculpture for the time being. --RegentsPark (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
If 'Tree art ' is your suggestion for a neutral name that is fine with me, and probably many others. Let us move it to there. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
That seems like a decent descriptive term. — e. ripley\talk 13:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Ummm, I wrote on everyone's talk page. Out of about 30 I did miss a couple, which (thank you) you messaged about the move. Blackash have a chat 10:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"Shaping woody plants?"

  • User:Martin Hogbin is correct that the current title shouldn't remain in place, even temporarily, now that we know the term “tree shaping” is already in use by the horticultural community for the practice of regular, mundane, pruning practices (see?) Would “Shaping woody plants” be a satisfactory (perhaps temporary) name? It is almost synonymous with the current title, is is identical in grammatical form, and it avoids the problem just mentioned. --Griseum (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that "Shaping woody plants" does not really describe the subject of this article very clearly. That term could apply to tree shaping (the term being used properly here) or topiary. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The assertion in question is not correct, and even if it were then the proposed alternative is an absolute no-go as we go not invent new terms to cover subjects. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
What assertion is not correct? WP policy tells us to use a neutral and descriptive name. That is what I did. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The assertion that the current title is improper because it is used for mundane pruning practices. Non-notable additional uses for a title are irrelevant. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
If that is some vain attempt at wikilawyering, I suggest that you do not give up your day job. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Some of the problem here seems to be that we're talking about something practiced by so few people that there really isn't an accepted generic description. In most cases, in a situation like the one I've just described, the article would be merged in with something else (like tree shaping) -- something that covers the range of the way that people manipulate trees and other living items into something else. But now that people have been fighting and arguing over it for so long, it probably doesn't seem like a desirable option for folks who have been most involved. I hesitate to bring it up because of that, but is it not possible to just create a broader article here, and have this be one section of it? I think that's what Chris was getting at above. — e. ripley\talk 16:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
What would we merge it with? Pleaching? I think there is a distinctive enough subject here for it to have its own article. What would you suggest we call it? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
What's wrong with the current title? It seems broad enough to encompass trimming, pleaching and whatever other means by which trees are shaped, each with its own subsection. It seems grasping at straws to try to invent a new title that satisfies no one just to fork the content off. — e. ripley\talk 17:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that we deal with all forms of shaping of trees here? Pruning and pleaching already have their own articles. This article is clearly about the forming plants through inosculation to form useful or artistic items. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Sure. Why not? Wouldn't it be preferable to the current muddle? — e. ripley\talk 18:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
You are talking about a whole reorganisation of WP articles on dealing with trees. Other editors might quite like their articles as they are. Anyway it would probably make the overall article too large. There no muddle here just one problem, which is that one editor will not accept 'arborsculpture'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I haven't been here long enough to judge for myself whether that's an accurate portrayal of the way consensus falls (though I have no reason to think that you aren't accurately describing it), but if that's the case, I have to ask -- why then all the drama? If a consensus of several editors exists to rename it Arborsculpture, with just one person dissenting, then it's time to move it to Arborsculpture. If one person doesn't like it, that's pretty much too bad, with all due respect. If he's edit warring over it, then bring Wikipedia's policies to bear in enforcing the consensus. Of course this depends on there being an actual consensus. Can this be demonstrated? If so I would recommend that we show it to RegentsPark and ask him to make the move. Consensus does not mean unanimity, and though that's the desired outcome, there are limits to how much people should seek to accommodate dissenters, particularly if this has been going on for years. — e. ripley\talk 20:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Though out the history of this page (the first comment is about the definition of arborsculpture Link) there has been controversy about the definition of Arborsculpture from multiple editors Link to editors with quotes and links to the original comments. Or read the 8 Requested move * 8.1 Survey Multiple uninvolved editors opposed the move from Tree shaping to Arborsculpture. Read RegentsPark reply to Martin just above Shaping woody plants heading. Blackash have a chat 04:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


(od)No. I am not for muddling the topic by broadening it, though the living sculpture article might benefit from further development in that spirit. This article is about this specific art-craft of purposefully directing the growth of living wood over time, into designed shapes and objects, using simple and well-established arboricultural techniques such as grafting, pleaching, inosculation, pruning, girdling, bending & weighting, light control, carving, and a variety of other techniques which are also commonly used in a variety of other combinations to do a variety of other things with plants, both woody and not.

The article is not about general tree shaping, and not about other delightfully specialized artistic and craftsmanlike outputs such as bonsai & espalier either. It's not restricted to trees but is practiced using the living, growing wood of a variety of woody plants, including vines and shrubs. It's not absolutely neccessary to inosculate, though that's a frequently chosen technique.

It's not narrowly practiced by a few vaguely notable people...most gardeners have given this a shot. They have been coached to, even, in a broad array of resources, many cited in this article. Both scholarly and mainstream reliable sources, as well as reams of (documented here) bloggy resources and the image search at google, tag this, arborisculpture. All notable artists have surely benefitted from this tagging and from the (again) rising profile of the practice, as has the curious (and burgeoning) experimental gardening community at large.

This particular craft, which sometimes rises to the level of an art, has been practiced for at the very, very least, hundreds of years. Probably it has risen, developed, and fallen into obscurity and decay in countless cycles; whenever the living members of families of primates and woody plants have cohabitated the earth in any spatial proximity whatsoever, as it readily sugests itself. It can easily be done without tools, requiring not even metal to accomplish, and even a child can bend live willow stems, and tie them, and wait.

Over the last 15 years, since the coining of the word by an otherwise relatively obscure fellow gardener, it has come to be known as arborsculpture, in the absence of a prior or better collective term. The word is simple, easily understood and grasped as a concept by anyone with a basic education in English, and plainly used, it posseses an elegance of its own. Meanwhile, that same guy has apparently continued practicing the craft and done pretty well with it while other artists, too, have flourished. I don't think we should be trying any more to find new and different ways to stifle the already-established usage of a darn good word to describe it. It's too bad that the Pooktre artists, talented as they clearly are, cannot yet find a way to recognize and embrace their own place within this astonishingly diverse and yet so specifically characteristic art form, but they cannot be permitted to influence, let alone drive the content of this article in their quest for fame. Duff (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

A clear consensus emerged and can easily be demonstrated, among committed multi-subject editors, that the original article name was the way to go, both style-wise and WP-wise.
I initiated the dispute resolution process with an RfC on editorial conflict, after studying the issue carefully and coming to the reluctant conclusion that a single username had been demonstrated clearly as the near-exclusive source of the entire conflict. This brought in several neutral editors, an old Single Purpose Account or 3, and debateably, a few weak socks.
After studying carefully the citations, arguments, and archival history of both discussions and page changes, and after extensive immediately recent discussions and corrections, and for all of the reasons heretofore repeatedly stated, that consensus was shared by MDVaden, Griseum, Duff, Colincbn, Martin Hogbin, Slowart and others, which I'll try to add when I get to a desktop computer tonight. I have proceeded through asking for individual advice in a personal editorial assistance request. I selected the RfM process, only after establishing clear consensus for the move, because by that time there could be no doubt whatsover that the move would be contested and highly likely to generate controversy from the anticipated quarter. It's persistence and sheer volume throughout discussions has made article improvement a struggle, which it should not be.
RegentsPark is another valuable contributor who dove boldly into the prompt closing of the RfM, a necessary part of the process, and he possibly remains unconvinced, as have a few other good editors from the RfC who've scanned the situation. It's long-term, and will take time to properly evaluate. It's very likely to need arbitration at some point, in my view. We have discussed this matter extensively and narrowed possible future actions to either or both of a couple of appropriate courses, which I need to go back & look at to summarize, including noticeboards, mediations, & arbitrations.
I have and shall continue to edit the article as time permits, in favor of a better article. Duff (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
We don't need to push for fame we have already appeared on T.V. in multiple countries and in media around the world before we became active on Wikipedia. Blackash have a chat 05:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
While that may be true, your actions on Wikipedia, and off-wiki concerning your actions on Wikipedia, demonstrate otherwise. Duff (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Have to love the way you give broad sweeping statements with no links, so we have to take your word for this aswell. Blackash have a chat 05:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Or you could search the archives or your own recollection. How many times should such proofs need to be presented?Duff (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Duff why did you list this article for a survey about moving Tree shaping to Arborsculpture, if you are not going to except the decision that came from the listing? It appears from your list of editors the only uninvolved editors are the ones that agree with you about Arborsculpture.Blackash have a chat 05:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
    1. I listed the article at RfM according to protocol, instead of just moving it, because that is the proper procedure, as part of the dispute resolution process, unlike the procedure that originally changed the name. Please read up on WP:DR if you're not already familiar, which I am convinced you are. Duff (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
    2. Yes, as requested, that was a list of the names involved in the consensus for a return to the original name, so yes, that list is indeed the names of those who do agree with each other about that. Problem? Duff (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
By your continual use of the wording uninvolved editors came to a consensus implies all the other editors in the survey were involved which is not true. There were other uninvolved editors who did not agree with you. Blackash have a chat 08:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
No such implication was intended, though you may color it as you wish. Please see new section below for a detailed response to this, AGAIN> duff 18:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is the current title unacceptable?

Some have pondered “why is the current title unacceptable? Why are people making such a big deal out of this?” I want to answer those questions.

  • “Tree shaping” is used in the arborculture industry to refer to the mundane pruning and maintainence of trees. It might logically also refer to the pleaching, bonsai, topiary and any number of other practices. “Arborsculpture,” by contrast, certainly does not refer to anything accept what this article is about.
  • Whereas the recent renaming discussion was inconclusive, there has been no verifiable evidence showing that the term arborsculpture is, as User:Blackash asserts with manic zeal, “controversial.” Nor does it refer to a specific method, as she also asserts. The opinions of editors have value, but those opinions do not outweigh the importance of verifiable evidence.
  • If it wasn't for User:Blackash's inappropriate involvement with this article for inappropriate motives, the article would be called “arborsculpture” and all of us would be thinking about something else. For the past 6 months I have been stating that the name of this article (arborsculpture vs tree shaping) wasn't an issue of contention for me as long as the article reflects the fact that these terms are essentially synonymous. I now believe the title itself needs to be changed because...
  • There is every indication that User:Blackash will continue to misuse Wikipedia to spread the misinformation that (as she says) “Arborsculpture is one man's method of shaping trees. It is an instant, and inferior method of shaping trees.” (see how she is using Wikipedia to support her attacks against Reames?) Recent edits made my User:Blackash show beyond doubt that she continues to reject the consensus among administrators and others editors that the term arborsculpture does not refer to a specific method.
  • Currently, we are “not allowed” to use the term arborsculpture on other Wikipedia pages, such as the Axel Erlandson article (because of User:Blackash's objections) DESPITE the numerous sources (some listed below) which identify the work of Erlandson and others as "arborsculpture".
  • This is a big deal because journalists and scholars use Wikipedia and the decisions we make here are will shape human thought and vocabulary for generations to come. We have a "sacred trust" that carries a weighty responsibility with it. The word “arbosculpture” has been accepted by the world at large as a generic term. User:Blackash does not want Wikipedia to reflect that fact. User:Blackash wants Wikipedia to reflect her OPINION so that her opinion will become accepted as fact. That is a very bad and very serious thing. --Griseum (talk) 06:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

But is Arborsculpture REALLY a neutral and generic term?

Verifiable evidence in numerous printed sources without affiliation to the people in question indicate that it is neutral and generic. I have asked User:Blackash to produce sources, or even a SINGLE published source, indication that the term “arborsculpture” refers to a method, is a proprietary name for Reames' work, or is “controversial.” User:Blackash has not produced any sources. By contrast, in Feb 2010, I found the following:

  • ARBORSCULPTURE.ORG was the website of the NEAG Northeast Arborsculpture Group until just a few days ago. (current Feb 2010)
  • Science Frontiersmagazine has written an original article (not a Wikipedia clone) called "Arborsculpture: A Living Art - and the Art of Living" about what it says is "a process commonly called arborsculpture."
  • Popular Science presents an article about "Israel's Tel Aviv University teaming up with eco-living company Plantware" and it is tagged: arborsculpture, architecture, eco tech, future tech, the environment. The article says "The process of shaping living trees to create objects, referred to as arborsculpture and pooktre" -- in this case going a little to far by using pooktre (which no one is claiming as a generic term) as a generic term as well. NB different versions of this article are all over the web under different electronic "mastheads" and sometimes different pictures.
  • esciencenews.com has a version of the Tel Aviv article that offers this definition: "The concept of coaxing living trees into useful objects, sometimes called tree shaping, arborsculpture, living art or eco-architecture, isn’t new." As usual, there is no distinction between the term Reames coined and the other terms in circulation.
  • US Patent 7328532 relates to the Tel Aviv University tree shaping just mentioned. According to the text of the patent: "The art of shaping living woody plants is known as "arborsculpture", "preaching", "tree trunk topiary", "tree trunk shaping", "botanical architecture", "biotechture" or "permaculture". Presently known living tree configurations include, but arenot limited to chairs, tables, benches, entrance arches, tunnels, symbols, fences, bridges, garden rooms and gazebos. The living constructs provide obvious aesthetic and environmental benefits." Arborsculpture seems to be the preferred term here as evidenced by "Presently, arborsculpture is practiced by manipulating growth of the above-ground tissues (e.g., stem and branches) using traditional horticultural techniques such as pruning, trimming, bending, framing and grafting." They mention "The principle methods which are presently used in arborsculpture are described by R. Reames" and also say "Accordingly, the process of shaping living woody plants using traditional techniques is very time consuming, excessively laborious and very costly." which contradicts User:Blackash's claim that "arborsculpture" is some sort of inferior shortcut different from tree shaping in general. Whether or not Reames is an influential pioneer, an opportunistic villain or somewhere in between isn't part of my argument (I don't care) but it should at least be noted that, in general, his work is well-regarded.User:Blackash's claim that Reames work is an inferior shortcut might be valid -- I don't know. What's important is that the word Reames coined is NOT generally associated with a "shortcut method" nor indeed a particular method at all.
  • Der Spigel, a magazine from Germany, says: companies like the Israeli firm, Plantware, have perfected these techniques as they have shaped trees into fruit bowls, toilet paper holders and street lamps; they call their work "arborsculpture." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griseum (talk • contribs) 05:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Department of Horticulture at Cornell University has a website about "Tree Sculpture" that says "Axel Erlandson’s tree circus is an amazing horticultural undertaking. Mr. Erlandson was an American arborsculptor who opened a horticultural attraction in 1947 featuring his uniquely shaped trees" Although Erlandson died in 1964, multiple independent sources all over the web call him an "arborsculptor" and his work "arborsculpture."
  • Dr. Leonard Perry seems affiliated with the Department of Plant and Soil Science at the University of Vermont. In his paper on Axel Erlandson he says "Erlandson would not tell anyone his secrets of arbor sculpture...about 74 of his arboreal sculptures remained"
  • Arborsculpture - An Emerging Art Form and Solutions to our Environment is a paper presented to the Faculty of the Landscape Architecture Program at the University of California, Davis. It is Erlandson's work, not Reames, which is primarily referenced. The paper gives this definition: "Arborsculpture is a naturally growing art form that is created by growing and shaping tree trunks and other woody plants into shapes as new layers of wood form. It is made for function, it is made as a creative outlet and it is made to explore plants as living organisms. Arborsculpture is a form of plant propagation that takes dedication, practice, experience, and knowledge of plant growth and structure. It is done using a technique called grafting which requires specific tools, and accessories. The trunks of the trees are grafted, bent, pruned and braced into shapes that are either ornamental or useful." Again, no distinction between techniques in regards to nomenclature.
  • Urban Planning, Design and Development Newtorkoffers the following definition: "Arborsculpture, Treechitecture -- Civic amenities, public spaces, and even housing could one day be formed by living trees. Researchers are looking into this new idea." (Editor's note: Treechitecture? Groan!)
  • Fair Oaks Horticulture Center of the University of California is using the term "arborsculpture" even for what appears to be merely traditional espalier demonstrating how popular and generic the term has become.
  • The Journal of Mythic Arts tells us "arborsculpture, especially chairs, was the peculiar habit of John Krubsack, a prominent banker in the very small town of Embarrass, Wisconsin." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griseum (talk • contribs) 05:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • This (bloggy) site specifically lists Pooktre and others under the "arborsculpture" heading
  • University of British Columbia Botanical Garden & Centre for Plant Research discussion forum shows arborsculpture is being used as a generic term
  • Tree Artistry is essentially a high-end landscaping business that greets visitors to business website with words "Welcome to Tree Artistry Arborsculpture!"
  • This is bloggy and partially-Wikipedia derived but it evidences people using arborsculpture as a generic term and even specifically referring to Axel Erlandson's work as "arborsculpture".
  • 10 best trees and shrubs for arborsculpture is another article using arborsculpture as a generic term.
  • Agriculture Views has an article called "Arborsculpture" that takes an extremely generic view that says, in part "arborsculpture is the technique of “sculpting” trees, or shaping and growing them in a certain shape. This technique is usually used in growing wood plants that can be used for landscaping, garden ornaments, plant decorations and for other aesthetic purposes.
  • Dwell.com did an article about Reames in which the following definition was given: Arborsculpture is the art of shaping living trees into furniture, sculpture, and shelters. Part grazing and grafting, pleaching and patience, it exists in the shady area between landscaping, gardening, and furniture design. Arborsculpturists figure that anyone can shape objects out of dead wood, but it takes a special set of skills to make things out of living wood, to allow the tree to flourish as you meld it for a human purpose." The idea that the term arborsculpture should only be to (as Blackash/pooktre says below) "an instant, and inferior method of shaping trees" is absent from this definition and all definitions I located.
  • CabinetMagazine.org also did a story specifically about Reames and also gives a generic definition: "Arborsculpture is the art of shaping tree trunks to create art and functional items through bending, grafting, pruning, and multiple planting." In my initial search, I excluded articles which refer to Reames whatso ever. I've gone back and included some as they offer explicit, relatively detailed, and decided generic definitions.
  • Sawmill and bandmill blog uses the term generically as do other "bloggy" sites like [art.commongate.com/post/Extreme_Trees Extreme Trees] and this and this and hundreds more
  • I'm not even sure what this is but the author here muses that Chinese footbinding "is really almost exactly the same thing as arborsculpture, only practiced on the human foot rather than a tree." Does ANYONE think this writer translates "arborsculpture" as "Richard Reames' particular method of tree shaping?" For realz, yo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griseum (talk • contribs) 05:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Here even a photo of Pooktre co-creator has been tagged "arborsculpture"
  • Josienita Borlongan wrote an article about Axel Erlandson's work and calls it arborsculpture.
  • American Arborsculpturist Axel Erlandson and His Extreme Trees is the subtitle of an article which says in part "Axel Erlandson's passion for sculpting trees, also known as arborsculpture, started out as a hobby for the amusement of himself and his family..."
  • Axel Erlandson: An American Arborsculpturist is an article by the same author.
  • University of California "Landscape & Turf News" has a short article called "Arborsculpture: Horticultural Art" in which Reames is referenced and in which Erlandson's work is called "Trees sculpted by a master of the art in the 1940s and 50s". There's absolutely no implication that Reames was doing one distinct thing, Erlandson another, and these two things need separate terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griseum (talk • contribs) 04:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "Go get papers" offers examples of this term being used in academic papers about tree shaping in general
  • I Dig My Garden, like many other gardening sites, has a "Arborsculpture" forum which is about tree shaping in general
  • folks posting pics on Flickr] are using the term arborsculpture for various types of tree shaping including basic espalier.
  • Treehugger.com has an article about tree shaping in which Reames is the main focus, but it also refers to "British arborsculpturer, Chris Cattle."
  • Try Your Hand At Arborsculpture For A Fun Hobby is an article in which the work of Chris Cottle, Lois Walpole, Richard Reams and others are collectively called "arborsculpture".
  • University of Tennessee has a site called "Environmental Semester." There is a link to the website of Dan Ladd. Ladd himself does not use the term arborsculpture on his site; he uses "botanical architecture" and "tree sculpting" instead. But in chosing a heading for the section which contains only Ladd's link, someone at U Tennessee chose to fall back on a better-known term and has entitled it "Arborsculpture: Gardening as an art form".
  • Living Tree Sculpture aka Arbosculpture is very interesting because it shows people using the term arborsculpture as a generic term only to be "corrected" by Pooktre who says "we believe that the way Richard shapes trees is too damaging and leads to unpredictable results. Which is the reason that we don't wish to have our work confused with arbor sculpture." This specific, real world agenda is revealed by Pooktre/Blackashe on Wikipedia here and elsewhere.
  • The Art of Arborsculpture is an article picturing mostly Erlandson's work. Here Pooktre/Blackash has commented "The peace symbol tree is the only tree that has been AArborsculptured in this group of photos. Arborsculpture is one man's method of shaping trees. It is an instant, and inferior method of shaping trees. This peace tree shows the classic hallmarks of Arborsculpture. Uneven and stunted growth." Does ANYONE else make this distinction besides Blackash, a professional rival of the person who coined the word?
  • I've included some sites that are "bloggy". While blogs and other user-derived content sites carry relatively little weight in arguments over Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability there is nothing forbidding us from thinking about what we find there. "Arborsculpture" is a young word if we're trying to determine how people at large are using it for real, no BS, let's not blind ourselves.

OPINIONS about whether “arbosculpture” is controversial and method specific should be backed up by evidence from printed sources. Otherwise, they have about as much value as someone's OPINION that NYC, rather than Albany, is the capitol of New York State. It doesn't matter if 10,000 editors have the OPINION that NYC is the state capitol. Wikipedia text is supposed to be based on written sources. --Griseum (talk) 06:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Arborsculpture has multiple problems, but major fault is arborsculpture does not meet Wikipedia's core policy of neutrality WP:NPOV. Google arborsculpture it leads straight Richard Reames and his products. Google a word like bonsai it leads all over the web not to a practitioner of bonsai. Here is your list below with every linked checked and the bulk of them lead to Richard Reames especially the verifiable sources. Blackash have a chat 07:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
P.S.As to methods please look in my sandbox [1]. I have text with references Blackash have a chat 07:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the evidence supplied for Arborsculputre

I followed all the links supplied by -Griseum

  • 37 links about Arborsculpture in use.
  • 4 links go to the wrong place.
  • 10 links lead to Richard Reames book/s (most of the verifiable sources)
  1. Arborsculpture - An Emerging Art Form and Solutions to our Environmentpage 25
  2. The Journal of Mythic Arts
  3. This (bloggy) site yep stumbleupon has a link to Richard's book
  4. This is bloggy and partially-Wikipedia derived video has the book at the end (have to check on Fri)
  5. Agriculture Views
  6. Dwell.com
  7. CabinetMagazine.org
  8. University of California "Landscape & Turf News" page 4
  9. Try Your Hand At Arborsculpture For A Fun Hobby
  10. "Go get papers" in this directory the book Arborsculpture- Solutions for a Small Planet, appears and Arborsculpture Class is mentioned a few times.
  • 5 links lead to Richard Reames and/or his web site
  1. Department of Horticulture at Cornell University
  2. this
  3. Axel Erlandson: An American Arborsculpturist does meantion Richard's books in passing.
  4. Treehugger.com
  5. Living Tree Sculpture aka Arbosculpture

That leaves 18 sites that use Arborsculpture in a generic term.

  • 5 links use Arborsculpture as one in a series of alternative names
  1. Popular Science
  2. different versions
  3. sometimes
  4. esciencenews.com
  5. US Patent 7328532

What is left is mainly blogs and personal web pages. Not really a strong case for Arborsculpture being independent of its originator, and these links are from a search of Arborsculpture with Richard Reames removed!!! How dominant must Richard Reames be in a normal search of Arborsculputre. Blackash have a chat 07:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Blackash, I am sure that most neutral editors will agree with me when I say that I really do not care about Richard Reames. I do not care that he coined the term 'arborscuplture', he coined it as a generic term, not as a trade name. What I do care about is that sufficient evidence has been produced to show that this word is in general use to refer to the subject of this article. There may be slight differences between how some see arborsculpture and and how some others view the topic but the subject is already very narrow and specialised that even finer distinctions are not desirable. Many references lead back to Richard Reames, that is just too bad, he happened to coin the term that most people use to describe this subject. Get over it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I asked for sources

I asked for SOURCES showing that arborsculpture was specific method or was a "controversial term." And...(wait for it)...User:Blackash]] presents NONE. At a glance, User:Blackash's rebuttal looks like it might have value (it has math, right?) But follow those links yourself and see what you find. So what if arborsculpture is listed as one of several terms when it is obviously the most popular term? Are national magazines (like Popular Science, an award-winning publication founded in 1872), huge media conglomerates (like MSNBC, per this link) and respected universities sources we don't consider when deciding matters on Wikipedia? Is the proof that both hobbyists and academics are comfortable with the term "arborsculpture" going to be ignored? User:Blackash likes to say that the word arborsculpture "leads" to Reames? I still don't exactly understand that statement. Is it comparable to how "tree shaping" is related to "Pooktre tree shapers" - a business operated by User:Blackash and Peter Cook? It bothers User:Blackash that Reames' long association with the practice of arborsculpture/whatever means his name is often mentioned in association with it. Tough luck for User:Blackash. What does that have to do with what we name the article? I have PROVEN that arborsculpture is not a method, nor is it specific to the work of Richard Reames. There are no indications it is controversial, except for the fact that User:Blackash doesn't like it . Therefore, "arborsculpture" it is the title we should use. That should be the end of the debate. --Griseum (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

How about a book titled "How to grow a chair". It gives a specific process of shaping trees as does a book titled Arborsculpture or in a book titled Tricks with trees the authors talk about the name for the art form, quote "It hasn't got a name: Richard Reames calls it arborsculpture, which doesn't exactly fly out the mouth;" Blackash have a chat 08:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
No, no, and no. This horse is already beaten pulpy.
  1. Please recall your quite adamant disqualification of the citation ref named 'Reames1', How to grow a chair, for any purposes other than to cite Reames' bio, on the basis that, at the time of the writing of that book, Reames was a non-expert: a rare point upon which clear consensus was demonstrated. Also, please recall that your protest came in the context of precisely the same question about that other word you so dislike, as to whether the book was a reliable source for determining its generic usage. See here: Talk:Tree shaping/Alternate names#Reames1. Sorry, but you cannot exploit it both coming and going, and what is good for the goose must be good for the gander. Are you saying now that you support it as a reliable source, for the purpose of making your point? I oppose this, as I did during the vetting of sources, and as did Reames himself (Slowart).
  2. The second book you reference, also by Reames and cited in our article as ref name Reames2, which was agreed during the same process to be the work of a (by then) expert, also clearly states that the word arborsculpture is a generic term for the craft, and does not specify that it is a "method" attributable to a single, or even a subset, of artists. Your insistence to the contrary does not make it so.
  3. Regarding your quote(?) from (Hicks), the third citation that you reference here, which by the way is also cited in our article in 1 place (Reames' bio, coincidentally enough)...if that quote is in actuality a direct quote from the book, then I think you have a single reference, with a publication date obviously post-Reames (or the author couldn't have cited Reames), acknowledging in print that the art is called arborsculpture.
The question still stands:
Have you, or anyone, found any reliable sources meeting the description specified at WP:RS showing that arborsculpture is/was a "specific method" or is/was a "controversial term", or is/was a trademark, or is/was unique to Reames' work.? I concur with Griseum that these statements have proven to be without merit.
Enough already, or produce a reliable source for these unsourced claims, once and for ALL! duff 18:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  1. Ummm again with the misinforation, Slowart (Richard Reames) found Reames1 to be Self Published by a NON-Expert, Questionable Source diff to which I replied "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" hardly an adamant disqualification. Please stop putting spin on my comments.
  2. Ummm about the 2nd book Arborsculpture, there was no agreement, Slowart stating he is expert (diff) who has COI in this area, then Duff and I talking about it. Duff, you stated "10 years later, same topic, much practice, not an expert? Who says he's not?" I asked who says Richard is an expert where are the peer reviews of his art, and that you can't use the interviews based on the books either. To which you still haven't come up with any sources. As you clearly wish to use this reference you need to WP:PROVEIT. With out proof that Richard is an expert this book also falls under the self-published guidelines.
  3. It may be a single reference but it still counts. Did you miss that part where the author states that "It hasn't got a name: Richard Reames calls it arborsculpture" it is clearly stating there is no name and that Richard Reames calls it Arborsculpture not that the art form is called Arborsculpture.
The methods can be cited, as can the use of Arborsculpture techniques as they are talking about themselves and are not making 3rd party claims. self-published Blackash have a chat 06:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Arborsculpture

There is a naming dispute about the word arborsculpture, on the Tree shaping article. The dispute has spilled over onto related articles, as some editors believe the word is a neologism and shouldn't be used on other articles. Arborsculpture was coined by Richard Reames in his first book in 1995 to rename the art-form of Tree shaping. Other editors disagree that arborsculpture is a neologism and wish to use the word on related articles to Tree shaping. For example Talk:Axel_Erlandson is mostly a discussion about the neologism of the word arborsculpture. There was a request to move Tree shaping to Arborsculpture here. There is a huge discussion going on there ranging over various issues.

I'm asking for some opinions about arborsculpture and the Wikipedia's policies on neologisms to settle this dispute. I have also posted this comment on Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Neologisms.

Please note that I am Becky Northey Co-founder of Pooktre one of the artists talked about on the tree shaping article and also have a web site called www.treeshapers.net about all the different artists in this art form. Blackash have a chat 15:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

  • comment Now that was helpful. More heads are better. Warm welcome if you just came in. I'm a non-commercially interested and non-covered regular neutral editor at this page, having begun to work on it back in April of this year. Here's my take, concisely:
Arborsculpture is not a neologism and this is not a dictionary article. This article is not and apparently never was an effort to define a new word, which is what the WP:NEO policy speaks to, at WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Neologisms. The policy is therefore not applicable to this article. The article does not purport to be a dictionary definition of the word itself, nor, clearly, is it an article about a new word. This article is encyclopedic and covers a specific, describable, distinct craft, the products of that craft, its history, and its craftspeople, all of which and whom the words arborsculpture and arborsculptor have come to describe in the vast preponderance of carefully cited reliable sources. These demonstrate conclusively the common and prevalent usage, in present time and for over 15 years, of the word arborsculpture to describe the works of nearly every known 20th & 21st century practitioner of this craft. Significant policies which are applicable include WP:Article titles#Considering title changes and WP:NPOV#Article naming.
User:AfD hero WP:BOLDly moved this article from its original stable name, Arborsculpture to Tree shaping in January 2009, without appropriate due process, in the midst of another closely-entwined naming controversy. The actions came from within an otherwise routine WP:AfD proceeding for a WP:POV fork from this article to Pooktre. Because of that confusion and the WP:RfM ommission, the bold decision to move was based on several incorrect premises, faulty assumptions, and later-demonstrated-to-be unacceptable sources; in direct contradiction with the significant Wikipedia policies noted above, dealing directly with such moves. That move and the disruption that it caused, has precipitated well over a year of editorial conflict, both on and disturbingly wide-off-wiki, all of which has caused a fair amount of dissatisfaction and a copious amount of wasted time for many neutral editors who have contributed to the page over that time.
One two involved covered editors using a largely single-purpose WP:ROLE account insist that the word arborsculpture is a neologism and on that fallacious argument, refuse to allow it to be used on other articles, reverting its usage wherever found. It has been a struggle to use the word at all in its own article.
No reasonable, well-sourced, NPOV argument has been presented that demonstrates NEO applies, nor that this article somehow warrants an exception to the relevant policies. Recent properly conducted RfC's and an RfM yielded more heads and broad (but not unamnimous) WP:CONSENSUS, which was overruled by yet another prompt-but-poorly-informed decision, unduly weighted by the WP:OWNing influence of the same involved editors. The article should be returned immediately to its original and wholly neutral name, and the matter made right, as supported by WP:RS, WP:V, and yes, still broad, but non-unanimous CONSENSUS. Duff (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Further, warm welcome to editors from Talk:Axel Erlandson, and from Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Neologism where this discussion was also broached, but instructions were not at all clear that the New RfC is here. Let's try to keep the discussion on this talkpage, please. Please note that there is an RfC for Editorial conflict underway as well, as of now 16 days into a 30 day listing. I have noted this clearly at both locations & standing by for further spillage, eh...invitage.. ah...Roger. Over & out.Duff (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Blackash, you say, Arborsculpture was coined by Richard Reames in his first book in 1995 to rename the art-form of Tree shaping. This implies that the art form described by this article was generally known as tree shaping before 1995. Can you support this? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Please note how tree shapers and tree shaping are used as a default name for this art form and it's practitioners in this quote of Richard Reames's "Perhaps the Druids were great tree-shapers, but since wood doesn't preserve well, the evidence may have rotted long ago. Even though arborsculpture didn't have a name until I coined the term in 1995, there are historical examples of tree-shaping. The oldest evidence we have is a five-by-seven inch illumination from 1516 by Jean Perréal, titled Nature Objects to the Alchemist's Errors." Interview of Richard Reames for Cabinet magazine.
Richard also uses Tree shaping as the default name of the art form in his first book where his gives his reasoning for calling it Arborsculpture.
Here is a quote from one of Axel Erlandson's letters 1953 "Regarding the strange or odd shaped trees being grown by me..."
It seems when someone is trying to described the art form they use tree shaping or shaped trees, as a way to help the others get a visual image in their mind. Blackash have a chat 09:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


I have been trying to comment but had problems with the system. Hope this works. It seems to me the article has been vandalized. The word Arborsculpture is creeping in everywhere even related articles as if some kind of platform is being built. It seems to be a concerted effort to spread a cancer through the article. The photos have been pulled down. It seems to me that some editors are trying to provoke a conflict of interest for Blackash. Richard Reams' bio includes more artists who he has labelled arborsculptors. Why isn't the arborsculptress Blackash included? I just Googled arborsculpture(37,000 hits ) and Pooktre (42,000) I can see what,s happening.203.192.130.94 (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems like you have a very strong opinion on 'arborsculpture'. Do you have any connection with the subject of this article and why do you have such strong views? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
User:203.192.130.94 claims that this article is being vandalized, although by whom and and in what way that fits WP:Vandal is unclear. Similarly, the phrase “provoke a conflict of interest for Blackash” is so cryptic I can only guess at its intended meaning. If User:203.192.130.94 is objecting to the use of the word “arborsculpture” in the Axel Erlandson article, we have multiple, verifiable, written sources to justify it inclusion. Does anyone care about sources anymore? If Reames excluded the Pooktre team from his personal web page that might be because they have used countless online resources, Wikipedia and various gardening forums included, to marginalize his contributions and discredit his methods. Why WOULD he want to include them? More importantly, how is Reames inclusion or exclusion of the Pooktre team from his website relevant to our conversation? It is interesting that User:203.192.130.94 refers to User:Blackash as "the arborsculptress Blackash"...that rather drives home the point most of us have been trying to make. Regarding ghits: since the Pookre team uses the term "Pooktre" as a brand name and evidence that anyone uses the word "Pooktre" to refers to the work of other artists is non-existent, "arborsculpture" and "Pooktre" are categorically different terms and a ghit count is irrelevant. --Griseum (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to log in. Griseum - I am not talking about RR's personal page, it is the Tree shaping article I am referring to. I thought a Bio was suppose to be about an individual not the stable of artists he has branded under his label.Peter Cook is included in that stable. I am wondering why Peter Cook is included without Beccy Northy. What I see happening is certain editors change the article to such a degree that if Blackash edits and reverts then it would be a conflict of interest for her. It seems that it is done by Griseum and co-horts. I hope this clears up anything that might have been criptic. Martin Hogbin - I am interested in the art form and am interested in different techniques of tree training. I have lived on an orchard and have tried a few experiments over the years not with much success. My comment about the arborsculptress was very tongue in cheek. I was discussed by the language used on Blackash's talk page. It seems she is trying to do the right thing by coming up with ideas and suggestions which I feel are relevant to the discussion and others (you know who you are )seem to twist things around and quibble about every little thing. From the talk pages of thoses others it can be seen that they are plotting and scheming. Phrases such as 'what are we going to do now ' are examples of this. Is Griseum Slowart and RR the same person. It seems to me they are. Blaskash PLEASE EXPLAIN the 4 sec comment.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 07:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks for clarifying. I am not RR. In regards to RR's article, mention of people he trained should be based on sources. Not having looked at the sources in regards to this particular question, I don't have an opinion about what other artists should be mentioned in the article about RR. Rehashing why so many editors object strongly to User:Blackash would be unnecessarily repetitive.--Griseum (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi and welcome Sydney Bluegum. I reply on your talk page about the 4 sec lapse Richard Reames. Blackash have a chat 10:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Griseum it sounds like you think Richard Reames trained Peter Cook, which he did not. Blackash have a chat 10:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Sources were hammered. Have at 'em. Any new sources presented will be scrutinized very carefully. It's been a problem.
Sydney Bluegum, I am no one's cohort, as you seem to be implying. That editors share specific views and are able to reach consensus does not make them cohorts, it makes them cooperative editors who respect the five pillars of Wikipedia. Are you Blackash's cohort? You've made some interesting edits under that IP address. I suggest reading through the entire talk history (if you've got the time and some popcorn), beginning with archive 1, if you are truly that curious about the back-story and interested in getting up to speed with who is who is who. I'm a real late-comer to the article, who did precisely that, with popcorn. So that it is crystal clear, as a summary: arborsculpture is not a brand, nor is it a label, nor has it ever been, and it certainly is not a cancer, for crying out loud. It is the generally accepted name for a craft (extremely well resourced), and that craft is the subject of this article, which, by the way, is not a biography (though it does contain mini-biographies of notable craftspeople within the craft. There is not a cryptic stitch about it. User talk pages are open to public viewing, and are also not cryptic.
To answer your question: Peter Cook is listed in that context without Beckey Northey for the simple reason that he has been referred to as an arborsculptor in those cited reliable sources, as has each of the other artists noted. And he is one. If reliable sources call him a Pooktreer, I'm on that too; all neutral, all the time! ;) ), She not only has not (AFAIK) been so referred to, but has deliberately, repeatedly, openly, and unquestionably gone to great extremes to secure her own utter separateness from the word itself. Thus it seems obvious that even had she been referred to by anyone (besides you) as an 'arborsculptress', she would almost certainly feel deeply offended, or 'branded' as she (and you) call it, by inclusion within that sentence. Anyhoozle, the sentence you are referring to identifies artists who have been noted by reliable sources as notable artisans of the craft that is described in the article, which RR coined a good and useful word for, many years ago, and it stuck. Becky hasn't and wants it that way. Those 2 points may be related, no? Also, lest there be any further confusion, Peter Cook is not Becky Northey, despite the fact that they freely admit collaborating under a single user name at Wikipedia, Blackash, which is prohibited.
By the way, arborsculptress is an unnecessarily gender bias-conveying word-construction. Was your previous comment during the RfM also tongue in cheek? I don't get where you are coming from with your gender issue. Sculpture and Sculptor, and by extension arborsculpture and arborsculptor, are all gender-neutral words. Please explain. Finally, I too, as noted first, would like a clear and straightforward explanation of the cryptic 4 second delay comment from Blackash. Duff (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Duff's comment "collaborating under a single user name", I answered this on my talk page. I put my reply here for other editors. "I Becky Northey am the only person who knows the password or uses this account. When Pete and I both agree on a point I'm making, I will use the we. I sometimes type straight in (this is usually when I make the most mistakes with spelling and grammar), sometimes I get Pete to check my writing (he usually picks up that I leave ' out and the small words that help sentence makes sense.) I also use dictating software. So are you saying I shouldn't talk to my life partner and I shouldn't get Pete to check my writing? If Pete was editing with his own account you would then be accusing us of trying to over weight our POV. Blackash have a chat 03:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)" Again only I, edit with this account.
Not this source [2] which is the one you are using to justify that Peter Cook should be branded with arborsculptor. Blackash have a chat 10:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
To which I responded, on your talkpage, : "No, you are misinterpreting, where there is no room for interpretation really. It's very direct. I am saying, please read WP:ROLE. You and he need separate accounts if you are both going to edit wikipedia, and there can really be no excuse for non-disclosure of who's who at this point, so overweighting could not be a problem, unless either of you, or both were violating the rules of WP:COI, which you are both doing, NOW. Neither of you is permitted to edit outside the policies clearly articulated at WP:COI or WP:ROLE. You both have a very strong WP:COI and must follow the rules surrounding that. Duff (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)", as you are aware, having responded back.


Still don't see an explanation for the "4 second delay" comment. Let's not leave pejorative inflammatories dangling. Either justify it or strike it, please.
Regarding the source for the inclusion of Peter Cook in the sentence, You are right. The source provided was questionable, on second look. I'm changing the source to one that's been vetted. I'm also moving the entire paragraph out of Reames' bio, where it doesn't belong, and into its own separate section describing briefly the naming controversy among artists, which is what wikipedia calls for when such a controversy exists. Perhaps you can live with that and we can move ON.Duff (talk 12:27:16 1 July 2010

Comment moved from mis-insertion point above.:

Reading WP:ROLE, I don't use blackash account for Sock puppetry, I am the only person who edits this account. Blackash have a chat 09:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I have responded to this on your talkpage, where this specific discussion belongs. duff 19:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I apologise for inserting my comment in amongst your comment but as you didn't have issue with other editors doing so I didn't think it would be a problem. I didn't bring up the "collaborating under a single user name", Duff you did I was merely replying where you chose to talk about it. Blackash have a chat 06:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually I strike my apology to Duff, I have now remembered that on the Pleaching talk page Duff insert a comment in the middle of mine. Diff Clearly this is not normally a problem. Duff Please let me know if this is really a problem for you, if so let me know I will not do it to you again as long as you don't do it to my comments in future. Blackash have a chat 10:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Redlinks resolved

Alrightee. I have lassoed all the existing redlinks in this article and created at least short articles for each, as well as a few others that emerged from that process. Please feel free to visit Laitkynsew, Nongriat, and Frank Curto Park, as well as Tyrna, and Ka Likai(<-disturbing) for evaluation and further expansion and improvement. Anybody think we are ready to request further input and appraisal here? Goal: Good Article Duff (talk) 06:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Good start here. Blackash have a chat 07:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sock accusations

I don't think Blackash responded on my talkpage about that topic of the "4 second error", though I questioned her comment first. Anyhow, I went and looked at the response given at the section there entitle User Talk:Sydney Bluegum#Griseum/Reames, and basically it is an extremely suggestive accusation that Griseum and Slowart are one and the same person. I looked at all the diffs and the links provided, and frankly, I'm a little confused. Was the mistake Griseum made, one of simply misreading the ip address in the HI comment, thinking it was his own somewhat similar IP address, then catching his mistake? If that's what happened, what is the big deal? SilkTork did a checkuser apparently, and found they were unconnected. They surely do not (to me) seem like even similar editors. Suggesting that Reames is Griseum, and is involved in a complicated scheme using scrubs to evade detection of socks is pretty serious. It definitely does not AGF and should not be left out there hanging. There has also already been at least one formal sock puppet investigation on this article, instigated by Blackash, and that was found to be without merit, if I remember correctly. I'm not entirely convinced either that Blackash and Sydney Bluegum aren't socks (or meats, or roles) fabricating the entire sidewindy mess. So what is the proper procedure to force all those cards face up, once and for all? It's leaving a really bad taste in my mouth. Duff (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

If you think you can support it, you can file a request for a checkuser at WP:RFCU. — e. ripley\talk 22:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, who knows? Still, reluctantly, and only in the spirit of 'all cards on the table now, face up' and 'let's move on suspicion-free', I have taken your advice and asked them to please sort it all out, here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/96.233.40.199/Archive#03 July 2010, where I added it to the previous related case investigation, as instructed. My sincerest apologies for any further disruption this may cause to any of the parties involved and/or to the improvement of this article. It is intended to end the existing and persistent disruptions, of this specific nature, only. Duff (talk) 06:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The submission has been assigned a new case, separate from the previous incident, but linked, and now waiting for clerk attention at [3]. Duff (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Me cutting and pasting the incorrect IP address in a message is the entire story of that. For User:Blackash to still be making insinuations based on that is per her character. To address a comment made by User:Sydney Bluegum, I don’t have “cohorts” involved with this page. I have nothing in common with other editors involved with this page under than shared concern and indignation about Becky Northey’s deliberate mis-use of Wikipedia. This inappropriate term of use of the term “cohorts” seems to disparage those editors who have given their time to improve Wikipedia rather than mis-using it for a selfish agenda. By the way, Northey does more that argue about big things, like the name of the article. When these skirmishes settle down and most people look away, she goes back to micromanaging the article as if she owned it – the main reason the article flows so poorly.--Griseum (talk) 00:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The case has been re-listed for a second CU opinion as of 7/8/2010. Standing by. Griseum & Slowart may both wish to comment and/or submit evidence, or not, at [4]. duff 02:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 DonePer the CU staff all accounts are Red X Unrelated, so let's put that stuff to bed for good please. duff 08:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tree_shaping/Archive_11&oldid=1079712652"