Talk:Sycamore Gap tree

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 [1] 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)

please reinstate description of tree as iconic

The fact that Sycamore Gap tree is recognized as "iconic" is relevant. The specific citation supporting the claim of it being iconic was removed in the edit of 16:03, 13 December 2023 and the claim itself was subsequently removed in the edit of 11:07, 9 March 2024. Fabrickator (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Naming of the accused

Those accused of the crime, under British law, are innocent until proven guilty. As such, their names should not appear in the article. Iff they are found guilty at trial, then we can discuss whether or not to name them. Mjroots (talk) 05:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. WP:SUSPECT says "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." Also, Wikipedia does not have to cover every development as it happens and can wait until a conviction. I have removed the names for now. 04:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Several points occur to me.

First, the fact that they have been charged is Wikipedia-worthy. While covering every detail of the court proceedings from beginning to end seems unnecessary for an encyclopedia, the names of who is charged with a notable crime that has England's -- and, indeed, the world's -- attention seems like reasonable information.

Second, whether they're innocent until proven guilty has no bearing on the worthiness of notation in a Wikipedia article. If we're truly embracing an WP:NPOV in Wikipedia articles, the best example of NPOV is to merely mention the names of the individuals and that they have been CHARGED.

Third, WP:SUSPECT says that "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime" -- but this is about seriously considering, not banning outright. If the police release names and the courts release names and the media is allowed in the courtroom to get names, and through all of this no court has sealed the charges, then clearly this is public information.

Fourth, WP:BLP1E it says that "The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." These people's names have been VERY persistently covered by a WIDE RANGE of reliable sources -- pick any news outlet in England, never mind the rest of the world. Indy (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree that publication of anyone's name does not infer guilt. Under British law, named individuals are innocent until proven guilty just as are unnamed individuals. If names are meant to be concealed, until a case has been tried and verdict delivered, I think Wikipedia policy ought to explicitly state this. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: - WT:BLP is the place to argue for changes to the wording. Mjroots (talk) 06:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Do you think it's currently sufficiently clear? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

In the meantime, the wording clearly says "editors must seriously consider not including the material" and does NOT say "editors must never include names." So the point really isn't about arguing for wording changes on WT:BLP but arguing that omitting these names is not mandated by those rules -- and, in fact, given the wording on WP:BLP1E that my fourth point notes above, it seems to indicate that, per those guidelines, the names should appear. Indy (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm also unsure how knowledge of an individual's name will prejudice a fair trial. Where there are real legal restrictions, as in the case of accused minors, the court will make reporting restrictions very clear and Wikipedia will have to respect these just like anyone else. Where the names of accused individuals are in the public domain and are known across the world, I'm not sure what is to be gained by suppressing them here. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)