Talk:Tree shaping/Archive 16

Moving so fast concenus can't keep up.
The article has changed dramatically and now has a huge hole right in the middle. Duff invited comments on the Methods section and within 24 hrs the whole section had been homogenised. The whole section has less information in it now. Is it going to have less information and say nothing? When editors who have no real world experience of the subject and make edit after edit on a subject they have no intention of doing, information gets lost. These editors don't know which text is relevant and which is not. As a result misinformation happpens when an editor won't slow down and chooses to edit with no regard for others. Other uninvolved editors have stated it was a good article. This was before Duff started.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Rather than attacking another editor why not tell us what the problems are. You say things like, '...which text is relevant and which is not', and 'The whole section has less information in it now'. What exactly do you mean?  Which irrelevant text has been included and which relevant text omitted?  What information has been removed?  Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


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

References for removed content
Colincbn here is the diff I've bold the text Colincbn removed and I would like put back in. Peter and Becky exhibited eight of their creations, including two people trees, in the Growing Village pavilion at the World's Fair Expo 2005 in Nagakute, Aichi Prefecture, Japan. Reference 69 McKie, Fred (April 20, 2005), "Warwick artist grows wooden 'jewels' for World Expo", The Southern Free Times from Tree shaping article covers the fact you removed. Blackash  have a chat 06:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How about this? Colincbn (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Colincbn we use two trees for each tree person, so this change could be a bit confusing. Blackash   have a chat 06:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Peter and Becky exhibited eight of their creations, including two that were trained to grow into the shapes of humans..."
 * How about this? This way it mentions them as "two creations" without specifically saying how many trees are used. Colincbn (talk) 07:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That address my concern about the potential for confusion. Blackash   have a chat 07:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Colincbn could you please add the reference 69 after your new addition. Blackash   have a chat 05:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Colincbn (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Blackash   have a chat 07:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hold on here, The Southern Free Times Advertiser doesn't seem like an especially reliable source either, but again I'd like to evaluate it fully and fairly. I have searched, but only find circular references to the title of the article itself, so I'm thinking that this may be another press clipping available only on the Pooktre website, which does not appear to be searchable. May we please have a link to the article so that it can be properly evaluated? McKie, Fred (April 20, 2005), "Warwick artist grows wooden 'jewels' for World Expo", The Southern Free Times from Tree shaping article
 * If this source is of similar ilk to the recently hashed-out ones, it is acceptable for the bio it cites, but not for these other two extremely controversial points that it purports to cite: 1. in the Alternate names section: "The result has been no standard name for the art form to emerge." and 2. an Alternate name listed in that section: "Grown furniture." Please consider this citation challenged.   d u f f   09:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have tagged the section accordingly to warn of its possible inaccuracy and non-neutrality, until this is resolved, due to a controversial POV supported only by this questionable citation.  d u f f   13:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Duff your opinion that media who publish articles about pooktre (Peter and I) are unreliable just because they haven't published what you believe to be the truth doesn't mean they are unreliable. I don't believe wiki even states that the references must be online. Duff some of your earlier comments show an extreme bias, example Duff's quote "They are unduly self-serving, they are being used to support synthesized claims about the 'Methods' of third parties, and there is reasonable doubt as to their authenticity." This quote is about two articles independently published internationally by media. The London financial times Weekend magazine and Indian Magazine Society Interiors (genre architecture). Duff as an editor with strong views, I believe you shouldn't be deciding which citations are reliable or not. The correct place to take this is the NPOV noticeboard and get some outside editors' views on each reference and what they are citing.
 * 1. It is not the only ref that talks about the name of the art form, I'll give the quotes, from the ref and the one of the other sources.
 * Newspaper article in the Free Times by Fred McKie
 * Quote "There is no standard name for the concept either. Though the Cooks call their work Pooktre - derived from his nickname "Pook" and "tree" - everyone involved has a different name for what they do. It has been suggested by an American that the artform should be called "arborsculpture" though Mr Cook is sticking with Pooktre and has stated that the world will ultimately decide.
 * Book Tricks with Trees by Ivan Hicks and Richard Rosenfeld
 * Quote "It hasn't got a name: Richard Reames calls it arborsculpture, which doesn't exactly fly out the mount; TREEGOSHING (tree growing and shaping) might be better."
 * 2. It is not the only ref for that alternative name. Why is an alternative name extremely controversial?  Blackash   have a chat 04:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Mini-Bios section & Main article full biographies

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


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


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


 * @Martin: Not sure I agree with this, but open to further discussion.  I am not against distilling the existing mini-bios more carefully to cull the unsupported dross and citeable material that belongs in a different section, nor am I against briefly covering techniques known to be practiced by each, to whatever extent adequate citation(s) are available to meet the standard acceptable for biographies.  The article could be re-worked to make only a mention of its notable practitioners and no mini-bios, if there's consensus for that approach.  I wouldn't prefer that, necessarily, but I haven't dug into the question of whether other similar subjects have mini-bios with links to main-article full biographies of notable practitioners or not, so I don't know how accurate that statement is.  I seem to recall Blackash presenting some fairly reasonable examples to the contrary (which I'm pretty sure she'll post again here to protest removal of the mini-bios), but I don't remember myself what those examples were, just that they seemed reasonable enough to defend keeping the material in.  I'm not sure if you are suggesting that the Krubsack, Erlandson, Wiechula, Nash, and Reames biographical articles are on non-notable practitioners and so should be considered for deletion, or maybe just that some of them should (determined by what objective process, I wonder?), but I'm not (so far) in agreement that doing so would be a good idea or an improvement to the encyclopedia. It seems to me like it would be pretty contrived to rewrite the article without any mention of its practitioners at all, though I think that could also be done... however the images that of the work product would have to be attributed to someones hands, wouldn't they?  The plants don't do this dance on their own, as far as I know.  The article could probably be written without those images too, but I think it would be a lot less fascinating if there were no images illustrating the depth of what has been created in this field of endeavor.  Which approach would best improve the article?    d u f f   19:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look at topiary,pruning, landscaping, horticulture, floriculture you will find no mention of practitioners so it is not at all contrived not to mention them.   Arborist has a list of arborists with a sentence on each, many notable for doing something else. Almost any subject could have short bios on practitioners of the subject but what proportion do, although I am sure that many small businesses would love to get a plug for their business in the relevant article.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this topic has more in common with art topics like expressionism, electronic_dance_music, or modernism than topiary, pruning, et al. Most art topic articles have extensive discussions of notable artists and major works (in some format or another). I like the way it is honestly, but I would be comfortable getting rid of the notable practitioners section if the information there was reorganized and integrated elsewhere. AfD hero (talk) 01:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... Not sure how I feel about this one. From the standpoint of art, yeah having notable practitioners mentioned is fine. But topiary is also art in a way. I suppose for there to be a notable practitioners section everyone in it must be "notable". In other words they should qualify for their own article. True one could say that in the community of "tree shapers" a person is notable, but in any community of limited scope people will be notable without qualifying as such in WP. Colincbn (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, wikipedia's notability standards at WP:N limit what topics are suitable for their own article, but not the content of articles (that is left to our discretion). AfD hero (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * From memory it was a few different forms of martial arts articles that give me the idea about practitioners. I like the idea of including the practitioners at this time as there really aren't many who do this yet. Most of the practitioners in the article have secondly sources, I know pooktre has some more sources, as do others, example Nirandr Boonnetr got one more I know of.
 * I agree with SilkTork's comment at the workshop "the article as it stood was a general article on the deliberate shaping/training of trees, and that allowed the possibility of articles to split out per WP:Summary style on specific techniques or artistic brands" diff I think this is a logical way forward about the method/process. Mention them briefly at Tree shaping then wiki link each process to it's other article. That way people who are interested in more detail can find it. Blackash   have a chat 04:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If notability for one's own article is not a factor in notability for mentioning in this one I see no reason not to keep the section. Also all of the practitioners listed seem to have at least some mention in outside sources. Colincbn (talk) 05:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


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

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


 * Backtracking to Martin's earlier comment, of the articles he noted, arborist is probably the most applicable of those in that it is a highly specialist craft (closely related, too) consisting of something like 5000 certified arborists worldwide, with several noteworthy superstars (some briefly outlined there) and probably a lot of novice practitioners. The topic we are covering with our article builds directly upon that craft, uses many of its techniques, and is almost completely restricted to woody plants.  The others are about related fields of endeavor, for sure, but not so highly specialist (arguably) and consisting of a lot more professional practitioners, I would suspect.  Contrarily, one other note on that, bonsai had been previously brought up, and that is also a very specialist craft, closely related to this one and with an even longer recorded history.  There I see no bios, mini or otherwise.  I don't want to use that as an argument to not have them here though, as my opinion is that there are probably also truly notable practitioners of bonsai, both historic and contemporary, perhaps even referenced in the article among the methods (not sure), whose works might in fact merit mini-bios or bios in that article.  Perhaps the same could be said of topiary, I'm not familiar enough with either craft's major players to know that yet, but as a reader I'd like to be...so that's maybe a good reason to have such things.
 * As far as small businesses and whether they merit inclusion, I don't think we need to get stuck on that....we don't seem to have any problem with articles about big businesses (I could list many with great WP articles), as long as they are NPOV.  We've also got a whole lot of articles specific to small businesses already, which I could also list many of, but check out this list, for a tiny slice of perspective: List of pizzerias. Unless there's some relevant policy I oughtta read, I don't see a problem with NPOV articles about either existing or historical businesses, if notable, nor with their mention in bios about notable persons who happen to have some involvement with them.   d u f f   23:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, and I don't want to start an argument here over this, but do want to clarify one point with respect to Blackash's comment above, as it's been easy to get confused over this very matter and I don't want to be spun again. Nirandr Boonnetr is a person.  Rebecca Northey and Peter Cook (too many others to wikilink & make any sense here) are both persons.  Pooktre is not a person, nor is it a business, according to Blackash.  It is a brand used by Northey & Cook to identify their methods and their works and to some extent, if their own usage is any indication, their personal and artistic partnership.  I think I am understanding that correctly.  Either way, if there are to be mini-bios on notable craftspeople in the article, my sense is that each notable practitioner should have their own mini-bio and be listed in the chronology accurately, if they are to be listed chronologically, partnerships notwithstanding.  Each practitioner mentioned should be notable and able to stand on their own merits.   d u f f   00:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I had not thought of that. I have never had a problem with putting them together as they work on the same pieces. I suppose the most accurate thing would be to name the section "Peter Cook" and mention Becky in it. Colincbn (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We (Peter and I) are join artists in our work. Pooktre is our signature for our art and methods. As SilkTork pointed out we are better known as Pooktre than by our names.  Blackash   have a chat 08:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not so much that I have a problem with putting them together, as it is that I consider accuracy very important, particularly in matters where there may be (in this case ARE) conflicting commercial interests. The personal & artistic partnership 'Pooktre' is neither a person nor is it a business, so there'll be no biographical article for 'Pooktre', under the clear standards for a bio, nor will there be an article about a business called 'Pooktre', under the clear standards established for articles about businesses. Wikipedia probably does have articles about specific brands and there are probably standards for those types of articles, but I haven't researched that at all.  That's one concern.
 * Here's another: There was, some will recall, a long and tendentious discussion about the ordering of the bios.  Although I strongly supported the neutrality of an alphabetical presentation, we all reached a consensus that a chronology was the best way to go, and indeed the bio section is entitled "Chronology of Notable Practitioners" to clearly establish what the deal is with that ordering.  Cook & Northey's work together as a partnership began in 1995, by all accounts, including their own.  If they are to be listed together as this partnership, their listing belongs at the proper place in that chronology, not backdating Northey to the date that Peter Cook apparently started working in this way with trees, thereby misstating Northey's influence, chronology, and experience in the field.  This mistake has fostered a fair bit of one-upsmanship and misstated claims of more advanced expertise, etc., directly pointed by Northey at Reames & his also-extensive work.  That has influenced our work also and I want to discourage that theme and those effects thoroughly. It gets right at the root of the question of who is or is not an expert in this craft, and whose works should or should not be considered those of an expert.  It's sticky, I know, but we've got to get it right somehow. Chronologically, it either goes Cook-->Reames-->Northey or it goes Reames-->partnership of Cook-Northey called Pooktre. If we're keeping mini-bios in, either one of those things needs to happen, or we really need to reconsider whether a different ordering scheme than chronology might be more honest and appropriate.    d u f f   19:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Duff actually it was a very short discussion Alphabetic or Chronological order for the bios. The bio were put in chronological order. In my opinion the whole time since you reordered them the problem has been the dates should be more prominent then they are. The best answer would be to standardize a layout of dates at the start of each bio.
 * Duff your comment about length of time and how I have "misstated claims of more advanced expertise, etc., directly pointed by Northey at Reames" give diffs/links to back up your claim I have use length of time to prove my expertise. When you can't, I'm not going to accept that you make an honest mistake. Directly because I have stated to you "Just because you do something for 10 years doesn't mean you are expert." my diff When you tried to claim Richard was expert due to length of time Duff's diff. Again it is not how long someone does something that makes them an expert in any field. Blackash   have a chat 23:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * First, please back up your claim, that I claim that you "have use length of time to prove [your] expertise.". I do not so claim.  That is a strawman argument, perhaps one based in a misinterpretation of what I actually typed above, but not one that I'll be sidetracked into tracking down diffs to refute.  I will still accept that you have made an honest mistake.  Is there any good reason why the mini-bios should not be ordered properly according to chronology, if they are kept in the article at all?   d u f f   23:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A very similar mistake in understanding is evident at the 'Duff's diff' you provided above. Nowhere in that diff did I "tried to claim Richard was expert due to length of time."  Still, the merest suggestion that he might be, for any reason, set you off on a critical tangent then, just as it has now.  I still say he might be and I still mean sincerely that you claiming he isn't does not make the case.  That question merits further exploration at a different talkpage heading.   d u f f   23:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Duff's quote "...not backdating Northey to the date that Peter Cook apparently started working in this way with trees, thereby misstating Northey's influence, chronology, and experience in the field. This mistake has fostered a fair bit of one-upsmanship and misstated claims of more advanced expertise, etc., directly pointed by Northey at Reames" Duff this is how your quote comes across to me. ...backdating Northey is as a mistake that lead to misstated claims of more advanced expertise.
 * Duff's diff was part of a discussion about the reliability of Richard Reames's second book Arborsculpture. Scroll up to 16 lines to see Duff was replying about Richard Reames's second book. Duff's diff quote "10 years later, same topic, much practice, not an expert? Who says he's not?" Umm you do talk about years here as though that matters in proving someone is an expert.  Blackash   have a chat 03:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

As the bios stand with out clear dating, it is a grey area. If all the dates where formalized either into the bio header or at the start of each min bio, so as the dates are easily found. It wouldn't matter whether our section was listed before Richard's or listed after. Clear prominent dating would clear up this grey area, because people can figure it out themselves that Peter started researching and shaping years before we starting created together. Blackash  have a chat 04:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral so far on the question of whether any of you are qualified as experts on the subject, but I do think you're all very talented. Those are different questions too. As I mentioned, those questions of practitioner expertise do merit further examination in a section concertedly dedicated to those questions. There's no hurry either, to resolve the citation-needed tag being discussed at this section.  I also firmly agree with Martin Hogbin's suggestion upthread, that both the practitioners' section & the article name should be left until the arbitration is completed.  Please rest with confidence that editors with no direct interest in the subject will indeed work together to find consensus on improvements in those areas of this article in accordance with WP policy.   d u f f   05:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

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


 * There may be a misunderstanding of that, I agree. However, since I'm the one who used the term 'neutral' right above this comment, I feel compelled to reassure you that I do clearly understand the meaning of WP's neutral POV as you described, and as distinct from the way in which I just used that term (which was to plainly indicate that I hadn't come to any conclusion yet on a question).  Also, though I just have paid a compliment to all the artists, please know that my general appreciation for the overall craft and its creators does not inform my decisions about any of the points we discuss for this article nor does it impact my willingness and determination to view all of these matters with a neutral POV, as used by WP.  I think you know that already, but this editing environment has caused me to want to be particularly particular in my clarifications, so as to avoid any misunderstandings if possible.  I agree completely with each of your points, and the same sense is suggested to me as was to you, by the comments made around the particular format used.   d u f f   10:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. The comment was not aimed at you.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

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


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


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


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


 * So it does seem, and to my mind, that is a fairly substantial consensus to let these issues stand and wait to seek consensus on them until it can be sought in a more neutral editing environment, however that comes about. There's no hurry.  In this case, the fact that it has mattered, does matter, and (on the basis of those two facts) is most likely to continue to matter (and provoke conflict under present conditions), is why arbitration has become necessary in the first place.
 * To address the POV question squarely, while (from Policies and guidelines), "Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices" and both policies and guidelines are developed "to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia."
 * Neutral point of view is both "a fundamental principal of Wikipedia" (one of the five pillars) and "one of the three core content policies which jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles." "Because these [three] policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another."  The other two policies (or standards for inclusion) are no original research and verifiability.  From verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."  From no original research, "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source" and we must "cite reliable, published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented". This means that "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists," including "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources," may not be included.
 * The Five Pillars is a summary of the five fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates. The second of these principles or 'pillars', which you quote, goes on to state that "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy," and that "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here," and further, that, "That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics."
 * The policies are meant to clarify and are guided by the pillars and they are not in any conflict with them, insofar as I can grasp. Do we all share this understanding?  I don't interpret Martin Hogbin's comment to mean that we should exclude any authoritatively sourced points of view, but instead that we should choose carefully and rigorously between those which are authoritatively sourced and those which aren't.  Editorial points of view are another matter. Though it's easy to conflate and thus confuse the two ideas, particularly in cases where editorial teams contain any editors who are pushing their own points of view, editorial points of view are exactly what we need to separate ourselves from completely, so that we can stick to authoritatively sourced facts.   d u f f   18:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Link Rot & other Questionable Sources
Ref 23 "Garden Symposium 2008" on the main page has died but I found it on the wayback machine here is the link Will someone please fix the ref link. Blackash  have a chat 07:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you brought that up. I checked the wayback link you provided.  It contains no information pertinent to the sentence it purports to cite, so far as I can see.  If you see something else, please show me.  Since the citation link is indeed rotted, and thus there is no way to discern whether it ever supported the sentence it purports to support, I'm removing the citation & placing a citation needed tag at that sentence.  I looked for a suitable citation myself & didn't find one yet.  I'd be very pleased to add any supporting citation you may find in your search.   d u f f   16:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll get the cite for this by early next week. Blackash   have a chat 09:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I question why this editor (Blackash) wants to link to an advertisement for an old workshop. Not only are advertisement unreliable sources but this editors focus on finding discussing and adding links to Reames work for the apparent purpose discrediting him, is yet another example of the misuse of the retractable privileges of speaking here.Slowart (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should be careful about removing references to old articles just because we can't access them anymore. We don't, for example, remove references to out of print books or old academic journal articles that are difficult to find. AfD hero (talk) 07:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @ AfD hero: I agree completely. In this case, the reference in question was not an article, academic or otherwise, nor was it a book of any sort.  It was a brief promotional announcement for an upcoming lecture.  As the diffs illustrate (and will always illustrate, should anyone wish to extract that weak cite and bring it back), the reference did not support the material it was purported to cite. It was not a reliable source anyway, and neither did (or was) the document at the wayback link provided.  The material still needs to be cited or is subject to removal.  I may be misunderstanding your point, so please let me ask, do you see some aspect of that differently or feel as though not enough care was taken?   d u f f   06:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I trust your judgement in this matter. AfD hero (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Following the link, It tells of a workshop where you can shape a chair between 9am and 1pm with another workshop starting at 1pm. That means approx 3hrs to shape a chair. This demonstrates he has a method,and it is fairly instant. Yes ,this is a weak citation. His books can be used as a reference for the 1 hour or afternoon shaping time frame.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 06:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well it's a judgement call and there are several points against it. Those points being that it is commercial/promotional material so claims are potentially biased or exaggerated, that it is not written by a neutral third party, and that one would have to do some level of deduction/synthesis to go from what is written there to what is claimed here. If we ever push this article for GA or FA status, these are points the reviewer would almost certainly bring up. AfD hero (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * I would say there is no fixed formula, but we should use our best judgement on a case-by-case basis. With regards to Reames books, I think we should definitely use them on points that are uncontroversial. On controversial points, we might still include it, but preface the sentence with "according to artist Richard Reames, ...", similar to how articles on political news topics operate. AfD hero (talk) 05:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:ABOUTSELF quote:-
 * Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
 * 1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
 * 2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
 * 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
 * 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
 * I used this as guild, for the info out of Richard's books. The techniques cited to Richard's books were about how Richard shapes his trees. Bending trees is an activity. The wording was factual. It wasn't making third parties claims. All the techniques were directly related to Richard's style of shaping. There is no doubt as to its authenticity. It was only part of the overall article. Plus I've now found that some of Richard's cites can be referenced else where aswell. Blackash   have a chat 14:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you both; that was extremely helpful. Bending is a technique used both alone and in combination with other techniques, by several (but perhaps not all) of the notable practitioners covered; citeably so.  No practitioner's chosen combinations of techniques have thus far proven so notable as to be known as a Method meriting citation by reliable sources, much less separate sections describing each 'Method'.  These facts strongly support the current NPOV direction we are taking with the Techniques section.
 * If for some reason Reames' combination of techniques (or the Pooktre Method, or anyone else's) becomes so notable as to be referenced by any reliable sources as a 'Method' specific to them, then that named Method might merit an individual article covering it, at which point we or some future editorial team should discuss that & possibly cover that Method, identifying its originator(s) (of course) there in that article.
 * Please Note: This is a fuzzily similar but fundamentally different question than that one which asks, "What is this whole body of craftworks and artworks called by reliable sources?," so please don't mistake or misquote any of this as my thinking on that question.  That question, thus far, remains a poorly understood and unresolved one, largely due to the confusion generated by conflating it with this question, which is, "Are there any notable Methods referred to by reliable sources?".  I am very glad if we have (at last!) resolved this one, for now: At this time there are NO reliable sources indicating any clear, well-established, "Reames' Method," nor any other "ArtistXbrand's Method".  This realization should render the meaning of the other question much more straightforward and far simpler for everyone to grasp.   d u f f   21:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Refs for two methods

 * These refs below write about two methods. Duff are you saying these refs are not reliable sources? If so why?
 * Indian Magazine
 * London financial times  Blackash   have a chat 23:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I wish you would not ask me to do this and instead just recognize it yourself; that which must be SO clear to even the most casual observer. These two press clippings, linked from YOUR website, are both based on extensive interviews with YOU,  wherein YOU have made this very case to the interviewer, in support of the superiority and prescience of YOUR OWN METHOD.  They are not even a little bit OK as citations to support the point you seek to cite.  Both articles are replete with quotes from YOU and are so clearly slanted at YOU that I can hardly understand how you could consider them to be neutral and reliable sources; particularly after having put up such a fuss about articles that could even possibly have been interpreted as influenced in any way by Reames.  Do you honestly find this material to be a reliable and neutral source for citeable proof of distinct 'Methods.'?  If you do, once more I am floored.   d u f f   00:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The second article, which is originally from The Financial Times' Weekend Magazine at http://www.ft.com/magazine, consists ENTIRELY of a direct quote from YOU. It begins, "In her words:".  'Susannah Snider' placed her byline in an odd place on this clipping, within the quotation marks, but these are not her words.  These are your words. The names you give for the publications and titles are also, as usual, incorrect, but that's a comparatively minor issue.
 * I'll say this again: the results of yours and your partner's work are spectacular, but you really should not be trying to exert this type nor this level of influence on the editorial team writing this Wikipedia article.  d u f f   00:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The real question you should be asking about these references is: Are Peter Cook and Becky Northey experts in this field? Are these sources self published? If the answer is we are experts and these are not self published sources then my understanding is that these references would be reliable sources. Which are you questioning? That we are experts? Or do you think we self published these articles? Blackash   have a chat 02:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Both sources are questionable and yes, I am definitely questioning them. That is the topic at hand.  They are unduly self-serving, they are being used to support synthesized claims about the 'Methods' of third parties, and there is reasonable doubt as to their authenticity.  I'll ask again, since this was my question, and you may have missed it, "Do you honestly find these two sources to be reliable and neutral sources for citeable proof of distinct 'Methods.'?  One other question you might ask of yourself, perhaps, is whether or not it is appropriate for you to participate in or exert any influence whatsoever in discussions pertaining to your own expertise, including the determination of which questions editors should or should not be asking.  I want to make it very clear that I do not wish to debate with you any further on any of these questions.  I volunteer my time here and I do that because I love this project, Wikipedia, not because I have any interests to defend or anything at stake with my editing at all, and not because I like to waste precious editing time and self-generated power arguing in talkpages with conflicted interests over their own expertise.  That takes all the joy out of editing and I come here to write.   d u f f   06:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


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

I will try to answer point by point: I remain eager to consider any sources that solidly document any individually established and distinguished 'Methods' for this craft. Can you submit ANY authoritative reliable sources corroborating this, or not? d u f f  19:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. You didn't technically publish them, that's accurate, but you so completely and verifiably influenced their publication as to make those specific references highly suspect as to their neutrality in regards to the points you are now insisting that we include in the article and use them to cite.
 * 2. In doing so, you made claims fabricating a third party's 'Method' that you are now using to establish some credibility for your claims of 'Methods'. That is a fabricated claim, followed by a separate synthesized claim based upon the fabricated claim.
 * 3. See #2 & #6.
 * 4. Those emails might be interesting, as they almost certainly document what I have just explained, but they are probably not essential.
 * 5. See above. And no, it has not been clearly established that the person(s) who were quoted therein (you) were or are experts in this field; hence my concern.
 * 6. Because sources which have clearly been influenced by biased opinions and fabricated claims are not reliable sources. That is exactly why policies here clearly state that these policies: neutrality, verifiability, and no original research are to be interpreted in harmony and should not be considered in isolation from one another.
 * 7. Refusing to answer simple content-related questions, consistently deflecting those questions by forming strawman arguments to argue different questions, inflating claims of your own expertise and using these inflated claims to argue over matters of content and reliable sources; these have become patterns of yours that are incompatible with the Wikipedia editing experience. As I understand the word 'reasonable', these patterns themselves are "reasonable", in the sense that you have your "reasons" for executing them.  However, those reasons put you squarely in the camp of many other editors with a CoI, who violate community norms by consistently insisting on exerting their own non-neutral PoV upon other editors and upon articles in which they have a direct interest.  This is not acceptable and it has become a problem for other editors.  You've been warned both gently and firmly about this countless times and many levels of dispute resolution have been unsuccessful in coaching you to stop.  Since you have pretty much ignored those warnings and continued to push your PoV in those ways and others, now we are all involved in time-consuming arbitration to try to resolve that problem.


 * Duff you seem confused.
 * 1. If an article is written by independent international media about Pooktre doesn't mean it is automatically dismissed, though that seems to be your view.
 * 2. You shouldn't be dismissing references because that don't fit your WP:Truth.
 * 3. See #2 & #6.
 * 4. Duff you claimed "reasonable doubt as to their authenticity". My offer to forward the email to admin would establish their authenticity.
 * 5. Duff since you are so one eyed on this issue of expertise I not surprised by this statement.
 * 6. Why are you mixing up neutrality and published media?
 * 7.Duff you don't ask simple questions, you write essays full of misinformation, spin and points written to cover different bases sometimes apposing views. Yes a couple of editors like yourself have asked me to not talk here, but other editors have stated I can talk on this topic. Duff you know this. If my editing was as you state the arbitration would not be still on going. We are now up 52 days as of today. Multiple admins have commented there the issues here are more about content than any misbehavior of any editor. I've seen how you sort out references, you are bias. How do you change a "new solid and authoritative reference" to a "weak and doesn't add anything new, circular promotional ref" why point out pooktre is used generically in it. Blackash   have a chat 07:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, no, thank you for your concern, but I am not confused at all. Again, please refrain from mischaracterizing my editing in the multiple ways that you have here and instead, please answer the simple question: "Can you submit ANY authoritative reliable sources corroborating your claim, which solidly document any individually established and distinguished 'Methods' for this craft?"   d u f f   01:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well Duff you make you point here that any article based on information about Pooktre artists is not authoritative. Since you keep insisting you are not bias I guessing the same would hold true for any article based on Richard Reames. So using your view I don't have any thing. Though I don't agree with you and that is why I have listed at the reliability noticeboard. Blackash   have a chat 14:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Echoing and expanding Martin Hogbin's unanswered questions upthread when you submitted the same source this morning, to cite the the '3 separate methods'. Is this author an expert?  Can you provide links to the article or the full text?  This doesn't seem like a very authoritative source, on it's face, but I'd like to evaluate it fully and fairly.  We really need a horticultural journal or another resource with some weight and editorial snuff.   d u f f   08:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources noticeboard
I had commented to Duff that he should take some of the references he was questioning to reliable sources noticeboard. He seems very busy editing else where, so I've listed there about 3 different issues. Blackash  have a chat 07:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Tree News
Could the submitter please provide a link to evaluate the source material for this citation: , which is used to support this controversial point: At the Tree shaping section, cites a generic use of the phrase "Tree training" to describe the overall craft.


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


 * It had been previously added to the article, formatted as, and among several other oddly disappeared footnotes, had been cited as evidence of the generic use of the term arborsculpture in that same section, during discussions to determine whether or not arborsculpture was indeed a generic term.
 * It was later deleted from the article entirely, reason unknown.
 * It was then still later returned to the article in a different cite format with different content:, which erroneously omits the article's title and places the publication name instead at the title field, whereupon it was then used to cite this different information: use of the term 'tree training' as generic for the craft, but it was not re-cited at the term arborsculpture.


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


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


 * I have standardized the citation and found some other interesting information in the process of attempting to do so.
 * Here's what I came up with for a standardized cite, inclusive all fields I was able to track down:
 * The interesting part is that Blackash had already reached out and touched the author of that article on his personal blog, shortly after he announced that new issue of his Tree News magazine, on 2005-06-22, with this responding post of hers to his announcement, wherein she did not identify herself as Rebecca or Becky Northey as she has usually done when countless similar missives have been sent as part of her off-wiki campaign. Instead, she used her anonymous blogger profile |blackash, and it is likely that if he read the message, he did not know who it was from.
 * I sent the author a message on that same personal blogger page today, using my only blogger profile (which is an open one), asking if he could provide a copy of the article in question, for our evaluation. If I get any response, I'll be very glad to share it here and update the citation usage accordingly.
 * This has taken most of the day, just getting to the bottom of this one muddied citation, correcting it, and documenting the correction here. Time had been spent already once before, when the original citation was first lobbed in.  That's hugely wasteful of editorial effort, but it is necessary work in order to get the article right and also to ward off this very subtle but pervasive form of manipulation and misuse of the language and of Wikipedia.  There are MANY other citations to be hammered, AGAIN, due to quiet and unnoticed deletions of MANY properly sourced and properly formatted citations. The entire campaign was at quashing the organic spread of a word coined by a perceived commercial rival.  I am glad that it has ceased in the article space, because this is really tedious and disheartening stuff.   d u f f   03:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This has taken most of the day, just getting to the bottom of this one muddied citation, correcting it, and documenting the correction here. Time had been spent already once before, when the original citation was first lobbed in.  That's hugely wasteful of editorial effort, but it is necessary work in order to get the article right and also to ward off this very subtle but pervasive form of manipulation and misuse of the language and of Wikipedia.  There are MANY other citations to be hammered, AGAIN, due to quiet and unnoticed deletions of MANY properly sourced and properly formatted citations. The entire campaign was at quashing the organic spread of a word coined by a perceived commercial rival.  I am glad that it has ceased in the article space, because this is really tedious and disheartening stuff.   d u f f   03:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There. I have added back to the article all of the deleted citations to authoritative reference material that had somehow dissolved away during my absence.  You'll find most of them linked at the word arborsculpture under Tree shaping They'll all have to be re-attached to any remaining material that they used to properly cite and new, more interesting things will surely be said in place of the deleted article text that is buried deep within the diffs of the many changes that wrought this loss.  Please look each citation over carefully as there's a lot of good stuff there.
 * It should be very clear to all present and future editors, by both the scope and quality of the references returned, which had been improperly deleted, as well as that of the nine new authoritative reference sources (YAY!) that have been located by the efforts of SEVERAL other people besides myself (THANK YOU!!), that the generic name most commonly used to collectively describe this craft by authoritative sources is arborsculpture.
 * The funny thing is, it really doesn't matter what this article's title is. That ship has long sailed, as I've tried to make clear before.  The point is that this IS what it IS called, and so that is where the resources are to be found.  Knowing that makes it SO much easier to develop the article to its full potential, because now that this point is unmistakeably clear and very well referenced, we can now plumb all those excellent references for what will now seem like brand new material (and some of it is) with which we can greatly improve this article.  And, we can search for the thing itself, not some pale ambiguous leaping shadow of a thing that doesn't actually exist and that no one is writing about.  That's what really matters!!  Oh, and ah...yeah...29 authoritative sources is the new total by my count. So what is the process (following the completion of the currently pending arbitration, of course), to reassert the process of returning this article to its original title?  Cheers!  It's my naptime.    d u f f   09:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

ASLA
This citation was already @ the word arborsculpture, in the Other names section, but I thought I'd take a methodical approach and check this whole string of cites out to be certain they are valid. Not sure who added it, but here it is: Citation| title = Landscape Architecture| journal = American Society of Landscape Architects| volume = 90| issue = 10-12| date = 2000| url = http://books.google.com/books?id=QXpMAAAAYAAJ&q=arborsculptor&dq=arborsculptor&as_brr=0&ei=kiIOTIaWCoWqlATP7pSDCg&cd=4 It is difficult to evaluate as it's a tiny Google Books snippet that doesn't even show the sentence containing that word. It looks like (from the link) that it was added I've sent a message to Brad McKee, editor-in-chief of the ASLA Journal (http://www.asla.org/), requesting a copy for our evaluation to see if it's useful or not. If I get a response, I'll post a copy where everyone can check it out. According to the Google Books link, it uses the word 'arborsculptor' on page 30 in Volume 90, Issues 10-12. While that's probably barely enough for establishing generic use of the term in a reliable source, we really need to evaluate the context within which it's used, obviously, to cite it any further than that in the article. I'm leaving it in for now, awaiting a response from Mr. McKee, and if anybody's already got this article somewhere, please advise. d u f f  07:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)