Talk:Pioneer Cabin Tree

"Death" ?
Could we have (or do we need) any evidence that it was not dead before it fell? Are they no recent free images of it when it was alive, or was it just too big to photograph? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk)
 * Tons of images, but not sure how many are free. Not quite my area, but I can try to look on flikr for some. The sources say that it was dying, but that it was alive before falling.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We wouldn't want to anthropomorphise, would we. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * According to Huffington post, it was nearly dead, with one living branch. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pioneer-cabin-tree-great-sequoia-fallen_us_58731f8be4b099cdb0fe05f9 SlowJog (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Coastal
Biblegal1 (talk) 05:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC) 1/9/2017 Under "Pioneer Cabin Tree": "It was one of several drive-through trees on the California coast". How could this be since it is in Calaveras county? I think the reference to "coastal" redwoods probably confused the writer. Not all coastal redwoods are located on California's coast. Biblegal1 (talk) 05:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you're correct. I've changed the sentence.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Attribution
Copied content and references from Calaveras Big Trees State Park to Pioneer Cabin Tree; see former page's history for attribution. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 05:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Copied content portion of reference from Mother of the Forest to Pioneer Cabin Tree; see former page's history for attribution. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Copied reference from Tharp's Log to Pioneer Cabin Tree; see former page's history for attribution. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

ISBN problem
The ISBN links to Essentials of Kayak Touring which doesn't seem right at all. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 18:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's the publisher's page: . Martinevans123 (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Age unknown? And references not appropriate...
Sounds strange that the age would be unknown -- I would imagine it should be trivial to count the rings, and experts should even be able to adjust for any ambiguities due to altered/stopped growth after the tunnel was cut (since the year of the cut is known)... Also, the references to news coverage look completely off -- neither placed at the correct position (placed after "age unknown" but the news articles never talk about the age), nor being an authoritative source of information. Would be nice to fix the refs and update with a reliable info — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.53.222.39 (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)