Talk:Tree shaping/Archive 5

Article protected
I have protected the article against any editing by non-admins. The version I have protected is The Wrong Version. Somebody is going to dislike it. Whatever version is protected is going to be The Wrong version. The idea now is that we discuss the editing of this article so that people can agree on what should be The Right Version.

There appear to two areas of dissent in the lead:

1) The inclusion of alternative names for tree shaping

2) The inclusion of mention of tree shapers who are later discussed in the body of the article

I suspect both of these are related.

Content dispute is not unusual in Wikipedia. And though people get angry when their own edits are undone, we should not at any point feel that the "other editor" is making that edit because they are a bad person, or that there is anything personal in this. If everyone involved in this makes the assumption that what the "other editor" wants is an accurate, truthful and fair article, then it helps us make progress. Discussion should focus on the article, and how we can improve it, and not on the motives or behaviour of any editor.

Let us first focus on mentioning tree shapers in the lead. WP:Lead is to be our guide here, and should be read, and referred to. WP:Lead says: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article."

As tree shapers takes up nearly a third of the article, then they should be mentioned in the lead, along with Methods and Relationship to other methods. The Relationships are mentioned (Tree shaping is related to espalier, bonsai, pleaching and, less directly, to topiary). And methods are mentioned (Tree shaping ... is the practice of growing and shaping trunks, branches and roots of trees and other woody plants. By grafting, shaping, and pruning the woody trunks or guiding branches, trees are made to grow into ornamental or useful shapes). But currently tree shapers are not mentioned.

I suggest that this paragraph is added:


 * Early tree shapers were John Krubsack, who made the first known "living chair" in 1914, and Axel Erlandson who opened a horticultural attraction called the Tree Circus in 1947.[1] Contemporary tree shapers include Richard Reames, Dr. Christopher Cattle, and artists Peter Cook and Becky Northey who call their work Pooktre.

The wording can be adjusted, and I welcome suggestions.  SilkTork  *YES! 16:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally prefer not to include "who call their work Pooktre" as we don't mention a similar fact for other contemporary arborsculpturers. Otherwise that sounds perfect!  While assuming good faith is an important policy for us, I think that falls short of asking us to ignore "bad faith" when there's clear evidence that someone is using this article as part of a greater effort to lower the repuation of a professional rival.  Why do we even have a WP:COI policy if we're going to ignore such clear violations of it?  That being said, I'm detemined to be part of the solution and not part of the problem and will try to focus on the edits not the editor as much as possible. --Griseum (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * New version:


 * Early tree shapers were John Krubsack, who made the first known "living chair" in 1914, and Axel Erlandson who opened a horticultural attraction called the Tree Circus in 1947.[1] Contemporary tree shapers include Richard Reames, Dr. Christopher Cattle, and artists Peter Cook and Becky Northey.


 * Please ignore bad faith, that will simply divert us into a different discussion. Let us concentrate on improving the article.  SilkTork  *YES! 19:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We are fine with leaving out "who call their work Pooktre."
 * The new section I put I followed the WP:LEAD section separate section usage quote "if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names" As can be seen by the list there is more than three alternate names.
 * I removed the alternate names from the lead becuse that is what is recommended in the separate section usage quote "Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line."

203.217.37.229 (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Blackash (talk) 08:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it necessary to say "208.59.93.238 / 96.233.40.199 / Griseum?" Choices like this and your repeated statement across multiple noticeboards that I “outed “ myself at some point harkens back to your ridiculous and vindicitive accusation of sockpuppetry. I resent this continued insinuation that I have obfuscated my identity at any time in any way, shape, or form. It’s a cheap shot and you should abandon it entirely. Amusingly, you forgot to sign in for this very post. Should I start calling you “203.217.37.229 / Blackash”  or otherwise make an issue of it? Of course not. BTW - I removed the tree chair photo accidentally; thanks in advance to SilkTork or whoever else puts in back in. --Griseum (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey thanks please do I have nothing to hide. I keep the numbers and your user name together becuse I aslo have trouble remembering number strings. Blackash (talk) 08:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The above paragraph is accepted, and I will place it in the article.  SilkTork  *YES! 12:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)