Talk:Grove of Titans

More Image Links

The main proof for the Grove of Titans seems to lie with photographic documentation. If anybody knows of web pages with Grove of Titans photographs, please list them. I could only think of a few sources, with photos from Preston, Vaden, Taylor and a photographer named Dunklin.

Dr. Sillett has a university webpage with redwood photos, including Lost Monarch in the Grove of Titans, but the page does not refer specifically to the "Grove of Titans".

Several other websites have photos, but most of the sites appear to be re-using versions of the same images from those 4 people.ThreeWikiteers (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Some geolocated photos are available on Google Earth:-　http://www.panoramio.com/photo/41742122 　 〜〜〜〜　QuentinUK (talk) 12:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The geolated photos, though available, would be deemed unreliable, because there are similar photos for the grove in at least 2 other locations in the same park, spanning nearly a mile. And neither Google Earth, nor Panoramio, can certify whether any are correct.ThreeWikiteers (talk) 05:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be respected that the exact location is not made public (at least so easily) for the already stated reason. There also were incidents of tree conservation antagonists who cut famous trees with chainsaws. If you stumble upon geoloc't pics then please contact the owner. Rosetta

From a practical point of view, I think that's a good idea.. But this issue partly surfaced this week with someone repetitively putting a map link in the article. But the map marker has no authority or credibility. No name, address, contact, identity. It did not matter whether it was accurate or not, it boiled down to the average article reader having no idea which of a million hikers placed a marker or hypothetical directions online. I think it would more or less take a marker from the parks service itself to qualify for the Wikipedia editing and writing standards.The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Removal of external link

Just removed one external link that showed someone's photos of the grove, because the pages include fictitious content. The names are known for certain to be false, and that leaves a big gray area about whether the narrative is fact or fiction. The site is also displayed anonymously, with no identity attached to it. Although there is a contact button, there is no name, no address, no phone, no credentials.

If anybody wants to add it, it will need to be discussed here first. If it gets restored without first discussing it, I will delete it again. Before we even discuss the site, we probably would need to know the site owner's name and credentials. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThreeWikiteers (talk • contribs) 05:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Meant to add, that the remaining external links are rock solid. One was a publication by NPR. Richard Preston is practically an expert climber, and networked with the discoverers and scientists who study these trees. His name and bio are public. The site by Vaden, has contact information, certification credentials, and experience listed as working with the same scientists and discoverers. So those external links are still dependable and useful. ThreeWikiteers (talk) 05:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

True motivations

Note that the people removing the location information are focused on maintaining the secrecy of the grove, not on Wikipedia quality. It seems odd that Wikipedia would participate in this sort of information suppression.

Isn't "Citation needed" a more typical response to seemingly valid but unattributed information?

(To the previous anonymous poster:) A quality publisher have to uphold some ethics. Do you understand the reasoning why some locations aren't published ? - Rosetta

Why was the google map link removed? There isn't a shred of "quality standards" justification left there. this is just censorship from people who want to keep the grove secret. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.240.196.186 (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

RE the motivation comment about location information, or google map link removal that feedback fits just a tiny scope of interpretation. This grove is not official. It is not like Founders Grove, Stout Grove, or even dozens of memorial groves that have signs. This grove's existence is actually undefined, without borders. Any attempt to provide maps or GPS has no official or expert source to point to. And from an encyclopedic point of view, that means there is no credentialed source to include when it comes to maps. The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

most of the criticism of noteworthiness would apply to the entire article, not just the location. Why is the location information (just a tiny string of numbers) such a focus for removal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.240.196.169 (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Change of Grove Status Edits

Apparently someone tried reversing edits about the grove's status. It looked like page vandalism was cited as a notation for reversing the changes. But the edits were done for accuracy in light of new documented discovery.

In 2014, two redwood / tree experts discovered several new titans in Redwood National and State Parks. Chris Atkins who discovered the world's tallest trees, and M. D. Vaden an expert Certified Arborist. They are the ones who also measured LiDAR redwoods under a research permit 2011 - 2013. Both are experts, and one, M. D. Vaden, published the discovery noting new finds have trunk sizes exceeding redwoods in the Grove of Titans. Photo documentation was included showing an example so large that no Coast Redwood photographed in the past 30 years seems to come close. http://www.mdvaden.com/redwood_year_discovery.shtml The measuring included a math and measurement expert from Arcata, California, nearby. The same man referred to by scientist Dr. Robert Van Pelt in his book Forest Giants of the Pacific Coast.

Grove of Titans fame and narrative stems heavily from Richard Preston, who is more an author and little a tree expert. Plenty of Preston's fact gathering is accurate. But when it comes to statements in the article like Grove of Titans has botanical significance like "Atlas Grove" we must realize that is Preston's story-telling narrative, not a fact.

The new discoveries are the biggest in almost 20 years, of significance to affect this Wikipedia article and the redwoods it covers. The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

No official or expert basis for maps or directions ~ link removed

Just removed a link again to a map or GPS source. Reason is that the link lacks an official source. There is not an expert source. Much of this page has relied on one author, Richard Preston. One other author Robert Van Pelt named several of the redwoods and a rough terrain description, but no map. Van Pelt is an expert source, but insufficient for directions because he none that can be linked to. If someone tries to add an amateur-based map link, I plan to delete it until an expert or official source is offered, or, send this article to a moderator.

If you want to add a link, you will need to discuss your case here, and prove you have GPS from someone who is somewhat official or expert with GPS, and has some documented expertise with Coast Redwoods and tree ID.

You should also provide some proof from the redwood parks management that Grove of Titans is an official destination grove The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Trying to suppress the truth is not going to benefit anyone. This site has been quoted for truth on this page. These images show the true location of the grove.

http://groveoftitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Grove_of_Titans_Map.jpg http://groveoftitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Grove_of_Titans_Closeup_Map.jpg https://www.google.com/maps/place/Grove+of+Titans,+Redwood+National+and+State+Parks,+Howland+Hill+Rd,+Crescent+City,+CA+95531/@41.7788008,-124.1002536 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.198.28.28 (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

That site is a non-authority, non-expert amateur site. To make it worse, the site changed content to fictitious names after it went online. That's the opposite of a source needed for Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are not geared toward revealing or hiding secrets. These are encyclopedic topics and need authority or expert sources. If we go to the site you just posted here in talk, the site owners or anything about their credibility and contact details are invisible. No name, no phone, no city, no credentials. The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

PS ... the 2nd link posted showed CLOSED for the grove, which further shows the weak nature of the link. It's is unofficial. Even if it's close, the map source is anonymous, which defeats the purpose of this article here. The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Mediation / Arbitration request ... I started the process to get a mediator to deal with the person adding unofficial map links to this article, and maybe stem the back-and-forth haggling over the non-authority maps. The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Elwing, Aragorn, Etc

I was going to delete Elwing, Aragorn and a couple other redwood from flora in the context of those being "largest" in the grove, but want to give a few days for others to supply documentation. Author Preston wrote about some of these, but I dont recall any measurements. Mere mention has nothing to do with actual volume. I found one volume reference for a redwood nicknamed Fangorn. Outside of that, does anybody reading this have any expert resource providing actual numbers and volume measurement for every tree named in the Flora? That would be Elwing, Aragorn, Sacagawaea, and others.

If there are no recorded facts other than Preston's say-so, these may need to be culled to just redwoods for which volume measurements have been provided. The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous links don't qualify

Just removed a link again that someone tried to add back. Not only does it lack authority or expert status ... its anonymous. Along with no information about the site owner or writer, pages use fictitious names that deviated from the original version in the past. It lack credentials, the site diluted the narrative with false names. When considering links, be sure the site is verifiable, a standard set forth by Wikipeidia. It should have real names, contact information and something about the writer or source. The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Furthur realized this non-verifiable link has outdated information. It lists old discoveries as largest known, even though bigger have been found and documented elsewhere in the coast redwood forest. The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Changing caption text and suggestion for page content

Going to change the caption for the one image to what the image's description actually states where it was uploaded. It's a photo of arborist Mario Vaden looking at the redwood. Also a suggestion for this page. The grove is now an established landmark with a boardwalk built by the park. It's not a secret destination but a highly publicized grove that is being advertised. 2600:6C55:7E7F:F3B5:48A2:9D89:758C:5FB3 (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)