This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Plants Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. California Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 22 April 2025, it was proposed that this article be moved from General Sherman (tree) to General Sherman Tree. The result of the discussion was moved.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 365 days are automatically archived 2 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 6.

The citations provided do not provide evidence that the tree was named for Sherman in 1879. Can someone actually produce a citation? When Gifford Pinchot visited the tree in 1891 he documents that the colonists there called it the Karl Marx Tree (see Breaking New Ground pg 44). The historian William Tweed writes, "I have never found anything from the period 1879-1885 that uses the ‘General Sherman’ name…" http://www.48hills.org/2014/08/27/karl-marx-tree-southern-pacific-railroad-killed-socialist-colony-name-creating-yosemite-national-park/ This is very suspicious since a specific date is provided. It appears that the tree was renamed so that it wouldn't share a name with the father of Communism and the story of Wolverton concocted. For the encyclopedia I either suggest removing the unsourced suggestion that the tree was named in 1879 by Wolverton, or indicating that the tree was previously known by a different name and that it is uncertain when it was named for Grant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.150.26 (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Just in the last few years, a couple Tulare County locals have researched the story about the tree being named for Sherman by James Wolverton, in 1879. The oldest version of the story, that's been found, is from 1914. James Wolverton appears to have never existed. C sloth (talk) 02:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Pinchot: "The colonists had named the biggest Sequoia for Karl Marx. Today that might entitle them to be called Bolsheviks. Under whatever name, they were very kind to one stranger I could mention. "Forty-six years later I saw that tree again. This second time I traveled to it not on makeshift snowshoes improvised out of barrel staves but by automobile. The vast Sequoia itself had shared the change. It was no longer Socialist, but had taken the name of a great soldier and citizen, General Sherman." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.150.26 (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

From the article: "The General Sherman was named after the American Civil War general William Tecumseh Sherman, in 1879 by naturalist James Wolverton, who had served as a lieutenant in the 9th Indiana Cavalry under Sherman.". The story of James Wolverton and his naming of the General Sherman tree is from a 1914 in newspaper articles promoting Sequoia and General Grant National Parks; this is the earliest reference that has been found to this story. Recently, local historians have shown that the story seems to be a complete fabrication. In fact the person of James Wolverton appears to have never existed, or at best he is loosely based on someone named Joel Rivers Woolverton. But: There are no records of Joel Wolverton being in this part of California before 1890. Joel never served under Gen. Sherman. He was stationed in Nevada during the Civil War. There is no evidence that he went by the name of "James". And there doesn't appear to be a valid reason to consider him a "naturalist".^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]} C sloth (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Added "possibly apocryphal". Schazjmd (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I just came home from a visit to Sequoia NP (I got out just as they were closing the NP because of the fire(s)). An employee (food service, not NPS) told me that a tree, location in the Parks but secret, has recently been found and measures larger (I assume in volume, using their silly (but standard) measure) than General S. I was unable, after a very quick and sloppy search, to verify this. The table in the wiki.article is from 2009 - it needs an update anyway. Could someone check and update the dates? Thx!174.131.63.209 (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

According to more accurate measurements, the Lindsay Creek Tree was actually much smaller (1,047.72 m3, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsay_Creek_Tree) compared to the Sherman Tree (1,487 m3), contrary to previous claims.

So this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=General_Sherman_(tree)&oldid=1249398771 is legit 73.136.213.93 (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

'The Lindsay Creek Tree, with more than 90,000 cubic feet (2,500 cubic meters) almost twice the volume of General Sherman, was reported felled by a storm in 1905.' citates a 2010 article. This appears to be outdated. The Wikipedia page on the Lindsay Creek Tree claims that a second article, discovered in 2024, provides more accurate measurements of the tree. D nendi (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)Reply