Talk:Axel Erlandson

message: User:Blackash objects to the inclusion of the word "arborsculpture" as a synonym for "tree shaping" because this user is a professional rival of the person who coined the word "arborsculpture" (see discussion at Talk:Tree shaping).  Since Blackash has asked me to repeat the evidence that this is a generic term appropriate for use in this article, here is the list I made along with responses:
*ARBORSCULPTURE.ORG was the website of the NEAG Northeast Arborsculpture Group until just a few days ago.  
*Science Frontiersmagazine has written an original article (not a Wikipedia clone) called "Arborsculpture: A Living Art - and the Art of Living" about what it says is "a process commonly called arborsculpture."
*Popular Science presents an article about "Israel's Tel Aviv University teaming up with eco-living company Plantware" and it is tagged: arborsculpture, architecture, eco tech, future tech, the environment. The article says "The process of shaping living trees to create objects, referred to as arborsculpture and pooktre" -- in this case going a little to far by using pooktre (which no one is claiming as a generic term) as a generic term as well.  NB different versions of this article are all over the web under different electronic "mastheads" and sometimes different pictures.
*esciencenews.com has a version of the Tel Aviv article that offers this definition: "The concept of coaxing living trees into useful objects, sometimes called tree shaping, arborsculpture, living art or eco-architecture, isn’t new."  As usual, there is no distinction between the term Reames coined and the other terms in circulation.
*US Patent 7328532 relates to the Tel Aviv University tree shaping just mentioned.  According to the text of the patent:  "The art of shaping living woody plants is known as "arborsculpture", "preaching", "tree trunk topiary", "tree trunk shaping", "botanical architecture", "biotechture" or "permaculture". Presently known living tree configurations include, but arenot limited to chairs, tables, benches, entrance arches, tunnels, symbols, fences, bridges, garden rooms and gazebos. The living constructs provide obvious aesthetic and environmental benefits."   Arborsculpture seems to be the preferred term here as evidenced by "Presently, arborsculpture is practiced by manipulating growth of the above-ground tissues (e.g., stem and branches) using traditional horticultural techniques such as pruning, trimming, bending, framing and grafting." They mention "The principle methods whichare presently used in arborsculpture are described by R. Reames" and also say "Accordingly, the process of shaping living woody plants usingtraditional techniques is very time consuming, excessively laborious and very costly." which contradicts User:Blackash's claim that "arborculture" is some sort of inferior shortcut different from tree shaping in general.  Whether or not Reames is an influential pioneer, an opportunistic villain or somewhere in between isn't part of my argument (I don't care) but it should at least be noted that, in general, his work is well-regarded.User:Blackash's claim that Reames work is an inferior shortcut might be valid -- I don't know.  What's important is that the word Reames coined is NOT generally associated with a "shortcut method" nor indeed a particular method at all.
*Der Spigel, a magazine from Germany, says: companies like the Israeli firm, Plantware, have perfected these techniques as they have shaped trees into fruit bowls, toilet paper holders and street lamps; they call their work "arborsculpture."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griseum (talk • contribs) 05:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The evidence presented above is convincing that the term "arborsculpture" is also used in relation to tree shaping in general, and not always to the work of Richard Reames. I don't, as yet, follow the arguments that using the term arborsculpture in a general article on tree shaping would have any impact on Pooktre. If there is likely to be some confusion, then that should be made clear in the article. We would look for more clarity and information at all times - provided it can be reliably sourced. I am prepared to listen to an explanation of how using "arborsculpture" in the general sense of tree shaping would be confusing in an article on tree shaping. The article, as I understand it, is not about Pooktre, and the section about Pooktre doesn't mention arborsculpture, though the section on Reames does say that he coined the term. I feel that is clear enough, but would be interested in hearing more thoughts on this. SilkTork *YES! 11:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the evidence above suggests that the word "arborsculpture" has become a thoroughly generic term, at least as much as "tree sculpting" and "living art" and "botanical architecture", and as currently used is disconnected from any specific method. (Unless there is new evidence to the contrary). -- Quiddity (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Arborsculpture

message: I followed all the links supplied by -Griseum 
*37 links about Arborsculpture in use.
* 4 links go to the wrong place.
* 10 links lead to Richard Reames book/s (most of the verifiable sources)
:#Arborsculpture - An Emerging Art Form and Solutions to our Environmentpage 25
:#The Journal of Mythic Arts 
:#This (bloggy) site yep stumbleupon has a link to Richard's book
:#This is bloggy and partially-Wikipedia derived video has the book at the end (have to check on Fri)
:#Agriculture Views 
:#Dwell.com
:#CabinetMagazine.org
:#University of California "Landscape & Turf News" page 4
:#Try Your Hand At Arborsculpture For A Fun Hobby
:#"Go get papers" in this directory the book Arborsculpture- Solutions for a Small Planet, appears and Arborsculpture Class is mentioned a few times. 
* 5 links lead to Richard Reames and/or his web site
:#Department of Horticulture at Cornell University 
:#this
:#Axel Erlandson: An American Arborsculpturist does meantion Richard's books in passing.
:#Treehugger.com
:#Living Tree Sculpture aka Arbosculpture
That leaves 18 sites that use Arborsculpture in a generic term.
* 5 links use Arborsculpture as one in a series of alternative names
:#Popular Science
:#different versions
:#sometimes
:#esciencenews.com 
:#US Patent 7328532
What is left is mainly blogs and personal web pages. Not really a strong case for Arborsculpture being independent of its originator,  
and these links are from a search of Arborsculpture with Richard Reames removed!!! How dominant must Richard Reames be in a normal search of Arborsculputre. Blackash (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking at the evidence supplied for Arborsculputre 

message: Griseum You list proves my point. You had to do original research which shows Arborsculpture in use, then determine the meaning of that use. From Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term, not books and papers that use the term.
On the Talk:Tree shaping User:SilkTork (an admin) quote "The consensus is that tree shaping is the most neutral of the widely used terms, and so that is the preferred term for use within this and related articles. SilkTork *YES! 16:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arborscuplture is a [[Neologism]]

message: Darkwind, I appreciate your opinion even if differs from my own.  Unfortunately I believe you might only be seeing the tip of the iceberg.  I've walked away from these issues for weeks at a time.  Things don't get any better.
*BlackAsh does not want a 3rd opinion, she wants a 6th opinion.  Her views disagree with those of at least 4 other people.
*Here's the question no one has answered:  If numerous people have referred to Erlandson's work as  “arborsculpture”  in published, verifiable sources,and 4 editors have agreed its an innoculous generic term, why should Wikipedia avoid this term in order to placate a SINGLE editor – Blackash.  She is a professional rival of the person who coined the word “arbosculpture” and has stated clearly and repeatedly how this is related to a non-Wikipedia related agenda -- a HUGE WP:COI.
*Admin SilkTork was one of the 4 people who agreed “arborsculpture” is a generic term and said specifically “"The evidence presented above is convincing that the term "arborsculpture" is also used in relation to tree shaping in general, and not always to the work of Richard Reames…”  User:Quiddity wrote "I agree that the evidence above suggests that the word "arborsculpture" has become a thoroughly generic term, at least as much as "tree sculpting" and "living art" and "botanical architecture", and as currently used is disconnected from any specific method. (Unless there is new evidence to the contrary)."  User:SlowArt, the person who coined the word, says its generic.
*Admin SilkTork said that “tree shaping” would be a more appropriate term for the name of the article about this craft but this wasn't firmly evidence based; it was an intelligent decision made to close the lame debate and get on with life.  I agreed, especially as renaming and moving the article doesn't improve Wikipedia.  Calling the article "tree shaping" is not the same as forbidding the term "arborsculpture" to be used as a synonym.  
*The fact that arborsculpture is a well-established generic term for the craft been determined (by evidence-based consensus) beyond doubt.  However, Blackash’s continued objection are based upon her SINGULAR OPINION that it actually a specific method of achieving effects
*We’re not discussing abortion, racism or the Holocost here.  Arborsculpture is NOT a “conversial” term.  No where on the 'net is there any indication that it is.  It is a term that ONE editor dislikes and is wiling to disrupt Wikipedia to censure.  Do you know that Blashash has “chased” the word all over the internet in order to tell people that Wikipedia proves arborsculpture refers to what she calls an “inferior method?”
*It needs to be realized that the decision to exclude the term "arborsculpture" from this article will be mispresented elsewhere as "proof" that Blackash's opinion (i.e. that arborsculpture is an inferior METHOD of tree shaping) is a fact-based consensus.  That's why I won't just drop this.
*Wikipedia is here to present info clearly and accurately, not to make sure that every single person who edits is content even if they are making incorrect assertions based on entirely inappropriate agendas.  Bad behavior shouldn't be rewarded and blatant misuse of Wikipedia for real-life ajendas shouldn't be tolertated.
*QUOTE from Blackash: "My only agenda if there is one is not to have our work branded with someone else's methods of shaping trees. (Arborsculpture which has a method linked to it.)" 15:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions I would like answered

message: I will address each point in turn. First I like to thank Darkwind for taking the time to come and read our discussion/s
I suggest this sentence 
*Axel Erlandson (December 15, 1884 – April 28, 1964) was a Swedish American farmer who opened a horticultural attraction named "See the world's Strangest Trees Here" in 1947 featuring his uniquely shaped trees. This was eventually named "The Tree Circus." 
I can reference this from the book "My father talked to trees" written by Axel's daugther Wilma Erlandson page 4 Copyright 2001 
Which would remove the word Arborsculpture from there but, it will just reappear else where on the Axel Erlandson article. My real question is... Is it appropriate to have the word Arborsculpture any where on this page as it is a Neologism. Blackash have a chat 04:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The real Question 

message: I'm now taking up Duff's suggestion of following the Dispute resolution process. At Wikipedia:Dispute resolution one of the suggestions is to list the dispute on the appropriate policy page. As the dispute here centers around Arborsculpture and Neologism I have gone to Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary and listed on their talk page Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Neologisms Blackash have a chat 14:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note also that a new RfC on this very topic: whether the Arborsculpture article is or ever was an article about a neologism, was started today by the above poster, at Talk:Tree shaping#Request for comment, (arborsculpture is presently titled Tree shaping, another point of serious discussion).  The existence of the new RfC was none too clearly disclosed either at this so-called '"spill over" (the related) Talk:Axel Erlandson page. I'm noting this wherever else the oddly vague reference is made, so that comments and discussions on this topic can be consolidated on the talkpage of the main article, rather than be spread thinly all over the wikiplace, and so that we can somehow conclude this tired discussion. The main body of the discussions and consensus building is taking place at the Arborsculpture eh, tree sharpening article talkpage, where thoughtful editors would love to welcome more thoughtful editors to that RfC, as well as to the still open & now 16-day old RfC on Editorial conflict. So, please drop on by! Good fun will surely be had by all. Please bring your own bong. :) Duff (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute resolution 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Axel Erlandson. 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/20070123120827/http://www.arborsmith.com/treecircus.html to http://www.arborsmith.com/treecircus.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090116234905/http://www.arborsmith.com/krubsack.html to http://www.arborsmith.com/krubsack.html
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) 17:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Apart from “talking to the trees”, how did he do this? I realize he considered it as a trade secret at the time but surely if he planned them out by designing them on paper, and worked with others, there would be some record of his methods and protocol... 
Also I find it hard to imagine that other clever botanists over the years haven’t figured out how to scientifically reproduce these effects? 
Thanks for any information. Genetikbliss (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reproducibility