Talk:Greyfriars Bobby

message: ===In the Media===
I've noticed that some articles make mention of their subjects in regards to references in popular media, and it seems to me that the story of this particular dog is quite similar to an episode of Futurama called Jurassic Bark.  Can/should it be said that this story influenced that? - Ben
: If we can reasonably show that this article is related to that episode, yes. Ideally we'd either find lots of parallels between the two stories, or we'd find some external source (some interview or scholarly analysis) that makes the connection.  There are plenty of "faithful dog" stories, so we'd have to show a better correlation between this story than that, say, of Hachiko. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 14:59, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
I think possibly Hachiko is more related. Futurama uses several songs from Japan and also the dog in Jurassic Bark waits for Fry at a Pizza parlor, which is maybe more similar to Hachiko's waiting at a train station.--T. Anthony 01:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The plot is more similar to Hachiko's story, but the dog in Jurassic Bark bears a striking resemblance to the statue pictured in this article and looks nothing like Hachiko.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.142.169.37 (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

text: I second that, the article definitely isn't a stub, I'm going to remove the stub tags.eiscir 09:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Whether the dog got it wrong or not, wikipedia cannot add original research.  If the facts as you present them have been published, please include the links to those sources so we can determine if they should be included. LiPollis 11:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I've added the image, hope its suitable and ok. New to this so sorry if it's not! Scuba (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: * Removed - no idea why it was there. Miyagawa (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Shorter discussions

message: I've noticed that some articles make mention of their subjects in regards to references in popular media, and it seems to me that the story of this particular dog is quite similar to an episode of Futurama called Jurassic Bark.  Can/should it be said that this story influenced that? - Ben
: If we can reasonably show that this article is related to that episode, yes. Ideally we'd either find lots of parallels between the two stories, or we'd find some external source (some interview or scholarly analysis) that makes the connection.  There are plenty of "faithful dog" stories, so we'd have to show a better correlation between this story than that, say, of Hachiko. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 14:59, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
I think possibly Hachiko is more related. Futurama uses several songs from Japan and also the dog in Jurassic Bark waits for Fry at a Pizza parlor, which is maybe more similar to Hachiko's waiting at a train station.--T. Anthony 01:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The plot is more similar to Hachiko's story, but the dog in Jurassic Bark bears a striking resemblance to the statue pictured in this article and looks nothing like Hachiko.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.142.169.37 (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: In the Media

message: I just removed the stub tag even though no more content has been added since the last person added it. This topic is rather narrow, and the current article covers basically everything you'd want to know about the subject. People can still add content to this article, it's just that I don't think that it's lacking in any area (therefore it's not a stub). --mdd4696 03:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that, the article definitely isn't a stub, I'm going to remove the stub tags.eiscir 09:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a Stub

message: As a Edinburgh man myself, born and breed, I'm still amazed that people believe this story. Why would a common Watchman be buried in a graveyard full of high political figures, judges, lawyers and doctors? As it turns out, the graveyard immediately around the Kirk was filled to capacity in the 18th century for the quick burial of plague victims. 
An estimated 20,000 people were mass buried there (over 50 years before Gray was born) in the tiny grounds and so is technically full up. (Every year to this day people are always finding bones that come to the surface).
The facts as I'm told by a local researcher (Jan-Andrew Henderson) in his Edinburgh book was that Greyfriars has 3 graveyards and Gray was buried in one of the lesser ones well away from the Kirk. He says that the facts are there in the historical ledger kept by the abbey for anyone to look up!
Basically the dog got it wrong... :-)
--Quatermass 08:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether the dog got it wrong or not, wikipedia cannot add original research.  If the facts as you present them have been published, please include the links to those sources so we can determine if they should be included. LiPollis 11:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Story accuracy

message: Considering how far and wide this story is known, a photo of the dog;s grave-marker would be nice.  We have a photo of his statue and where the statue sits,now all we need is the headstone. LiPollis 11:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the image, hope its suitable and ok. New to this so sorry if it's not! Scuba (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo of the dog's headstone would be nice

message: Why is there a Template:MGMLass on this page? --Galladeon (talk) 08:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * Removed - no idea why it was there. Miyagawa (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Template:MGMLass

message: Regarding this edit by Joanvicmel with the following edit comment:
:This is the story according to Jan Bondeson, who is a rheumatologist (and his Edinburgh friend), don't be ashamed of who you are
Couple problems:
# Violation of Good Faith. Your assumption that I am Jan Bondeson or his friend is silly and wrong. Stop this line of thinking.
# It's obvious from your comment that your intention here is to discredit the revisionist view with an ad hominem by saying the author of the revisionist history book is a "Rheumatologist" (note: you capitalized it unnecessarily). Bondeson does multiple things for a living including writing history books, which is what is relevant to this article.  
# Saying "Story according to Jan Bondeson" is POV. The word "story" makes it sound made-up, fictional; and saying "according to Bondeson" is redundant and POV, "according to" suggesting some sort of contention to the facts.
--Green Cardamom (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: October 2011

message: After reading the article on GFB I noticed the unbalanced POV on the arguments for the revisionist view. Looking at the edits it appears they are forcing the tone of the article against GFB instead of a neutral edit. The argument for Bondeson has been included with a revisionist view point at the fore. An article should be neutral, balanced and the arguments reflect this.
Good faith will be maintained but I have some points of concern;
Arguments are clearly one sided with over emphasis on the revisionist side and has unnecessary quotes by Bondson in the introduction calling it no better than a hoax and setting the POV for the revisionist hypothesis.
Jan Bondeson’s biography is one source, who else shares his concerns or argues against his hypothesis? 
Quoting from a tabloid on the place of employment of Bondeson an amateur historian (to somehow give credence to his research), this is mute he’s a rheumatologist and in no way a credible historian. Even if he does work at Cardiff University, what does that have to do with his hobby out with teaching rheumatology? That is a point for his biography page if one exists?
 
Some of his research is clearly speculation yet the revisionist view point is worded as if it’s the truth.
You only have to list the tale as a Victorian publicity stunt hypothesized by Bondeson and listing off hypothesis as fact leads to a bias viewpoint, especially as it drowns out the traditionalist view point. There should be equal balance to deter POV.
Some quotes clearly bias from the Daily Mail which is infamous for having a bias viewpoint and an agenda all its own.
I agree a wider consensus is needed past edits do show a POV for the revisionist hypothesisUthican (talk) 02:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not worded as if truth, it goes to great pains to show it is a revisionist view by a single author. Please stop deleting large chunks of the article that are well sourced! The Daily Mail is just repeating what's in the book. Calling someone an "amateur historian" is highly biased and without merit, it is a direct attack on the credibility of the author, it is pejorative phrase designed to discredit the author and his work. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The article for the revisionist claim certainly over blows the views of just one author, and it is not a discrete attack on one persons armature investigation. There are issues in this page in favor of a non-neutral POV that is the point if I had an axe imagined or otherwise to the work of Bondson's work I why did I leave in his hypothesis? A further consensus is needed. Regards.Uthican (talk) 05:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is extremely clear that there are two views, it makes zero claim that one view or another is the truth. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: But it certainly is bias when the tone of the article states in favor of one over the other. I move the edits reflect a neutral viewpointUthican (talk) 08:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no neutrality problem, if anything the article presents the traditional view as established fact in the lead section while relegating the other views as a "revisionistic" view.  Green Cardamom (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it is giving undue weight towards a minority view. Bondeson is the only person to make those claims. Yes, their claims should be mentioned in the article (along with those of actual historians), but not in such a prominent way, and not in the lead. The section on the "Revisionist view" is nearly 3 times as long as the "Traditional view". And calling it the "Traditional view" is POV, implying it is incorrect. --Vclaw (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The lead section should reflect what is contained in the article, per WP:LEAD. As for calling it traditional view, what do you suggest? In terms of correctness, there is very little evidence the traditional view is correct, just the opposite in fact. There is considerable evidence, overwhelming evidence in fact, to the contrary. There has been no reliable source published in the past 100 years or more to support the traditional view. I agree that traditional view section is short, unsourced and weak and needs work. That doesn't mean the revisionist section should be pared back to match it. I suggest working on improving the traditional view section, a double in size would match the lengths (not three times) - with reliable sources in support, of course.  Green Cardamom (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

text: They are all just newspaper reports about Bondeson's claims. Are there any sources independent of Bondeson? Any research from actual historians? Where is this "overwhelming evidence"? --Vclaw (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Bondeson is a historian. A historian is someone who researches history and writes history books, he has been called a historian by the BBC, Metro, WSJ and The Age and probably many others. Most people who write history books do not teach History professionally (those are usually called "academic historians"). Bondeson might be called a "cultural historian" or a "popular historian". I assume you have not read Bondeson's book, but he has done considerable archival research - more than anyone on this topic in the past 100 years or so - and the facts are there. Most of it is not an opinion, it is factual evidence, as reported by Bondeson in his book, and reported in this Wikipedia article by way of reliable secondary sources that operate independently of Bondeson.  The "opinion" is Bondeson's contention that the story is a myth, and the article goes to great lengths to say this is Bondeson's interpretation and provide his line of evidence. This is normal on Wikipedia, to present multiple POVs. The article makes no claim that Bondeson's POV is the truth, that is why it's called a revision and attributes the view to Bondeson. The only problem the article has is the "traditional view" section is weak, it is unsourced, poorly written and needs to be expanded. Rather than attacking Bondeson, suggest expand the traditional view with reliable sources and more information. Green Cardamom (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: August 2012

message: :::I've been reading this article and I'm very interested in the 'Revisionist View' but I have to agree with those who are saying that there's minimal evidence included here. If Bondeson's views have a credible research background then the sources (or equivalent sources) can be referenced in the article. If this is the opinion of one person - historian or not - it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I suspect the former is the case - I can well imagine that the history is suspect - but there's nothing in this article yet to properly support this case. My initial investigations (very limited) have themselves not supported this view - for example a quick search for 'cemetery dog' (of which it's suggested there are many examples) came up with nothing at all. I'm going now to delete the references to press reports about Bondeson's book - these are really all one reference for the book itself.Rowmn (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an incorrect understanding of how Wikipedia works. We don't remove things just because we disagree with them. Nor is it our job to prove or disprove Bondeson's work. It is our job to report Bondeson's POV in a NPOV manner using reliable sources. And that is exactly what the article does. It makes no statement that Bondeson's POV is accurate, correct or anything - it goes out of the way by framing it as "revisionist" to ensure, by any all means, that the reader is absolutely clear that these are the revisionist views of one person, and not an objective statement of fact. I have restored the reliably sourced content. If you have reliably sourced content that says something different, than we can add it in addition to Bondeson's POV. I have stated over and over, the weakest link in this article is the so-called "traditional view" (or conventional wisdom is a better description). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Green Cardamom, I think you misunderstand my point completely - and I'm not entirely sure you've listened to the concerns that other people have raised either. This is unfortunate as it certainly appears that you are working in good faith. My point was a very simple one. You are (intentionally or accidentally) promoting one author's work as more significant than it might actually be. One piece of work by one researcher can be extremely significant - take Einstein for instance - but it's still one piece of work. Your use of references is - to use your own words "not how references work". There should be one reference to the one author's one piece of work. Not multiple references to press reports that this author has written something. The point is that the press reports add absolutely nothing whatsoever... they just all end up in the same place, which is Bondeson's work. The only time this would be any different would be in a press report where a journalist had researched Bondeson's case (rather than a report saying 'someone has published some research'). I don't have the energy to tackle this issue again, but please do listen to the concerns that people are raising.  Could I strongly suggest an alternative... you clearly have Bondeson's work available - presumably this contains references - if you check these references out it would be both useful and fair to add these references to the article. Please assume my good faith and good will in this - I respect your interest in this article - but please do take note that quite a few people are disagreeing with you independently and about the same point. Rowmn (talk) 10:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have listened to the concerns and responded by citing Wikipedia rules. What you're expressing is undo WP:WEIGHT however I disagree. The book has received considerable attention in multiple reliable secondary sources. That the nature of these sources is to explain Bondeson's thesis, and not offer counter thesis to Bondeson, is true or not. It may be that reporters in fact did investigate Bondeson and found his research to be accurate or without competition and thus they had nothing counter to say. Indeed, we assume the secondary sources did investigate Bondeson's book and looked around for other POV's, otherwise they would not be considered reliable sources! Also, it's not our place as Wikipedian's to independently judge Bondeson's thesis or sources for accuracy. We simply report on things from reliable secondary sources. Also, I can't cite sources from Bondeson's book because I don't own a copy, and don't need a copy, we rely on secondary sources (newspapers etc) to report on Bondeson's thesis, otherwise it would be Original Research. Until (or if) the day comes when someone publishes a counter book or article to Bondeson, then we can re-examine weight issues. For now, however, the reliable secondary sources all support Bondeson's weight in the article. This is how Wikipedia works: we report on what the world outside is saying using reliable secondary sources. I'd also point out (again) that the real problem with the article is not undo weight to Bondeson, but weak and light coverage of the traditional view. It's short, unsourced, and not well explained. Rather than trying to tear down Bondeson, might I suggest put time and energy into expanding and sourcing the traditional view. For that section, you could use Bondeson's book as a source since it's not reporting Bondeson's original thesis but an established legend so Bondeson's book would count as a secondary source for that aspect. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Green Cardamom but I can see at least 4 independent (my assumption - but it seems a fair one) editors who have problems with your approach. Rather than arguing more about this I'd propose the edit I've just carried out. This, in my view, puts the references in their place. All it does is to make sure that Bondeson's work is referenced once and that the reports are also referenced (With the sentence "this was reported widely"). The reports aren't given any more prominence than to say that they are reports of the original research... that is they aren't provided as if they are evidence supporting the accuracy of the details of Bondeson's work - but you have your way in that they support the notability of his work (although it seems that those arguing with you - including me - think this is a mistake - indeed nobody seems to agree with you in this matter). I agree with you about your separate points - that there should be more evidence for the 'traditional' view and so on. And I agree that Bondeson's work should be given some space. Indeed I'm even happy with the general prominence it has. Rowmn (talk) 11:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been really bugging me today - I've increasingly been feeling that the result of the way that Jan Bondeson's work is described in this article (intentionally or not) is the active promotion of his/her book. I've also been thinking that there must be a) other relevant examples of people questioning the traditional story and b) other examples of similar stores to G.B. I've tried to tackle these issues as follows: by including references to another skeptical author in the leading section, by removing the misleading reference to Bondeson being at Cardiff University (as this is seemingly unrelated to his/her work on G.B. and because it implies that the research was at the University), and by increasing the prominence of the link to the list of other dogs known as being loyal to dead owners. I think that these are a minimum step to counter the issues I'm raising. Rowmn (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Great changes! It's great you found there are other skeptics out there which makes it less than about one person. My only problem is the removal of almost all the in-line references, which now opens up the text to be deleted as unreferenced, per WP:V which says anything without a reference can be deleted. And there are a few "direct quotes" that are now unreferenced which is a red flag for many editors. So we probably need to add the references back to prevent the text from being deleted on WP:V grounds. It may seem pedantic since there is a set of references at the start of the section ("widely reported in the press"), but there are editors doing just that deleting any sentence/paragraph without a reference (I can show examples), the only way to ensure something sticks (on WP:V grounds) is to reference every sentence or paragraph even if it seems redundant.  -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. As you see, my criticism is not intended to support the 'traditional view' which I think would be generally regarded as a legend (potentially true, potentially false, almost certainly embellished). But can I again suggest that your aims in referencing the text throughout would be much better met by repeatedly referencing the Bondeson book itself, not the Daily Mail (surely likely to be the least balanced of the press reports). You and I may have our information from these reports, but the correct reference is the original source unless the report says something more than this source. I want to make the same improvement to the references in the leading section - this really should also have only the one reference.Rowmn (talk) 10:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't link to Bondeson's book for interpretive analysis per the rules of WP:PRIMARY, the primary can only be used as supporting a secondary source, that is why there were originally pairs of refs (one to the DM and one to Bondeson). Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, not primary sources. If the DM is a problem due to a perception of reputation there are plenty of other secondary sources listed above that can be used too. I'd have to go through them and figure out which ones have the info needed to plug in at the right spots which would be time consuming. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I never properly read that before - although it's pretty obvious as a policy... but I'm afraid I see this as entirely and completely confirming my argument. Bondeson's work is perfect as a secondary source!! To quote (this policy) "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." AND "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." AND "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources" The only thing in the article now which needs the newspaper reference according to this policy is the claim that the research took 5 years - as Bondeson's own book isn't an appropriate reference for this fact. Leaving aside the fact that the Telegraph may well be simply quoting from a press release about the book it is at least an independent claim that this is true.Rowmn (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Revisionist section is mainly about Bondeson's original interpretations and findings, thus the book is not a secondary source in that context, it's primary. Bondeson however would be secondary if used for the traditional view section because there Bondeson is just recounting the conventional Greyfriars Bobby story, nothing original or new (presumably there is a retelling of it in the book). Hope that makes sense. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand - although I disagree. Your reading of the policy isn't entirely unreasonable, but I think it's mistaken. I'm going to ask for a third opinion WP:THIRD as I hope a relatively quick way to move forwards from this disagreement - because we clearly both feel strongly that our very different points of view are correct. I'll make a short statement about our different views in a separate section below - perhaps you'd consider adding your own comments here too, particularly if you think I've not put your point of view correctly. Rowmn (talk) 10:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: December 2012

message: I'm intending to read Noleander's lengthy and careful comments several times before making any further comment or editing. I'll write here after doing so and before further edits.Rowmn (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to hear that you feel that way.  As I said above, I personally believe the skeptical view; and I also said that - for now - the skeptical view should have the same amount of text as the  traditional view.  The JB book is a 2ndary source, and a good one.  The press reviews are not sources at all (unless they did some independent research).   A primary source (which should be avoided) would be someone who was alive when the dog was alive, and was involved in the dog's life.   I don't think there is a need for an RfC, but if the disagreement over weight & sourcing continues, an RfC is always an option.  Regards. --Noleander (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

text: The article is much better now ... it's nice that you took the time to add cites to the Trad. view section.  Good job. --Noleander (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-write/tidy up following on from third opinion

message: Not independently notable, but of obvious value for this topic to be covered here. Schwede66 03:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[John Gray (nightwatchman)]] into [[Greyfriars Bobby]] 

message: Given the numerous questions relating to the 'Greyfriars Bobby' tradition (QED), what possible merit can there be in the unsourced date of birth for the dog  provided in the information box? As far as I can see there is no further mention of this in the article. The authenticity of such a fact being available does strain credulity.
JF42 (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of birth 

message: Greyfrairs Bobby is a skye terrier.  Not a  Dandie dinmont it's misleading.  Want to know facts it's all in history records books and it's Definitely a skye terrier. People knows that. 92.239.131.112 (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts