Talk:Old Tjikko/Archive 1

Archive 1

BS Meter goes up

I will be at the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest Saturday Sept. 20 for the 50th anniversary of the set-aside of the area as protected...mainly to see what will be done about the arson/accident/act of nature of the Schulman Grove visitor center, but also to revisit the groves, and to hear if any of this "do clones count" talk is viable. People have been taking cuttings for thousands of years, and they learned it from plants that take cuttings from themselves. Got roots? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidshare (talk • contribs) 07:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"Individual" part 2

I still defend my use of the word individual while describing Old Tjikko. As far as I can tell, every other mention of clonal plants use the descriptive term colonies, while this organism is usually described with the stress on the fact that this is an individual. Phrases such as "The tree is single-stemmed" and "as soon as one died, a cloned stem could emerge from the root system" stress the distinction that this tree is not an army of clones but an individual which has cheated death by vegetative cloning. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I just want to make it clear that this is not an "individual tree." When people say "The tree stands 5 metres (16 ft) tall" they are not talking about the underground root system, are they? Also, this comment: "The actual tree itself is relatively young". Look, I'd like to think that when a tree is chopped down and it grows back, it's still the same tree. But what makes this different than a clonal colony where the trees, individual or not, remain attached to the same root system? I could understand where the roots divide (it's like a spider plant runner breaking), but if the roots stay together, then what? Why is this different? Is a three-headed tree three trees? A clonal colony? In any case, I consider Old Tjikko to be a fundamentally different category than the bristlecone pines, and so to claim the record is broken is not accurate.Ryoung122 07:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I never said anything about "the record being broken" I was merely defending my use of the word individual. The fact is... this is one tree, is it not? Then nothing more need be said about this. Whether the tree is a clone or not is irrelevant. There is only ONE Old Tjikko and that should be stressed considering it is also a clone which implies there are more than one. If you can find a better way to say "the world's oldest individual clonal tree" then be my guest. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV & Sources

I just edited the lead and made a couple of changes:

1. I removed the reference to the Umeå University Press release. It is closer to a primary source than a secondary source, and it does not have a neutral interest in the facts. Also, the same information is supported by the referenced secondary source (see WP:SOURCES & WP:NPOV).
2. I replaced "individual clonal tree" with "tree." Neither source ranks the tree with this qualification. Absent this qualification from a reliable secondary source, it appears to be opinion and/or original research.

More details on this rationale are in the Wikipedia "No original research" and "Neutral point of view" policy articles.

If you dispute this change, please let's discuss it and reach consensus before changing it back. My defense will rely on the aforementioned Wikipedia policies, so if I'm misapplying them somehow, we'll move along quickly if you can point me to the part of the policies that supports the original text. Thank you. —Danorton (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse you, please check WP:SOURCES again. Newspaper reports are generally considered to be less reliable than long-established sources, such as scientific journals and book articles. Many news reports are little more than localist-bias grandstanding.Ryoung122 08:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to get personal or to take this personally. We both share the same goal of improving Wikipedia.

I didn't intend to contradict anything in WP:SOURCES in my comment above, and I don't believe I did. I think that we would both agree that if there is a well respected journal that has an unbiased interest in the material under dispute, then its information is likely to be more accurate and reliable. The change I made was based on the source referenced and from what I saw, the information I removed was not supported by any referenced source. —Danorton (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's try THIS section:

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; usually followed by university-level textbooks; then by magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; then by mainstream newspapers.

Moreover, the convention that the bristlecone pine "Methuselah" is the oldest living tree has been on for more than 40 years; such a long-established convention should not be quickly overturned by something that does not even appear to be the same category. The Methuselah tree's age was established by ring count: this tree's age has been estimated by radiocarbon dating of a below-ground root, and the current stem is said to be 600 years old...not the same thing.Ryoung122 08:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't dispute the claim, only that it was unsourced in the article. —Danorton (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

WISE, a scientific organization, questions whether Old Tjikko can be considered a single "tree":

http://ecoworldly.com/2008/09/18/is-9550-year-old-worlds-oldest-living-tree-discovery-disputable/

If a scientific organization that decides these things hasn't accepted, well then...not to mention Guinness World Records...Ryoung122 08:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If you believe that that source is reliable, please include the information in the article and reference it. (You might find the {{cite web}} template helpful in creating references.) —Danorton (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

POV vs NPOV statements

Comment. Please stop the false "NOR" charges. It is typical of some Wikipedians to try to get their way by using alleged policy citations as a bludgeon, even when those citations don't apply in the particular situation. In this case, there are PLENTY of sources that do not consider "Old Tjikko" to be the world's oldest tree. One of Wikipedia's core policies is to support pluralism, or multiple major points of view. That is, in fact, what Jimbo Wales means when he says one of Wikipedia's core policies is that it should be NPOV. This can be accomplished by using more diplomatic language. For example, "considered by some sources to be the world's oldest tree" is NPOV. "Is the world's oldest tree" is POV, considering there is major disagreement in interpretation here...disagreement in outside sources, which proves that it is not an issue of "NOR" but an issue of finding a compromise solution.Ryoung122 08:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Old Tjikko is not the worlds oldest tree which is why I feel so strongly that is should be noted that it is the oldest individual cloned tree. There are older cloned colonies and individual trees which are older by tree ring count. This negates the need to say "considered by some sources" because all the sources indicate it is simply a notable old cloned tree... not "The World's Oldest Tree". If you read the last paragraph you will see that I specifically point out other examples of "The World's Oldest Tree" to provide some comparisons. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Seriously...

You people are getting angry over a disagreement about how old a tree is. Take a step back for a moment and think about how ridiculous it is to get worked up about that. Of course, I'm probably wasting my time trying to get people to be rational on the internet. Worldruler20 (talk) For an academic and reasonable Wikipedia —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC).

Seriously, why waste your time commenting on something you think is a wase of time? Besides, nobody is getting worked up here, we are simply discussing the topic which what the talk page is for... the talk page, by the way, is not for making fun of people who like to talk about how old trees are. Go back to reading your bible and keep the ignorant comments to yourself. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Old Tjikko/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

1) Well-written:

• The article is well written . OK
• It lacks a lot to fulfill the Wikipedia:Layout and Wikipedia:Manual of Style. The article should have a lead and several subheadings. Not OK

2) Factually accurate:

• The discription of the facts is OK. OK
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources suggests that books or peer reviewed journal should be used. And what I think there should be several science articles and with luck a book on google books as possible source for the biological phenomenon. Not OK

3) Broad in its coverage:

• A little bit is missing on the point why a clone adds up the lifetime and is considered to form a old individium. For mee this looks like a strawberry can be as old, as long it only used Stolon for reproduction. Could be improved

4) Neutral:

• Article shows a NPOV.OK

5) Stable:

• Article is stable.OK

6) Illustrated:

• The article is lacking a image. A image of a Norway Spruce, even it is not the old one would help.Could be improved

---

Stone (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

1b. Article is too short for a lead and subheadings. Note that good articles do not have a requirement for length. If you insist that it have sections, I can make them... but they will be so small it would be pointless. Note that WP:Layout states that the guidlines should be "treated with common sense and the "occasional exception".

2b. This is a relatively new discovery. There are no books, papers, or journals which have covered this plant. Trust me, I've searched for it. There might be some new information since the last time I checked the standard google search results, but I just checked google books and google scholar again and there are no results. Most of Leif Kullman's research is about global warming with respect to the tree-line changes on mountains in Sweden, not specifically about this tree. This tree seems to be a simple "accidental" discovery, as finding old trees was not his goal. Searching for "old tjikko" gives zero search results, but searching for Leif Kullman gives a lot of results regarding global warming (and mostly from the 90s to the early 00s, nothing much past 2002, and the tree was only discovered last year in a remote location). I will keep searching, but I am skeptical about finding anything more than is already present in the article.

3. Not quite sure what you mean. And yes you are right, a strawberry can be as old. A stolon is basically vegetative cloning or layering, which Old Tjikko is using. The fact that the remains of roots around the tree have been carbon dated to over 9,000 years, and according to Umea University they "display clear signs that they have the same genetic makeup of the tree above them". I dunno if this means they DNA tested them, or simply used logical deduction to determine that these long-dead roots were from the same tree.

6. GAs are not required to have an image, and there is no free image of Old Tjikko. I already emailed Leif Kullman and he simply directed me to a website where I could purchase the image. All the photos of norway spruce are large, towering trees, which would be misleading for this article. The spruce in question is a very small, almost bush-sized tree, and there are no depictions of a norway spruce at this size (that I can find). If you know of any, feel free to add it, otherwise, I'm not sure it would do this article any justice. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 02:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

1b) If you can show me a GA without headings I will look at this.

2b) About the fact that Norway Spruce is a newcommer in Sweden, should be documented by a peer reviewed article. If this discovery is so ground breaking why is nobody writting a paper? The background should be covered also

3) It sounds like this is something unique, but from what I understand this is a common in nature and should read like that.

6) To buy the image might not be necessary and this point will not stop the article from being GA.

--Stone (talk) 10:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

1b. Ok, ok, I give up. I have added section headings.

2b. I have no idea why nobody is writing a paper. I wish someone would! But I have been searching and have found nothing, only news sources.

3. I have attempted to address this, let me know what you think.

6. I have added an image, since it would probably be a good idea just to know what it looks like anyway, even if it is not the actual tree.

I have made some major modifications to the article, and as always, it is a work in progess. I will keep improving the article but let me know what you think so far. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 04:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

To give up is always bad, if you have a good article without sections I would agree to change it back, but the sections look good in my eyes and the structure is making easier to read! If there is no journal paper that we have to life with what we have. The image will be replaced by a real picture of the tree sooner or later!

I like the article, good work! Thanks!

Passed GAN --Stone (talk) 07:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Dating

it is mentioned in the article, that Old Tjikko is 9.550 Years old (or maybe the roots, thats not important at the moment). But it is nowhere mentioned from which Year it is counted backwards. For example: if I find this article in the Year 2005 than Old Tjikko is as well 9.550 Years old like when I find this article in the Year 2010? or in 2015? ScienceDaily says in April 2008: 9.550 Years, this Article says in July 2010: 9.550 Years... The article should include the "Basic-Year". Please forgive me my bad english, I hope I could express what I mean. -- Hartmann Schedel ^Prost 09:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. Yes the tree is one year older, every year, obviously. But seeing as how carbon dating is not exact (you could never pin down the exact year the tree sprouted), I don't see it as a problem. Counting backwards from 2008 subtracting 9550 years means the tree sprouted somewhere around 7550 BC. This is simple math which anyone who is interested enough to figure out can do on their own, as you did, so I don't really see it as a problem but I will see what I can do about it. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 13:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thank you for this. I think it is good to say in the Article "somewhen around 7550 BC", which is good enough as basic-year. It helps to "imagine" the time-spans. And maybe your saying "But seeing as how carbon dating is not exact (you could never pin down the exact year the tree sprouted)" is (maybe a little bit re-texted) also a worthful Information for the Article. -- Hartmann Schedel ^Prost 18:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Image

Am I getting this right -- the image there is captioned "Old Tjikko" and is not Old Tjikko? Put a caveat in the caption much? Or am I completely confused? Trigaranus (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)