Talk:Grogan's Fault

M. D. Vaden & Atkins - Experts / References

The Grogan's Fault page used to have a generous number of references giving more thorough context. One Hiker395 culled most references related to discoverers and others involved like Chris Atkins. Just as other pages like giant sequoia or coast redwood include context, this article would have benefited by noting books like The Wild Trees (etc.) showing how the discovery fits among others by Chris Atkins. Presently, M. D. Vaden has more credibility than Wikipedia. For example, Mario Vaden is acknowledged in research reports, whereas Wikipedia would never be. Vaden is also certified by the International Society of Arboriculture. So in light of this, down the road, certain steps will be needed on this page to repair all the erasure Hike395 took it upon themselves. The component of Michael Taylor is also worth including again. He measured and observed Grogan's Fault. He was previously in National Geographic's special for finding the world's tallest tree, and also noted in the best seller The Wild Trees. All of this gives context to who is involved, why the trees are discovered, and the network behind it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.163.157 (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

It's worth adding, Hike395 removed various news articles related to Atkins, Vaden, comments by researcher Sillett. A removal that could lead readers the opposite direction, as if nothing published existed. But the published news all fits, even it's a matter of dates and time frame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.163.157 (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Errors in new page, including name

Apparently someone failed to do homework before editing the new Grogan's Fault page or doing edits related to it at the Coast Redwood page. They added a wrong name of "Juggernaut" which is an entirely different coast redwood. To see the difference, the redwood Juggernaut is documented on the page http://www.mdvaden.com/redwood_juggernaut.shtml ... apparently the 40,000 cu. ft. statement is speculation, but isn't as drastic an error as the wrong name. (talk) 08:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

No volume has ever been shown for this redwood beyond 38,299 cu. ft. The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Removed unverifiable link. References should be credible

Had to remove an unverifiable anonymous link that had no contact or identity to establish any kind of credentials. Any references should be able to provide a contact, name and some form of experience, certification or credentials to backup claims and information. Good resource will include researchers, arborists, newspaper articles, National Park website, university, extension services, etc.. The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 07:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It's worth adding that the unverifiable link, now removed and noted above, was probably why a completely incorrect name for this redwood entered the article draft in the first place. A first-hand example of how bad amateur or anonymous stuff can be at proliferating errors no matter how good they look to the eye at first glance. The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Not reliably sourced

Is there any secondary sourcing for any of the assertions in this article? Right now its primary sourced to the personal website of the person making the assertions. Im inclined to merge or delete at this point.--Kevmin § 03:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Right now, it is sourced to a professional website, not a "personal website". If you reviewed the full content, you would learn the source is a Certified Arborist, and an expert on coast redwoods. The resume' within the background section shows employment doing coast redwood research. That's an authority.

Apparently you removed a potentially beneficial link http://www.mailtribune.com/article/20150626/ENTERTAINMENTLIFE/150629873 ... because if it didn't seem like perfect fit for one sentence, it fits another spot. The reference says Atkins and Vaden discovered together in 2014. So even if the tree isn't called out by name, it's "the" coast redwood they found. But the article at minimum published the fact they explored together that year, so there's no mere connect-the-dots about that. It's a plain statement of fact, naming both of them.The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 08:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

If it offers a head start, this link http://www.mdvaden.com/resume/resume.doc has the resume from the certified arborist's background page. It lists coast redwood research work. And the project coordinator was Steve Sillett, who Wikipedia's page [[1]] for him notes is a scientist. It's the same scientist who was seen working with National Geographic. So if Vaden and Atkins are within this professional network, the references for the page should be rock solid.The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 08:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

On another note, you could merge this page, etc., as it started not long ago by some other person for whatever reason. But the tree was already noted before that on the coast redwood page, which seemed sufficient at the time. Not sure what the reason was for starting this page. There's enouth reference. But maybe not enough reason or purpose.The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 08:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

WP sohould be relying in WP:SECONDARY sources, that is why there are reservations about this article, there is only primary sourcing used. Plus using that sole tree to say that Coast redwoods exceeded giant redwoods is a very large stretch.--Kevmin § 15:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Now I see! How silly of me. He posted his resume on his business website, so that's as good as a Wikipedia expert! Someone also recommended we add a website that plagiarized the self claims from this self-certified and self-published self-proclaimed expert.. Soon we'll have a website citing this Wikipedia article as a source and we can complete the circle. --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:69 (talk) 05:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Can we come to consensus about this tree, perhaps by coming up with a source considered reliable by consensus? The controversy is starting to spread to other articles, e.g, this discussion about the table of largest Sequoia sempervirens, which now lists the WP Grogan's Fault article as a source. I've removed Grogan's Fault from the table, not because I think it doesn't belong there, but pending resolution to this controversy. My removal was reverted by User:96.39.163.157. —hike395 (talk) 08:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I believe that the Gymnosperm Database is a reliable source, for the following reasons:

1. It has been cited 95 times in the scholarly literature (see Google Scholar search for Christopher Earle).
2. Christopher Earle, himself, seems to be well-cited in the field of dendroclimatology (see scholar link). Per WP:SELFPUBLISH, this would imply that the Gymnosperm Database is a reliable source when it comes to forestry.

Because of this, I'm comfortable with keeping Grogan's Fault in the table at Sequoia sempervirens. The largest specimen of a species seems notable, and because it's supported by a reliable source, I would keep this article. —hike395 (talk) 08:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Kevmin and The Real Luke Skywalker: What do you think? —hike395 (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

At this point I would still lean towards a merge given that the article is not likely to be more then a stub for the foreseeable future.--Kevmin § 08:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

PROD

This article has one source, a self-claim on a business website. An article supporter says that because the claim is on a business website that makes the source reliable. No, it doesn't. Anyone can create a business website, and that doesn't make that website a reliable source by Wikipedia standards.

There is only one source, and it is not reliable. There were other claims based on this website which was linked to 21 times in another Wikipedia article which also cited the business website author's credentials within the Wikipedia article as, "certified arborist." The article also insinuated that the tree was secretive in location to protect it (smacks of hoax), and the actual name, if the tree exists, is also in question (smacks of hoax).

Its single source is not reliable; no other published source includes this information; there appears to be an angle to drive viewers to the business website; it may even be a hoax.

This article does not belong on Wikipedia right now; and the information should not be merged with its unreliable source to any other Wikipedia article. When and if this secretive tree, discovered by a businessperson and promoted on their website and Wikipedia, makes it to the news in published sources, an article can be written.

--2602:306:CD1E:44B0:7D32:7D06:B9E8:AE64 (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you consider this article to be some vast conspiracy to promote a business. It is not. The co-discoverer of the tree is Chris Atkins, who discovered Hyperion and many other superlative redwoods. His and MD Vaden's measurements are good enough to be cited extensively in the Gymnosperm Database and Monumental Trees. Vaden has been consulted as a redwood expert in books and articles about big redwoods. And he's a professional nature photographer (an award-winning one, in fact) who was also incidentally a pretty prolific Wikipedia contributor back in the day. As for keeping the location secret, that's a pretty standard practice for big tree hunters and popularizers. The Wild Trees deliberately withheld the location of the Grove of Titans, but amateur sleuths pieced it together anyway, and spread the word, leading to extensive damage to the local ecosystem.

Would more sources improve the article? Absolutely. But the tree is a notable find regardless of whether it ends up being the most massive tree ever discovered. And the sources currently listed are considered reliable and independent within this domain of research. J-Mo 23:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The person who suggested a page deletion may have done insuficient research. Wikipedia does allow websites for a reference. The sole reference is not simply an ordinary reference. It's an expert of 40 years, written about in multiple news articles as a discoverer of world record trees. And a certified arborist, certified by the international society of arboriculture. The same person lists in their resume on the website that they were among a project coordinated by Dr. Sillett, the renown coast redwood researcher. So this is not merely a "business website". This is an expert website. So there's more here if we don't merely skim the surface in a rush. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.163.157 (talk) 08:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Here a bit more, related to what the person posted previous to my post http://www.mailtribune.com/article/20110123/NEWS/101230353 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.163.157 (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

"Doesn't allow websites?" You didn't even read what I said, and you think you can read and provide evidence? Providing credentials? "Overshadowed?" It's not a reliable source. What garbage. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:63 (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

This is more in reply to the user who posted December 27th. It looks like you are on the right train of thought. It's worth noting that the people we are discussing actually go beyond amateur, and into the professional level. Mario Vaden and Chris Atkins were listed on the HSU website as collaborators of Dr. Sillett, until they revamped the university site. But I've read before they were on the payroll for research and locating and measuring. Michael Taylor is world famous. I lost track of reference, but apparently Lasertech that makes laser rangefinders sends prototypes to Taylor for pre-production testing. So Vaden, Taylor, Atkins, Sillett and associates are basically verifiable experts. There's basically no higher standard to document and confirm tree species and discovery. Along these lines, I used the INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY of ARBORICULTURE site tonight at the verify page http://www.isa-arbor.com/findanarborist/verify.aspx and entered Vaden's number in PN 5584 A and found he is indeed a Certified Arborist which is another credential wanted in tree experts. Records show Vaden was twice appointed by two governors of Oregon as a board member to the Oregon Landscape Contractors Board. The more I follow this discussion and search, the obvious it becomes that Vaden is a verifiable expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.163.157 (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

This is becoming very interesting, the more I dig. Grogan's Fault is on conifers.org, and I'm finding a lot connected to his site. I did a search on the site administrator's name and found he's an author. I've heard of Dr. Earle, but never realized he was a published author. https://www.amazon.com/Christopher-J.-Earle/e/B00J5B4218 - - - and it looks like the American Conifer Society is attributing Dr. Chris Earle, by notation on pages like this one http://conifersociety.org/conifers/conifer/abies/alba/ - - - so conifers.org remains a consideration for a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.163.157 (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, it's obvious conifers.org is an expert, trusted and well known resource. So I added it to the beginning of the article, using the coast redwood page there - - - it's page is not based on Vaden's site and only notes it in regard to one aspect which is single stem nature of the tree. Conifers.org goes on to confirm on it's own, the credibility of the measurers, and there's several named. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.163.157 (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

REPAIR

Just finished an edit to the page where content was cut so severely, it's just shy of page vandalism. Many of the references and text removed were quite related, even interwoven in the same way content sits on the main coast redwood article. To avoid an editing war, future changes will now need to be done piece by piece. If there is a reference you think is not related, list it here, explain why it' not related, and each point can be handled point by point. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.163.157 (talk) 06:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The February 2018 edit to tweak spacing, etc., was a good idea. If that editor returns, please double check to see if your improvement remains. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.163.157 (talk) 06:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

And I've reverted, the material added in part duplicated what was there before and contained rather promotional content. Vsmith (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

To Vsmith ... not sure if I follow what you mean. but I reverted for the moment, because you didn't exactly specify which content your referred to specifically. And that was part of the request. Point by point. Looking back on the page's history, nost looked factual. There were notes about bona fide experts, certified arborists and scientists. And most references I looked at traced to a history of people who were published or recognized as experts in the field. So if we could look at this in components, that would be better. Conifers.org has been started along these lines. Now which other experts or news articles should we handle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.163.157 (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss rather than reverting duplicative and promotional content back in. And, if you have a user account - then use it. Vsmith (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Now you get the point, but not fully. You were to discuss before changing. Deal with it. You just entered talk, did not mention a component, and made a large revision. Not so. Handle each component and new story related. The article had been standing intact for a couple of months or more. So the large edits you or the other tried to do the past few days without substantial effort in the talk page has no real need until the material is weighed.

For starters along the lines of content, conifers.org's coast redwood page under the Big Tree heading states [QUOTE] "... tree was discovered in Redwood National Park in 2014 by Mario Vaden and Chris Atkins. Based on multiple measurements by highly credible observers including Chris Atkins, Michael Taylor, and Ron Hildebrandt, the tree, which is named Grogan's Fault," [END QUOTE]. That would tie directly to one or more of the news articles. I point this out, because there are many people with same names, Facebook for example. So it seems very on-topic to glean material that defines with "Chris Atkins", etc., etc. because it shines light on the history of this tree in relation to the species, research and discovery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.163.157 (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Problems with previous version

1. Reference to mdvaden.com --- That is a self-published source, per WP:RSSELF, and is not considered a reliable source. mdvaden.com doesn't fall under the exceptions at WP:RSSELF, because M. Vaden isn't a published expert.
2. "tree discoverer, Dr. Chris Earle" --- factually incorrect
3. "highly credible" --- both a term of puffery, and also a quote from a self-published source (Gymnosperm database) about a third-party, which is never allowed
4. "amateur naturalist" --- Washington post does support "amateur naturalist" description of Chris Atkins, but I didn't see that description as being relevant to the main topic of Grogan's Fault.
5. Reference to hsu.edu --- talks about Atkins discovering tallest tree Hyperion, didn't seem relevant to Grogan's Fault
6. Reference to nbcnews.com --- again, Atkins discovering tallest tree, not relevant to Grogan's Fault
7. Reference to Guinness World Records --- again, Atkins discovering tallest tree Hyperion, not relevant to Grogan's Fault. String of 3 citations seem like they're in the article to promot Chris Atkins, which would violate WP:PROMOTION.
8. "professional arborist" --- Mario Vaden's profession didn't seem relevant to the tree itself
9. Reference to nbcbayarea.com --- talks about Mario Vaden discovering the largest maple tree, not relevant to Grogan's Fault
10. Reference to oregonlive.com --- talks about largest maple tree again, not relevant to Grogan's Fault
11. Reference to Tillamook Headlight Herald --- talks about Mario Vaden discovering large Sitka Spruce, not relevant to Grogan's Fault
12. Reference to Americanforests.org --- interview with Mario Vaden, not relevant to Grogan's Fault. This string of 4 citations seems like they're in the article to promote Mario Vaden, which would violate WP:PROMOTION
13. Vaden claims more coast redwoods discovered and unreported --- several problems here: no reliable third-party sources exist, and secret information is fundamentally unverifiable, so doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Not clear whether we should put the Vaden claim into the article.
14. "location reported to senior scientist" --- unsupported by reference, because...
15. Reference to parks.ca.gov --- is a page about how to get permits, not a reference that supports the fact that the location was reported to a senior scientist.
16. "named after nearby fault" --- unsupported by reference, because...
17. Reference to waterboards.ca.gov -- talks about the existence of the Grogan fault, but doesn't mention the tree. We could jump to the natural conclusion that the tree was named after the fault, I suppose, but there's no hard evidence of that.
18. Reference to nps.gov --- again, talks about the Grogan Fault but not the tree
19. "also called Spartan" --- no evidence of Spartan name other than Mario Vaden's personal web site, not a reliable source
20. Volume of reiterated trunks --- only evidence is from Mario Vaden's personal web site, not a reliable source
21. AF Points --- unsupported by reference, because...
22. Reference to AF Tree Measuring Guide -- talks about how to measure trees in genreal, does not talk about Grogan's Fault
23. AF Points above other trees -- because the AF Points was unsupported, also removed comparison to other trees (and subsequent citations for their AF point score)
24. First photo released by Mario Vaden --- only supported by Vaden's web site, not a reliable source

The fundamental issue with the old version is that it was filled with information that only came from Mario Vaden, without any support from third-party, fact-checked web sites. If Vaden decides to write a peer-reviewed scientific paper about Grogan's Fault, then we can expand the article with information from that paper. Until then, we can't rely on a single personal website from the discoverer.

Further, the string of references to the accomplishments of Chris Atkins and Mario Vaden certainly don't belong in an article about Grogan's Fault. Perhaps there should be a separate Wikipedia article about either or both of these people, but we'd have to be careful to rely on reputable third-party sources.

I realize that a three-line Wikipedia article is quite pitiful. That is perhaps why Kevmin wanted to merge this. Before I submitted the edit, I did search for reliable third-party information about Grogan's Fault, and came up empty, leaving only Gymnosperm database, which is definitely in the grey zone (per earlier comments from Kevmin).

Hope this helps. —hike395 (talk) 07:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Hike395 would need blinders to miss the fact that Vaden is, and was, published as an expert. For starters, Vaden is listed at the International Society of Arboriculture site as a Certified Arborist. And the ISA is one of few certifying organizations in the world for tree experts. The expertise was sufficient enought to be cited in the acknowledgments of research reports too, such as: https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1890/14-1016.1 ... It appears that Hike395 is avoiding useful resources, because they aren't that hard to find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.163.157 (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Having a professional certification and being acknowledged in papers is far from being "an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications", which is the requirement at WP:RSSELF. I will defer, however, to the opinion of other editors such as Vsmith or Kevmin. —hike395 (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Should be a simple redirect to Sequoia_sempervirens#Statistics where the tree is mentioned and stats are given. No need to retain a 3 line stub. Vsmith (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Vsmith: OK, I understand. Kevmin also wanted to merge. I guess a 3-line stub is too small to keep. :-( I was hoping to find more third-party reliable references, but that hasn't happened. Would you like to perform the merge? I'm reluctant to perform further edits, since User:96.39.163.157 seems to have taken my edits personally. —hike395 (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Done, if more solid info w/ valid refs is found - we can return here and write an article. Vsmith (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

There may be a misunderstanding about the requiirement at WP:RSSELF --- it's not that reputable third parties have to declare a person to be an expert. It's that the expert has to publish their own work in reputable third-party publications. That is, the expert has to write documents or papers and get them published in third-party publications, such as academic or professional journals. Christopher Earle and Stephen Sillett have done so. Mario Vaden has not (as far as I can tell from a search). —hike395 (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I've ben mentioned in several professional papers on fossil taxa. That doesn't make me a reliable source for wiki. SO no, mention does not make Vadan a reliable source.--Kevmin § 15:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)