Talk:Hyperion (tree)

Hyperion's location

The longer Hyperion stays hidden, the better. Unfortunately, it will likely be found and mapped by someone who will publish the location, and from then on, say good by to Hyperion. The greatest disease Hyperion faces, is mankind. If you who are skeptical, can't believe in a 380-ft tree, Take a big gulp, because the Redwood has likely reached 400 in past ages. It is a statistical likelihood that taller trees than Hyperion have existed in the Redwoods, considering we only have 2 or 3 % of the original Old Growth left. --71.222.40.209 03:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This is NOT a forum. Please make sure all information on this talk page pertains to improving the wikipedia page. Now, that said, I can't believe the mods aren't allowing the coordinates of the tree to be posted. Additionally, real photos of the tree exist and are available without copyright, yet the mods also will not allow a real photo of the tree. This is blatant censorship and am honestly a bit disappointed in wikipedia for doing this 2601:18E:101:BAAD:691C:7B4B:D431:4DC0 (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Wrong wood volume

The tree is estimated to contain 502 m³ (18,600 cubic feet) of wood.

502 m³ is not equal to 18,600 cubic feet, but rather 17,728 cubic feet. If nobody can look up the citation and fix this, we'll need to remove it entirely. --Doradus (talk) 04:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The wood volume figure estimate is drastically off. 379 foot height with 24 foot diameter at base is way higher than given estimates. If average diameter figure can be cited it's simple to calculate. Tmalo7310 (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC - Coordinates for Hyperion

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.

---

I've placed this under geography, although it could go under biology as well. There appears to be a long-waged edit war on this page with regards to the coordinates for Hyperion. I've located a past discussion regarding the need to cite coordinates, as anybody can verify them by going to the location. IMO, this is equivalent to a photograph claiming to be of a certain location.

Other arguments raised in this particular topic are that the park services or discoverer don't want want the location made publicly available due to fears of vandalism (which is not backed by a source).

Should coordinates be included? Do they, and by extension all of the million or so coordinates on en.wiki, require citation? Do the opinions of the park services hold any weight? Most importantly, why do you take that stance? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

There isn't a biology RfC category - valid categories are listed at WP:RFC#Categories. But if you feel that something like Maths, science, and technology would apply, you can add |sci either before or after the existing |hist, but it must be before the |rfcid=28455FC otherwise Legobot won't pick it up. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Retain the coordinates. This is relevant and uncontroversial information, confirmed by what appears to be a RS. The views of the park authorities are unreferenced and maybe irrelevant. (I can see a case being made for removal on WP:BLPPRIVACY-like grounds – but no-one has made such a case.) Maproom (talk) 07:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• Require a reliable source for the coordinates. I think this is different from the arguments about OR for coordinates because, well, the tree is hard to get to, so it's not like anyone can verify them by going there. And the tree isn't visible on Google Maps, so you can't check the information there either. If someone from Wikipedia had actually been there with a GPS and confirmed, I would be more happy with it being unreferenced (in the same way that if someone actually takes a picture, then we use their image description as a reliable source for what the picture is of). But if the coordinates are coming off of some random website that's not a reliable source, then that's not so good. By the way, here's a reliable source for the views of the park authorities, at least their views a decade ago: [1]. CapitalSasha ~ talk 05:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Omit the coordinates. I came here from the RfC notice, and it's a very interesting question. I see from looking over the edit history that the only source is a self-published one. It's possible that it might be wrong, and the source provided just above by CapitalSasha demonstrates that there could be harm resulting from our publishing the coordinates if they were accurate. The fact that we can provide some sourcing for something does not mean that we must report it. So the question for me comes down to how much it would be useful for our readers, and the only potential use I can think of would be to go looking for it, which is not a compelling one. I'd say that we should only include the coordinates if the park authorities were to make the coordinates public. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Omit coordinates. I agree with Tryptofish's assesment that this is an interesting question (which, I will add, raises a different layer of editorial duties from those we are used to considering in our content discussions). I also agree with how Trypto parses this difficult and close call. I don't believe its truly an abrogation of neutrality to not include every detail that is appropriately referenced, provided the omission is for reasonable and pragmatic cause. There are in fact many policies that allow or encourage editors to avoid including certain content even if verifiable; this one is simply a little different from those we typically see. At a bare minimum we would need a source that passes WP:RS at a gold standard level; otherwise we literally are sending people off into the forest with potentially erroneous information from which real harm could result. Even if we do get such a source which meets a high standard of verification, there remains an ethical check in place which I believe must be considered, given the conservation consequences. That is, at a minimum, a question which should be contemplated by the community. For the present article and time, I am siding with the precautionary principle and endorsing the omission of these coordinates. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• Omit (Summoned by bot) per the Fish. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• Omit yeah, I removed it as famousredwoods.com isn't RS, and also there appear to be concerns about revealing the location. In most cases coordinates are fine as it'll be relatively easy to verify by going to the location; but I think here, where there won't even be a marker so one can't exactly verify one has got the right tree, and so on, I think you'd need an RS. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Omit based on no weight in reliable sources. I however don't support this 'conservation' angle. It's the job of the park service or relevant forestry commission to protect the tree from visitors. If you visit General Sherman for instance, there are designated walkways in place to try to protect the roots. Infact by not revealing the location, visitors may damage the habitat of more, unprotected trees in search of Hyperion. Cesdeva ^(talk) 13:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it comes to the same thing anyway. If the information were available in reliable sources then Wikipedia's inclusion would be unlikely to have a significant effect on the accessibility of the tree. CapitalSasha ~ talk 04:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Good point Cesdeva ^(talk) 06:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Omit Largely on same grounds as User:Cesdeva. For my part I cannot in good conscience add much; this talk page is too full of suspicious or bad-faith items for me to assess them. There is absolutely no point to including controversial items such as the coordinates until their reality and accuracy are beyond verifiable debate. If the details of the debate are to be included, then OK, but I don't see that as a practical prospect at the time of my writing this. JonRichfield (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2018 (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.

Picture

Why do we not have a picture? Is this tree hiding or not existing? Pics or it did not happen! 2A02:8388:1641:8380:15C2:A3F1:9A28:71D9 (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Height of hyperion tree

Alexa says Hyperion is 115.8m tall. 82.9.135.72 (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

That's from the rounded imperial measurement of 380 feet (115.824m). - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Coordinates from centroid of exclusion zone

Floydian removed the coordinates for the article, which were computed from the centroid of the exclusion zone. The following reasons were given in the edit summary, with my response to each:

• WP:SYNTH --- Centroid is a simple average of coordinates, covered by WP:CALC and is explicitly not original research
• RfC --- the RfC decided to omit the coordinates from famousredwoods.com, because famousredwoods.com is not a reliable source. The National Park Service writing about its own park resources appears to be a highly reliable source, so the RfC does not forbid coordinates from the NPS. There was no consensus for permanently removing the coordinates.
• NPS web page doesn't explicitly claim that the exclusion zone contains the tree --- That is true, but why would the NPS list a legal exclusion zone on a web page that discourages hiking to Hyperion, if it didn't contain it? I suppose it's possible that the NPS is trying to mislead the public by making an exclusion zone away from Hyperion. However, this possibility is excluded by a simple check of the coordinates from famousredwoods.com --- they lie within the exclusion zone.

The accuracy of the centroid is reflected in the precision of the coordinates: rounding to the nearest 0.1 minutes of arc (approximately 100m). Even though imprecise, it provides an approximate location of Hyperion. Other articles (such as those for mountain ranges) have imprecise coordinates that represent a region with a single point. One other possibility is to use {{maplink}} to show the exclusion polygon.

I'll restore the coordinates, but let's see if we can get consensus about what location data we should show. — hike395 (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I mean the correct thing to do would be to leave the version without the coordinates, as it's a clear-cut case of synthesis (they provide an exclusion zone therefore the tree is within that). "why would the NPS list a legal exclusion zone on a web page that discourages hiking to Hyperion, if it didn't contain it?" - I think that question answers itself. Maybe to throw people off? The better question is still "Why would Wikipedia provide coordinates to (the centre of) a legal exclusion zone when the owner of the land discourages legally forbids hiking to it"? I'd also note that the NPS website was brought forward in the second reply to the RfC and didn't seem to sway any subsequent votes. Also perhaps the coordinates from famousredwoods.com was synthesized from the same coordinates, and is not an independent verification. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)