This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Horticulture and Gardening on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Horticulture and GardeningWikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningTemplate:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningHorticulture and gardening articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.EcologyWikipedia:WikiProject EcologyTemplate:WikiProject EcologyEcology articles
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Slowart (talk·contribs) / Reames, Richard This user has not edited the article.
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Blackash (talk·contribs) / Reames, Richard This user has contributed to the article.
Citation Request on the hyphenated phrase "now-popular" surrounding use of the term "arborsculpture"
I see that there has been a request by User:Blackash to find a cite for using the hyphenated phrase, "now-popular", as regards the Reames-coined word, arborsculpture. I clearly understand her oft-stated concern as a vocal professional rival of Mr. Reames, as she has hammered it home in many different fora. Still, it's become a popular word. There are multiple examples in both scholarly & popular sources of the use of the coined word arborsculpture to describe the craft that Mr. Reames wrote about in his books, but I am not sure what would be the best way to create a solid reference, as requested. I do not wish to engage in a prolonged debate over already tired issues. I don't think every single editorial word choice in every article needs citing, but I do think that a sentence construction change might cut to the chase. Is additional citation needed, and if so, how many citations would satisfy the question? Or, would perhaps a different phrasing be simpler? Perhaps most appropriately, another neutral editor will propose an alternate sentence construction before I think of one? duff22:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I made a change and removed the citation needed tag. If there's still a need for citations to the phrasing I used instead, this should be simpler to cite. duff23:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Duff I don't feel that I'm a professional rival to Richard Reames, your comment to me is suggestive that is my concern and is not true. Now as to the citation request, your belief that Arborsculpture is either "now-popular" or "a now commonly used descriptive term for the craft" is WP:ORIGINAL research and you have WP:SYNTHESIS that use. How about a few citations that back up your belief by stating some similar to "now popular"? By the way as Richard is a non expert, his books, interviews with him or book reviews don't count. Why not just leave it out until such time there are reliable secondary sources to quote from? Blackashhave a chat16:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well...Thank you for expressing your feelings about those topics again; I again acknowledge that those are your feelings and that this is your sense of things. That said, you have a well-documented professional and personal conflict of interest with Mr Reaves, both on and off-wiki. I meant what I wrote. Particularly this part, "Perhaps most appropriately, another neutral editor will propose an alternate sentence construction before I think of one?"
You were plainly the editor who placed the citation needed tag. I saw the tag and I made an improvement. The article is better for it. Allow yourself to enjoy that a little, please I don't agree that just leaving the sentence out makes the article better, but I will think about it while we wait for more comments if any should come. The word arborsculpture is commonly used and it doesn't seem unreasonable or puffy to say so. Surely, you can at least agree that this is a step in a more neutral direction and an improvement on the more subjective & less citeable phrase now-popular. I don't remember if I wrote it or not, but I don't care for 'now-popular' either. The commonness of its use though, is readily evident by the many different kinds of sources that you, too, are familiar with, hence the word 'common'. That is not an opinion and seems self-evident, but if you like, I can stick the long stack of examples in here, I suppose, but I'm not convinced that will improve this article any or be a smart investment of precious time & energy. This point is uncontroversial enough to be kept until we come up with something better. I'm not leaving it out because I am not on the same mission here as you are, to squelch the use of the word arborsculpture. I see it more neutrally, and 'common' is both neutral and verifiable. I don't honestly have time to give this article the attention it deserves right now. I'd like to when I can. I'd ask you for a suggestion as to how you would write that sentence, but given the history between you two, I think that you should probably recuse yourself from this discussion, for the reasons I've expressed, and try really hard to refrain from exerting any influence on this particular page's content. duff08:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to take Duff's adivce and placed the Arborsculpture process into Richard's article. It has been good practise for me. I'm not sure about the formatting of the citations they may need tidying. Sydney Bluegum (talk) 08:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the bull by the horns!
Two problems:
1. You have copied this entirely from deleted diffs from the Tree shaping article without attribution as to where you copied it from, so please go back and remedy that. I left a note on your user page with links explaining how to do that.
2. It was rather poorly written text, which is one of the many reasons it was deleted in the first place, but I think we can remedy that by editing it.
The citations do need tidying when you get a chance to follow up on that, or if that's not something you're comfortable with, someone else can do it.duff17:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the citations and standardized them, though I have not checked the citations themselves against the material they are claimed to support. Again & still, I think we need to summarize this material to great extent, as it is not biographical and in its present condition, gives undue weight to craft techniques in what should be a biographical article. duff18:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are not trying to re-write the author's book, but to write a biography about him, here. I think a brief mention of the various techniques this garden writer uses to create his art should suffice. So, before we get too far down this very pointy and POV-minefield-laden road of placing all the technical details from the author's books into the article to make a statement about whether his work is good or bad, it may help to first consider the pages that have already been written on Wikipedia about other garden writers. Here are four, chosen for no particular reason (I haven't read them yet), and there are probably other good (better?) examples: Fred Heutte; Daniel J. Hinkley; Annie Jack; John Evelyn. These should provide ample guidance on how this biography should be shaped. We could also consider articles about artists. Can someone suggest some other well-structured, hopefully GA/FA class articles on either biographical area; artists or authors? duff17:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I summarized the material in a more biographical style, keeping all of the citations where they belong. duff01:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I chose the Daniel J. Hinkley article as a starting point, as it's about a living author and seems to have the proper feel to it. I've populated the sections in brief and there is more to add, as there are a few newly discovered references to be plumbed.duff03:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This archive doesn't support your claim of being a coordinator, it supports you being a team member. I have added that to the article and the ref. ?oygul (talk) 11:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how reliable that archived page of the site is. Looking at the address (www.growingvillage.com/GrowingVillage_Arborsulpture.htm) it looks like it was a mock up page before the site when live. Going to the linked home page it states "Starting March 25th. 2005 15,000,000 people from all over the World will be visiting Aichi Japan for the 2005 World Exposition." I'm guessing the web designer never bothered with removing the mock pages from the server.
I searched the archive site with the shorten address (www.growingvillage.com) archived link to shorten address, and found no link to the page Slowart gives. This shorten link shows the site as I remember at the time of the Expo happening. Which make sense if you read John Gathright (producer of the growing village) comment at Tree shaping talk diff
I know none of Richard Reames's work was displayed at the expo, but Richard did give John Gathright the contact details of other artists in this field. So I think it is ok to have him listed as a team member. Blackashhave a chat23:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This addition "The remaining 6 trees which John Gathright had shaped where later moved to the Growing Village pavilion at the World Expo 2005 in Nagakute, Aichi, Japan" needs a citation to stay. It is a half truth, as Reames planted grafted and framed the trees to start with in 2000. Slowart (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Slowart/Reames when we were in Japan John Gathright told us that grouping of tree shaping was his. Also in your book you make no such claim. The trees you are talking about appears in John Gathright's section in your book. But I haven't checked John's media clippings, so I can't cite that group of trees are his, at this time. So I've removed that part of the statement. Blackashhave a chat04:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For this article, since it's about a person, it's a bit disconcerting that the image at the top right is of a tree, and not a human. Is there an image of Reames available for use? --Elonka14:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a photo that you took yourself, you have the right to make it available. Best would be to upload it at http://commons.wikimedia.org . For license, I recommend CC-by-SA 3.0 (though you are welcome to choose a different one if you would like). --Elonka02:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently has a redlink to the "city of Jyokoji, Japan". Is there an alternate spelling for this location? Wikipedia is pretty good about having articles about most cities of the world, but I can't find any record of that one. --Elonka01:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the closest thing I've been able to find on Wikipedia is the article about that train station. There does seem to be some info around the web about Jokoji Temple (which appears to be very pretty)[2] but nothing about a city. Indeed, the Aichi prefecture article, which contains a list of the cities in the area, doesn't have anything remotely close to that spelling. Unless a reliable source can be found about Jyokoji, it would probably be best to remove that information from the Reames article. --Elonka23:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at the article and noticed that three sources used heavily (including the source for this particular sentence) are self published sources. Are these really suitable for supporting the bulk of the article? As SPS says, 'if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so'. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elonka, yes there are many. Specifically what fact are we looking to cite ? Is it important to find citations for all the current citations needed? The ones that were just recently added, for example: "He trains living woody plants using horticultural, arboricultural, and artistic techniques,[citation needed] Are these sources of any use? Nestor, James (February 2007), ["Branching Out"], Dwell (Dwell, LLC): 96, [interview cabinet magazine] Slowart (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Slowart all the sources I have looked at say, you bend trees,not train them.The ref is for artistic technique,what artistic technique do you use.?oygul (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've had this link bookmarked for a while now, and I thought it may be suitable to be used as a ref for Richard Reames page. Could someone else have a look and see what they think? Blackashhave a chat23:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yworo, There are plenty of refs for Richard Reames coining the word arborsculpture. I haven't added them as I'm still mainly copying and pasting refs into articles. I'll have a go next time I'm here.
Arborist is a profession it has qualifications. The text and refs show that Richard Reames never finished his qualifications. I checked out RR's web site and it's full is misinformation. He could be just an enthusiastic gardener with a weird hobby that makes some beer money. ?oygul (talk) 02:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are mistaken. A "Certified Arborist" requires qualifications. Article does not claim "certification". AFAIK, requirements are not legal ones, but simply associational ones. There are plenty of professions one can pursue without a "license", certification orgs simply trademark the phrase and require their certification to use the phrase on business cards and other literature. Short of using such a trademarked phrase, we are simply talking about the dictionary definition here. Yworo (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I just checked the Arborist article: "Many arborists choose to pursue formal certification, which is available in some countries and varies somewhat by location." Formal certification is by choice, the sentence implies that those not certified are still arborists, merely uncertified ones. AFAIK, no locality requires certification in order to practice the profession, only the usual local business license and probably liability insurance. Certified Arborists simply have additional education, a marketable certification, and probably get better insurance rates. Not at all like a doctor, which requires state licensing. Yworo (talk) 02:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can remember none of the refs call RR an arborist, but I'll check and if none state he is an arborist, it needs a citation. Wiki runs on refs not original research. Without a ref RR could be just enthusiastic gardener. ?oygul (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that may be. A number of the refs are actually dead though. That certainly needs to be fixed. If none of what's left after fixing those refs states it, by all means remove the word rather than tagging it. Yworo (talk) 03:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, page 24 under subject of Pleaching Quote "The word "pleaching" is used by some as a substitute for the word arborsculpture." After reading the line again I rephrased the content again on the main page to more acutely reflect the quote. ?oygul (talk) 03:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand what you are referring to. We have a discussions about pleaching before and there is a consensus that it is not the same thing as arborsculpture. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, Wiki policy follows the sources, WP:SOURCE "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth". As such I've replaced the content with two refs. ?oygul (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"arborsculpture", which was used as a substitute for pleaching
?oygul has replaced this wording in the lead. It is entirely misleading as it suggests that 'pleaching' is the standard term used for Reames' art, for which there is no support in sources whatsoever.
I disagree there are at least two sources that I've given in the article, one of them is from Richard Reames's book. Page 24 under subject of Pleaching Quote "The word "pleaching" is used by some as a substitute for the word arborsculpture." The other is from a University. ?oygul (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the same thing as, ' "arborsculpture", which was used as a substitute for pleaching'. You edits here all seem to be in the direction of reducing Reames's standing in the horticultural community and removing or reducing the impact of the word 'arborsculpture'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop making accusations with out supporting diffs. Please give a suggest sentence change here about pleaching and arborsculpture. ?oygul (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No you didn't. It went like this:- I added the content with a ref and you reverted it. I modified the sentence and added it back with the ref and again you removed it. All with no discussion from you as to why on the talk page. Twice reverting my suggestions is not giving an alternative sentence. ?oygul (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added archive links to one external link on Richard Reames. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just added archive links to one external link on Richard Reames. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Netherzone I do have a question about undue weight of the text you added about Richard inspired etc....
Konstatin Kirsch multiple media states that he was inspired by Arthur Wiechula. He started growing domes in 1989 He was in Reames's 2nd book and ..... no comment about Richard inspiring him there.
Laura Spector a quick search of media about her states her art was inspired by a walk in nature
Aharon Naveh doesn't have much media but what he does have states he started with grafting cactus before turning to shaping trees. He is also in Reames 2nd book. It states Aharon started 1985 and ..... no comment about Richard inspiring him there.
The time line doesn't match up. Unless the book or Richard traveled back though time to inspire these artists?
I do understand that the Ref you give as a peer reviewed ref is a sound source. Unfortunately in this instance it not correct and there is far greater weight of media stating different inspirations. I think it would be best to remove this part of the text
"The authors go on to state that Reames has "inspired many architects, such as Konstantin Kirsch, Laura Spector, and Aharon Naveh."
I think the rest of the text works well. And except for a few missteps in large part you have done well with this article so far.Blackash (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not done You are wrong, it is not an error. The citation is in a scholarly journal that has rigorous standards and is strictly peer-reviewed. The full text from the citation is: "Richard Reames who was the founder of the “Arborsmith Studio” and crafter of the term “arborsculpture” and who wrote reference books on the subject (Reames et al., 1995; Reames, 2002); this shaper has inspired many architects, such as Konstantin Kirsch, Laura Spector, and Aharon Naveh." The excerpt used in this article is: (Reames) "inspired many architects, such as Konstantin Kirsch, Laura Spector, and Aharon Naveh." There is nothing WP:UNDUE with that usage; there is no bias occurring. Further, there is no merit to the argument that "the time line doesn't match up" - artists have the ability to inspire other artists at anytime during their career or lifetime. For example the young Jean-Michel Basquiat and numerous other young artists inspired Andy Warhol who was decades their senior. Inspriration is not a one-way street. Netherzone (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is a strong source, the WP:UNDUE comes into play when most (97% (3% hedging for the ones I don't know about)) of the other media states differently, this then gives undue weight to your sentence. When there are more than one view in the sources all the views should be represented in a similar balance as to what the sources are. Even if it opposing views. I figured that as this page was about Richard rather than how each artist named was certifiably inspired it would be less confusing to just remove that sentence. Maybe to save from having to add in the details about how the named artists are inspired to give proper weight, we could leave the names out. After all if people want to know who was inspired they could just read the ref. How about changing the sentence to:- The authors go on to state that Reames has "inspired many architects". or something similar? Blackash (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blackash, please stop following me around and micromanaging my edits, it is making me feel unsafe. There is nothing improper with the improvements I have made to this article. Netherzone (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone I apologize that you are feeling unsafe and that was not my intent.
As to this article, as a contributor to it, it's not surprising that its on my watchlist. I'd edited this article again 4 days before you started editing here.
Out of your 67?? edits I did one edit to change an awkward sentence with some text that is not used much in all the different refs. And the other thing I've done is to start this new section about WP:UNDUE about a different sentence. Hardly micromanaging. Article talk pages are the appropriate place to discuss content edits. And as the editor who wishes to include content you do need to justify why it should be included. WP:VNOT Just because you have verifiable source doesn't mean it doesn't need discussion if an issue is raised about it, especially if it is violating a Wikipedia policy.
And yes while your edit is not improper it does give far to much weight when compared to other published viewpoints about these artists' inspirations. WP:UNDUE is highly relevant to your sentence. Maybe to save from having to add in the details about how these named artists are inspired to give proper weight, we could leave their names out. How about changing the sentence to:- The authors go on to state that Reames has "inspired many architects". or something similar? Blackash (talk) 03:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone Given that we are now to discuss content. I wish for you to address the undue weight of naming these artists listed above as being inspired by Richard Reames. There is one (good source) stating so, yet many (some also good sources) including Reames own 2nd book stating differently. I think we either just leave the names out or add the appropriate text following the refs as a guild. I don't think the 2nd option would work very well. Blackash (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The question was already answered above. It is not UNDUE, it is a quotation from the scholarly journal article, Using nature in architecture: Building a living house with mycelium and trees, published in the academic, peer-reviewed, verifiable, reliable source, Frontiers of Architectural Research. Courard is a widely cited scholar with very good H metrics and full professor of urban and environmental engineering, as well as architecture, geology, environment & construction at the Univ. of Liége. It is highly doubtful the co-authors engaged in haphazard research. The quote is placed appropriately in the subsection “Reception” within the “Publications” section towards the bottom of the article.
The quoted passage merits inclusion because it shows that the reception for Reames' books came not only from the popular press and media, but that these contribution were also received by scholars who wrote on Reames's work and cite his books. The passage contextualizes this by stating Reames' two books were “reference books” in the field of arborsculpture/tree-shaping, and that his work inspired specific other practitioners of environmental architecture/art. It is important that the names of the three people are mentioned since they are practitioners who apply the principles of arborsculpture to the architectural field. The names should not be removed as they add encyclopedic and contextual value and improve the article for our readership.
A compromise I would agree to would be to include an even more direct quotation in one sentence, rather than two sentences: “Luc Courard and Thomas Valles write in the Journal of Architectural Research that Reames “wrote reference books on the subject (Reames et al., 1995; Reames, 2002); this [tree]shaper has inspired many architects, such as Konstantin Kirsch, Laura Spector, and Aharon Naveh.”
One reference (even a good one) that is a thesis by Thomas Vallas peer reviewed by Luc Courard doesn’t out weight all the other media sources (reliable refs too) stating differently. This is WP:Undue
Even Richard’s books does not list Richard Reames as inspiring these artists.
In the last week I contacted these 3 artists. Laura Spector, Aharon naveh and Konstatin Kirsch. The last two I know personally.
Aharon Naveh doesn’t have much media in English about his inspiration
Aharon Naveh is in Richard’s 2nd book. There is no text in the whole book about Richard inspiring him.
[3] Archive dated 2011 Quote “Aharon Naveh started by shaping cactus, in time this lead him to creating intriguing forms with trees.”
[4] quote “According to the country’s Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Naveh started cultivating these tree sculptures at the kibbutz, a communal settlement in Israel, in 1985 by “tying, pushing and pressing, bending and twisting” these trees until they reach the desired shape.” They do give a link to the site they quoting.
Konstatin Kirsch Is also in Richard's book. Also no text about Richard inspiring him. Konstation has lots of media. Konstatin hasn’t replied yet to my email, but given all the flooding that happening in Europe they maybe too busy to respond at this time. He lives in Germany.
His website [5] with listed media. I found most of the published media listed here and used google translate. None of the ones I read list Richard Reames as inspiration. Uniformly they do list Arthur Wiechula and some also list permaculture/nature/trees as well when they talk about how he started/was inspired.
I did also find 3 good sources in English as well.
Gale Bonnie thesis 2011
THE POTENTIAL OF LIVING WILLOW STRUCTURES IN THE LANDSCAPE:-A manuscript thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Master of Science Degree in Landscape Architecture State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry Syracuse, New York December, 2011
Three people signed off on this
D. Dayton Reuter, Major Professor Department of Landscape Architecture
Elizabeth Folta, Assistant Professor, Department of Environmental and Forect Biology
Richard Hawks, Professor and Chair Department of Landscape Architecture
Book Title:- Wood. Rethinking Material, Chapter title:-Wald und Holz. Architektur(-theorie) zwischen romantisch-völkischer Verklärung und wissenschaftlicher (Klimaschutz-)Aufklärung / Forest and Wood: Architecture (Theory) between Romantic, Populist Idealizing and Scientific (Climate Change) Enlightenment Year 2021 Published by Jovis Verlag Gmbh Author Stephan Trüby
Arborsculpture : An Emerging Art Form and Solutions to our Environment. University of California, Davis Department of Environmental Sciences Landscape Architecture Program Senior Project June 2008 by Tracey Link archive-date = February 25, 2012
These all list Konstatin’s inspiration/role model as Arthur Wiechula
Laura Spector replied in her email with quote “My work with the vines was quite serendipitous, inspired by nature not by anything academic, previously read or studied.” but more importantly she provided some links to media articles and I found others. I listed them at this page. [6] These are reliable refs. Out of the 8 links of her media. 6 of them talk about her inspirations or why she started. Richard Reames nor anything to do with Arborsculpture/Tree shaping appear in these ref.
To follow WP:Weight Quote “Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources”
We need to add a lot more about these artists to offset the [WP:Undue] of your sentence gives. I don’t think Richard Reames bio article is the appropriate area to present all these different inspirations in true neutrality. I believe the cleanest and simplest is to just remove the names. And leave all this detail above to be added in somewhere else.
For example have:- The authors go on to state that Reames has "inspired many architects”.
I do not feel that it violates #DUEWEIGHT. I think that a scholarly article is way more significant than media articles. And since the sentence within brackets is attributed, I can not see that is either POV or of undue weight. Sorry for jumping in, but I had seen the request at 3O but didnt have the time to provide my opinion. Cinadon3607:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cinadon36 Please note that some of the other refs are also scholarly articles as well. Given that neutrality requires all views to be present in balance to the refs. A living bio wouldn't be the appropriate page to present all views in correct weight. There is Tree shaping were a new section could be created about what, who and when different artists within this field had been inspired. Blackash (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cinadon36 and ParticipantObserver thank you for your input. Cinadon, I agree with you that the names are important contextually. I am wondering what Slowart thinks about keeping the names. Blackash has stated above that because Reames himself did not say in his two books that he influenced these architects, that it is therefore untrue. However, to my way of thinking, it is very doubtful that someone would boast like that in their own books. Furthermore, RR's books on Arborsculpture are known internationally and cited by many, so it would not be unusual for his work to inspire others.
Also, to clarify something written above, the scholarly paper in the Frontiers of Architectural Research was written after Reames' books. Valles and Courard are co-authors not "author and peer reviewer". The article itself was peer-reviewed by the journal itself. That's the way academic peer-reviewed journals work - the board of peer reviewers are usually anonymous and completely unconnected to the authors, this is for neutrality and objectivity so there is no conflict of interest or subjective bias between scholars. When I've been asked to peer-review, there were times I had to recuse myself because I knew the author of the paper or they had been a colleague in the past. Netherzone (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone To be precise. Luc Courard is Corresponding author. https://scientific-publishing.webshop.elsevier.com/publication-recognition/what-corresponding-author/ Corresponding author meaning: The corresponding author is the one individual who takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process. So not a co-author or peer reviewer. So we both learnt something new today.
In Richard's 2nd book each artist section their inspirations are state and it's not Richard. To Quote Richard Reames about other artists inspirations "After I wrote my first book, I discovered about a dozen of us around the world and it seems that we all started around the same time period, right around the late 1980s or early 1990s, as if the idea were available through the ether. I found two people in Germany, two in England, and a couple in Australia, Israel, and Thailand. Now there’s a new fellow in China. Most of them had never heard of Erlandson. They just started thinking, “Wouldn’t it be neat if I could shape these trees?” Everyone came to it in a different way." [8]
In short this thesis is the only place stating Richard Reames has inspired these artists. Having read extensively books, articles, published media and watch miles of TV shows/Videos about Tree shaping/Arborsculpture for well over 20+ years. This in not a widely supported view.
I spent hours and hours searching and reading to see if there was any other support for this claim. None of which I could find. I did found an article that has these 3 artists named near each other. This article has propagated around the net. [9] Scan down to number 10 Quote “Among the many other artists working in the form are Konstantin Kirsch, Laura Spector, and Aharon Naveh.” That's it.
WP:Weight"Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views" Which is why I suggested starting a new section at Tree shaping about artist's inspirations. So they can be written in correct proportion to the refs.
Firstly, let me apologize in advance to other editors here for the length of this comment. Blackash, the terms corresponding author and co-author are used interchangably. The Co-author is frequently a more senior tenured professor who is widely published, (as is the case of Luc Courard whose citation H-metrics are very good.) In academia, often this person communicates with the journal because they are more familiar and experienced with the process of academic publishing. They usually work on the manuscript together and often fact check and insure the quality of the research is of the highest level. This is not the same as peer-review which is a later step in the process, let's call it the "quality control" phase.
The journal, Frontiers of Architectural Research describes its peer review process thusly (emphasis in italics mine):[10]
"Peer review:This journal operates a single anonymized review process. All contributions will be initially assessed by the editor for suitability for the journal. Papers deemed suitable are then typically sent to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers to assess the scientific quality of the paper. The Editor is responsible for the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of articles. The Editor's decision is final. Editors are not involved in decisions about papers which they have written themselves or have been written by family members or colleagues or which relate to products or services in which the editor has an interest. Any such submission is subject to all of the journal's usual procedures, with peer review handled independently of the relevant editor and their research groups."
Here's the the way it works: the authors write the work, the senior co-author submits the manuscript to the journal and communicates with the editor (they are the "point person"). The journal Editor reviews it to see if it's "up to snuff". The Editor forwards the manuscript to objective, uninvolved team of "expert reviewers" -- these are the peer reviewers, and they are usually anonymous (meaning the authors never know who reviewed their paper). It is a rigourous process, and not all submissions are published. Within the context of scholarly publishing, these are called peer reviewers. Sometimes there are as little as two, or sometimes it's a larger board of peer reviewers. The peer reviewers read, evaluate, fact-check, and often make comments on the manuscript. The manuscript then goes back to the Editor, who makes the final decision on whether or not to publish the manuscript as an article. Please pay close attention to the final sentence Any such submission is subject to all of the journal's usual procedures, with peer review handled independently of the relevant editor and their research groups In a nutshell, this process results in objective analysis by others who are unconnected, are not colleagues, have no conflict of interest, nor possible conflict of interest, and thus rules out "competitors" in the field.
Hope that helps. BTW, when you removed the names of the three architects, the edit introduced a typographical error. Regarding biographic articles, I am familiar with WP:BLP, having written 59 BLPs and worked on many more. Is there evidence that the inclusion of the names of the three architects could harm them in some way? Netherzone (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone Thanks for your rely about peer reviewing etc...
The issue is WP:UNDUE which impacts upon WP:NPOV of the page with WP:BLP as an added aspect. The inclusions of the names here as it was, without the weight of the multitude of other referenceable inspirations is, misrepresenting a minority (ref of one) viewpoint as though it is a majority viewpoint. Which it is not. Blackash (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blackash, where, precisely are these multitude of other "referenceable inspirations" that say the Reames did not inspire these architects, or do you mean "multitudes" of other people who said they were inspired by Reames but are not named in the article? Netherzone (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NetherzoneYour question implies a choice between he either did or didn't inspire in the refs, seems to be a classic example of a Straw man question. The point is, all the other sources state very different inspirations. And for each artist, their refs are fairly consistent as to what their individual inspirations were/are. Blackash (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify a minor point: the corresponding author is the author who correspondence is directed to. Whenever there is more than one author, every author is a co-author, including the corresponding author and irrespective of seniority. If a high school student and a senior, tenured, big-name person write and publish a paper together, both are co-authors, and they declare who the corresponding author is. "Corresponding author" is just a convenient way to indicate who questions/concerns should be directed to. The corresponding author is typically senior in status (and often they are in a better position to respond to questions about the paper), but this is not always the case. ParticipantObserver (talk) 13:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I recently found an excellent new source on Reames' work, which I found through googling "arbor sculpture" rather than "arborsculpture". The book contains an entire chapter on his work -- Ockenga, Starr (2001). Eden on Their Minds: American Gardeners with Bold Visions. New York, NY: Clarkson Potter Publishers. pp. 108–117. ISBN 0-609-60587-9. Title of the chapter: "Tree-Trunk Topiary: Richard Reames, Williams, Oregon". Ockenga is an associate professor at MIT, who has written several books on horticulture and photographed gardens extensively. Her work, research and photographs are held in a special archive of the Smithsonian Institution, the Starr Ockenga Collection,[11]. I have added some new content to the article which is sourced to the Eden on Their Minds book. Netherzone (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's an awesome book! It's on my coffee table right now. btw here is new photo available may help illustrate arbortecture. [File:Treehouse-arbortecture.jpg|thumb|An example of arbortecture by Richard Reames]
I am wondering if it is possible to get photo permissions with correct CC licensing to use the image of the Peace cherry tree found in this article [12] to replace the image currently in the article (the current is a detail, and does not show the arborsculptural modification in relation to the tree itself. The image in Cabinet Mag is excellent and would be an improvement to the article.
[File:Peace in cherry spring 2002.jpg|thumb|Arborsculpture- a flowering cherry tree with branches grafted into a peace sign.] Slowart (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there are copyright restrictions or if the image is in the collection of a museum or private collection and it would require additional release, that discussion could be helpful here. Also, are any of Ockenga's photos in the Eden on Their Minds: American Gardeners with Bold Visions book (which are in the Smithsonian Institution collection) available? Thank you in advance. Netherzone (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Slowart, I think the article looks pretty good now, and was glad that another editor added and formatted the gallery. No need to contact Ockenga for permissions, as I think there are enough photos for now. The only one that I was thinking to include was one of the arborsculptures that incorporated a utilitarian object like the shovel or the faucet, because it shows a different take on the work that reminded me of a piece by the Italian Arte Povera artist, Giuseppe Penone. See here:[13], [14], [15]
Netherzone, You have done a great job, I read it over slowly, with a feeling quiet pride. File:tools-japan.jpg I upload this file, but can't seem to find the correct link for it. Slowart (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Slowart, I actually like the faucet video better than the shovel handle. I've never added a video to an article, and will have to do some research about doing so. If it seems feasible, I'll swap it out for the shovel. In the meantime, please leave both on Commons. Netherzone (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I just saw it's a GIF and not a video, this may be simpler than I thought. But will still do some research on whether there are guidelines for using GIFS in WP:BLP articles. Netherzone (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I read the section of the Manual of Style on GIFs and I think it is pushing the envelope to include it in the article, so I'll leave the other image where it is in the gallery, and if I get around figuring out how to creating a commons category for Reames, I'll add it there and add a link to the article for the Commons cat that readers can click on. It might take me a while to get around to doing that. Netherzone (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done Blackash have a chat 09:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Not done You are wrong, it is not an error. The citation is in a scholarly journal that has rigorous standards and is strictly peer-reviewed. The full text from the citation is: 
