And then there's the Senator Tree [0], estimated to be more than ten times older (~3500 years), which was "killed when a meth addict started a garbage fire inside the hollow trunk so she could see the crystal meth she was trying to smoke."

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Senator_(tree)

What I find funny is how the drunk driver was able to hit the only obstacle in sight in the middle of an empty desert.

forget 300 year old trees... the Californians cut down sequoia trees that were probably up to 6000 years old. The oldest current one alive is estimated to be only 3200 years old.

On a scale of atrocities humans have committed, I can't really think of anything that is more atrocious than the felling of those sequoias that were at the very least as old as the oldest known human civilization. 6000+ years ... poof gone, turned into beams and furniture for houses. They've been around at least 100 Million years, but almost and possibly will not survive what is the equivalent of 0.173 seconds if you scale the 100M years to one day.

Among all the many atrocities humans have and currently are committing, things like destroying something that took 6000 years to grow seems particularly bad because there is no way to even really restore or save that, like you might be able to restore an at-risk population of animals or even revive an extinct species.

It takes about 150-200 years (we don't really know) for a sequoia to become mature, i.e., fruitful, and then it requires fire to reproduce. Let me repeat that, it absolutely requires fire to reproduce once it as matured following surviving around 175 years of human proximity, not sooner.

For our European community, it seems that the various redwoods and sequoia that were planted in Europe in the 19th century, could be coming into maturity now/soon. They are technically invasive, but at a 175 year maturity cycle, I suspect there's not much you have to worry about.

When I saw the name of that one, I immediately though of the Kite Eating Tree[1].

[1](https://peanuts.fandom.com/wiki/Kite-Eating_Tree)

I googled it and found that it has a more comprehensive Wikipedia article than some prominent historical figures:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungry_Tree

My dumb butt thought it was gonna be a list of every tree in the world, all eight gazillion of them

I'm surprised that the Katamari games include a longer list of physical objects than wikipedia.

The list of animals has dolphins and birds but not humans?

TIL: The UK designates "trees of special national interest", and has a "Tree of the Year" competition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_the_Year_(United_Kingd...

While this is interesting and impressive, I kinda relate more to OP's link of more "normal" trees. Going through the list gives me a feeling how many cool trees there are all over the place.

I've been to the Ancient Bristlecone Pine forest in Inyo County, CA where the Methuselah tree lives. Though I didn't get to see that specific tree because the sun was fast setting and I wasn't prepared to hike around in darkness, I had a pretty amazing experience being the presence of 4000- and 5000-year old trees.

Why would it have been stopped? I don't see anything non-factual, and I regularly pass by that tree. It is well known and referenced [1].

[1] https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2023/12/07/hampstead-heaths-...

    "This tree, I tell you, has a slutty little back arch".

Incredible

I read that and assumed this must be some joke article and/or art stunt. After reading the article and linked sources, I'm still not sure that ain't true.

Wikipedia is not censored.

It's a pretty notorious tree in London, don't see a reason why it wouldn't be included.

This was huge news in the UK when it happened. Massive public uproar for an illegal felling. The perpetrators were both jailed: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6295zv9101o

I remember that incident! As a side-effect I discovered that beautiful panorama picture[0], which was perfect for my two-monitors-plus-laptop-screen set-up aside from the low resolution, so I used my stippling notebook[1] to hide that a little bit[2]. I could probably tweak the stippling settings a bit to have prettier output, but it's been my wallpaper for over two years now.

[0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Sycamore...

[1] https://observablehq.com/@jobleonard/a-fast-colored-stipple-...

[2] https://blindedcyclops.neocities.org/sycamore_gap_tree_pano/... https://blindedcyclops.neocities.org/sycamore_gap_tree_pano/... https://blindedcyclops.neocities.org/sycamore_gap_tree_pano/...

Yeah you can bet the Fuck Tree wouldn't make it into any encyclopedia.

Ahhh, that is fantastic tree. I've been there, it's in a really nice quiet place. Huge!

Trees don't grow in a manner which can typically lift things. It's really unusual - and requires either distinct circumstances, or highly technical measurements between gauge pins.

Those gravestones had help getting up there.

I would check here for examples: https://old.reddit.com/r/TreesSuckingOnThings/

How could it be? Growing up, there was a large horse chestnut tree that was a meeting point for all the kids in the neighborhood. It was such a huge part of our lives that it became an icon for our childhood, as several others have agreed with me as adults. It's gone now, as it grew old and diseased and someone cut it down. But it was a very significant tree for many people in the town for many years. I doubt, however, that it, or so many other trees that had similar impact on people, would ever make a Wikipedia list. There are just too many trees.

It can never be. There are many notable trees, but some of them will never have a Wikipedia article.

No, but you can add anything missing if you have a source!

Does the tree have a Wikipedia article about it? If not you can add it. If it does, you can add it to the list.

Wikipedia allows anyone to edit and contribute! (although many users don't know that and a smaller than miniscule amount of users actually do.)