Talk:Arborist

message: I've listed this on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention, as it mostly reads like a HOWTO guide, rather than an encyclopedic discussion of what arborists do.  I've removed the most HOWTO-y stuff, but what's left is good information, just written in the wrong style. Someone who understands the issue better should clean things up.  Also, the article's condemnation of "topping" seems to be POV. -- Finlay McWalter 04:03, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Old edit

message: Just thought I would point out that the article's "condemnation of topping" is the universal opinion of tree experts around the globe. 
We share this opinion due to the demonstratable and verifiable fact that topping harms trees. 
For the evidence to support this fact, see the links attached to the bottom of the article. 
T. Sorensen
ISA Certified Arborist 
UK
:I have changed the wording to show that not all arborists do all the jobs listed.  Some never leave the ground whereas others only dismantle large trees.  I'm new to Wiki, and keen to expand areas relating to trees, their disease and arboricultural practices.  For example, there is no entry on silver leaf, a fungal disease of cherries.  Any help or pointers would be appreciated.  Alders 16:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You (we, they) may need to define topping somewhere, as there are a few acceptible forms of it with young trees. Crown reduction is a form of topping. Maybe a quick explanatory phrase with the widely used term "indiscriminate" or something like that, for the casual reader who has seen arborists removing tree top parts. Bonsai involves topping, but Bonsai is rarely associated with an arborist doing the work - although - I'm an arborist who is skilled with it, and the college I attended has a Bonsai Master teaching it in the curriculum. It would be handy that an article be presented so that people don't stereotype "arborist" with climbing or with large trees. It's a seed-to-the-giant profession. Good comments and thanks for making sure attention was directed to those links....M. D. Vaden of Oregon - Certified Landscape Technician / Certified Arborist: OregonMdvaden 23:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topping as verifiable fact not opinion. 

message: I can not find the link to edit the paragraph before the sub-heading "Legal issues."  In it "Certified Arborist" has the "C" of certified capitalized but not the "A" of arborist.  In the context of that sentence the reference is to the ISA licensed trademark "Certified Arborist," as designated to those who meet and maintain the conditions of the license.  Both the "c" and the "a" should be capitalized.
Michael J Swassing
ISA Certified Arborist (PN-1173)
Seattle, WA  USA
Well, dag nub it.  I found the edit tab, and changed the capitalization, but then the link when from live to dead.  So I changed it back.  I'm new to this wiki stuff too.  Great article so far.  I hope you don't mind me mucking around a bit.  - MJS
::It can be weeks / months until I get back here, but if you ever need second opinion or help wording paragraphs, email me from M.D. Vaden. I'll be glad to jump-in.Mdvaden (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Certified Arborist 

message: The article lists trees only when it should be all woody plants, some say "trees, shrubs, and vines". It is also a subdiscipline of Horticulture, more then Forestry because it deals with individual plants, or small groupings (e.g. a landscape) where forestry deals with large ecosystems usually for the purpose of. There are industry discussions as to wether Urban Forestry and Utility Right Of Way (ROW) tree work is arboriculture or forestry, because they deal with "a bigger picture".
John Paul Sanborn
Consulting Arborist
Also there is some industry concern that the pictures shown do not have the tree worker in proper Personla Protective Eqipment (PPE). In the US, minimal PPE while in the tree includes ANSI approved helmet, safety glasses and ear protection. The industry safty standars are found in ANSI Z133.1-2005
-JPS
:However the article reads, it must be applicable to an arborist in any location. If an arborist is not bound by certain laws or rules in a certain country, the article can't be too specific about PPE as a requirement. Because its an article on "arborist", not "USA arborist" or "Certified Arborist". But, it would be desireable to have the article promote or mention PPE as much as possible. Such as "this arborist is wearing PPE widely accepted by". To give you an idea of what's proper or not - the "EAR" physician I went to, when asked, said that it's not an absolute need to wear hearing protection at all times with all chainsaws. He said it depends on how loud the saw is, and how long you use it. He said if a saw is not very loud, and its only used for a minute or two at a time, there is not a risk to hearing. So it's important to define "proper", as accepted standards by a certain organization or branch of government (whatever). In other words, instead of saying "proper" or "improper", it can be better to mention what organization's standards are being adhered to or not. M. D. Vaden of Oregon.Mdvaden 23:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Description of Arborist

message: Going through the history, there have been quite a few changes since the last time I worked on it, some for the better, but many for the worse. I realize my last edit was incomplete and, well...not the greatest, but this page needs alot of cleanup and a more neutral tone. The whole "legal issues"? Why is that really in there? "Brush pilots"? You need to understand this is not a place for colloquialisms, it is an encyclopedia entry. I shouldn't complain, though, and be too lazy to work on it; I suppose I'll try.--Trees4est 14:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still needs work 

message: I think it is disappointing that you removed the other photos.  They were clearer and really showed some context to the work of a tree surgeon. If notbody objects I shall put them back.  However, I think your other changes were generally good, although the article has lost its international flavour and seems to be only being written from a European perspective. Maustrauser 23:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your reasoning was sound but the photos showed a bloke actually doing something.  A comment along the lines of noting the lack of safety gear would be appropriate.  For some reason, tree surgeons in Australia don't wear all the material you list.  They might simply have a death wish. Maustrauser 23:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Too many pics of blocking sections in tree removal?...how about we pick just 1 good one?  and how about a photo of a ground arborist working on a small tree or shrub, or supervising a school arbor day treeplanting.  I like the lab aspect too, as suggested by McVaden I think.  Arborists are not all climbers and/or using heavy equipment.  Hooray for those who are, but the profession of being an arborist is far broader than big tree removal and transplant.  So hooray for the groundside arborist too, who does the down low work of arboriculture, where it can be seen up close by the people who benefit from it.  Class I manicure pruning is arboriculture, even if it's done on a young Meyer lemon tree, say. Duff (talk) 08:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos

message: I think I can safely remove the tone tag at the top, please discuss if you feel differently.--Trees4est 02:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone 

message: I think it's perfectly appropriate to have the TCIA included in the "organizations" section, though it should not be a cut-and-paste from TCIA's website or an advertisement. I'd like to see some more information about more organizations.--Trees4est 10:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would regional chapters of the ISA be too fragmented? Also, does Australia have some organization? Canada?ThreeWikiteers (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organizations 

message: If someone could help me I would be happy to share a picture of a climber with proper PPE. Teaching by how not to do something is not proper teaching.
Tom 
canopytree   at  earthlinkdotnet —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.10.80.94 (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure when you posted this in relation to the date of the caption below the climber without the right PPE. Was the caption in response to your request? Were you still wanting a photo? I lack a good quality photo for what you need now, but might keep an eye out for a compliant climber to photograph from behind.
It's done, there's no shortage of good clear pictures with appropriate PPE, also note comments above in the Description of Arborist heading.--Eric Frei (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get rid of the pic of the climber without PPE! 

message: What person should read this page, and come away believing that arborist work is closely related to utility line "electrician"? I'm going to make some changes here . No radical changes. I'm going to consult a few sources like the ISA site and some written material for terms.Mdvaden 05:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, sorry for the tone of that, after reacting to your post I went to look at changes in the article and saw that you have added some really helpful pictures.  So thanks.  Are you in the green industry? ~~ Michael J Swassing 05:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - Certified Arborist / Certified Landscape Technician in Oregon.Mdvaden 15:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that Certified Utility Arborist may have been the intent of the utility "electrician".Mdvaden 16:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page needs some overhaul - an electrician related to an arborist? No...way... 

message: Some sentences were much too long. They needed to come to a climax, and the rest of the sentence needed to be it's own statement. Not a shortening of information, but isolating it into smaller pieces. I shortened a section about topping to "the least common denominator". It was going on, and on, about why topping is bad, and what it does, etc..  This is an "arborist" article, not a tree biology article. It's important to adhere to what an arborist IS and the basics of the work done. Other volumes of information are best written in separate articles. Some sentences or phrases should be in a "pruning" article, not an arborist article.Mdvaden 06:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While much of what has been added is a welcome addition, some may be superfluous, and some may not necessarily be an improvement. This article was no tribute to fine writing previously, but a few of the additions are somewhat more awkward to read. I agree that some parts should be "pruned" out (apologies on that one). The whole "cultural practices" section, which I personally added to, really should be separated into one or more articles and synopsized here. The references may need to be  organized more, and while some may be great reference material, they may be a bit too Pacific NW specific. I will try to do some work in the near future, if I do please also feel free to critique here.--Trees4est 14:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just one example - The article had "much of it requires the arborist to physically climb the trees" which can more easily be written "which required arborists to climb trees". That's a 50% reduction in text, and that kind of wording is easier and faster to read. It's a safe assumption that "climbing" is physical, so there's no need to explain the obvious. Makes the articles shorter to speed up research. I think a "shrunk" sentences mostly.Mdvaden 20:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culled some unneccessary words 

message: Okay, it looks like there are at least three of us who have this article on our watch list.  I just sort of dug in on friday and started making changes, and ended up spending quite a bit of time on the first introductory paragraph. And it all still needs more work then I would have time for.
Why don't we work out an outline for the over-all structure of the article.
We could easily get bogged down in going back over each other's work without moving forward on expanding the content and improving the form.
Let's start by getting clear on the intended readership of the article, which probably includes a person who has no idea what "arborist" means and googles that search-word, or clicks a link in another article.  Also an interested readership who have a basic knowledge and want more information.  We should try to make it useful to journalists writing articles that include an arborist and the journalist wants to quickly get clear on the concept.  Finally, it should be useful to arborists seeking more information.
The first sentence of the introductory paragraph should be a simple, direct and precise definition.  And then the rest of the introductory paragraph should flesh out the most basic introduction.
The body of the article should give some historical background on the cultivation of trees as a trade.  Along with some detail on the wide variety of activities that arborists do.  And additional information for arborists who want to advance to mastery of  the trade, while keeping the article on the topic of: who is an arborist, what does an arborist do, when, where, and why.
I included the section about the references every arborist should be familiar with, and added some additional titles separately that are useful.  That section needs work for readability and usefulness, and may need to be completely reconsidered.  But I did want to get something in there to help the autodidactic arborist, to provide a research list for the interested public, and to contribute to the public perception of professionalism.
Now one of the problems with trying to work together is that we might end up spending more time over here, talking about improving the article, then over there adding content.
Lets also be aware that there is a separate article about Certified Arborists, and also one for arboriculture.
Also, it helps to write what you know, but we need to provide references for it. ~~ Michael J Swassing 17:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing I noticed, and it was stated by an architect yesterday in relation to editing a page on landscape design and landscape architecture, is "be global". So the idea is to explain what an arborist is, so that English speaking internet readers from several countries will know what an arborist is, whether in the USA, or in another country. My opinion, is to explain essential details to show what defines the boundary of the "arborist" trade, but not too much at all about the technology. In other words, we can write that an arborist does pruning, but hyperlink "pruning" to a separate article, rather than explain - here - about leaves making food and photosynthesis (as was happening in the section that included "topping" as an unacceptable practice).Mdvaden 21:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be more overlap than desired between this arborist page and a Certified Arborist page. Maybe an essential duplicate. It may be like the "landscape design" and "landscaping" and "landscape architect" pages. Such close alignment and possible replication of professional work, but not identical in certification or potential I just did a bit of editing on those, and it's a "bear" to separate. At least the ISA certification exists or doesn't exist - one thing that's clear-cut.Mdvaden 21:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know exactly why the "certified arborist" page is called a stub. All it needs to explain is what the certification is, what it means, etc., and link to here for defining arborist. It seems fairly thorough to me— except that it should more thoroughly cover the other certifications rather than focusing on the straight CA, unless separate articles are done for those certifications, which would seem a bit redundant (I also think it might be tweaked for NPOV just a tad). Likewise, this page can mention pruning but link to the pruning article for the detail— topping should probably be included in pruning, also, with the word "topping" linking to that page. Of course, some of this might mean yet more new articles for a few things, or just being satisfied with the generality necessary in an entry. Including more history would be an excellent addition. I will try to add some specifics as I am able, or at least try and be otherwise helpful.--Trees4est 22:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem odd that "Certified Aborist" is a stub - especially what its a stub of. Aside from that, both arborist articles could be an excellent way for arborists to produce an excellent explanation of the trade. "They say" that a picture is worth a 1000 words. This may be one of the finest opportunities to expand an article with images to let them erase the stereotype of arborists being merely "tree trimmers". If we can scrounge images of arborists using a resistograph, or planting, and many other aspects, those alone might do more than 5000 words. I may have a couple more images - along with captions, they may be useful.Mdvaden 01:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that one of the points we need to make in educating people about careers in arboriculture is that they almost always overlap with some other role.  So we have city arborists, who's concern is both to promote a treed city and to protect their employer from liability.  And there are utility arborists, who make sure the electricity stays on, and they take care of trees.  Then there are landscape designers, nurserymen, tree farmers.  It is in the nature of being an arborist to have multiple concerns, and find balance among them.  Is a plant pathologist who is tending to a tree not also an arborist? Is an arborist who concerns themselves with habitat for wildlife, or landscape beauty, or ecological health not a real arborist? It does not repudiate the definition of an arborist to be inclusive rather then excluding the silviculturists and seed propagators and nurserymen and orchardists from being real arborists.  Also, Chuck Leavell likes to call himself an arborist, and I come from the school that says that if a member of the Rolling Stones volunteers to promote your industry, you don't go to extra effort to make him feel unwelcome.~~ Michael J Swassing 02:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to see you bringing up the types of arborists. It could do a lot of good in the article, to add a sub-heading "Different Kinds of Arborists" or something similar. Then add a one paragraph explanation of what that arborists "typical" goal would be, and maybe one example of what their work may produce that could significantly differ from other arborists. Like "Municipal Arborist" and the mention of "tree vaults" with patented engineered soil downtown, as opposed to trees in residential landscapes having "ample" root growth space.Mdvaden 15:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renovation plans for arborist article 

message: The external links section looks like it has gone beyond Wikipedia's policy for links. Can a few other people look at that list and see what you think? Shouldn't take more than about 5 to 10 minutes to look at them briefly. A few comments - - -
:TCIA must have at least two links. One to them directly, and another to a tree info site with a find a pro button leading to their search page for their members. Should one link do the trick or is two best?
::Some links drop right in on commercial content or landing pages.Which links should stay, and which should go - based on Wikipedia policy?ThreeWikiteers (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With no replies, I'm culling external links that appear to clearly not meet Wikipedia's policy. The Plant Amnesty site link was removed, because it is a PRUNING page, not an arborist page with encyclopedic content. Wikipedia has a pruning article that would be a better fit, but the link page did not have a lot of info on it anyway. Someone could post in the pruning article discussion, for peer review there.ThreeWikiteers (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tree Talk Radio removed as external link. Clearly not a site specifically about "arborist", but is about "tree care" which is a completely different topic. Anyone know who adds links like this, contrary to Wikipedia's policy? Even the pruning article may not be a fit for this deleted link, as pruning deals with more than trees.ThreeWikiteers (talk) 02:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted Tree TV as external link. Same reason as the last two. Tree TV, when looking at the landing page and content, is a site mostly about "tree care". People getting involved with this Wikipedia article really need to read the Wikipedia policy about linking.ThreeWikiteers (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed the Palm and Tree commercial site, because although it had some content, the content was about trees and consumer stuff, whereas this article is specific to "arborist".ThreeWikiteers (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Removed the European Arboricultural Council link: Non-functioning link.ThreeWikiteers (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Removed the Tree Care Tips link, because it is not specific to "arborist", but rather trees or tree care - a totally different subject. This Wikipedia article is about "arborist" and any link must have a wealth of encyclopedic content specifically tailored to that. Also, the Tree Care Industry Association already has one more relevant external link, so it degrades this Wikipedia resource to add a second from TCIA that is not arborist-specific.ThreeWikiteers (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The UK Arborist Directory had to go by the way-side. Of all external links, it had the least information of all. Virtually nothing about encyclopedic content for the subject of "arborist". If anyone happens to visit the UK arborist Directory in the future, and should it happen to include some wealth of encyclopedic content, post a recommendation in this discussion area so that we peers can review it. If any site like that adds real educational content, it may be better to link to the informational page, not just the home page. Wikipedia is encyclopedic, not self-promotional or a directory.ThreeWikiteers (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: No, you are not butting in at all. Great timing. The .edu and .org sites was exactly what came to mind the past few days, but I didn't have any suggestions. Some links that might detail what's involved in a pertinent degree for an arborist could be useful, even if just one university's program outline can be selected as an example.ThreeWikiteers (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If a link is broken and you know the fix - go for it. One request though - if websites have certain pages specific to "arborist", those may be the best link to add rather that sending people to a broad menu. With no "404" error showing today, the European Arboricultural Council site is not about "arborist" - but is has a few tidbits. To be in Wikipedia as a link, the website must supply something not already included in the article somewhere. On the European Arboricultural Council site, it looks like one page on "certification" may be the real practical link and information: EAC page about certification and exam. That may add to the article.ThreeWikiteers (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link cleansing 

message: One of the external links is "The Treehouse". If you click the link, it goes to a landing page with several options, but also seems to display what may be construed as family photos as well as other images. Please visit this link and offer your thoughts. If it remains as a hyperlink, should the link in Wikipedia go directly to the forum, or is it fine as is?ThreeWikiteers (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Treehouse external link: question about 

message: Trees4est. Since you mentioned recent edits by Eric Frei, I glanced over the article again. It needs significant modification now. For example, the phrase "It is important you know what type of arborist you need as for instance not all climb nor do all write reports and consult."is irrelevant. It does not describe an "arborist" in an encyclopedic fashion, and sounds more like a consumer notice in a licensing organization's bulletin.
Also, the writing style does not work. There are multiple instances of capitalized words following commas. The Australia section, if it should even be there, ought to be condensed to about 2 sentences most relative to an "arborist". Likewise with the USA part. Any extra may as well be it's own article. And there is a Certified Arborist article already. In a way, the USA section may be unneccessary too. All the Australian training part may as well be it's own article focusing on that region's details. Otherwise we need to add UK, Canada, etc.. And that's not what the article is about.ThreeWikiteers (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Edits / Trees4est 

message: Could anyone who knows more about this, than I do, explain the difference between arboriculturist, arboriculturalist and arborist? As far as I know arboriculturist are involved in developing and planting arboreta, parks and the like. When we talk about arborists, this are the people that maintain trees (climb in them, of course!) etc. 
Let me give an example: Berry describes William Douglas Cook as an arboriculturist, here. I'm pretty sure, no one would call him an arborist. 
And what are arboriculturalists? When is this name used?
Dick Bos (talk) 06:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Arborist <-> Arboriculturist

message: Personal names are not necessary for Encylopedic writing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trees4est (talk • contribs) 23:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal names

message: I made a few changes, hopefully refinements, to different sections today...and no, I did not go check at the discussion page first before editing obvious itches. =)  I seldom do.  I am not an eagle scout.  I'm glad I have read it now though, as it certainly adds some context.  Reading over the discussion thus far, I think we are on the same wavelength, so I'll look forward to any further honing, as ever, and I'll keep editing where it seems to need help.  Also, I appreciate the conversation on keeping arborist and arboriculture separated.  I watch both and that's a very helpful redistinction.Duff (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  howdie 

message: I'm gonna take a good look at forester and forestry, nurseryman (aha and nurserer haha) and nursery, silviculturist, silvculturalist, silviculturer(aha) and silviculture, gardener and gardening, and any other perhaps analagous pairs and see if any of these others have a more workable layout that helps to reduce the individual internal repetitiveness as well as the weird overlappy aspect.  I think we've got to cut some material from arborist and paste it over at arboriculture and/or pruning and/or ?? where appropriate and not also duplicitous. Duff (talk) 08:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distilling [[Arborist]], [[Arboriculture]], & [[Pruning]] 

message: This section should be a point-by-point presentation of the activities and practices of arborists.  It is now a hodge podge discussion of various degrees of depth and detail, and is not complete.
pechaney (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of work section needs revision 

message: I found this extraordinary claim:
". . . or ecological communities and their abiotic components in the context of the landscape ecosystem."
There is no reference supporting this extraordinary claim so it must be removed.
In a larger sense it is a spurious claim because there is no Aborist certification that requires ecosystem health training, study, or competence.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.245.84.43 (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ecosystems - No. 

message: This is not a 'How-To' guide. Items such as the following are more along the lines of opinion, as suggesting procedures, and should be limited, or at least re-written as further description of what an Arborist is.
"Pruning should only be done with a specific purpose in mind. Every cut is a wound, and every leaf lost is removal of some photosynthetic potential. Proper pruning can be helpful in many ways, but should always be done with the minimum amount of live tissue removed.[citation needed]
In recent years, research has proven that wound dressings such as paint, tar or other coverings are unnecessary and may harm trees. The coverings may encourage growth of decay-causing fungi. Proper pruning, by cutting through branches at the right location, can do more to limit decay than wound dressing.[citation needed]
Chemicals can be applied to trees for insect or disease control through spraying, soil application, stem injections or spraying. Compacted or disturbed soils can be improved in various ways.[citation needed]"
The fact that this text (and more) appears verbatim on several Arborist's pages to promote their services suggests that it is not originally written for this encyclopedia and needs to be "de-commercialized" and properly dissected to extract whatever useful information (if any) it may contain for the purpose of understanding what an Arborist "is".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.198.246 (talk) 06:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedia or 'How-To'? 

message: Even after removing a lot of copy-pasted stuff this article still scores highly on Earwig's Copyvio Detector: Click for report.
What is the deal here? Are we copying somebody or is somebody copying us? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violations?