Talk:List of oldest trees

message: A fake news article is circulating in many news sources, about a Samauma tree in the Amazon, the oldest tree in the world, being cut down. The original source is a fake news website on december 6th 2014. There is no such tree. Somebody even edited this page to include that tree, citing the fraudulent source, as well as a newspaper that was fooled by the fake news website. I shall roll back the changes, and watch this page if it arises again. --NQue (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current fake news article about oldest tree cut down 

message: I virtually drove myself nuts trying to differentiate between two trees listed under “Old Trees With Estimated Ages.” I am specifically referring to the 9th and 10th trees down on the list. This would be  the 'Oliveira deSanta Iria de Azóia' tree and the 'Unnamed' tree.
I studied it, googled it and finally, after much research discovered THEY ARE THE SAME TREE!
The site link provided for the 'Oliveira deSanta Iria de Azóia' tree located in 'Santa Iria de Azóia, Portugal' ( found here  http://wayback.archive.org/web/20120326162609/http://www.afn.min-agricultura.pt/portal/ArvoresFicha?Processo=KNJ1/601&Concelho=&Freguesia=&Distrito= )
is the same tree found at the site link provided for the 'Unnamed' tree in 'Loures, Lisboa, Portugal'  (found here  http://www.noticiasdevilareal.com/noticias/index.php?action=getDetalhe&id=10960 ).
The first site says that the UTAD gave the age of 2850 years to an olive tree located in Lisbin Loures at the Parish of Santa Iria da Azóia. 
The latter site says the UTAD gave the age of 2850 years to an olive tree located in Santa Iria de Azóia, in the municipality of Loures. 
If you google the pictures and look at them from various angles you will discover they are the same tree.
I think the confusion came in when observing great differences in the photos of the tree.  Some were taken years ago from the rear of the tree. Others were taken recently from the side of the tree. The date the photo was taken and which side of the tree the photo was taken from makes for the difference in the photos. Also the different arrangements of the address added to the confusion.
Many other sites have repeated and mirrored this misinformation.
Please look this over and let me know if I am correct.
CWatchman (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right, so I went ahead and made the change. (By the way, I fixed the references issue here by putting  at the bottom of the section where the original <ref> tags appear.) Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Error in identification of two trees

message: I remove King Clone from the list of trees, because a creosote bush isn't a tree. Instead, I put it back in the See Also list. If other editors disagree, let's discuss here. —hike395 (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest creosote bush 

message: Just wondering:  in the tables each country is linked to is respective article with the exception of The United States.  Is there a reason for this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F471:4160:5D4A:5782:576D:FA5D (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Not Link to United States in Tables? 

message: There are multiple olive trees with ages claimed between 6000 and 2000 years, and none are listed on this list.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.127.125.130 (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Look under the "Old trees with estimated ages" section. — hike395 (talk) 02:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olive Trees 

message: I recently visited this tree, which has a few plaques explaining who determined its age, when, and how (a patent is mentioned), within a 2% margin of error (so the tree was between 3283 and 3417 years old at the time its age was measured, back in 2016). I'm no dendrologist, but are the dating methods for the trees with "confirmed ages" more precise than that? If not, why is Oliveira do Mouchão's age considered "unreliable"?
I can upload photos of the aforementioned plaques if necessary. One is an English translation of the main plaque explaining the who, when, and how.
2001:818:E302:DD00:2DAF:4416:DD9F:1DDF (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oliveira do Mouchão's age 

message: The image at the beginning of the article is labelled
"Estimates of its age range up to 900,000 (or even 1,000,000) years old"
Not only is this not credible, but the dedicated article about Pando shows it really can't be more than 14,000 years old and quite likely is considerably less.
Therefore I have edited the caption to something more sensible.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.222.218 (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pando image 

message: To my reading the Mongarlowe Mallee does not belong in the clonal trees category. The trees in question are all the one specimen and it does not grow from "very short lived" clones or typically via vegetative clones. It is theorised that "if" the two close by specimens were derived from a single rootstock that split a long time ago that the tree could be >13 000 years old. This doesn't really fit within the category which is mostly filled with colonies that have persisted for long periods with regular new clones appearing. I think this would better fit into the trees with estimated ages category or alternatively splitting the record: 3000+ entry for trees with verified ages and 13000+ for trees with estimated ages to cover the possibility that it may have split from common rootstock.
Thoughts? Nickmista (talk) 05:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mongarlowe Mallee not appropriate for clonal trees category