Talk:Árbol del Tule

Mexico Mid‑importance

	Mexico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico 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.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Plants Mid‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany 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.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Unreliable citations

5 has no links to anything to support if it's real, or made up, first off... Second off, the sixth reference is a piece of hype. "What "General Grant" is to the giant sequoias, El Arbol del Tule is to the bald cypresses." "The area has only two distinct seasons: a humid, often cloudy, hot, rainy season typical of the "summer-rain tropics" south of the Tropic of Cancer, and a warm, dry "winter" season with bright sunny days, cool nights, and frequent frosts in the mountains." It is full of creative liberties in descriptions, and non-facts. People not native to Arizona also claim we don't have four seasons. But, we in fact have four seasons. They just aren't used to it. Everywhere on Earth has four seasons, because seasons are caused by the planet's orbit around the sun. So, the #6 citation is to something written by an unreliable idiot better suited to writing poetry, fiction, or advertisements. It is not a credible source. So, how credible is the unproven fifth one? Or, any of the others? Ridiculous. It's clear that the locals benefit by the tree being said to be all one tree, especially with the "miraculous" giant tree right next to a church. So, citations of a claim it has been proven all one tree, I think, should have proof they are not as made up as the claim itself might be. If it's true, there should be articles, or other potentially reliable sources to link to. (You can actually tell in one of the photos that it is multiple trees merged into one. They do not have consistent bark. & It's easy to see other photos where it's obviously multiple trees that merged.) --174.19.244.195 (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article written by a paranoid? ==

The whole tone of the article is like people lie, Mexicans maybe, so it is better to believe a Mexican legend who no one has heard before. Everything in the article makes it unpleasant to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.30.65 (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there new information on the health of the tree?

The section "Slowly Dying" is based on citation 9 from 1990. It is over 30 years later and the tree continues to grow. Has the impending death of the tree been slowed or reversed? CastellamareAsh (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]