Talk:Tree shaping/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Dispute

'Blackash'

I reverted the page. The photos you uploded are copyrighted and will be removed. I think you have a Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Reames (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reames

'Reames'

We (Pooktre) originally edited this page to give a more balanced view.

Pooktre was invited to be the featured artists at the World Expo in Japan 2005, where we were acknowledged as being the world leaders of tree shaping. Richard Reams has also acknowledged us as the best in the world. We at Pooktre don't use the Arborsculpture techniques or anything like them. As the results of our trees show by their even and balanced growth.

We will address each point and why we changed it. We removed the photos, that showed work that belonged to other artists, who don't call their work Arborsculpture. Two of the photos show trees grown by Axel Erlandson. His trees are called Circus Trees. The present day owners of these trees don't call them Arborsculpture, they call them Circus Trees. The photo showing the Pretzel Tree By Aharon Naveh, he doesn't call his trees arborsculpture any where on his web site, or when I spoke to him in person. His name for his trees is Tree Sculpture.

I replaced these photos, with photos from Richard Reams site to show mature trees created using Arborsculpture techniques shaped by Richard Reams. As Richard calls his work Aborscuplture we thought he wouldn't have an issue with showing the result of Arborsculpture techniques. If Richard Reames doesn't wish to have his own photos of his work on the Arborsculpture article. We are cool with the pictures being delete off the article.

We changed this Arborsculpture is believed to have first appeared in print in the book

to this Arborsculpture first appeared in the book

We thought this change more clearly reflects that Richard decided to coin the word Arborsculpture for his book. In Richard Reams 2nd book he says that Quote "With the publication of my first book How to Grow a Chair, I coined the word "arborsculpture,"." Unquote.

We changed this Controversy exists as some prefer to call the technique pleaching or other words.

to this Controversy exists about the branding of Arborsculpture as none of the practitioners he presents in his book ("Arborsculpture Solutions for a small planet") accept the term, or agree to be tagged by it.

For the first point in these changes When we were looking though the history of the changes made, we come across this edit of a sentence to do with the controversy about the name. Here is the sentence.

The term Arborsculpture was coined by Reames in the 1990s to unify the field, but none of the practitioners he presents in his book accept the term, or agree to be tagged by it.

It was edited by Primack 04:08, 13 April 2007 on the Arborsculpture Article. Going by the spelling we are assuming that it is Mark Primack who is the man who invested a lot of his time and efforts to preserving Axel N Erlandson Circus Trees. Richard Reames acknowledges that Mark Primack was important to the surviele of Axel's trees and gaining world attention for the Circus Trees in both of Richard Reames books. We thought that Primack's edit was a good description of the issues people have with being branded by someone else's name and technique.

For the 2nd point We thought branding was the appropriate word, as when doing some research we found that none of the artists who shape trees use Arborsculpture to describe their own work.

I'll list the artists and the name they use. In the order that they appear in the book by Richard Reams call Arborsculpture Solutions for a Small Planet. I'll start at the "Pioneers"

• John Krubsack................................The chair that lived
• Axel N Erlandson............................Circus Trees

(as call by the present owner who is Michael Bonfont owner of Gilroy Gardens Family Theme Park. Wilma Erlandson who is Axel's daughter wrote a book title My Father "Talked to Trees" in 2001. Doesn't use the word Arborsculpture any where in her book. She was aware of the Arborsmith web site before she wrote her book.)

• Arthur Wiechula..............................Nature Construction

(We have surmised this is what he called his techniques as his company name was Nature Construction Company)

• David Nash.....................................Ash Dome/Divided Oaks
• Aharon Naveh.................................Tree Sculpture
• Nirandr Boonnetr.............................Live Art/Live Furniture

(He uses a different name depending on if the tree is to be harvest or to remain alive.)

• Ezekiel Golan..................................Plantware
• Dr Christopher Cattle........................Grown up Furniture
• Dr Lois Walpole...............................ProDottiCulture
• Laird Funk.......................................Bentbranch Boatworks
• Peter Cook/Rebecca Northey............Pooktre
• Marinus Boezem..............................De Groene Kathedraal
• Konstantin Kirsch.............................Tree Dome/Nature House
• Herman Block..................................Live Houses
• John Gathright.................................The Laughing Happy Tree park

(He organized for the Growing Village Pavillion at the world expo 2005 in Japan, Which displayed varies artists from around the world who shaped trees. They where all called Circus Trees. No where at the Growing Village was the word Arborsculpture used, even though Richard Reams had done a planting in 2000 with John Gathright in Japan.)

• Richard Reams.................................Arborsculpture

• Dann Ladd.......................................Extreme Nature

(Dann Ladd doesn't appear in Richard Reams Book, he is an accomplished tree shaper.)

We feel that this list shows the people who shape trees have an issue with having their work branded by someone else's name and technique. As far as we are aware none of the other people who shape trees use the extreme bending methods that are described in Richard Reams books "How to grow a chair" and "Arborsculpture Solutions for a small Planet".

This we added Richard Reames was inspired by the works of Axel N Erlandson to attempt his first experiments with growing trees in chairs, which lead him to writing his first book "How to grow a chair" before his experiments were mature.

As Richard Reames repeatedly has written and said that Axel N Erlandson inspired him. We also think that people should understand that when Richard Reames first wrote "how to grow a chair" that he didn't have any mature pieces and that the Arborsculpture techniques were an unproven method of tree shaping.

What it comes down to, we want Richard Reames to own his Arborsculpture techniques and the results it creates. Not to use other people's results, created using very different techniques, to show how Arborsculpture works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackash (talk • contribs) 15:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply

We both have a Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Also see WP:NEU and WP:DISPUTE

You added- "Controversy exists about the branding of Arborsculpture as none of the practitioners he presents in his book ("Arborsculpture Solutions for a small planet") accept the term, or agree to be tagged by it."

Please note that Konstantin Kirsch owns http://www.arborsculpture.de and Dr. Chris Cattle uses the word on his front page http://www.grown-furniture.co.uk/ And here is an example of its use in a post about Plantware. http://www.trendhunter.com/trends/putting-trees-to-work-a-friendly-way-designer-landscaping

But it really is beside the point, realize that individual desires or pet names of individual artist have no influence on encyclopedia entries, unless the name is used widely enough to become its own encyclopedia entry.

Arborsculpture defines the unique merging of Tree and Sculpture Just as unique as kinetic Art or Stone_sculpture it does not try to define the finer techniques and methods that any one artist brings to the art form.

It is understandable that those who came to it on their own have their own pet name for the practice. Yet sometimes new words arise when a need appears, I think even your slanted "research" shows there is a need for a unifying name. The word Arborsculpture is in the public domain it is not personal_branding the word is not copyrighted and it is not in my name or in my business name like Pooktre is your personal brand.

I think your addition about writing the book "How to Grow a Chair" before having mature pieces is just a personal attack. Other Wiki editors should decide if it will stay. Looks like the photos should be fixed also.

Remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes on talk pages. 

Reames (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

In Reply to Richard Reames

We will address the minor points first.

We thought that people have the right to know that the methods in the book “How to Grow a Chair” at the time of writing the book were an unproven way of shaping. As it can take 5 to 10 years to find out the results. It is not an acceptable scientific practice to publish results at the beginning of an experiment without stating it is only an experiment.

In Arborsculpture Solutions for a Small Planet Richard Reames's 2nd book Quote “ I started writing a book about everything I had learned on the subject of shaping trees. I knew that it would be years before I had any trees that could be sold so I needed something to sell in the meantime” Unquote. In "How to grow a Chair" Richard Reames's first book he doesn't enlighten people to the fact the extreme bending technique of Aborsculpture had not been tested, it is ten years before Richard Reames makes any comment about it at all. It is more about what you don’t say or show in photos that tells the story.

We didn’t reload the photos of Richard Reames's mature examples of his bench and chairs shaped by Richard Reames using the Arborsculpture extreme bending techniques. Richard rightly pointed out, we do not have copy right. We are sure no-one would object to Richard Reames, putting up photos of his own trees as examples of Aborsculpture.

We have issues with people, using photos of other artist's work as examples of how a mature Aborsculpture should look.

Next minor point.

Konstantin Kirsch does use the domain name www.arborsculpture.de to point to his web site. Once the page loads up the address that shows in the address bar is http://www.naturbauten.com/ clicking on the English flag, the new address that show is http://www.treedome.com/ So he is doing what any good web site does, buy the names that people might use and point all of them to the web site.

Having read Konstantin Kirsch site again No where does he use the word Arborsculpture. So he doesn’t refer to his own work as Arborsculpture.

Dr. Chris Cattle doesn’t refer to his own work as Arborsculpture either, here is a quote from his front page. “My aim though is to encourage as many people as possible to try it for themselves, so I'm sticking with this simple stool. I call it 'grownup' furniture as it's the result of mature thinking.”

As far as we are aware Plantware doesn’t have any issue with using any name, as seen by the CEO own name change from Ezekiel Golan to Gordon E. Glaze and the rest of the details remaining the same on the www.plantware.org site. Having said that on the Plantware site they don't refer to their own work as Arborsculpture either.

The above shows that our point that no-one refures to their own work as Arborsculpture holds true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackash (talk • contribs) 15:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Name of the art form of shaping trees

Yes you are right about the name of the art form it is really beside the point.

Before the World Expo in Japan , we were asked if we wished to have the whole art form named after what we call our trees. We said, no the name we use is only in reference to the way we grow and shape our tree. We where then asked how we felt about having the art form called Circus Trees. We felt that as Axel N. Erlandson had done his trees first, grown even and balanced pieces, that we where happy to have our trees associated with his. So in Japan at the Expo the artform was called Circus trees. We are quite happy to have our trees associated with people that have mastered their art. Some examples Krubsack who grow a chair on his first try or with Chis Cattle who has mastered the way he shapes the trees and is able to reproduce the same design again and again. Which means he has an understanding of how and why it works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackash (talk • contribs) 15:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

First Mayor issue is the linking of Name and Method

Richard's technique and name Arborsculpture are linked on Arborsmith's website and in Richard Reames's books. Since the publishing of "How to grow a chair" in 1995 Richard has been actively promoting and linking the name and technique together. So people associate the name with the method. We have found that people are emailing us in the belief we use the Arborsculpture techniques to shape our trees and want to know which tree type it is that we use that grows so even and balanced. We don't use anything like the Arborsculpture extreme bending methods to archive our shaped trees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackash (talk • contribs) 15:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Major issue is Arborsculpture technique of extreme bending that results in uneven grown and die back

Which leads to a mayor problem we have with Arborsculpture techniques. We believe that Arborsculpture extreme bending as described below does result in uneven growth and dieback.

The problems seem to arise once the tree if flexed beyond the trees normal flexing range into the Arborsculpture bending techniques.

In Richard Reames book Arborsculpture Solutions for a Small Planet. Quote “I’m often amazed at just how far branches will bend without breaking. When making a sharp bend all at once, it is important to use both hands making little bends all along the curve. This technique can keep a sapling from breaking as it “un-localizes bend, that is to say spreads the bend out over several inches instead of just in one spot. Bend the tree a little here and little there, using two hands decreases the chance of breaking. There is no better way to learn how far you can bend the trunk or branch of a particular species of certain caliper at different times of the year than to break some. Without breaking something now and then, we really have no way of knowing just how far it can possibly be bent.” Unquote

The cambium is a delicate layer between the bark and timber. Depending on the amount of bend, the Arborsculpture technique can cause damage from mere bruising the cambium layer to damaging all the cells in the branch and cambium cells beyond repair.

As long as the word Arborsculpture is linked to the extreme bending method, people will have an aversion with using the word for their shaped trees. Since the first publishing of Richard Reames book “How to grow a chair” Richard Reames has been actively linking the word Aborsculpture and the extreme bending method and branding other people's trees.

To the extent of branding the Growing Village display, Quote “Arborsculpture takes a “bough” upon it’s first world stage.” Unquote From Richard Reames 2nd book Arborsculpture Solutions for a Small Planet. The word Arborsculpture was never use in the marketing or at the Growing Village Pavillion at the World Expo in Japan in 2005. (John Gathright did give Richard Reames the title of World wide coordinderator as a thank you for giving him the contact details of other people who shaped trees around the world.)

To summarise

We feel that Richard Reames should own his Arborsculpture techniques and the results it creates. Not to use other people's results, created using very different techniques, to show how Arborsculpture works.

We feel that the word that is used for the artform as a whole should reflect a reliable shaping method that results in even and balance growth.

blackash —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackash (talk • contribs) 15:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply to unsigned blackash or "pooktre"

O.K. I dispute these edits.

"Controversy exists about the branding of Arborsculpture as none of the practitioners he presents in his book ("Arborsculpture Solutions for a small planet") accept the term, or agree to be tagged by it."

I'm editing the sentence back to it's original, because the new version is immaterial to the subject. It would not matter if thousands hated the word and never used it. The fact is, the word is in use and people come here to understand it's meaning. The book "Arborsculpture- Solutions for a small planet" and the practitioners described inside are immaterial to the subject at hand.

If that's not enough logic, then the simple fact that as of today the word in is used by Christopher Cattle (who was featured in the book) on his home page http://www.grown-furniture.co.uk/ in the first paragraph. "I proved that it could be done, and of course I've since seen and admired the clever and imaginative work of the many other 'arborsculptors' around the world."

The edition of the words about writing the book before I had mature pieces, also has nothing to do with current use of the word. The page is about arborsculpture it is not about Richard Reames.

Reames (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Reames

You said that you are editing the sentence back to it's original which would have been Controversy exists as some prefer to call the technique pleaching or other words. But strangely you left that out.

As the word is linked to a method, as can be seen on the page itself, and on the Arborsmith web site, it's about whether that method works or not.

On this page there should only be photos of pieces created using the methods described. Like photos of your work, that you didn't wish to have showing here. Not showing photos of other people work that is achieved using different methods.

Since the method is link to the name, anyone doing research before buying a book on the subject has the right to know that at the time of writing the book "How to grow a chair" the author really didn't have the experience to say how things would turn out. By the second book "Arborsculpture solutions for a small plant" he says even less about how to do tree shaping, and instead of using photos, he is still using illustrations to depict how Arborsculpture methods work. Some of the photos of Richard Reames's own work that appear in "Arborsculpture solutions for a small plant" are out of date, some by 7 years or more.

But we didn't say any of that about the books.

What we did do was to clarify the sentence about the Controversy, by using an earlier editor's words with our own. We removed the photos of other people's work, and put up photos that were shaped using the methods as described on this page. (Which you took down, as is your right as you own copy right of those photos. We didn't replace these.) We also added that Richard Reames had been inspired by Axel Erlandson, and that Richard Reames didn't have mature pieces before writing the first book on the subject of Arborsculpture methods.

These changes to the Arborsculpture page we believe clarify things for an outsider who wants to know more about the word Arborsculpture and it's methods.

We think you are to close to the subject to look at it objectively, so we will revert the page to our last edit and ask for outside editors to have a look and see what they think on this subject.

Blackash 01:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

30

"Controversy exists about the branding of Arborsculpture as none of the practitioners he presents in his book ("Arborsculpture Solutions for a small planet") accept the term, or agree to be tagged by it."

This statement focuses too much on one book. "Arborsculpture" as a term of public domain is not owned by anyone. Whoever owns the website is irrelevant. "Money.com" does not define what money is. In any case, the reference to one particular book looks biased. However, I do not see anything wrong with mentioning relevant controversy about the use of the term as long as it is fair and unbiased. A citation to the book would be fine in this context.

In conclusion, the emphasis on one particular book does look to me like someone is trying to "own" the term, which does not appear appropriate. I believe mention of the controversy over the term's meaning is appropriate, but emphasis on one founder or one book is not, as it has not been established that one person created the technique independently. I would guess this is an art that is thousands of years old. I will continue to look at, and digest this issue, and will add any thoughts as they come. --Chrisknop (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

30.1

I dispute most of this statement.

"Controversy exists about the branding of Arborsculpture as none of the practitioners he presents in his book ("Arborsculpture Solutions for a small planet") use the methods as described in the books, accept the term, or agree to be tagged by it."

This wiki page is not about the book Arborsculpture or about the author. The statement is a lie as several of the subjects in the book do use the word. Herman Block who was in the book uses the chair making techniques as described in the book. But I'll accept this: "Controversy exists about the naming or branding of the art form as Arborsculpture"

This page should not be used as a way to slap down the competition when someone has a new book coming out on the same subject. Blackash is pooktre and has a conflict of interest, a new book coming out. There were some good historical photos on the page but these have been replaced with error notices, this is very close to vandalism. The methods described on the page are general enough and do reflect the methods used to create the trees in the historical photos shown. The historical photos should be returned.

I don't think Portmanteau is accurate, "conjunction" is better.

I think the following should be removed. "Richard Reames was inspired by the works of Axel Erlandson to attempt his first experiments with growing trees in chairs, which lead him to writing his first book "How to grow a chair" before his experiments were mature." While this is true, this Wiki page is about the word Arborsculpture, it is not about Richard Reames or his books. Reames (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

30.2

I will address each point in turn. First I like to thank Chrisknop for taking the time to come and read our discussion with Richard Reames.

1. “emphasis on one founder or one book is not, as it has not been established that one person created the technique independently” Quote of Chrisknop

To date, there are only two definitive books on arborsculpture’s name and techniques. " How to grow a chair”, which has been in print since 1995. " Arborsculpture solutions for a small planet" in print since April 2005 copyright 2002. In both books the author Richard Reames describes his method of how to shape trees, thereby linking his method with the name Arborsculpture. We believe that it could be said that Richard Reames came to his shaping method independently, inspired by Axel N Erlandson then creating his own unique method of instant tree shaping.

2. “I would guess this is an art that is thousands of years old.” Quote of Chrisknop

Closest thing to this art form is bonsai, which focuses on shaping small trees into natural forms. The first documented shaped trees is by John Krubsack he started shaping in 1903 to grow a chair. Was known as “the chair the lived”. There may be earlier shape trees, but hard evidence is yet to show up. No one tried to name the field of tree shaping until Richard Reames coined the word Arborsculpture in 1995.

3. “This wiki page is not about the book Arborsculpture or about the author” Quote by Reames

As techniques in the books are linked to the word Arborsculpture anyone who has read the books, understandably links the method with the name. One of the books has been available since 1995 it is reasonable to assume a fair number of people associate the method and the name. The author has been actively promoting the both the word Arborsculpture and the method since 1995. We would think that in these circumstances people would link the word with the method.

4. “Herman Block who was in the book uses the chair making techniques as described in the book.” Quote by Reames

I stand corrected, about, “no one uses the methods as described in the book”. I have removed that part of the sentence to reflect that.

5. “when someone has a new book coming out on the same subject. Blackash is pooktre and has a conflict of interest” Quote by Reames

The issue we have is the linking of the name and method then the branding of both onto other people’s work. We see no conflict of interest, as we are not trying to brand anyone else work with our name or technique of shaping trees. Yes, we have linked our technique with Pooktre, which is why we have publicly stated that Pooktre only relates to our trees and not the art form as a whole. Our book will only be about Pooktre, and only relates to our research and we don’t brand anyone else with our method or name. Unfortunately the word Arborsculpture is linked with a method in people’s minds. As a method has been linked to the word since 1995 it has been causing us problems as people email us wanting to know what tree type we use that is so successful with Arborsculpture. If a method hadn’t been linked with the word Arborsculpture we wouldn’t care if the whole art form was call Arborsculpture.

6. “There were some good historical photos on the page but these have been replaced with error notices, this is very close to vandalism.” Quote Reames.

We had replace these photos, with photos of Richard Reames trees from his web site which were shaped using the methods described in the books about Arborsculpture. Richard Reames removed these photos, so all we can guess is that Richard Reames was not happy with them representing Arborsculpture.

We took down the photos of Axel N Erlandson, because Arborsculpture methods described in the books will not achieved the results of Axel N Erlandson, John Krubsack or our grown mirror. Which had been on the Arborsculpture page for quite a while. (Having been acknowledged as the world leaders of tree shaping, we have the greatest understanding of how to successful shape even and balanced trees.) We believe people who might be interested in Arborsculpture techniques should be able to distinguish between, trees shaped using arborsculpture techniques and others people’s shaping techniques. This is why we changed the photos. To show other people’s work in photos, that are unachievable using the methods, described in the books, on Arborsmith.com and which Richard Reames teaches in courses, raises unrealistic expectations. People may buy a book, or take a course believing they too could grow a piece as nice as one of Axel N Erlandson’s.

7. “The methods described on the page are general enough and do reflect the methods used to create the trees in the historical photos shown.” Quote Reames.

From the information that we have found out this description from the Arborsculpture page is inaccurate in relation to the above quote, (“Stems or branches, are bent into shapes and temporarily braced for a year or more depending on the amount of resistance overcome. During that time, additional layers of wood grow. These new layers of wood act like a natural cast, keeping the Stem and branches in the new desired shape. The temporary bracing can be removed after the shape holds itself.”Quote) Axel N Erlandson didn’t bend the trees to the shapes he wanted he worked with the new growth as it was growing to grow the shapes he desired. We believe that John Krubsack also must have worked in this area of the trees growth or very near it, as can be seen by the fact that the trees remained even and balanced even after grafting them together. We know that bending branches or trees will cause damage (which results in uneven growth and die back) The problems seem to arise once you go beyond the saplings or trees normal flexing range into the Arborsculpture bending methods.

Here is a brief explanation

The cambium is a delicate layer between the bark and timber. Depending on the amount of bend, the Arborsculpture technique can cause damage from mere bruising the cambium layer to damaging all the cells in the branch and cambium beyond repair. Which slows the growth of the tree while it repairs itself. When two trees or branches are bent then grafted, the less damaged one will grow thicker. As trees are efficient beings once they have repaired a path to pass the sugars and nutrients from roots to leaves, the branch/tree that was repaired first will be favored and will thicken the most.

8. “I don't think Portmanteau is accurate, "conjunction" is better.” Quote by Reames

On Wikipedia Portmanteau means namely "a word formed by blending sounds from two or more distinct words and combining their meanings". And conjunction in grammar means, a conjunction is a part of speech that connects two words, phrases or clauses together. We don’t have any opinion, one way or the other.

9. “I think the following should be removed. ("Richard Reames was inspired by the works of Axel Erlandson to attempt his first experiments with growing trees in chairs, which lead him to writing his first book "How to grow a chair" before his experiments were mature." Quote from Arborsculpture page) While this is true, this Wiki page is about the word Arborsculpture, it is not about Richard Reames or his books.” Quote Richard

Anyone who wants to research Arborsculpture, before buying one of the only books on the subject. Has the right to know how much the Author knew about the subject at the time of writing the book. Especially as in this field of tree shaping it can take 5 to 10 years to find that you were wrong in your theory. If a method of how to shape trees wasn’t in the books it wouldn’t matter whether or not the author could shape trees or not.

To summarise As the word and unique instant shaping techniques were created by Richard Reames the page should reflect this by only having photos of trees that have been shaped using the Arborsculpture techniques.

People should also know that this is not an ancient art of tree shaping. Arborsculpture is just one person’s method of shaping trees. Just as Pooktre is our method of shaping trees.

Blackash 00:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackash (talk • contribs)

30.3

The impasse between us seams to simply be that you say Arborsculpture is defined by techniques described in the books. I believe it's defined by the medium of the living tree. The first use in print in the book "How to Grow a Chair" on page 14 the word is introduced to mean the whole art form and specifically Axel Erlanson's trees. The word in my opinion includes all possible techniques that use the living tree trunk and branches as the medium. Basically... insisting that my techniques define the art of arborsculpture does not make it so, arborsculpture is defined by the medium. The historic photos should be returned, the personal attacks should be removed. Reames (talk) 05:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

30.4

30.2 Gave me food for thought. However, 30.3's argument is simply more logical and uncontroversial. I do not think arborsculpture should be so strongly tied to one particular book. The term itself may have first been used in the book, but the concept seems to have a social appeal which clearly goes beyond it. Maybe a couple questions about the book are in order: how many copies were sold? Did it make the best-seller list? More often than not the creater of a concept or idea is lost and the idea continues on. In this case it appears to be a rediscovery- I find it nearly impossible that arborsculpture was first done in the 1990s. Maybe it's the first time this particular term was caught on in English popular culture. Therefore, I believe that the book's importance should be listed secondary. I believe the proper way to do this would be as a footnote. BTW- is banzai a type of arborsculpture? If so, I think that answers it. If the distinction is too legal, I think that answers it as well. Book=footnote. --Chrisknop (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

30.5

To Chrisknop Thank you for taking the time to read though and let us know your views. Yes the idea of shaped trees has a large social appeal and is though-out mankind's legends and stories. If any word is used for the art form as a whole, the name shouldn't have a method linked to it. Tree shaping has no method linked to it and it's already in common use. This wording has no controversy about it.

There are successful tree shapers and unsuccessful tree shapers, different methods achieve different results good or poor. We have no problem with this. However Arborsculpture methods of ring barking and extreme bending always results in uneven growth and dieback. We have never seen a balanced mature Arborsculpture. If a mature shaped tree is balanced and even then the shaping techniques used, where not the extreme bending or ring barking methods of Arborsculpture.

We believe trees shaped using Arborsculpture methods should be on the Arborsculpture page. Not photos of other tree shaper's work.

In 30 the example of money was used.

If you put money into Google the links lead to web sites all over the world.

If you put Arborsculpture into Google the links lead back to Richard Reames web site.

It is clearly a brand of Richard Reames.

Blackash (talk) Blackash 10:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

30.6

Arborsculpture methods are any method any artist brings to the art form.

"How to Grow a Chair" 2,000 copies printed in 1995-96 (out of print) "Arborsculpture- Solutions for a Small Planet" 1,000 copies printed in 2005 1,500 printed in 2007 300 of those have been distributed. So 1,300 copies have been distributed to date. Combined # in distribution 3,300 or so. These 2 books have never been on any best seller list.

It is a sort of rediscovery or it could be described as a retroactive categorizing of a rare use of trees. Because this rare use of trees had social appeal and no single word to describe the art, the word arborsculpture filled a void and yes as you say caught on in English culture.

John Krubsack 1919..Grew one chair and called it "The chair that lived" Axel N Erlandson 1947 had his roadside attraction and called it "The Tree Circus" These photos should be returned. There are other historical three dimensional examples to be found.

"Tree Shaping" as an alternative phrase describes the current practice of tree pruning, bonsai, pleaching, espalier and topiary.

A tree trained to be miniature and natural looking is a bonsai. If a tree were to be trained as a miniature and be shaped into a chair for instance, it would then be a "bonsai arborsculpture".

If rewritten from a neutral point of view, yes book info should be changed to footnotes. Could someone without a conflict of interest please do the rewriting ?s

Reames (talk) 05:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

30.7

Google Bonsai, 1000s of clubs and associations. Google Arborsculpture no clubs or associations, Arborsculpture comes from and points to Richard Reames.

Only photos of mature trees shaped using Arborsculpture techniques should be allowed on the page.

Blackash (talk) Blackash 04:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

30.8

Arborsculpture is a [compound_noun] Portmanteau is a BLENDING of sounds.

Aborsculpture has NO blending of sounds but does compound two words together.

Blackash wrote... "Anyone who wants to research Arborsculpture, before buying one of the only books on the subject. Has the right to know how much the Author knew about the subject at the time of writing the book.

My reply..

This is not the place to try to persuade potential book buyers.

Blackash also wrote... "However Arborsculpture methods of ring barking and extreme bending always results in uneven growth and dieback.

My reply.. Your objection here is with the text of the book "How to grow a Chair" a book that is out of print after selling a small number of copies. You objection is with that book, NOT with the text or photos on this page.

If you use the definition on this Wiki page, anyone past or present or future who shapes the trunks of trees, grows Arborsculpture.

The 3rd opinion from Chrisknop said "I believe that the book's importance should be listed secondary. I believe the proper way to do this would be as a footnote." so I edited the page and moved the comments on the book and the personal attacks to a footnote, where it can await further editing. Or it could just be moved to a new wiki page about the book "How to grow a chair"

I replaced the historic photos as they add depth to the understanding of the word as it is in use today. If the photos match the text on the page then the photos should remain. Reames (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

30.9

I have reverted this page back to where it was before, we asked for mediation. As the editor, who was mediating doesn't seem to be available any longer, I will go to the next stage of mediation. Blackash (talk) 07:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

40

You reverted several changes on the page. Did you object to them all ? Reames (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

40.1

No I didn't object to all your changes. I had replaced some of your changes after reverting the page. I also added John Krubsack to Arborscuplture page. I also added a see also to the John Krubsack page. Now that I have be prompted I have double checked and changed any thing to where I believed appropriate. Blackash (talk) 12:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

40.2

Why did you remove the Krubsack and Erlandson external links ? Please explain. 66.82.9.59 (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

40.3

As there is no consensus that Arborsculpture represents the art-form as a whole. I believe that it is more appropriate that these links appear on the respective pages within Wikipedia. I checked and they are there. Blackash (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Move from Arborsculpture to Tree Shaping

Discuss. AfD hero (talk) 05:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is a good move Blackash (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree- where was the discusion ? On face value, "tree shaping" would also include bonsai, topiary, espalier, pleaching and common tree pruning.

Are you proposing a new phrase tree shaping to replace an unique established word for a unique art form ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reames (talk • contribs) 16:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The main discussion was in the Pooktre AfD, [1]. The term "tree shaping" was thrown around because it is neutral, generic, descriptive, and in current use (judging from a quick googling). That is a good point about Bonsai et all. Perhaps we should include them in the article. If you have another name you think would be more appropriate, we could move it there, though I don't think moving it back to Arbosculpture would be a good idea given the controversy over that name.

Remember, our goal here is to provide all sides of the issue from a neutral point of view and not try to push one side or the other. AfD hero (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The location of the discussion is a bit obscure, and action was taken very quickly don't you think ? The previous state of the page was the product of an edit war that was awaiting mediation, between two editors who have self acknowledged conflict of interest

So you know are in a conflict of interests, you link to the guideline that states "COI editing is strongly discouraged", but you are still heavily editing against your 'competition'?

I'm not sure you read the edit history starting around aug 6th, no problem but I have never "edited against" i don't think. I tried and failed to revert some personal slaps like "before his trees were mature" (slap) and "Yet none of the people in his book agree to be tagged by the term" (not true) While I contribute with refs and historic photos. Reames (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that both Blackash and Reames are both trying to prove to each other whose method is better/more popular/the correct one/... Wikipedia is really not the place for that. Rror (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Reames said that he had a Conflict of interest and that I also had one, to which I disagreed with and give my reasons to above. All we want is not to be banded by a name with method linked to it. Blackash (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I when and found where we state we don't have a Conflict. Quote "The issue we have is the linking of the name and method then the branding of both onto other people’s work. We see no conflict of interest, as we are not trying to brand anyone else work with our name or technique of shaping trees. Yes, we have linked our technique with Pooktre, which is why we have publicly stated that Pooktre only relates to our trees and not the art form as a whole." (As it took me ages to find it, I thought I'll bring it down. Blackash (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The controversy over the name was created by just one editor as the edit history shows. Artist working in rare fields of art don't always take kindly to having there art categorized under a unifiing name, yet new words fill vacumes when needed and this unique field needs a unique word and arborsculpture has the most momentum today. Tree shaping to describe this art is only in use by Pooktre. (judging from googling)

There is no unification, but an overview over different methods and names, basically doing the same if you take one step backwards. They can and should be treated equally. Same argument as below - show me a reliable source that is using the term arborsculpture to describe the big picture. And how can you be objective on this if you are so deeply involved? Rror (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not the only editor on this discussion page to say that Arborsculpture is the name of one persons work, I am just the most recent

We have no objection to a unifing name, we object to a name that is linked to method of shaping. Tree shaping is in common use, It been used by people who shape trees and others. Some examples

• On web site Aharon Naveh used the wording 'shaping tree trunks' and doesn't use Arborsculpture. http://www.geocities.com/aharonaveh22/arbor1.htm

• How to grow a chair by Richard Reames, page 14. Quote:- "Tree trunk topiary, botanical architecture, arbortopia -all of these terms have attempted to describe an early 1900s approach to tree shaping that goes beyond such traditiaonal practices of topiary, bonsai and espalier."
• Arborsculpture Solutions to a small Planet by Richard Reams, uses it twice on page 1 'shaping tree trunks' also 'shaping trees' there are other places though out the book that it used.
• My Father "Talked to trees" by Wilma Erlandson, page 7 'shaping trees'. She doesn't use the word Arborsculpture anywhere in the book.

There is only one other book on the subject about shaped trees that we are aware of by Ivan Hicks (Author), Richard Rosenfeld (Author) call Tricks With Trees: Land Art for the Garden http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tricks-Trees-Land-Art-Garden/dp/1862057346. I haven't read this one.

I know Tree shaping and Tree shapers has be used in fantasy books for a long time. Example,there is a series of graphic novels call elfquest that has a secondary character that is a tree shaper and it been going for over 30 years and is translated into multiple languages. New innovations quite often appear 20 to 30 years in literature before they become reality.

Another word that might be good could be Tree Trainers, its on Dr Chis Cattle web site. http://www.grown-furniture.co.uk/ It a neutral word and has no method link to it, It's more defined than Tree shaping, or use Tree shapers instead of Tree shaping. Maybe Shaped Tree Trunks?

Agree "Shaped Tree Trunks" is a good alternative.Reames (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If you Google Arborsculpture it leads to Richard Reams, and this isn't a neutral wording for the art form.Blackash (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Tree Shaping as a phrase is so generic it has no value to the average person. Yes we could fill the page with content from all the other tree shaping arts but then it would just be a very large category and not unique or noteworthy or even useful. If we are going to invent a new word for this art form, then everyone inside and outside wikipedia with an opinion on the subject should be invited to express it. OTOH recently invented new words that have few or no references probably do not belong on wikipedia. Reames (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly the point: a generic term to get you started with this topic. The results are the same, just the techniques differ. Try to see the bigger picture for the average person. Rror (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with [User:Rror|Rror]]Blackash (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, sounds like a good way to find some common ground.Reames (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm finding some guide lines here... WP:NCON Reames (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Who is replacing anything? There just is no established name and any of the terms Circus Trees, Grown Up Trees, Arborsculpture, Pooktre, Shaped Trees, Tree Trunk Topiary etc. are thrown around. Try finding any of those terms with google news - nothing. And 'your' term is redirecting to this article, so where is the problem? Neither Arborsculpture nor Pooktre have enough content at the moment to warrant their own article, unlike Krubsack and Erlandson; and can be described here. If there is enough content from reliable sources (this is a big problem), the article can be split. In my opinion this article should give an overview over this practices past and widespread ([2]) present.Rror (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree, "Tree Trunk Shaping" by "Tree Trunk Shapers" neutral, generic and a little more descriptive. Reames (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right in that there is not enough content for Arborsculpture or Pooktre to have their own page. One page that has a neutral name for every one is much better. I know of about 15 more people that can be put on this page Blackash (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree... proceed ! lets look for a better opening statement. One that points out Rror's idea "a generic term to get you started with this topic" ? Reames (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Great job AfD hero! Much better and balanced than before. Thanks. Rror (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

TreeShaping?

I have followed the present discussion about allocating a neutral name to the art and craft of grafting trees into unique and artistic forms. To be completely honest it causes me to reminisce back to 2003 when I first took on the position of Chief Producer for the Growing Village. The art of grafting and shaping trees is both ancient and modern. It can be both artistic and practical. There are various ecological perspectives as well as potential for tree damage and tree abuse.

In my research and preparations for the World Expo, I had the opportunity to meet and work with Mr. Richard Reames. I was very impressed with his passion for the Circus Trees history and his efforts to re-introduce the techniques and theories of previous people who grafted and shaped trees. Richard also coined a very interesting and catchy word "arborsculpture"

Originally, it was my intent to use the Arborsculture name for the Growing Village but, after further educating myself and visiting grafting artists and crafts persons around the globe it became evident that a more neutral name was necessary. With much deliberation and thought, (Odious Expo Committee meetings) it was voted that we accredit Richard Reames' research, efforts, and uniquely shaped trees by calling his work Arborsculpture. We would also use the original historically significant name of Circus Trees for Erlandson's trees and Unique and Artistic trees. Chairs and Furniture would be " Growing Furniture" Living and practicing artists could chose their own branding for their craft. It became evident during the expo after reviewing the comments of literally millions of people that we were correct.

Personally, I feel that this field is still young and exciting. There is great diversity in the practices, methods, and outcomes for this unique art form. Tree Shaping would seem neutral and generic to me! I would also encourage individual branding by all of the artists and practitioners'.

My vision is: this art form will only grow in appeal and popularity but there will be a time when we refer to individuals styles and techniques in the same way that we recognize a Picaso or Monet as an artist and style of art.

I recognize the need for a generic name and Tree Shaping does fit the criteria. I hope that there be efforts to also promote the uniqueness, diversity and history of the individual artist, researchers, and people who have helped to grow this exciting and visionary form of Arbor-Art!

Growing Villages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.86.240.106 (talk) 06:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

My name is Mark Primack. I live in Santa Cruz, California, and I am the discoverer, historian and, according to its current owners, the savior of Axel Erlandson’s World Famous Tree Circus. Most, if not all, the references in the Wikipedia entry on Erlandson are drawn from my original research. I am currently referenced on the ‘Arborsculpture’ page as well. I have an unpublished manuscript, begun in 1982, on the history of the Tree Circus and have shared much of that information over the years. Having recently completed more extensive research on the subject, I have resumed lecturing and am planning a revised text for a definitive history on the subject. I hope to edit and update the Wikipedia entry on Erlandson within the year.

First I want to state that this is my first time commenting on Wikipedia. It was recently brought to my attention that my name had been appropriated on this page in the past, and that is what compels me now to clarify my actual opinion on this matter.

This is alarming ! So the words at the very top of this Talk page and the edit made on April 30 and May 19 under the name "Mprimack"are not yours ?Reames (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia entry on Erlandson references my website. I can be contacted there should anyone question the veracity of the following comments.

In 1974 I coined the phrase ‘Botanic Architecture’ to put a name to the conceptual work I was undertaking in the area of growing trees and other plants to create living habitations. In researching historic precedents- pleaching, espaliering (2- and 3-dimensional), copsing, fletching, grafting, topiary, tree training, the functions of plant growth hormones, piezoelectric effects on wood, plant pathology, structural botany, inosculation, mythology, etc- I could find no adequate term to cover the entire spectrum of this subject, and so made up my own. That term was first published in England in 1974, and in America as the title of an article on the subject in the Spring 1978 issue of CoEvolution Quarterly.

I have been in communication since 1980 with artists such as David Nash in Great Britain and Dan Ladd in New England. These are sculptors recognized internationally for their work with living plants and trees. Though these artists have been inspired by the unique accomplishments of Axel Erlandson, and continue to support my work in Botanic Architecture, they have never adopted that term for their own work, nor have I presumed to do so.

Furthermore, though I have and will continue to characterize Erlandson’s trees- spiral staircases, towers, enclosures of many kinds- as rudimentory forms of ‘botanic architecture’, he obviously never used that term to describe his own work. Nor did he use ‘pleaching’, ‘espalier’, ‘bonsai’ or ‘topiary’, though he employed techniques from all of those arts. Nor did he use the term ‘arborsculpture’. Axel Erlandson described his own work as that of simply ‘growing’ or ‘training’ trees.

Mr. Reames has made extensive use of my material and sources in the development of both his craft (‘arborsculpture’) and his books. Still, I do not characterize his work as ‘Botanic Architecture’, nor would I associate my work, or Erlandson’s with ‘arborsculpture’. That word is no more nor less than the name chosen by Mr. Reames to describe what he has accomplished with his own hands. His recent efforts to center himself in the world of artists (some more accomplished or famous than himself) who are working with living plants and trees, by applying his brand to all their work, may someday succeed, but it does not appear to be the mission of Wikipedia to support such efforts. And though it’s inevitable that others will for the moment use ‘arborsculpture’ (a book on computer-aided design was recently published entitled, ‘Digital-Botanic Architecture’) until a more adequate name evolves, no one word is inclusive enough for the material in this entry. Sculpture is not architecture, nor is architecture sculpture. And a chair is neither sculpture nor architecture. The word ‘botanic’ is the adjectival form of ‘botany’. One could describe ‘botanic sculpture’, ‘botanic furniture’ or ‘botanic architecture’ as components of this Wikipedia entry. But that would only beg a much more inclusive coverage, with far broader examples, including my own work.

So for now I must agree that ‘arborsculpture’ should be confined to Mr. Reames particular commercial work, books and art. The same would be true of Mr. Cooks ‘pooktre’, Mr. Nash’s Ash Dome, Mr. Ladd’s ‘extreme nature’ and my ‘Botanic Architecture’. Thank you for your consideration.

MarkPrimack (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Distinction should be made between shaping the leaves of a tree and the actual trunk or branches, both are different art forms. The articles should probably be connected somehow, but merging them would probably result in propagation of the misconception they're the same or more closely related then they really are. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Tree Trunk Shaping then ?

I appreciate the heart-felt opinions and detailed objections expressed above, they helped me see the bigger picture.Reames (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm Dan Ladd.I have been grafting trees together trees for almost 30 years and consider myself part of the community. I would like to register my interest in starting a new page with a neutral name and a definition that acknowledges that trees are grafted together with the aim and intention of eventual form and structure. A name with intention impilicite please? I would like to add that at one point in the last few years the only access to my site (dealing with my work with trees) was through R.Reames' Arbor sculpture website and I found that disconcerting. In any case I would prefer my work was not related to his definition at all. danladd.com Gourds1 (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Dan, sorry I don't quite understand, did you mean only my web site was linked to yours ? "Only access" kind of implies limits or controlReames (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, For me, I like Tree Shaping and then the people who do the shaping are called Tree Shapers. Maybe thats from reading to much fantasy. :-) Anyway lets start getting more people on the page who have done some shaping or influenced the art form. Blackash (talk) 07:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• If we are really looking for a neutral term, "Tree Shaping" has been in use by Pooktre for awhile now, so I don't think that term is neutral.Reames (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll put it another way. Does anyone object if I move this page to "Tree Trunk Shaping" for the time being, or until a word or phrase for this art emerges?Reames (talk) 02:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In common usage, the trunk of a tree refers only to the main central bulk of the tree and not the branches or roots. AfD hero (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I object. That title is even more arcane than the current title of Tree shaping, and as AfD hero says, it fails to take into account the shaping of limbs and roots. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Any compromise room ? Or should we just move ahead with the almost "generic" Tree Shaping? One editor said no term appears on Google News. Is that the litmus test for new words and phrase ? As the definition of the word arborsculpture has had extensive print media coverage in reputable publications like Tree Care Industry (trade journal) and is the only term used for the art in the tree care industry. What is the definition of and guidlines for, using bissnes names ?

When we first starting the discussion on the Arborsculpture talk page we send out a email to people that had subscribed to pooktre (about 500), we stated that we had issue with the branding of Arborsculpture and where we would be talking about it. So that anyone on our list was free to follow the discussion and comment as they wished. Blackash (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[[3]]

It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate.[[4]]

We should assume good faith and that the editor just din't read the guide lines.

A couple of years ago this aticle was challanged as original research, see top of page, one comment that stands out...

Actually, the concensus of the word does exist. It's also the only term being used on the major arborist and gardening forums to convey and define the art. I've been watching posts for a couple of years now, and see no other name used for the art. Reames book and name basically has etched in culture, the first modern name, and only currently used name, for the art. From reading the opening paragraph, I can't see anything that seems to promote the book as encyclopedic for content. But the author's notoriety, and writing are historical now. Apparently even HGTV has covered his work on television so I learned at the HGTV site this week. So whether or not Reames would care about marketing, as an arborist and educator, I'd include the book and author myself from the historical perspective: the intiating point for the name arborsculpture.Mdvaden 22:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to give this a rest and defer to the experienced editors. But please let me know what is the litmus test for new words and phrases ? and what is the definition of and guidlines for, using bissnes names ? Thank You, Reames (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't rely too much on what a single editor says, even if that was me :) Guidelines are here: WP:NAME; mentioning "use most easily recognized name" and "recognizability by seeing what verifiable reliable sources call the subject". This was my rationale behind using google news: a first and quick test to see which names are used - wanted to filter out blogs and personal webpages. If you follow the link, you will see what is considered reliable. Anybody is welcome to search for such sources... I personally just find it silly how much time is spent on the discussion of the name of the article. Isn't the content much more important? Maybe we can make it into this list: WP:LAMEST :( Rror (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The verifiable reliable sources[[5]] showing Arborsculpture as the word for this art, have been on the page all along. The reason for those sources was recently edited out. Look at the first six references, there are many more if needed. Am I missing something ?Reames (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The ones I can access (hey, I guess that makes them verifiable) all feature a photo of you, and are describing mostly your work. Not surprisingly 'your' term is used to describe your work. Rror (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

mostly... Then how about just one verifiable reliable source that uses any other term for the art.69.19.14.40 (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the last time I'll repeat myself - this is getting tedious: there is no established name -> use most generic. I'm out of here. Note to self: don't argue with someone who has a conflict of interest. Rror (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Then I apologize. I thought we we having a discussion, my bad.Reames (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Naming conflicts are common on Wikipedia - for a recent example, see Big Ben. Accordingly, there is extensive guidance on the matter. WP:NAMECON, MOS:TM and WP:NEO seem most relevant. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Passing comment on name

Both names can be used for articles. Tree shaping has enough reliable sources, and so does Arborsculpture. An article termed Tree Shaping (actually, that should be Tree shaping - so I'll change that in a moment), would be about tree shaping in general, which would include Arborsculpture, bonsai, topiary, espalier, and pleaching. Each method of tree shaping would be discussed in WP:Summary style with a {{main}} link to the respective articles. As this article is currently set up to discuss tree shaping in general, this one should remain as the Tree shaping article, while anyone is free to set up the Arborsculpture article, which would be about the shaping of the trunks and branches of live trees, as practised by Richard Reames. If other people also use the term Arborsculpture it would be appropriate to also use their name in the article, with references. Where it would be inappropriate would be to use the term Arborsculpture to describe all forms of tree shaping. It's unlikely I'll come back to this page, so if you'd like further comment or assistance in this matter, please give me a ping on my talkpage. SilkTork *^YES! 20:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• I favour keeping the topic together in this article for now. I found a good source which states, inter alia, that "The concept of shaping living trees into useful objects known as tree shaping, arborsculpture, living art or pooktre...". This adequately demonstrates the variety of terms for the concept and it does not seem that any one of them is so dominant that we should exclude the others. I added these alternate titles to the lead but another editor has removed this addition with the edit summary, "The artform needs a neutral name with no method linked to it." It seems that this editor is trying to enforce usage of a particular name but this is contrary to the guidance of WP:NAMECON which states, "Wikipedia should not attempt to say which side is right or wrong. ... In other words, Wikipedians should describe, not prescribe.". I therefore maintain that our lead should reflect the variety of names used for the concept, as described within the body of the article and supported by sources such as Science Daily. Note that I am new to this topic, have no particular axe to grind and have no objection to the current title of the article, Tree shaping, which seems a reasonably neutral and non-proprietary term for this. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I removed the names in the leading sentence, not to enforce usage of a particular name but to stop the branding of a particular name across art work of others.Blackash (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Science Daily, in this case has simply posted a press release. notice in the u.r.l. it says "releases" this press release attempted to skirt the controversy of naming the art. I'll align with Silk Tork on this, Arborsculpture can be it's own page and tree shaping should include all the tree shaping arts and methods like pruning and topiary.Slowart (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources

I have provided links to sources at the head of this talk page, as is my habit. These links provide searches using the variety of names under discussion which seems sensible in order to cast our search net as wide as possible. No particular name preference should be inferred from this - it is merely a way of assisting the development of the article. Another editor removed these links but I have reverted since that action seems quite unhelpful. Since this topic seems to be the subject of some dispute, editors should look to independent sources to settle the matter. Please avail yourselves of these links rather than seeking to suppress them. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• I removed the tag on the discussion page, because I followed a couple of links and they lead to google. I thought does this need to be here? Ummm not really. so I removed it. Don't really care one way or the other.:-) Blackash (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Undo of Slowart's edit

Slowart removed the paragraph

• Controversy exists about the branding of Arborsculpture, as some of the practitioners Reames presents in his book ("Arborsculpture Solutions for a small planet") don't accept the term, or agree to be tagged by it, whereas others do.

Going by the talk page about changing the name, clearly there is controversy. So I changed it back. Slowart is Reames as is stated on Reames user page. User:Reames Blackash (talk) 07:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Slowart please discuss changes here and not keep removing the above pargarph. In reply to your edit comment, which was (One persons objection does not create a real controversy. Cite the source or leave it out.)

• The outside editors who agreed that art form need a neutral name.
• John Gathright as above
• Mark Primack as above
• Dan Ladd as above
• Blackash (representative for Pooktre) as above
• Chris Cattle (he has changed from using the word Arborsculpture on his home page to tree trainers)
• Lois Walpole who stated in email to me that

In principle, however, I have never felt comfortable with using the term 'arborsculpture' to describe what I do simply because I am growing functional products not sculptures. Blackash (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking though the history of tree shaping page I found that Slowart is the one added the tag citation needed [[6]]Blackash (talk) 01:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Unreferenced derogatory statements about living persons will be removed.

Your meat puppet party carries no weight. Maybe try a rewrite from a NPV. So what does branding mean really? Please explain what you mean by branding and find a reference. And why do you need this derogatory non statement "as some of the practitioners Reames presents in his book ("Arborsculpture Solutions for a small planet") don't accept the term, or agree to be tagged by it, whereas others do" important to the article ? It is a self canceling statement ! Try a rewrite or leave it out.Slowart (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the personal reference, I have removed , "whereas others do" as the wording earlier in the sentence says that "some of the practitioners" covers that point. Richard Reames (without saying it is his book) has been using his book Arborsculpture Solutions for a small planet as the definitive book on the subject of this art form. There by justifying the branding of the word Arborsculpture across other artists work. Blackash (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed. This statement "Controversy exists about the branding of Arborsculpture, as some of the practitioners that are in the book ("Arborsculpture Solutions for a small planet") don't accept the term Arborsculpture, or agree to be tagged by it." has been removed for many reasons. The "controversy" is really just your grudge.

No, from my understanding you have had long standing problems from different people within this field caused by your decision to name the whole art form. Blackash (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The word branding is used in cattle marking and advertising, both imply ownership. As several months went by with this tag I believe you need a citation from a reliable source, this is a pillar of Wiki land. Hope we can get a 3rd opinion on this.Slowart (talk) 04:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've given citation sources. Blackash (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• The talk page is not a reliable source, quite the opposite.Slowart (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by quite the opposite? Blackash (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Just that talk pages are unreliable sources.Slowart (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I did some checking and stuff about citations, and found that at this time the sentence doesn't have the corret citations, so I removed it. Blackash (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Archives of Tree shaping Talk

The Archive links lead to a setting up new pages and not the old talk page. Can someone please fix this? I don't have a clue how to. Blackash (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Arborsculpture

I have replaced some of the earlier wording, with its citations as I believe it is of general interest. Blackash (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a good citation. Citing 2 books and 3 pages in one reference.

I placed the citation after each point instead of all the citations at the end of the sentece. Blackash (talk) 07:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(Axel N Erlandson as the inspiration) Arborsculpture Solutions for a Small Planet by Richard Reames. page 150. How to grow a Chair by Richard Reams. page 16. (First experiments) How to grow a Chair by Richard Reams page 57.(Writing the first book before having finished pieces) Arborsculpture Solutions for a Small Planet by Richard Reams, page 152.

Is the point you are trying to make here about the maturity (whatever that means)of Reames trees at the time "How to grow a chair" was written ? That point is irrelevant to the subject. It is also an inference taken out of context. Try using the exact quote from the book while noting the context if you think it is important to the subject at hand.Slowart (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought we have already had this discussion. Blackash (talk) 07:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes we did and you said "Anyone who wants to research Arborsculpture, before buying one of the only books on the subject. Has the right to know how much the Author knew about the subject at the time of writing the book."Slowart (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You left this part of the quote out " Especially as in this field of tree shaping it can take 5 to 10 years to find that you were wrong in your theory." Blackash (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Quote by blackash from the earlier discussion. " We thought that people have the right to know that the methods in the book “How to Grow a Chair” at the time of writing the book were an unproven way of shaping. As it can take 5 to 10 years to find out the results. It is not an acceptable scientific practice to publish results at the beginning of an experiment without stating it is only an experiment." Blackash (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Our interest is in letting people know that the information in the book is experimental. This allows people to be more aware of the need to do their own testing and not just rely on the information within the book.Blackash (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

So I'm removing the sentence because it is a derogatory irrelevant inference taken out of context to try to influence book sales. Please do not replace it.Slowart (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Slowart, I belive that earlier on the talk page you said that the book is out of print. So the part of the sentence you removed can't have an influence on book sales. For someone intrested in the history it is not irrelevant. As I wasn't quoting I don't see how the it taking out of context.I did a summary of a two sentences. The two sentences from the page are Quote "I started writing a book about everything I had learned on the subject of shaping trees. I knew that it would be years before I had any trees that could be sold so I needed something to sell in the meantime." Arborsculpture Solutions for a Small Planet by Richard Reams, page 152. I thought it was an ok summary.Blackash (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Slowart, earlier on the talk page you said both of these things about the discussion. Quote of Reames "While this is true" seperate quote by Reames "Other Wiki editors should decide if it will stay." so I replace words "before his experiments were mature" for now. If you want, we can use the direct quote that is above instead.Blackash (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

O.K. use the direct quote and we can see if a 3rd party finds it relevant.Slowart (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If you mean by 3rd party, a consensus of editors, other than you and I.(Yes)Blackash (talk) 08:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Slowart I think you have a Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest in this area.

Richard Reames quote "now offers to limit future contributions to arborsculpture to only talk, images and fixing vandalism." [7] Look under conflict summary- one point of view Here you are discussing with other editors conflicting views. Where you agreed to keep you edits to a minimum. Blackash (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The offer expired, or I changed my mind.Slowart (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Good to know Blackash (talk) 07:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Tree shaping methods

I've added two main approaches. Blackash (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi. First, I don't know if your conflict was resolved or not. I do know, however, that writing "Writing the first book before having finished pieces" in a reference is original research. Secondly, and more importantly, this article is a mess. Your referencing structure is all wrong. You don't jam four citations into one ref tag and then never reference it again; each citation gets its own ref tag. Take a look at virtually every single article on Wikipedia if you need an example. You may also want to read WP:CITE for more. I'm going to attempt to untangle the refs. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting out the refs. Blackash (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, done. I've also tagged this article for primary sources. Folks, you have links here that are largely from primary sources, and few from secondary ones. Blog posts and self-published sites are not really acceptable as references on Wikipedia. You need to find articles that are written by magazines, newspapers, and so on. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Good work on the entanglements. It should be noted that the book How To Grow a Chair and Arborsculpture are both self published. I am removing the book quote in the Arborsculpture section: "Reames wrote, "I started writing a book about everything I had learned on the subject of shaping trees. I knew that it would be years before I had any trees that could be sold so I needed something to sell in the meantime."[16]" One reason is because it is not relevant to the subject.Slowart (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm reverting slowart's last edit.

• There has been no consensus of editors. In point of fact HelloAnnyong didn't say about the relevancy one way or the other.
• We agreed that there needs to be a consensus by other editors. I think that would mean at least 3 editors. As slowart and blackash are not being counted.
• Slowart you don't seem to be working towards a compromise. Blackash (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you readded that quote. What does that quote bring to this article? It just seems so out of place. As to the question of consensus, the two of you definitely do count as part of generating consensus. A third opinion is really just meant to break the deadlock between you two. And don't accuse Slowart of anything; assume good faith here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

After going back and forwards with Slowart, I added the quote as a compromise. The original sentence had more relevence and better flow "He was inspired by the Tree shaping of Axel Erlandson to begin his first experiments with growing trees into chairs in the spring of 1993, which lead him to writing his first book "How to grow a chair". before his experiments were mature.".

I belive the relevence of the original sentence is in letting people know that the information in the book is experimental.

I'm not sure how much of the history you have read. Slowart has a self-confessed conflict of intrest as he is Richard Reames (He outed himself as Richard Reames, earlier on in the history) and therefore he is not neutral. By earlier comments we know that Slowart believes that I am not neutral. Blackash (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Okay, I'll state this very plainly: Slowart, you are most certainly a conflict of interest on this article. This article is not a WP:COATRACK for you, and it's not a place for you to push your own history or agenda or whatever. You must be careful with your edits.

Oh, and BlackAsh, don't undo my work on this article. There is no reason to revert back to your version of awkward and improper references. You really need to read WP:CITE. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong I didn't undo your edits, I undid to revision 288942098, as at that time you had not said one way or the other about the issue. Blackash (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You undid everything in this edit. But I see that that was a mistake, so that's fine. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Change to page

HelloAnnyong I had made some other changes, I added an External link to google maps that has some good information on it. I found a couple of extra refs for two of the other tree shapers. If you have an issue with these let me know.Blackash (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the Google maps link is acceptable under WP:ELNO. It's sort of a personal website - it's really just a list of places that someone put together. The other two links are fine for now. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That map was started by one person but it now has about 13 people editing the map who are tree shapers (There is only about 22 people who shape trees at the moment). It also has links to different web sites all round the world with photos that can be hard to find else where. Blackash (talk) 13:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I still think it's violates Wikipedia's external links policy. If nothing else, this isn't place to promote every single person's work; users can find that on their own if they want. And just so we're clear here, are you one of those 13 people editing the map? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I had been contacted by one of the german editors who wanted to know why it had been removed. His english is a bit shaky. Yes I'm one of the editors. There is a large movement in germany more than 25,000 grown structures mostly domes so we have been told. On the map most of the links are in and around germany.Blackash (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a place for you to promote something. You aren't here to placate other editors, or people who are involved in this subject. We're here to write neutral articles. The gmaps violates Wikipedia's external link policy, and it shouldn't be included. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not sweating this one way or the other just learning as I edit. Blackash (talk) 14:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want a really neutral article, then there should be NO EXTERNAL LINK - if you can't guarantee that you take all existing links to this wiki-entry to guarantee neutrality. Isn't it? Peter Ganser —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.191.214.32 (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)