Talk:Pwllpriddog Oak

Plants Low‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wales Low‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was created or improved during the "The 20,000 Challenge: UK and Ireland", which started on 20 August 2016 and is still open. You can help!

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Wales may be able to help!

The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

A fact from Pwllpriddog Oak appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 December 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the hollow Pwllpriddog Oak is said to have been used as the hiding place of a king, a meeting spot for lovers, a pig sty, a duck roost, and a music venue?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2018/December. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pwllpriddog Oak.

Wikipedia

Hiding place for a king[edit]

Do the legends say which king? I assume there's more to the story. PurpleChez (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Age[edit]

'...it is thought to be 600-700 years old', but 'local historians claim... Bosworth Field in 1485'. Does no one realize that these statements are at odds? If it was planted in or after 1485, it can't be older than 533 years. Some clarification is in order, at least to the effect that the author is aware of the discrepancy. Citations to the claims would be better.Toyokuni3 (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Legends and weasel words[edit]

I have been bold and removed various local legends from the article, including those raised by the users above as being vague and, in one case, mathematically impossible! These legends are present in the links as unsupported "some say" tidbits of local pseudohistory. The fact that news sources like to uncritically repeat such legends doesn't mean they have been established as fact and should be added to Wikipedia.

It seems to be a general problem with articles about local landmarks that these funny stories get repeated by local news and local government, sources which have a bit of institutional gravitas to them, but which are not taking any care at all to be historically accurate (they're more concerned with having something "interesting" to say than with the truth). Are there any Wikipedia guidelines about treating local news with some scepticism? Too many editors seem to think that if they can find it online, then it's true. SpaceHamsterBoo (talk) 09:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]