Talk:Glastonbury Thorn

Proportion?
Upon reading this article for the first time, it struck me that there was far too much background on the legend of Joseph of Arimathea. All the stuff about Tertullian et al. has nothing to do with the tree per se. The tree is the focus of the article, not the whole vexed tradition of this legend, which is a distraction and has its own article. Seems to me you only need minimum info to establish the legendary connection between Joseph and the tree (not rehashing the whole "was he or wasn't he" question) and the potency of the tree as a symbol targeted in the civil war. If I were to edit boldly, I'd leave only the first two sentences, and then a transition that says "The historicity of Joseph's presence in Glastonbury remains controversial, but the Glastonbury Thorn is first mentioned in an early sixteenth-century anonymous metrical" etc. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I probably added that stuff to add context and notability when writing the initial article when the branches were chopped. Looking at it again now I would agree and suggest you be bold.&mdash; Rod talk 13:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I understand how that happens — I think of this as defensive editing, and find myself doing it all the time. Anticipating arguments from other editors, and warding off the headaches in advance through over-determining. I'll cut it if you think it's OK (are you sure all these goodies are as well-represented in the actual Joseph of Arimathea article?), and appreciate your congenial attitude. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The source on the metrical Lyfe seems to be missing, or lost in what I cut? Also, as someone just learning about the tree, I wanted to read a fuller paragraph on its destruction during the civil war. If anybody already has a handy account. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the banner at the top I copied bits from 3 articles - you might need to check them all to see what came from where. I don't think there ever was a reference for Lyfe so I don't think you cut anything.&mdash; Rod talk 14:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Which source needs an account - the civil war stuff seems to be referenced to the Daily Mail! which is available for free and the book edited by Cuming Walters - which I have a copy of sitting by my elbow.&mdash; Rod talk 14:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wasn't criticizing the source — just saying I'd like to hear more about the incident in which they destroyed the original tree. I probably won't have time to look any of this up, but I'll keep it on my watch list and maybe do something more concrete and constructive at some point. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Capitalisation
According to the Wiki Manual of style, common names of plants should not be capitalised. The main article should be"Glastonbury thorn" with a redirect from "Glastonbury Thorn", not the other way around.Darorcilmir (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Glastonbury Thorn. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081013203555/http://www.oxleigh.freeserve.co.uk/AR05.htm to http://www.oxleigh.freeserve.co.uk/AR05.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://glastonbury-pilgrim.co.uk/holy-thorn-news.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

'Budded or grafted'
What does 'budded' mean in this context, please? (in the section on Propogation).--188.39.71.98 (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Bad caps in page title
Should be at Glastonbury thorn with small t. Equinox ◑ 14:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)