Talk:Jaya Sri Maha Bodhi

Buddhism Low‑importance

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sri Lanka Top‑importance

	Sri Lanka portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sri Lanka, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sri Lanka on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sri LankaWikipedia:WikiProject Sri LankaTemplate:WikiProject Sri LankaSri Lanka articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dubious age

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. 64.73.244.162 21:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

As a Sri Lanka living in the US and culturally considered a Sinhalese Buddhist, this is my two cents on the issue. The age of the tree can be verifiable by tree ring research, and the University of Arizona has a dedicated institution for doing just that (Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research). However, comparing truck size is not relevant as the original trunk of the tree is below group level due to the construction of a stone wall around the tree, and as you can see now tree is about 6.5 meters above the ground. This indicates that ~6.5 m of the tree is under the soil now.Lipwe (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Also I don't know if there's a template I can put directly next to the 249 BC. {{dubious}} is supposed to be for sourced info only. M-1 (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jaya Sri Maha Bodhi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.dailynews.lk/2009/12/01/fea24.asp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041027085816/http://www.dailynews.lk/2002/04/25/fea06.html to http://www.dailynews.lk/2002/04/25/fea06.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jaya Sri Maha Bodhi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130413143127/http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2011/07/03/spe01.asp to http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2011/07/03/spe01.asp
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://cbs.ntu.edu.tw/bodhitree/en/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]