Talk:Sycamore Gap tree/Archive 1

Archive 1

Bad reference

The #5 reference is now a weird 404 page: https://www.treeoftheyear.org/ETY-2/Stromy/Javor-v-prikrem-udoli.aspx Ansarya (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed, added an archive.org link to it. Belbury (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Felling of tree

The felling of the tree is being widely reported, including by local news outlets and ITV news. But comments like 'there's no CCTV' don't suit wikipedia so please avoid. Venividiscripsi (talk) 09:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

It should be highlighted that it was felled illegally, as currently there's no indication it wasn't planned (e.g. if it were unhealthy to prevent it falling and damaging Hadrians Wall) 80.189.184.98 (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Statistics?

Can the article be expanded with information about the tree's estimated age, height, girth, and crown spread prior to it being felled? Theodore Kloba (☎) 19:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Night view

If someone has a photo of the tree by night that they'd be willing to upload, that would be really nice. The photo we currently have is alright, but it doesn't really represent the kind of photo that the site is so famous for among astrophotographers.[1] Renerpho (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

is / was

"was a sycamore tree". Is this premature given that felled sycamore trees can continue to grow from stump or roots. 2A00:23C8:4F05:9001:4362:E524:CE7C:AF9 (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so. Even if we technically can't be sure yet that the tree is dead, we can be sure that the thing that was known as the Sycamore Gap Tree no longer exists. If the tree grows back, we may have a "Second Sycamore Gap Tree" or something of that sort. I don't know of a good example where this happened to a tree specifically. The best I can think of (and please excuse if this comes across as morbid) are cases of buildings that were destroyed and rebuilt. World Trade Center (1973–2001) uses past tense in the first sentence, saying it was a large complex of buildings; even though World Trade Center (2001–present) still is. Renerpho (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

While what you say is true at an abstract level, horticulturists with boots on the ground say it is unlikely in the case of a sycamore. Viriditas (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. I kind of get where you're coming from. Though the difference between this or any tree, and a building like the WTC, is that this is a living being. If, and clearly it's a big if, this tree does continue to grow it's still the same tree. 2A00:23C8:4F05:9001:4362:E524:CE7C:AF9 (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

It's on the front page today as a 'death' which I would say is jumping the gun. Lovingboth (talk) 11:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lovingboth: For discussion about this exact question, see [2]. No consensus was reached to remove it, but the qualifier "felled" was added as a result of the discussion. Renerpho (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@2A00:23C8:4F05:9001:4362:E524:CE7C:AF9: I see no reason to handle objects like buildings any differently from objects like trees (even if one is alive and the other isn't). It may be an interesting philosophical discussion whether this article is actually about the living being, or about the concept related to, but not identical with, that living being. I'd suggest we avoid going down that route if we can. Anyway, as Viriditas has alleged, this may indeed be too big of an IF.

@Viriditas: If you have a reference where an expert is actually quoted saying this, that may be a valuable addition to the article, independent of the IP user's original question. Renerpho (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

BBC News at least is now reporting that the stump is healthy and new shoots could regrow [3] Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Terrorism not vandalism

See title 85.106.96.209 (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

No sources are calling it this. Belbury (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Change the Wikipedia article from Sycamore Gap tree to Sycamore Stump

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As I'm sure most people now, in the early morning of September 28th 2023, Sycamore Tree was unfortunately cut down. I think that since the tree has been cut down the article should no longer be called Sycamore Gap Tree and instead be changed to Sycamore Gap Stump. Royalist6 (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Nope. It was still a tree. Its history as a tree is what makes it notable. Chaotic Enby (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it should be because it provides strong memories for many people who would wish it to obtain its title even after it has been cut down. It has been a strong symbol of Hadrian's wall and Northumberland for many years. We should preserve its memory even if only by not changing the name of the Wikipedia article. 2A02:C7C:DB42:1500:589C:EC91:BFCD:EF73 (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTJUSTYET -- Sycamore Gap Tree is still what this is referred to in the vast majority of reliable sources, even those published after the tree was felled. In fact, the only source I find that calls it stump rather than tree is Google Maps, where it was apparently renamed by a user, and that's not reliable. If it becomes known as the Sycamore Gap Stump or something else in the future then we can discuss renaming it. Renerpho (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Also nope. As Renerpho says, it is inappropriate to rename the tree since there is not common and widespread consensus in the world for a new name. It WAS a tree and while it may "pass out of all knowledge" as a tree... it has certainly not been two and a half thousand years and it seems way premature and it is not the job of Wikipedia to rename things, but to simply to neutrally report upon what the world says. --Avanu (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

No. Not only is it known by the name Sycamore Gap Tree, the stump may be able to be coppiced as it seems to be healthy. I agree with Avanu above that it is not en-WP's job to rename things. Netherzone (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gallery

I restored the gallery after it was recently removed. The images were carefully chosen and curated and the gallery looks superior, both on mobile and desktop, to the post-gallery version. I would appreciate feedback. Viriditas (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

It's been removed a couple of times. WP:GALLERY has more about Wikipedia's manual of style for galleries, and at heart it says Generally, a gallery or cluster of images should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text. There's an exception for informational galleries such as national flags, or something where the reader really needs to see a lot of versions or angles of something to comprehend it, but I don't think that applies here. There are certainly some very good photos of this tree, but that in itself isn't a reason to include a gallery section. We can point the reader to commons:Category:Sycamore Gap.

I've just moved the image of the felled tree from the gallery into the text, since a reader shouldn't have to read a lot of plain text and then (if it occurs to them) keep on scrolling to check through a gallery to see whether anything they've just read about has a useful illustration to go with it. We should display pictures in context where there is room to. Belbury (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Your recent edit is a good one, and looks visually appealing on both mobile and desktop. I've used galleries effectively at the bottom of text sections so they don't interfere with readability. As an example, I did this over at this article, which I find makes it easier to read. Let me know if you would have objections to this kind of image display here. Viriditas (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality issue?

The whole article refers to the tree in the past tense, taking the position that it has already died. This doesn't reflect what sources say about the condition of the stump, still referred to as "a very healthy tree".Should this be fixed? ChaotıċEnby(talk) 02:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The tree is gone. Whether it will regrow from the stump which remains is uncertain. I don't see this as a neutrality issue, rather a statement of fact. Polyamorph (talk) 09:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

As a tangential aside, the problem as I see it isn't if the tree will regrow from the stump, the problem is that it would take centuries to do so in a manner that would match the previous version of the tree, and it might not even survive. The question is whether it would be faster, more efficient, and healthier, in terms of viability, to plant a new and vigorous sapling. And if I'm reading the history right, there were other tree friends in the area in the distant past. Why not also plant a new grove? Us druids need a place to go, after all. Viriditas (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Suspect

The suspect, who denies involvement, is named in various in news sources. Former lumberjack evicted from his life-long home, at the time was reported to say "I was born here. It is like a tree with roots. You know when your roots are here, everything has been put here".

References

Polyamorph (talk) 11:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

No-one has been charged, so we shouldn't name anyone. However, the Felling section should include the fact that both suspects have been bailed. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The name is reported, so it wouldn't be us naming them. He's spoken to the media claiming his innocence, provided no insinuation of guilt or otherwise is made we can include the facts as reported. Polyamorph (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Polyamorph, per WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPCRIME I oppose naming suspects either before they are charged or after. I'd even say that in this case, there probably wouldn't be a good reason to name them even if they were convicted. Do you have a compelling reason why you think they should ever be named other than that they have been named in news sources? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Both those cases clearly state "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed" - neither of those apply here. It is reported in sources and they have willingly provided statements to the media. Whether it's interesting enough to include is a matter of editorial judgement. Polyamorph (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Polyamorph, BLPCRIME isn't specifically about naming, and doesn't say that. It's more about implying guilt before a conviction has occurred.

On the other hand, BLPNAME is specifically about naming, does not say that the names should only be omitted if they haven't been published. What it does say though is:

1. Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. This applies here.
2. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Are we aware of name coverage outside of the news media?

Without showing what significant value any names add, I'd oppose their inclusion. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Technically, their eviction made national news. Which is two, possibly linked, events. Although I would agree the first is tenious. It's very unlikely, at this stage, to find secondary sources that aren't news media sources. The guideline doesn't prohibit news source and if other editor deemed it to be of value to include then they can be used.Polyamorph (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see what value their names would add, so I oppose their addition on WP:BLPNAME grounds. We would need a very good reason to include the names, and I don't see it. "The news have reported it" isn't enough. Renerpho (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

It does beg the question as to what really is the value of stating a 16 year old boy and man in his 60s have been arrested, questioned, and bailed, at all. Polyamorph (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we can ask whether any detail about the two people is notable, beyond the fact that they have been arrested, questioned, and bailed. Mentioning sex and ages alone generally isn't a BLP issue. At the same time, these facts generally seem to be considered interesting to justify their inclusion. Why they are considered interesting, I can not tell you.

Looking at the examples in vandalism of art (for lack of a better list of precedent), Wikipedia doesn't seem to handle this (the threshold for notability) consistently. There are cases where no detail but the perpetrator's sex and age is given. Sometimes the person is notable themselves, in which case they are named and linked to the respective articles (such as Hans-Joachim Bohlmann). In many cases though, their names are listed, even if their only claim to notability is the single act of vandalism. I think the important difference is that all of them have been convicted.

I suggest we should wait for that to happen before we mention any names here. For the time being, we have to assume that they are innocent, and remember WP:BLPNAME. If anyone wants to find the names of those who were arrested, they are easy enough to find, but that doesn't justify inclusion here. Just because something has been reported does not exempt us from following BLP guidelines! Renerpho (talk) 02:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• An editor (Andy Dingley) had added the suspect's name into the article. Polyamorph (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

It's all over mainstream press now. That horse has bolted. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

And DeFacto has beaten me at reverting it.[4] The explanation "it's all over mainstream press now" fails to address any of the concerns mentioned here. Renerpho (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Age

Current text says "a few hundred years". Lots of news says 300 years, which is roughly the same. I'm no expert, but there's no way that tree looks 300 years old to me! Sycamore is a quick-growing species and would be huge by then. Anyone got a better estimate? (It should be possible to get the exact age now, as anyone can just count the rings). Fig (talk) 22:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to ask this question as well, so there must be a lot of people thinking and writing about it. It's a shame this kind of information isn't easy to find, but given that it was felled, we should have a solid answer in the next day, wouldn't you say? Viriditas (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Counting its rings has just become a lot easier. I hope someone will put the felled trunk to good use, and study it scientifically. I don't expect an answer in the coming days though. Renerpho (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the tree had a ring-lift to look younger. But clever thinking there... the tree rings can clearly be counted and get a precise number, which can eventually become a part of the article here. --Avanu (talk) 04:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The National Trust statement says it "was planted in the late 1800s by the previous landowner, John Clayton". So 140±20 years old should cover it, and fits in well with the tree's size. Definitely not 300 years; that should be removed as an unreliable source. - MPF (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@MPF: Thanks, I have edited the history section to reflect the conflicting sources. The BBC is not an unreliable source; they may be wrong, but it's not our place to decide. Renerpho (talk) 04:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Note that the NT themselves are not clear about this, and the other age (300 years) may well be what they said at some point. I have added a ^{[clarification needed]} tag to the paragraph, because it doesn't really agree with what its source [5] says. Renerpho (talk) 04:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

BBC are now citing the NT and the Clayton planting, saying it's 150. I think that the NT know more about trees than BBC, so I will deconflict this as they now agree. But you would think some dendrochronologist could just count the rings. David Crayford ☎ 14:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Vindolanda

No mention of it's proximity to one of the best known Roman sites in Britain? it's only a few miles. 62.49.138.104 (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)