Talk:Platanus orientalis

message: This article makes it seem like this tree doesn't grow east of Himalaya. I am in Beijing, China, and I took a photo of a label on one of many of these trees, giving its Latin name, which is exactly this, and the very reason I ended up on this Wikipedia page (since I wanted to see if it had an English name). There were plenty of these trees (saw them today). Oddly, when I clicked on the Chinese version of this Wikipedia article, it was blocked, as are many non-Chinese web pages. (I wanted to confirm that this is indeed the tree my Chinese friend claims it to be. It's her favorite tree, and is common in Beijing, according to her.)
124.127.210.255 (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's native range is described as west of the Himalayas, but as the article also states, it is cultivated in many, many other places. --Junkyardsparkle (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Platanus orientalis in Beijing, China

message: To anonymous user at IP 82.5.114.135; you have twice removed content and references to ancient cultivation in Kashmir, twice reverted by me. You have also added an unreliable reference to the Platanus page from , claiming the tree is native to Kashmir; this is in doubt, its accepted indigenous range only extends to Iran. 
You have also added content of some relevance on the present state of the species in Kashmir, but as it is not reliably known to be indigenous there, this is of questionable relevance. 
Imc (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The anonymous user should not be removing sourced content, either. Estimates for the native range of platanus orientalis extend at the smaller estimate from Asia Minor to Iran, whilst other estimates suggest a broader native range, possibly to Nepal in the east - . Therefore it does not seem entirely deceptive to suggest parts of the Indian subcontinent in the native range. However, the source which suggests the tree is linked to the goddess 'Bhawani' appears to be a  Hindu Kashmiri publication, and I believe there would be WP:RS issues, as the predominantly Muslim culture of modern Kashmir may not hold that chinar trees are tied to the goddess. If that source is to be included, make sure to mention that only Hindus subscribe to that belief, rather than using Kashmir as a sweeping term, since the vast majority of Kashmiris are Muslims. Thanks, TheSuave 22:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have looked at both versions and I believe the current version has more reliable sources. Unless there are more calls to revert to the previous version, the page should stay as it is. TheSuave 22:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your reasoning on religion in modern Kashmir is quite irrelevant to the subject. However, in case you don't see it, Kashmiris were not always Muslim, as I'm sure you know, nor did the original entry claim that Kashmiris are Hindus now, or that Muslims consider trees to be sacred, or make any similar implication. It just made a historical statement, complete with sources. Imc (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Platanus orientalis in Kashmir

message: Regardless of content the page needs an English-language edit and some attention to format.Dave (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Item - "very large, widespreading, and long-lived deciduous tree" Exactly what would that mean? Is it geographically widespread or does it have a widespreading crown, or both? "Widespreading" is poetic and is not usually used of crowns. Widespread is appropriate to formal scientific prose but does not mean the same thing. I am going to take widespreading as widespread, but that places the range in the intro. That is fine, because the name Platanus orientalis should be explained there. These are minor adjustments - we need a pic in the intro because it is so short. Wikipedia has not had a requirement to fit the article in a single page for some time now so over-condensation is not necessary. A slightly longer intro introduces better.Dave (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Finished edit. Added nothing, took nothing away. Don't change without giving reasons. By the way I think it is really quite interesting though I am sure it can be expanded both culturally and scientifically.Dave (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I thinks most of the changes are for the better. Perhaps the section on cultural history should be reorganised; e.g., geographically east to west, west to east, or even chronologically if it is possible. Also, to comment on the term 'historic Kashmir', in your later comment below, this was probably my addition. Historic Kashmir was intended to be mean ancient Kashmir, and differentiated from later Islamicised Kashmir. As you will see from the sentence and the context. Imc (talk) 06:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit needed

message: I just noticed this at the last minute. Unfortunately it looks as though I'll be taking a hand. The source given in no way supports the idea that this tree is the oldest living specimen. In fact there is a claim on a picture in the commons of a 1000-year-old specimen. 627 or 1000 are not long ages for trees on this earth. The bristlecone pine and the redwood are thousands of years old potentially. The problem is the editor's understanding of Wikipedia. This is not a travelogue or a brochure or advertising for a "come to Kashmir all you tourists" approach. This is an encyclopedia. Exaggerated claims and tourist language are therefore out. This is not "historic Kashmir" but only Kashmir. If we are going to be historic around here I am feeling pretty historic myself although not 627 years worth. So, whatever you say make sure you have the refs and that the refs support your claim. One more thing. One sentence was totally plagiarized from the article. A few years ago there was a lawyer among us who searched for plagiarism in groups of 5 words. So if more than 5 words are the same, rewrite, will you? Now, as for removal and insertion of claims by Kashmiri partisans or enemies, knock it off, will you? If there is real information supported by a source, put it in. Everyone else leave it in. If it is wrong or exaggerated or unsupported, don't put it in, save someone the trouble of taking it out. Take your combats someplace else, we aren't interested.Dave (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The 627 year old tree