Talk:Tree That Owns Itself

Son of The Tree That Owns Itself
Son of The Tree That Owns Itself
	Son of The Tree That Owns Itself in 2005
Species	Quercus alba (White oak)
Coordinates	33°57′17″N 83°22′56″W / 33.954779°N 83.382325°W
Date seeded	1942
Custodian	Itself

The Tree That Owns Itself
The Tree That Owns Itself
	Postcard of the tree from the 1930s or 1940s
	The Tree That Owns Itself Location of the tree within Georgia
Species	Quercus alba (White oak)
Coordinates	33°57′17″N 83°22′56″W / 33.954779°N 83.382325°W
Date seeded	mid 1500s - late 1700s
Date felled	1942 (since replaced)
Custodian	Itself

Tree That Owns Itself was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 26, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
August 15, 2009	Good article reassessment	Kept
April 23, 2023	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Georgia (U.S. state) Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Georgia 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.Georgia (U.S. state)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Template:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Georgia (U.S. state) articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Crooked Creek (Georgia), Ed Defore Sports Complex, Audery Mill Creek, More (Georgia)... More (U.S.)...
Assess : Rate articles from Unassessed Georgia (U.S. state) articles and Unknown-importance Georgia (U.S. state) articles.
Citing sources : Unreferenced Georgia (U.S. state) articles
Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category.
Geographical coordinates : more Georgia (U.S. state) articles missing geocoordinate data
Infobox : Georgia (U.S. state) articles without infoboxes
Map : Wikipedia requested maps in Georgia (U.S. state)
Photo : Wikipedia requested photographs in Georgia (U.S. state)
Stubs : Work on stubs in articles in Georgia (U.S. state) stubs, Georgia (U.S. state) radio station stubs, Georgia (U.S. state) road stubs and Georgia (U.S. state) geography stubs.
Other : *Deletion sorting: Please see the collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Georgia (U.S. state) - compiled by WikiProject Deletion sorting
- Help out with articles placed in Category:Georgia (U.S. state) articles needing attention
- Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability
- Tag the talk pages of Georgia (U.S. state)-related articles with the {{WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)}} banner.
- Get Georgia (U.S. state) to a featured article quality standard

Plants Low‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany 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.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Citations[edit]

You might want to cite 4-5 items in the article via footnotes. I'll put up the GA then. Deckiller 00:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More to do in order to get this article to GA status:
- References are required (ideally have footnotes)
- Remove 1-sentence paragraphs (or merge)
- Expand lead to become an overview of article
If these first can be accomplished, then the article should be put up under self-noms for GA again. AndyZ 21:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe these issues have been corrected and I have renominated the article. :bloodofox: 15:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

This page has been dugg. Watch out for the vandals![1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.245.142 (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legend[edit]

The story behind The Tree that Owns Itself is largely legend. No such deed was ever recorded in Athens/Clarke County -- and, if there had been, it would almost certainly not be recognized as valid. Also, I seem to recall reading that no one named Jackson ever owned the property in question. In my mind, the really wonderful part of the story is that, in spite of this, no one has ever formally questioned the tree's supposed ownership of the land. PurpleChez 17 April 2006 1:40PM

This has become apparent to me as well and yet I hadn't gotten around to clarifying this myself. I appreciate you taking the time to restructure the article to reflect this. :bloodofox: 07:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've enjoyed doing it. I'm a local history geek. Did you take the pictures that appear in the article? They are great! The heavy blue-green color captures the feeling you get in that neighborhood when everything is nice and leafy. I was by the tree last Saturday (21 Oct) and acorns were falling like rain. I've got about fifty in soil at home, and a bowlful leftover, some of which are sprouting in the open air. Although I recognize that the tree cannot legally own anything, I loved getting an email yesterday from an office of the city-county gov't stating (as now cited in the article) that it is Athens' stated position that the tree does in fact own itself. It's a fun story. And, of course, it ties into lots of nice ecology imagery too. PurpleChez 13:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did take the photos in the article. Thank you! I wish photos existed of the original tree, I would really have liked to have seen it. I also quite like the tree as a symbol - I'm surprised that local ecology groups haven't grabbed ahold of it or celebrated it more. Or maybe they have and that's why it has become so popularized. Either way, you've done an excellent job of shaping this article up and, thanks to your contributions, it may be time to nominate it as a GA again. :bloodofox: 14:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've run across one old photo supposedly of the original tree. It was HUGE. I'll have to check to see about the legalities of uploading a photo that old. (The photo may be 100 years old, but does the author or publisher of the 5-year-old coffee table book it's included in have any claim to it?)PurpleChez 14:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'd love to see that. If the photograph is over 100 years old, it's public domain. So, if you can get a scan of the photograph itself, that would compliment this article very well. :bloodofox: 02:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

Has this image been digitally altered? The text appears suprisingly clear and the metadata notes Adobe Photoshop use (where as the other picture by Bloodofox has the camera metadata). If it has been digitally altered please note it at least in the image summary. I originally thought the picture (and by extension the article) was a hoax although now I realize that is not the case. [2] Cedars 00:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This image was simply resized and grayscaled by myself in Photoshop with possible level adjusting, there was no digital retouching - I will take that as a compliment! :} :bloodofox: 01:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may be the level addjusting that caught my eye. Sorry to bother you. Cedars 06:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need for an apology - I'm glad people are seeing it! :bloodofox: 06:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a great picture! The lettering is so crisp it almost does look like it was photoshopped, although I can vouch for the fact that it wasn't.PurpleChez 15:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That or that?[edit]

Is the tree's official name Tree That Owns Itself or Tree that Owns Itself? This is not consistent throughout the article and should definitely be addressed. -- Kicking222 20:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose "Tree That Owns Itself" would be correct. I'll go through it and fix it. :bloodofox: 06:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have corrected all instances of this. If not, please feel free to. :bloodofox: 06:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Guys, this is a really interesting article. I won't bore you with my detailed assessments of all the good article criteria, since I think that it passes well written, broad in coverage, NPOV, stable and pictures. Unfortunatly, it is just out of reach of GA because of verifiability. In the history section, there is an unresolved {{fact}} tag. Additionally, i think that the Son of The Tree That Owns Itself section needs more citations, most desperately in the first paragraph. This currently reads like personal experience/original research.

So I am putting this article on 7 day hold, because I am sure you can come up with the goods by then. I look forward to making it a GA in a few days time! Chrisfow 21:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed a few of the "reference needed" footnotes that were no longer needed because they were now paired with viable references (or, in one case, because the text already acknowledged that commonly accepted information could not be verified). The entire first paragraph in "Son Of..." went along with the next paragraph, where a proper citation was provided, but I have added one to the first paragraph -- hopefully this will dispell the understandable perception that this info is anecdotal or otherwise unverifiable. Three "neededs" remain, and I think I can provide the appropriate citations when I get home. I'm also trying to find more info about the 50th Anniversary ceremony in '96, and to obtain a public-domain photo of the original tree.PurpleChez 17:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References have been provided for the remaining "reference needed" citations, or the text has been amended to reflect the fact that commonly accepted information cannot be adequately substantiated and might best be regarded as legend rather than fact.PurpleChez 04:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good additions/edits PurpleChez. One problem remains: original research. Source 8 is personal correspondence between you and one Professor Smith. That is you originally researching the piece and including that research in the article. Wiki articles should be referenced to sources which can be verified by others. Although your original research of this is admirable (I am a fellow local history geek), unfortunatly it can't be used in a good article. The statement does have another reference though, so taking that out takes nothing else from the piece. As soon as that is done, I will list the article as GA. Well done for all you hard work! Chrisfow 16:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

awaiting your review.... and thanks for the kind words -- it was a lot of fun. PurpleChez 01:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and well done!

If you obtain information via correspondence, and have it displayed publicly online (having obtained permission from the other party) wouldn't it then be verifiable by others? Just out of curiosity... -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability is about publishing more than checking up. Quoting from WP:OR: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. By insisting that only facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher may be published in Wikipedia, the no-original-research and verifiability policies reinforce one another". Self publishing a source on your home page is not by a "reputable publisher", so cannot be included. Chrisfow 00:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, just to clarify, this is even if the interviewed source is credible and verified? What if, say, I interviewed Kurt Vonnegut on youtube, and he told me something specific about himself; would that be admissible? (heck of a Christmas present, that.)-Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 05:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think that would be equally inadmissable. Youtube is not permitted as a verifiable source. With any site like that, you could get one of your friends to act as Vonnegut and get him to say whatever you liked. With a half decent lookalike and low res footage it would be plausable. So again, that does not count as either credible or verified. Chrisfow 13:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Devil's Advocate here -- I'm absolutely 100% hip to the need for verifiability, and have reworked my articles to bring them into compliance, but it seems to me that just as "easily" as "you could get one of your friends to act as Vonnegut and get him to say whatever you liked" you could also assemble whatever the heck text you wanted to, make it look legit (easy as pie with modern software), have it printed and bound at Kinko's, and sneak copies onto the shelves at a few key libraries. (Absurd, perhaps, but hardly moreso than the phony Vonnegut ploy.) A thesis or dissertation would be especially "easy" to fake, esp. since they may exist at only a single site and often look like they were in fact 'published' at Kinko's. (I imagine it wouldn't be impossible to add said book to the electronic catalog, esp. if you had a friend at the circ desk...I know this is heaping implausibility upon implausibility, and may seem fairly cynical, but I'm not actually advocating this or pleased that it could be done. Like I said -- Devil's Advocate.) Certainly, you could make inquiries and eventually prove that the book was bogus, but one could also make inquiries and prove that the video was legit. Again...in the end I agree with the policy, but I do so with some reservation. I am suspicious of any information that exists solely online, and I understand why it should be avoided in research. But (going back to the Vonnegut scenario), if the writer/editor of the Vonnegut article is in posession of information that contradicts all previous scholarship on the man -- and that information happens to be in the form of a personal letter (old school pen and ink snail mail!) from Kurt Vonnegut himself.... I would hate to see misinformation be allowed to stand because the "truth" came in the wrong format. I just wish there were another way...but isn't that always the case?.... PS: I think that the label "original research" may be confusing to some on first hearing it...I know it was to me. In writing this article I looked into sources that I have never seen cited in any other writing about the TTOI -- and that's what I originally thought was meant by the term "original research." I think a better term might be an injunction against original sources, because the concern seems to be with generating -- and then citing -- your own sources. At least that was my take on it. Sorry to ramble...it's late....PurpleChez 04:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol no problem PurpleChez! I think that the original research policy was intended to prevent Wikipedia from becoming home to a load of essays. I personally have included OR in articles...but I would never intend for that article to become a GA, and it is more for the satisfaction of the local community's interest in its history than for the benefit of the Wikipedia project. That article is not an essay - the OR I conducted is presented without bias (I think!) - but would not pass the OR guidlines for GA. It was here too - like I said, I admired the research behind it! Nevertheless, those rules are rules. If an article is put forward for GA, it gets assessed against them. Chrisfow 01:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The date given for the collapse of the original tree (Dec 1, 1942) seems to be in error. Several other sources indicate October 9, 1942, as the actual date. Given that the tree was supposedly "sick" for many years perhaps it fell in several pieces, with the major collapse in October and the remainder in December. ASAP I am going to check the ol' newspaper archives and see what turns up. Corrections will follow shortly.PurpleChez 17:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salt-dumping vandals[edit]

I have found NO evidence to support the statement that the tree was "attacked" by salt-dumping vandals from "a rival school" in November, and I find this statement extremely suspect. I recall nothing from the local media and have found no mentions of this online. I also find the "rival school" citation to be shady: a rival to who? UGA? Clarke Central High? I will look into this, but I am suspicious. PurpleChez 04:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This also sounds really suspect to me, I would not be surprised if it were simple vandalism. :bloodofox: 22:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have since deleted this claim. :bloodofox: 22:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote format[edit]

Please note that it is necessary to put a ref name in quotes (e.g. <ref name="ref name">) only when it consists of multiple words. Thus I almost always use single word names, acronyms, etc. PurpleChez 03:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still finding people going through the trouble of wading through articles in order to "fix" perfectly good reference tags by adding quotation marks to the reference names. THIS ISN'T NECESSARY. PurpleChez 04:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prepare for Vandalism[edit]

This page just hit the front page on Digg.--132.170.29.154 (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Should trees have standing"[edit]

The book Should Trees Have Standing ISBN 0379213818 would be a good reference for this page; it's on environmental law and the title essay is on rights for natural objects. 76.226.169.102 (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Tree That Owns Itself. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 02:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Request[edit]

This article has been tagged for a GA Request. Overall it is a very nice little article. Unfortunately there are a few citation needed tags, but I think if those get cleaned up there would be no need to conduct a reassessment. AIRcorn (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done It appears the article is up to standard as of the addition of Infobox. No apparent cleanup needed to warrant delisting. Tag has been removed. --Nemoschool (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No Infobox[edit]

Why does this article not have an infobox? Template:Infobox tree seems like it world work great for this article as it does for Tree That Owns Itself (Alabama) (also see example). I would add the infobox myself, but I don't want to impact the articles GA status. I personally believe the infobox will only enhance the article, but please let me know if you believe otherwise. I even thing the section "Son of The Tree That Owns Itself" should have it's own infobox. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 20:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that an infobox is needed. --Nessie (talk) 01:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

Tree That Owns Itself[edit]

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. 7 days have expired, no active work to improve the article to GA standards. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2006. Main problem is the lack of citations in many areas that have tagged with citation needed tags. Also has some page needed and full citation needed tags. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With much sadness for such an interesting article, delist. This would need major work to maintain GA status. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.