Talk:Sri Maha Bodhi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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. Please participate by editing the article Sri Maha Bodhi, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Chinese Manual of Style - Naming conventions Indic Manual of Style - Naming conventions Japanese Manual of Style Korean Manual of Style - Naming conventions Tibetan Proposed naming conventions
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)