This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Horticulture and Gardening on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Horticulture and GardeningWikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningTemplate:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningHorticulture and gardening articles
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
−
Gavin Munro is a designer who grows chairs, lamps and sculpture with trees in his chair orchard located at Wirksworth, in Derbyshire, England. Mr Munro co-founded Full_Grown in 2005.
Slowart (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Slowart, hi and thank you for reaching out with your your message. Could you please add a citation in a reliable source? If he's notable as an artist (not just his company) it should not be too hard for you to find. I did notice that he himself does not have a wikipedia article so the piped link gave me pause. I've been trying to keep several of our various lists of artists (by genre) tidy and try to remove anything that might be promo. Not that you have added that, but these lists tend to be magnets for that sort of thing. Netherzone (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could you take look at this citation #30 in Tree Shaping.
Appears to be hot link to a book advertisement.
Peter Cook & Becky Northey (2012). <a href="http://www.shapedtrees.com/">Knowledge to Grow Shaped Trees</a>. 1 (first ed.). Australia: SharBrin Publishing Ptd Ltd. ISBN 978-1-921571-54-1. Archived from the original on 11 November 2020. Retrieved 23 November 2020.
I changed the formation of ref to plain book cite ref and remove archived url. That should correct the "advertisement/buy link" issue of the ref. Blackash (talk) 10:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blackash, thanks for doing that. It's a problematic but potentially a wonderful article. I will do a complete read-through later today for typos, imbedded external links, etc. Netherzone (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Slowart and Blackash I've started to do some clean up, and removed two citations that went to a holiday resort hotel booking site. I also added a few maintenance tags for "citation needed". Question: do either of you know what this reference is: "chaika, Chaika (2013), Growing... furniture, Bulgarian" -- it is used several times. (currently ref #22). It needs to be filled out, but because the title and publication is not there, I'm at a loss as to how to improve it, beause I think it may be in Bulgarian, there is no URL and is not verifiable. Netherzone (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Slowart, nor could I. Even tried going to the Bulgarian Wikipedia to see if I could find the citation but it was not there at all. I am going to remove it, this may cause some temporary error messages, but will clean these up in subsequent edits. It can always be added back if another editor is able to find a verifiable citation. Netherzone (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blackash I just noticed that you are one of the owners of the company, Pooktre. Therefore it seems you have a conflict of interest WP:COI with the article Tree shaping. In looking over the article I noticed that Pooktre is mentioned 10 times, Peter Cook of Pooktre is mentioned 8 times, and Becky of Pooktre is mentioned 12 times. That seems quite excessive to me, if not promotional. I will be sending a message to your talk page regarding our COI policy, please read it, it's especially important to abide by its recommendations since you may also have a financial stake in this. I'll be doing some trimming in the article to remove the promotional nature of some of the edits.
Netherzone Yes I do. If your interested in the history of the page bans, arbitration, sockpuppet investigation, grab some popcorn. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Talk:Axel_Erlandson I'm responsible for the first iteration of this page along with Axel Erlandson's bio and John Krubsacks Bio, After the page bans about 10 years ago I just backed off. Your recent edits were sorely needed, good work! and thank you. The page is much improved. I'll be trying to help if I can but only by making suggestion for consideration by neutral editors like yourself.Slowart (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Slowart thank you for your reply, and for mentioning your connection. It's interesting to learn that the issues go back ten years. I think the article still needs a lot of clean up. It was wise that you backed off after the topic bans. I haven't even begun to dive into all of this history - it will take a while. I strongly believe, given the problematic history, that any connected editor should use the edit request function rather than directly editing the article. Netherzone (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone Pooktre is not a company but a name of mine and Peter Cook's artform. To date it would be classed as a hobby as we haven't bothered with selling any of our trees yet.
I do have some concerns with a few of your edits. A couple I'll change but the others we should discuss on the Tree Shaping talk page. I'll start a new section/s over there.
I responded in detail at my talk page, but here is an important aspect. Experts and COI editors are welcome on Wikipedia, including expert editors with a professional or commercial interest in the subject of articles they edit. However, the guidelines concerning conflicts of interest must be observed where applicable, and expert editors must at all times avoid editing (or appearing to edit) the encyclopaedia in order to promote their own professional or commercial interest. At times I have edited wikipedia to the detriment of Pooktre to help wiki be more balanced to refs. Blackash (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blackash, for an article on a subject/process that has been around for centuries on multiple continents, something seemed "off" to me that Becky Northey/Peter Cook/Pooktre would be mentioned 30 times in the article: Becky Northey (you) 12 mentions, Peter Cook (your partner) 8 mentions and Pooktre (your brand) 10 mentions, additionally 6 of the images were yours. I also think the external link to your article that mentions kits & books to be odd for an encyclopedia. I did some cleaning up of things that seemed unbalanced, promotional or potentially advertorial. Netherzone (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NetherzoneI'm guessing you’re counting the article at this stage? [[2]] Given the style of the page and it's a 5153 word count (not counting ref section) It's not surprising that combined (Becky/Peter/Pooktre...etc) by your count (30) the names equals just a hair over half a percent of text usage. By my count at the link above (Becky/Peter/Pooktre...etc) combined are mentioned 25 times in the article: Becky Northey 9 mentions, Peter Cook 9 mentions and Pooktre 7 mentions Individually they each use up about 0.15 of 1 percent. As does the names Richard Reames (9), Axel Erlandson (10) and Chris Cattle (10) for 3 other example with images captions.
As we all have sub sections using our names multiple (4-5) times and also headings, index and images captions. No not surprising at all. Blackash (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RegentsPark, very interesting, thanks for the link. I also noticed some archived threads on ANI & COIN. It seems there have been a decade of issues with this article, but still the problems remain. Netherzone (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem that way. The takeaway from the arbcom case was that the only editors actively contributing, though imo in good faith, also appear to have a (not necessarily financial) stake in the material. A cleanup is definitely a good idea. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RegentsPark glad to hear you agree a clean up is in order. To my mind, areas needing work: the historical framework can be developed and globalization improved, excessive detail trimmed, tone-of-voice made more encyclopedic, the contemporary sections can be pruned, removal of promotional content, better images can be found to replace poor-quality images. To my way of thinking, and you may disagree, but considering the article's complex history, it makes sense that COI editors should use the "edit request" system. Netherzone (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Netherzone, and welcome to the world of tree shaping. I've been advised about your interest in this article. It is good to get an independent mind onto this. I have a long involvement with this article, moderating discussions, and have become quite familiar with the subject, and the editors. The main editors are all experts in the topic - indeed, they are currently the main experts in the topic, so their involvement in the article has always been welcomed. Where we have had problems is in agreement of areas of importance, naming, and who did what first, etc. Mainly academic squabbling, though certainly there is a commercial involvement as well. The main editors are in my experience reasonable and approachable people who are looking for what is best for the article, but finding agreement on what is best quite difficult. Be aware that if you wish to be involved in editing the article you will find you will spend a lot of time on the talk page discussing your edits - consensus is key here, and getting that consensus will not be easy. Also be aware that this article was the subject of an ArbCom case: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping - I was not a member of ArbCom at the time, but I did shape some of the decision making in the case: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree_shaping/Workshop#Proposals_by_User:SilkTork. The main editors, who are all experts in the field, are not forbidden to edit this article, and while guidance is that they are discouraged from directly editing the article, they are not obligated to use an edit request system, and can directly edit the article provided they abide by appropriate guidelines and policies. I would, however, advise all editors against making reverts such as this: [4]. See WP:STATUSQUO - the purpose of a revert is to undo an edit that is disruptive or vandalistic, not an edit you personally disagree with. If there's an edit you disagree with, the appropriate approach is to discuss it here on the talkpage. This works both ways - while there are positive edits here: [5], there is also some useful information that has been removed. Netherzone, you will achieve a more lasting impression on this article if you now pause, and discuss some of the edits you have made, and listen to rationales as to why certain information has been included, and then put forward your views on why the edit was necessary. For example - you changed "Contemporary designers include "Pooktre" artists Peter Cook and Becky Northey, "arborsculpture" artist Richard Reames, and furniture designerDr Chris Cattle, who grows "grownup furniture"." to "Several contemporary designers also produce tree shaping projects." There are sections in the article on these individuals, so it not just appropriate, but pretty much required per WP:Lead, and if I were to do a GA review of this article I would be looking for that information to be in the lead, not removed from it! SilkTork (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork, RegentsPark, et al, The deeper I burrow into the long and convoluted history of this article, and associated ARBCOM case, the less I feel like having anything to do with it. The article has serious issues on many levels. While I do have the experience and expertise to improve it and I have a lot of ideas for improvements, I don’t think I can stomach it at this time. Netherzone (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's perfectly understandable - getting involved in this would be a considerable time sink for modest returns. You could, of course, suggest your ideas on the talkpage before you move on. SilkTork (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the methods section I undid your changes. The 3 methods with each having individual illustrations of mature living examples are of interest. A picture says a thousands words. Also these drawing don't have any background, thus the shapes of the trees are easily seen.
I replaced this " Peace in Cherry by Richard Reames. "With the intend removing Richard Reames name in my next edit. As you seem to comment about name dropping in your edit summaries. But upon reflection I realized my removing Of Richard's name could be Misconstrued if I did it.
I believe linking to this image Peace in Cherry 1. allows people to see another example with out making section too unbalanced with images. 2. Follows the ref. I request you at least leave "Peace in Cherry"
I reverted the wording in the other image as it matches how most of the images captions are worded. Given how small this field is and how few shaped trees there are I think it would be of interest knowing who created what. Blackash (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have some concern some of your edits. You seem to wanting more info while not giving very much time to get it. Could you please slow down the rate you are changing the article?
The editing done in Peter Cook and Becky Northey section seems fine.
Sorry to see our mirror go as having an image at that placement gave a good balance of images to text. How about we find a different image to replace it rather than just removing the image?
1. If anyone can help, I'm looking but not finding the article currently referenced as #55 "McKie, Fred (20 April 2005), "Warwick artist grows wooden 'jewels' for World Expo", The Southern Free Times"
Slowart (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This was a newspaper publishing and they didn't have their newspapers online at that time. What was it you wanted to know? Blackash (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How does it support this text? "Practitioners may have their own name for their techniques, so a standard name for the various practices has not emerged.[55]"
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." End Quote Blackash (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was in 2005 when your local paper interviewed you and came up with that time sensitive quote is right? Mabey a neutral editor IMO will remove that sentence.
Slowart (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nope was a long interview and don't know who or where else they researched before publishing. It is also a long article. And this was done in 2005. About a year before you and Ezekiel visited to us. Remember Ezekiel introduced us into the world of Wikipedia. Blackash (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. If anyone can help, the ref under the aeroponics drawing looks to be archived spam currently #17 [2] As there is a entire wiki page on [aeroponics] perhaps this section should be reduced. If editors feel the drawing should stay, a better ref that supports the (re)drawing can be found here. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Developing-roots-in-aeropony-image-from-TreeNovation_fig8_318776400
Vallas, Thomas & Courard, Luc. (2017). Using nature in architecture: Building a living house with mycelium and trees. Frontiers of Architectural Research. 6. 10.1016/j.foar.2017.05.003.
Slowart (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The image you link to, from my memory belongs to Ezekiel Golan. And wikipedia needs permission to be given before using images. Last I knew Ezekiel had moved to NY? You may know more do you still have his contact details?. Maybe you could ask him if he will give a image or some of his 3d renders to wiki. Blackash (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. If anyone can help. I'm unable to find the article (currently)ref #2 Mörður Gunnarsson (2012). "Living Furniture". Cottage and Garden. Iceland. pp. 28–29.
Slowart (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a quick search and can't find the article but I do think I have found the Author of the article. I'll contact them and see if I can get a copy of the article. It may take a while. Blackash (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to read the article "McKie, Fred (20 April 2005), "Warwick artist grows wooden 'jewels' for World Expo", The Southern Free Times" I believe it is simply an interview the Blackash and will not support my work being titled "instant". Slowart (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's tangential to the suspected original research of "Gradual" and "instant" tree shaping that is presented in the article. The article is cited to support a recent addition by a new to wikipedia editor David_Goldstein_154 who must of had access to the article. "They were the featured artists at the Growing Village pavilion showing 8 pieces of grown art at the World's Expo 2005 in Nagakute, Aichi Prefecture, Japan." as you mentioned there is no online archive of the article.
It is also used in support of this statement, "The practice of shaping living trees has several names. Practitioners may have their own name for their techniques, so a standard name for the various practices has not emerged".
I can't find where it's used as a ref to support either wording of Gradual or Instant... Please give diffs of David_Goldstein showing this. And yes it does talk about pooktre sending 8 pieces, but so does other articles and blog posts.
I'm not sharing the whole article due to copy right issues. I've given this Quote from the article before but here it's again.
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. Blackash (talk) 10:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have a COI in this subject. I’d like to see this current Methods [8] section edited. I propose that the following be used in that location as a neutral start-over and a way to test the waters or check the current editing climate. It still needs work by neutral editors. Reasoning for edits below.
Methods
There are various methods of manipulating trees to grow into intended shapes. These methods may use grafting, pruning and positioning of young or woody stems in different ways. Chairs, tables, spirals and sculptural people have been grown from trees.[3][4] Often designs begin with a sketch[5] after that a frame may be used that positions the limber saplings or tree parts into the intended shape, the new growth will cast the form.[6][7] Aerial roots Aeroponic may also be employed as they grow to become solid tree trunks. In 2008 a patent was granted on a method of shaping roots.[8]Living root bridges are an example, grown by the ancient War-Khasi people of the Cherrapunjee region in India.[9]
"Grownup furniture" by Chris Cattle
Why it should be changed:
The history section at the top still needs work but it covers the living bridges already so a lot of living bridge stuff got cut.
To improve the natural voice I cut “instant tree shaping” and “gradual tree shaping” for several reasons all the published refs I found using that wording are interviews with or written by the wiki editor who put it there. I think they are called a circular reference or reverse engineering. Also under the instant tree shaping description the see Ring Barking this is something has rarely ever been used and has never been documented to have been ever been used in this art form. It is included here along with bending creasing and folding because the suggestions appeared in my book and may appear to some to damage trees, so I cut all that out. I think the next section Common Techniques following Methods seems redundant. Maybe we can pull those 2 sections together into one.
The other reason is this page is mature. The need for allowing and coddling COI editing to build up the page should be over by now.
Slowart (talk) 02:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It has been stated by multiple editors that knowing the methods are of interest. And in interviews we are always asked how trees are shaped. I do have other secondary refs for the methods sections but didn't bother adding as that section is already heavy with citations. Blackash (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. then maybe propose additional methods. Gavin grows his chairs upside down and starts by coppicing, we could add that as a method if a ref can be found. Also, maybe we could incorporate framing, grafting and pruning into methods, then we could remove the "techniques" section entirely. The drawing labeled Arborsculpture could go anywhere in the article or be replaced with a photo.Slowart (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gavin seems to use the Gradual method of shaping. To quote the guardian article in part [9] "The process starts by shaping the young tress around the moulds by bending the growing tips in the direction they need to go with small plastic clasps." This section Full_Grown#Process_of_tree_shaping very closely echoes the refs and the text is just basically the gradual method reworded.
As to growing a chair upside down the tree doesn't know it's growing a chair. In Gavin's case the tree it going where he is training the growing tips. Blackash (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. how about just proposing deleting the section on instant tree shaping as nobody you or I know has even tried that approach for well over 10 years, and I really dont think there is any documented evidence that that method is still in use, I dont use it, and havent for over 10 years. It was in my books a long time ago but it has not been adopted by others that I know of. The arborsculpture drawing you made next to that section is simply your way of subtly associating arborsculpture with cherry picked poor techniques from my 1995 and 2005 self published books and IMO should be removed.Slowart (talk) 02:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are people still trying to use this method. The most notable one that jumps to mind is Bob Radstake from Holland. I personally know of others. Even if your statement was true Wiki runs on WP:VNT
The bench tree has clear documentation that it was shaped using your methods. And as such is a good example of a mature shaping.
I have quite a few refs for the methods section that are not on the page. A few are directly about the Instant method. So no I don't think removing that section is a appropriate. WP:EDITBlackash (talk) 08:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Due to trying to answer your questioning about the refs, I been doing researching online for those refs. Which lead to me finding extra refs I hadn't been aware of. I've noticed that there is probably about a third of artists with secondary sources about their method. I feel there is likely enough refs to create at least a stub of new article about gradual tree shaping. Blackash (talk) 09:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why it should be changed: I apologize to neutral editors for extending this debate further, I'll keep it short. Unfortunately I have serious concerns with ongoing issues on this page. Unless I'm missing something this edit [[10]] added Instant Tree Shaping and Gradual Tree Shaping dated 9-29-2011. Both myself and Blackash were under a one year page ban at the time starting on 7-15-2011.[[11]] I am unable to find any reliable references to these 2 terms (Instant Tree Shaping and Gradual Tree Shaping) prior to their appearance on this page on 9-29-2011. WP:ORSlowart (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FORUM "Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. I believe that the terms "instant tree shaping" and "Gradual Tree Shaping" is original research and should be deleted. Interviews with the artist are primary sources. Blackash Can you show that those terms are not your own research and why they should stay without good citations? Citations that are not circular, interviews with you or self published? Slowart (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both terms were added after I could cite secondary source plus a primary expert source. There has be much discussion on this in the history. Admin editors and others have told you that yes cites are inline with Wiki. This is a WP:DEADHORSE For even more refs check following link. [[12]] Blackash (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found an usual citation It's a paper written about a conference with multiple writers names listed. I believe it's a sound ref but have no idea how to format it.
I what to use it as a ref for the word Baubotanik to quote the paper "The new field of botanical construction or “living architecture” is an approach to use
the natural topology for technical functions. In German it is referred to as “Baubotanik” and it was estblablished in 2007 by Prof. Dr. Gerd de Bruyn in Stuttgart "
The details below are what is at the start of the paper.
11th World Congress on Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimisation
07th -12th, June 2015, Sydney Australia
1 Tailored natural components – functional geometry and topology optimization of
technical grown plants
Anna-Lena Beger1, Manuel Löwer1, Jörg Feldhusen1, Jürgen Prell2, Alexandra Wormit2, Björn Usadel2,
Christoph Kämpfer3, Thomas-Benjamin Seiler3, Henner Hollert3, Franziska Moser4, Martin Trautz4
1Chair and Institute for Engineering Design (ikt), RWTH Aachen University, Germany,
2Institute for Biology I, RWTH Aachen University, Germany,
3Institute for Environmental Research, RWTH Aachen University, Germany,
4Structures and Structural Design, RWTH Aachen University, Germany,
Tree shaping methods
Due to an inquiry into some of the refs at Tree shaping talk about methods section. [13] I did some research and have found a whole lot more refs for the methods and a lot of web pages by arborists writing about the methods. I've put the refs and the first page of google results of arborists writing on my subpage [14] It's was also where I saved related refs to this field and where I've been doing some working out of wording. Giving the amount of content I found in the refs listed plus what was already at tree shaping I thought to was time to follow an earlier suggestion to create a new page for the methods. Blackash (talk) 01:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to the upload page on wikipedia... it says "We can't accept works created or inspired by others" "Stop by default you can't upload someone else's work" This includes most pictures on the internet. Drawing of characters from T.V. comics or movies, even if you drew them. Please find replacements for the other drawings you made and uploaded of other people's work. Slowart (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The original choices of what tree shaping projects to create representative drawings of was based on 3 main criteria.
1. Mature examples of the method.
2. A seat of some kind.
3. To have a representative of each method.
The secondary objective was to have all the images in a similar style with the back grounds removed to not distract from the shape of the projects. This gives the reader an apples to apples comparison.
Given the above I've removed that image you added as it didn't fit most of the above criteria. I've just uploaded an edited version of your bench chair with the background removed and while it's not ideal with having some of the chair hidden it a compromise as it does hit some of the above criteria.
Maybe you would be so kind as to upload one of the images of the bench with no-one sitting on it. I'd be happy to edit out the background. Blackash (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have just been asked by Netherzone to not make controversial edits, yet you manipulate and post a photo with my 8 year old daughter in it? I do not support your "objective" to pigeonhole my art as "instant tree shaping" Please revert. Slowart (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Slowart, Blackash, I am a neutral editor, with zero conflicts of interest with this article who also happens to be an expert in environmental/ecological art and design, sustainable architecture, etc. The article would be improved by removing the image at the lede with a picture of one of the COI editor's partner/husband, and I feel strongly that the drawings should be removed, they are technically very weak, one is nearly unreadable, and they do not add anything substantial for our readers. Blackash, I also think that you should back away from the article and stop editing it directly because your COI is actually quite obvious. The article could be improved by adding more historical images, for example this[15] would make an excellent image for the lede. Netherzone (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NetherzoneAGREE and thank you for helping with this page. If I knew how reverse the licence on that photo I would, the child in the photo is now an adult and does not give permission to be used in this way if that means anything. The obvious COI extends to the name of this article, "Tree Shaping" they control TreeShapers.net and the self published e-book titled "3 Methods of Tree Shaping", http://www.pooktre.com/extra/3/methods.html see page 10 for the unvarnished objective of this editor. A decade ago the name of this page was changed to Tree Shaping, I objected at the time and I still think the page should be titled arborsculpture. I'd like to see editing sanctions established on this editor for all efforts to redefine, remove and disparage the word "arborsculpture" while promoting "Tree Shaping" and even going so far as to do that here [[16]] on my personal page a few weeks ago, I'm feeling bullied.[[17]] Slowart (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC
Slowart, I agree with you, and cannot understand how this can be allowed to continue as it has it has for so long. IMO, the article and dynamics thereof are deeply problematic. Netherzone (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Slowart, while I was trying to find the image page you quote I believe I had read that any photo with a living person can at any time be requested to be removed. Even if you had earlier put it up. I'll see if I can the section that talks about it for you. Blackash (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Slowart that the drawings should all be removed due to guideline and that they are poor-quality drawings. One of them is completely unreadable as an image (the one that looks like an amanita mushroom). The article could be vastly improved by more historical images. Netherzone (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also feel strongly that the image at the top of the page with Peter Cook of Pooktre is inappropriate given the long and checkered history of the article. The other image (Erlandson's Needle & Thread) is fine however it is repeated later in the article and is redundant. I suggest using this beautiful historical image from 1516 for the lead:[19] - Complainte de la Nature à l'alchimiste errant, de Pierre Sala (The Lament of Nature to the Wandering Alchemist) by Jean Perréal.Jean Perréal, (1516) Complainte de la Nature à l'alchimiste errant, de Pierre Sala (The Lament of Nature to the Wandering Alchemist). What are your thoughts on these proposed image changes, Slowart? There are other wonderful images that could be added to develop the historical section of the article which is lacking in depth. Netherzone (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Slowart That's not the guidelines. That's the upload page. Please link to the actual guidelines or please screen shot it. As what you are stating, is not showing up for me. Blackash (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As to the lead images. The image/s should be the best that represents the art form. That painting is isn't the best. It's a disservice to the reader to have an image that is unachievable for an art form that is achievable. Blackash (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blackash, the photo of your brand/art partner is certainly not the best way to represent tree shaping, as the practice has existed for centuries. One could even say it's highly promotional to depict your partner sitting on his work, given the COI history of the article. Regarding the painting and why it is indeed an appropriate choice, if artists did not envision the so-called "unachievable" conceptual flights of fancy that their imaginations conjur up, then the practical crafting of this type of sculpture may never exist in the first place. The painting is KEY to opening a space to discuss the artform. Netherzone (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone Before throwing around COI, it's probably a good idea that you figure out which editing I've actually done. Anyway, The lead images were selected and put in place by a different editor. Not me. At that time there was many editors talking and working on the article.
This article isn't about how people are inspired by art to create things. This article is about a specific art form. Some knowledge that is specific to an expert within this field is that the practitioners who independently contemplated shaping trees were inspired by nature or improving upon how man created chairs not by art. As such it would be very misleading to put this painting into the lead under your rationale.
Having a historical and contemporary designers' trees in the lead is a good idea. Axel's works are world famous and show how diverse the art can be, his image works. As many of the artists grow some form of a chair, having a chair as one of the lead images works well. When we gave that image to wiki it had already gone viral on the internet twice, been used to help teach English to French students in France and was also used in South Africa museum at Cape Town's Charles Darwin's exhibition as representation of mankind ingenuity. Plus more. And yes I can cite that. And all before we gave it to wiki. Blackash (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss the edits, not the editors. WP:CRY Given that editors you are working with have sources you most likely don't own or can't access. You should be willing to ask acknowledged experts about their sources and knowledge. Blackash (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blackash Forgive me if I failed to mention that I have about 40 years of professional expertise in the fields of environmental/ecological art, and landscape design/sustainable design - as a practioner and who has also taught for 30+ years the history and theories underpinning these mileaux. You are not the only expert here. Netherzone (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone I didn't make that claim in my comment just above. It's easy for an anonymous editor to claim anything. The first time you claimed your expertise, I ignored it as you're an anonymous editor, which is fine. If you wish to out yourself then your real life knowledge and expertise can be taken into account. Till then you need to defer to the acknowledged experts in this field while also following the refs.
There is a difference between stating you have experience/knowledge as an expert about a topic and this "fact" is a truth of the situation and now I'll go and find a reference to back up my statement, for the article. Than stating I'm an expert pay attention to what I'm saying and trying to browbeat others with your "expertise". Blackash (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blackash, this makes me feel very unsafe interacting with you. There is no policy nor guideline that I can find that states that an editor must out themselves to be taken seriously on WP. There is also no policy nor guideline that I can find that states that other editors, new or a an experienced editor like myself must out themselves otherwise they must "defer to the acknowledged experts". That seems like you are twisting my arm behind my back or worse. Please Stop. You are not the official gatekeeper of the article. These tactics feel like you are forcing me to keep silent unless I out myself so you can vet my qualifications as an editor. I also do not appreciate that you have followed me over to the Richard Reames article that I recently improved and have begun to micromanage my edits there as well. SilkTork and RegentsPark would you mind weighing in whether an editor must out themselves or else "defer" to a self-proclaimed "expert"? Netherzone (talk) 00:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone I apologize that you are feeling that way and that was not my intent. It seems to me you always take my comments in the worst light. Please note in my comment above I stated ""you're an anonymous editor, which is fine" I would never knowingly out an editor who hadn't already acknowledged who they are. I did not appreciate your claiming expertise above as though to tell me to shut up.
There is definite difference between, stating in short I'm an expert, like in your comment above to my comment where I state your need to discuss things with acknowledged experts. Please note the use of s on very experts comment I have made. That means I'm talking about more than one.
Article talk pages are the appropriate place to discuss content edits. As to Richard Reames article, as a contributor to it, it's not surprising that its on my watchlist. I'd edited it again 4 days before you started editing there.
Out of your 67?? edits I did one edit to change an awkward sentence with some text that is not used much in all the different refs. And the other thing I've done is to start a new sections about WP:UNDUE about a different sentence. Hardly micromanaging. And as the editor who wishes to include content you do need to justify why it should be included. WP:VNOT just because you have verifiable source doesn't mean it doesn't need discussion if an issue is raised about it, especially if it is violating a Wikipedia policy. Blackash (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blackash, I wrote I am a neutral editor, with zero conflicts of interest with this article who also happens to be an expert in environmental/ecological art and design, sustainable architecture, etc. Later you asserted that you were somehow the official expert on this topic who required others to defer to you. My suggestions for improvement to this article were diminished, and your tactics had made another editor feel "bullied". That is not OK.
I then wrote that you were not the only expert here as "I have about 40 years of professional expertise in the fields of environmental/ecological art, and landscape design/sustainable design - as a practioner and who has also taught for 30+ years the history and theories underpinning these mileaux. This is true, and I certainly do not have to out myself to prove it. Such controlling micromanagerial tactics have also driven other good-faith, unconnected, non-COI, editors not only off this article, but off Wikipedia entirely over the years. Please Stop.
Re: the Reames article, I have every right to step back from this article because I was feeling badgered (if not bullied) into leaving here to move on and improve another article. I did not appreciate you following me there. That you would actually count the number of my edits is downright weird. You are not the superintendent of that article either. Netherzone (talk) 03:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've never stated I was the only one. Also going by Richard Reames history page it would seem you are following me. Which I wouldn't have thought of, except you are claiming I'm following you. Please don't continue with this misleading commentary. I only counted your edits at Richard Reames article to clarify I wasn't micromanaging. To me micromanaging would be questioning you about every edit you had done there not a mere 1.5% of your edits. Me changing 1 edit and questioning another at the talk page is normal civil behavior between editors. I would far rather talk about content that behavior. Again I'm sorry that you are feeling the way you are. Blackash (talk) 04:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further, I have removed the image that was added of a drawing made from a photo that depicted the child that was added without the consent of the parents nor child. Netherzone (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone The image you removed was originally a photo given by the Father to Wiki. [20] I only edited to remove the back ground. To match the others as in points 1-3, so as people can compare fairly. People are very interested in the different methods and outcomes. Blackash (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also offered to edit a different photo of this chair if he was willing to upload one of his other photos. Which would be best if he now has issues with this image. Blackash (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blackash, That was not considerate to the parent nor child, and you did not have the consent of the parent nor child. The father of the child objected but you did not remove the image yourself. You then willfully reverted my edit that was made on ethical grounds. You have an obvious COI with the article and I am of the opinion that you should back away from the article and allow neutral editors to develop it. Netherzone (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given that people are interested in the methods and do want to know the outcome. A picture speaks a thousand words. So it befits wiki to show what readers want to know. I personally would rather an image without anyone hiding part of the shaping. But I'm trying to work toward a compromise that still fits the 3 main criteria. Blackash (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Slowart As you have now stated you'd like the image of your daughter removed I've found out how to do so. I have already done so on the edited version I had uploaded. You may want to read the guidelines here WP:GID. I used speed delete. link WP:G7 On the image page click on the tab
that says "Veiw on Commons". Once there you can edit the image page. Blackash (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blackash you are incorrect when you say "Till then you need to defer to the acknowledged experts in this field". The only thing anyone needs to defer to are our rules and policies. If you have expertise in an area, you may be better able to find content and sources but that does not come with deference or any special privileges. Also, though I don't think you meant it that way, you should not suggest that someone "out" themselves. --RegentsPark (comment) 02:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RegentsParkI agree that my comment about "Till.....field" was poor wording choice mainly due to exasperation and disappointment about Netherzone mainly talking about me as an editor rather than the content of my edits. I will endeavor to be more diplomatic in my comments. And yes I never meant that they should out themselves. Just that as a anonymous user (which is fine) those editors can state anything and as such any personal claims are likely to be ignored. And that we should focus on the content of the edits rather than the editor. And again I'm very sorry that Netherzone is feeling unsafe that wasn't my intent. Blackash (talk)
Netherzone. Thanks for the ping. I assume this is the comment you are referring to: " If you wish to out yourself then your real life knowledge and expertise can be taken into account. Till then you need to defer to the acknowledged experts in this field while also following the refs." That is an unfortunate comment to make.
Wikipedia has an ambivalent attitude toward experts - we encourage and welcome experts, though also caution them to follow our guidelines and policies, and not to assume that expertise trumps policy. See various essays at Category:Wikipedia essays about experts and expertise. We need experts editing Wikipedia to combat editors like Randy in Boise, but experts need to follow our WP:Civility policies and Wikipedia:Assume good faith, same as every other editor. Assume good faith means assuming that the editors you are dealing with are not Randy in Boise, until proven otherwise. Put simply, we assume someone means well, and has some knowledge until proven otherwise. We don't ask someone to prove they mean well, or that they are not idiots, until they start acting like are idiots or don't mean well. Treating others with respect is one of our Five pillars.
Wikipedia allows people to edit anonymously/privately for various reasons, and we take attempts to invade people's privacy very seriously. Encouragements that people "out" themselves can lead to sanctions.
What I am seeing above is not encouraging. I am seeing editors making comments about each other when they should be making comments about the content. I don't wish to come back here and moderate this article again, but I will do if I see unhelpful assumptions and personal comments made on this talkpage - and that applies as much to Netherzone as it does to Blackash - this comment: "Blackash, the photo of your brand/art partner is certainly not the best way to represent tree shaping, as the practice has existed for centuries. One could even say it's highly promotional to depict your partner sitting on his work, given the COI history of the article." is an example of something I don't wish to see again. And this: "Blackash, I also think that you should back away from the article and stop editing it directly" is not welcome. I do believe, Netherzone, that you were previously advised that "The main editors are all experts in the topic - indeed, they are currently the main experts in the topic, so their involvement in the article has always been welcomed." Neither Slowart nor Blackash were topic banned from the article in the ArbCom case, though they were both topic banned for one year from talking about renaming the article.
WP:TLDR/Nutshell: User:Blackash and User:Netherzone you are both advised to comment on content not on contributors. If I am called here again because of inappropriate personal comments by either of you I will step up to formal cautions. The language and tone used by both of you is verging on harassment. SilkTork (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork I agree that was a very poor choice I made writing that comment. I'll assume you've read my reply to RegentsPark. Thank you for the warning, duly noted and I will go reread these policies again. Blackash (talk) 13:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blackash I have removed the image you added depicting another editor's child as it was added without the express consent of the parent nor the child. As above, your edit was controvertial and I removed your image on ethical grounds. I do not need your permission to do so as you do not WP:OWN the article. Netherzone (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This image was given freely to wiki by the Father and as such has implied consent and can be used. If he now has an issue with it he shouldn't have given it to wiki or maybe he could ask for the original image removed. Blackash (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki is about working together to come to a consensus and comprises following the refs. Which you don't seem to doing either at the moment. Blackash (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone Could you please correct the lead back. So that it follows the MOS and the article will be a bit closer to being a GA nomination.
I have some issues with some of your edits also. The biggest one is your removal of cited content. The caption under the living chair had a ref for a reason. The text was "Artist Peter Cook seated in a living garden chair grown via the Pooktre method" To quote the article "Try growing your own living chair, such as the one made by Australian designers Peter Cook and Becky Northey, who use the Pooktre method"
I would have thought that it would be normal practice to name the person in the caption but shug. Netherzone you did a few different edits on this caption. This one is the closest to remaining true to the ref. "A chair formed by tree shaping, by Pooktre" Maybe we could have the text go "A chair grown via the Pooktre method". This would still match the cite content. Blackash (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Copied from User talk:Slowart, for record keeping as the contents are relevant here. SilkTork (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC))
I have a COI. I wrote 2 self published book on this subject. I coined the word arborsculpture in my first book "how to grow a chair" specifically to unite the field. published in 1995 and titled my second book in 2005 "Arborsculpture".
subst:requested move|Arborsculpture|reason=10 years have passed since a consensus was not reached and an COI editor did some canvassing so "Arborsculpture" as a title did not get a fair shake. Returning this page to the original title of arborsculpture may start to solve some the page issues. Those discussion and disputes were based on WP:OLDSOURCES. According to Wiki policy Disputes regarding article titles
10) Article titles are based on the name by which reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals. When there is no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency.”
Arborsculpture is precise, WP:PRECISE
“Tree Shaping” is not precise, it is mostly assumed to mean the overall shape of the canopy of a tree. #treeshaping on social media is more used by arborist to mean pruning of limbs. Over the last decade Secondary academic/ science references have become abundant for the term “arborsculpture”. A literal text book example of arborsculpture in italics. page 442 section 4. Creation of Unusual Growth Forms.
https://pubag.nal.usda.gov/download/39857/PDF[reply]
Notice that from a sampling of the first 40 results, approximately 80% of results are not on the topic of the Tree Shaping page . The first 6 give the impression that "tree shaping" is the descriptive term used in commercial fruit orchards and is also used in software descriptions.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C38&q="tree+shaping"&btnG=
Slowart (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2021
You would do better in the searches if you put tree shaping in quote marks as "tree shaping" in order to eliminate random results. Google scholar returns 91 results for arborsculpture, and currently 912,000 for tree shaping. However, even when put in quote marks it returns 464, which is rather more than arborsculpture. SilkTork (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:SilkTork When I look at "Tree Shaping" in quotes on Google scholar I also get 464. Browsing the quality of the returns I see first page 2 out of 10 are on topic, page 2 had 3 or 5 out of 10 on topic, page 3 has 2 out of 10 on topic page 4, 0 out of 10. All together out of 40 hits on google scholar, I see 9 on topic for "Tree Shaping". When arborsculpture is searched, all 40 of the first hits on topic. Arborsculpture is concise and precise. Slowart (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Slowart, SilkTork, I'm not familiar with the historical dynamics of this article: Richard Reames, although I did recently perform significant improvements to it. (I did, however, become recently aware of the Tree shaping article and became somewhat familiar with the dramatic history of that article.) If one or both of you could please list in plain English changes or improvements (like in a numbered list of tasks) I am happy to help out. (Because I don't really understand the Move that is mentioned above. Thanks and best, The Netherzone (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone, even though I have made edits to Tree shaping, I'm not a contributor - I was involved for dispute resolution. After working on the article for a while, I did consider if it could be brought to GA level (something I have done occasionally on articles where I resolved disputes, such as Kilgour–Matas report); however, after considering it for a while, I felt it would not be a rewarding experience. I have no wish to get involved in editing the article. The move that is mentioned above is a long running dispute, and I'm pretty sure it was that same move dispute which brought me to the article in the first place - yes, here: Talk:Tree_shaping/Archive_2#Move_from_Arborsculpture_to_Tree_Shaping. Looking back at my comment then, and Slowart's agreement with it, it may be worth suggesting it once more: Leave Tree shaping as it is - a generic article on all aspects of tree shaping, from the living bridges of the War-Khasi people of India, to Reames' arborsculture; but create a separate article just for Reames' arborsculture. So, Tree shaping would mention Reames and arborsculpture, much as it does now: Tree_shaping#Richard_Reames, but provide a link to Richard Reames and arborsculpture (which would not redirect to Tree shaping, but would have a hatnote directing those who wish to read about other types of tree shaping to the tree shaping article). SilkTork (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork, thank you for the quick response, it helps to clarify things. I actually had the same thought as what you suggest here. When I was doing research to improve the Richard Reames article, there were quite a few references to Arborsculpture in scholarly journals, books, magazines and news stories - certainly more enough to to support a new article. I think I would enjoy working on it, and I volunteer to create it. I even have some time this afternoon to get it started. Thanks again for the timely and thoughtful guidance. Netherzone (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork, I have a quick technical question: Because Arborsculpture currently redirects to Tree shaping, should I simply undo the redirect before I create a new article with the name Arborsculpture? Or should that be speedy deleted or what? I don't want to break anything or cause drama. Netherzone (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone - my suggestion would be to create a section on Arborsculpture in the Richard Reames article, and when ready, split it out to a standalone article on the arborsculpture page replacing the redirect with the new article and a hatnote pointing people to the Tree shaping article. Then check incoming links to arborsculpture to make sure that the links are intended for Richard Reames' version of tree shaping, and not to tree shaping in general. For example, one link comes from Sculpture, which should remain directed at Tree shaping as the intention there is to allow readers to look at all the forms of sculpting with trees, not not just Richard Reames' version. It's important that the new article should focus on Richard Reames' version of tree shaping, and not just be a duplicate of the Tree shaping article with a different name. It would be useful to clarify in the lead that arborsculpture is a form of "tree shaping" so readers can put it in context, but to allow the wikilink to suffice as an explanation of what tree shaping is, because the term itself is fairly explanatory, and people can then follow the link for more information. However, comparisons between arborsculture and other forms of tree shaping can be made in order to clarify exactly what it is that is unique about Reames's work in the realm of tree shaping. Good luck! SilkTork (talk) 03:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork, and Slowart, I have followed up on the suggestion above to create a section in the Reames article on Arborsculpure; I then split it out (via the redirect page) into a standalone article on Arborsculpture. I've modified the content to fit better into the context of a stand alone article. The new article (which is still in a formative stage) has a very different focus than the Tree shaping article. It is centered on art historical, environmental and ecological art practices. I am hoping that this article can stay focused on the historical, social and theoretical underpinnings and not become a list of various contemporary practioners and their methods and individual naming conventions for the practice. It is still under construction, however I've amassed in a file on my computer containing several additional sources from academic journals, newspapers and books. Thank you very much for suggesting this, SilkTork, and once the article is further along, I'll incorporate some of the other suggestions for improvement mentioned above. It's been fun to work on, and I look forward to continuing along this journey, a walk in the woods filled with twisty trees. Netherzone (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone. You appear to have misunderstood "create a separate article just for Reames' arborsculture" and have made a WP:CONTENTFORK. This is a contentious and sensitive topic area you have entered, and creating that article is not helpful, and not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Your intentions are no doubt good, but you appear not to understand the issues here. I have reverted. In the circumstances it would be better, if you wish to try again, to create the proposed article as a draft, and invite those involved to have a look before moving into mainspace. SilkTork (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork, Thank you for your message. I read and re-read your instructions above several times to be certain that I understood what you were suggesting. The article I created was completely different than the Tree Shaping article, focusing on arborsculpture specifically rather than tree-shaping. Yet, somehow it seems I misunderstood what your recommendations. For that, please forgive me. I am wondering if you could you tell me how I might be able to recover, if only for my own interest if not for the encyclopedia readership, the content that I just spent the better part of the day creating? I would appreciate that very much. Best regards, Netherzone (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Tree shaping article is about all aspects of shaping trees, artistic and practical. An article on arborsculpture would be about Richard Reames' method of tree shaping only, so the history would start there. The article would be about Reames' specific method of tree shaping, and how it differs from other methods. And it could include those artists who have been inspired by Reames such that they copy his methods. It should not be an alternative to Tree shaping which (intentional or not) would serve as fuel for the debate as to which name to call the act of shaping trees. And we should not be indulging in editorial original research as to which types of acts of shaping tree are to be called "arborsculpture" and which are to be called "tree shaping" - that is not what Wikipedia is about. The term "tree shaping" has been around since at least 1850 to refer to all forms of shaping trees. The term "Arborsculpture" is more recent, as it was coined by Reames. We don't wish Wikipedia to get involved in the debate as to which name to use, and certainly not take sides. So, for the general article on shaping trees we stick with the longest used, most widely used, most neutral, most cited, and most non-personally associated term, which is "tree shaping". An article on "arborsculpture" should not be (albeit unintentionally) promoting the use of the term arborsculpture as a general replacement for "tree shaping". It could, though, describe Reames work, and how he coined the term. I hope that helps. And sorry if I was not clearer earlier. SilkTork (talk) 01:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork You said, arborsculpture would be about richard reames methods of tree shaping only. These citations [21][22] (Department of Horticulture Cornell University) [[23]] (Royal Society) appear to me to contradict that position, what do you think? Slowart (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Tree shaping page should be about all aspects of shaping trees, artistic and practical. But it's not, if it were it would cover all aspects of this overly broad term. Most common usage or the average person on the street thinks Tree Shaping is like shaping the branching structure of trees into fit in a residential setting in a normal residential use. Agree tree shaping should really be about pleaching, topiary, espalier, bonsai and shaping the overall canopy of trees. The one and only "debate" was brought to wikipedia by one unabashed editor/practitioner with clear COI who has an ax to grind about the word arborsculpture coined in 1995. What did the term refer to in 1850? I assume it had nothing to do with grafting branches together, I'd like to be wrong. Slowart (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article as it stands is clearly not finished. I did contemplate some time ago working on it to bring it to GA standard, but realised that it had a long way to go. With your knowledge, Slowart, you could help work it toward covering more aspects of the term. I am unsure what was understood by "tree shaping" in 1850 - I took that date from ngrams - which, looking again, gives a date of 1862. Ngrams isn't an exact tool, but it certainly gives indicators. It can give false positives, and it is highly likely that many of those finds for "tree shaping" would be a little way off what is intended as the topic for our Tree shaping article. How about having a discussion on Talk:Tree shaping as to the focus of the article - what would be most appropriate to include and exclude. See WP:TOPIC, Wikipedia:Scope and Wikipedia:Out of scope, Wikipedia:Avoiding POV funnels, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Relevance of content for some guidance on how to decide on the scope/focus of an article. It's not an exact science, and is best approached by discussion. I would be willing to moderate the discussion. SilkTork (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that responseSilkTork, O.K. I'll try absorbing the links you provided, that may take me a little while. If the majority of links on google scholar, ngrams or any other compilers hit's, indicate a topic or practice that is a little way off, or way way off what is intended at tree shaping, do you think the article should be expanded to include these other topics? Slowart (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The point at which a topic can be covered under one title, or needs to be covered under two or more is always a little tricky. There is no exact science, and decisions are best reached via consultation of the sources and discussion. Sorry to give you more stuff to read, but referring to and following guidelines and policies is the best way of operating on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation, Wikipedia:Ambiguous subjects, Wikipedia:Merging, Wikipedia:Summary style, Wikipedia:Splitting, and Wikipedia:Content forking. At the moment I would regard Tree shaping as the parent article for sub-articles on pleaching, bonsai, espalier, and topiary; and arborsculpture could also be a sub-article if it could be sufficiently defined and described as distinct from general tree shaping by independent reliable sources. An article on arborsculpture which mainly mirrors Tree shaping, but using the name arborsculpture instead of tree shaping, would not be allowed. There would need to be a distinct difference shown - I'm not sure that using the name arborsculpture to refer in general to artistic shaping of trees rather than practical would be sufficient, as topiary, penjing and bonsai are also regarded as artistic shaping of trees. SilkTork (talk) 08:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork in response to this comment of yours "I am unsure what was understood by "tree shaping" in 1850" and the comment of just what should be covered by tree shaping. I created a new sub blackash user page [24]. I've repurposed an old ref table of mine. I going through my extensive list of refs and adding them to the table. To get through them all will take time. It's not about specific words used rather the page is about use of a descriptive phrase/s used for the art form of the different practitioners and their art. I've finding just like any descriptive phrase it can be used for multiple areas, the key is the context of use.
Having got through a lot of Axel's ref's I can more clearly understand why Richard used Tree shaping and similar descriptive phrases in his responses to media interviews and his book promotions. As this type of descriptive phrasing is all through Axel's published media. Richard first book relied heavily on the history and art of Axel Erlandson.
If I understand you correctly, Tree would be the parent of Tree Shaping who would be the parent of bonsai, espalier, pleaching and topiary. Then following a good lead paragraph would include something like this?
Around 4000 B.C. illustrations from ancient Egypt show what later became known as bonsai, the art of growing and shaping trees into a miniature form. Pharaoh Rhamesses III distributed pot-bound trees to temples throughout his kingdom.,[10]
700 B.C. Ancient Rome produced evidence of espalier. [11]Espalier, a french word, is the training of tree branches laterally to form a flat, two dimensional shape typically against an interior wall of a courtyard.
or plashing was practiced at time for defensive purposes. Julius Caesar (circa 60 B.C.) states that the Gallic tribe of Nervii used plashing to create defensive barriers against cavalry.[12]
"Tree would be the parent of Tree Shaping" - yes, that could be one of the parents, but there could be others. A mention of tree shaping could be made in the Tree article. Oh, I just looked, it already is mentioned! SilkTork (talk) 08:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia content follows the refs while also being guided by the other WP policies. Not creating content then finding refs. WP:FIRST Wiki first page states it quite well. "In short, the topic of an article must have already been the subject of publication in reliable, secondary, entirely independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detail, such as books, newspapers, magazines, peer-reviewed scholarly journals and websites that meet the same requirements as reputable print-based sources. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable" Blackash (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence is unclear, and the cited source is also unclear: "Timing is used as part of the construction is intrinsic to achieving this art form". Can this be clarified? SilkTork (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure who added that in. Timing is import for different reasons, not sure what I can ref from secondary sources. We been quoted for the farm show article. Quote "“Most people seem to think tree shaping takes too long,” the couple says. “That’s not how it should be viewed, rather think of it like this: The time you spend shaping a tree is captured by the tree, then amplified. A hundred years from now people will be able to see the tree shaping that you did today.” But this would be a primary source. Ref 26 [25]
I did some research and found the source and reading more than what shows in the ref link on tree shaping, page makes more sense. [26] Discusses Gavin Munro and viewing grown chairs other shaped projects are like wine and whiskey the time taken to be grown adds to the value. Blackash (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could be referring to this passage "The method of growing arborsculptures affects the timing of formation, and varies from year to 10 (less often up to 40 years)."[27] a very cool article, recently published. Slowart (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In 2012, Peter Cook and Becky Northey released two books. The first one was '3 Methods of Tree shaping'. Their second book 'Knowledge to Grow Shaped Trees' teaches the Pooktre process of tree shaping.
Book details
'3 Methods of Tree Shaping' SharBrin Publishing ISBN:978-1-921571-41-1 Copyright 2010 Published 2012
'Knowledge to Grow Shaped Trees' SharBrin Publishing ISBN:978-1-927571-54-1 Copyright 2010 Published 2012. This is already being used in the article it has it's own named ref [14]
17/03/12 by Graham Williams (known as Willow), from 666 abc Canberra Radio.
17/03/12 by Phil Dudman from ABC North Coast NSW Radio.
08/04/12 by Clair Levander from 4BC Talking Gardening Brisbane Radio
Newspaper article written by FALLON, FIONNUALA (Saturday, March 3, 2012). "The trees that shape our lives". The Irish Times (Ireland). Retrieved 08 March 2012. Talks about Pooktre method and gives our web site and a link to the sale page of the book.
09/05/12 WIN TV at 6.55pm show about tree shaping by Brian Sams. They asked about the book and gave a link to the book.
16/05/12 WIN TV at 6.55pm show how to shape trees by Brian Sams. They asked about the book and gave a link to the book.
Bits ‘n Bytes Botanical – August 2012 International Dendrology Society's newsletter
SubTropical Gardening magazine November Issue 29 page 87
Better Homes and Gardens magazine December 2012 issue page 140
The first time I didn't have the list above and an editor stated you need to show public interest. In 2nd request, I'd sourced this list as above for the book "Knowledge to Grow Shaped Trees" Then in that request, a different editor stated they couldn't verify these so wait longer.
I can address both issues. Below I've listed some of the ref/cites for our books.
Starting with "3 Methods to Shape Trees" This book has mostly been used as a reference source for thesis and Journals.
Title Cover "TREE SHAPING SAVE THE PLANET" Wired Uk Edition magizne about the tree shaping methods and Pooktre. May 12. Article Quote "Info 3 Methods of Tree Shaping"
Title: Tree Shaping in Visual communication of Urban Architecture DOI: 10.31675 / 1607-1859-2020-22-1-53-62 Book listed in References
Title: Tailored Trees – Tree Shaping in a Public Environment. Bachelor's thesis, DOI: 10.31675 / 1607-1859-2020-22-1-53-62 Book listed in References
Title: Using nature in architecture: Building a living house with mycelium and trees Peer reviewed thesis published in Journal Frontiers of Architectural Research this is the link in the pdfBook listed in References
Title: Architecture and planning in arrangement of bionic pieces in modern urban landscape pdf accessBook listed in References
Knowledge to Grow Shaped Trees is mostly book reviews or commented in passing in articles about Pooktre. It has also been used as a reference source in a few thesis/Journals
Title: Living sculpture. A long article about Pooktre. Article Quote " They have also published an e-book called Knowledge to Grow Shaped Trees that provides practical information for a sustainable future."[15]
Title:A Tree Shaper's Life. A long article about Pooktre. Article Quote "Next year, the product range will grow with the release of their book Knowledge to Grow, explaining how to shape trees."[16]
Title: EcoArt: Living trees shaped into furniture. Short article about Pooktre. Article Quote "...their process via a digital book. After all, tree lovers hardly want trees cut to make paper books. Their book was just released. Knowledge to Grow Shaped Trees" they go on with some more detail about the book. [29]
Title:BIOTECTURE—A New Framework to Approach Buildings and Structures for Green Campus Design DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-11961-8_10 Book listed in References
I think this is enough to show that there is public interest and some of these sources can be verified.
Suggested text
In 2012, Peter Cook and Becky Northey released two books. The first one was '3 Methods of Tree shaping'. Their second book 'Knowledge to Grow Shaped Trees' teaches the Pooktre process of tree shaping. Blackash (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
^
Caesar, Julius (1955 copyright by George Macy Company). The Gallic Wars. Vol. II. translated by John Warrington. page 52. p. 228. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: location (link)
Not done for now: I would oppose adding the books into prose, but I think you may have case for a Further Reading section containing your book. If you put together a Further Reading section which contains a fair representation of introductory readings for prospective tree-shapers (so not just your books, but a fair overview), I will implement it. Melmann17:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a fair idea. I know of quite a few that could be added other than my books. I'll create a new section here with the heading for further reading and see what you think. Also, should reliable online articles be added in this section as well? Ones that due to either copyright reasons or different style of presentation aren't suitable for rewording to the article. For examples permaculture.co.uk or this one also permaculture.co.uk it's by myself but there is lot of extra info not suitable for wiki style of writing but might be of interest to the reader. Like what questions to ask a tree shaping consultant and have a look at the Further Resources section. Thanks for your interest and input. Blackash (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Blackash: There's no outright prohibition on online links in Further reading, but keep in mind that those links also need to be in compliance with Wikipedia:External links policy. Generally, Further reading materials are the 'next level' of depth and complexity, thus most stand-alone articles are not suitable since if they're targeted at lay readers they don't significantly depart from our own coverage, but online publications such as ebooks may meet this test. Think of it from a perspective of a brand new readers. They read this article and have some basic idea about the topic, now they want to dive right in, and read some specialist materials that introduce them to the field; this is what Further reading should be. Check out also Wikipedia:Further reading. Melmann10:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Melmann I had 4-5 other books (by other authors) I thought of as soon as I read your comment. But having now read the guidelines in further reading there isn't any books except the 3 methods of Tree Shaping that fits. Further Reading Quote "...and should normally not duplicate the content of the References section..."And one book doesn't make a list. There are very few books published to date on this topic and all the ones I was thinking of have multiple cites in the article. So I don't think a further reading section is going to work. Do you have any other suggestions? Blackash (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not done Further reading sections are discouraged. Instead, Wikipedia tries to use these books as sources in the article. I do not think there is a reason to add them to Further readingZ1720 (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Noting people's published books in sections about their life seems the norm. What do you think of my question to adding this suggested text below to the section Peter Cook and Becky Northey
In 2012, Peter Cook and Becky Northey released two books. The first one was '3 Methods of Tree shaping'. Their second book 'Knowledge to Grow Shaped Trees' teaches the Pooktre process of tree shaping. Blackash (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Belbury (talk) The linked article goes into more detail about these different areas. Simply reading the general article about pruning won't be sufficient for someone who wants to learn about the specific techniques of pruning to aid in their shaping process. While some readers may prefer a broader article, others may require more in-depth information. To cater to both groups, it would be beneficial to include links to both the general article and the more specific article on shaping trees in each section of the article. Any ideas how to best do this would be great. Blackash (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Blackash, afraid I wasn't notified of the ping here because you linked to my contributions rather than to my user page.
My change to the links was to reduce nine links to the same article down to just one, guided by MOS:REPEATLINK. No information was removed, I just made the navigation clearer: the fact that the section has a head note of Main article: Tree shaping methods shows that the subject of the section has a full detailed article, we don't need to keep linking to it for every topic which appears in both articles.
Did you object to the other changes in any way? The article should follow MOS:LINKSTYLE and not include links in headings, and MOS:BOLD by not using bold type for emphasis. I also thought the image edits were an improvement, putting the images next to the text they refer to, and stating in the caption what they are actually illustrating. --Belbury (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Belbury, thanks for clearing that up for me I was having a difficult time in the history comparing the differences. I've reverted my edit Blackash (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.
What I think should be changed: The 3 drawings in the methods section are derivatives and should be removed ASAP.
Why it should be changed: Derivative works are not allowed. [[30]]
References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): [[31]] BTW, two of the three derivative drawings could be replaced with the real thing.
(Original objections rescinded by author and subject.)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.
What I think should be changed: In the methods section, on the main page and also in the expanded methods section[1] the term instant should be removed.
Why it should be changed: The term is derogatory, it is original research. First added to the main page here [2] The one citation I could find, is a magazine interview, preserved here by Pooktre.[3] it is an interview.
The support citation is a single artist interview, self sourced and therefor is poorly sourced. The methods section under instant mentions a living person (myself) Richard Reames.
I object in the strongest terms to having my art labeled as "instant" when in reality it requires many years and tends to degrade and trivialize my work.
References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):[4][5][6][7]
I agree that this change should be made in compliance with NPOV and RS. Note to requesting editor: could you please add here the exact sentences to be changed per this request? For example: 1) change XYZ to ABC; 2) change PQR to LMNOP, etc. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have this book in hard copy front of me: Ockenga, Starr (2001). Eden on Their Minds: American Gardeners with Bold Visions. New York, NY: Clarkson Potter Publishers/Crown Publishing Group. pp. 108–117. ISBN 0-609-60587-9, which has an entire chapter on Reames' work supporting the fact that his methodology takes place gradually over a period of months to many years. The book is a fully independent and reliable source, and verifies what is being requested. The use of the word "instant" should be removed from the article. Netherzone (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Change this "Instant tree shaping uses trees 2 to 3 m (6.6 to 9.8 ft). The trees are bent and woven into different designs and held until cast. Bends are then held in place for several years until their form is permanently cast. With this method it is possible to perform initial bending and grafting on a project in an hour, as with Peace in Cherry by Richard Reames, Some techniques of this method are bending, and un-localizing the bend. Ring barking is sometimes employed to help balance a design. Creasing is folding trees such as willow and poplar over upon themselves."
To this "One method is to use flexible saplings 2 to 3 m (6.6 to 9.8 ft). The trees are bent and woven into different designs and held until cast. Bends are then held in place for several years until their form is permanently cast. With this method it is possible to perform initial bending and grafting on a project in an hour, as with Peace in Cherry by Richard Reames.
Ring barking also called girdling, may be employed to help balance a design should one part of the design outgrow the other, creating a loss of symmetry.
Netherzone please refrain from removing cited content. I've replaced the well cited Instant tree shaping and added some more content to that methods section. I've also added as an extra reference, that you and I both agreed as a peer reviewed scholarly journal is a very reliable source. This isn't the only source of the wording Instant tree shaping linked to this method of shaping trees. Please discuss before making more sweeping changes. Blackash (talk) 07:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the Methods page,
Change this
Instant tree shaping
It uses mature trees, perhaps 6–12 ft. (2–3.5 m) long and 3-4in (7.6–10 cm) in trunk diameter. An instantaneous form is created by bending, weaving and sometimes cutting or marking the trees into the desired shape. Then the shaping is held in place till the tree has grown enough annual rings to hold the shape, effectively casting it permanently into place. Understanding a tree's fluid dynamics is important to achieving the desired result.
To this
Sapling bending
One method uses thin saplings, perhaps 6–12 ft. (2–3.5 m) long and 3-4in (7.6–10 cm) in trunk diameter. A form is created by bending and or weaving into the desired shape. Then the shape is held in place till the tree has grown enough annual rings to hold the shape, effectively casting it permanently into place.
There are multiple sources for the wording Instant Tree shaping and the linked method. All the points Slowart has bought up has been gone over and the refences where checked (I think it's called) the reliability noticeboard and they are found to secondary sources and not quotes. Netherzone please don't remove cited content. Blackash (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is derogatory to me and my work because it is an attempt by an single wikipedia editor to define "instant tree shaping" as "Arborsculpture" where "the cons far outweigh the pros" as the editor web page says. Slowart (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By my memory the wording was first used in article by a reporter. Please note that each method in that book has a pro and cons list and that each time the authors are stating their opinion.Blackash (talk) 10:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blackash (talk) Let's find that "article by a reporter" When was the term "gradual tree shaping" originally published? Who originally coined the term? It appears they are tied together. Slowart (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both terms were added after I could cite secondary source plus a primary expert source. And now there are multiple more good secondary refs for these terms. You have raised this over and over. There has be much discussion on this through out the history. Admin editors and others have told you that yes cites are inline with Wiki. This is a WP:DEADHORSEBlackash (talk) 09:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The term "instant" was added before any proper citation. [diff] A book was cited, but that book does not contain "instant" terminology at all so it's inclusion was WP:OR and more recent citations appear to be circular or single source interviews with the editor who included them here. WP:NPVWP:IMPARTIAL As the use of the term "instant" in this art's methods section here and on the Methods [page], is the complete opposite of reality and pointed at my work. [[33]] (note added "arborsculpture to file name)I feel it is derogatory and should simply be change to something neutral. Let's not make this place a WP:battleground. When neutral editors help this page they should be allowed to do so. Editors with WP:COI should only use the edit request form please. We need other involved neutral editors if this page is to improve, not just one main one IMO. [[34]] Blackash · 645 (44.6%)
1) WP's behavioral guidelines on COI editors clearly states that they are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content and that COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, and can propose changes on article talk pages instead. Both editors with COIs (Slowart and Blackash/Pooktre) should, to my understanding of the guidelines, use the edit request system. Presently only one of the two COI editors are complying with the guidance.
2) In examining the evidence in the talk page archives and the article history and its sourcing, it appears that the first usage of the term "instant" tree shaping is from 2008, and that the term was coined (and added to the article) by Blackash of Pooktre. From there the term seems to have been expressed in an interview to a reporter by Blackash as well as used in blog posts by the same editor in the same year. Netherzone (talk) 02:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone (talk) There are multiple references for the term "Instant tree shaping" that have been checked and verified as secondary sources, not original research at the RN board. Additionally, we both agreed that the peer-reviewed scholarly journal is a highly reliable source. It's worth noting that the term "Instant tree shaping" is linked to this method of shaping trees in other journal sources and articles as well. Blackash (talk) 10:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This [35]citation supporting "instant tree shaping" on the page cites [36] an interview with pooktre as it's source, please see the citation at the bottom of the article. Slowart (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are the two cites after the first instance of wording Instant tree shaping on this article. Both are secondary sources for the use of this wording. [9][10]Blackash (talk) 05:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
^Swati Balgi (September 2009), "Live Art"(PDF), Society Interiors Magazine, Prabhadevi, Mumbai: Magna Publishing, archived(PDF) from the original on 25 April 2011, retrieved 17 February 2011
Not done for now: I would oppose adding the books into prose, but I think you may have case for a Further Reading section containing your book. If you put together a Further Reading section which contains a fair representation of introductory readings for prospective tree-shapers (so not just your books, but a fair overview), I will implement it. Melmann 17:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Not done Further reading sections are discouraged. Instead, Wikipedia tries to use these books as sources in the article. I do not think there is a reason to add them to Further readingZ1720 (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
![[15]](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Complainte_de_la_Nature_-_Perréal_-_1516.jpg){kind=link}
![[20]](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Living_Red_Alder_bench_by_Richard_Reames.jpg){kind=link}
Done Netherzone (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)