Talk:Tree shaping/Archive 15

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

.

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

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


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


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


 * I agree that Arborsculpture, Pooktre, and Tree Shaping are all pretty much out. But I have never seen a policy that says a title must be, or even should be, four words or less. In fact The policy on neologisms specifically says to use long unwieldy titles if there is no short noun or phrase that can be used. I think what it comes down to is refs. I always liked "Tree Training" as it avoids the arbo/pook dispute and it is not used in reference to a separate art like Tree Shaping is. The problem arises from the fact that WP cant claim it to be "The Name" of the art when the artists themselves have not decided that it is, and therefore there no refs (or very few anyway) that claim it is. But since they have decided on no single name a long phrase may be all we are left with. Colincbn (talk) 05:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have stated in the past that I think 'Tree Training' should be the title of the article as it meets wiki criteria and other editors agreed with it. It is also what Axel Erlandson called it. I don't think WP needs to claim the art form. I disagree that a long name should be used . The examples editors came up with in the past were ridiculous.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 08:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


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

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

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


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


 * WP:NEO, Quote:
 * In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.
 * Colincbn (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried that and it was immediately reverted. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe something like 'Forming of tree roots and branches into artistic shapes'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Please note in Colincbn comment this part of the quote "for which no accepted short-hand term exists" from WP:NEO.
 * There hasn't been a consensus that Tree shaping isn't appropriate, and it is short with appropriate references as a title for the art form. refs
 * Also there is another option of a short title that also meets WP polices Tree training as I've pointed out above and now multiple editors have stated it seems ok. refs Blackash   have a chat 14:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Chronology of notable practitioners
This section needs to be discussed particularly regarding the mention of those businesses with current commercial interests in the subject. Again, we should look at established policies on the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think as long as all practitioners are covered the same way there is no problem with having this section. I will look through and make any changes that seem needed to maintain NPOV. Colincbn (talk) 07:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The ones here seem reasonably notable and covered by secondary sources, so I see no problem with including them. Perhaps if the page gets too long we may have to reevaluate and/or create a separate page. AfD hero (talk) 07:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Bench Image
I must say I really don't like the image. I know that Duff was all for it and I am in no way suggesting Blackash did anything wrong by drawing and putting it in. But we have a great photo of Peter Cook from Pooktre in this awesome chair they grew right at the top. We have a really good shot of two angles of their mirror. And this amazing sketch by Blackash of some of Chris Cattle's Grownup furniture. Next to those the bench sketch seems lacking. Again I know it was Duff that first spoke of putting it in, and I am not suggesting anything but good faith on Blackash's part, and I certainly can't draw well enough to make a sketch like that myself. I just think we can find a better representation of Reams's work if we tried. Colincbn (talk) 07:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have asked previously for current photos of Richard Reames recent works and they have not been forthcoming. The Blackash drawing of the bench chair is very similar to other drawings in his books only better I do not think it should be removed. I would be interested to discuss how we are going to deal with the commercially sensitive inclusions.I think we should deal with these before doing any thing else to the article or even talk about a name change.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 08:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * People, can we all be careful that we do not allow this to become a commercial matter again. We want the best pictures showing the art in the best way, regardless of who is in them or who made them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I chose the bench to draw, as it a pivotal piece in Richard Reames's Book example it is on his back cover of his 2nd book and in his media publicly. The different methods should have a piece shaped showing the results of each method. Blackash  have a chat 11:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume the above is Blackash. I think that was a great Idea. I'm not saying we just remove it. I'm just thinking there must be an actual Photo of his work we can use. We already have the Peace Symbol bit down in his section. But a good example of the "Instant" or "manual" method would be good. By the way if anyone else has a better neutral name than the Manual Method by all means change it. Colincbn (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The idea behind the drawings is they are based on mature living examples and not someone's theory of how the trees will turn out. Also they don't have any background, thus the shapes of the trees are easily seen. Photos of mature pieces with the background removed would also work. Blackash   have a chat 10:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've suggested to Slowart that because the bench photos are 10 years out of date (which my drawing is based on) and the peace sign in 6 years out of date that he takes a new photo of either one of these pieces and I would be willing to remove the background and then the photo could be used instead of the bench drawing.  Blackash   have a chat 00:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have changed the Manual title to Simple Manual tree shaping. I have a reference from Richard Reames 2nd book "Arborsculpture" where he describes his Peace Symbol as simple. I have to figure out how to do references.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 09:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of section link to alternative names, and again with this woody plants
In Duff's diff he states he is "Simplified opening sentence & lead (I hope)" In point of fact he as lengthened the sentence and removed the section link to the alternative names section. He also seems to have an issue with using the word "tree" and has either removed it or changed tree to woody plant. (Last time he was editing here he consistently did this also.)
 * Having a link to the alternative names in the lead, when there is a alternative names section on the article seems to be in common use though out wikipedia from my search. So can some one please put the wording alternative names back with the link.
 * This woody plant issue, Duff seems to have a real fondness for this term. When we discussed it in the past, he explained his insistence of using this term by stating it is what horticulturist use. More people understand what tree means than wood plant. KISS: Kept It Simple Simon. Can someone please change Duff's creative editing and remove woody plant and put back tree back. Blackash   have a chat 14:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Does this art not apply to woody plants that are not trees? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Martin don’t you remember your reaction to this wording? I believe you stated it didn’t suggest trees to you, and you suggested using trees, shrubs, and vines instead of woody plant, to Duff and myself. There is a reason the books published on this art use the term tree and not woody plant. You don’t have to explain the word tree to people. Blackash   have a chat 08:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Martin You have shown that you are an involved editor by yet again placing arborsculprture in front of tree training. I thought the sentence was fine. Tree training first then arborsculpture then pooktre. You have again given weight and promenence to Arborsculpture /Slowart and Reames. Why do you do this? I will use this as an example of your promotion of Reames/Slowart when I take you to Admin.
 * I apologise I was looking at the talk page history instead of article history. Maybe my comments should be directed to Duff who is doing the same thing of promoting Arborsculpture /Slowart /Reames. The style of editing is similar to Martins, on this article. Duffs previous editing was very pro-arborsculpture, while attacking Blackash and accusing her 'controlling the page' where as in reality Duff was the major contributor between 8/06/10 to 23/7/10. Blackash did not edit during this time, She started editting in late August 2010.

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

I think it might be time to go to arbitration on the subject of names and other matters of commercial significance. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Martin you have not outlined what the matters of commercial significance are.I would like you to follow up the photo of the prunning equipment and where it leads for another commercially significant advertisement. When I follow ot up it leads to Varden a commercial pruning opperation based in Oregan. How close is this to Reames business? How can these be discussed if the topics aren't disclosed? Look at the whole article not just your bias towards Blackash.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the whole article is dominated by commercial issues. I have no bias towards anyone but I do object to this article becoming a commercial battleground.  Slowart has shown willing to withdraw from all commercially sensitive issues such as the article name and practitioners of the art.  Arbcom are the final step in dispute resolution and they are able to make binding decisions.  If they rule that there is no commercial conflict of interest here I will happily leave the article to others.  My only interest here is in promoting WP policy.  Other dispute resolution methods have failed to reach any consensus on this subject so I am going to take it to arbcom.  I think it should be a fairly straightforward case. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Martin, Slowart requested that editors re-look the title and other things on 30 March 2011.He also made a comment on what good work you and Colincbn have been doing.I read this as Slowart making requests to you both hence you are an involved editor.I agree you should take this matter to a higher level.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 04:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Arbcom will probably decline to take the case. AfD hero (talk) 05:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sydney, why do you keep bringing me into it? I have never made an edit anywhere because I was "told to". Every edit I have ever made was because I thought it improved the project. If you remember I opposed banning Blackash from the talk page and I also oppose trying to bring this to ArbCom at this time. I understand why Martin wants to, I just think we should give the current framework more time. Blackash and Slowart have both refrained from editing the article and that is as much as we can ask of them. They are both more than welcome to give their opinions here, but we are under no obligation to make edits based on those opinions. We all must take sole responsibility for the work we do, for good or ill. I do not consider myself anyone's enemy, I do however get the feeling you consider me one. If Slowart likes my work fine, but in all honesty I don't give a rat's ass if he does or not. I edit for WP, no one else. Can you say the same thing? Colincbn (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that we could discuss the commercially sensitive issues here and just ignore the comments by Blackash, and Bluegum but I personally find them disruptive to a clear, neutral, and open conversation.


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


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


 * I believe what you find disruptive is that I point out where and why your logic is faulty according to wiki policies. Blackash   have a chat 15:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Martin Please explain direct personal significance and how this relates to me.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 10:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Will those with a potential COI agree to withdraw from discussion on certain topics?
I am going to ask again for Slowart, Blackash, and Sydney Bluegum to agree to withdraw completely from all discussion having any possible commercial or direct personal significance.

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

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

Moving forward
Martin, early on when discussing how content should be changed, I stated that Slowart and I don't count as part of consensus. I was told that we do to quote ".As to the question of consensus, the two of you definitely do count as part of generating consensus. HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:18, 11 May 2009" (UTC) Link. You keep claiming Wikipedia policies are what you follow and yet you seem to be having trouble with this part COI which states “Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited.” I give you this Martin you are trying to pre-empt any content dispute instead of waiting for it to happen. As to your claims of COI, I have and can point to multiple edits, where I have place Wikipedia policies first. Link For a different example: the 3 drawings I gave for the methods in the article don’t you think I could have But did I do this, Hell No,
 * 1) Drawn one of our trees (pooktre)!
 * 2) I could have branded the files I did draw with the word pooktre. (and I have seen others editors brand photos this way)
 * 1 That could be seen as bias towards pooktre to use one of our trees.
 * 2.1 I don’t believe in forcing our word onto others, so I have the attribution for the use of the drawing to be given the owners of the trees in question.
 * 2.2 Pooktre doesn’t need to build creditability on the backs of other artists, we have plenty of our own.

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


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


 * Ignore the trolls, edit without compromise! Pick your title and fix the article. Foil the endless argument strategy, be decisive!Slowart (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Slowart/ Reams Instead of making inane comments such as those above perhaps you could put your energy into providing photos of your craft work.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Arborsculpture is both a method and used generically
In Colincbn's edit diff he is again removing a referenced wording this time an arborsculpture from the following sentence '''Understanding a tree's fluid dynamics is important to achieving an arborsculpture design, creasing, ring barking, pruning and grafting are part of this technique. ' His edit summary of quote  This holds true for all tree shaping. I also don't want to imply arbo is the dominant term.'' Will someone please replace the wording of an Arborsculpture back into the sentence. Blackash  have a chat 10:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't imply it is dominant and isn't true for all tree shaping. Understanding a tree's fluid dynamics A person who uses our method or Dr Chris Cattle method doesn't need to understand how the xylem or phloem (fluid dynamics) work to achieve a successful design.
 * To be clear the original sentence links Arborsculpture to a series of techniques which results in a method (some of which are unique to Richard Reames's published method). Colincbn is removing cited evidence that the word Arborsculpture is also a method. This is not the first time either diff discussion.
 * To demonstrate the original sentence was in context here is the wording from the book. "It's important to understand the fluid dynamics of a tree to understand how to successfully create Arborsculpture designs through grafting, pruning and ring barking." I added creasing as Richard writes about this in detail. I probably should have added bending as well to the sentence. As Arborsculpture techniques of ring barking, creasing and bending are unique to Richard's published method.
 * I changed the wording to read: "...to achieving a design using this method." I think this addresses your concern without sectioning off diferent aspects of the art under seperate names. After all it is all "Tree Shaping" right? Colincbn (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think the word "design" is way overused. It may be helpful to switch it up an bit and use synonyms or reword sentences. AfD hero (talk) 10:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point, I changed the word "design" to "the desired result". Colincbn (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it an art or a craft
I dont think editors should come and make sweeping changes that lower the tone of all involved artists by labelling tree shaping a craft when we have always referred to it as an artform. I also reverted the woody plants inclusion. It gives the impression that tree shaping can be done with formed wood. The editor who made these changes also edits woody plants and girdling(ring barking). Is this a attempt to create other articles that support changes to this article. I believe there is a policy for the type of editing. Is itWP:POINTSydney Bluegum (talk) 09:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. I think the reason they want to add the term "woody plants" is that not all the plants that can be used are "trees". For example small shrubs and thick vines could also be used. So adding "woody plants" is more accurate. Colincbn (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the term "woody plants" is technically more correct. The main disadvantage of that term is that it sounds awkward and most people don't know what it is. As for art vs craft, I'm not sure I see the problem. Shaping trees has elements of both art and craft. AfD hero (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to "practice." It is often an art form, but not universally so.  Sometimes it is used purely for practical or commercial rather than expresive purposes. -- Daniel  17:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Art is showing something in a new light. A craft has established techniques with followers who practice those techniques. I don't recall any references for craft but I wasn't looking for any either. There are multiple secondary references for art or art-form about varies artists' work within this field. I prefer art but I think the word practice in the lead works. Blackash   have a chat 18:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is usually an art form, but it is also used to build foot bridges and the like, in those cases I don't think it is.  I actually got the idea by looking at Painting.  -- Daniel  18:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There are no small shrubs and only two vines (grape and wisteria) listed on the list of plants in the article. Colincbn you stated "small shrubs and thick vines could be used." Is this something you definitely know and have references for or is it something that you think might happen? We must deal with fact not fiction. Something we assume might work such as vines and shrubs, might not. Grape and wisteria may be ok for inosculation but have we any proof that they are being used for this particular application.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 03:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As you stated above vines can also be used. Therefore "woody plants" is more accurate. If someone used wisteria to form a mirror-frame would that not be tree shaping? Colincbn (talk) 04:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Colincbn you missed the point. It 's not about tree shaping, it is whether vines are actually used or as you said they could be used. I'm asking are they used or do you think they can be. How do we know wisteria can make a mirror frame. Do we have any proof that vines are being used in this practise? Sydney Bluegum (talk) 06:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I don't think I am. The way it is worded now the art/craft is only concerned with trees. If we have wisteria and grape in the list then they should be removed. Or we add "woody plants" or something like it to the description. Note I am not suggesting we take out the word "tree", just that we add non-tree plants as well, to make the wording more accurate. Colincbn (talk) 06:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * When I created the tree list I only added trees that could be referenced to have been shaped by artists in this field. Check here Later Duff wanted to add other types and after a lot of back and forth with Duff, I suggest that maybe trees that had been used for espalier could be listed (as it is possible they would work). Duff then when ahead and listed trees and whatnot from other related fields. After which Duff systemically removed the word tree everywhere (except the title) from the article and replaced with woody plant. Seems like this was [WP:POINT|wiki point]. Shortly after Duff's word change Martin said he must be missing the point of using this wording. IMO this list should be shorten back down to trees that can be referenced as having been shaped for this art. Blackash   have a chat 09:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So you're saying anything that is not a "tree" is not part of this artform? Colincbn (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And again I am in no way suggesting we remove the word tree. Colincbn (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Colincbn, I'm saying let use the references that are about this field, not imported ones. Colincbn in this diff your edit summary states "Nowhere in the article linked is it called a "tree". We don't seem to be reading the same references. I checked the two citations and  both of which use tree multiple times, Neither articles use the word plant. Example quote from first link "A species of Indian Rubber tree - botanical name: Ficus elastica". Sooooo, I'm guessing you read a different ref? Anyway the linked refs both use the wording of tree and not plant, please change plant back to tree.  Blackash   have a chat 12:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

To quote the article the wikilink leads to, Ficus elastica: "Ficus elastica, also called the rubber fig, rubber bush, rubber plant, or Indian rubber bush is a species of plant in the fig genus, native to northeast India and southern Indonesia.". Nowhere in that article is the word "rubber tree" used. The word "rubber plant" is used multiple times. Colincbn (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also I was thinking about adding info on Iya Valley and their living bridges. But I guess you're saying that is not the same thing as tree shaping since they are made with wisteria. Ok, then we should remove the Indian living bridge stuff too right? Again are you limiting the art to a select group of species? Any works made with other species are not tree shaping? Colincbn (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Colincbn, you really should look at the images at the reference for bridges of Iya Valley the vines are clearly dead, it looks like basket weaving or the grass rope bridges of the Inca (this is not for referencing this is to show you the similarity between the two type of bridges) only using vines instead of grasses.
 * What!! Do we use wikipedia for references now? No.... Then use the cited references, for the terms to use in the article. The fig bridges are created with living trees. I'm not saying the bridges are or aren't tree shaping, all I'm saying is use references to decide on terminology. Please change plant back to tree. I believe I've made my point quite clear if you want more clarification please bring it up on my talk page. Blackash   have a chat 15:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


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


 * How about this: I get the feeling you have determined that every change I make is part of some plot to get the article name changed and therefore fight each and every one regardless of what they are. I assure you this is not the case, I edit solely to improve the encyclopedia. The vine bridges are alive, that's why they call them "living bridges". I am not using WP as a ref, I am using all the refs that go into the Ficus elastica article. An article that has never been edited by me, or anyone working on this one (I think). The fact is the rubber plant is just that, a plant. Some may call it a tree, but just as many, if not more, call it a plant. So by being slightly more broad in terminology by saying "trees and woody plants" we are actually being more accurate. I have not and will not start a request to move this article to a new name. If someone else does I will be more than happy to give my opinion but I can't say what it will be until it happens and I can see all the arguments. The prior discussion was near on a year ago and the landscape has changed. I am not editing to remove any wording, nor from a pro/anti stance to any title or the like. You must admit that if someone uses a vine, as they have, to make a piece of art or an object like furniture or bridges, that falls under the subject of this article. So why not word it as such? I honestly don't see why you would fight that. Colincbn (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is to mention both "tree" "woody plants" in the intro, but then use "tree" generically as needed in the rest of the article. (Obviously if a part specifically talks about vines or grapes or whatever, then use that instead of "tree" for that sentence) The best is to avoid confusion by being specific where possible (eg, "root", "branch", "trunk", etc). AfD hero (talk) 10:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. Colincbn (talk) 11:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

In reply to Colincbn comments and question
There is one lie and 3 factual mistakes in Colincbn reply to me (Blackash) above. Normally I would re-butt these on the talk page, however I have a self imposed limit of 2 replying comments to any given editor on any one issue on articles’ talk page due to the issues raised at my topic banning here and after. Colincbn is aware of this. I don't appreciate Colincbn's behavior of lying in the above comment. I have brought this to Colincbn's attention on (Colincbn's talk page). If any editor is interested in my views please bring it up on my talk page. In future at my 2nd reply comment, I will make it clearer that I have reached my limit and interested parties can bring the issue to my talk page if further clarification is wanted. Blackash  have a chat 07:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith and remain civil. I assure you I have not "lied" in any statement I have ever made on WP. If you or anyone else doubts it please start a WP:ANI on me. Colincbn (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Colincbn maybe you should have taken your own advice about good faith and being civil. If you mean you didn't intend to mislead others with your comments about my behavior but only exaggerated out of frustration. Then I apologize for using such a strong term as lying. Blackash   have a chat 16:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not exaggerate at all. My statement was 100% true. That is, in fact, how I feel. And while you are not the first woman to accuse me of lying about my feelings, I assure you this time I am being totally honest. Colincbn (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way, but your feelings are based on a distorted perception of whats really happening. The reality is I have questioned/contested close to a 5th of your edits, not all your edits. If in future you choose to make such bald face statements again about my behavior, don't be surprised when I point out where and how your feelings' reality differs from whats really happening. Blackash   have a chat 04:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, you go ahead and do that. Can we focus on content now? Colincbn (talk) 04:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, I've also replied on your talk page and I've commented there about starting a new section here to give you the refs so you can replace some content on Pooktre, doing that next. Blackash  have a chat 05:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you mean the "life partners" part, would you be ok with wording it as "...are Australian artists who live and work together in South East Queensland"? I think this is more encyclopedic. However, if the refs say life partners and you prefer that wording I would not fight it. If you mean the bit about Pooktre People Trees being the first example of trees grown to look like humans it would require a pretty rock solid ref. Especially because the "husband and wife trees" might also be considered "human shaped" in some cases. Colincbn (talk) 06:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, not really worried one way or the other about "life partners", from a bio point of view it may be interesting and if you want to put in your suggested change that fine or if you think it better with out, leave it out. As to the sentence you removed about "Pooktre people trees being the first example" I agree with you it would have to be a pretty rock solid ref and the only ref we have is from Richard's 2nd self published book which is no good for 3th party claims, so I wasn't questioning your removal of that either. I've now started a new section about the text I want put back, have a look below. Still in the process of reading our press cuttings, will add the other text I would like replaced, after I finish reading. Blackash  have a chat 06:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * No, the first shaping method is not "clearly Richard's method", and no, your simply claiming that it is does not make it so, and so make it, "one of his "activities"", and no, you have not therefore established a case for exception to the WP:SELFPUB policy that you are apparently attempting to contravene.
 * I'll ask again for additional help locating proper citations before I begin the work of reorganizing the entire Techniques/Methods section: Are there any properly qualified references for the Techniques section (and other non-Reames-bio sections) material which are currently improperly cited with the two sources that have been determined to be non-expert WP:SELFPUB?   d u f f   17:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well the first method is based on Richard's process from both of his books. I believe it would be really hard to sell a book titled "How to grow a chair" with out giving a method/process. This process is one of Richard actives it is after all, how he achieves his trees and what he teaches at the Campbel school. As the different methods are of interest to the readers of this article, Richard's method should be on the page. It make more sense for the article to have the methods together and not seed them though out the article. Example putting Richard's method in his bio.  Blackash   have a chat 10:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this is the problem,("This process is one of Richard actives it is after all, how he achieves his trees and what he teaches at the Campbel school.") The idea that Reames achieves of his tree by a specific unique bending method is not true, nor can it be cited. What he teaches @ J.C. Campbell is not a single special technique, nor can it be cited as such. I find the idea that user Blackash is after all this, still attempting to help edit how Reames's techniques are presented here, in a word, sickening.(3P)Slowart (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Slowart/Richard Reames if you spoke in the first person you could just state that this is not true. But I do understand why you won't, as your lectures are based on your book How to Grow a Chair. Where quote "Reames explicates some of the specifics..." of creating a shaped chair tree. Written by Jamie Cole who is studying at journalism .    Blackash   have a chat 01:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Slowart, what do you think of the way that the techniques section is organised now? I think it is much better with specific techniques not being linked to individual practitioners. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's much better than it was, I think the aroponics section should be reduced to it's techniques, I don't think the history of aroponics should be under techniques. Creasing is really just sharp bending and could be rolled into bending. I think that something on incremental bending or gentle guiding of the growing tip along a frame that had been addressed in the previous version could be reintroduced under bending or framing or something else. Should something be said about including things like tools, and glass in the growth of a tree? Thanks for asking Martin.Slowart (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree about the aeroponic section and I'm still mulling that over, so welcome are good ideas! I could not think of any other way to break through the mental roadblock posed by the inclusion of that patented method for the root shaping process, defining the whole technique, in support of the whole "each practitioner's method should be separated" meme.  It seemed to suggest that only that patentholder had ever thought of using aeroponics, ergo, all should be separated and flogged.  The whole techniques section is still what i would term "in recovery", and that's a good example of what I mean by that. I think that's a pretty good plan too, rolling up incremental stages of bending, gentle to crease to break, under bending; and also that guiding new growth along a frame belongs under framing (and may involve some bending).  I also agree that the use of inclusions is a technique that we should cover in more detail here, having touched upon it in the Design Options section.  In general, if a technique tends to be used in combination with other techniques for some purpose, and we can document it, I think it's work noting those overlaps in each Technique's bit, to help put the puzzle pieces together without actually writing a how-to article.    d u f f   00:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What Slowart is suggesting is to hide or disguise the fact that Slowart/Reames has techniques. Examples in his book he clearly separates creasing from bending. Quote "More radical than bending is a technique called "creasing."... also multiple times he writes about bending mature trees and branches. We (Pete and I) and Dr Chis Cattle don't bend trees, we create the framing and then guide the new growth. These are very different process to achieving shaped trees and the results show it. It seems on wiki Slowart keeps stating that he doesn't have a process/method yet Slowart has two books detailing his process, he puts on demonstrations of bending his chairs and teaches the same process at the folk school. The confusion enables Slowart/Reames to continue to teach the Arborsculpture process then show images of Axel Erlandson trees (and others) as implied proof, even though these trees are unachievable using Slowart's method. Then Richard sells groupings of his two meter+ trees which combined with his books/demonstration is how he makes his living. It is for purely commercial reasons that Slowart wants this confusion to be reintroduced to the article. Blackash   have a chat 01:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @Blackash: So, all these books and lectures and teachings, but you still maintain he's not an expert, right?  He obviously chooses and uses a combination of techniques and apparently teaches what he knows, and so does each other artist; so do you and so does Cattle.  I don't get the impression that Slowart wants confusion introduced into the article.  On the contrary, most of his comments have been pretty helpful and clear.  Still, it's not really our concern what any of you covered artists wants or doesn't want introduced, and it should not be our concern, so please quit demanding such concern.  Look, it's fair and neutral to say that each artist uses their own choice of combinations of techniques, and to articulate what those are within their mini-bios and/or full bios, to the extent those combinations can be cited.  We will probably get that said very clearly, once the various techniques are sorted back out in a way that makes neutral sense.  The specific combination of techniques you describe here, and claim that you & Cattle use, is lightly covered under framing (I think) and if you'll continue reading today's comments, you'll see that the plan is to expand and clarify those subsections, using properly citeable references only.  We're waiting on the bio section for now.  That is where the sort of specifics you are wanting outlined will probably go because we can use the SPS material there.  Your opinion of what Cattle does, by the way, is not citeable.  What you publish about your work on your self-published website, that is citeable in the section about you and the techniques you employ, and the same goes for any other artist that has got a self-published website, including Cattle.  What we won't get said, is that one/some/most artist's combination of techniques are any better, kinder, more effective, or result in a higher acheivement or better product or more artistic outcome than any other, or the opposite, or anything that even vaguely smacks of that. That would be not be NPOV and I really want you to see the difference soon and experience some sort of awakening about it, because it is beyond tiresome to keep reading such slanted points and re-stating what should by now be obvious.
 * As for the commercial situation you are describing, it sounds like a legal dispute and one in which you would likely not be considered a party with any standing in the matter. I doubt wikipedia wants any part of it either, as my understanding is that it is not wikipedia policy to take stances on such matters.  If this is such an issue, why do we not find any citations indicating that the Erlandson estate has taken the matter to some legal authority?  If ever we do find anything citeable, THAT would be interesting & I'd probably insist we add it, because THAT would be a real controversy with references to support its existence.  Unless that transpires, this is still one artist disparaging another, again, and I wish that would stop.   d u f f   04:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You may be right, I don't know... but the thing is, we are not interested in helping Reames (or anyone else) sell (any more nor any less of) a book. In fact we have to steer right away from that kind of thing, as you know.  Even an article written about a book, or about a notable artist (which this article is neither), has to be written from an NPOV, and must be rigorously edited to eliminate commercial bias of any sort and establish NPOV in the content, for or against the topic.  Reames seems to have maintained all along anyway, expert or not, that he is using standard (non-proprietary) techniques, so including these should not be problematic, as long as the sources are tight (NON-SPS & reliable, quality sources).  Same goes for all properly sourced and non-proprietary techniques/methods, and they should all be treated equally and neutrally.
 * Anything in this paragraph or in this article that is pointed in that direction and "based on Richard's process from both of his books", or any other material based on weak sources, is 1. not appropriate for a general article on the topic at hand and 2. (thus far) by description, based on SP sources. So if we are shooting at an A-class article (which should be self-evident) that sort of stuff has got to go, see?  Yes, this section should be about all the techniques of the craft.  If there are, as you say, methods which are specific to certain notable crafters (and please understand, I am not disputing that), those proprietary methods belong (well-cited, of course) in detailed articles about the notable crafters to which they pertain.  I am not saying that the proprietary methods should be seeded throughout the mini-bios or throughout the article.  I am saying that they should not be so seeded and also that the bios are already taking up a disproportionate amount of space in the article about the craft.  Their proprietary methods are not appropriate material for the generic article on the craft.  Notable crafters, once deemed so, (should) have non-biased, non-commercial full pages documenting their lives and methods, which is where that material belongs.  Erlandson & Reames & Krubsack are examples of this.  Same goes for notable books.  I say 'should' above because often, articles need more or less work in those areas, which is why there are wiki-teams dedicated to cleaning up those areas of problematic material.  I have worked on such a team and it's both enlightening and fun!, if you like to write and copy edit, which I do.   Anyhow, is there ANY part of this that you do not understand or with which you disagree?  I think it distills the direction we need to take quite well, as I understand it.   d u f f   00:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I think you were referring to 'bending' as it is the first listed method, and if you were, I would suggest reading the well-cited mini-bio on David Nash, who also bends trees to create art. Now.  I want to make sure you understand how I am thinking about this, because you are clearly thinking about this differently than I am and I am trying to make clear sense of your comment.  I say that David Nash is doing arborsculpture (but in the generic sense, which is how I understand that word).  In fact, I say that you all are doing specialized expressions of the craft cum art called that, whatever you think of it as or call it, generically.
 * However, I really want to understand you clearly on this next point, so please consider carefully and answer me this: Are you saying that when David Nash bends a tree, he is not doing the arboricultural technique of bending that is commonly practiced in what I've just explained that I understand as generic arborsculpture, but that instead when he uses bending he is then no longer doing that and has begun using Reames' Arborsculpture Method?  Or are you saying, perhaps, that Richard is using Nash's method when he does that? Please try to be as clear as you can on this point because I truly am seeking to understand your perspective on this Method fork.  Did you locate a reference that we can cite for bending being exclusively Reames method?   d u f f   23:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No The first method of shaping trees is the whole section between the two heading of Manual tree shaping heading and Aeroponic root shaping heading. As to the arboricultural technique of bending could you please give me the definition on what that is and some supporting information on that. Blackash   have a chat 10:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We're getting sidetracked again, and I want to avoid getting into just this sort of a tangle with you. I'd love to chat arboriculture with you at some other moment though, because bending is sometimes used in arboriculture too, to accomplish specific purposes that are not so relevant here.  I was trying to be super-clear & apparently I was not.  My choice of words for that phrase (the one you've emphasized) was perhaps less than helpful, and not so important to the question I am trying to get at, really, so I've stricken portions of it below to clarify.  While I think I understand pretty clearly what the word 'bend' means & I think we share a similar understanding of the meaning of the word 'bending' also, what is not so clear to me is that 'bending' is presented here in such a way as to suggest that 'bending' is a technique that is unique to a 'method'....Manual? which I also am not getting the meaning of and which is also uncited. <on this last point, I started a heading below, so let's cover that there, please.
 * So, these were my questions, shortened, if it helps: 1. Are you saying that when David Nash bends a tree, he is not doing the arboricultural technique of bending that is commonly practiced in what I've just explained that I understand as generic arborsculpture, but that instead when Nash uses bending he is then no longer doing that craft and has begun using Reames' Arborsculpture Method?  Or are you saying, perhaps, that Richard is using Nash's method when he does that?  2. Did you locate a reference that we can cite for 'bending' being exclusively Reames method, if this is indeed what you are claiming?    d u f f   00:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


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


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


 * How is that sentence not neutral? Blackash   have a chat 07:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not say that that sentence was not neutral, nor did I mean that. What I said about that sentence, in response to your question about my edit, was, "The sentence was repetitive, clunky, not particularly informative, and perhaps most importantly, uncited." and that "After several minutes of dinking around with that sentence, I found that while it did not yield itself to internal reorganization, its meaning snuggled delightfully into the much more concise text you see there now."  The 'it's' and 'it' in the sentence, "I think you'll agree that it's better and more neutral than it was,..." refers to the whole paragraph, as reorganized.  I thought that was clear, but maybe not, and hopefully it is clear now.   d u f f   16:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What I didn't say at all about that sentence, and probably should have, now that I am looking at it again, was this: The sentence did not make any sense to me, and so I did my best to make some sense of it.   d u f f   16:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I thought the paragraph was pretty well neutral before. To help me understand, will you please post up the terms/wording that was not neutral?
 * More of a general tone of non-neutrality and an unclear conveyance of information, I'd say. Since it wasn't just that sentence, but the whole paragraph that I improved, maybe it would be simpler to just go and compare the diffs side by side.  Is there a specific idea you want to see conveyed here, that you feel I've omitted and if there is, do you have a citation for it?   d u f f   00:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Gradual & Manual?
The subtitles of these two subsections are confusing to me as a reader. Maybe I missed something here while I was away, but I am not understanding the essential division between the two things presented here. I searched for and read some past comments on it, but I still don't get it. I would like to improve this part, because it is confusing as presented, but the subtitles are stumping me and a little clarification would be helpful, before I go further. More specifically: They both seem to be both. (Please provide citations too, as it appears there are not any here for the use of these two names to identify specific techniques)  d u f f   00:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What is it about manual tree shaping that is not gradual?
 * What is it about gradual tree shaping that is not manual?


 * Manual had been Instant, but Richard stated he didn't like that at the COI noticeboard, so I posted here asking for other suggestions. Colincbn changed Instant to Manual. I know of references for Instant and Gradual but didn't thing we need to go there. If you want I can find them and give details here. Blackash   have a chat 10:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the point of distinguishing these two groups of techniques Manual & Gradual. To me it appears to be both a commercial point and an effort to circumvent the WP:SPS policy.  It's uncited, so I'm going to think on that & see if any more ideas emerge, but it needs more work.  The meaning of those two words is clear, and both sets of techniques are both manual & gradual.   My initial point remains, and I would very much like to consider any non-SP sources you consider relevant to that point.   d u f f   00:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The sub-sections of technique now called manual, bending, creasing, and ring barking were all written here to link perceived inferior techniques to one artist/author with abundant links in the references. The "Gradual tree shaping" subsection was written to link perceived superior techniques to Cattle and Pooktre, perhaps others, in the references thus creating a division between who is correct and who is not, IMHO.Slowart (talk) 02:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, when the arbitration is complete, we will be able to address how commercially specific techniques are presented here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


 * Well it would be nice to have the time to comment on the changes, which is why I've asked Duff stop until this lot of changes is sorted out. As error upon error compounds the problems. Then you end up with some text that just hangs on the page and makes no sense. It has happened before when Duff was editing. So I don't think it is unreasonable to ask Duff to slow down so sources can be found and consensus built. Blackash   have a chat 15:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Then why not do as I suggested and start a section explaining where you thing the current article is in error? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand more than you think. Auxin is present both during aeroponic growth and after planting, both above & below ground.  I'm not saying this is the best choice of phrasing, but it is better, and it will surely grow even better with more attention and changes.  I am here to edit, not debate.  I did considerably more than just swap those two sentences, if you seriously analyze the diff, you will realize that.  Other information from other existing and unsmooth areas was merged also, to convey the ideas more concisely, with better and more encyclopedic flow and to improve the entire paragraph and make it more readable & concise.  In that specific portion, I was mainly trying to get away from long, stiff, markety, direct quotes from the patent material (or any other material), which we should not do.
 * We should also try to focus more, for a while, on the things we can agree on instead of the things that vex, IMO. No, I'm not going to stop editing, and I am not going to slow down, unless I become interested in something else or some administrative process indicates that is appropriate.  There is a lot of work to do & most of it could be done quickly, with little ado, were it not for the constant arguing.  The article itself has serious problems as it stands.  Grammar and sentence structure are big ones in several places, but it doesn't make sense, in an article I care about, to just fix the grammar in a sentence that can ultimately not stand the test of either policy or good style.  I'm game for 1RR though, as I have no intention of warring over any of it.  That doesn't mean I won't defend a point I think is right, but I really just want us to move this as swiftly and delightfully as possible up the ladder of quality writing, so I can feel great about tackling some other articles around the wiki that I am also interested in improving.    d u f f   01:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Reorganization
Alright, I have given the Techniques section some serious attention and considered the good ideas offered in the above discussion. I have boldly reorganized the entire section in a way that I think addresses many of the concerns expressed I have reorganized and refined several individual sections as part of that process, keeping all citations thus far and adding several others. There may be points not yet addressed and those shall be addressed I am sure, in good time. All the techniques we have described and found references for are listed in neutral alphabetical order. Some individual techniques sections still need to be evaluated and refined, and more sources may need to be found, but this is the gist of what I think will help break the style stalemate. As ever, these changes are specifically and generally wide open for discussion, and can of course be reverted or edited further if the consensus is that this overall approach, or any of the component parts of it, need further reorganization. To my eye, it's a lot better; but there is still plenty of work to left to be done. Thoughts?. d u f f  13:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks more encyclopedic to me. You have not mentioned inosculation.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


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


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


 * Thank you for that compliment. NPOV is exactly what I am aiming at and I agree completely about waiting to work on the Practitioners section.  I want to do one section at a time anyway, arbitration notwithstanding, because for me, it's confusing otherwise, since the bios section has some significantly different policies that apply to it.  It's just simpler to think about them separately.  When we do get to that, I wonder if it might make more sense to have a "Practitioners of XXXXXX' article on a separate page filled with mini-bios of notable practitioners, referencing the main articles on each notable practitioner and spinning others out from there into full main articles as time and notability allow.  Either that or tighten up these mini-bios, identify and add links to any existing 'See Main Article @' items & spill new bios out from that section.
 * I don't know if you noticed that I did weave the probable (and intended) outcome: inosculation, into the also-re-worked 'approach grafting' technique. I think it's reasonable too, to integrate 'approach grafting' into any other techniques which also may (to greater or lesser extent, and with more or less success) build on that technique.
 * This craft, with the art it sometimes yields, is like most other high arts and crafts in that it largely consists of fairly well-understood old ideas, sifted and cooked together in new and interesting ways. One profoundly defining factor of this craft is that these ideas are then applied to living unique individual life forms (individual plants and combinations of unique individual plants) which continue to grow and respond in their own ways to these treatments, yielding uniquely different outcomes with every project. That's where the super-not-so-secret magic lies, truly...not so much with the practitioners.  It's a good thing trees don't read, maybe. Or do they?   d u f f   18:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


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


 * @ Blackash: What you are asking the editors here to do would be unethical and I can't support it at all.  Do you not see your POV as non-neutral and your motivation as pointy?  There's no proper way to attribute your sketches to the artist you are trying to discredit.  "Who did what", in this case, is you drew sketches of someone else's photographs of someone else's work.  I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, mind you.  They are truly beautiful pieces of work in their own right and if this is not work you regularly do and get paid well for, I think you may be missing your true calling.  What I am saying is that we can't use them to wag our collective finger at the artist you disrespect.  That would be really far from neutral.  You are entitled to your opinion though, and maybe your local newspaper would accept such a stance in their editorial section, but it's not appropriate for an encyclopedia.  That said, maybe you would prefer to withdraw your sketches from the article, thereby eliminating the possibility that anyone might be confused by them.  I would reluctantly do that, as I find them rather confusing too, but I thought we might resolve the confusion with accurate captions and placement where their content value was relevant, after the article is carefully reorganized and rid of its commercially disparaging tone.   d u f f   02:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @Duff are you saying these drawings are not an actuate representations of the trees? Through out wikipedia there are drawings that have the captions talking about what is in the image and not who created them. How is having a caption like "An arborsculpture bench by Richard Reames", "A grown stool by Dr. Chris Cattle" or "Treenovation created this chair by shaping aeroponically grown roots" pushing a POV or a "commercially disparaging tone". Blackash   have a chat 03:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have deleted the images. I do not think they add anything.  We already have a perfectly good photo of the stool.  They do not clearly demonstrate any of the techniques used.  What we need in this section are images showing the techniques being applied. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @Martin the images where not causing the "controversy" the text in the captions was. The drawing of the bench should go into Richard section as that bench is a pivotal piece in Richard Reames's Book example it is on his back cover of his 2nd book and in his media publicly. Also it is one of the main pieces used in blogs about Richard's work. Blackash   have a chat 06:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not see what the sketches added, especially as we already have a picture of one of the objects. In fact, I am sure that there are plenty of good quality pictures of finished items.  The section that the sketches were in would be better with pictures or sketches of the various techniques in progress.  As the sketches were made by one of the COI editors of the work of one of the other COI editors there is tremendous scope for pointless argument which is another reason that I removed them.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with this decision and with Martin's reasoning for making it. I also think it would be really great to have a useable photograph of that bench, in any stage of development.
 * I want to make an important note here about 'finished items', though. In this craft, 'finished' defies definition, unless the thing has been killed or harvested, like Cattle's harvested stools or Walpole's harvested hangers are, in which cases, clearly, those are finished. The red alder bench we're talking about here, of Reames', even if we can sit on it or put cushions on it and recognize it as a bench, is probably still alive and developing (though I may be wrong about that).  How could anyone possibly establish with any certainty whether or not a living, growing piece is 'finished'?  This point is important, and I'm going to expand on it further on down the thread, because this idea below that one could possibly exhibit a living mature woody plant at anyplace other than the place it is planted, without killing/harvesting it, is faulty.   d u f f   16:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

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


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


 * Blackash, I do not share your view, but I do understand why you feel that this is heading the wrong way.
 * When I seriously consider the synthetic diamond article suggested as a comparison, 2 things catch my attention which make that approach seem far more appropriate for that article than it is for this one. There may be more good reasons, but these two jump right out:
 * 1. The four patented methods of turning carbon into synthetic diamonds are extremely well documented. Here, not so.
 * 2. The editors over there do not give any impression of having attempted to compare the patentholders disfavorably against one another.
 * These are the problems that we are still in the position of overcoming here on this article. We do not want to create the false impression or illusion that synthetic diamonds and the products of this craft are equivalently well-documented, nor that they are established proprietary technological processes, when they are not. Let's see what some other editors have to say about this approach.  **Also, since the above comment clearly pertains to the ongoing discussion heading under 'Techniques section', at 'Reorganization' above, please allow me to move this part of that discussion up into that discussion, rather than forking off yet again and not finishing it.   d u f f   05:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Martin stated the techniques section is less commercial now, I don't see how having information on the methods is at all commercial. I would see having the 3 processes is relevant information in a encyclopedia. The problem area seemed to be the Arborsculpture/Richard's process of shaping trees, due to SPS. I have attempted to improve Richard Reames article by adding his techniques there. The other two process that have references should have their own sections. The Arborsculpture process should have a mention on Tree shaping article. The 3 process should not be homogenised as they are now. Sydney Bluegum (talk) 08:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a reliable secondary source that classifies different methods of practising this art in the way that you describe. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I know of references for the Instant and Gradual tree shaping. Here are a couple of references for the two methods.
 * Article in the Indian Magazine Society Interiors Sep 2009 quote
 * Broadly, there are two approaches to tree shaping. Instant Tree Shaping where small trees of 6 to 8ft. (2 to 2.5m) length can be bent into the desired shape. The time taken for shaping may only take from an hour to half a day. Gradual Tree Shaping is where seedlings or saplings of 7.6 to 30.5 cm length are shaped while the tree is growing to get the desired shape. The design and setup are fundamental to success of the piece.
 * Article in the London financial Times Weekend Magazine 8.9.2009 quote
 * There are two methods. One is instant and one is gradual. Blackash   have a chat 07:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither seems a very authoritative source. We really need a horticultural journal. Who were the authors of the articles? Can you provide links or the full text? Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Indian Magazine
 * London financial times . As this is a direct quote from me. I'll give some evidence of my expertise.
 * page 9 Newsletter article from the Midwest Bonsai Society. quote " Any creative visual endeavor which is not guided by an artistic intention is craft....or at best decoration. A friend, knowing my obsessive interest in trees sent images from Australia which shocked and bewildered. Peter Cook and Becky Northey met in 1995, became partners and began shaping plum tree suckers into living art they call “Pooktre.” Now say what you will about Broom Styles and Japanese Maple ramiﬁcation....I would like to have seen Saburo Kato do this." Two images of our people trees.
 * I googled Saburo Kato Bonsai It seems Saburo Kato is a Japanese world-renowned bonsai artist "Ted Tsukiyama's article, "Profile of a Bonsai Internationalist: Saburo Kato," was published in the May/June 1990 issue of BCI's Bonsai Magazine." Google News and Google News.
 * We had eight of our pieces exhibited at the World Expo in Japan 2005.
 * The photo of Pete sitting in the living chair was in the exhibition on Charles Darwin at the South African Museum of Natural History.
 * Dr John Gathright PHD. Bio Agricultural Science. Producer of the Growing Village Pavilion at the world expo 2005 Japan. “These artworks are rarer than the rarest jewels” quote about pooktre trees and from the. John researched the top artists in field and chose us to be the featured artists at the world expo. McKie, Fred (April 20, 2005), "Warwick artist grows wooden 'jewels' for World Expo", The Southern Free Times. Blackash   have a chat 09:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * While looking around look what I found. quote "Arborsculpture Class - April 27-29, 2007 - Cadillac, Michigan.  Arborsculpture is a natural craft that combines pruning, grafting and the bending of live tree saplings.  The saplings then grow into unique forms that will hold their shape.  This is a hands-on class."
 * Here is a reasonable description of arborsculpture as a process.
 * "We also plan to demonstrate arborsculpture, which is a unique method of bending and grafting shoots to form unusual designs and structures."
 * Arborsculpture as a unique method. Blackash   have a chat 14:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * On the UC Davis reference, I read the whole article, because the context is important. There are several items of literature cited at the end of the article, none of which are either of Reames' books.  There are only two sentences pertaining to arborsculpture in the article and they are the last two sentences.  The quote above is one of those two sentences.  Here is the other one: "We plan to create a fruit tree chair, a three-sided ladder to make the high fruit more accessible, a gazebo, fences, and other structures."  What seems clear to me is that the writer is referring to (and planning to demonstrate) the craft as a whole, in precisely the fashion that is citeable (and in fact has been so cited) as another example of generic use of the term arborsculpture to identify the craft.  Notice, please, the lack of capitalization of the term and the fact that what they plan to demonstrate includes several articles that have also been created by many other practitioners of the same craft and also a new practical application of the craft which was not expressed in either of the Reames books: a three sided ladder to make fruit more accessible.  Use of the word 'method' in this case, which is also not capitalized, does not make this a citeable proof that the Master Gardeners at UC Davis view what they are doing as restricted to or even guided in any way by a 'Reames Method', but instead it points strongly to a more generic sense of the word method; as one method of training trees, which is what the whole article is about:  various methods of training trees to produce fruit.  One of those methods of training trees is arborsculpture, whichis unique in comparison with the several other methods of tree training covered, in that it can be used to create other useful things, not only healthy trees and more fruit. This article should also make clear why the use of the term 'tree training' as an alternative descriptor for this craft would be long on vagueness, but wholly inadequate as to specificity.
 * The University of Michigan reference also clearly indicates generic use of the term arborsculpture, this time in a brief announcement about an upcoming training session, alongside several other announcements on other educational opportunities available in various US locations. Here, the term 'arborsculpture' is capitalized, but so is the word 'class', which seems appropriate in both cases as it is being used as the title of a 3-day hands-on course on the practice.  Nowhere in that announcement, nor in that document is there any reference to Reames, nor to any "method" specific to or guided by his books or his work.  Here is the text: "Arborsculpture Class - April 27-29, 2007 - Cadillac, Michigan.  Arborsculpture is a natural craft that combines pruning, grafting and the bending of live tree saplings.  The saplings then grow into unique forms that will hold their shape.  This is a hands-on class.   For further information or to register call Bill Parks at 810 742-2853 or 989 751 1859.
 * Both references are strong reliable sources and both indicate generic use of the term 'arborsculpture' to describe this craft.
 * The Midwest Bonsai Society could probably be considered a reliable source, but Inspirational + Curious ≠ Expert, nor does the wish for notable bonsai artist Saburo Kato to have done it amount to even a claim of your expertise. It is clear that someone there who has seen photos of your work, really likes your work.   What is not clear is who does, much less whether they are expert enough to determine your expertise.  It is a good demonstration of your ring-of-Jane Does-pointing-fingers-and-calling-each-other-experts, though.  Even if we did know who the author of that comment was, it still would not serve as proof of your expertise in this craft.  I really like your work too (and that of the other practitioners in our article) and I don't mind saying I am impressed, but please don't any of you try to use that fact as a proof of your expertise either.
 * The Society Interiors magazine interview of you and the FT.com magazine quote by you have both been studied and discussed elsewhere here, up or downthread(?), and are questionable sources (with questions pending) for your claim that there are separate and well-distinguished Methods, as those press clippings, available only at your website, are simply you, saying there are separate Methods. If indeed you do have a separate and noteable method, the same standards apply to you as would apply to the other artists on that point: you need to get something written and published and allow yourselves to be considered seriously, as the originators of a significantly distinct Method of arborsculpture, as a reliable source, and potentially as experts in your field.  Canvassing other practitioners won't establish any of these things and neither will successfully marketing yourself to even a broad array of hungry newspaper and magazine article writers.
 * I'm not sure whether the inclusion of a photograph of Peter in his chair in a display on Darwin in South Africa qualifies as an exhibition of your work or not, or whether that's the point you were trying to make with its mention. Please explain further what you hope for that to demonstrate, so we can determine more clearly the importance of this point.
 * Finally, regarding the exhibition of your work at the 2005 World's Fair in the arborsculpture display, this is one example of exhibiting your work internationally, that is true. A point I'd prefer to have seen you acknowledge was that you were invited, recommended, and encouraged to do so by Richard Reames, serving as a coordinator of outreach to all the other artists who were featured in the exhibit there with you.  If you need citations for that (I don't really think you do), they are readily available on the web.  The fact that from that position, he chose to highlight and promote the work of other artists instead of his own work, speaks highly both of him and of his respect and admiration for the craft and its blossoming practitioners.  I've now read both books and they express that same high level of respect and admiration therein. What is the intended citation use for this point, which is already clearly stated in the mini-bio subsection that covers you?  If it is submitted as proof of your expertise, I think we can take that into consideration when we get to the point of discussing that topic, following arbitration, and obviously, without any conflicted parties exerting any influence on our examination of facts.    d u f f   09:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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


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


 * "Expertise in trade and crafts is generally judged on a peer review basis of masterworks. Look for other tree shaping experts who have favourably reviewed Reames' expertise in tree shaping in otherwise reliable sources (there are only 17 of them to check). Additionally, look for exhibition catalogues by galleries that have exhibited craft items of treeshaping by Reames: a major commercial exhibition will indicate master status. At the core is citation by other existing experts, or recognition through other forms of "publications" such as exhibitions on a commercial basis in major galleries. These can be reliably demonstrated or failed to be demonstrated. If demonstrated treat Reames as an expert for SPS purposes for all books published after that recognition. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)"
 * So I'll ask again where is Richard Reames's peer reviews of his trees and which tree shaping experts have published that Richard is an expert in Tree shaping? Of course we would need the proof the cite experts are really experts and not part of ring of experts citing each other as proof of their expertise. Example Dr Chris Cattle is an expert in this field. Blackash   have a chat 03:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the best course will be to ignore the repetitive smugness, accept that as your suggestion and see where it leads. Clearly the citations provided have met the standard of "recognition through other forms of publications" and I believe that there are also regular onsite exhibitions of Reames' living works, so we'll have to look into that aspect further and possibly run it all up the flagpole at RsN again to get some guidance.   Since this was recommended to you in January, by Fifelfoo, I wonder...did you look already, as was suggested to you?  If you did, where have you already looked and what did you find?  If you did not, why not?
 * Setting aside peer review for the moment, regrettably, but necessarily I'm afraid. Discerning Reames' expertise on the basis of peer review would be so much simpler and more reliable, had you not so determinedly and proveably attempted to poison the well by canvassing the 17 artists you know of with your stringent POV; none of whom have been clearly established as experts either.  At this point, any peer review within this small field of other (possibly non-expert) practitioners would have to be considered potentially influenced by YOU, at best.  If it turns out that there are no experts, which seems unlikely, we will have to deal with that in the way I suggested above.  I wonder if Reames might be the only living expert in the field, and if he is, how such a situation is generally handled.
 * I'm not sure I understand the meaning of your last point. Was your example, calling Cattle an expert, meant to illustrate your point by demonstrating yourself as one artist in a ring of artists calling each other experts, thus disqualifying as an expert every artist you know?  Or did you mean something else?   d u f f   05:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Duff you did state you wanted some way to determine conclusively about SPS souces. That is why I posted the quote. I'll address your main points.
 * Sorry about not being clear about "part of ring of experts citing each other as proof of their expertise" Here is an example:
 * Expert tree shaper Jane Doe quote "Richard Reames is an expert Arborsculptor and his trees are amazing. To see him create a chair shows a mastery of trees that others could only dream of." But the bases of Jane Doe's expertise is Richard Reames stating "I believe Jane Doe's trees take arborsculpture to a whole new level and could teach other experts a trick or three."
 * Dr Chris Cattle is an expert based upon the fact he has had his stools exhibited in different international shows, in countries Japan and Mainland Europe. He also has some of his stools growing at the Museum of English Rural Life in Reading. I'm not stating he is an expert because of any peer review but if I did a peer review I would class Dr Chris Cattle an expert because he has process that is repeatable by others and is also successful with different tree species, for a start.
 * Duff quote "regular onsite exhibitions of Reames' living works" Ummm it is a bit alike self publishing when the exhibitions are at Richards. Maybe we could call it self exhibiting?
 * Duff quote "Clearly the citations provided have met the standard of "recognition through other forms of publications" No most of citations are based on Richard's Books which are WP:SPS. Mostly they are either author interviews or are book reviews. (Not peer reviews) The few that aren't use the word arborsculpture, but they don't discuss anything about Richard's expertise and they are not expert Tree shapers either.
 * Duff I'm not trying to claim Richard Reames is an expert you are. To use his books for 3rd party claims you will need to prove that Richard is an expert before the writing of his book/s. If you can't provide evidence that Richard is an expert then interviews and book reviews based on his books also don't have creditability beyond wiki WP:SPS. Don't ask me to do your research, do it your self. IMO I don't think you'll find anything. Slowart/Reames would be quick to provide the references if they existed. It been over a year since I first asked for proof. Blackash   have a chat 08:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again Blackash you have a clear COI here. You should not be deciding who the experts in the subject are, non-COI editors should decide that, based on what reliable sources say on the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Martin any editor may express an opinion I never expected that my comment here would be citeable. Blackash   have a chat 02:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Please allow me to be clear, again. I am not claiming that either Reames or Northey is an expert. I am also not claiming that either Reames or Northey is not an expert. A claim that Blackash continues to stress without pause is that she is an expert and Reames is not.  Neither point has been clearly established in my mind for either practioner.  I don't know if either of them are experts or not.  I am indeed researching this, which should be self-evident, and I am doing that for the good of the article.  So should Blackash be, if improvement of the article is her goal.  I recognize that she perceives me a mouthpiece for Reames.  This is probably because she comments so frequently and I seldom find consensus with her views, whereas Reames seldom comments & I frequently do find consensus with his views.  However, I share my camp with no one, think independently, and agree with what I agree with.
 * As for the multiple academic citations in reliable sources documenting Reames' expertise, and the ones documenting the use of the term arborsculpture to define the field: conflating the question of the term/title for the field with the question of expertise (or lack thereof) only muddies the water. Since they have been conflated again, I will deal with both:  The strongest citations (which are the only ones that will stand as we advance this article to GA/FA status) appear to support both points (that arborsculpture is now the term primarily used to identify & describe the field and that Reames is one expert within that field).  There may be other experts and there may be other strong citations.  I remain completely open to those possibilities.
 * On the 'self-exhibiting' point made above by Blackash, I would otherwise agree with this, but for the following:
 * This idea that one could possibly exhibit a living mature woody plant at anyplace other than the place it is planted, without killing/harvesting it, is faulty, which should be self-evident. It disqualifies nearly all mature living pieces as potential examples of expertise, for you will not find them alive in any galleries but the ones they live in.  Defining expertise in the craft as existing only where pieces have been harvested and/or killed to be exhibited outside their growing environment is, for this craft, not a correct way to winnow expertise.  In this craft, 'finished' defies definition, unless the thing has been killed or harvested, as are Cattle's harvested stools and Walpole's harvested hangers. Clearly, those pieces are finished.  It could also be said that Erlandson's and Krubsack's projects are, in one way, 'finished', because the practitioners are dead and thus no longer working on them, but many of their works are still alive and their development continues to this day.  Erlandson's preserved dead pieces, Krubsack's chair, and the pieces of Wiechula's work that have been harvested and preserved; those are clearly 'finished'.  The red alder bench we've talked about here, of Reames', even if we can sit on it or put cushions on it and recognize it as a bench, is probably still alive and developing (though I may be wrong about that).  How could anyone possibly establish with any certainty whether or not that or any other living, growing piece is 'finished'?  Most of Erlandson's and Reames' works (that I am aware of), with the possible exception of Reames' shovel handles, do not involve harvested items, but instead are stationary planted live works that are continuing to grow and develop today.  Are the War-Khasi people experts, having never exhibited their work offsite?  Is Primack an expert, having never produced a work?  What about Erlandson and his daughter...experts?    d u f f   17:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As my published work is not been used to be cited in the article at this time, my expertise doesn't matter. Duff please give links to these "strongest citations" that claim "arborsculpture is now the term primarily used to identify & describe the field and that Reames is one expert within that field".
 * As for the Duff's comment of "exhibit a living mature woody plant" can't be done. Not true, it is called using a pot. Richard Reames even has photos of his chairs and one of his tables in a pot in his books and here. We have transplanted one of the people trees (the ballerina), into a pot (she is nearly 8ft tall in the pot) a year ago, and she still growing well. So yes living trees can and are being exhibited away from their home grounds. Example Yes putting trees in pots slows the growth but if the piece is mature like our ballerina (by that I mean the canopy has grown past the design) the slowing is not an issue. Plus they can always be replanted into the ground at a later time.
 * People can and are experts in different aspects of a specialized field. Example: some people may be experts on the history of gun making but have never build a gun, (some people are experts in both aspects). Just because Joe Blogs has documented the history of gun making doesn't mean he can make a gun. To cite Joe Blogs ability with gun making we would need peer review/s or some other way to verify his level of ability at gun making. Blackash   have a chat 02:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)