Talk:Arboriculture

message: In Oceania, the term arboriculture is used to refer broadly to the practice of tree-cropping, especially in regards to food production. It has been so for some decades in the academic literature. When I have assembled more data, I will contribute to this page as I am writing a thesis on Oceanic arboriculture - we probably need to have sections describing regional definitions. Right now, I am trying to understand the difference between arboriculture and silviculture. Thus far, they seem rather small, and I suspect they may reflect regional (not practice) differences. Would be interested to discuss.  Jhuebert (talk) 03:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oceanic arboriculture 

message: With apologies to those who may still stubbornly use the terms, tree surgery is not considered an appropriate term to describe arboriculture, nor is tree surgeon an appropriate term to describe an arborist.  It's kind of like calling a homemaker a domestic engineer.  Other than perhaps noting in both this and the arborist page that these terms are obsolete, I don't see a good reason to use them as if they were synonymous.  I'm fixing that here by replacing those terms. Duff (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tree surgery 

message: I'm going to put it in the lead, since this is a commonly accepted (though none too accurately, nor inclusively, nor professionally used) generic term for the many practices involved in arboriculture (see yellow pages anywhere in the world).  There's been a major(?) flap at Talk:arborsculpture, over whether or not the term specifically and generically applies to that craft (which sometimes rises to the level of an art), even going so far as to rename the arborsculpture page to tree shaping, as a more generic term for that practice.  A requested page move back to the article's original name did not resolve the matter and editing on that page (and its talk page) has apparently been contentious for years. Many other editors (and I) maintain that tree shaping is a more generic term for this practice, but that it is a wholly inappropriate generic name for that practice.   Your comments are warmly welcome, both on its inclusion here and on its appropriateness there.  Duff (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed Tree shaping from the lead as it is not known as arboriculture, rather is a practice within the field of arboriculture. From googling Tree shaping and arboriculture, it appears to do with arborists pruning and tying trees into shape to suit the garden or landscaping project. Blackash have a chat 09:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have returned it, assuming good faith, since arboriculture is commonly known by this phrase, and I am adding a citation needed tag, (which citations I will be very pleased to provide shortly).  I am fairly certain that is what was intended, rather than a revert of a good faith edit. Duff (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Duff you state above that you really can't get references for the use of Tree shaping as Arboriculture. I have been doing research for Tree shaping article.  Nowhere have I found where the word tree shaping is used interchangeably in with arboriculture I have found some references which refer to tree shaping as a service offered by arborists. Blackash have a chat 09:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That is false.  I made no such statement.  As time permits, and as I stated clearly above, I will be very pleased to add citations shortly, particularly since, as you note, your own surely-diligent effort to find such citations has been fruitless.   I welcome your effort to bring in more editors and more eyes.  Cheers. Duff (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Duff your quote above since this is a commonly accepted (though none too accurately, nor inclusively, nor professionally used) generic term. You came and placed tree shaping in the lead to help support your POV over in the discussion about the title change on Tree shaping. Claiming COI in no reason not to justify your change, and knowing that you would try to divert the point from the dispute, to being about the editor. With this in mind is why I asked for a 3rd opinion about the dispute of whether or not Tree shaping is a commonly used generic term for Arboriculture or is it a service offered by arborists. Blackash have a chat 02:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My quote above, which you have quoted, is not in any way equivalent to your statement that, "Duff you state above that you really can't get references for the use of Tree shaping as Arboriculture."  Your statement is false and misleading, as is your analysis of my not having justified my change.  I justified it clearly in my first note, above, upon posting the change in the first place.  I have also agreed that citations are needed, as I stated in my response to you, and even went so far as to add the citation needed tag myself, to encourage other editors to also assist in finding such citations, which seems to me quite reasonable.  I am also going to respect the third opinion suggestion by Anaxial below, none of which I disagree with, and hold it out of the article for the time being, until citations are properly added, though please note that the policy on non-BLP articles is "can be removed", not "must be removed immediately".  In this case, that was WP:POINTY, since a citation needed tag would have been appropriate also, and darned diplomatic of you.  Concerning your point on POV, I have amended my 2nd comment and added a direct note on your talk page concerning this as well, as is more appropriate. Duff (talk) 10:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

text: I understand what both of you are saying, and you may be right.  However I submit that while it may be an inaccurate usage, the term is in common usage by common people to describe the general practice of arboriculture.  I will also seek reliable citations, and if none are located in a reasonable amount of time, I will go along with placing it as a subheading and describing it accurately instead.  It's not a BLP, so there's no crisis.  I read WP:POINT, and Griseum, while I think I understand your point, I note the following on that page: "...just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it, which is the only circumstance under which someone should be warned about this guideline."  I edit in good faith, consistently.  Do you sincerely see that piece of editing as an example of disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point?  I don't see it, but I am prepared to become more enlightened on that. I would put forth that the immediate reversion of my added information, versus adding a citation needed tag, was a far clearer example of disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, but I may be wrong.   Duff (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fixed the itchy bit. Duff (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Blackash have a chat 12:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

text: OK, will do, though I feel that a citation needed tag was adequate in a non-BLP article.  I agree that the article is not harmed by its omission, though I think it is improved by its inclusion.  Duff (talk) 10:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  also known as tree shaping 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Arboriculture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150906205524/https://www.americanforests.org/our-programs/urbanforests/urban-forests-tools-resources/ to http://www.americanforests.org/our-programs/urbanforests/urban-forests-tools-resources/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: This is a ridiculous insult.
Everyone knows that trees are being felled.
But to call that 'Tree Care' just don't seem right to me. We could use a different, more proper term. Mr.Baumguard (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Felling is Tree Care?