Talk:Ailanthus altissima/Archive 1

Archive 1

title

Shouldn't "heaven" be capitalized in the title, since it's capitalized throughout the article (or is it the article that's wrong?) 172.164.253.241 02:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The article title should actually be moved to its scientific name per the flora naming convention. As a matter of style, however, both capitalized and uncapitalized species common names are accepted, since no consensus has been reached in Wikipedia policy or manual of style. Personally, I lean toward uncapitalized, except for proper nouns, of course. This is also the suggestion of the Chicago Manual of Style. But you're right, normally it should be consistent, and per Wiki policy, either is considered correct. We've had extensive discussion at WikiProject Plants on this issue, if you want to check it out. --Rkitko 09:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

GA review

Hi, I'm trawling through this and will leave points to fix as I go: cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 20:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

An exceptional member of the genus.. in lead -"exceptional" carries positive connotation, "unusual" would be better word here.

Y Done

..all the other - remove the "the".

Y Done

..has been found to reach heights of 15 metres (50 feet) in just 25 years - to "can reach heights of 15 metres (50 feet) in 25 years" - numbers are ok speaking for themselves, the "just" looks a bit too informal and doesn't add anything.

Y Reworded

..rarely reach beyond 50 years in age. - clunky, try "rarely live more than 50 years"

Y Done

bold all alternate names in lead

Y Done

It was initially received positively.. - sounds funny. "Initially much valued (?)"

Y Reworked sentence

Lead needs to be comprehensive and list other countries (including Australia (yuk, I hate this tree!!!)) where it is invasive. This should be easy to find on google. It should also highlight its propensity to colonise disturbed areas and its diffulty in eradication and mention its uses in chinese medicine.

Y Done

I think it might be better if someone who didn't hate the tree was writing the article about it. Wiki skylace 00:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

wikilink "lenticels", "pinnately compound" (or parts thereof) "ovate-lanceolate"

Y Done

The first attempts at naming the tree-of-heaven.. - how about "The first scientific description..."

Y Done

I took the liberty of fixing about a dozen simple spelling errors as this is otherwise a great article and on hte way to FA, but the judging will be alot tougher there. Anything on what feeds on it in its natural habitat in china would be interesting.

Its mentioned in 'ecology', but I haven't found much on it

cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

edits Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 01:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Tree of heaven vs Tree-of-heaven

I always knew the name of this godforsaken weed as hyphenated, however I can see this making for some funny syntax. I guess we should stick to one for the whole article. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of neutrality and avoiding bias I'm calling attention to the fact that someone who calls this tree a "godforsaken weed" has contributed substantially to the article about it. I wonder if such biased writing has a place in wikipedia? Wiki skylace 01:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

PS: Looking really good and ready for a crack at FA sometime soon I'd have thought. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

PPS: The only thing I can see which may be worth working on is embellishing the descriptions of the 5 cultivars with any information so they don't look so listy. as there are only five this is is a nice number to embellish.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for having another look through. I think I will go ahead and start writing it in as "tree of heaven" without hyphens. I have seen it written both ways, and both seem to have their advantages. It's such a daft name - totally wrong and hard to use in a sentence. Concerning the cultivars, the problem was that there is very little information on them since no one seems to use them outside of China. I'll look for some more sources and give it a try though. Thanks again. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 15:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Concur with dj regarding information. Dirr cites about as much info about the cultivar (although he mentions 2 more that are "described in Dendroflora." Maybe turn the list into a paragraph? Circeus 18:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Dunno, I'd think it 'd look funny as a paragraph with the info as is if there isn't any more. Tree of heaven is an odd name but I like it better than using ailanthus - never know when to italicize it or not. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that information of that sort is better kept in a list, but if possible it would be better to find a little more info. Anyone have botany friends in China? Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 21:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Order of 2nd paragraph in intro

Circeus - I can't quite figure out what you had in mind by switching that paragraph around. I feel that before it led into the topic by starting generally and becoming more specific. Now it begins with specific information and ends with general information. I think we should switch it back. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 21:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking at it again I think it would work with a segue- I'll give something a try. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 21:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought that when the information (which is separated between 3 sections in the body of the article) was brought together, it would be more logical to present it in a chronological fashion, describing the original interest and introductions first, than the change in vision as the weediness and invasiveness became clear. Circeus 22:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. When I looked at it first it looked a bit awkward (probably just because I was used to the previous), but looking at it again and after rewording a bit it looks fine. I apologise for jumping to conclusions ^_^ Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 22:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Weediness

I would like a section titled and addressing the weediness. It is strongly sourced in the article, but this part plays prominently in the introduction, and should be treated as such in the article, with a specific section developing problems of invasiveness. KP Botany 02:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with you on the one hand, about 50% of the "Ecology" section is devoted to discussing its weediness as is the "As an exotic species" subsection in "Distribution and Habitat", and as such creating a new section would make the "Ecology" and "Distribution" sections seem rather weak. I personally feel that it is logical to go to the ecology section to read about the plant's weediness and to the distribution section to see where it has been spread. Since weediness fits in so nicely into these two sectons, I don't see the need for a separate section. I feel that weediness is discussed there at appropriate length. In an older version we had upwards of 5 paragraphs on control, but felt it was too didactic to be encyclopedic. You can have a look at that revision and see if anything taken out would be better back in. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 13:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. In Verbascum thapsus, it is treated under both "ecology" and "agricultural impact and control", but that's because the plant has effects beyond its invasiveness. Circeus 16:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The weediness is given heavy prominence in the introductory section, it's about 1/4 of the section. It is a major weed problem in North America, and is extensively studied for that reason, and you have 5 sources in the references lists just on weediness. If you had not emphasized the weediness in the introduction, it would be fine, but as it is, a separate section shoulda ddress it. There's no 5 paragraphs requirements for a section, by the way. It can be a single, well-developed paragraph, in a subsection of the ecology section.

Also, why Munz? Why not Jepson? And does Munz discuss it in all of North America or just California? Does Jepson not discuss the locations? KP Botany 19:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Jepson doesn't mention anything more than Munz really, and other than the fact that it's a newer source I don't see any reason to prefer it. They both discuss it in California and its not really an issue as we have many other sources that discuss its invasiveness elsewhere. I'd like to make you happy about the weediness issue, but I don't really know how to go about it. Any suggestions for a subsection title? Do you think that we should remove mention of it elsewhere and concentrate it in that one section or simply reiterate weediness issues in that section? Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 20:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think just a paragraph in the ecology section is appropriate. Develop from the initial elation at its introduction, to problems with its spreading, when it was brought to various areas, and who classifies it as a weed and whatt type of weed. Yes, I think concentrating it in one section would work best, except for any mentions that are particularly needed elsewhere.

As Jepson supersedes Munz as California's flora it should be used over Munz, whenever the two have the same information. Munz should only be used if and when it Munz has information in particular that is not contained in Jepson. The Jepson Manual is available on-line, also, or I could look it up in mine. KP Botany 20:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the Jepson ref in addition to Munz. The more the merrier right. And since Munz was examined as a hard copy rather than online, if we forgot anything it's still taken care of. I have to go to an appointment right now, but now that this little skirmish with skylace has come to an end I should be able to create a nice weed paragraph, hopefully complete with un-biased sources on the matter. Cheers. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 08:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to mention: KP Botany - could you supply the page number for the hard copy of Jepson (and pehaps the ISBN as well)? I don't have it myself so I had to leave it out. Thanks. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 10:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits by Wiki skylace

User:Wiki skylace has made several controversial edits claiming that comments on the plants weediness and invasiveness (which are facts) are matters of neutrality. Everything that he has recently tagged with {{verify credibility}} are strongly sourced within the article. I would like to hear people's opinions on this matter. I strongly disagree with these edits and can think of no reason why they should not be reverted. Here is the most recent diff: [1] Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 21:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur. I was assuming good faith until other edits of this nature. This user has a history of removing similar information on weediness and "infestation" language from other articles that is entirely academic and heavily verified with reliable sources. I cautioned the user to remember that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability and not truth. I wonder if this user is, instead of clearing out issues of POV, actually motivated by a particular POV on this issue (see diff for one particularly telling edit). Regardless, the information in the article is uncontested and comes from reliable sources, which is what Wikipedia requires. The edits should be reverted out again. --Rkitko ^(talk) 22:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Hoshovsky paper doesn't seem to have been through any kind of peer review (and furthermore it is published by an advocacy group). On the plus side, it appears to be well-researched. I'd rate it as "medium" on the reliability scale (to the extent there is such a thing). Fine to cite it but I'd also look for corroboration. It seems to disagree with other sources about the shade-tolerance of the tree. Also, when we cite it for evidence that "[tree of heaven] sometimes enters undisturbed areas as well and competes with native plants" we go beyond what Hoshovsky says which is "although it is usually found in disturbed areas, it occasionally spreads to undisturbed areas" and a few other quotations along those lines. The Heisy papers are definitely worth emphasizing when we mention that the tree does have natural herbicides. But neither of those (based on the abstracts) do anything to tie those compounds to the ecology, so they do not really establish claims such as "it has become a serious invasive species due to its ability to . . . suppress competition". Some of the statements, such as "weedy habit" are probably too vague to keep ("tendency to spread" or something might fit if it is true). I didn't see any cites to back up the claims of invasiveness in Australia, New Zealand, or Europe. The sources didn't seem to back up the notion that it is a "serious" invasive species (you may be able to find such sources, for example [2] does list it as a "featured invasive" but in the midst of a flamewar one would hope for stronger evidence than a non-peer-reviewed brochure which doesn't cite sources). Now, Wiki skylace (talk · contribs) is clearly opinionated and isn't very calm or clear about pointing out which specific statements are poorly sourced or worded in too much of a sweeping way. But the way to deal with it is to make an extra effort to soundly source the statements on invasiveness. Kingdon 23:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The Hoshovsky paper goes on to elaborate on competing with native flora in the "Impact" section. The opinion on shade tolerence is sourced in that paper from a paper by J. P. Grime from Nature written about shade tolerance in several species. The abstracts of the Heisy papers are more concerned with using the allelopathic chemicals as herbicides and thus they do not discuss the interaction with other plants in an ecosystem at lenght, though it is certainly mentioned. It's ability to supress competiton is mentioned in probably half the sources, including the Hoshovsky paper, which sources its information from a paper by F. Mergen from the Botanical Gazette. The NPS is already sourced as claiming it to be a serious weed. I feel that everything is sourced strongly enough as it is (though I will get back to you on Australia, New Zealand and Europe), and that edits of this sort ignore that fact, but nonetheless I will work on your suggestions. Thanks very much for your input. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 23:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The article on this tree reads just like every other article published about every other species that has been labeled a weed by some government agency or other. It is filled with biased language. For example the article claims that the tree grows extensively along railroads and then goes on to claim that it is only using 1.7% of the available land... Is that extensive? I don't think so. The claim that is sometimes enters undisturbed ground could be rephrased to say that it usually only grows on disturbed ground and rarely spreads to undisturbed land. The sometimes is a rare event and aught to be written that way. And of course the tree spreads "aggressively" just like the religious rhetoric around invasive species says that it aught to: And is "resprouts rapidly" just like the unsubstantiated hyperbolie would have it do. And calling a plant "weedy" is a grave violation of the wiki Neutral Point of View standard. I don't object to the government of some state or other calling a plant a noxious weed. What governments do can be documented. But I do object to labeling a species weedy in general. Wiki skylace 23:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It is acknowledged as weedy in 3 continents -the words "weedy" and "aggressive" are commonly used in horticulture - similarly "aggressive" is used in medicine when describing tumours. These commonly used NPOV uses of the words. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Continents cannot acknowledge anything. States can list something as a weed, or cities can. A list of states or countries that have banned a plant would be appropriate: That is merely a political issue or a historical issue which is easily documented and verified. Supposing my grandmother acknowledges this plant as a beautiful useful species? Does that neutralize the other north american acknowledgment? And is it appropriate to speak of continental acknowledgments in the first place when there is no continent on Earth where every government has uniformly labeled this plant as an invasive weed? Some do, some don't. And if you are striving for a worldwide point of view, then you might be better off recognizing that 4 continents have not declared this species a noxious weed. Wiki skylace 01:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Weediness quotes in general should be specifically attributed, because, in fact, weediness is about a plant in a location. However, as has been pointed out to you numerous times, Wiki skylace, the introductory sections of Wikipedia articles are not always fully sourced when the information is sourced within. As you are only taking it out of the introductorty section, and appear to agree to it being left in the main section, you are either not reading the articles, or you are ignoring MOS issues. Please cut it out, and propose deletions by placing fact tags, rather than removing information, until you can bring a discussion which raises the issue WITH the references. Thanks. KP Botany 04:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

These were some good points, though, on the WP:Plants page about taking issue with, "very, extremely, devastatingly, amazingly." But it seems that it has moved beyond carefully removing inappropriate characterizations of weediness that are unsupported by facts to something about removing anything about weediness. Weediness is a function of the ecology of some plants and their environments--it doesn't offend the plant, it has nothing to do with people's grandparents. It's an ecological property of some plants in some ecosystems.

The question is, imo, is this what Wiki skylace is trying to do, improve neutrality about weediness issues on Wikipedia by removing inappropriate and often inaccurate descriptions, or do away with weed ecology. It's beginning to seem like the latter, which makes it original research. So, let's discuss each deletion. KP Botany 04:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to thank everyone for coming here to post your opinions on the matter. While I'm happy that the issue is resolved (albeit temporarily), it's unfortunate that it had to come to banning and we couldn't simply settle the argument. On the positive side, I think a lot of useful suggestions came out of it. I will try dig up more primary resources for the refs on weed ecology instead of using those by the NPS or the Nature Conservancy. They certainly exist, they're just a bit harder to find. Anyways, thanks again for the support. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 08:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no argument. I believe that the article is not written from a neutral point of view. I will keep pointing out why until I believe that it is fair and unbiased. Wiki skylace 04:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

A neutral point of view would be nice.

I believe that this article is heavily biased, and would like to see it edited to achieve a neutral point of view. But it seems like every edit I make towards achieving neutrality is undone. So here goes....

1- I believe that the abstract for the article is biased and unfair for the following reasons: It states that "It is considered a noxious weed in Australia, the United States, New Zealand and several countries in southern and eastern Europe." and the claim is made that these unsubstantiated claims are documented later in the document, but they are not. The text later on just says that they are growing in other places, not that it is considered a noxious weed in those places... The abstract calls this plant a "serious invasive species". I don't know how plants can be serious. (easily) But in any case the statement is more rhetoric than fact.... The USDA Plants database documents that only four states in the usa have listed this species as some sort of weed, and one of those only considers it to be a class B weed. That is hardly a serious problem. 46 states have determined that this plant is not a problem. And yet the abstract reads like this plant is banned everywhere in the usa because it is a drastic problem. It is not considered a problem at all by 90% of usa legislatures. If it were up to me the second paragraph of the abstract would be moved into the body of the article somewhere, and the claims of serious invasiveness would be deleted. And is it fair to say that this plant supresses competition? The places where it most commonly grows (polluted urban zones) (grows in many rural areas too - farms etc.) have long since lost any hope of growing any native species. (untrue - many urban areas house native flora and fauna) So what if the tree of heaven produces chemicals? Ever tree produces chemicals that suppress other lifeforms: microbes, bugs, animals, plants, etc...(yes and no, some are reknowned for allelopathy) It's not worth mentioning in the articles abstract. And why should an abstract for the article say that "The tree also re-sprouts vigorously when cut, making its eradication extremely difficult and time consuming." (it is hard to eradicate) It appears that 90% of the usa does not consider eradication of this plant a desirable thing, so why mention it in the abstract? (twisting facts -most official lists are extremely conservative with waht they list until a plant is a severe problem)(This plant was naturalized into the usa hundreds of years ago. There has been plenty of time to deal with any severe problems)

2- The section on invasiveness states "It escaped cultivation in all areas where it was introduced, but most severely in the United States." It is unclear to me how a species severely escapes cultivation. That seems like an odd way to word things. It would be better simply to say that it has "naturalized" in the united states. That sort of wording is fair and neutral. Severely escaping makes it sound like the tree is bad or something. (umm...yes) And why would that section say that it is "still" planted in Germany. That makes is sound like the germans aught to know better, like they are doing something bad by associating with the plant. And why call it a "weed" in germany? If the germans are buying and selling it, then I guess that they don't consider it a weed. (many weeds are still bought and sold in areas where they have been classed as weeds) And is if fair to say that the tree grows extensively along railways and then in the next breath to say it is only found on 1.7% of railway edges? I don't think so. I would interpret such studies to mean that the tree grows sparsely along railways, or uncommonly along railways.

3- The ecology section claims that this tree spreads aggressively. But it has already been naturalized into the usa for hundreds of years now, and it only occupies 1.7% of railway edges. That hardly seems aggressive to me. And why say that it is "sometimes found competing with hardwoods"? Wouldn't it be more neutral to say that it is a successional plant paving the way for mature hardwood forests? And I wonder if it is useful to spend so much time talking about how poisonous the plant is to other plants. I could take leaf lettuce and extract the cyanide from it and use it to poison other lifeforms. (that's drawing a long bow) That is hardly a topic that requires so much attention. The article goes on to say that "The tree of heaven is a very rapidly growing tree, possibly the fastest growing tree in North America" growing 1 to 2 meters a year. An online nursery, http://www.fast-growing-trees.com/FastestTreesT2.htm, lists the following plants for sale, all of which have growth rates similar to or more than tree of heaven: Royal Empress Tree, Grows up to 12 ft. yr. Thuja Green Giant, Grows 3-5 feet yr. Hybrid Poplar, Grows up to 8 ft. yr. Tulip Poplar, Grows up to 6 ft. yr. Willow Hybrid, Grows up to 6 ft. yr. Leyland Cypress, Grows 3-4 feet yr. Lombardy Poplar, Grows up to 6 ft. yr. Eucalyptus Tree, Grows up to 3-6 ft a year. A photo caption in this section claims to show a "weedy" tree and Djlayton4 who added the word weedy claims that "it is clearly weedy in that picture". It is impossible for me to look at a photo of a plant and determine that it is a weed based merely on a photo that shows only the plant. If the photo showed it growing in a monoculture field of wheat I might call the odd plant out a weed. But there is no context in the photo that demonstrates that this plant is a weed. If the photo were taken in China, it would be called a photo of a beloved native species... The section goes on to say "Due to the tree of heaven's weedy habit..." I believe that this is a biased and non neutral statement. For every state that has declared this plant a weed, there are 9 states that have not. And I suspect that many urban landowners, are delighted to have the tree growing on that plot of land that is too polluted for anything else to grow on. The article goes on to say that "The tree can be very difficult to eradicate," which might or might not be true. Last time I cut down a tree of heaven I cut down the main tree one year, and then I cut down the suckers the next year, and it was gone, just like I would have done with any other tree.

4-And in the cultivation section it says that "In Europe, however, the tree is still used...". Again this strikes me as prejudicial and non neutral. (ummm (??)...show me the emotive word in the passage you just cited). A neutral statement would read "In Europe the tree is used..." Obviously the Europeans do not consider the tree detrimental or they would not be using it. The word "still" as used here implies that the Europeans are doing something bad after being taught a better way. (environmental cases such as these are full of examples of commercial interests carrying on despite certain plants being problematic)

I really could help with these issues.... Wiki skylace 06:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I really don't get where you're coming from - are you familiar with this plant at all? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course I am familiar with it. The ghetto palm has naturalized into the urban areas of every state except the extremely cold states like Montana, the Dakotas, Alaska, Wyoming, and Minnesota. It is as much a part of the urban landscape in the usa as cement. It has been naturalised in the usa for hundreds of years, and will never be eradicated regardless of how much effort is expended. Nevertheless, if I had never saw the plant before in my life, it would be the easiest thing in the world for me to recognize bias and a non-neutral point of view in an article written about it. Wiki skylace 07:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, everything you say is hypocritical. You say you want us not to unsubstantiated claims, yet you have presented no sources at all, unsubstantiated or otherwise. You say that the Nature Conservancy and NPS have bias when it comes to weeds, and you think citing a nursery for growth rate is any more reliable? Furthermore your treating a tree like its a living person with feelings. The tree won't be offended when we say "In Europe, however, the tree is still used...". And you should quote the rest of the sentence rather than ending with an ellipsis, for it expresses that it is still grown despite its relative weediness. I live in Germany and while it doesn't spread like in the U.S., it's still a pain due to the seedlings and suckering and they are very rarely planted anymore, hence the "In Europe, however, the tree is still used in the garden to some degree as its habit is generally not as invasive as it is in America." You obviously know nothing about what Europeans think of the plant, from books or reality, so please don't comment on it. Seeing as I live here and pull it out of my garden with regularity, I think I would know and not you. Furthermore it is called a weed in the Flora von Deutschland, which is cited and very reliable. It should be changed to "Northern Europe" actually as it is very invasive in the south and east.

Biased language is biased language regardless of sources. It would be the easiest thing in the world to delete the word "still" in the two locations that it is mentioned in the article. Deleting that word would go a long way towards bringing balance and harmony to the article. I'd do it myself, but you'd just revert the change and ban me for vandalism. If the plant is being sold in Europe and Germany then it is being sold because people there find the plant valuable. It is you that is making claims about the actions of Europeans. From those actions I am able to discern something about the thinking of Europeans. The tone of an article on wikipedia should not be set by one person who has a strong bias against the subject of the article. Articles on wikipedia should be written from a Neutral Point of View. 65.100.213.65 17:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

"Still" is not biased when talking about a plant. Read the German article on the plant. It's more "biased" than this one, despite the fact that it is still used there. The claims are not based on my opinion, but on the source I used, Flora von Deutschland. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 18:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be written from a neutral point of view regardless of the biases associated with any particular reference... The word "still" as used in this article about this plant is perjorative and is not neutral. The neutral way to state this would be to say that the plant is sold in Germany, not that it is STILL grown in germany. The use of the word still implies that the germans are doing something bad which is not the case. They just have a different opinion about the usefulness of the tree than Djlayton4 has. 65.100.213.65 19:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The USDA does not list a plant's noxious status in every state (again you contradict yourself by relying on a single and, as you would see it, potentially unbiased source). If you would look into it a bit more, Ailanthus is considered a class A weed by Virginia [3], which just one of the 46 states where it IS considered invasive and noxious but is not on the USDA list. All of your suggestions for improvement end up being factually incorrect because YOU DON'T USE SOURCES. All you do is say that ours aren't good enough. If you want to help the project, start supplying some and stop being a maverick. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 11:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Who is doing the considering in the other 46 states? A few folks here and there on a crusade to eradicate the tree of heaven plant because it grows in their yard? The tree of heaven will never be considered invasive in any state with a cold climate. I agree that the USDS plant database is not complete (it is missing data from Georgia), but it is the most complete source available for determining the status of any particular plant in any particular state. And 90% of the united states does not consider this species a problem. I would be perfectly happy listing the 4 states that have classified tree of heaven as a weed. But to say that it is invasive in the united states is like saying that Dresden is a mormon city because 3 mormon families are living there now. 65.100.213.65 17:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I just explained to you that is is considered invasive in far more than 4 states and that the USDA does not list all of these! Your demands are ridiculous and I see little point in arguing with you anymore since you are nonconstructive and don't listen to anything that anyone says. You are so hellbent on having your view pushed on everyone else despite the fact that all of the literature is against you. If you want to change something, find a reliable source and stop saying that we are being biased towards a universally recognised godforsaken weed. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 18:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

So make a list. The usa is a big place. If only 4 or 5 states have listed this plant as a weed, then it should be a simple thing to list those states. A list of states that call the plant a weed is neutral. Calling the plant a serious problem in the united states is not neutral. If it is a problem it is only minor problem in the usa, (though it might be a serious problem to one homeowner). Would you care to explain how deleting the word still from this article would make the article biased? 65.100.213.65 19:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You may be taking the guideline of NPOV beyond its original intent. From WP:NPOV: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." So far you have not provided a single source for your view. The most significant and, from the sources I've read, only view is that this plant is an invasive species that threatens local ecosystem integrity. We are not calling this plant a serious problem in the United States. Our sources do. (Rather, others say "North America", to make a small distinction.) That is neutral with respect to the reliable information published about this species. What you present above is your opinion. If you can back it up with reliable sources, we can include that information in the article. Otherwise you can't claim we're not representing a neutral point of view when there are no other published points of view. I think the article does a very good job of stating the facts of the research done on the invasiveness of the plant. Cheers, --Rkitko ^(talk) 20:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Rephrasing quotes of biased authors does not relieve the authors of a wikipedia article from writing the article from a NPOV. As far as I can tell the view of 90% of usa states is that this plant is not noxious. It is certainly not noxious in Canada with it's cold environment, nor in the northern states in the usa for the same reason. It is a minority viewpoint that would claim that this plant is invasive in North America. Perhaps it has been called a weed by the state of virginia, but virginia is not North America, and it is not the United States. Who would publish a list of non-problem pants? Wiki skylace 21:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Everyone's patience is wearing thin, and I'm getting tired of pointing out obvious things. It is considered invasive in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont (even on the USDA website), all of which share a latitude with Canada. It is, in fact, considered invasive in Canada as well [4], despite your idea that it can't handle cold winters (though it comes from northern China!). It is also on the federal invasive species list in the US, so I think it's very safe to say that it is invasive in North America. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 23:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I removed "serious" from the opener and "still" from the description about Germany. The facts speak for themselves I figure and its not worth arguing with you forever. Anything else that you would like changed that would be reasonable? Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 18:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! That improves the article a lot. Three days worth of discussion to get three words changed? Doesn't seem very productive to me. I wonder how many additional articles we could have written during that time? I'll wait a week or two for consideration of my other suggestions before making the changes myself. An article written from a NPOV is one that after reading it you can't tell where the sympathies of the author lie, whether for or against the plant. When the article reads that way, then I won't have anything else to say about it. Wiki skylace 21:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't improve the article a lot. It hopefully will silence your nit-picking a bit. What it does for the article is very little. Sources with useful information improve an article. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 23:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The bloom time as June/July- isn't this Northern-hemisphere-centric? How about early/mid summer? Novickas (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"Weedy" in image description

I think it was appropriate to remove that. While the text "purges" of Wiki Skylace were entirely inappropriate, we have absolutely no reason to label this particular tree as "weedy". Circeus 15:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Or if there is a reason, we need to say what it is. Despite having watched the edit warring on this, and having looked at that image a few times, I'm not sure what the word "weedy" was intended to convey. That's probably a sign that a more specific word is needed, if anything is to be said. Kingdon 16:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I described it as weedy because its habit is simply that. In countries where it does not spread extensively it has a handsome upright shape like most common shade trees. The photo in question depicts a tree or trees that are sprawling all over in an attempt not to get shaded out and are obviously not intended for ornamental purposes. It's not really that important to me either way, but that was my reasoning. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 20:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought that might be the intent, but "weedy" can mean so many things. If I could think of a one-word way to say the same thing ("struggling", "scrawny", etc), I might suggest it, but it always seems to be closer to a sentence so it is probably better to just let people look at the photo for themselves. Kingdon 02:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Importance?

At some point the importance of this article was changed from mid to low. I originally assigned it as medium due to its status as a pan-temperate weed that is recognisable in most countries across the globe. Anyone have an opinion on this? Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 20:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I just changed it back to mid importance. Ailanthus altissima has unique ecological properties, both as a high-profile invasive species, and for reclaiming polluted areas. It also has been extensively studied as the references show. Just look at the massive page and all its connections to other important topics. Cazort 21:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I have removed the pronunciation because it is not standard, and there is no standard pronunciation, as it's Latin. Depending on what country you are from and what variety of Latin pronunciation you choose to use (or try to use), the pronunciation will vary widely. If you disagree, please let me know. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 21:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There are standard conventions for how to Anglicize Latin words. What I added was the pronunciation given in the OED. True, people trying to speak Latin will pronounce it differently, but per the MoS, unless otherwise stated, pronunciations in English Wikipedia are assumed to be in English, or at least Anglicized, not the pronunciation of the source language. kwami (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

True, but the pronunciation given by the OED does not reflect how the name is Anglicised by all English speakers, professional botanists included. Some pronounce the 'th' like a 't', some pronounce the first syllable like the English 'eye', some pronounce it as the OED has it, etc. Given the fact that there really is no standard, despite what the OED might suggest, I think giving pronunciations for scientific names is pointless unless it is one used very often, such as Arabidopsis or Drosophila.Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 00:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You have a good point, but how do we address the high school student who has to do a report, is illiterate in the Classics and clueless how to pronounce the name, and does not have the references to find out? (Or doesn't have the time or motivation to find the references.) Even if it's not an oral report, many people have better retention when they can hear the word. That may not be the most likely thing with this particular article, but you're making a point about taxonomic nomenclature in general.

As for the alternate pronunciations, most such variation is an attempt to be more authentic to the Latin. We're always going to have a range of pronunciations. If we give the most Anglicized pronunciation and the Latin orthography, then people will be able to work out what works best for them. In this case, the /t/ pronunciation may be due to the folk etymology of anthus from antus, but it's pretty common for people to pronounce th and ai as Latinate /t/ and /aɪ/, so it didn't seem important for me to include it. (People quickly work out that there's a lot of such variation going on.) But I'd rather see all variants added in than to have nothing at all, especially in a featured article. kwami (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You've convinced me. I use the pronunciation from the OED, and it is probably the most common in use, so I see no harm in having it. I got some good feedback on the matter at the WP Plants Talk Page here. I think as long as a dictionary is giving a pronunciation, it is probably in common enough usage and thus potentially helpful to users. If a source wasn't available, I'd be more critical, but where one is available I agree that it can't hurt. Thanks for the dialogue and I apologise for taking up your time with such a small issue! Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 07:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries, and it isn't a small issue when we consider how many such articles there are! I'd much rather get your input now than after doing dozens of these. kwami (talk) 08:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathic extract extremely diluted

The supposed source that says that the extract from this tree is used in homeopathy apparently was unaware that under the extreme dilutions, none of the extract is present in the remedy. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not it is efficient is besides the point. The point is "do a reliable source say that it is used in homeopathy" (and for the record, I also think homeopathy is a scam), which is whgat we are sourcing here, the answer to which is a resounding yes. And besides, said source clearly distances itself from stating it to be any use (The scare quotes are hard to miss). Circeus (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the source cited is a private website that itself sources the supposed "fact" of the use of this plant in folk medicine through "homeopathy" (which, by the way, doesn't make sense from a purely logical standpoint since folk medicine cannot be homeopathic -- though it can be naturopathic) from a publication by Jonathan L. Hartwell of the National Cancer Institute who studied, get this, not homeopathy but rather folk remedies for cancer! I checked out the referenced journal article just now and it indicates that the reference to homeopathy is oblique and not at all prominent to the subject of the plant itself. In fact, the article seems to be interested more to claims of naturopathy rather than homeopathy and only mentions that homeopaths picked up on the naturopathic use of the plant. I think that the reliability of this source claiming a connection to homeopathy itself is really in question, at least in terms of weighing the prominence of this fringe theory. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Given that our article on naturopathic medicine fails to give any proper definition of the term (and actually include homeopathy as a technique), I honestly couldn't be bothered to know where the difference exactly was. We had a perfectly legit source (a book published by a Purdue University department), and so that was enough for me. I'm just glad you could clear whatever exactly the issue was to your satisfaction without deleting the info altogether. Cheers. Circeus (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

I rearranged the introduction. The tree grew in China long before it became a roadside weed in America. --Blechnic (talk) 06:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted these edits- the first thing the article discusses is that it is native to China. The final paragraph is on its culture, while the preceding one is on its cultivation. When you split up the final paragraph, it read awkwardly since it jumped from culture to cultivation and back again. The tree's cultural aspects in China are given precedence, but its not cultivated there extensively, nor is it invasive. DJLayton4 (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That it's invasive in the Western World is not what the plant is about, it has had long standing cultural imporance and grown in China since before the dawn of the West, this Western centric article is absurd. It's a Chinese native plant, it's cultivation in the West is not the entirety of the plant. --Blechnic (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I would completely agree with most of that. All the same, in modern times the tree is far more important as an invasive worldwide (not just in the West) than it is culturally in China. It causes millions of dollars in crop losses and adversely affects biodiversity across the globe. Saying " it's cultivation in the West is not the entirety of the plant" is quite obviously true, even in this article seeing as a large chunk of it is devoted to Chinese related topics. If you can read Chinese and can find more sources on the matter, adding such material would be much appreciated. DJLayton4 (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please give a citation to the source which shows that it is more culturally important in the West than in China. I can't find this link in the article. I can read some scientific Chinese, but probably cannot read much general Chinese. However, I will settle for your English citation saying that it is more important in the West than in China, and I can at least start with their Chinese sources. The question of importance is placing the western weed information before the Chinese cultural information. I would not include weedy information before cultural information of any plant that had cultural significance, even one of the invasive thistles. Weediness is more discrete than cultural information, and it is less about the plant itself than about its genetic capacities and the lack of constraints in its invasive area. Please provide your reference. --Blechnic (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously there is no reference to that effect, nor is one necessary as the article never states which aspect is more important. My point was one of undue weight (which is policy). I wrote the bulk of this article, and in all of my research I found only 1 reference that pertains to its cultural properties. On the other hand I found hundreds relating to its invasiveness and general ecology. Given this fact and that most of the editors of the project are unable to read Chinese (assuming there is a rich literature on the tree in Chinese), there is no other alternative. Giving precedence to the one ref that discusses culture in depth is clearly in violation of WP:UNDUE in the face of the huge amount of information regarding other qualities. Furthermore, even if they were evenly split, I don't quite see why you would mention culture before habit.DJLayton4 (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

So, it's original research on your part to decide that the weediness of the tree deserves precedence over cultural aspects in its native land? Obviously there is no reference that shows its weediness in English-speaking countries should be given due weight over any aspect of its native ecology and ethnobotany. Simply describing an organism in its native habitat first would have been not in violation of WP:UNDUE. What you chose is to give undue importance to an aspect you considered a priority. OR. --Blechnic (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE states, "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." I'm simply following the policy. I really don't believe either aspect is more important than the other, and I would would even tend to agree with you, but the invasive aspect is simply far more prominent in the literature. DJLayton4 (talk) 05:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In the English language literature. So, by this policy, UNDUE, what you just quoted in bold, the Chinese cultural significance should be about the last sentence of the entire article, yet you weighted it in the introductory paragraph? So, why did you put it in the introduction? --Blechnic (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes in the English literature, as I've made abundantly clear. The Chinese cultural information is in the intro because it is from an extended article devoted to the plant that is in a highly respected botanical journal. Look, obviously weighting everything is difficult and it's impossible for everyone to agree on it completely. The fact of the matter is the article passed FAC with more or less the current version and consensus was reached that the current layout is fine. I believe I am correctly interpreting the policies on this issue in defending the current version. All you've suggested is that you think culture is inherently more important, which is a far weaker argument and would be far more likely to qualify as original research than anything I've said. It would be appreciated if you were more constructive in your criticisms- either find a ref saying that culture is inherently more important than ecology, or find more references concerning culture in any language. DJLayton4 (talk) 05:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I think the Chinese origins of the plant are more important than its impact in the Western world, because it is native to China. Even its endangered status should in its native China should be given far more prominence than its impact on the Western world. You don't have a reference saying that its weediness is more important, so why not be a little more constructive yourself and find me one as I asked?

Read what I wrote, "I rearranged the introduction. The tree grew in China long before it became a roadside weed in America." It's a Chinese native plant, it's endangered in China, it's grown extensively as an ornamental tree in China, it's protected in China. All of this, you chose, to place lower than its weediness in America. You don't have a resource for your basis of weediness over Chinese culture, over Chinese endangered species list, over anything, so it's a bit much asking me for one.

It would be appreciated if you were constructive in your outline: by providing a reference showing why its weediness in the West in more important than any aspect of its history in its native land. --Blechnic (talk) 06:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I was pointing out that my not having a reference is meaningless when you yourself don't have one. Obviously there would never be any reliable ref anywhere that would state either. There is no reason to believe that "the Chinese origins" are more important due to it being native there. I understand your point, but its still an unsubstantiated opinion constituting original research. Thus the only basis we have to go off of is prominence, which is clearly in favour of weediness in the west. Otherwise you are just pushing your own agenda. DJLayton4 (talk) 06:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not pushing my agenda I am challenging yours . Plants are essential to human existence. Plants have ecologies, morphologies, life patterns, ethnobotanical histories that begin where the plant originates and expand from there. Your agenda is the Westernization of this plant and the defense of your decision to highlight the weediness no matter what. It's your article, there's nothing I can do about that. --Blechnic (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am following WP:UNDUE, you are following your own opinion. My agenda is WP:POLICY, your agenda violates WP:NPOV. It's as simple as that. DJLayton4 (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

With nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, I think the matter closes. However, I did concede it is your article, already. There was no need to advance to nah, nah, nah, nah, nah. I'm done. --Blechnic (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick look at the edit history will reveal that that's not the case. At the very least a reasonable argument is expected when making significant changes to an article that's been through FAC. DJLayton4 (talk) 03:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if this is somehow a debate about where the tree is "more important", it will be very hard to come to any kind of resolution. What I liked about the China-first version here is that it seemed to flow more nicely from "known in China from (old date)" to "brought to the west in the 1700s". Whereas "brought to the west in the 1700s" followed by "oh, and it was known in China for a long time" does seem kind of backwards (at least to my ears, if I'm trying to cover the global situation and not just write something centered on a single time and place). As for whether the two paragraphs should be about cultivation and culture, respectively, at least in the "before" version of the diff above, the second paragraph is most certainly about both (e.g. silkmoth cultivation). As for this sort of rearrangement generally (including some of the other edits other than the diff mentioned above), it is easy to try to fix things, but to gradually erode away any kind of narrative structure that the text had, especially if writing by committee (although I realize that the nature of wikipedia makes committee writing somewhat unavoidable). So I'd be a bit cautious on those grounds, even if each proposed rearrangement seems to solve a real problem. Kingdon (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the old "complex" introduction and also rearranged the paragraphs for a more chronological treatment. Let me know what you think. DJLayton4 (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm. It's too complex. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD does not require that a lead be simplified. Additionally, your edit contained some errors. On a featured article like this, please consider fully discussing the changes you would like to see so we can work toward a consensus instead of reverting to your preferred version. Personally, I see nothing wrong with DJLayton's most recent version. Please elaborate. Rkitko ^(talk) 02:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to get exercised about this, so if you would like to fix the errors, please do so. Anyway, good editing always points in the direction of simplicity, not complexity. Remember, we are editing for the entire world, not for experts. WP policy states that ledes: should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article. Your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but not when it's oversimplification. Do tell, what part of the lead is too technical or complex? The only part that I would remotely characterize as too complicated is the mention of allelopathic chemicals, which is linked to an article on allelopathy and is acceptable. Your accusation of ownership in this edit is unfounded. Let's please work on it together as User:Blechnic suggests below. --Rkitko ^(talk) 02:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to UK

My copy of The Hillier Manual of Trees and Shrubs (2002 ed) says A. altissima was introduced to the UK in 1751 by Peter Collinson; this differs from what is stated in the article. Which is right? Also, the book says that the earliest known date of cultivation for 'Pendulifolia' is 1899 - not sure if that warrants going in to the text. 86.150.102.216 (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What does it differ from exactly? I believe that the date given in the article is for its introduction to France, not the UK, and the former occurred first. DJLayton4 (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Taxonomy section mentions that seed was sent to the Chelsea Physic Garden and Philip C. Webb in 1751 so the date in the article tallies. There is a mention in the Arnoldia reference used that Collinson also received seed in that year.--Melburnian (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

"Stink Tree" and particularly Ghetto Palm are uncited and smell like possible vandalism. I couldn't find the diff where they were added but maybe an expert could review that. CredoFromStart ^talk 12:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC

Don't remember about Stink Tree, But Ghetto Palm dates way back to the FAC (I was a contributor to the article). Ghetto Palm is discussed all the way down in "culture". Circeus (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Ghetto Tree" is currently at reference 44 - Collins, Lisa M.. "Ghetto Palm", Metro Times [5] and Stink Tree is unreferenced but can be found as "stinktree" at [6] --Melburnian (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that

Sorry about reverting myself twice, I confused myself as to what Brandy had done Nil Einne (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Book cover

1) The book, which is represented by the cover, is discussed at length within the article. Secondly, the cover itself is mentioned in the caption of the photo because it contains a drawing of Ailanthus.

2) The image does add significantly to the article because it gives clear evidence that the tree serves a significant enough cultural role to be the primary topic of a book and to be depicted on its cover.DJLayton4 (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Simplifying

Hello. Not being an expert on this subject (I am a professional editor), I did the best I could to simplify and reorder its sections. I certainly hope I did not delete any important information; if so, please put it back. I would, however, appreciate your letting this version stand the test of time if at all possible. The idea is to make the piece helpful to the average reader near the top and go into the details below. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your version for the following reasons-

1) WP:LEAD recommends a lead of about 3 paragraphs for an article of this size

2) Nothing in the previous lead was in need of simplification- by definition the lead is a summary of the article's contents, and it no longer performs that function. A very dumbed down version of the article would be most appropriate on the Simple English project

3) The paragraphs that you reincoropated into a "History" section are discussed at length within the article, so now the article treats them twice within the body- once in a simplified format and once at length. I have never seen a precedent for this. DJLayton4 (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment and the link, although "dumbed-down version" is a bit hurtful, and, frankly, I would not have taken on the onerous task of editing this piece had I thought that "Nothing in the previous lead was in need of simplification." That was also a hurtful remark. As a layperson I felt, and still feel, that the lead was a bit too complicated to serve its purpose.

The policy you referred to states: "The lead section, lead, lede, or introduction of a Wikipedia article is the section before the first heading. The table of contents, if displayed, appears between the lead section and the first heading. The lead serves a dual role both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article."

I agree that there should be a "short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic," and if I can figure out what they are, I will add such a summary just below the first paragraph and above the Table of Contents, just in an attempt to be helpful, and because this is what I do for a hobby instead of playing cards or golfing. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have revised the lede and hope it covers the main points. I will now deal with the repetition of the history paragraphs. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you find "dumb down" to be hurtful. It's quite a common synonym for simplify, at least in my experience. At any rate, I would like to seek a third opinion on this. I don't think I will be able to convince you that the intro is oversimplified, so I feel that it would be most productive for that to happen now. If you don't have any objections, I'll go ahead and request one. DJLayton4 (talk) 05:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've also just reviewed your edits in detail and I find the information taken from the lead and placed in the "History and culture" section to be unacceptable. In the format you have placed it, it lacks inline citations and appears to be unsourced. In common practice, the only acceptable case of leaving out inline citations is within the text that occurs in the lead that is repeated and sourced later in the article. And again, it's redundant as it repeats information discussed later. That paragraph should be removed if not placed back into the lead. DJLayton4 (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you would like to remove the duplicated material, please do so. Or, if you would like to add the inline source, that would be nice, too. It woud also be nice if we could keep the lede short and to the point. Yours in friendship, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore the lead as it stands is now misleading. It is not now in many parts of the world as a result of it spreading aggressively. It is not necessarily "useful" as a medicine, which is why Chinese Medicine was mentioned in the previous lead. It is too simple to adequately represent the scope of the article. DJLayton4 (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. It is, as you noted, really good to have a vigorous comment on the Talk Page. What data does the summary lede misrepresent? As I said, I am no expert on trees, only on words. Obviously this is turning out to be a Complicated Endeavor, but my only interest is that of the reader. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DJLayton on this. The lead is entirely too short and misrepresents some data. Simplification is not entirely necessary here on en.wikipedia. Words that are uncommon to most readers were linked to or explained in context. Further, major edits like this on a featured article that was recently on the main page should be discussed on the talk page first. I see no reason to not revert to the previous lead. --Rkitko ^(talk) 13:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of reverting these edits. Although I won't claim the lede is perfect (see my comments above, in the Introduction section of this talk page), shortening it to this extent does not seem to give a full enough overview of the topic, as described at Wikipedia:Lead section. Kingdon (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the lead could be altered for improvement, but again simplification to this degree is detrimental to this featured article. By simplifying the introduction of an otherwise relatively complex article inherently misrepresents it. For example, a highly simplified introduction of critical mass or other complex scientific topics wouldn't represent the discussion in the article itself. We can of course continue this discussion, but given the opinion in favour of restoring the previous version and given that this is a featured article that it was given that status based on the previous version, I am going to revert in the meantime until consensus is reached. DJLayton4 (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for lead

Let's leave it with this version and edit this version on this talk page, reach a consensus, then change the article, a few more comments in a minute:

Ailanthus altissima (/eɪˈlænθəs ælˈtɪsɪmə/), commonly known as tree of heaven, ailanthus, or in Standard Mandarin as chouchun (Chinese: 臭椿; pinyin: chòuchūn), is a deciduous tree in the Simaroubaceae family. It is native to both Taiwan and northeast and central China. Unlike other members of the genus Ailanthus, it is found in temperate climates rather than the tropics. The tree grows rapidly and is capable of reaching heights of 15 metres (50 ft) in 25 years. However, the species is also short lived and rarely lives more than 50 years.

In China, the tree of heaven has a long and rich history. It was mentioned in the oldest extant Chinese dictionary and listed in countless Chinese medical texts for its purported ability to cure ailments ranging from mental illness to balding. The roots, leaves and bark are still used today in traditional Chinese medicine, primarily as an astringent. The tree has been grown extensively both in China and abroad as a host plant for the ailanthus silkmoth, a moth involved in silk production. Ailanthus has become a part of western culture as well, with the tree serving as the central metaphor and subject matter of the best-selling American novel A Tree Grows in Brooklyn by Betty Smith.

The tree was first brought from China to Europe in the 1740s and to the United States in 1784. It was one of the first trees brought west during a time when chinoiserie was dominating European arts, and was initially hailed as a beautiful garden specimen. However, enthusiasm soon waned after gardeners became familiar with its suckering habits and its foul smelling odour. Despite this, it was used extensively as a street tree during much of the 19th century. Outside of Europe and the United States, the plant has been spread to many other areas beyond its native range. In a number of these, it has become an invasive species due to its ability to quickly colonise disturbed areas and suppress competition with allelopathic chemicals. It is considered a noxious weed in Australia, the United States, New Zealand and several countries in southern and eastern Europe. The tree also resprouts vigorously when cut, making its eradication difficult and time consuming

--Blechnic (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of comparison, here's the lead proposed by User:GeorgeLouis:

Ailanthus altissima (/eɪˈlænθəs ælˈtɪsɪmə/), commonly known as tree of heaven, ailanthus, or in Standard Mandarin as chouchun (Chinese: 臭椿; pinyin: chòuchūn), is a deciduous tree in the Simaroubaceae family. It is native to both Taiwan and northeast and central China. Unlike other members of the genus Ailanthus, it is found in temperate climates rather than the tropics. It was introduced into England and the United States in the 18th Century.

Ailanthus is an opportunistic plant that thrives in full sun and disturbed areas. It spreads aggressively, and thus in some areas it is classed as a weed. Nevertheless, in other places it is considered useful— in ornamentation, in wood products and in Chinese medicine and as a host plant to feed silkworms.

Because of its hardy nature, the tree has been used as a metaphor in both China and Western countries.

--Rkitko ^(talk) 02:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments about lead

I think that a consensus about the lead of this article can be reached. The consensus should include writing by User:GeorgeLouis who writes very well. However, I think that GeorgeLouis's edit is too short, because an encyclopedia introduction should be a brief overall view of the topic, meaning it should stand alonoe. The current version does not stand alone. However, the version I selected above is too complex and could use simplifying, not because it needs to be simple, but because it could be a better and more useful introduction, and better written, with a bit of work. In addition, User:Djlayton4 has put a lot of work into this article, but would like to work with other editors to improve it.

I suggest the lead be rewritten on this page, though, not on the article, until a consensus is reached. --Blechnic (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A sound suggestion. Until consensus is reached, the lead should also remain at the current version, [7]. --Rkitko ^(talk) 02:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we need some more specificity as to what is too complex about the current version and we can work from there. In my view, most anyone can understand the current edit. It contains perhaps 3 or 4 terms that could be characterised as technical (allelopathic, chinoiserie, astringent and perhaps invasive species. All of these terms are wikilinked and thus don't provide any sort of a barrier from understanding. And as I mentioned above, a complex topic really should mention these technical terms as they are essential for understanding the article. It's impossible to write a lead about most scientific topics without having some background, but this is mitigated through the use of wikilinks. I could suggest that we explain what these terms mean (along with anything else that is seen as too complex) in the lead in addition to the wikilinking, but I feel that removing them would do readers a disservice. DJLayton4 (talk) 03:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The complexity has to do with the level of detail in the lead. An encyclopedia lead, not just for Wikipedia, is a general, overall introduction to a topic. If I were to write a single page paper on Ailanthus altissima to turn in at school, I would not include these details:

"The tree was first brought from China to Europe in the 1740s and to the United States in 1784. It was one of the first trees brought west during a time when chinoiserie...."

When I read these two sentence I don't get a general idea for the tree, but for Chinese culture. The chinoiserie is not further developed in this article, because, in fact, this article is not about chinoiserie, or Chinese cultural influences on Europea in the 17th century, but about a native Chinese plant that was brought to Western Europe and the United States, was briefly popular, then problematic for a long time.

The complexity of the lead is overwhelming, imo, because of the way various details are introduced without context and never developed within the article. The Chinese medicinal part is further developed in the article, but in the same intense way its use for curing "baldness and mental illness" are introduced in the lead (and is this the only use Li Shizhen ascribes to it? and why include a recipe later on, that's not really how traditional Chinese medicine works, with set recipes). It's actually used fairly extensively in traditional Chinese medicine (although I don't know about currently, just historically), and to select two of many conditions for which it is used as a treatment kinda misses the mark of traditional Chinese medicine completely. Sticking with a discussion that it is used in herbal medicine would be much simpler and less complex than listing its specificity to baldness and mental illness. To close this paragraph with the mention of the American book boggles.

I think the lead needs to be generalized in a way that if you gave someone completely unfamiliar with the tree the lead section, they would go away knowing a lot about the tree. Its habit, where it prefers to go, its ethnobotanical roots, its cultural roots, its world travels. But not at the level of this lead.

That's my opinion. But I think browsing general encyclopedias will agree with me. This doesn't mean you have to exclude all specific details from the lead, either. This is how you draw the reader in, with some things like the "Did you know" on the front page. I know this article passed FA and all (that's how I came across it), but I think the lead could use some work, especially after seeing how GeorgeLouis generalized it. --Blechnic (talk) 03:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I will post a suggested rewrite when I get a moment. --Blechnic (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Standard Mandarin

Is there a reference for the romanization of the name into Standard Mandarin as "chouchun?" Blechnic (talk) 04:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Numerous references give the Chinese characters, some give the wade-giles "ch'ou ch'un", but since pinyin is now preferred, we are using "chouchun"- this is the common way of further romanising pinyin (i.e. drop the diacritics, c.f. Beijing, Taiwan, dougong, etc.). There is no reference that I know of that gives the pinyin explicitly, but pinyin translations are available on wikitionary and these translation were done by native speakers. It doesn't need a reference because it isn't really contentious information (when you know the characters, you automatically know the pinyin). If you wanted to cite references for the characters I suppose we could. WP:PROVEIT states "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation"- so if your challenging its validity I suppose we would have to add a citation. DJLayton4 (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of which, the treatment in the English version of the Flora of China has come out since the article was written, and it does give the pinyin as chou chun - see here DJLayton4 (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I had originally nabbed the romanization off Wiktionary, for the records.Circeus (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see it sourced, if you don't mind. Calling it Standard Mandarin is not as uncontroversial as you suggest. I'm not challenging its validity, I'd just like to see it sourced if it's going to be called "Standard Mandarin." But this is a minor detail. --Blechnic (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Standard Mandarin is the name for the standardised form of the Chinese language as it's spoken in most of the country, but doesn't suggest anything about common usage. Feel free to source it with the above link. DJLayton4 (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I know what Standard Mandarin is. The issue is your pointing out how uncontroversial the romanization is. It's not so straightforward as you claim. All this time expaining it and discussing it would have been better spent adding the reference you have--and faster, and less back and forth, which gets overdone on Wikipedia. Blechnic (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Foul-Smelling" Indeed?

The article said the flowers of Tree of Heaven are "foul-smelling". Shouldn't this be "strong-smelling" or perhaps "musky"? "Foul" is in the nose of the beholder.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.96.105.105 (talk • contribs)

How about "with a rich bouquet of carrion, with overtones of dirty socks and wet dog" (specifics made up)? Seriously, odors are notoriously hard to describe and we should try to stick with what the sources say. I don't think "foul" is inherently a bad description (I suspect it is somewhat more objective than you claim in terms of whether different observers would tend to apply it to the same smells), although if something more precise were possible that would be great (I don't think these are carrion flowers, which smell like rotting meat to attract flies, but I'm not completely sure). Kingdon (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I rather like the smell of Tree of Heaven's flowers--a true sign that June has arrived in New York City (where this tree is ubiquitous in all five boroughs). My dictionary calls the flowers "ill-smelling" and the Wiki article here "foul-smelling," so I guess I'm one of its few admirers. So be it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.96.105.105 (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

No merge

Since the Tree of Heaven is one species of the Genus Ailanthus, I don't think these articles should be merged. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mattsop (talk • contribs). 19 September 2005

Other uses

It has other uses: as a source of biomass [8], phytoremediation [9], reforesting highly acidic ore waste sites,[10] and in biodegrading PCBs [11].

Confusion with Rhus typhina

I cant speak for outer country's but I think in parts of Australia at least that Rhus typhina is been called tree of heaven, This article in the references sort of confirms that [12] Although it says its tree of heaven I think people have got that confused as the Tree of heaven is a fairly large tree that grows to a high of 50 meters where Rhus Typhina is essential a shrub that spreads out to create mini forests. [13] That last link is a photo of some growing on my property in Australia, from the leaves the to look identical although none of the "tree of heaven" growing in my area ever goes up. It grows to a hight of about 10 meters and spreads out. Forming mini forests this is tinny compared to some. Wonx2150 (talk) 06:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Odd Spelling

This article uses a number of odd spellings which when modified to the more commonly accepted spelling are repeatedly undone...

For example: A search of google indicates that the spelling "odor" is used 4 times as often as the spelling "odour". The spelling "naturalized" is used 6 times as often as the spelling "naturalised".

I recognize that perhaps 15% of English language speakers prefer to use alternate spellings of some words, and I don't object to them doing so in articles that are specific about the history or culture of that ethnic group.

However using non-standardized spelling in articles unrelated to ethnicity or culture tends to create barriers to understanding by the 85% of English speakers that use the most commonly accepted spelling, and the credibility of the article is brought into subtle disrepute because if the authors can't spell then.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.2.243 (talk • contribs)

WP:ENGVAR. More specifically, WP:RETAIN. Nothing odd about it. --Rkitko ^(talk) 21:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"Worldwide, -ize endings prevail in scientific writing and are commonly used by many international organizations." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#Greek_spellings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.2.243 (talk • contribs)

Doesn't matter. That's an article on the differences between Am. and Br. English. The pages I linked to are part of our manual of style guidelines. While not policy, they're generally meant to be followed. I see no reason not to in this case. If you'd like to change the guideline, begin a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of style. --Rkitko ^(talk) 00:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ailanthus altissima/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

==Second run== "bundle scars around the margin" "Bundle scar" is jargon Done The margin of what? Leaf margin this only makes me more confused. Fixed - I though this was a separate question and the leaf margins are also mentioned. Anyways, I replaced "margin" (referring to the margins of the leaf scars) with "edges", such that it now says that there are many bundle scars around the edges of the leaf scars, or approximately that. You mention the petals hairiness, but not their shape. re: flower morphology, maybe =0006-8071%28195812%29120%3A2%3C88%3AFMOSMO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage this can help? Added more about flower morphology (including colour of petals), but I'm still not able to find a source with the petal shape. I had a look at that ref, but I think it's a bit too in depth for our purposes, though I only had a quick look. I'll keep searching. Found a document saying the petals are valvate. I added it, but I can't get the DOI to display in the ref. It's the Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 151 (4) and I put the citation info in in the description section. Can you take a look and see if you can get the DOI to show? Thanks! What is the normal color of the seeds? We have 2 completely different ones displayed in the article. I want to place one of these images below the bark+flowers combo, but would prefer to use the most typical. (the green seeds are just immature?if so, it should be noted appropriately in the caption). Green when immature, redder at maturity. reworded caption on first seeds image accordingly. sometimes resprout, sometimes re-sprout. Pick one Done - changed to "re-sprout" throughout why do you use -or but -ise? Cf. also "favoured" but "odor"... I wasn't the only one who edited the article - that was there before, so I suppose it should be changed. 'k I'll give it a shot. Canadian spelling, here we come. Done - Changed to "odour" "young leaves of ailanthus, catalpa and peach" Does this refer to peach tree leaves or peach fruits? Peach leaves- I think it's clear enough. added "tree" Last thought: Maybe the 2 free seeds image close ups from the PLANTS database can be used or uploaded at commons? Agreed, but...(see below) Will do myself. ^_^ It's getting late here and I'm getting ready to go to sleep. I'll work on these fixes tomorrow. Thanks again for the comments Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 22:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC) ==First run== Hidden 1st review ==Intro== Why do you capitalise common names in the lead, but not the body of the article? Also, "tree-of-heaven" is hyphenated in the lead but not the body It's been a habit of mine - it somehow looks better to me as is makes the common names stand out a bit more. I changed it here for consistency. Tree of heaven was often hyphenated in the literature whenever it was used mid sentence to clarify that it is a name referring to a species rather than a proper thing. If you think one way or the other is better than feel free to change it. Maybe specify in the lead that both spellings are possible, but at least stick to one in the body? I'm not sure the street tree and size citations are needed. They seem to be cited enough in the article. Agreed. Done The age bit should probably be moved in the body. It's not even mentioned there Agreed, but I left it in the intro as well. I think the longevity of a tree is very important information when getting an idea of how long it will persist in a place. Also, for ailanthus the period is exceptionally for a tree of its size, making it worth mentioning as I see it. I don't mind, as long as it's not only found in the lead ==Description== You have a good description of the female flowers, but not the male. Agreed. My source was a bit weak on that as well, but I've added a few details Looks okay to me Consider looking at the commons page: we have a few good images of flowers. While the PDdrawing is nice, it's not nearly as good as an actual photograph. Disagree- while I agree that a photograph is easier to connect in the mind with something in reality, I think that the drawing is far more interesting from a botanical perspective. For example you can't count the reproductive organs from a photograph, but its very clear in the drawing. This is why lame publications like Audubon field guides have changed to photographs, but reputable ones like the Flora of North America and China continue using drawings. I agree to disagree. I can't use drawings for identification. But then, my field guides (Fleurbec) have excellent photographies. Consider also integrating the bark image in that section, if at all possible. It's out of place in "Taxonomy" Don't know how I should manage that with the limited space and without making the current pics very small. Good question. putting images on only one side might help. Will poke at it. Not sure the "varieties"subsection is warranted. Any suggestions? Would you prefer to see it integrated in the text. If so I think that would be okay I was just thinking about removing the header. Should have been clearer. ==Taxonomy== Consider spinning the (overall unrelated) stuff about d'Incarvill into a short stub. He looks perfectly notable on his own, and I can translate some stuff from the French stub. Done (Pierre Nicholas d'Incarville) Yay, will add stuff to it. He attached a note indicating this "He" being de Jussieu or d'Incarville? Done (d'Incarville) I'd personally like to see the specific name of which A. glandulosa is an homonym of mentioned, but that eludes my Internet research abilities. I'm unable to find anything at the moment as well, but I'll see what I can do. Yeah, it's my personal quirk here, and I wouldn't mind the absence too much. Maybe a genus- or family-level revision or monography will have stuff? It might also be pertinent to cite the Swingle publication (Journal of the Washington Academy of Science 16, apparently.) Done - However in the US Deparment of Forestry document it was cited as volume 6, while the Arnoldia document had it as 16. A database at the University of Miami with all his work listed had it as Volume 6, number 14, so I used that info. You're right. Turns out I misread (or typoed) the number in IPNI. ==Ecology== A few plants are resistant to these chemicals and form associations with Ailanthus in areas where it is dominant, such as along highways. You should really give some examples, and ideally, add a source. Removed the sentence. That was unsourced in the article before I contributed and I never came across anything suggesting that fact while I was working on it. We can put it back in if we find a source. ==Control== I trimmed this slightly, but I still think it goes into more details than needed. Heck, it's actually significantly more thorough than the Wikimanual! Removed almost the entire section and replaced it with a short summary and a link to the wikibooks article, where I moved all the information. It's now just a paragraph within the ecology section. I think this was the right move as that section was more like an instructional guide than encyclopedic information, but if you disagree let me know. Looks okay, I'll just remove the self reference from the body of text. ==Uses== The intro sentence of this section was very poor, and my replacement is only a marginal improvement. Reworded it to give more of a summary and a segue of what's to come. You should have a look to see if it's any better though. The second half of the wood paragraph needs a source. Done ==Medicinal== Also significantly too much details there. Try rewording to avoid the recipe things. Weak disagree - I personally feel that those details make for good reading and give a straightforward presentation of how the plant was utilised in times past. There were a few more recipes in that Arnoldia ref (I think), but I think the ones present give the right amount of information about their usage without the section being like a list of recipes. The details about ingrdients are nice, the specifics of preparation, however, are unnecessary. I reworded. 2 Citation tags that needs to be taken care of, one of which I cited myself. Done-though the ref doesn't mention the homeopathic remedies being under the synonym. I had a look at some herbal drug websites and this does seem to be the case, but I don't think I can use a eStore as a ref. If the plant is significantly toxic, that should probably be expanded upon. Done (by you ^_^) ==Culture== Reword the beginning so it ties better with the previous paragraph. Done, but again have a look and see if you think it is an improvment The book cover is pertinent (consider adding it to the book's article, but needs a proper Fair use rational. It also needs to be put at a smaller resolution. Also, identifying the specific edition (at least for the image description page) would be a good idea. ??? - This is not my area of expertise. As I understand it the cover of a book can be used so long as the resolution is low. I don't have access to a program to reduce the resolution right now, so if you could take care of that it would be great. I went ahead and added the information to the description though. Fixed the image bits. Citing the book quote more precisely (e.g. chapter number or title) would be a good idea. No Access- I agree completely, but it's a hard book to come by in Germany. The first part of the quotation is on the first page in book 1 chapter 1, but I was just looking with the Amazon preview thing and I think the second part comes a bit later. Will look into it. Circeus 17:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC) If there's anything more I can do to improve it just let me know. Thanks for your comments and critiques! Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 17:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 03:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 14:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)