Talk:Sycamore Gap tree

Naming of the accused

Those accused of the crime, under British law, are innocent until proven guilty. As such, their names should not appear in the article. Iff they are found guilty at trial, then we can discuss whether or not to name them. Mjroots (talk) 05:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. WP:SUSPECT says "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." Also, Wikipedia does not have to cover every development as it happens and can wait until a conviction. I have removed the names for now. 04:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Several points occur to me.

First, the fact that they have been charged is Wikipedia-worthy. While covering every detail of the court proceedings from beginning to end seems unnecessary for an encyclopedia, the names of who is charged with a notable crime that has England's -- and, indeed, the world's -- attention seems like reasonable information.

Second, whether they're innocent until proven guilty has no bearing on the worthiness of notation in a Wikipedia article. If we're truly embracing an WP:NPOV in Wikipedia articles, the best example of NPOV is to merely mention the names of the individuals and that they have been CHARGED.

Third, WP:SUSPECT says that "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime" -- but this is about seriously considering, not banning outright. If the police release names and the courts release names and the media is allowed in the courtroom to get names, and through all of this no court has sealed the charges, then clearly this is public information.

Fourth, WP:BLP1E it says that "The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." These people's names have been VERY persistently covered by a WIDE RANGE of reliable sources -- pick any news outlet in England, never mind the rest of the world. Indy (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree that publication of anyone's name does not infer guilt. Under British law, named individuals are innocent until proven guilty just as are unnamed individuals. If names are meant to be concealed, until a case has been tried and verdict delivered, I think Wikipedia policy ought to explicitly state this. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: - WT:BLP is the place to argue for changes to the wording. Mjroots (talk) 06:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Do you think it's currently sufficiently clear? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

In the meantime, the wording clearly says "editors must seriously consider not including the material" and does NOT say "editors must never include names." So the point really isn't about arguing for wording changes on WT:BLP but arguing that omitting these names is not mandated by those rules -- and, in fact, given the wording on WP:BLP1E that my fourth point notes above, it seems to indicate that, per those guidelines, the names should appear. Indy (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm also unsure how knowledge of an individual's name will prejudice a fair trial. Where there are real legal restrictions, as in the case of accused minors, the court will make reporting restrictions very clear and Wikipedia will have to respect these just like anyone else. Where the names of accused individuals are in the public domain and are known across the world, I'm not sure what is to be gained by suppressing them here. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

p.s. does this aspect of WP:SUSPECT also apply to Talk pages like this one? I see it says "—in any article—". I can't yet see why we would want to name them here, but are we permitted? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The accused have been found guilty. I say that it is appropriate that they are now named. Raising for discussion and consensus. Mjroots (talk) 10:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

No objections. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

No objections; we have a conviction – that satisfies WP:SUSPECT and is congruent with how other (UK) crime articles have been treated. MIDI (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Can sub judice apply after conviction but before sentencing? (... asking for a lumberjack friend) Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

No - sub judice applies while the trial is ongoing. A verdict has been reached, so the trial is, in effect, over. That it has been adjourned for sentencing does not prevent us from naming the perpetrators. Mjroots (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I've added their names to the article. That said, we don't need to keep repeating the names, once is sufficient. If they receive differing sentences, they can be referred to by surname for identification purposes. Mjroots (talk) 04:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I have added some basic biographical details. It's not clear that either man was the main instigator. Has any explanation been given for the "16-year-old boy and a man in his 60s" who were originally arrested? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Is / was?

The opening sentence says "The Sycamore Gap tree or Robin Hood tree is a 150-year-old sycamore tree... " Yes, it is still alive. But the later text quotes Andrew Poad saying it will ..."take a few years to develop into even a small tree and around 150 to 200 years before it is anywhere close to what we have lost..." This kind of implies it isn't really yet a complete tree again, even a small one? It's now just a stump with some shoots? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

@DeFacto: What are you saying with [[1]] -- that the cutting was illegal won't change no matter what happens with the court case. If they are acquitted it will just mean they either didn't do it or it could not be proved they did. It won't change the illegality the act, it will just be a unsolved case. That this article does not indicate the state of the tree toward the top and in the image is a problem. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker, the article doesn't support that it was an illegal act and you didn't supply a reliable source for your assertion. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

That is false. The article does support it is illegal. Vandalism is an illegal act. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I strongly agree with your latest addition to the image caption, as it clarifies that the tree no longer looks like that. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

So do I. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The article doesn't support that it's vandalism either, in Wikipedia's voice. All we have is the opinion of the police. It is the court that decides, based on evidence presented. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

It's hard to imagine how this was not an illegal act. I think most people would assume the police description was correct. But yes, there are no convictions yet and the two accused have entered not guilty pleas. Who knows what will happen. I guess if the men were to both die before the trial concludes, you would argue they were not guilty and no crime had been committed. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia insists on verifiability, yes. With no trial, the best we could do is offer the supported, attributed, and duly balanced opinions of guilt or innocence. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Something like "...in what Northumbria Police described as "an act of vandalism", perhaps. (And I wasn't suggesting that the two accused may be lynched by a mob of angry tree huggers. But you never know.) Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Exactly, and which is already in the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh gosh, yes. So it is! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The tree is very much still alive & it deserves to be referred to in the present tense! The tree's living root system extends significantly underground, so it is not just 'a stump with shoots'.

Albeit under unfortunate circumstances, the tree has been coppiced & given time, will regenerate naturally. Dk2401 (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Botanically yes, it's still a tree. Visibly, it's just a stump with shoots, not something one would drive hundreds of miles to photograph? That's not the kind of "coppicing" that most arborists would recommend! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Clearly the tree that was there is gone. It is now the Sycamore Gap stump. Polyamorph (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Not at all. It's also a large, viable root system. This, and the fact it's a sycamore, means that it will pollard quite well. It will never look the same again, but a tree should regrow on that site pretty quickly - looks depending on how it's managed. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

"A tree should regrow" is WP:CRYSTAL. The fact is the tree that was there, the tree that is notable, no longer exists. Polyamorph (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, tend to agree, although a scientifically-based estimate of how long it might take to grow as large again (another 150 years?) might be useful somewhere (if you could find any expert willing to make such an estimate). I guess what I might expect to see in the opening sentence is something like:".... was a 150-year-old, 49-foot (15 m) tall sycamore tree next to Hadrian's Wall...". I'm a bit surprised its height is not mentioned anywhere in the article. Unless I have misssed it? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Then open an AfD and see how far you get. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Why would an AfD be at all appropriate? Polyamorph (talk) 07:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Channel 4 News asked the head of Tree collections, Kevin Martin, at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew: "How significant was the Sycamore Gap tree?" – using the past tense "was" – (link below).

How significant was the Sycamore Gap tree?

If I remember rightly, on BBC News at Ten on the day of the guilty verdicts, the BBC also used the past tense "was" when describing the tree.

The tree is now sadly a Tree stump. I'd be inclined in the article to use the past tense of "was" as per Channel 4 News. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe someone will propose a move to Sycamore Gap Tree Stump? I guess it's notability is now much greater. Howzat! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

That would be about as worthwhile use of time as changing the wording is/was/is/was/is/wasPolyamorph (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

some 80s history

https://the-past.com/feature/the-tale-of-a-tree-an-archaeological-history-of-sycamore-gap/

Mostly about the wall by the tree but it does touch on the tree in passing.©Geni (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

It says this: "The earliest record of this length appears in the unpublished journals of the great Northumbrian historian John Hodgson (1779-1845). An entry dated 18 October 1832 (vol. Z, p.402) shows the profile of the gap with a stone enclosure and the outline of a tree, the first representation of the sycamore. The enclosure had been constructed to preserve the tree from grazing cattle or sheep, and appears on the first six-inch Ordnance Survey map (1860). The date in Hodgson’s notebook gives a terminus ante quem for the sycamore, but when was it planted? Some recent newspaper reports have suggested it was under George I (r. 1714-1727), a century before Hodgson's sketch, but future dendrochronological dating may yield greater precision." Hodgson might be worth a mention, but what is already in the article seems to be more definitive? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Possibly worth mentioning the wall originally around the tree but also that there was an excavation next to it in 1983.©Geni (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

added earlier possible date. FWIW the map meant is probably this one from 1866 https://maps.nls.uk/view/102346446 .©Geni (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Locals

"Locals did not hear the felling due to the high winds caused by Storm Agnes." How close to the tree, exactly, did these locals live? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

References