This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Forestry Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Forestry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the profession and science of forestry 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.ForestryWikipedia:WikiProject ForestryTemplate:WikiProject ForestryForestry articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I changed Certified Line Clearance Tree Trimmers are the only persons allowed to work within ten feet of an energized conductor. As they are not the only persons to work near power. In my region of Australia an arborist can complete a one day course to work near power, it's called an M31 electrical Awareness ticket and provides us with a variety of distances to work from power depending on voltage that is a lot closer than the standard specified for others. --Eric Frei (talk) 04:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this Closely related careers include landscapers, tree farmers, and nurserymen. Those professions are closely related because each one utilizes much of the same technology, education and training. It reads perfectly fine without it and will help reduce the conflict where those people debate that they are arborists. I would like to see all of the 3 professions mentioned there know in detail the concepts of CODIT, forces of rigging, aerial rescue etc. An arborist may share common knowledge of horticulture but applies it in a specialist fashion to trees. There's a vast difference between pruning a shrub, a rose and a 100' tree. --Eric Frei (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed

A Certified Arborist (or 'CA') is a professional who has over three years experience and has passed a rigorous written test (International Society of Arboriculture-isa-arbor.org). Certified Arborist Technicians, (or 'CAT') is the designation given after a less rigorous exam, written or verbal, and a short climbing test. Other designations include Municipal Specialist, Utility Specialist, and the most difficult credential to achieve; the Board Certified Master Arborist (BCMA).

to

Arborists gain certification and qualifications in a variety of way depending on location such as country.

In Australia education and training is stream lined country wide and referred to as AQF. Whether the training be taken from private or public colleges the concept is that it is uniform and to a standard. There are varying levels of qualification but it is generally assumed and warranted that one cannot refer to themselves as an arborist until they are at a minimum Level 3 which covers all the skill requirements both practical and theoretical pertaining to tree work and general tree management. Some of the subjects studied and competencies achieved at Level 3 would be, Fell Small trees, Operate and maintain chainsaws, Operate machinery and equipment, Provide information on plants and their culture, Co-ordinate worksite activities, Carry out workplace OHS procedures, Maintain and monitor environmental work practices, Undertake standard climbing technique, Fell large trees, Implement a tree maintenance program, Implement a tree pruning program, Remove trees in confined spaces, Perform specialist ammenity pruning, Undertake complex tree climbing, Implement a tree protection program, Sample soils and analysis results, Undertake aerial rescue.

Level 5 is called a Diploma and Level 6 is an Advanced Diploma. Many times councils can enforce reports be written by minimum standard Level 5 qualified arborists or work be done by minimum level 3 arborists. Subjects studied become more concise and precise like, Develop and manage a chemical use strategy, Provide specialist advice to clients, Prepare estimates, quotes and tenders Prepare reports, Develope a strategy for the management of large pests, Manage plant health Monitor and manage soils, Negotiate and monitor contracts / commercial agreements, Plan, implement and review a quality assurance program, Assess trees, Manage staff, Establish and maintain the enterprise OHS program.

In USA a Certified Arborist (or 'CA') is a professional who has over three years experience and has passed a rigorous written test (International Society of Arboriculture-isa-arbor.org). Certified Arborist Technicians, (or 'CAT') is the designation given after a less rigorous exam, written or verbal, and a short climbing test. Other designations include Municipal Specialist, Utility Specialist, and the most difficult credential to achieve; the Board Certified Master Arborist (BCMA).

As I felt the article pro USA and not definitive in global differences of training and terminology.--Eric Frei (talk) 05:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also gave qualifications it's own heading, next I will work on breaking down the types of arborists and tree surgeons, there is distinct differences people need to know.--Eric Frei (talk) 05:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this whole sentence and also added a small note to let people know not all arborists climb. I see no need for this, all jobs are best left to professionals and there are many strict laws pertaining to working at heights and imposing as a tradesperson when you are not qualified or licenced as one.

Pruning of large trees is best left to professionals who carry Workman's Compensation and Liability Insurance, and who are familiar with the risks involved in this work (International Society of Arboriculture, Tree Care Industry Association, various Contractors Licensing Boards).Advantages of using a certified arborist over a non-certified tree worker, or 'tree trimmer', is that "Arborists have 'know why' as well as 'know how'..."(John O'Shea, Consulting Arborist-[1]). Thus, an arborist can recommend cultural practices as well as implement them. (Certified Arborist Exam Study Guide-Introduction- Second Edition, 1995- ISA Publication).--Eric Frei (talk) 05:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) Okay, I did another overhaul, cutting out some old, putting in some old, and putting in some new. --Trees4est 19:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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) One of the main reasons I placed another photo up was because the original photographs showed someone working without the proper protective apparel that a professional arborist should use, i.e. hard hat, hearing protection, and eye protection. I know the photo isn't the greatest, I'm sure I can find a better one or someone else will contribute one. As far as European perspective, I don't know what to say, I'm from the US. I did remove some terms that were not really relevant (I feel) to the entry.--Trees4est 17:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

For the record tree workers in Australia have strong OHS commitment to wear correct PPE and have done so for a very long time. The image of the Aussie up the tree is the type of stuff that professionals are trying to stamp out. On the Forum we have tons of pics and are in the progress of getting pictures that not only showcase PPE but the skill and risk the profession carries. There was talk of not letting gardeners/landscapers etc work at heights and get a professional so if the pictures can not only showcase the profession but show the dangers it may slow a few of the land lubbers and home owners down. Regarding having pictures of 10' trees and auditorium training sessions ... what's the point? This is a dangerous profession highly unregulated in most places, there's no point in dumbing it down to a gardeners level but rather increase the profile of the job. Also, what job doesn't entail some auditorium training visit, it's a common theme to everything isn't it? I see it as an opportunity squandered on the true brilliance of the people who do this job. we have pictures of large tree transplants, crane work, tower work, trimming, climbing etc ... that is what needs to be showcased here. I'm sure there's a wiki section for nurserymen and landscapers somewhere but this section is trees. Most gardeners/landscapers here have insurance cut off when the trees exceed 5m in ht, it draws the line between tree work and general gardening. --Eric Frei (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two pictures of Graham McMahon cutting eucalyptus added July 2008 (very top and bottom) have PPE breaches, Graham is not wearing eye protection. I'd suggest removal of the pictures. Eric Frei (talk) 08:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Would regional chapters of the ISA be too fragmented? Also, does Australia have some organization? Canada?ThreeWikiteers (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

I just donated two image files showing two aspects of arborist work: seminar education and work on small trees. This was to balance the image content to avoid the stereotype that arborists work only with big trees. Also, the article does mention office work, etc.. Does anyone have an image of yourself or another arborist working with soil samples, tree injections or a microscope to portray a bit of the "lab" aspectMdvaden 23:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a picture of myself digging a large b&b (couple of tons), I haven't figured out how to get the image from my computer onto the site. I agree that the article should help to provide an understanding of the wider array of activities that arborists do, as well as providing context. ~~ Michael J Swassing 05:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the Wikipedia Main Page. Pick the FILE UPLOAD WIZARD from the left menu. My images are my work, so next I pick the top line "its entirely my own work". Next, look for the BROWSE your computer box. Enter a file name. An IMPORTANT part is the LICENSING part. I pick the "release to public domain". I prefer that page to upload rather than Wiki Commons.

After I fill the description and enter to let it upload and do its thing, I just copy past the address of the image afterward, from the browser address bar. I edit in a second browser window too. I kind-of cheated - when I added the images, I just copied a whole line of code from an existing image, pasted it again, and swapped the last part of the file name and changed the caption. (The images are all at the top of the page code, one under another. Images can also be inserted elsewhere. I have not mastered the image thing myself, yet.Mdvaden 16:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm aware that as a Certified Arborist myself I need to be careful not write on the basis of original research. However having some familiarity with the topic does help. So please, do consult the references before you make the changes that you seem to think are in order. As to the fields so closely related to arborist as to have significant overlap, the utility linemen are so commonly involved with tree work and tree care professionals are so commonly involved with workplace safety near electrical utility lines, including storm damage of both trees and utility lines, and in addition requiring technical knowledge for installing lightning protection systems in trees that the International Society of Arboriculture has a trade specific certification category: the Certified Arborist / Utility Specialist. http://www.isa-arbor.com/certification/certification.aspx I don't mean to be snippy here, I certainly do welcome help in expanding the content and improving the form of this article. But your suggestion for removing that item would not be helpful. If that item causes significant confusion, then we should expand upon it in the content of the article to provide explanation. So that the article can be more informative for a person learning about arborists. ~~ Michael J Swassing 05:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes - Certified Arborist / Certified Landscape Technician in Oregon.Mdvaden 15:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Certified Utility Arborist may have been the intent of the utility "electrician".Mdvaden 16:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)Oh, and I totally missed that "notable arborists" part. Personally, I'm not sure I see how relevant that is, but especially calling a seed-spreader and a silviculturalist "arborists" seems to immediately repudiate the entire article, defining who an arborist is.--Trees4est 00:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think that links should only be to sites exclusively dedicated to either dissemination of information, professional organizations, discussion forums, etc., not any tree-related company's website, even if it does have some information. See WP:SOAP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trees4est (talk • contribs) 23:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The typical guidelines are close to that anyway.

It really depends upon the "encyclopedic" nature of the website. There are arborist forums with very little information: fortunately, those are not on the external link list right now. If a tree company site comes to the attention of users here, and it has a wealth of "encyclopedic" content, it's URL could easily be posted in the discussion area for a concensus and evaluation. Even the forums should be discussed, as some have okay content, but are poorly moderated for language.Mdvaden 22:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a link to a business again, I hope that people who want to put those links in would look here to discuss it, but I think they're just wanting free advertising.

Shouldn't the vast majority of this page be moved to Arboriculture? An arborist is a person, talk about certification, ethics, I don't know. But legal issues? *rolls eyes -b 02:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most "Certified Arborists" are aware of legal issues, as well as consulting arborists who testify in court, or provide documents for legal matters. Even Certified Arborists deal with tree ordinances, etc. The legal issue section would even be worth expanding in detail - although, a detailed list of those might be more practical in the arboriculture section.

It may be impractical to put "arborist" into "arboriculture", because the practice should be performed by landscapers as well, but they are not arborists. So there can be a professional chasm between the words arborist and arboriculture.Mdvaden 22:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Perhaps instead of concentrating on expanding and improving this article, we should work on both articles in tandem? For the arboriculture article is extremely lacking. -b 04:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let the nineteen year old roll his eyes, but if he starts messing with the page quickly revert it. This is one of the most irritating things about wikipedia, the vast number of eagle scouts with an opinion.~~ Michael J Swassing 22:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may be 20 Michael, but I'm a technical climber who's been in the feild for two years. And while I will not claim to know more than you about trees and the field of arboriculture, I do know quite a bit. I'm sorry that you believe someone like myself is irritating. I suppose bringing up a constructive comment on an article's talk page is wrong...despite, you know, the fact this is the very reason we have these discussion pages. If you look at my edit history, you'd realize that I'm not one to make unilateral changes to mature articles, and I have only made constructive contributions to Wikipedia. On the other hand, you are the type of person I find very irritating. The type of person who jumps to conclusions, is very accusitory and is not very open minded. Cheers. -b 04:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, let me alter my attitude a bit. Previously, I was working on this article and the information that I added about arborists who work in overlapping fields was brought into question: utility arborist? nurserymen? orchardists? silviculturists? expert witnesses? These are not arborists.

Well, there really are no pure arborists, because trees without conflicts with human interests do not need arborists. The trees do just fine without us. It is only when you want to have both trees and power lines that you need an arborist, or when you want to have trees and also prevent storm damage to homes, or when neighbors can not get along about their trees. Or when you want traffic safety on a wooded parkway. Or you want your trees to conform to the aesthetic ideals of Feng shui, or the golden ratio, or traditional bonsai forms. Or when you only have one mature tree left and are unwilling to accept the role that beetles, fungi, old age, and mortality play among individual trees in what was once a wooded landscape, with trees young and old, mostly healthy, but some falling over and rotting. Those are the times you need an arborist.

Trees without people are happy, happy trees. But people with trees need an arborist, for a variety of reasons.

So any arborist is going to have multiple knowledge sets, and different arborists will take different areas of interest. An arborist who only knows trees, but nothing about beetles, or fungi, or woodpeckers, or the utility grid, or construction sites; or the legal framework for environmental laws, contracts, nuisances, liabilities, and torts; or soil science, Orographic precipitation, and climate zones; or something else to give context to the tree knowledge, would have little or no practical application.

When reading what others have written, do not first assume that if it conflicts with your assumptions then it must be in error. Some would find this to be irritating. But not me, as I am presently working on my attitude, as discussed.Michael J Swassing 03:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

_{Saying Well, there really are no pure arborists, because trees without conflicts with human interests do not need arborists.} doesn't make any sense. Whether or not trees need arborists does not have anything to do with whether or not there are arborists. Whether or not trees feel "happy" or don't feel at all is not really the point, either. It seems as though you are creating your own personal definition of an arborist here Michael J Swassing.I think it is more useful in the context of an encyclopedic entry to stick closer to the conventional definition. From the ASCA: Arborist: A person possessing the technical competence through experience and related training to provide for or supervise the management of trees or other woody plants in a landscape setting. or the Maine State Government:1. Arborist. "Arborist" means a person who, for compensation, takes down or fells, diagnoses or evaluates the condition of shade or ornamental trees; solicits, recommends or supervises the treatment of those trees; or in any manner or for any purpose treats or cares for those trees.The ISA says, among other things, Arborists are trained professionals that are knowledgeable and equipped to provide proper tree care.This entry will obviously be a bit more thorough, but as it is it's too sprawling and tangential. As far as the initial comment about moving this to arboriculture, I think not, personally. This certainly deserves an entry. I'll reiterate and agree that "Legal Issues" as a subheading is a stretch. --Trees4est 01:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the nature of most or all of the inadequacies and inconsistencies within the work being done here stems from the widely plagiarized nature of the content creating an unmet need for extensive modification before it may be fit for use in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.198.246 (talk) 07:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I hate to butt in and interrupt you here, as I think you are doing a pretty good job and cleaning up a bit of cruft that has arrived in the article as attempted spam or SEO. I haven't had time to look at this, and it clearly needed to be done. Let's also look for more links, especially to .edu and .org sites, trying to limit the .com sites to information providers (newspapers, etc.) or useful resources for arborists or those who want to learn about them or the trade. Carry on. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please give a little more time for discussion before heavily editing the page. I think most of the deleted links are a good call, but the European Arboricultural Council is a good link. The link should just be updated. Some of Aboristy3's changes are fine, but I'm not sure that it's all that clarifying, to be honest. I'd like to try at some point to make some more serious changes to the whole page, but I'll make sure and post here first.--Trees4est (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I removed "arboring" - it's showing up on many pages from one IP address, and while it's a nice idea, I don't think Wikipedia is supposed to kick-start the latest invented sport. A quick google search for "arboring" nets 1100 hits, mostly with a different use of the word, from what I could tell. If it catches on, maybe it could merit a page, let alone links from every tree-related page, but for now I think that it should be kept out (I may move for deletion of the arboring page, actually). Not to be a jerk, or anything, it's just we've got to keep standards here, that's the whole point.--Trees4est (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why removed "Arboring"?

Arboring isn't a sport ! Arboring is the practice of ascending trees for prune them... and is mainly practiced by professionals arborists. " Standards " are not aware of the word: Arboring ? Yet it would be so interesting to see this word in the vocabulary of arborists ... -- TimTreeSurgeon (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it would be interesting doesn't mean it should be on the page. Really.--Trees4est (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trees4est, what is your problem with the word "ARBORING" ?

I really don't have a problem with it, per se, but I don't know that it is actually a word. What is the origin of this term? I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything, but if I invent a term that I think is cool, let's say "arble", which I say means able to climb trees, it doesn't mean I should start putting it into pages. If you can show some origin and use, maybe, to illustrate that it is a commonly used term that should be included, please do. I mentioned doing a search for the term, and nothing much comes up. You can get more direct hits on a word like "dodecahedron", which is a real word, if not commonly used.--Trees4est (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good move to remove "arboring". It's not a word, and the article is designed for clarification. This could change someday, but it may take years. For now, it's not in the dictionary, and use among arborists is uncommon. The well known words "climbing" and "pruning" are much more effective. And those words can be cross-referenced within Wikipedia too.ThreeWikiteers (talk) 07:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so Eric Frei recently did a number of edits on the page. I think that perhaps before you perform any further edits you should make sure that anything written be in the tone and style of an encyclopedia (not that the stuff was too off in that department, just a bit). I will say the page doesn't really need a large section of Australian regulation and licensing information, nor does it need regulations for workers here. If there is a good link pointing to regs, it seems that would suffice. If you feel the tone is too US-centric, please feel free to address it here and maybe propose changes before editing (for short edits), or at least don't be surprised if your edits get reverted or edited. Certainly it's a valid concern for many pages being written from one perspective or one country's perspective, and it should not. That's the good thing about many people editing. But it's important to keep these pages pared down and concise, neutral, and accessible to the general public. Every detailed element of being an arborist doesn't necessarily need to be addressed. If I have any time in the near future, I may work on this page as well, if so I will either talk about it here first or check here for feedback afterwards.--Trees4est (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good suggestion. Eric Frei operates at least a couple of websites, one of which was a commercial tree care site that got stuffed into the External Links section once, and needed to be removed, as it was not encyclopedic in nature. His other website is the TreeWorld forum that some editors have left in External Links for now.

Your idea that a lot of Australian regulation stuff is not needed makes sense, since Frei can load that kind of stuff in his Australian based forum. So it's accessible anyway. But this is an arborist article, not a tree service business article. Likewise, no need for us to put too much regulatory stuff in the article from other countries either, but that has not been much of an issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThreeWikiteers (talk • contribs) 05:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it needs to be addressed as it varies so much unlike other professions.--Eric Frei (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow the format is off. The lead does not show up at the top, but down-screen about a page. I'm not sure how to fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.187.135.179 (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Since it would be ideal to keep the Arborist page relatively clean of organizations, other than brief descriptions, maybe Eric Frei, if from Australia, could help to make a new article page on the Australian AQF, so there that in the same way we can link to the ISA article, we could link to an AQF article.

Eric Frei might be the person know-how to make that kind of article accurate. Thanks in advance if you can help!! ThreeWikiteers (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having allowed almost a month for feedback from others and seeing none, I deleted chunks of excess text in the Qualifications section. Not just for Australia, but for the USA.

The citation and external links in the article, already provide the neccessary avenue for people to read about USA aborists, or Australian arborists, and the various types of training. This is not an article on training and certification - it's an article on what an arborist is (generically speaking). Any training details can be expanded upon in separate articles about the ISA, etc., etc..ThreeWikiteers (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fyi, Australian Qualifications Framework already exists, so I wikified the AQF link. Duff (talk) 05:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have commenced a page here. I think a link to it would be wise. http://www.treeworld.info/f6/arboriculture-arborist-training-australia-where-get-5094.html

Perhaps a link to it some how, I will be developing that page regularly. Not so much as a page about a specific trainer or organisation but about how it works, how to use it etc. Once people get proficient in understanding how it all works then they'll be better equipped to make suitable personal training and development plans. Eric Frei (talk) 10:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was posted in July, 2008 - This arborist page's External Links is getting too many arborist forums. It's becoming a "Directory", rather than a resource specific to the defined topic of "arborist".

They really are not encyclopedic at all.

Websites linked to, should have an abundance of "static" content like indexed articles as the main feature. Or, single pages tailored specifically to the topic at hand. But these forums are commercial websites, with advertising banners decorating the surface in most cases. Also, the content is too dynamic, rather than static.

If someone links from this "Arborist" article, they will not at all land on pages that specifically explain the definition and explanation of "arborist". Upon reviewing them in light of Wikipedia's guidelines, none of them meet the guidelines. Ideally, the URLs should be going straight to sub-forums or articles in the site geared toward "arborist", not just broad tree care and climbing.

Now is your chance to offer specific URLs of pages that may have detailed articles defining what an arborist is. And nothing redundant, that can't be easily written right here. Mdvaden (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No feedback contrary to culling some links since July.

So I'm going to temporarily remove all the forum links and save them here for a day, two or week.

• Arbtalk - Discussion forum and source of information for arborists and tree climbers.
• Treebuzz.com - Discussion forum and source of information for arborists and tree climbers.
• The Treehouse - Discussion forum and source of information for arborists and tree climbers.
• Arboristsite.com - Online forum of arborist and related professions.
• Tree World - International Arborist Forum
• UK Tree Care mailing list - UK centred online discussion forum for arborists.

A Wikipedia article should not aborb every forum link every time a new forum hits the internet. The are multiples per continent, and editors should be selecting one link for one type of purpose. Actually, most of these links are international in scope anyway.

Having seen the number of edits people do without any use of the discussion box, this seemed like the best alternative to really know if people want to weigh-in: actually remove the links from sight. None of these links contribute to the actual content of the article, so the temporary absence for a few days or weeks is entirely consequential.

List criteria for voting or deciding on which 1, 2 or 3 to retain. Thanks. Mdvaden (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I just added a comment on this spelling issue. From my study of the word, arborist came first followed by arboriculture. Arboriculturalist is commonly spelt that way in the UK and i would suggest that this is an error perpetuated by its use amongst the industry there. There are many references online to UK sites using the word. Arboriculturist, like horticulturist, is someone who practices arboriculture not arboricultural

It's always best to form a neologism or new word from the simplest base word. Having said that, i prefer to use the word arborist.

With regard to William Douglas Cook. I would see him to have been more of a plantsman, tree collector or dendrologist than an arboriculturist/arborist.

Oldtreeman (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

"Tree surgeon" and "tree surgery" are archaic, misrepresentative, non-synonomic terms that professional arborists do not use to identify their profession or their scope of work. It's not surgery. Just like a homemaker is not a domestic engineer, no matter how bad he wants an engineer's income....it's puffery, used only by puffers to inflate the importance of an otherwise legitimate, but non-surgical profession. Surgery applies to the animal kingdom, not the plant kingdom. From the wikipedia page on Surgery: "Persons described as surgeons are commonly medical practitioners, but the term is also applied to physicians, podiatric physicians, dentists (or known as oral and maxillofacial surgeon) and veterinarians." Arborists are not licensed to practice any sort of medicine (unless they also happen to practice medicine; albeit an improbable combination of vocations.) It's not a cultural difference....there are puffers on every continent. Show me a tree surgeon and I'll show you a hacker...er quacker..ah...snake oil purveyor...oh nevermind.

I'm not in favor of continuing its use here, and I'm editing it out, as diplomatically as I can muster. It's enough that the term redirects here for those few hold-outs who insist on advertizing themselves as such. If someone wants to fizzle up the obligatory 'archaic terminology' sentence with more courtesy than I'm likely to convey, I will not protest a non-prominent positioning for it. :P Duff (talk) 07:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one of my instructors from college has "tree surgeon" on the side of his truck, so arbs do use the term. The vast majority of people would certainly have heard of and know what a tree surgeon does, while if you said arborist they would probably not know what you're talking about or think of someone growing trees in a nursery. That said, I prefer the term arborist but I'm in favour of keeping the redirect. If it gets customers through the door, why change it? Most homeowners, and owners of houses with large gardens, are likely to be of the older generation, the one that knows what a "tree surgeon" does, so maybe we should keep the term in the lead only and explain the difference. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting we lose the redirect; I agree, that should stay. A brief sentence on the archaic term, coming right up. Duff (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duff, I think that it is still considered a term for legitimate arborists in certain parts of the world, and you might be looking at this from a US-centric point of view. If you think about it, it wouldn't be that bad a term, but I know around here, I only see it associated with hacks. I noticed you've been doing a great deal of editing lately. I suggest you check out some of the edits from years past, there have been many poor edits that have, at times, degraded the quality of this article. Personally, I think it needs an entire reformat. For example, the second section, "Scope of Work"; why does it start with "to work near power lines"? Really, why is the second section titled "Scope of Work" in the first place? "Legal Issues" as an entire section? The organization of this article is rather senseless. Also, why is there a huge list of reference material? This is supposed to be an encyclopedic article. It should be clear, direct, and narrow in scope. If necessary, sections could be expanded in their own article. It does not need every thing anyone can think of related to arborists thrown into it. "Arborists in Literature" is ridiculous. If it was a common occurrence that became a cultural phenomenon, maybe. But it's not.

In any case, I'm venting a little on the poor quality. I'll just advise that people please use good judgment when editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trees4est (talk • contribs) 12:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had indeed gone through and read every change, from beginning to end, including each and every one of your edits. Hopefully you didn't find any prominent places where my judgment fell short with my recent edits, but if so, set 'em right. I don't mind Scope of Work as a section, since it is the encyclopedic description of a profession...same with Legal Issues, since there are some, but I don't mind a rethink. The reference canon is a good one, looks like a little bit of my bookshelf, made me feel all warm and at home, so I didn't touch it. I'm not sure if it belongs better in the reference section, with full use of ref to indicate from where various parts of the article are sourced. I agree that a reorganization is in order, generally, which is why I have undertaken that, endeavoring to keep ideas of value and make it more concise. Let's get the quality up. Duff (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]