Talk:Tree shaping

Semi-protection

The article is currently unprotected, allowing IP editors to contribute. I note that IP edits are causing concern already. I am willing to semi-protect again. What are people's views? SilkTork *^YES! 12:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think allowing the widest possible range of editors to have an input is a good thing. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the latest IP editors are just are sock puppets for Richard Reames/ Slowart as they are doing the same edits he did. These edits lead to Slowart being taken to COI notice board. I have reverted these edits. I have been waiting for Slowart to give his input on changes to "instant tree shaping" heading. I think it should be protected from IP's while there are random IP's coming in and doing edits Slowart wants with no talking. Slowart has had every opportunity to come up with a compromise and offer alternatives but has not bothered, instead it appears he is recruiting IP editors.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If you believe an editor is using sockpuppets you should bring it to the appropriate notice board (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations). Basing decisions about a separate issue on an unsubstantiated assumption of wrong doing is not WP Policy. Nor is an editor's stance on an issue enough to claim sockpuppetry, if that was the case you are a puppet of Blackash and I am a puppet of Martin. Colincbn (talk) 13:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is to great a coincidence to just assume that the IPs edits not related to Slowarts. I think Semi-protection is a good idea. Blackash have a chat 13:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Blackash, assuming sockpuppetry because of a perceived coincidence is the very definition of "Assuming Bad Faith". As I said above and SilkTork says below, if you think there may be an issue with sockpuppetry you should bring it to the appropriate place; ie: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Just as you tell people to do with CoI accusations Policy does not state that you should use accusations when dealing with content disputes. Also I.P. editors often read talk pages and edit how they see fit without taking part in the discussion, and they are allowed to. I don't think it is the best way to add to WP but it is one of the fundamental pillars of the project. Colincbn (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Colincbn you are right that I'm assuming bad faith of the IP's, in future I'll just mention that the edits are the same if that is the case. I will continue to ask the IP's to talk here and go back to assuming good faith. Blackash have a chat 21:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If there has been a pattern of behaviour to lead to genuine suspicion of sockpuppetry, please request an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. There is no clear consensus on protecting the article at the moment; however, if there's more support for protection, or there are more examples of inappropriate IP edits, then I will semi-protect. SilkTork *^YES! 14:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Insistent false accusations on my real name should be grounds for topic ban, IMO.Slowart (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Slowart, while you here make some suggestions for "Instant tree shaping heading", so we can change it. Blackash have a chat 21:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• I have just reverted another IP edit making similar edits to the last one and describing it as fixing vandalism. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin that was me I thought I was logged in. I was reverting an IP's edit not doing the same edit.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at your contribs you appear to be a WP:SPA. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin, Sydney Bluegum has never pretend to be here for any other reason then to find out more about the methods of shaping, they have point this out 2-3 times here and also now on the topic ban noticeboard. My understanding is it fine to be a WP:SPA just that more experienced editors will take more care in checking the SPA edits. Blackash have a chat 11:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Protected. SilkTork *^YES! 11:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Mediation

I've listed again this time with Martin [1] Blackash have a chat 14:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban

The editors (blackash and slowart) do excellent work in main-space but argue constantly in talk-space. So we ban them from mainspace, but continue to allow them to edit the talk page? If any banning was to be done it should have been the exact opposite. What a clownish decision by the community. Bah. AfD hero (talk) 08:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that anyone is thinking of a permanent bad for Blackash and Slowart. What I think is required is that they be banned completely from the article and talk pages and from discussing the subject elsewhere until the editors without a COI resolve the commercially sensitive issues. After that they should be welcomed back, but permanently banned from editing anything commercially significant. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

AfD hero, when I replied above, I did not realise that the two editors had been topic banned. You are quite right, banning them from the article but not the talk is bizarre. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if either of them will want to edit anymore, I hope they do, but this kind of thing can be a pretty big blow. The way I see it if they have changes they want made they can bring them up here, even doing them in their sandbox first. And other editors can put them in. This will (hopefully) avoid the slow edit war about the lead and the naming issue. Also using the WP page to negatively characterize a rival's methods should be curtailed. As for me this has restored some of my faith that the WP community will do the right thing, eventually. If they come back I hope they see this as a chance to reassess what they are editing for. Hopefully they decide that editing WP must be for the benefit of WP not of their own commercial interests. I think a short term ban is appropriate, I would say no more than six months and possibly less. I think after this they may be more willing to let others decide on contentious commercially relevant issues and I would support either of them if they have that in mind when they apply to have the ban lifted. Colincbn (talk) 02:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The topic ban prevents two editors from editing any article related to tree shaping. The topic ban is indefinite (in principle, it could be appealed and possibly reversed after a long period of helpful contributions—contributions that show that previous problems have been overcome). The editors are not banned from anything else, and are welcome to comment on any talk page about any topic. See the closing statement here.

It would be very unwise for anyone to repeatedly raise similar issues on these talk pages. When a topic ban has been enacted, everyone should take it as a hint that the community is losing patience and if protracted arguments broke out about the topics mentioned in the topic ban discussion, anyone engaged in unhelpful behavior would be likely to receive sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

@ Martin I've rebutted your claim about COI diff unless you are going to file somewhere please desist from making such statements. Blackash have a chat 07:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

@Colincbn I'm going to continue to edit wiki, the whole time I've been editing orphans as well as tree shaping stuff. Good idea about the sandbox, the grafting paragraph (in tree shaping) is not quite right but I'll wait a few weeks before I start a new sandbox for it. Strange comment "negatively characterize a rival's methods" I'm guessing you are talking about the heading "instant tree shaping" as Slowart voiced distaste for this heading. I would like to point out that I've repeatedly asked for suggestions to change this heading. I have no real preference as to what the heading should be. Removing referenced/cited content because Slowart views it as damaging to himself is not what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is not here to build up or protect a person's reputation. If you think any of the cited content I've added is out of context, I will type up the text from the source here on the talk page. Blackash have a chat 07:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I am honestly glad to hear that. Also I was avoiding making any direct accusations of anyone, I was just addressing some concerns that were brought up by others. I imagine you agree that WP should not be used to deride a rivals work, therefore any attempts to do so should be discouraged. Also just because something is "cited" does not necessarily mean it is appropriate. One can cite many books that say man never went to the moon, but they should not be used in the Apollo 11 article. The ref, the statement, and the benefit to the article of the added content must all be considered. That being said I have not looked into the content you are referring to so I withhold my opinion on that.

If you do make a sandbox for editing the article let me know when you want something added and I will be more than happy to put it in for you. Colincbn (talk) 08:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As to the methods, 90% of emails send to us, asks how do we do it and what trees do we use. In a general article about the art form the various methods are of interest to the reader. Also when the pooktre article was up for deletion, one of the reasons given to delete the pooktre article was "isn't very interesting with out the method". Blackash have a chat 13:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

What now?

Now that the two editors with a potential COI have been banned, what needs to be done? I suggest that two things need to be looked at. I very strongly suggest that Blackash and Slowart do not take part in this discussion.

Subject name

This has been the subject of endless discussion and is a very contentious topic. I think we need to look again at the subject and decide on the best name for this article, based strictly on established WP policies. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Not Arborscupture, Pooktre, or anything longer than 4 words. Other than that I don't care. Arborsculpture or Pooktre would present a biased point of view for reasons debated to death in the past. This would violate NPOV, which is not only a policy, but also one of the core principles that wikipedia was founded upon. AfD hero (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to go back to first principles and study the policy on this matter. The past debate was lead by two editors with a commercial interest in the subject and should be ignored. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Arborsculpture, Pooktre, and Tree Shaping are all pretty much out. But I have never seen a policy that says a title must be, or even should be, four words or less. In fact The policy on neologisms specifically says to use long unwieldy titles if there is no short noun or phrase that can be used. I think what it comes down to is refs. I always liked "Tree Training" as it avoids the arbo/pook dispute and it is not used in reference to a separate art like Tree Shaping is. The problem arises from the fact that WP cant claim it to be "The Name" of the art when the artists themselves have not decided that it is, and therefore there no refs (or very few anyway) that claim it is. But since they have decided on no single name a long phrase may be all we are left with. Colincbn (talk) 05:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I have stated in the past that I think 'Tree Training' should be the title of the article as it meets wiki criteria and other editors agreed with it. It is also what Axel Erlandson called it. I don't think WP needs to claim the art form. I disagree that a long name should be used . The examples editors came up with in the past were ridiculous.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 08:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Tree shaping isn't a neologism so WP:NEO doesn't apply. There are various policies involved in deciding on a new WP:NAME, plus wikipedia core policy WP:NEUTRAL. Wikipedia also follows WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia doesn't prescribe it describes. (It is not up the artists to decide what the title is. Though the artists can point out where a title doesn't meet Wikipedia policies.) I feel there is not a clear case to change from Tree shaping to a long awkward title name. If a change is to happen, changing to a similarly short title that is in reliable sources, meets neutrality (as it doesn't lead to any one artist), previously both Slowart and myself (and other editors) state Tree training is suitable as a title and something wikipeida's users would naturally use to find the article. Tree training is a viable option as the new title as it meets the WP:NAME, WP:NEUTRAL and WP:TRUTH policies, if it is found that Tree shaping is not suitable. Blackash have a chat 11:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

We need to look at established literature on the subject and see if there is a name that has been commonly used for this subject. I will see if I can call in to the library of the Royal Horticultural Society and see if there is a name in use. The problem with all the simple names that have been proposed so far is that they all mean something else, 'tree training' is what is done to many fruit trees, 'tree shaping' refers to the common practice of pruning trees to maintain a natural shape. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

For the befit of outside editors List of potential title names with references and quotes Blackash have a chat 11:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Something like "Tree Training (artistic)" might be viable as well, but again it is up to the community of artists to decide on a unified name not us. Of course they should be doing that in some other forum, certainly not on WP talk pages. Also it does not matter in any way whether we "like" having a long name. It only matters whether Policy dictates that we have a long name. If you don't like it the place to debate it is at the Policy page in question, not here.

WP:NEO, Quote:

In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, 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.

Colincbn (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I tried that and it was immediately reverted. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe something like 'Forming of tree roots and branches into artistic shapes'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Please note in Colincbn comment this part of the quote "for which no accepted short-hand term exists" from WP:NEO.

1. There hasn't been a consensus that Tree shaping isn't appropriate, and it is short with appropriate references as a title for the art form. refs
2. Also there is another option of a short title that also meets WP polices Tree training as I've pointed out above and now multiple editors have stated it seems ok. refs Blackash have a chat 14:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Chronology of notable practitioners

This section needs to be discussed particularly regarding the mention of those businesses with current commercial interests in the subject. Again, we should look at established policies on the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think as long as all practitioners are covered the same way there is no problem with having this section. I will look through and make any changes that seem needed to maintain NPOV. Colincbn (talk) 07:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The ones here seem reasonably notable and covered by secondary sources, so I see no problem with including them. Perhaps if the page gets too long we may have to reevaluate and/or create a separate page. AfD hero (talk) 07:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Bench Image

I must say I really don't like the image. I know that Duff was all for it and I am in no way suggesting Blackash did anything wrong by drawing and putting it in. But we have a great photo of Peter Cook from Pooktre in this awesome chair they grew right at the top. We have a really good shot of two angles of their mirror. And this amazing sketch by Blackash of some of Chris Cattle's Grownup furniture. Next to those the bench sketch seems lacking. Again I know it was Duff that first spoke of putting it in, and I am not suggesting anything but good faith on Blackash's part, and I certainly can't draw well enough to make a sketch like that myself. I just think we can find a better representation of Reams's work if we tried. Colincbn (talk) 07:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I have asked previously for current photos of Richard Reames recent works and they have not been forthcoming. The Blackash drawing of the bench chair is very similar to other drawings in his books only better I do not think it should be removed. I would be interested to discuss how we are going to deal with the commercially sensitive inclusions.I think we should deal with these before doing any thing else to the article or even talk about a name change.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 08:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

People, can we all be careful that we do not allow this to become a commercial matter again. We want the best pictures showing the art in the best way, regardless of who is in them or who made them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I chose the bench to draw, as it a pivotal piece in Richard Reames's Book example it is on his back cover of his 2nd book and in his media publicly. The different methods should have a piece shaped showing the results of each method.Blackash have a chat 11:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I assume the above is Blackash. I think that was a great Idea. I'm not saying we just remove it. I'm just thinking there must be an actual Photo of his work we can use. We already have the Peace Symbol bit down in his section. But a good example of the "Instant" or "manual" method would be good. By the way if anyone else has a better neutral name than the Manual Method by all means change it. Colincbn (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The idea behind the drawings is they are based on mature living examples and not someone's theory of how the trees will turn out. Also they don't have any background, thus the shapes of the trees are easily seen. Photos of mature pieces with the background removed would also work. Blackash have a chat 10:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I've suggested to Slowart that because the bench photos are 10 years out of date (which my drawing is based on) and the peace sign in 6 years out of date that he takes a new photo of either one of these pieces and I would be willing to remove the background and then the photo could be used instead of the bench drawing. [2] Blackash have a chat 00:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I have changed the Manual title to Simple Manual tree shaping. I have a reference from Richard Reames 2nd book "Arborsculpture" where he describes his Peace Symbol as simple. I have to figure out how to do references.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 09:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Removing un-sourced content and references

1. Colincbn when contesting that something is un-sourced isn't it policy to put on the contest info and give the other editors time to get the references?
2. Colincbn, do you have any of the books? My understanding of ring barking from other sources is it is used to kill a tree or to ring bark a branch (that is planed to be remove later) to help increase fruit production. Please find another reference where ring barking is used to control the growth speed of a tree to give balance to a design. If not please replace this wording and reference diff.
3. Colincbn in this diff you removed Arborsculpture form this sentence "...for slowing the growth of a dominant branch in an Arborsculpture design", by removing Arborsculpture it seems like others in this field use this technique. As far as I'm aware no one else in the art form uses ring barking as a means of control, and in English Richard is the only one to publish so. Blackash have a chat 11:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Basicaly I'm trying to remove the POV that Arborscupture is somehow fundamentally different and incompatible with all other forms of the art by describing things as neutrally as possible. If you are suggesting that anyone who uses ring barking is no longer "Tree Shaping" and is now "Arborsculpting" I would have to disagree. The article is Tree Shaping and therefore all the techniques therein should be considered Tree Shaping techniques, correct? Or is Arborsculpture not Tree Shaping?

There is no policy against removing unsourced content. If you have a reliable reference about the Pooktre People Trees being the only known trees shaped like humans post it here or my talk page and I will add it back in a jiffy. Colincbn (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Words can and do have more than one definition. Arborsculpture is one of those words that has more than one definition. Colincbn, the word Arborsculpture also represents a method (which is fundamentally different to the other methods) of shaping trees, it not appropriate for you systematically remove or change cited wording to censer this aspect out of the article. WP:VERIFY Please replace the cited wording in these diff and diff. Blackash have a chat 10:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

So your argument is that Arborsculpture is not Tree Shaping? Colincbn (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I get the feeling that you would like us to single out Arbo in a way that we don't single out other methods and terminology. I think that desire is one of the main things that has lead to problems here. I suggest just stepping back and letting go. See where the article goes when people who honestly don't care about it do the editing. I really think that in a while you will see us take the great content that you added and turn it into a great encyclopedia article. Neutral, balanced, and well written. Just relax, this will probably not effect your business and art at all. Colincbn (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

No, what I'm saying is Arborsculpture has two definitions WP:NPOV quote "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Colincbn you are systematically changing cited wording to censer this definition out which is not the act of a neutral editor. Please replace the cited wording and references. Blackash have a chat 00:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

So if someone uses the Pooktre method exclusively they are "Tree Shaping" but if they do a single ring bark in conjunction with that method they cease to be Tree Shaping and are now Arborsculpting? Because if you actually read the changes I made all I was doing was saying that all these methods are "Tree Shaping". And the only reason to take offence is if they are not. Unless you have a deep seated hatred of anything related to the word Arborsculpture and therefore refuse to accept any wording that does not put it in a negative light. Please step back and try to look at this dispassionately. Colincbn (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If someone is doing a Pooktre technique and then they decide to try Arborsculpture technique of ring barking, then yes they are no longer doing Pooktre but are then doing Arborsculpture. But both techniques are tree shaping. Tree shaping is not limited to a method or technique. It's a broad general over all name. Colincbn it seems you feel it has to be either Tree shaping or Arborsculpture. It also seems you are insisting that Arborsculpture has only one definition, why is that? Blackash have a chat 09:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. What I'm saying is that since both techniques are tree shaping and Tree shaping is not limited to a method or technique. All methods fall under the title of this article and therefore the wording should reflect that they are all equally "Tree Shaping". The article has alternative names clearly stated. As such all those names should be interchangeable with "Tree Shaping". Now I know you don't like it when people call your work by someone else's name, but WP is not here to do what you, or anyone else "likes" (including Slowart and myself even [edit: To clarify, what I mean is that WP is not here to do what anyone, including me, likes of course]). What it is here to do is give information in a neutral encyclopedic manner. To you Neutrality seems to mean "Doing whatever Blackash wants". But that is not really the case. In fact your refusal to accept that WP is not the place for you to battle about this issue has lead to your topic ban. With the edits above I have not claimed that Pooktre is Arborsculpture, just that all those methods are Tree Shaping. Colincbn (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Colincbn, Thank you for acknowledging that there is more than one definition for the word Arborsculpture.

You have made a couple of statements, that seem a bit odd.

• Colincbn, quote "I get the feeling that you would like us to single out Arbo in a way that we don't single out other methods and terminology." To rebut Have a look at Judo they not only go into techniques but also the refinements of each techniques. Grafting goes into detail about individual techniques as well. So it seems normal to have a referenced wording like Arborsculpture techniques of ring barking in a wikipedia article. This wording meets WP:VERIFY as well.
• Colincbn, quote "Unless you have a deep seated hatred of anything related to the word Arborsculpture and therefore refuse to accept any wording that does not put it in a negative light." Statment/Question Excuse me. Over time I've put the word arborsculpture twice into the summary. Into the lead diff and further down diff. How do these sentences:- There are five different methods of ring barking for slowing the growth of a dominant branch in an Arborsculpture design. and Arborsculpture techniques of ring barking are used to slow down the dominant branch allowing thinner branches to catch up to help balance the design. showing Arborsculpture in a negative light?

What your diffs' 1 and 2. show, you are systematically removing or changing referenced/cited wording to censer out one definition of Arborsculpture. Which doesn't follow WP:NPOV.

Let's cut to the chase Colincbn are you going to put the references and the cited wording back? Blackash have a chat 09:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

First off I'm not even sure what you mean by "Cited Wording" we site facts not wording. Second the only refs I removed were multiple versions of the same ref, which I left in at the end of the paragraph. So if what you are asking me to do is change the article to reflect your personal view that Arbo is incompatible with all other tree shaping than no, I will not be making that change. And I would remind you that this issue is exactly what got you banned from editing the article. Colincbn (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Also if you want to bring up WP:VERIFY show me a ref that states Reames is the only artist that uses ring barking. All my edits did was describe ring barking as a tree shaping technique, which it is. Colincbn (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Cited wording is wording like Arborsculpture technique of ring barking or Arborsculpture design that has multiple references for this exact wording.

Cloincbn The sentences you removed both were WP:VERIFY. It seems you changed them to reflect your truth not what is verifiable. Which of these sentences state only Richard does ring barking? Out of the 4 books published (in English) 2 of them talk about this technique both of which write about the techniques as part to the published method of Richard Reames. This is what can be WP:VERIFY. I didn't suggest that only Richard Reames does this Arborsculpture technique of ring barking for the article. I was letting you know though my knowledge of other artists in this tiny field that they don't use the Arborsculpture technique of ring barking. Until there are references in other places about ring barking being used as a technique (to slow the growth of one side of design trunk) being used as part of the other methods, the Arborsculpture technique of ring barking will remain unique to its published method.

The funny thing about methods is, if different techniques are used to achieve an outcome then yes those methods will be "fundamentally different". Arborsculpture has a definition where it is a technique which is used in the first method, so yes it is different to the other methods.

Also you haven't clarified how these sentences show Arborsculpture in a negative light.Blackash have a chat 11:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Blackash, you are still interfering in matters having commercial significance. I am going to suggest that you are banned from the talk pages as well until editors with no commercial axe to grind have finished. Does anyone else agree with this proposal? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree Slowart (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Umm Martin you are quick to claim something is commercial, I hope you will be as quick to clarify how having Arborsculpture with a referenced/cited definition on the page is of "commercial significance". Please don't waffle like you did with SilkTork [3]. Blackash have a chat 11:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I find it very worrying that you do not see a conflict of interest in a person who uses the name 'Pooktre' in their own business and who objects to the name 'arborsculpture' because they believe it is too closely related to another business discussing use of the the names 'arborsculpture' and 'Pooktre' in this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm an acknowledged world expert in this field. It is only a potential COI as practitioner discussing this art form. In the past when you tried to claim COI or commercialism it was done so you can change the focus of the discussion from the content to my behavior. WP:COI Quote "Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute." It is up to the editor to justify the changes they want to make if the edit is contested. Claiming I have COI/commercially connected doesn't relieve them of this responsibility. I'm pointing out that Arborsculpture is also defined as a technique in published media and that wikipedia does use the names of individual techniques in articles.

Martin you claim this is of commercial significance and yet don't state why. How are these sentences:- There are five different methods of ring barking for slowing the growth of a dominant branch in an Arborsculpture design. and Arborsculpture techniques of ring barking are used to slow down the dominant branch allowing thinner branches to catch up to help balance the design. of commercial significance. Is this building someone up? If you think so, then how? Is this damaging to someone? If you think that, then how? Blackash have a chat 23:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: Blackash listed on ANI to have me sanctioned over this. Colincbn (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Crazy! Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Ummm, where did I ask for you to sanctioned? I only talked about content, and requested some editors to look into this. Blackash have a chat 23:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

On March 12th Blackash added Pooktre [4]to the lead sentence, as if the whole art is called Pooktre. The one Press release that said that, was shown to be an unreliable source.

The section now titled Manual tree shaping, was originally intended to tie a perceived inferior method, along with a perceived inferior technique of "ring barking", to Reames and his books.Slowart (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to encourage the editors to re-think the page name, the lead and the Manual tree shaping section. Carry on as you wish of course, I'll try not to muck up the talk page any more. I think you Colincbn and Martin are doing good work under trying conditions. Hopefully a few more editors will look in on the article, it deserves better than to be a battlefield.Slowart (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Umm, multiple editors have found pooktre to be used as the name for the art form and a few have even added it to the lead at different times. I put it into the lead as part of a comprise just above this section based on SilkTork trying to mediate the lead here here. Also the reference on tree shaping for pooktre is not the press release you talk about. Please go and check it out. Blackash have a chat 23:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Remember that you have a conflict of interest here also, Slowart. Best you do not comment on 'arborsculpture' and 'Pooktre' either. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Working towards compromise

How about this, as far as the current situation with my copyedits, if you provide me a source, your own website would be fine as far as I am concerned, that says Pooktre refuses to use ring barking and other techniques that damage the tree etc. (I'm not sure if that is actually your position or not, but if you give some details of your exact methods and reasons I will explain your stance as stated), I can place that under your entry in the Practitioners section clearly stating that those techniques are not a part of the Pooktre method. That way there will be no confusion about whether Pooktre uses them, but we can still avoid labeling every technique to a particular method. The fact is all techniques and methods are included under "Tree Shaping", therefore I see no reason to label one as an Arbo technique and another as a Grownup Furniture technique etc., unless a particular artist actually has never used one, nor will ever, on some kind of moral grounds, such as not wanting to hurt the trees they work with. If that is the case it should go under that artist's section. Of course we will need refs to include if that is the case. Does this sound like something you can live with? Colincbn (talk) 07:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as the methods go there are 3 distinct methods with own cite-able techniques. Techniques that are published with a method should stay with that method unless/until there are references for a technique being used for a different method. Which would then meet WP:VERIFY Then that technique would naturally be moved to the Common techniques to all forms of tree shaping detailing how it is used in each method.

Colincbn I can give you a reference about ring barking. In Richard Reames's 2nd book he talks about his technique of ring barking and states something like most artists are loathed to wound their art. in regards to the use of ring barking to control growth. So on tree shaping article where it talks about ring barking it could be added that most practitioners of the art form don't use this technique. Blackash have a chat 09:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

There should be no compromise regarding the COI here. Editors who practice and advocate a particular technique should not be trying to influence the way that technique is presented here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

In general I agree with Martin Hogbin, but I think it is reasonable to ask anyone including Blackash to provide opinions on what the article might say about techniques (which independent editors can assess). This topic presents some difficulties because (I think, please correct me if I'm wrong) there are no useful secondary sources that provide precise definitions of the various techniques involved. If there were such sources, I do not see how we could have had all the arguments about terminology because with proper secondary sources we would just follow their lead. Without such sources, it is going to be difficult to present precise details that distinguish between various techniques. I have a pdf somewhere that I found a couple of months ago with some brief descriptions, but I do not recall it having sufficient material on which to build an article. So, what I am suggesting is that Colincbn's plan of describing details for various techniques may be hard to implement in practice—if there are suitable secondary sources, we will just follow them; if there are not, we should only present broad overviews and leave it for individual websites to expound upon their currently favored techniques. Johnuniq (talk) 09:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I understand the difficulties that you refer to and agree that Slowart and Blackash will be able to make unique and important contributions to this article but they both should not be involved the naming of the art or their own contributions to it or their own preferred techniques.

Once the contentious issues have been sorted by editors with no COI, I would welcome the contributions of both Slowart and Blackash, subject to their appreciation of the continuing potential COI and the vigilance of other editors in avoiding this.

At the moment Blackash is banned from editing the article, pending resolution of certain issues. The sooner those issues can be properly resolved, the sooner the ban can be lifted and the experts on the subject can resume adding their important and specialist knowledge to the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq Most of the references for the Gradual tree shaping are secondary sources. There was article in the London financial review that mentions the two methods. Aeroponic root shaping This ref for the Aeroponic method, I think is a secondary source. If so then Aeroponic root shaping has both primary and secondary sources. I didn't think to look for secondary sources for the first method, as I had the books. (Thanks for the link I didn't know about this policy) References are hard to find unless you know they exist. I'll look at the ones we already got and see what else I can find in regards to the methods and techniques. Blackash have a chat 11:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for full top ban

Blackash, you are still interfering in matters having commercial significance. I am going to suggest that you are banned from the talk pages as well until editors with no commercial axe to grind have finished. Does anyone else agree with this proposal? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree Slowart (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support. It's what should have happened originally, and when I saw discussion was moving toward a limited ban, I did think about making a comment at the time, but didn't. I wish I did, because dispute continues, and dragging others into the dispute continues. We have over 3 million articles, and this is a low priority one - the amount of attention this is getting is disproportionate to its value and importance. I am committed to truth, accuracy and fairness, and am prepared to spend time on getting that. But I can only give my time where I see a decent return for my investment. This topic is too expensive. I also think that a period of total rest from any involvement by the two main contributors will allow them to put matters into perspective, and return to editing in a year's time with a little more distance and judgement. It will also allow other editors to work on the article without protracted discussion, to see how it can be developed. The important thing to bear in mind, is that there is no haste, and anything done to the article can be undone because everything is stored in history. SilkTork *^YES! 22:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I bet you guessed what I'd say. As it not that I'm uncivil, rude or off point, but the amount I talk that seems to be a problem, how about this as a comprise: When there is an edit I contest, I will only make 2 comments to any given editor about the contested edit. Blackash have a chat 08:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support This has nothing to do with volume of talk it has to do with a commercial and personal COI regarding certain aspects of this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment Having a potential COI doesn't justify a ban. Please read WP:COI "Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited," Martin you have played the COI card multiple times and again I rebut your claims of COI diff of a detailed rebuttal unless you are going to file at WP:COIN, again I ask you to please desist from making such statements. Blackash have a chat 10:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Blackash, I am not playing any kind of card, I have no reason to. The plainly evident fact is that you have been pressing for changes to the article relating to techniques and names that are commercially and personally important to youself and your business. That is a clear and actual COI.

You and Slowart will always have a potential COI but Slowart seems generally willing to keep away from areas that are of personal and commercial importance. You have refused to do the same. If you want to take this further, by all means go to Arbcom. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Martin this is the last I'm going to say on this here, if it is so clear and actual COI put your action where your mouth is and take me to WP:COIN, or drop it. Blackash have a chat 13:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• I told you so. However, I don't feel it is legit to ban people via this sort of process (ie: just making a vote on an article's talk page, bypassing AN/I or COI or whatever). Something about it seems very wrong. If this were to come up in the proper forum, I would support a narrow ban from discussing the title, but not a full talk page ban. Since the only areas of contention are related to the name, a full talk ban seems punitive rather than constructive. AfD hero (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You did indeed tell us so and I agreed with you as you will see. There is nothing whatsoever punitive about my request, indeed it would help the two editors with a commercial interest in this subject return to editing if they would not involve themselves in certain issues which could easily be properly resolved by others.

I have no wish to bypass anything and will take this back to the COI noticeboard if you think that is the right thing to do. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Abstain Because I am currently involved in a content dispute over these matters I don't feel it is appropriate for me to vote at this time. However I will say that I think if Blackash and Slowart can agree to Blackash's suggestion of a two comment maximum when conflict arises we will have much fewer problems going forward. Of course I don't think user talk pages or non-controversial editing should be included in this "2 edit rule". It has been a very short time since the last ANI action and I think it would be best to let things cool down before pushing harder sanctions. Colincbn (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It is very noble of you to abstain, but, like me, you are not really involved an a content dispute, you are involved in trying to ensure that WP policy on COI is followed. Without editors with a COI we could decide on the content in the proper manner according to WP policy rather than being continually influenced by editors with a a direct business and personal interest in this subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment As AfDhero, I don't think this is the appropriate forum for a topic ban. --rgpk (comment) 18:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Return to COI noticeboard

A number of editors have expressed the view that this is not the appropriate place to discuss this ban so I propose to take it back to the COI noticeboard, where I would encourage you all to comment. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I have raised the matter there again. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Link to COI [5] Blackash have a chat 01:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of section link to alternative names, and again with this woody plants

In Duff's diff he states he is "Simplified opening sentence & lead (I hope)" In point of fact he as lengthened the sentence and removed the section link to the alternative names section. He also seems to have an issue with using the word "tree" and has either removed it or changed tree to woody plant. (Last time he was editing here he consistently did this also.)

• Having a link to the alternative names in the lead, when there is a alternative names section on the article seems to be in common use though out wikipedia from my search. So can some one please put the wording alternative names back with the link.
• This woody plant issue, Duff seems to have a real fondness for this term. When we discussed it in the past, he explained his insistence of using this term by stating it is what horticulturist use. More people understand what tree means than wood plant. KISS: Kept It Simple Simon. Can someone please change Duff's creative editing and remove woody plant and put back tree back. Blackash have a chat 14:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Does this art not apply to woody plants that are not trees? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Martin don’t you remember your reaction to this wording? I believe you stated it didn’t suggest trees to you, and you suggested using trees, shrubs, and vines instead of woody plant, to Duff and myself. There is a reason the books published on this art use the term tree and not woody plant. You don’t have to explain the word tree to people. Blackash have a chat 08:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Martin You have shown that you are an involved editor by yet again placing arborsculprture in front of tree training. I thought the sentence was fine. Tree training first then arborsculpture then pooktre. You have again given weight and promenence to Arborsculpture /Slowart and Reames. Why do you do this? I will use this as an example of your promotion of Reames/Slowart when I take you to Admin.

I apologise I was looking at the talk page history instead of article history. Maybe my comments should be directed to Duff who is doing the same thing of promoting Arborsculpture /Slowart /Reames. The style of editing is similar to Martins, on this article. Duffs previous editing was very pro-arborsculpture, while attacking Blackash and accusing her 'controlling the page' where as in reality Duff was the major contributor between 8/06/10 to 23/7/10. Blackash did not edit during this time, She started editting in late August 2010.

Once wood is set you can no longer shape it as per the art form unless you want to kill it by ringbarking. Why dont you call it Woody tree training.(sarcasm) Martin You are stuffing up this article by your ignorance and lack of knowledge of the subject. I apologise againSydney Bluegum (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it might be time to go to arbitration on the subject of names and other matters of commercial significance. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Martin you have not outlined what the matters of commercial significance are.I would like you to follow up the photo of the prunning equipment and where it leads for another commercially significant advertisement. When I follow ot up it leads to Varden a commercial pruning opperation based in Oregan. How close is this to Reames business? How can these be discussed if the topics aren't disclosed? Look at the whole article not just your bias towards Blackash.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the whole article is dominated by commercial issues. I have no bias towards anyone but I do object to this article becoming a commercial battleground. Slowart has shown willing to withdraw from all commercially sensitive issues such as the article name and practitioners of the art. Arbcom are the final step in dispute resolution and they are able to make binding decisions. If they rule that there is no commercial conflict of interest here I will happily leave the article to others. My only interest here is in promoting WP policy. Other dispute resolution methods have failed to reach any consensus on this subject so I am going to take it to arbcom. I think it should be a fairly straightforward case. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Martin, Slowart requested that editors re-look the title and other things on 30 March 2011.He also made a comment on what good work you and Colincbn have been doing.I read this as Slowart making requests to you both hence you are an involved editor.I agree you should take this matter to a higher level.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 04:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom will probably decline to take the case. AfD hero (talk) 05:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sydney, why do you keep bringing me into it? I have never made an edit anywhere because I was "told to". Every edit I have ever made was because I thought it improved the project. If you remember I opposed banning Blackash from the talk page and I also oppose trying to bring this to ArbCom at this time. I understand why Martin wants to, I just think we should give the current framework more time. Blackash and Slowart have both refrained from editing the article and that is as much as we can ask of them. They are both more than welcome to give their opinions here, but we are under no obligation to make edits based on those opinions. We all must take sole responsibility for the work we do, for good or ill. I do not consider myself anyone's enemy, I do however get the feeling you consider me one. If Slowart likes my work fine, but in all honesty I don't give a rat's ass if he does or not. I edit for WP, no one else. Can you say the same thing? Colincbn (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we could discuss the commercially sensitive issues here and just ignore the comments by Blackash, and Bluegum but I personally find them disruptive to a clear, neutral, and open conversation.

My opinion is that the article is still highly influenced by commercial issues, starting with the title, where we currently have one that means something else but cannot change it without stepping into a commercial minefield, and including the section that looks rather like a collection of small ads for commercial practitioners of the art. NPOV does not mean that we should give equal commercial benefit, or disadvantage, to all these with a commercial interest in the subject, those issues should not influence us at all in writing an encyclopedia. What we write here should be based on WP policy only and those with a commercial or direct personal involvement in the subject should withdraw from all editing and discussion on subjects where there might be any possible COI.

I agree that arbitration is rather heavyweight for the dispute here but I am only here because the fundamental issue of commercial independence of WP is at stake here. I am going to ask again for Slowart, Blackash, and Sydney Bluegum to agree to withdraw completely from all discussion having any possible commercial or direct personal significance. If they do do agree to that, I think we have exhausted all other forms of dispute resolution and Arbcom is the only way left. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe what you find disruptive is that I point out where and why your logic is faulty according to wiki policies. Blackash have a chat 15:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Martin Please explain direct personal significance and how this relates to me.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 10:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Image

Treenovation created this chair using the techniques of Aeroponic root shaping.

Plantware have changed their name to Treenovation, go to plantware.org you will see images of this chair plus I know the owners of Plantware. Their site is branded with Treenovation and they own treenovation.com. Fig roots were shaped then planted and this chair is the growing prototype of Treenaovation's method. Can some one please put this in the Aeroponic roots shaping section. Blackash have a chat 09:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

.

Will those with a potential COI agree to withdraw from discussion on certain topics?

I am going to ask again for Slowart, Blackash, and Sydney Bluegum to agree to withdraw completely from all discussion having any possible commercial or direct personal significance.

I would suggest that they do not take part in discussion of:

The article name

Anything to do with current practitioners of the art

Differences in technique between different practitioners

Anything else where they might have a potential COI

It would be appropriate for the editor who created this section and stated the above to actually sign their edits. At present it appears to be attached to Blackash.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 02:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward

Martin, early on when discussing how content should be changed, I stated that Slowart and I don't count as part of consensus. I was told that we do to quote ".As to the question of consensus, the two of you definitely do count as part of generating consensus. HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:18, 11 May 2009" (UTC) Link. You keep claiming Wikipedia policies are what you follow and yet you seem to be having trouble with this part COI which states “Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited.” I give you this Martin you are trying to pre-empt any content dispute instead of waiting for it to happen. As to your claims of COI, I have and can point to multiple edits, where I have place Wikipedia policies first. Link For a different example: the 3 drawings I gave for the methods in the article don’t you think I could have

1. Drawn one of our trees (pooktre)!
2. I could have branded the files I did draw with the word pooktre. (and I have seen others editors brand photos this way)

But did I do this, Hell No,

1 That could be seen as bias towards pooktre to use one of our trees.

2.1 I don’t believe in forcing our word onto others, so I have the attribution for the use of the drawing to be given the owners of the trees in question.

2.2 Pooktre doesn’t need to build creditability on the backs of other artists, we have plenty of our own.

Martin you have also stated that the consensus of the community is important. Well the consensus at the ANI was to allow me to discuss things. So I will comment but I will make my case and then I will only make 2 comments to any given editor in reply. Martin if you feel this is too much please take it up the dispute ladder. I for one would be pleased to not need to defend myself from your unsupported claims of COI all over the verses noticeboards. Let get this out of the way so we can work on content instead of yapping about editors behavior. Martin since your listing at COI didn’t go anywhere, please stop this COI stuff and discuss real points of content or take it up the dispute ladder. Blackash have a chat 15:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I will gladly take it to arbcom, I was only trying to save them, and everybody else, a lot of time and effort. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Ignore the trolls, edit without compromise! Pick your title and fix the article. Foil the endless argument strategy, be decisive!Slowart (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Slowart/ Reams Instead of making inane comments such as those above perhaps you could put your energy into providing photos of your craft work.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it an art or a craft

I dont think editors should come and make sweeping changes that lower the tone of all involved artists by labelling tree shaping a craft when we have always referred to it as an artform. I also reverted the woody plants inclusion. It gives the impression that tree shaping can be done with formed wood. The editor who made these changes also edits woody plants and girdling(ring barking). Is this a attempt to create other articles that support changes to this article. I believe there is a policy for the type of editing. Is itWP:POINTSydney Bluegum (talk) 09:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I think the reason they want to add the term "woody plants" is that not all the plants that can be used are "trees". For example small shrubs and thick vines could also be used. So adding "woody plants" is more accurate. Colincbn (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the term "woody plants" is technically more correct. The main disadvantage of that term is that it sounds awkward and most people don't know what it is. As for art vs craft, I'm not sure I see the problem. Shaping trees has elements of both art and craft. AfD hero (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I've changed it to "practice." It is often an art form, but not universally so. Sometimes it is used purely for practical or commercial rather than expresive purposes. --Daniel 17:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Art is showing something in a new light. A craft has established techniques with followers who practice those techniques. I don't recall any references for craft but I wasn't looking for any either. There are multiple secondary references for art or art-form about varies artists' work within this field. I prefer art but I think the word practice in the lead works. Blackash have a chat 18:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it is usually an art form, but it is also used to build foot bridges and the like, in those cases I don't think it is. I actually got the idea by looking at Painting. --Daniel 18:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There are no small shrubs and only two vines (grape and wisteria) listed on the list of plants in the article. Colincbn you stated "small shrubs and thick vines could be used." Is this something you definitely know and have references for or is it something that you think might happen? We must deal with fact not fiction. Something we assume might work such as vines and shrubs, might not. Grape and wisteria may be ok for inosculation but have we any proof that they are being used for this particular application.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 03:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

As you stated above vines can also be used. Therefore "woody plants" is more accurate. If someone used wisteria to form a mirror-frame would that not be tree shaping? Colincbn (talk) 04:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Colincbn you missed the point. It 's not about tree shaping, it is whether vines are actually used or as you said they could be used. I'm asking are they used or do you think they can be. How do we know wisteria can make a mirror frame. Do we have any proof that vines are being used in this practise? Sydney Bluegum (talk) 06:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually I don't think I am. The way it is worded now the art/craft is only concerned with trees. If we have wisteria and grape in the list then they should be removed. Or we add "woody plants" or something like it to the description. Note I am not suggesting we take out the word "tree", just that we add non-tree plants as well, to make the wording more accurate. Colincbn (talk) 06:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

When I created the tree list I only added trees that could be referenced to have been shaped by artists in this field. Check here Later Duff wanted to add other types and after a lot of back and forth with Duff, I suggest that maybe trees that had been used for espalier could be listed (as it is possible they would work). Duff then when ahead and listed trees and whatnot from other related fields. After which Duff systemically removed the word tree everywhere (except the title) from the article and replaced with woody plant. Seems like this was [WP:POINT|wiki point]. Shortly after Duff's word change Martin said he must be missing the point of using this wording. IMO this list should be shorten back down to trees that can be referenced as having been shaped for this art. Blackash have a chat 09:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying anything that is not a "tree" is not part of this artform? Colincbn (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

And again I am in no way suggesting we remove the word tree. Colincbn (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Colincbn, I'm saying let use the references that are about this field, not imported ones. Colincbn in this diff your edit summary states "Nowhere in the article linked is it called a "tree". We don't seem to be reading the same references. I checked the two citations [6] and [7] both of which use tree multiple times, Neither articles use the word plant. Example quote from first link "A species of Indian Rubber tree - botanical name: Ficus elastica". Sooooo, I'm guessing you read a different ref? Anyway the linked refs both use the wording of tree and not plant, please change plant back to tree. Blackash have a chat 12:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

To quote the article the wikilink leads to, Ficus elastica: "Ficus elastica, also called the rubber fig, rubber bush, rubber plant, or Indian rubber bush is a species of plant in the fig genus, native to northeast India and southern Indonesia.". Nowhere in that article is the word "rubber tree" used. The word "rubber plant" is used multiple times. Colincbn (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Also I was thinking about adding info on Iya Valley and their living bridges. But I guess you're saying that is not the same thing as tree shaping since they are made with wisteria. Ok, then we should remove the Indian living bridge stuff too right? Again are you limiting the art to a select group of species? Any works made with other species are not tree shaping? Colincbn (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Colincbn, you really should look at the images at the reference for bridges of Iya Valley the vines are clearly dead, it looks like basket weaving or the grass rope bridges of the Inca (this is not for referencing this is to show you the similarity between the two type of bridges) only using vines instead of grasses.
• What!! Do we use wikipedia for references now? No.... Then use the cited references, for the terms to use in the article. The fig bridges are created with living trees. I'm not saying the bridges are or aren't tree shaping, all I'm saying is use references to decide on terminology. Please change plant back to tree. I believe I've made my point quite clear if you want more clarification please bring it up on my talk page. Blackash have a chat 15:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No they are not dead, here is a quote from this page "Some people believe that these existing vine bridges were first built in the 12th century, which would make them some of the oldest known pieces of living architecture in the world.". Also as you may remember I am a professional translator of Japanese and this site also specifically says they are currently alive and growing (自生). It seems that in one post you have argued to edit based on what you think a photo looks like, and to not edit based on references in a different WP article when specifically linking to that article!

How about this: I get the feeling you have determined that every change I make is part of some plot to get the article name changed and therefore fight each and every one regardless of what they are. I assure you this is not the case, I edit solely to improve the encyclopedia. The vine bridges are alive, that's why they call them "living bridges". I am not using WP as a ref, I am using all the refs that go into the Ficus elastica article. An article that has never been edited by me, or anyone working on this one (I think). The fact is the rubber plant is just that, a plant. Some may call it a tree, but just as many, if not more, call it a plant. So by being slightly more broad in terminology by saying "trees and woody plants" we are actually being more accurate. I have not and will not start a request to move this article to a new name. If someone else does I will be more than happy to give my opinion but I can't say what it will be until it happens and I can see all the arguments. The prior discussion was near on a year ago and the landscape has changed. I am not editing to remove any wording, nor from a pro/anti stance to any title or the like. You must admit that if someone uses a vine, as they have, to make a piece of art or an object like furniture or bridges, that falls under the subject of this article. So why not word it as such? I honestly don't see why you would fight that. Colincbn (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion is to mention both "tree" "woody plants" in the intro, but then use "tree" generically as needed in the rest of the article. (Obviously if a part specifically talks about vines or grapes or whatever, then use that instead of "tree" for that sentence) The best is to avoid confusion by being specific where possible (eg, "root", "branch", "trunk", etc). AfD hero (talk) 10:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. Colincbn (talk) 11:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

In reply to Colincbn comments and question

There is one lie and 3 factual mistakes in Colincbn reply to me (Blackash) above. Normally I would re-butt these on the talk page, however I have a self imposed limit of 2 replying comments to any given editor on any one issue on articles’ talk page due to the issues raised at my topic banning here and after. Colincbn is aware of this. I don't appreciate Colincbn's behavior of lying in the above comment. I have brought this to Colincbn's attention on (Colincbn's talk page). If any editor is interested in my views please bring it up on my talk page. In future at my 2nd reply comment, I will make it clearer that I have reached my limit and interested parties can bring the issue to my talk page if further clarification is wanted. Blackash have a chat 07:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and remain civil. I assure you I have not "lied" in any statement I have ever made on WP. If you or anyone else doubts it please start a WP:ANI on me. Colincbn (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Colincbn maybe you should have taken your own advice about good faith and being civil. If you mean you didn't intend to mislead others with your comments about my behavior but only exaggerated out of frustration. Then I apologize for using such a strong term as lying. Blackash have a chat 16:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not exaggerate at all. My statement was 100% true. That is, in fact, how I feel. And while you are not the first woman to accuse me of lying about my feelings, I assure you this time I am being totally honest. Colincbn (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but your feelings are based on a distorted perception of whats really happening. The reality is I have questioned/contested close to a 5th of your edits, not all your edits. If in future you choose to make such bald face statements again about my behavior, don't be surprised when I point out where and how your feelings' reality differs from whats really happening. Blackash have a chat 04:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Great, you go ahead and do that. Can we focus on content now? Colincbn (talk) 04:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I've also replied on your talk page and I've commented there about starting a new section here to give you the refs so you can replace some content on Pooktre, doing that next.Blackash have a chat 05:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

If you mean the "life partners" part, would you be ok with wording it as "...are Australian artists who live and work together in South East Queensland"? I think this is more encyclopedic. However, if the refs say life partners and you prefer that wording I would not fight it. If you mean the bit about Pooktre People Trees being the first example of trees grown to look like humans it would require a pretty rock solid ref. Especially because the "husband and wife trees" might also be considered "human shaped" in some cases. Colincbn (talk) 06:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, not really worried one way or the other about "life partners", from a bio point of view it may be interesting and if you want to put in your suggested change that fine or if you think it better with out, leave it out. As to the sentence you removed about "Pooktre people trees being the first example" I agree with you it would have to be a pretty rock solid ref and the only ref we have is from Richard's 2nd self published book which is no good for 3th party claims, so I wasn't questioning your removal of that either. I've now started a new section about the text I want put back, have a look below. Still in the process of reading our press cuttings, will add the other text I would like replaced, after I finish reading.Blackash have a chat 06:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Arborsculpture is both a method and used generically

In Colincbn's edit diff he is again removing a referenced wording this time an arborsculpture from the following sentence Understanding a tree's fluid dynamics is important to achieving an arborsculpture design, creasing, ring barking, pruning and grafting are part of this technique. His edit summary of quote This holds true for all tree shaping. I also don't want to imply arbo is the dominant term.

• It doesn't imply it is dominant and isn't true for all tree shaping. Understanding a tree's fluid dynamics A person who uses our method or Dr Chris Cattle method doesn't need to understand how the xylem or phloem (fluid dynamics) work to achieve a successful design.
• To be clear the original sentence links Arborsculpture to a series of techniques which results in a method (some of which are unique to Richard Reames's published method). Colincbn is removing cited evidence that the word Arborsculpture is also a method. This is not the first time either diff discussion.
• To demonstrate the original sentence was in context here is the wording from the book. "It's important to understand the fluid dynamics of a tree to understand how to successfully create Arborsculpture designs through grafting, pruning and ring barking." I added creasing as Richard writes about this in detail. I probably should have added bending as well to the sentence. As Arborsculpture techniques of ring barking, creasing and bending are unique to Richard's published method.

Will someone please replace the wording of an Arborsculpture back into the sentence. Blackash have a chat 10:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I changed the wording to read: "...to achieving a design using this method." I think this addresses your concern without sectioning off diferent aspects of the art under seperate names. After all it is all "Tree Shaping" right? Colincbn (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I think the word "design" is way overused. It may be helpful to switch it up an bit and use synonyms or reword sentences. AfD hero (talk) 10:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point, I changed the word "design" to "the desired result". Colincbn (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

References for removed content

Colincbn here is the diff I've bold the text Colincbn removed and I would like put back in. Peter and Becky exhibited eight of their creations, including two people trees, in the Growing Village pavilion at the World's Fair Expo 2005 in Nagakute, Aichi Prefecture, Japan. Reference 69 McKie, Fred (April 20, 2005), "Warwick artist grows wooden 'jewels' for World Expo", The Southern Free Times from Tree shaping article covers the fact you removed. Blackash have a chat 06:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

How about this? Colincbn (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Colincbn we use two trees for each tree person, so this change could be a bit confusing. Blackash have a chat 06:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

"Peter and Becky exhibited eight of their creations, including two that were trained to grow into the shapes of humans..."

How about this? This way it mentions them as "two creations" without specifically saying how many trees are used. Colincbn (talk) 07:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

That address my concern about the potential for confusion. Blackash have a chat 07:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Colincbn could you please add the reference 69 after your new addition. Blackash have a chat 05:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Colincbn (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Blackash have a chat 07:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hold on here, The Southern Free Times Advertiser doesn't seem like an especially reliable source either, but again I'd like to evaluate it fully and fairly. I have searched, but only find circular references to the title of the article itself, so I'm thinking that this may be another press clipping available only on the Pooktre website, which does not appear to be searchable. May we please have a link to the article so that it can be properly evaluated? McKie, Fred (April 20, 2005), "Warwick artist grows wooden 'jewels' for World Expo", The Southern Free Times from Tree shaping article

If this source is of similar ilk to the recently hashed-out ones, it is acceptable for the bio it cites, but not for these other two extremely controversial points that it purports to cite: 1. in the Alternate names section: "The result has been no standard name for the art form to emerge." and 2. an Alternate name listed in that section: "Grown furniture." Please consider this citation challenged.duff 09:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I have tagged the section accordingly to warn of its possible inaccuracy and non-neutrality, until this is resolved, due to a controversial POV supported only by this questionable citation.duff 13:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Duff your opinion that media who publish articles about pooktre (Peter and I) are unreliable just because they haven't published what you believe to be the truth doesn't mean they are unreliable. I don't believe wiki even states that the references must be online. Duff some of your earlier comments show an extreme bias, example Duff's quote "They are unduly self-serving, they are being used to support synthesized claims about the 'Methods' of third parties, and there is reasonable doubt as to their authenticity." This quote is about two articles independently published internationally by media. The London financial times Weekend magazine and Indian Magazine Society Interiors (genre architecture). Duff as an editor with strong views, I believe you shouldn't be deciding which citations are reliable or not. The correct place to take this is the NPOV noticeboard and get some outside editors' views on each reference and what they are citing.

1. It is not the only ref that talks about the name of the art form, I'll give the quotes, from the ref and the one of the other sources.

Newspaper article in the Free Times by Fred McKie

• Quote "There is no standard name for the concept either. Though the Cooks call their work Pooktre - derived from his nickname "Pook" and "tree" - everyone involved has a different name for what they do. It has been suggested by an American that the artform should be called "arborsculpture" though Mr Cook is sticking with Pooktre and has stated that the world will ultimately decide.

Book Tricks with Trees by Ivan Hicks and Richard Rosenfeld

• Quote "It hasn't got a name: Richard Reames calls it arborsculpture, which doesn't exactly fly out the mount; TREEGOSHING (tree growing and shaping) might be better."

2. It is not the only ref for that alternative name. Why is an alternative name extremely controversial? Blackash have a chat 04:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

double image -> axel erlandson needle n thread

Both images at the start of the article are chairs. I'm planning to switch 'the chair that lived' by John Krubsack to 'needle n thread' by Axel Erlandson to show a wider variety of works. Any objections? AfD hero (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I've made the change. If anyone disagrees feel free to revert and we can discuss. I think it looks pretty good. AfD hero (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Pooktre in lead

I reverted the recent change to the lead to add Pooktre back in. I think any discussion of what to do about names and the like should wait until after the ArbCom case is over. I will not revert if it is removed again due to my voluntary WP:1RR. I do agree with PaoloNapolitano this is an area that should be examined again, but with the ArbCom hanging over the issues I think it will be hard to address them effectively. Colincbn (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Techniques Section

Scanning for copyedits I have found this: "Some of these processes are still experimental,[13]:154 where as others are still in the research stage." Aside from the obvious correction of the word 'whereas', can anyone explain what the distinction is between an experimental process & one that is in the research stage? Are not both footnotes referring to processes that fall under either description, or am I missing some facet? I don't want to step on any toes, so I'm asking first. Since they are both footnoted, how about I choose one of the phrasings & use both of the footnotes to illustrate that phrase, unless there is some good reason to separate these ideas in this way? duff 04:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I fixed that section so that it flows more smoothly and without unnecessary repetition. As I continued on through the Techniques section headings, though, something caught my attention right away which I am perplexed by. Specifically, this: I think I remember correctly that the two Reames references were determined to be self-published source documents by a non-expert. Why are they now being used as citations for information outside of his bio section? Unless the status of those two references has changed or the policy on references has changed, how is it proper to use them as references for this material? Did I miss something? Are the Reames references now considered to be written by an expert after all, after all that wrangling? If they are, then the tone of that section merits reconsideration. If the status of those two references has not changed, then where are the properly qualified references for this material?duff 11:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB states quote "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field. " Richard Reames's books cite his method of shaping trees and these cites are not making third party claims.

I'm not clear on what the last part of your statement means or how it might pertain to my question: "these cites are not making third party claims". He's either an expert or he isn't. Up until and including now, you've insisted that he isn't, a point with which I disagree, but had long given up (for the time being anyway) arguing with you over. Again, let's stay with your stance for now, that he's not.

However, while the article does include a mini-bio about him (as it also does about you), this article is not about Reames or his activities. This article is not about you or your activities either, and I mention that so that you will understand that if there is self-published source material of yours scattered about the article, outside your own bio, I would have to raise the same objection. I haven't studied onward yet so not sure if that applies, but since you claim to be an expert yourself (an unsourced claim, by the way, which I'd like to see sources for), it would not surprise me at all to learn that you had published...something.

The section on Techniques is clearly not about Reames or his activities, nor is it about you & your activities. It is about the techniques used in this craft and so statements therein need to be sourced just as rigorously (No WP:SELFPUB) as do all other parts of the article that are not specifically biographical. Those 2 books may only be used as cited references for the page that IS about the author, which is Richard Reames, and in the biographical section of this article that pertains to Mr Reames. Are there legitimate sources that can be used to support these statements?duff 00:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The intro into the methods needs to address all the different methods. The first shaping method is clearly Richard's method and therefore is one of his "activities" and as such his self published books can by used as it follows the WP:SELFPUB quote above. His method probability should be added to Richard Reames article. Blackash have a chat 07:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

No, the first shaping method is not "clearly Richard's method", and no, your simply claiming that it is does not make it so, and so make it, "one of his "activities"", and no, you have not therefore established a case for exception to the WP:SELFPUB policy that you are apparently attempting to contravene.

I'll ask again for additional help locating proper citations before I begin the work of reorganizing the entire Techniques/Methods section: Are there any properly qualified references for the Techniques section (and other non-Reames-bio sections) material which are currently improperly cited with the two sources that have been determined to be non-expert WP:SELFPUB? duff 17:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Well the first method is based on Richard's process from both of his books. I believe it would be really hard to sell a book titled "How to grow a chair" with out giving a method/process. This process is one of Richard actives it is after all, how he achieves his trees and what he teaches at the Campbel school. As the different methods are of interest to the readers of this article, Richard's method should be on the page. It make more sense for the article to have the methods together and not seed them though out the article. Example putting Richard's method in his bio. Blackash have a chat 10:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this is the problem,("This process is one of Richard actives it is after all, how he achieves his trees and what he teaches at the Campbel school.") The idea that Reames achieves of his tree by a specific unique bending method is not true, nor can it be cited. What he teaches @ J.C. Campbell is not a single special technique, nor can it be cited as such. I find the idea that user Blackash is after all this, still attempting to help edit how Reames's techniques are presented here, in a word, sickening.(3P)Slowart (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Slowart/Richard Reames if you spoke in the first person you could just state that this is not true. But I do understand why you won't, as your lectures are based on your book How to Grow a Chair. Where quote "Reames explicates some of the specifics..." of creating a shaped chair tree. [8] Written by Jamie Cole who is studying at journalism . [9] Blackash have a chat 01:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Slowart, what do you think of the way that the techniques section is organised now? I think it is much better with specific techniques not being linked to individual practitioners. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It's much better than it was, I think the aroponics section should be reduced to it's techniques, I don't think the history of aroponics should be under techniques. Creasing is really just sharp bending and could be rolled into bending. I think that something on incremental bending or gentle guiding of the growing tip along a frame that had been addressed in the previous version could be reintroduced under bending or framing or something else. Should something be said about including things like tools, and glass in the growth of a tree? Thanks for asking Martin.Slowart (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the aeroponic section and I'm still mulling that over, so welcome are good ideas! I could not think of any other way to break through the mental roadblock posed by the inclusion of that patented method for the root shaping process, defining the whole technique, in support of the whole "each practitioner's method should be separated" meme. It seemed to suggest that only that patentholder had ever thought of using aeroponics, ergo, all should be separated and flogged. The whole techniques section is still what i would term "in recovery", and that's a good example of what I mean by that. I think that's a pretty good plan too, rolling up incremental stages of bending, gentle to crease to break, under bending; and also that guiding new growth along a frame belongs under framing (and may involve some bending). I also agree that the use of inclusions is a technique that we should cover in more detail here, having touched upon it in the Design Options section. In general, if a technique tends to be used in combination with other techniques for some purpose, and we can document it, I think it's work noting those overlaps in each Technique's bit, to help put the puzzle pieces together without actually writing a how-to article. duff 00:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

What Slowart is suggesting is to hide or disguise the fact that Slowart/Reames has techniques. Examples in his book he clearly separates creasing from bending. Quote "More radical than bending is a technique called "creasing."... also multiple times he writes about bending mature trees and branches. We (Pete and I) and Dr Chis Cattle don't bend trees, we create the framing and then guide the new growth. These are very different process to achieving shaped trees and the results show it. It seems on wiki Slowart keeps stating that he doesn't have a process/method yet Slowart has two books detailing his process, he puts on demonstrations of bending his chairs and teaches the same process at the folk school. The confusion enables Slowart/Reames to continue to teach the Arborsculpture process then show images of Axel Erlandson trees (and others) as implied proof, even though these trees are unachievable using Slowart's method. Then Richard sells groupings of his two meter+ trees which combined with his books/demonstration is how he makes his living. It is for purely commercial reasons that Slowart wants this confusion to be reintroduced to the article. Blackash have a chat 01:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

@Blackash: So, all these books and lectures and teachings, but you still maintain he's not an expert, right? He obviously chooses and uses a combination of techniques and apparently teaches what he knows, and so does each other artist; so do you and so does Cattle. I don't get the impression that Slowart wants confusion introduced into the article. On the contrary, most of his comments have been pretty helpful and clear. Still, it's not really our concern what any of you covered artists wants or doesn't want introduced, and it should not be our concern, so please quit demanding such concern. Look, it's fair and neutral to say that each artist uses their own choice of combinations of techniques, and to articulate what those are within their mini-bios and/or full bios, to the extent those combinations can be cited. We will probably get that said very clearly, once the various techniques are sorted back out in a way that makes neutral sense. The specific combination of techniques you describe here, and claim that you & Cattle use, is lightly covered under framing (I think) and if you'll continue reading today's comments, you'll see that the plan is to expand and clarify those subsections, using properly citeable references only. We're waiting on the bio section for now. That is where the sort of specifics you are wanting outlined will probably go because we can use the SPS material there. Your opinion of what Cattle does, by the way, is not citeable. What you publish about your work on your self-published website, that is citeable in the section about you and the techniques you employ, and the same goes for any other artist that has got a self-published website, including Cattle. What we won't get said, is that one/some/most artist's combination of techniques are any better, kinder, more effective, or result in a higher acheivement or better product or more artistic outcome than any other, or the opposite, or anything that even vaguely smacks of that. That would be not be NPOV and I really want you to see the difference soon and experience some sort of awakening about it, because it is beyond tiresome to keep reading such slanted points and re-stating what should by now be obvious.

As for the commercial situation you are describing, it sounds like a legal dispute and one in which you would likely not be considered a party with any standing in the matter. I doubt wikipedia wants any part of it either, as my understanding is that it is not wikipedia policy to take stances on such matters. If this is such an issue, why do we not find any citations indicating that the Erlandson estate has taken the matter to some legal authority? If ever we do find anything citeable, THAT would be interesting & I'd probably insist we add it, because THAT would be a real controversy with references to support its existence. Unless that transpires, this is still one artist disparaging another, again, and I wish that would stop. duff 04:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You may be right, I don't know... but the thing is, we are not interested in helping Reames (or anyone else) sell (any more nor any less of) a book. In fact we have to steer right away from that kind of thing, as you know. Even an article written about a book, or about a notable artist (which this article is neither), has to be written from an NPOV, and must be rigorously edited to eliminate commercial bias of any sort and establish NPOV in the content, for or against the topic. Reames seems to have maintained all along anyway, expert or not, that he is using standard (non-proprietary) techniques, so including these should not be problematic, as long as the sources are tight (NON-SPS & reliable, quality sources). Same goes for all properly sourced and non-proprietary techniques/methods, and they should all be treated equally and neutrally.

Anything in this paragraph or in this article that is pointed in that direction and "based on Richard's process from both of his books", or any other material based on weak sources, is 1. not appropriate for a general article on the topic at hand and 2. (thus far) by description, based on SP sources. So if we are shooting at an A-class article (which should be self-evident) that sort of stuff has got to go, see? Yes, this section should be about all the techniques of the craft. If there are, as you say, methods which are specific to certain notable crafters (and please understand, I am not disputing that), those proprietary methods belong (well-cited, of course) in detailed articles about the notable crafters to which they pertain. I am not saying that the proprietary methods should be seeded throughout the mini-bios or throughout the article. I am saying that they should not be so seeded and also that the bios are already taking up a disproportionate amount of space in the article about the craft. Their proprietary methods are not appropriate material for the generic article on the craft. Notable crafters, once deemed so, (should) have non-biased, non-commercial full pages documenting their lives and methods, which is where that material belongs. Erlandson & Reames & Krubsack are examples of this. Same goes for notable books. I say 'should' above because often, articles need more or less work in those areas, which is why there are wiki-teams dedicated to cleaning up those areas of problematic material. I have worked on such a team and it's both enlightening and fun!, if you like to write and copy edit, which I do. Anyhow, is there ANY part of this that you do not understand or with which you disagree? I think it distills the direction we need to take quite well, as I understand it.duff 00:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I think you were referring to 'bending' as it is the first listed method, and if you were, I would suggest reading the well-cited mini-bio on David Nash, who also bends trees to create art. Now. I want to make sure you understand how I am thinking about this, because you are clearly thinking about this differently than I am and I am trying to make clear sense of your comment. I say that David Nash is doing arborsculpture (but in the generic sense, which is how I understand that word). In fact, I say that you all are doing specialized expressions of the craft cum art called that, whatever you think of it as or call it, generically.

However, I really want to understand you clearly on this next point, so please consider carefully and answer me this: Are you saying that when David Nash bends a tree, he is not doing the arboricultural technique of bending that is commonly practiced in what I've just explained that I understand as generic arborsculpture, but that instead when he uses bending he is then no longer doing that and has begun using Reames' Arborsculpture Method? Or are you saying, perhaps, that Richard is using Nash's method when he does that? Please try to be as clear as you can on this point because I truly am seeking to understand your perspective on this Method fork. Did you locate a reference that we can cite for bending being exclusively Reames method?duff 23:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

No The first method of shaping trees is the whole section between the two heading of Manual tree shaping heading and Aeroponic root shaping heading. As to the arboricultural technique of bending could you please give me the definition on what that is and some supporting information on that. Blackash have a chat 10:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

We're getting sidetracked again, and I want to avoid getting into just this sort of a tangle with you. I'd love to chat arboriculture with you at some other moment though, because bending is sometimes used in arboriculture too, to accomplish specific purposes that are not so relevant here. I was trying to be super-clear & apparently I was not. My choice of words for that phrase (the one you've emphasized) was perhaps less than helpful, and not so important to the question I am trying to get at, really, so I've stricken portions of it below to clarify. While I think I understand pretty clearly what the word 'bend' means & I think we share a similar understanding of the meaning of the word 'bending' also, what is not so clear to me is that 'bending' is presented here in such a way as to suggest that 'bending' is a technique that is unique to a 'method'....Manual? which I also am not getting the meaning of and which is also uncited. <on this last point, I started a heading below, so let's cover that there, please.

So, these were my questions, shortened, if it helps: 1. Are you saying that when David Nash bends a tree, he is not doing the arboricultural technique of bending that is commonly practiced in what I've just explained that I understand as generic arborsculpture, but that instead when Nash uses bending he is then no longer doing that craft and has begun using Reames' Arborsculpture Method? Or are you saying, perhaps, that Richard is using Nash's method when he does that? 2. Did you locate a reference that we can cite for 'bending' being exclusively Reames method, if this is indeed what you are claiming? duff 00:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

In your haste to tidy up you have removed some valid information. Example you removed this whole sentence quote "Some techniques used for shaping trees are unique to a particular process, whereas other techniques are common to all, though the implementation may be for different reasons." Why? I have other objections but lets stick to this one to start. Blackash have a chat 17:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I did, and No, not haste; I edit with great deliberation. The sentence was repetitive, clunky, not particularly informative, and perhaps most importantly, uncited. After several minutes of dinking around with that sentence, I found that while it did not yield itself to internal reorganization, its meaning snuggled delightfully into the much more concise text you see there now. I think you'll agree that it's better and more neutral than it was, which is what I am aiming for. Maybe someone will suggest a way to improve it even more. duff 23:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

How is that sentence not neutral? Blackash have a chat 07:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not say that that sentence was not neutral, nor did I mean that. What I said about that sentence, in response to your question about my edit, was, "The sentence was repetitive, clunky, not particularly informative, and perhaps most importantly, uncited." and that "After several minutes of dinking around with that sentence, I found that while it did not yield itself to internal reorganization, its meaning snuggled delightfully into the much more concise text you see there now." The 'it's' and 'it' in the sentence, "I think you'll agree that it's better and more neutral than it was,..." refers to the whole paragraph, as reorganized. I thought that was clear, but maybe not, and hopefully it is clear now. duff 16:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

What I didn't say at all about that sentence, and probably should have, now that I am looking at it again, was this: The sentence did not make any sense to me, and so I did my best to make some sense of it. duff 16:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I thought the paragraph was pretty well neutral before. To help me understand, will you please post up the terms/wording that was not neutral?

More of a general tone of non-neutrality and an unclear conveyance of information, I'd say. Since it wasn't just that sentence, but the whole paragraph that I improved, maybe it would be simpler to just go and compare the diffs side by side. Is there a specific idea you want to see conveyed here, that you feel I've omitted and if there is, do you have a citation for it? duff 00:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Gradual & Manual?

The subtitles of these two subsections are confusing to me as a reader. Maybe I missed something here while I was away, but I am not understanding the essential division between the two things presented here. I searched for and read some past comments on it, but I still don't get it. I would like to improve this part, because it is confusing as presented, but the subtitles are stumping me and a little clarification would be helpful, before I go further. More specifically:

• What is it about manual tree shaping that is not gradual?
• What is it about gradual tree shaping that is not manual?

They both seem to be both. (Please provide citations too, as it appears there are not any here for the use of these two names to identify specific techniques) duff 00:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Manual had been Instant, but Richard stated he didn't like that at the COI noticeboard, so I posted here asking for other suggestions. Colincbn changed Instant to Manual. I know of references for Instant and Gradual but didn't thing we need to go there. If you want I can find them and give details here. Blackash have a chat 10:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of distinguishing these two groups of techniques Manual & Gradual. To me it appears to be both a commercial point and an effort to circumvent the WP:SPS policy. It's uncited, so I'm going to think on that & see if any more ideas emerge, but it needs more work. The meaning of those two words is clear, and both sets of techniques are both manual & gradual. My initial point remains, and I would very much like to consider any non-SP sources you consider relevant to that point. duff 00:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The sub-sections of technique now called manual, bending, creasing, and ring barking were all written here to link perceived inferior techniques to one artist/author with abundant links in the references. The "Gradual tree shaping" subsection was written to link perceived superior techniques to Cattle and Pooktre, perhaps others, in the references thus creating a division between who is correct and who is not, IMHO.Slowart (talk) 02:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully, when the arbitration is complete, we will be able to address how commercially specific techniques are presented here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Aeroponic Root Shaping

I have concerns about this paragraph, (the 2nd one) currently in the article :

"New designs and techniques are being put forward as eco-architecture, which may allow designers to grow and shape large structures such as homes. Commercial applications of the research are being developed by Plantware, a company founded in 2002. Plantware CEO Gordon Glazer hopes the first home prototype will be ready in about a decade. While this method of "growing your own home" can take years, the result is long lasting and, according to Glazer, particularly desirable in this emerging age of green architecture."

1. Has this paragraph got anything to do with root shaping? I don't recall that Plantware did any rootware.

2. It's a really nice and forward-looking-statement-filled ad. Makes me want to buy stock. Blatantly commercial text: Needs serious work

3. Wasn't the FriendsofTAU reference deemed not a reliable source; commercial? Has something changed about that, and if it hasn't, do we have any other suitable references to cite any non-commercial portion kept? duff 11:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

1.Duff, Plantware have changed to Treenovation, though you can still get to the same page as the link I give next, through www.plantware.org then click about. link At this page it clearly shows they work with growing roots then shaping them, though text and images.

2. Well as Plantware only uses roots to achieve their projects, my thought was having this paragraph after the method would link to two facts. Maybe it should have been stated the houses were going to use the fig roots as the main structure.

3.Well there really wasn't much discussion about it. I asked a very generalized question here about press releases. Looking at the link again I'm not sure that it was a press release. It is copyrighed to American Friends of Tel Aviv University, All Rights Reserved. Web address has it as news article. [10]. So it probably should be listed at the WP:RSN where and how it should be used.

Duff strange that you find the wording of the 2nd paragraph to be ad like. As you added this wording to Richard Reames section diff quote

"Reames believes that people could, within one generation, be "living in houses where the walls and ceilings are composed of living tree material and there are leaves coming out of the roof," envisioning that trees would grow around windows and doorways and treat plumbing and electrical conduits as inclusions, engulfing them. His current experimental projects include six plantings intended in 2006 to grow into habitable homes within perhaps ten years, a design process he calls arbortecture.

This statement is also very forward looking ad like type of text, actually it has more fluff. So if you are feeling the need to remove the paragraph about plantware maybe you should also remove your paragraph you originally added to Richard Reames section. Blackash have a chat 11:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we must be very careful about commercial content. We should aim to have a level of commercial content appropriate for an encyclopedia rather than a magazine. Blackash, as a commercial practitioner of the art, you have too strong a COI to be involved in decisions about individual instances. After the arbitration, I am hoping that those editors with no direct interest in the subject will work together to adjust the commercial content of this article to in a proper manner and in accordance with WP policy. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree also, Martin, and I think I may have had at least a personal breakthrough, on that note. Check out what I just posted above, in the Techniques discussion section, my post that starts "You may be right, I don't know". Blackash, see if that makes sense and know that I am interested in applying that approach unilaterally, definitely including the bits on Reames & Treenovation/Plantware that you have mentioned here. duff 00:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear

Duff has made of range of changes to the techniques section that I disagree with. As he doesn't understand the different process he is chopping out importing facts, Example this wording "allowing roots to remain flexible enough to be shaped at a later date" to Duff wording "to cause fast-growing roots to thicken and still remain flexible" Duff's wording is wrong. Fig roots grown Aeroponically are soft until planted. The tree then produces a hormone which changes the root into the trunk, thus hardening it. There is a whole lot of this type of misunderstandings in his editing of this section. I suggest working on one point at a time and not having multiple discussion going at a time. When I last suggested this to Duff he stated this was delaying technique. It is not. Discussions of one point at a time is a good way to build consensus and new editors can follow the discussions. Duff could we please address the points above before you create more changes? So that other editors can follow whats happening and we can get the sources needed to improve the article. Blackash have a chat 11:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Blackash, you should direct your comments at the changes themselves rather than at the editor who may have made some of them. You are an expert on the subject and your opinion on technical matters is greatly valued as would be any assistance you can provide in looking for sources.

It is a great pity that you do not recognise when you are editing with a COI since this may result in a complete ban and consequent loss of your expertise for a period of time. For the time being why not start a new section below, focusing on what the article says about the technique and where you consider it to be in error. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well it would be nice to have the time to comment on the changes, which is why I've asked Duff stop until this lot of changes is sorted out. As error upon error compounds the problems. Then you end up with some text that just hangs on the page and makes no sense. It has happened before when Duff was editing. So I don't think it is unreasonable to ask Duff to slow down so sources can be found and consensus built. Blackash have a chat 15:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Then why not do as I suggested and start a section explaining where you thing the current article is in error? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand more than you think. Auxin is present both during aeroponic growth and after planting, both above & below ground. I'm not saying this is the best choice of phrasing, but it is better, and it will surely grow even better with more attention and changes. I am here to edit, not debate. I did considerably more than just swap those two sentences, if you seriously analyze the diff, you will realize that. Other information from other existing and unsmooth areas was merged also, to convey the ideas more concisely, with better and more encyclopedic flow and to improve the entire paragraph and make it more readable & concise. In that specific portion, I was mainly trying to get away from long, stiff, markety, direct quotes from the patent material (or any other material), which we should not do.

We should also try to focus more, for a while, on the things we can agree on instead of the things that vex, IMO. No, I'm not going to stop editing, and I am not going to slow down, unless I become interested in something else or some administrative process indicates that is appropriate. There is a lot of work to do & most of it could be done quickly, with little ado, were it not for the constant arguing. The article itself has serious problems as it stands. Grammar and sentence structure are big ones in several places, but it doesn't make sense, in an article I care about, to just fix the grammar in a sentence that can ultimately not stand the test of either policy or good style. I'm game for 1RR though, as I have no intention of warring over any of it. That doesn't mean I won't defend a point I think is right, but I really just want us to move this as swiftly and delightfully as possible up the ladder of quality writing, so I can feel great about tackling some other articles around the wiki that I am also interested in improving. duff 01:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Reorganization

Alright, I have given the Techniques section some serious attention and considered the good ideas offered in the above discussion. I have boldly reorganized the entire section in a way that I think addresses many of the concerns expressed I have reorganized and refined several individual sections as part of that process, keeping all citations thus far and adding several others. There may be points not yet addressed and those shall be addressed I am sure, in good time. All the techniques we have described and found references for are listed in neutral alphabetical order. Some individual techniques sections still need to be evaluated and refined, and more sources may need to be found, but this is the gist of what I think will help break the style stalemate. As ever, these changes are specifically and generally wide open for discussion, and can of course be reverted or edited further if the consensus is that this overall approach, or any of the component parts of it, need further reorganization. To my eye, it's a lot better; but there is still plenty of work to left to be done. Thoughts?. duff 13:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks more encyclopedic to me. You have not mentioned inosculation. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I hadn't quite gotten to that yet, mainly because it needed a little more thought and side work (as do some of the other existing techniques, most notably Bending). Inosculation, while a very common feature of this craft, is not actually a technique itself, but instead is a biological process that is successfully exploited by some of the techniques used in this craft. I started to do a separate bit on it, but then I looked over the grafting bit, and it was clearly trying to express this idea, but was just wrong. I then also looked over the grafting article, and found that it was also not accurately stated, so that needed to be straightened out first. Then, I came back here and re-titled the grafting section (since the most common forms of grafting (insertion) are almost never used in this craft) to reflect the specialized grafting technique, approach grafting, which IS a common feature, and the one that most reliably results in inosculation. I hope that's more clear, but I think it still needs work. Plashing needs to go in too, as a separate technique, and it commonly also results in deliberate inosculation. The needle & thread tree is an example {not exclusively) of a very refined and specialized form of plashing which largely avoids inosculation, and is another very old technique germane to hedgerows & hedge laying. It is very different from the primary techniques involved in the basket tree, which is an example of (among other techniques) both bending and approach grafting. I'll try to get to adding Plashing to the techniques soon too, unless someone else wants to spike it in first; alphabetically, of course. Pleaching probably belongs treated the same way. More thought.duff 08:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

@Duff, you have done a great job of removing the commercial fallout from this section whilst keeping the content. Now we just have the 'Practitioners' section and the name to sort out. I suggest leaving these until the arbitration is complete. I will leave you to add 'use of inosculation' or whatever as a technique.

@Blackash. Your comments on the content would be particularly welcome if you could avoid talking about other editors or the way that your business does things differently from other businesses. In particular, are there any techniques not included in the section that are commonly used by any practitioners of the art (in general), and are there any techniques shown that are not used by any practitioners of the art? Also, are any techniques described incorrectly? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that compliment. NPOV is exactly what I am aiming at and I agree completely about waiting to work on the Practitioners section. I want to do one section at a time anyway, arbitration notwithstanding, because for me, it's confusing otherwise, since the bios section has some significantly different policies that apply to it. It's just simpler to think about them separately. When we do get to that, I wonder if it might make more sense to have a "Practitioners of XXXXXX' article on a separate page filled with mini-bios of notable practitioners, referencing the main articles on each notable practitioner and spinning others out from there into full main articles as time and notability allow. Either that or tighten up these mini-bios, identify and add links to any existing 'See Main Article @' items & spill new bios out from that section.

I don't know if you noticed that I did weave the probable (and intended) outcome: inosculation, into the also-re-worked 'approach grafting' technique. I think it's reasonable too, to integrate 'approach grafting' into any other techniques which also may (to greater or lesser extent, and with more or less success) build on that technique.

This craft, with the art it sometimes yields, is like most other high arts and crafts in that it largely consists of fairly well-understood old ideas, sifted and cooked together in new and interesting ways. One profoundly defining factor of this craft is that these ideas are then applied to living unique individual life forms (individual plants and combinations of unique individual plants) which continue to grow and respond in their own ways to these treatments, yielding uniquely different outcomes with every project. That's where the super-not-so-secret magic lies, truly...not so much with the practitioners. It's a good thing trees don't read, maybe. Or do they?duff 18:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

@Martin here is one example of misleading with the truth. Yes the truth is I did draw the 3 images but that is not the only truth of these images. By the Arborsculpture bench image having my name on it, most people are going to assume that it is my tree. Which is compounded by not adding my name to two other two drawn images, nor should any of the drawn images have my name in caption as I'm not a famous sketch artist nor is this article about my drawing. All the images both drawn and photos should have the trees creator in their caption, as who did what and how it was achieved is of interest to the reader. Blackash have a chat 01:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

@ Blackash: What you are asking the editors here to do would be unethical and I can't support it at all. Do you not see your POV as non-neutral and your motivation as pointy? There's no proper way to attribute your sketches to the artist you are trying to discredit. "Who did what", in this case, is you drew sketches of someone else's photographs of someone else's work. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, mind you. They are truly beautiful pieces of work in their own right and if this is not work you regularly do and get paid well for, I think you may be missing your true calling. What I am saying is that we can't use them to wag our collective finger at the artist you disrespect. That would be really far from neutral. You are entitled to your opinion though, and maybe your local newspaper would accept such a stance in their editorial section, but it's not appropriate for an encyclopedia. That said, maybe you would prefer to withdraw your sketches from the article, thereby eliminating the possibility that anyone might be confused by them. I would reluctantly do that, as I find them rather confusing too, but I thought we might resolve the confusion with accurate captions and placement where their content value was relevant, after the article is carefully reorganized and rid of its commercially disparaging tone. duff 02:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

@Duff are you saying these drawings are not an actuate representations of the trees? Through out wikipedia there are drawings that have the captions talking about what is in the image and not who created them. How is having a caption like "An arborsculpture bench by Richard Reames", "A grown stool by Dr. Chris Cattle" or "Treenovation created this chair by shaping aeroponically grown roots" pushing a POV or a "commercially disparaging tone". Blackash have a chat 03:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted the images. I do not think they add anything. We already have a perfectly good photo of the stool. They do not clearly demonstrate any of the techniques used. What we need in this section are images showing the techniques being applied. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

@Martin the images where not causing the "controversy" the text in the captions was. The drawing of the bench should go into Richard section as that bench is a pivotal piece in Richard Reames's Book example it is on his back cover of his 2nd book and in his media publicly. Also it is one of the main pieces used in blogs about Richard's work. Blackash have a chat 06:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not see what the sketches added, especially as we already have a picture of one of the objects. In fact, I am sure that there are plenty of good quality pictures of finished items. The section that the sketches were in would be better with pictures or sketches of the various techniques in progress. As the sketches were made by one of the COI editors of the work of one of the other COI editors there is tremendous scope for pointless argument which is another reason that I removed them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this decision and with Martin's reasoning for making it. I also think it would be really great to have a useable photograph of that bench, in any stage of development.

I want to make an important note here about 'finished items', though. In this craft, 'finished' defies definition, unless the thing has been killed or harvested, like Cattle's harvested stools or Walpole's harvested hangers are, in which cases, clearly, those are finished. The red alder bench we're talking about here, of Reames', even if we can sit on it or put cushions on it and recognize it as a bench, is probably still alive and developing (though I may be wrong about that). How could anyone possibly establish with any certainty whether or not a living, growing piece is 'finished'? This point is important, and I'm going to expand on it further on down the thread, because this idea below that one could possibly exhibit a living mature woody plant at anyplace other than the place it is planted, without killing/harvesting it, is faulty. duff 16:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

A-class article/Featured article? Well Duff you seem to be going the wrong way. Techniques was 3 distinct process/methods of achieving a shaped tree. Now the 3 process have had most of the relevant facts cut out and whats left has been blended together creating an illusion that it is all part of the same process. This article Synthetic_diamond is a featured article and has the different process of achieving a diamond in clearly separate sections. Not blended though each other. Blackash have a chat 13:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

How about telling us exactly what is wrong. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Blackash, I do not share your view, but I do understand why you feel that this is heading the wrong way.

When I seriously consider the synthetic diamond article suggested as a comparison, 2 things catch my attention which make that approach seem far more appropriate for that article than it is for this one. There may be more good reasons, but these two jump right out:

1. The four patented methods of turning carbon into synthetic diamonds are extremely well documented. Here, not so.

2. The editors over there do not give any impression of having attempted to compare the patentholders disfavorably against one another.

These are the problems that we are still in the position of overcoming here on this article. We do not want to create the false impression or illusion that synthetic diamonds and the products of this craft are equivalently well-documented, nor that they are established proprietary technological processes, when they are not. Let's see what some other editors have to say about this approach. **Also, since the above comment clearly pertains to the ongoing discussion heading under 'Techniques section', at 'Reorganization' above, please allow me to move this part of that discussion up into that discussion, rather than forking off yet again and not finishing it.duff 05:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Martin stated the techniques section is less commercial now, I don't see how having information on the methods is at all commercial. I would see having the 3 processes is relevant information in a encyclopedia. The problem area seemed to be the Arborsculpture/Richard's process of shaping trees, due to SPS. I have attempted to improve Richard Reames article by adding his techniques there. The other two process that have references should have their own sections. The Arborsculpture process should have a mention on Tree shaping article. The 3 process should not be homogenised as they are now. Sydney Bluegum (talk) 08:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable secondary source that classifies different methods of practising this art in the way that you describe. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I know of references for the Instant and Gradual tree shaping. Here are a couple of references for the two methods.

• Article in the Indian Magazine Society Interiors Sep 2009 quote

Broadly, there are two approaches to tree shaping. Instant Tree Shaping where small trees of 6 to 8ft. (2 to 2.5m) length can be bent into the desired shape. The time taken for shaping may only take from an hour to half a day. Gradual Tree Shaping is where seedlings or saplings of 7.6 to 30.5 cm length are shaped while the tree is growing to get the desired shape. The design and setup are fundamental to success of the piece.

• Article in the London financial Times Weekend Magazine 8.9.2009 quote

There are two methods. One is instant and one is gradual. Blackash have a chat 07:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Neither seems a very authoritative source. We really need a horticultural journal. Who were the authors of the articles? Can you provide links or the full text? Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Indian Magazine [11]
• London financial times [12]. As this is a direct quote from me. I'll give some evidence of my expertise.
• page 9 Newsletter article from the Midwest Bonsai Society. quote " Any creative visual endeavor which is not guided by an artistic intention is craft....or at best decoration. A friend, knowing my obsessive interest in trees sent images from Australia which shocked and bewildered. Peter Cook and Becky Northey met in 1995, became partners and began shaping plum tree suckers into living art they call “Pooktre.” Now say what you will about Broom Styles and Japanese Maple ramification....I would like to have seen Saburo Kato do this." Two images of our people trees.

I googled Saburo Kato Bonsai It seems Saburo Kato is a Japanese world-renowned bonsai artist [13] "Ted Tsukiyama's article, "Profile of a Bonsai Internationalist: Saburo Kato," was published in the May/June 1990 issue of BCI's Bonsai Magazine." Google News and Google News.

• We had eight of our pieces exhibited at the World Expo in Japan 2005.
• The photo of Pete sitting in the living chair was in the exhibition on Charles Darwin at the South African Museum of Natural History.
• Dr John Gathright PHD. Bio Agricultural Science. Producer of the Growing Village Pavilion at the world expo 2005 Japan. “These artworks are rarer than the rarest jewels” quote about pooktre trees and from the. John researched the top artists in field and chose us to be the featured artists at the world expo. McKie, Fred (April 20, 2005), "Warwick artist grows wooden 'jewels' for World Expo", The Southern Free Times. Blackash have a chat 09:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• While looking around look what I found. [14] quote "Arborsculpture Class - April 27-29, 2007 - Cadillac, Michigan. Arborsculpture is a natural craft that combines pruning, grafting and the bending of live tree saplings. The saplings then grow into unique forms that will hold their shape. This is a hands-on class."

Here is a reasonable description of arborsculpture as a process.

• [15] "We also plan to demonstrate arborsculpture, which is a unique method of bending and grafting shoots to form unusual designs and structures."

Arborsculpture as a unique method. Blackash have a chat 14:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• On the UC Davis reference, I read the whole article, because the context is important. There are several items of literature cited at the end of the article, none of which are either of Reames' books. There are only two sentences pertaining to arborsculpture in the article and they are the last two sentences. The quote above is one of those two sentences. Here is the other one: "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." What seems clear to me is that the writer is referring to (and planning to demonstrate) the craft as a whole, in precisely the fashion that is citeable (and in fact has been so cited) as another example of generic use of the term arborsculpture to identify the craft. Notice, please, the lack of capitalization of the term and the fact that what they plan to demonstrate includes several articles that have also been created by many other practitioners of the same craft and also a new practical application of the craft which was not expressed in either of the Reames books: a three sided ladder to make fruit more accessible. Use of the word 'method' in this case, which is also not capitalized, does not make this a citeable proof that the Master Gardeners at UC Davis view what they are doing as restricted to or even guided in any way by a 'Reames Method', but instead it points strongly to a more generic sense of the word method; as one method of training trees, which is what the whole article is about: various methods of training trees to produce fruit. One of those methods of training trees is arborsculpture, whichis unique in comparison with the several other methods of tree training covered, in that it can be used to create other useful things, not only healthy trees and more fruit. This article should also make clear why the use of the term 'tree training' as an alternative descriptor for this craft would be long on vagueness, but wholly inadequate as to specificity.
• The University of Michigan reference also clearly indicates generic use of the term arborsculpture, this time in a brief announcement about an upcoming training session, alongside several other announcements on other educational opportunities available in various US locations. Here, the term 'arborsculpture' is capitalized, but so is the word 'class', which seems appropriate in both cases as it is being used as the title of a 3-day hands-on course on the practice. Nowhere in that announcement, nor in that document is there any reference to Reames, nor to any "method" specific to or guided by his books or his work. Here is the text: "Arborsculpture Class - April 27-29, 2007 - Cadillac, Michigan. Arborsculpture is a natural craft that combines pruning, grafting and the bending of live tree saplings. The saplings then grow into unique forms that will hold their shape. This is a hands-on class. For further information or to register call Bill Parks at 810 742-2853 or 989 751 1859.

Both references are strong reliable sources and both indicate generic use of the term 'arborsculpture' to describe this craft.

• The Midwest Bonsai Society could probably be considered a reliable source, but Inspirational + Curious ≠ Expert, nor does the wish for notable bonsai artist Saburo Kato to have done it amount to even a claim of your expertise. It is clear that someone there who has seen photos of your work, really likes your work. What is not clear is who does, much less whether they are expert enough to determine your expertise. It is a good demonstration of your ring-of-Jane Does-pointing-fingers-and-calling-each-other-experts, though. Even if we did know who the author of that comment was, it still would not serve as proof of your expertise in this craft. I really like your work too (and that of the other practitioners in our article) and I don't mind saying I am impressed, but please don't any of you try to use that fact as a proof of your expertise either.
• The Society Interiors magazine interview of you and the FT.com magazine quote by you have both been studied and discussed elsewhere here, up or downthread(?), and are questionable sources (with questions pending) for your claim that there are separate and well-distinguished Methods, as those press clippings, available only at your website, are simply you, saying there are separate Methods. If indeed you do have a separate and noteable method, the same standards apply to you as would apply to the other artists on that point: you need to get something written and published and allow yourselves to be considered seriously, as the originators of a significantly distinct Method of arborsculpture, as a reliable source, and potentially as experts in your field. Canvassing other practitioners won't establish any of these things and neither will successfully marketing yourself to even a broad array of hungry newspaper and magazine article writers.
• I'm not sure whether the inclusion of a photograph of Peter in his chair in a display on Darwin in South Africa qualifies as an exhibition of your work or not, or whether that's the point you were trying to make with its mention. Please explain further what you hope for that to demonstrate, so we can determine more clearly the importance of this point.
• Finally, regarding the exhibition of your work at the 2005 World's Fair in the arborsculpture display, this is one example of exhibiting your work internationally, that is true. A point I'd prefer to have seen you acknowledge was that you were invited, recommended, and encouraged to do so by Richard Reames, serving as a coordinator of outreach to all the other artists who were featured in the exhibit there with you. If you need citations for that (I don't really think you do), they are readily available on the web. The fact that from that position, he chose to highlight and promote the work of other artists instead of his own work, speaks highly both of him and of his respect and admiration for the craft and its blossoming practitioners. I've now read both books and they express that same high level of respect and admiration therein. What is the intended citation use for this point, which is already clearly stated in the mini-bio subsection that covers you? If it is submitted as proof of your expertise, I think we can take that into consideration when we get to the point of discussing that topic, following arbitration, and obviously, without any conflicted parties exerting any influence on our examination of facts. duff 09:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: I have added the two reliable sources above to the footnotes for the Other names section, at the term arborsculpture, as both reliable sources Michigan State University Master Gardeners Newsletter & UC Davis Slosson Report of the Fair Oaks Orchard Project, indicate generic use of the term arborsculpture to describe this craft. Both documents also contain additional material that will also be useful for the article as it will clearly be well-sourced. I plan to follow up on that. Also, with puzzlement I recall that we have seen and cited this UC Davis Slosson Report before. Why was this source deleted? Were there not several other reliable sources indicating the same usage pattern, including this one, footnoting this term? Why are they also missing? I plan to study the diffs and follow up on those questions shortly. duff 11:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Duff regarding your comments about 2005. Dr. John Gathright PhD was the chief producer for the Growing Village at World Expo 2005 Japan (where the shaped trees were displayed). Dr. John Gathright gave to Richard Reames an honorary title of World Wide Coordinator for supplying the contact details of all the tree shapers he knew. No Richard Reames didn't "outreach" or "highlight and promote" other work over his own. Dr John Gathright researched and contacted artists from around the world, resulting in his choosing the top 6-7 artists to display their work at Expo. It is as simple as Richard Reames wasn't chosen. Dr John Gathright was the person we interfaced with about the expo. The word Arborsculpture was not used anywhere at the world expo. The display was call Circus Trees and Grown Furniture. Dr John Gathright commented here about it diff. Now if you also doubt the authenticity of this, it just so happens he emailed me about his overseas trip and also told me about his wikipedia comment. Which I would be willing to supply to any admin. Duff please try to remember Richard's books are WP:SPS and are not to be used for 3rd party claims. Blackash have a chat 13:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources-References-Citations Quality in Techniques Section

Of course, we still have also got to deal with the question of Self-Published Sources (WP:SPS); and by that I mean find some way to determine conclusively (if this has not been already established, and it may have) whether or not the SPSs, some of which are currently being used to support some of the material in this section, are written by an established expert in the field we are covering with this topic. Maybe someone can suggest the shortest path to such a determination. Once that's established one way or the other, we can then decide what the best way to handle that reality might be, such as finding new sources for material in this section, if the source(s) for it are deemed non-expert and thus restricted to the bios; OR such as keeping them with the material they support, if the source(s) are determined to be SPS by an expert in the field. I am also planning to re-assert the more concise single reference source(s) @ the references section, with the multiple citations to it in the body of the text. Most of the References are styled that way & it looks cleaner that way, with multiple instances of duplicated source names neatly consolidated, instead of overpopulating the References section with poorly formatted, duplicitous, already-cited references. Cheers!duff 13:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Richard Reames/Slowart has already stated at wikipedia he wasn't an expert at the time of writing his first book. I asked at the NPOV noticboard about Richard's 2nd book here. Of interest is this quote

• "Expertise in trade and crafts is generally judged on a peer review basis of masterworks. Look for other tree shaping experts who have favourably reviewed Reames' expertise in tree shaping in otherwise reliable sources (there are only 17 of them to check). Additionally, look for exhibition catalogues by galleries that have exhibited craft items of treeshaping by Reames: a major commercial exhibition will indicate master status. At the core is citation by other existing experts, or recognition through other forms of "publications" such as exhibitions on a commercial basis in major galleries. These can be reliably demonstrated or failed to be demonstrated. If demonstrated treat Reames as an expert for SPS purposes for all books published after that recognition. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)"

So I'll ask again where is Richard Reames's peer reviews of his trees and which tree shaping experts have published that Richard is an expert in Tree shaping? Of course we would need the proof the cite experts are really experts and not part of ring of experts citing each other as proof of their expertise. Example Dr Chris Cattle is an expert in this field. Blackash have a chat 03:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the best course will be to ignore the repetitive smugness, accept that as your suggestion and see where it leads. Clearly the citations provided have met the standard of "recognition through other forms of publications" and I believe that there are also regular onsite exhibitions of Reames' living works, so we'll have to look into that aspect further and possibly run it all up the flagpole at RsN again to get some guidance. Since this was recommended to you in January, by Fifelfoo, I wonder...did you look already, as was suggested to you? If you did, where have you already looked and what did you find? If you did not, why not?

Setting aside peer review for the moment, regrettably, but necessarily I'm afraid. Discerning Reames' expertise on the basis of peer review would be so much simpler and more reliable, had you not so determinedly and proveably attempted to poison the well by canvassing the 17 artists you know of with your stringent POV; none of whom have been clearly established as experts either. At this point, any peer review within this small field of other (possibly non-expert) practitioners would have to be considered potentially influenced by YOU, at best. If it turns out that there are no experts, which seems unlikely, we will have to deal with that in the way I suggested above. I wonder if Reames might be the only living expert in the field, and if he is, how such a situation is generally handled.

I'm not sure I understand the meaning of your last point. Was your example, calling Cattle an expert, meant to illustrate your point by demonstrating yourself as one artist in a ring of artists calling each other experts, thus disqualifying as an expert every artist you know? Or did you mean something else? duff 05:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Duff you did state you wanted some way to determine conclusively about SPS souces. That is why I posted the quote. I'll address your main points.

• Sorry about not being clear about "part of ring of experts citing each other as proof of their expertise" Here is an example:

Expert tree shaper Jane Doe quote "Richard Reames is an expert Arborsculptor and his trees are amazing. To see him create a chair shows a mastery of trees that others could only dream of." But the bases of Jane Doe's expertise is Richard Reames stating "I believe Jane Doe's trees take arborsculpture to a whole new level and could teach other experts a trick or three."

• Dr Chris Cattle is an expert based upon the fact he has had his stools exhibited in different international shows, in countries Japan and Mainland Europe. He also has some of his stools growing at the Museum of English Rural Life in Reading. I'm not stating he is an expert because of any peer review but if I did a peer review I would class Dr Chris Cattle an expert because he has process that is repeatable by others and is also successful with different tree species, for a start.
• Duff quote "regular onsite exhibitions of Reames' living works" Ummm it is a bit alike self publishing when the exhibitions are at Richards. Maybe we could call it self exhibiting?
• Duff quote "Clearly the citations provided have met the standard of "recognition through other forms of publications" No most of citations are based on Richard's Books which are WP:SPS. Mostly they are either author interviews or are book reviews. (Not peer reviews) The few that aren't use the word arborsculpture, but they don't discuss anything about Richard's expertise and they are not expert Tree shapers either.
• Duff I'm not trying to claim Richard Reames is an expert you are. To use his books for 3rd party claims you will need to prove that Richard is an expert before the writing of his book/s. If you can't provide evidence that Richard is an expert then interviews and book reviews based on his books also don't have creditability beyond wiki WP:SPS. Don't ask me to do your research, do it your self. IMO I don't think you'll find anything. Slowart/Reames would be quick to provide the references if they existed. It been over a year since I first asked for proof. Blackash have a chat 08:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Once again Blackash you have a clear COI here. You should not be deciding who the experts in the subject are, non-COI editors should decide that, based on what reliable sources say on the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Martin any editor may express an opinion I never expected that my comment here would be citeable. Blackash have a chat 02:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Please allow me to be clear, again. I am not claiming that either Reames or Northey is an expert. I am also not claiming that either Reames or Northey is not an expert. A claim that Blackash continues to stress without pause is that she is an expert and Reames is not. Neither point has been clearly established in my mind for either practioner. I don't know if either of them are experts or not. I am indeed researching this, which should be self-evident, and I am doing that for the good of the article. So should Blackash be, if improvement of the article is her goal. I recognize that she perceives me a mouthpiece for Reames. This is probably because she comments so frequently and I seldom find consensus with her views, whereas Reames seldom comments & I frequently do find consensus with his views. However, I share my camp with no one, think independently, and agree with what I agree with.

As for the multiple academic citations in reliable sources documenting Reames' expertise, and the ones documenting the use of the term arborsculpture to define the field: conflating the question of the term/title for the field with the question of expertise (or lack thereof) only muddies the water. Since they have been conflated again, I will deal with both: The strongest citations (which are the only ones that will stand as we advance this article to GA/FA status) appear to support both points (that arborsculpture is now the term primarily used to identify & describe the field and that Reames is one expert within that field). There may be other experts and there may be other strong citations. I remain completely open to those possibilities.

On the 'self-exhibiting' point made above by Blackash, I would otherwise agree with this, but for the following:

This idea that one could possibly exhibit a living mature woody plant at anyplace other than the place it is planted, without killing/harvesting it, is faulty, which should be self-evident. It disqualifies nearly all mature living pieces as potential examples of expertise, for you will not find them alive in any galleries but the ones they live in. Defining expertise in the craft as existing only where pieces have been harvested and/or killed to be exhibited outside their growing environment is, for this craft, not a correct way to winnow expertise. In this craft, 'finished' defies definition, unless the thing has been killed or harvested, as are Cattle's harvested stools and Walpole's harvested hangers. Clearly, those pieces are finished. It could also be said that Erlandson's and Krubsack's projects are, in one way, 'finished', because the practitioners are dead and thus no longer working on them, but many of their works are still alive and their development continues to this day. Erlandson's preserved dead pieces, Krubsack's chair, and the pieces of Wiechula's work that have been harvested and preserved; those are clearly 'finished'. The red alder bench we've talked about here, of Reames', even if we can sit on it or put cushions on it and recognize it as a bench, is probably still alive and developing (though I may be wrong about that). How could anyone possibly establish with any certainty whether or not that or any other living, growing piece is 'finished'? Most of Erlandson's and Reames' works (that I am aware of), with the possible exception of Reames' shovel handles, do not involve harvested items, but instead are stationary planted live works that are continuing to grow and develop today. Are the War-Khasi people experts, having never exhibited their work offsite? Is Primack an expert, having never produced a work? What about Erlandson and his daughter...experts? duff 17:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

As my published work is not been used to be cited in the article at this time, my expertise doesn't matter. Duff please give links to these "strongest citations" that claim "arborsculpture is now the term primarily used to identify & describe the field and that Reames is one expert within that field".

As for the Duff's comment of "exhibit a living mature woody plant" can't be done. Not true, it is called using a pot. Richard Reames even has photos of his chairs and one of his tables in a pot in his books and here. We have transplanted one of the people trees (the ballerina), into a pot (she is nearly 8ft tall in the pot) a year ago, and she still growing well. So yes living trees can and are being exhibited away from their home grounds. Example [16] Yes putting trees in pots slows the growth but if the piece is mature like our ballerina (by that I mean the canopy has grown past the design) the slowing is not an issue. Plus they can always be replanted into the ground at a later time.

People can and are experts in different aspects of a specialized field. Example: some people may be experts on the history of gun making but have never build a gun, (some people are experts in both aspects). Just because Joe Blogs has documented the history of gun making doesn't mean he can make a gun. To cite Joe Blogs ability with gun making we would need peer review/s or some other way to verify his level of ability at gun making. Blackash have a chat 02:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Link Rot & other Questionable Sources

Ref 23 "Garden Symposium 2008" on the main page has died but I found it on the wayback machine here is the link [17] Will someone please fix the ref link. Blackash have a chat 07:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought that up. I checked the wayback link you provided. It contains no information pertinent to the sentence it purports to cite, so far as I can see. If you see something else, please show me. Since the citation link is indeed rotted, and thus there is no way to discern whether it ever supported the sentence it purports to support, I'm removing the citation & placing a citation needed tag at that sentence. I looked for a suitable citation myself & didn't find one yet. I'd be very pleased to add any supporting citation you may find in your search. duff 16:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll get the cite for this by early next week. Blackash have a chat 09:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I question why this editor (Blackash) wants to link to an advertisement for an old workshop. Not only are advertisement unreliable sources but this editors focus on finding discussing and adding links to Reames work for the apparent purpose discrediting him, is yet another example of the misuse of the retractable privileges of speaking here.Slowart (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we should be careful about removing references to old articles just because we can't access them anymore. We don't, for example, remove references to out of print books or old academic journal articles that are difficult to find. AfD hero (talk) 07:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

@ AfD hero: I agree completely. In this case, the reference in question was not an article, academic or otherwise, nor was it a book of any sort. It was a brief promotional announcement for an upcoming lecture. As the diffs illustrate (and will always illustrate, should anyone wish to extract that weak cite and bring it back), the reference did not support the material it was purported to cite. It was not a reliable source anyway, and neither did (or was) the document at the wayback link provided. The material still needs to be cited or is subject to removal. I may be misunderstanding your point, so please let me ask, do you see some aspect of that differently or feel as though not enough care was taken? duff 06:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I trust your judgement in this matter. AfD hero (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Following the link, It tells of a workshop where you can shape a chair between 9am and 1pm with another workshop starting at 1pm. That means approx 3hrs to shape a chair. This demonstrates he has a method,and it is fairly instant. Yes ,this is a weak citation. His books can be used as a reference for the 1 hour or afternoon shaping time frame.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 06:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Well it's a judgement call and there are several points against it. Those points being that it is commercial/promotional material so claims are potentially biased or exaggerated, that it is not written by a neutral third party, and that one would have to do some level of deduction/synthesis to go from what is written there to what is claimed here. If we ever push this article for GA or FA status, these are points the reviewer would almost certainly bring up. AfD hero (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it would be really GREAT to be able to use his books as references to cite this point (and several others), but since his books are self-published and since it's not been established clearly yet whether he's an expert in his field or not, and since there's been protracted controversy here about that question, we can't use them for that. By the same token, we can't use the statement in question either, as the only reference for it is not considered a reliable source, for the reasons just stated. It seems like a paradox, but it isn't really. The path is clear and rooted in policy, unless there's a reliable source to cite this statement, it has to go. So do all the other statements that rely on only either or both of those books, with the possible exception of statements within his mini-bio, where biographical information can be cited by those books. I don't like it either, because there's precious little material available to cite on specific techniques such as this, but we're not writing a how-to and we can't. We also can't play the source material both ways: expert when it's deemed strategic to include information & then not expert when that better supports omission of information. That won't fly here either, much less at GA/FA review.duff 18:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like to note that we don't need sources for everything, only material that a reasonable person might contest. WP:V AfD hero (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

@ AfD hero:I think that's a good point and well placed. I'm still saying the article should be based entirely on reliable sources, though & I think you are saying that, too. Many points in the article, as it stands, have been based upon, and are copiously cited to the two sources that are Reames' work. Blackash maintains that those two sources consist of self-published non-expert SPS that can't be used to support much that she prefers not to find in the article. I'm trying to entertain that idea seriously, so please help me grasp this if you've got hold of it: If the source of the information in the main article body is unworthy of citation for one point, how can it be worthy for another and what is the objective basis upon which to make that call? For parts that might not need sources, what's your opinion or the policy on the best way to determine which portions don't need sources?

I would say there is no fixed formula, but we should use our best judgement on a case-by-case basis. With regards to Reames books, I think we should definitely use them on points that are uncontroversial. On controversial points, we might still include it, but preface the sentence with "according to artist Richard Reames, ...", similar to how articles on political news topics operate. AfD hero (talk) 05:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF quote:-

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;

2. it does not involve claims about third parties;

3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;

4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

I used this as guild, for the info out of Richard's books. The techniques cited to Richard's books were about how Richard shapes his trees. Bending trees is an activity. The wording was factual. It wasn't making third parties claims. All the techniques were directly related to Richard's style of shaping. There is no doubt as to its authenticity. It was only part of the overall article. Plus I've now found that some of Richard's cites can be referenced else where aswell. Blackash have a chat 14:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both; that was extremely helpful. Bending is a technique used both alone and in combination with other techniques, by several (but perhaps not all) of the notable practitioners covered; citeably so. No practitioner's chosen combinations of techniques have thus far proven so notable as to be known as a Method meriting citation by reliable sources, much less separate sections describing each 'Method'. These facts strongly support the current NPOV direction we are taking with the Techniques section.

If for some reason Reames' combination of techniques (or the Pooktre Method, or anyone else's) becomes so notable as to be referenced by any reliable sources as a 'Method' specific to them, then that named Method might merit an individual article covering it, at which point we or some future editorial team should discuss that & possibly cover that Method, identifying its originator(s) (of course) there in that article.

Please Note: This is a fuzzily similar but fundamentally different question than that one which asks, "What is this whole body of craftworks and artworks called by reliable sources?," so please don't mistake or misquote any of this as my thinking on that question. That question, thus far, remains a poorly understood and unresolved one, largely due to the confusion generated by conflating it with this question, which is, "Are there any notable Methods referred to by reliable sources?". I am very glad if we have (at last!) resolved this one, for now: At this time there are NO reliable sources indicating any clear, well-established, "Reames' Method," nor any other "ArtistXbrand's Method". This realization should render the meaning of the other question much more straightforward and far simpler for everyone to grasp. duff 21:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

These refs below write about two methods. Duff are you saying these refs are not reliable sources? If so why?

• Indian Magazine [18]
• London financial times [19] Blackash have a chat 23:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I wish you would not ask me to do this and instead just recognize it yourself; that which must be SO clear to even the most casual observer. These two press clippings, linked from YOUR website, are both based on extensive interviews with YOU, wherein YOU have made this very case to the interviewer, in support of the superiority and prescience of YOUR OWN METHOD. They are not even a little bit OK as citations to support the point you seek to cite. Both articles are replete with quotes from YOU and are so clearly slanted at YOU that I can hardly understand how you could consider them to be neutral and reliable sources; particularly after having put up such a fuss about articles that could even possibly have been interpreted as influenced in any way by Reames. Do you honestly find this material to be a reliable and neutral source for citeable proof of distinct 'Methods.'? If you do, once more I am floored. duff 00:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The second article, which is originally from The Financial Times' Weekend Magazine at http://www.ft.com/magazine, consists ENTIRELY of a direct quote from YOU. It begins, "In her words:". 'Susannah Snider' placed her byline in an odd place on this clipping, within the quotation marks, but these are not her words. These are your words. The names you give for the publications and titles are also, as usual, incorrect, but that's a comparatively minor issue.

I'll say this again: the results of yours and your partner's work are spectacular, but you really should not be trying to exert this type nor this level of influence on the editorial team writing this Wikipedia article. duff 00:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The real question you should be asking about these references is: Are Peter Cook and Becky Northey experts in this field? Are these sources self published? If the answer is we are experts and these are not self published sources then my understanding is that these references would be reliable sources. Which are you questioning? That we are experts? Or do you think we self published these articles? Blackash have a chat 02:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Both sources are questionable and yes, I am definitely questioning them. That is the topic at hand. They are unduly self-serving, they are being used to support synthesized claims about the 'Methods' of third parties, and there is reasonable doubt as to their authenticity. I'll ask again, since this was my question, and you may have missed it, "Do you honestly find these two sources to be reliable and neutral sources for citeable proof of distinct 'Methods.'? One other question you might ask of yourself, perhaps, is whether or not it is appropriate for you to participate in or exert any influence whatsoever in discussions pertaining to your own expertise, including the determination of which questions editors should or should not be asking. I want to make it very clear that I do not wish to debate with you any further on any of these questions. I volunteer my time here and I do that because I love this project, Wikipedia, not because I have any interests to defend or anything at stake with my editing at all, and not because I like to waste precious editing time and self-generated power arguing in talkpages with conflicted interests over their own expertise. That takes all the joy out of editing and I come here to write. duff 06:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Self-serving is to do with self published. I didn't publish these sources.
• Duff it is your opinion it is synthesized, can you cite that?
• Third parties claims is also to do with self published.
• Duff's quote "there is reasonable doubt as to their authenticity." I have the emails from the editors about these media clippings. I would be happy to forward them to an admin so their authenticity can be checked.
• Again in case you missed it. Are these references self published? Are the people quoted experts? These are core policies to deciding if these references are reliable or not.
• Why are you joining the issues of neutrally and sources together?
• Giving references, listing some evidence and pointing out you should be focusing on content style questions is not unreasonable behavior. Blackash have a chat 14:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Echoing and expanding Martin Hogbin's unanswered questions upthread when you submitted the same source this morning, to cite the the '3 separate methods'. Is this author an expert? Can you provide links to the article or the full text? This doesn't seem like a very authoritative source, on it's face, but I'd like to evaluate it fully and fairly. We really need a horticultural journal or another resource with some weight and editorial snuff.duff 08:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Questionable Citations

Tree News

Could the submitter please provide a link to evaluate the source material for this citation: <ref name>=treenews: Citation| unused_data = John May| title = Tree News | publisher = | pages = | isbn = | date = Spring/Summer 2005</ref>, which is used to support this controversial point: At the Tree shaping#Other names section, cites a generic use of the phrase "Tree training" to describe the overall craft.

I found a very interesting detail about the above-noted citation in particular (currently @ #68 in the reference list):

• It had been previously added to the article, formatted as <ref>May, John (Spring/Summer 2005) "The Art of Arborsculpture" Tree News (UK), p. 37</ref>, and among several other oddly disappeared footnotes, had been cited as evidence of the generic use of the term arborsculpture in that same section, during discussions to determine whether or not arborsculpture was indeed a generic term.
• It was later deleted from the article entirely, reason unknown.
• It was then still later returned to the article in a different cite format with different content: <ref name=treenews>{{Citation| unused_data = John May| title = Tree News | publisher = | pages = | isbn = | date = Spring/Summer 2005}}</ref>, which erroneously omits the article's title and places the publication name instead at the title field, whereupon it was then used to cite this different information: use of the term 'tree training' as generic for the craft, but it was not re-cited at the term arborsculpture.

I am going to standardize the citation format for this cite to the primary cite format we're using, and populate that with the information we do have about it from both attempts to cite it. I'm also returning the previous citation to the Tree shaping#Other names section, next to the term 'arborsculpture', because its actual title clearly indicates a generic use of the term to describe the craft, which is why the citation was put at that location to begin with. For now, I'm leaving the cite at 'tree training', in the same section, as we can't tell whether it does or does not contain any information that would support the use of the term 'tree training' as an 'other name' for the craft, until we see the material.

I can't help wondering if the actual title of the article was inconvenient, conflicting as it does with the point of view being pushed, but it may instead have been a coincident series of good-faith oversights, which I'm prepared to assume. Could the editor(s) responsible for the flip please explain the reasoning behind these changes and also please provide links to the original article, in its entirety, for evaluation as to whether it is a reliable source for anything?duff 01:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I have standardized the citation and found some other interesting information in the process of attempting to do so.

Here's what I came up with for a standardized cite, inclusive all fields I was able to track down:

• <ref name=TreeNews>{{Citation|first=John|last=May|title=The Art of Arborsculpture|publication=Tree News http://www.treenews.org.uk/|page=37|date=Spring/Summer 2005|publisher=The Tree Council http://www.treecouncil.org.uk/}}</ref>

The interesting part is that Blackash had already reached out and touched the author of that article on his personal blog, shortly after he announced that new issue of his Tree News magazine, on 2005-06-22, with this responding post of hers to his announcement, wherein she did not identify herself as Rebecca or Becky Northey as she has usually done when countless similar missives have been sent as part of her off-wiki campaign. Instead, she used her anonymous blogger profile [20], and it is likely that if he read the message, he did not know who it was from.

I sent the author a message on that same personal blogger page today, using my only blogger profile (which is an open one), asking if he could provide a copy of the article in question, for our evaluation. If I get any response, I'll be very glad to share it here and update the citation usage accordingly.

This has taken most of the day, just getting to the bottom of this one muddied citation, correcting it, and documenting the correction here. Time had been spent already once before, when the original citation was first lobbed in. That's hugely wasteful of editorial effort, but it is necessary work in order to get the article right and also to ward off this very subtle but pervasive form of manipulation and misuse of the language and of Wikipedia. There are MANY other citations to be hammered, AGAIN, due to quiet and unnoticed deletions of MANY properly sourced and properly formatted citations. The entire campaign was at quashing the organic spread of a word coined by a perceived commercial rival. I am glad that it has ceased in the article space, because this is really tedious and disheartening stuff. duff 03:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

There. I have added back to the article all of the deleted citations to authoritative reference material that had somehow dissolved away during my absence. You'll find most of them linked at the word arborsculpture under Tree shaping#Other names They'll all have to be re-attached to any remaining material that they used to properly cite and new, more interesting things will surely be said in place of the deleted article text that is buried deep within the diffs of the many changes that wrought this loss. Please look each citation over carefully as there's a lot of good stuff there.

It should be very clear to all present and future editors, by both the scope and quality of the references returned, which had been improperly deleted, as well as that of the nine new authoritative reference sources (YAY!) that have been located by the efforts of SEVERAL other people besides myself (THANK YOU!!), that the generic name most commonly used to collectively describe this craft by authoritative sources is arborsculpture.

The funny thing is, it really doesn't matter what this article's title is. That ship has long sailed, as I've tried to make clear before. The point is that this IS what it IS called, and so that is where the resources are to be found. Knowing that makes it SO much easier to develop the article to its full potential, because now that this point is unmistakeably clear and very well referenced, we can now plumb all those excellent references for what will now seem like brand new material (and some of it is) with which we can greatly improve this article. And, we can search for the thing itself, not some pale ambiguous leaping shadow of a thing that doesn't actually exist and that no one is writing about. That's what really matters!! Oh, and ah...yeah...29 authoritative sources is the new total by my count. So what is the process (following the completion of the currently pending arbitration, of course), to reassert the process of returning this article to its original title? Cheers! It's my naptime. duff 09:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Moving so fast concenus can't keep up.

The article has changed dramatically and now has a huge hole right in the middle. Duff invited comments on the Methods section and within 24 hrs the whole section had been homogenised. The whole section has less information in it now. Is it going to have less information and say nothing? When editors who have no real world experience of the subject and make edit after edit on a subject they have no intention of doing, information gets lost. These editors don't know which text is relevant and which is not. As a result misinformation happpens when an editor won't slow down and chooses to edit with no regard for others. Other uninvolved editors have stated it was a good article. This was before Duff started.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Rather than attacking another editor why not tell us what the problems are. You say things like, '...which text is relevant and which is not', and 'The whole section has less information in it now'. What exactly do you mean? Which irrelevant text has been included and which relevant text omitted? What information has been removed? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I just want to say that I think the current methods section is much more encyclopedic as it totally avoids sectioning off the topic under different banners. If any practitioners have there own sections or pages that is the place to differentiate their methods from the greater list of all methods. Colincbn (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Mini-Bios section & Main article full biographies

Thanks, Colincbn. I agree with your second point, and I did some work on the Richard Reames biography page today, following an interesting editorial interpretation of that idea by Sydney Bluegum, there. I watch that page and discovered that there was an edit made there consisting largely of an unattributed clip-and-paste from an old version of this article's Techniques section, containing most of the old errors in grammar, sentence structure, and unacceptable citations. I left a note on SB's talkpage concerning the need for an attribution to this page and also noted that on the talkpage of the Reames article. I then ironed out some of the citations there, since SB had noted that they needed some work. I started to work on the text errors, but on further consideration, it ocurred to me that the information pasted suddenly took up the whole biographical article, in a way that just seemed too repetitive of this page's material and appeared very pointy to me. I decided to expand that biography, using another garden writer's page as a framework for that (I detailed all this on the talk page there, too). I summarized the information about his methods therein, not because there is any need to hide anything, but because it makes more sense to develop the full biography first, from facts that can be cited, and then (if it seems like a good idea) to add more detail about his arborsculpture techniques, without writing a how-to book or rewriting his book on his biography.

The more I think about it, and look at the overall article, the more I think simple summaries of the techniques known to be used by a given crafter, would be the best way to go, both for the mini-bios and for any full bios associated with the craft. More than that will get us right back into the same minefield we have already been toe-stepping in: arguments about whose approach yields a better product, or who performs which technique better, or who is more expert than who at crafting these things. I want to avoid falling into that trap again, if at all possible. If reliable sources do emerge that indicate a clearly proprietary well-established method for any of these artists' chosen combinations of techniques, then that method might warrant a page in its own right, detailing the well-cited particulars of, for example only, The Boonnetr Method. By the same token, a biography on Nirandr Boonnetr, should there be one, should be structured like those of other artists (or authors, should he be or become one) and cover the life of the person, not focus so tightly on the minute details of his techniques. That's my take on it thus far. {Sorry so long-winded, always.)duff 07:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that mini bios have no real place in this article, they arose from the commercial rivalry between editors. Other subjects do not have these unless the practitioners are really famous. I am not sure that individual pages on the practitioners are justified either, none of them is particularly notable. Most small business would love to have a page on their founder showing their own methods and techniques but they do not get them, because this is an encyclopedia not a commercial directory. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

@Martin: Not sure I agree with this, but open to further discussion. I am not against distilling the existing mini-bios more carefully to cull the unsupported dross and citeable material that belongs in a different section, nor am I against briefly covering techniques known to be practiced by each, to whatever extent adequate citation(s) are available to meet the standard acceptable for biographies. The article could be re-worked to make only a mention of its notable practitioners and no mini-bios, if there's consensus for that approach. I wouldn't prefer that, necessarily, but I haven't dug into the question of whether other similar subjects have mini-bios with links to main-article full biographies of notable practitioners or not, so I don't know how accurate that statement is. I seem to recall Blackash presenting some fairly reasonable examples to the contrary (which I'm pretty sure she'll post again here to protest removal of the mini-bios), but I don't remember myself what those examples were, just that they seemed reasonable enough to defend keeping the material in. I'm not sure if you are suggesting that the Krubsack, Erlandson, Wiechula, Nash, and Reames biographical articles are on non-notable practitioners and so should be considered for deletion, or maybe just that some of them should (determined by what objective process, I wonder?), but I'm not (so far) in agreement that doing so would be a good idea or an improvement to the encyclopedia. It seems to me like it would be pretty contrived to rewrite the article without any mention of its practitioners at all, though I think that could also be done... however the images that of the work product would have to be attributed to someones hands, wouldn't they? The plants don't do this dance on their own, as far as I know. The article could probably be written without those images too, but I think it would be a lot less fascinating if there were no images illustrating the depth of what has been created in this field of endeavor. Which approach would best improve the article? duff 19:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If you look at topiary,pruning, landscaping, horticulture, floriculture you will find no mention of practitioners so it is not at all contrived not to mention them. Arborist has a list of arborists with a sentence on each, many notable for doing something else. Almost any subject could have short bios on practitioners of the subject but what proportion do, although I am sure that many small businesses would love to get a plug for their business in the relevant article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this topic has more in common with art topics like expressionism, electronic_dance_music, or modernism than topiary, pruning, et al. Most art topic articles have extensive discussions of notable artists and major works (in some format or another). I like the way it is honestly, but I would be comfortable getting rid of the notable practitioners section if the information there was reorganized and integrated elsewhere. AfD hero (talk) 01:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... Not sure how I feel about this one. From the standpoint of art, yeah having notable practitioners mentioned is fine. But topiary is also art in a way. I suppose for there to be a notable practitioners section everyone in it must be "notable". In other words they should qualify for their own article. True one could say that in the community of "tree shapers" a person is notable, but in any community of limited scope people will be notable without qualifying as such in WP. Colincbn (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Right, wikipedia's notability standards at WP:N limit what topics are suitable for their own article, but not the content of articles (that is left to our discretion). AfD hero (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

From memory it was a few different forms of martial arts articles that give me the idea about practitioners. I like the idea of including the practitioners at this time as there really aren't many who do this yet. Most of the practitioners in the article have secondly sources, I know pooktre has some more sources, as do others, example Nirandr Boonnetr got one more I know of.

I agree with SilkTork's comment at the workshop "the article as it stood was a general article on the deliberate shaping/training of trees, and that allowed the possibility of articles to split out per WP:Summary style on specific techniques or artistic brands" diff I think this is a logical way forward about the method/process. Mention them briefly at Tree shaping then wiki link each process to it's other article. That way people who are interested in more detail can find it. Blackash have a chat 04:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

If notability for one's own article is not a factor in notability for mentioning in this one I see no reason not to keep the section. Also all of the practitioners listed seem to have at least some mention in outside sources. Colincbn (talk) 05:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

If mini bios are to become a standard part of all specialist articles that is great news for small businesses. Most owners, partners, or directors can find their names in print somewhere, often specialist publication or advertorials, so they are now all entitled to have a mini bio plus a brief description of the features of their products in WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I guess the confusion comes from when art is a business. Obviously we do have articles about some living artists who sell their work, and those articles must follow all BLPs as far as proving notability. But as AFD H. points out above those rules are only for articles not content. I guess WP:UNDUE applies for content but how do we judge what is due weight for this? Obviously not mentioning any practitioners of any art just because they sell it seems overly heavy handed, especially when many of them actually do have their own articles. But what about those who don't? Are you suggesting removing all mentions of all practitioners, or do you have a different idea? Colincbn (talk) 09:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Backtracking to Martin's earlier comment, of the articles he noted, arborist is probably the most applicable of those in that it is a highly specialist craft (closely related, too) consisting of something like 5000 certified arborists worldwide, with several noteworthy superstars (some briefly outlined there) and probably a lot of novice practitioners. The topic we are covering with our article builds directly upon that craft, uses many of its techniques, and is almost completely restricted to woody plants. The others are about related fields of endeavor, for sure, but not so highly specialist (arguably) and consisting of a lot more professional practitioners, I would suspect. Contrarily, one other note on that, bonsai had been previously brought up, and that is also a very specialist craft, closely related to this one and with an even longer recorded history. There I see no bios, mini or otherwise. I don't want to use that as an argument to not have them here though, as my opinion is that there are probably also truly notable practitioners of bonsai, both historic and contemporary, perhaps even referenced in the article among the methods (not sure), whose works might in fact merit mini-bios or bios in that article. Perhaps the same could be said of topiary, I'm not familiar enough with either craft's major players to know that yet, but as a reader I'd like to be...so that's maybe a good reason to have such things.

As far as small businesses and whether they merit inclusion, I don't think we need to get stuck on that....we don't seem to have any problem with articles about big businesses (I could list many with great WP articles), as long as they are NPOV. We've also got a whole lot of articles specific to small businesses already, which I could also list many of, but check out this list, for a tiny slice of perspective: List of pizzerias. Unless there's some relevant policy I oughtta read, I don't see a problem with NPOV articles about either existing or historical businesses, if notable, nor with their mention in bios about notable persons who happen to have some involvement with them.duff 23:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, and I don't want to start an argument here over this, but do want to clarify one point with respect to Blackash's comment above, as it's been easy to get confused over this very matter and I don't want to be spun again. Nirandr Boonnetr is a person. Rebecca Northey and Peter Cook (too many others to wikilink & make any sense here) are both persons. Pooktre is not a person, nor is it a business, according to Blackash. It is a brand used by Northey & Cook to identify their methods and their works and to some extent, if their own usage is any indication, their personal and artistic partnership. I think I am understanding that correctly. Either way, if there are to be mini-bios on notable craftspeople in the article, my sense is that each notable practitioner should have their own mini-bio and be listed in the chronology accurately, if they are to be listed chronologically, partnerships notwithstanding. Each practitioner mentioned should be notable and able to stand on their own merits. duff 00:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... I had not thought of that. I have never had a problem with putting them together as they work on the same pieces. I suppose the most accurate thing would be to name the section "Peter Cook" and mention Becky in it. Colincbn (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

We (Peter and I) are join artists in our work. Pooktre is our signature for our art and methods. As SilkTork pointed out we are better known as Pooktre than by our names. Blackash have a chat 08:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not so much that I have a problem with putting them together, as it is that I consider accuracy very important, particularly in matters where there may be (in this case ARE) conflicting commercial interests. The personal & artistic partnership 'Pooktre' is neither a person nor is it a business, so there'll be no biographical article for 'Pooktre', under the clear standards for a bio, nor will there be an article about a business called 'Pooktre', under the clear standards established for articles about businesses. Wikipedia probably does have articles about specific brands and there are probably standards for those types of articles, but I haven't researched that at all. That's one concern.

Here's another: There was, some will recall, a long and tendentious discussion about the ordering of the bios. Although I strongly supported the neutrality of an alphabetical presentation, we all reached a consensus that a chronology was the best way to go, and indeed the bio section is entitled "Chronology of Notable Practitioners" to clearly establish what the deal is with that ordering. Cook & Northey's work together as a partnership began in 1995, by all accounts, including their own. If they are to be listed together as this partnership, their listing belongs at the proper place in that chronology, not backdating Northey to the date that Peter Cook apparently started working in this way with trees, thereby misstating Northey's influence, chronology, and experience in the field. This mistake has fostered a fair bit of one-upsmanship and misstated claims of more advanced expertise, etc., directly pointed by Northey at Reames & his also-extensive work. That has influenced our work also and I want to discourage that theme and those effects thoroughly. It gets right at the root of the question of who is or is not an expert in this craft, and whose works should or should not be considered those of an expert. It's sticky, I know, but we've got to get it right somehow. Chronologically, it either goes Cook-->Reames-->Northey or it goes Reames-->partnership of Cook-Northey called Pooktre. If we're keeping mini-bios in, either one of those things needs to happen, or we really need to reconsider whether a different ordering scheme than chronology might be more honest and appropriate. duff 19:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Duff actually it was a very short discussion Alphabetic or Chronological order for the bios. The bio were put in chronological order. In my opinion the whole time since you reordered them the problem has been the dates should be more prominent then they are. The best answer would be to standardize a layout of dates at the start of each bio.

Duff your comment about length of time and how I have "misstated claims of more advanced expertise, etc., directly pointed by Northey at Reames" give diffs/links to back up your claim I have use length of time to prove my expertise. When you can't, I'm not going to accept that you make an honest mistake. Directly because I have stated to you "Just because you do something for 10 years doesn't mean you are expert." my diff When you tried to claim Richard was expert due to length of time Duff's diff. Again it is not how long someone does something that makes them an expert in any field. Blackash have a chat 23:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

First, please back up your claim, that I claim that you "have use length of time to prove [your] expertise.". I do not so claim. That is a strawman argument, perhaps one based in a misinterpretation of what I actually typed above, but not one that I'll be sidetracked into tracking down diffs to refute. I will still accept that you have made an honest mistake. Is there any good reason why the mini-bios should not be ordered properly according to chronology, if they are kept in the article at all? duff 23:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

A very similar mistake in understanding is evident at the 'Duff's diff' you provided above. Nowhere in that diff did I "tried to claim Richard was expert due to length of time." Still, the merest suggestion that he might be, for any reason, set you off on a critical tangent then, just as it has now. I still say he might be and I still mean sincerely that you claiming he isn't does not make the case. That question merits further exploration at a different talkpage heading.duff 23:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Duff's quote "...not backdating Northey to the date that Peter Cook apparently started working in this way with trees, thereby misstating Northey's influence, chronology, and experience in the field. This mistake has fostered a fair bit of one-upsmanship and misstated claims of more advanced expertise, etc., directly pointed by Northey at Reames" Duff this is how your quote comes across to me. ...backdating Northey is as a mistake that lead to misstated claims of more advanced expertise.

Duff's diff was part of a discussion about the reliability of Richard Reames's second book Arborsculpture. Scroll up to 16 lines to see Duff was replying about Richard Reames's second book. [21] Duff's diff quote "10 years later, same topic, much practice, not an expert? Who says he's not?" Umm you do talk about years here as though that matters in proving someone is an expert. Blackash have a chat 03:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

As the bios stand with out clear dating, it is a grey area. If all the dates where formalized either into the bio header or at the start of each min bio, so as the dates are easily found. It wouldn't matter whether our section was listed before Richard's or listed after. Clear prominent dating would clear up this grey area, because people can figure it out themselves that Peter started researching and shaping years before we starting created together. Blackash have a chat 04:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm neutral so far on the question of whether any of you are qualified as experts on the subject, but I do think you're all very talented. Those are different questions too. As I mentioned, those questions of practitioner expertise do merit further examination in a section concertedly dedicated to those questions. There's no hurry either, to resolve the citation-needed tag being discussed at this section. I also firmly agree with Martin Hogbin's suggestion upthread, that both the practitioners' section & the article name should be left until the arbitration is completed. Please rest with confidence that editors with no direct interest in the subject will indeed work together to find consensus on improvements in those areas of this article in accordance with WP policy.duff 05:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe that there is some misunderstanding the meaning of 'neutral' as used by WP. WP maintains a neutral POV. In other words, where there are two or more significant point of view expressed in reliable sources, we should choose between them on a neutral basis using reliable secondary/tertiary sources to inform us. We have no obligation to consider commercial benefit or personal kudos in our decisions. The fact that one editor (Blackash), who is a partner in one of the businesses under discussion is arguing strongly for a particular format suggest to me that this is a subject of commercial significance where this editor has a serious COI. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

There may be a misunderstanding of that, I agree. However, since I'm the one who used the term 'neutral' right above this comment, I feel compelled to reassure you that I do clearly understand the meaning of WP's neutral POV as you described, and as distinct from the way in which I just used that term (which was to plainly indicate that I hadn't come to any conclusion yet on a question). Also, though I just have paid a compliment to all the artists, please know that my general appreciation for the overall craft and its creators does not inform my decisions about any of the points we discuss for this article nor does it impact my willingness and determination to view all of these matters with a neutral POV, as used by WP. I think you know that already, but this editing environment has caused me to want to be particularly particular in my clarifications, so as to avoid any misunderstandings if possible. I agree completely with each of your points, and the same sense is suggested to me as was to you, by the comments made around the particular format used.duff 10:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The comment was not aimed at you. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

Martin, my understanding of WP:NPOV is different to yours at WP:FIVE under section Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. quote "We strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". I don't see any comment about editors choosing between them. Martin I wish you would link to the policies you are talking about, will you please link to the policy you are talking about. Blackash have a chat 15:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not see the relevance of WP:NPOV to this article. What are the various POVs that you are referring to? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Martin's quote "WP maintains a neutral POV. In other words, where there are two or more significant point of view expressed in reliable sources, we should choose between them on a neutral basis using reliable secondary/tertiary sources to inform us." Martin this is what I was replying to. It sounds like a policy or a guideline, please give a link to the relevant wiki policy/ies or guideline/s as I would like to understand your opinion. Blackash have a chat 02:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Duff, it seems you and Martin are not the only ones who want to wait until after arbitration to make your moves. Colincbn seems to feel this way as well diff short section quote "...but with the ArbCom hanging over the issues I think it will be hard to address them effectively." If you guys are editing neutrally and following wiki policies, it wouldn't matter if arbitration is still happening. Blackash have a chat 15:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

So it does seem, and to my mind, that is a fairly substantial consensus to let these issues stand and wait to seek consensus on them until it can be sought in a more neutral editing environment, however that comes about. There's no hurry. In this case, the fact that it has mattered, does matter, and (on the basis of those two facts) is most likely to continue to matter (and provoke conflict under present conditions), is why arbitration has become necessary in the first place.

To address the POV question squarely, while (from Policies and guidelines), "Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices" and both policies and guidelines are developed "to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia."

Neutral point of view is both "a fundamental principal of Wikipedia" (one of the five pillars) and "one of the three core content policies which jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles." "Because these [three] policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another." The other two policies (or standards for inclusion) are no original research and verifiability. From verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." From no original research, "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source" and we must "cite reliable, published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented". This means that "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists," including "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources," may not be included.

The Five Pillars is a summary of the five fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates. The second of these principles or 'pillars', which you quote, goes on to state that "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy," and that "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here," and further, that, "That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics."

The policies are meant to clarify and are guided by the pillars and they are not in any conflict with them, insofar as I can grasp. Do we all share this understanding? I don't interpret Martin Hogbin's comment to mean that we should exclude any authoritatively sourced points of view, but instead that we should choose carefully and rigorously between those which are authoritatively sourced and those which aren't. Editorial points of view are another matter. Though it's easy to conflate and thus confuse the two ideas, particularly in cases where editorial teams contain any editors who are pushing their own points of view, editorial points of view are exactly what we need to separate ourselves from completely, so that we can stick to authoritatively sourced facts.duff 18:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The name of the art

Duff you seem to started the discussion on what the name of the art described in this article is. For some reason you seem to have started this discussion in the article itself rather than where it should be, which is on the talk page. No point in the article needs 29 references!

I have copied the section from the article to here where (less references and tags) it can be discussed. Once again, I would ask all editors with a direct personal or business interest in the subject not to involve themselves in this discussion because the have an obvious COI.

Since this discussion is likely to lead on to the best name for the article, I suggest that we consider the names as candidates for the title of this article.

I still support waiting, though I'll participate in civil discussions. The text of the other names section is incorrect and unsupported by citations. In particular, this sentence "The result has been no standard name for the artform to emerge." is false, deliberately misleading, and unsupported by any citations, with the notable exception of those whose content is purely biased and demonstratedly influenced by the editor/artist who wants it kept. This sentence, "Richard Reames refers to it as arborsculpture.", while accurate, is also misleading as it suggests in context that he is somehow wrong or renegade to do so, which is also patently false. I placed the tags because simply removing the text would likely have been contentious, but it isn't right either to just let stand in the article statements whose neutrality and accuracy are so obviously lacking. Careful study of the material provided at each source that I painstakingly re-coded and re-attached will make that very clear, but I think it will take some time for editors to consider each source, since they are actually really good and weighty sources. I am not seeking a hasty decision that will later need more arguing, so how about we let it ride for a bit and see what emerges? duff 18:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

This section (of this talkpage) should be retitled "Other names section" and we should work on this section and get it right first, before any further discussions on changing the name of the article, IMO

I don't think either sentence noted above adds much to the article and I propose deleting both. I also am not convinced that the second sentence,

• "There are very few practitioners around the world, each with their own name for their technique.",

is either entirely accurate or needed to open this section. There are probably a lot of enthusiasts out there doing this in one form or another, who aren't famous at all or interested in becoming so, and who just think it's a pretty cool thing to do with their own backyard trees. We don't want to be deliberately exclusionary or support this idea of some lofty club of aesthetes, when the unbiased sources do not suggest that either. Some practitioners have achieved some notoriety, and we've got those pretty well covered in that other section.

The other two sentences stand well on their own, and they explain in a non-controversial and factual manner, what the section contains. :Check this out:

"Throughout its history, various words have been used to describe this craft. These are the terms most commonly encountered:"

Simple.

Then, I would strongly suggest removing those which are not actually commonly encountered. Specifically, TreeGoshing has a single reference for its use, proposed rather offhandedly in the source it comes from, and it cannot be said to be commonly encountered. I have no idea what goshing actually is, but it isn't a common name for this craft. Pooktre is not a common name for this craft either, and the nature of that brand has been well-established in previous discussions. It should also NOT automatically redirect to this article, as that is also misleading, in precisely the same way. Keeping that proprietary term in a list of synonymous generic terms for this work is not right. Pooktre is only synonymous with the proprietary works of the Cook/Northey team. The same is true of its use in the lead and in other places in the article. A listing under Examples, right along with Gilroy Gardens and Fab Tree Hab, is most the appropriate place for that. Arborsmith Studios should be there too and there should be well-referenced articles developed to cover both, from a neutral and compleeeeetly unbiased point of view. There should be See Also sections in both articles, pointing to this article. That's what both are: examples of this craft. duff 19:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Section from article

Throughout its history, various names have been used to describe this artform. There are very few practitioners around the world, each with their own name for their techniques. The result has been no standard name for the artform to emerge. Richard Reames refers to it as arborsculpture. The following names are the most commonly encountered:

• Arborsculpture

• Arbortecture
• Biotecture/Biotechture
• Grown furniture
• Live Art
• Living furniture
• Pleaching
• Pooktre
• TreeGoshing
• Tree training

I did a quick check of a couple of the refs. 24 We're going to Live in the Treees,. This one uses pooktre as well as arborsculpture generically 5 The Tree Circus,. This one is basically a book review written like an article note the plug for Richard's book. I will go though these on Tuesday when I have more time. Note how Duff didn't add the arborsculpture/pooktre cite to the pooktre entry though he added it to the arborsculpture entry. Blackash have a chat 04:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Right. I did not bother with scouring these citations for references to Pooktre, because this is not an article about Pooktre. Pooktre is not an 'other name' for the artform. It is your brand. Must we re-establish this at every single juncture?

There's no indication that the ISA Texas citation is a book review. The book seems to have been mentioned in passing and anyway, there's no rule that authoritative sources must not mention Reames name or book to be considered reliable. On the contrary, his work has been formally cited in several sources and that's the mark of a respected work. Feel free to run ISA Texas up the flagpole @ Reliable Sources if you think it's a good investment of time, or I may do that myself. Do you have a link to the full text of the Tree News citation for us to evaluate or not? duff 05:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Sorry people, the references need fixing or removing (which will make subsequent discussion difficult). What should we do? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think copy/pasting large sections of referenced articles into talkspace ever works well, for this reason (above). You've got to go back and find all the original refname entries and copy them over too, or the multiply cited references will appear to be broken or missing where you paste the block. I've done it, it's extremely tedious and duplicitous, and it's probably not worth the effort, IMO. They are all in the article already, where they belong, and we can refer to that easily as we discuss one issue at a time, as much as possible and as deeply as needed, understanding clearly and resolving issues as we go along.

This may not be what you meant (but in case it was), PLEASE do me the favor of not removing the citations wholesale from the article, without some sort of good reasoning for their omission from the article they support. I put a lot of time into gathering them back together again, studying them, and re-wiki-coding them & I would be extremely disappointed to have wasted all that time again. I'm also planning to USE those citations to further improve the article. I don't see any broken citations in the article and there are few poorly formatted ones left; none recently added. Do you? duff 18:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry again for the mess. I am not going to remove the references from the article but I do not think that they serve any purpose there, certainly not 29 of them. In fact the section serves no purpose, it should be here. Maybe, if I have time I will try to fix the references here in the way that you describe. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries at all and no apology is needed. I completely understand the reasoning for the copy/paste & I think the reasoning behind doing it is solid. It's just tricky to do right and the relative return on the investment of time to get it right is low. By, "You've got to," in my prior comment, I meant only that in order for that to work right it's got to be done that way; not that "You've got go back and fix it." That was a poor choice of words and sentence structure on my part (easily misunderstood), I'm seeing, and again, I'm not recommending, much less insisting, that you go back & fix it.

Were it my choice to make (having made this very same mistake myself already), at this point I would either simply delete it, or strike the copy/paste (using the <s> and </s> wikcodes), and make a little note about it right there, rather than taking the arduously more tedious approach of fixing it. It is not my choice to make though, as it is your posting, and I won't mind at all either if you do decide to slog it out anyway and fix it. I've done that too.

I'm not strongly (or even weakly) attached to keeping the Other names section in the article. I do think that it does serve a purpose though, temporarily, while we are hashing out the present issues and proving up these points. The same temporary purpose is served by the long string of citations. In principle, I wouldn't be against moving the section to here on the talkpage, but again, in practice that would require some very tedious work of copy/pasting multiply cited refnames from throughout the article, in order to prevent the loss of sources and reference material. I'm not sure it would be all that helpful. I don't want to do that piece of work and I don't feel it would make our discussions any easier.

Ordinarily I would agree that 29 references on one point seems excessive. However, because of the original article name change and the voluminous dispute surrounding it, in this case it is the only practical way to preserve the sources relevant to the article, so that they can be exploited properly to develop the article. It's needed only because we are busily tiptoeing around the elephant in the room, so to speak. I'm open to other ideas that don't consume so much time that their implementation precludes improvement of the article. Until we do get the current sticky issues resolved and get those sources better integrated into the whole article, I don't think it really hurts the article to have this long string of (accurate) citations after that word. It's simpler from a practical standpoint to move the refnames up from one edit window, into the old & new material they will support, than it would be from two edit windows on separate browser tabs; and less likely to produce frustrating errors and omissions too. It also provides one clear and very succinct representation of the actual number of reliable sources that use that term to describe this work. Even if it was for that reason alone, I think the Other names section should at least temporarily be kept (but its text improved for neutrality and accuracy), while we try to come to some reliable source-based understanding and consensus over these other issues. duff 01:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Duff is well aware that putting 29 references after a word is CITATION OVERKILL as Duff had previously linked to this wiki essay before short section here. Duff has shown an understanding of this concept Duff's comment only section here as well as in the other linked section and in his comment above. Duff knows how to create a sub-page, then link to the talk page header and could have easily done this to "preserve the sources relevant to the article". If Duff wanted to improve the article he could have added the content from the references and then cited them though out the new text. Duff added these citations to prove a WP:POINT as can be seen in his edit summary here, not to improve wikipedia. Blackash have a chat 02:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I do understand the concepts. I also know how to politely indent my comments for clarity in an ongoing thread and I know how to create a subpage, without removing any existing citations from an article, sir. I could have chosen any of the ways he describes here and instead I chose this way, which was far more expedient and violated no policy. Time is precious. As I explained above in great detail, it makes more practical editorial sense. If he chooses to assume bad faith, in spite of my clear explanation, so be it. He is wrong. duff 04:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The edit summary he cites reads, "added back another quietly deleted citation point, which had been cited there to establish and prove the clear preference for one generic term among reliable sources." The summary is accurate and detailed. Note carefully the position of the comma. I have added the bold italic here to highlight the tense that I very specifically used in the summary to indicate the original circumstances of the citations' location on the page, which he has failed to grasp. duff 04:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)