Talk:Jaya Sri Maha Bodhi
|WikiProject Buddhism||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Sri Lanka||(Rated Start-class, Top-importance)|
Although widely cited as planted in 288 BC, there is no way that the tree in this photo is over 2290 years old; Ficus religiosa is a fast-growing tree, and a specimen with this diameter trunk won't be more than two or three hundred years old. Compare this specimen (below) planted in the Foster Botanical Gardens, Hawaii, nearly as stout but only 150 years old at most.
A clue lies in the UNESCO report which points out that the site "was abandoned after an invasion in 993. Hidden away in dense jungle for many years" – more than plenty of time for the original tree to die and be replaced by its offspring, without anyone being aware of the change.
Seems to be one of those unfortunate cases where the 'official' line of its age preferred by the local religious and/or tourism authorities has to be followed (WP:NOR) until someone publishes a detailed scientific analysis of its age. If anyone knows of such a study, please add the details. - MPF 13:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- It would seem to me that the above constitutes original research, and the majority of external descriptions would contradict such research. What do you propose doing? ... aa:talk 04:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's what I meant, and why I've not added it to the article. What I propose doing? - wait until someone publishes some better verified info on the tree. - MPF 14:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
MPF-as an objective observer who stumbled on this page, I'd say add it as a section. Even to me, I think you've done good research and it deserves to be added. 18.104.22.168 21:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It's still original research, but to my eye, it's not possible to look at the picture of the tree in Hawaii and determine if it's "nearly as stout" as the Sri Maha Bodhi because there's nothing of known size in the picture, like a person, to give it any scale --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Did whoever started the Dubious age section notice that the picture of the Bo Tree was labelled "A Bo-tree in Sri Lanka"? This means it could have been any of the Bo Trees in Sri Lanka. Srilankan1948 (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Marked History section as unreferenced section
I did this because the date (249 BC) conflicts with the date cited elsewhere (288 BC). I didn't just delete it or change it because it seems to be an integrated part of a chunk of good information (it was planted on a terrace that was of a certain height with railings...) I don't know where that info comes from, though, and I can't say for certain that in 288 BC, it was planted on that specific terrace, etc. M-1 (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)