Talk:Greyfriars Bobby

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)


 * 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)

Not a Stub
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)


 * 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)

Story accuracy
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)


 * 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)

Oh Quatermass, what a fool you are! All the information can be found in Ms Eleanor Atkinson's scholarly work, {Greyfriars Bobby}. Auld Jock was found with the money to pop him into a wooden box and carried through the Cow Gate to Greyfriars Churchyard. &quot;Jerk, Beefy!&quot; (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Photo of the dog's headstone would be nice
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)
 * 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)

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

Presumably it was there because of the film "Challenge to Lassie (1949), an earlier film based on Atkinson's book, but replacing Bobby with Lassie". nonky (talk) 11:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

October 2011
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:


 * 1) Violation of Good Faith. Your assumption that I am Jan Bondeson or his friend is silly and wrong. Stop this line of thinking.
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) 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)

Joanvicmel, I've asked you to assume good faith, you have again accused me of something that is not true. You need to stop assuming bad faith, stop Edit warring, and start discussions on the talk page. This is a BOLD, revert, discuss cycle situation. You made a bold edit, I reverted it, now we discuss it. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Green Cardamom, several points

1. Good faith will be assumed.

2. You say I am trying to damage the book, nonsense, all I am interested in is fair play. So lets stick to the known details (very few facts are really known).

3. Lets have a friendly discussion about this, threatening a person with moderation is not allowed. But I am not worried about moderation.

4. I know that this is in the wrong heading, but why change my deletion about renewal of Bobbys license, he did not have one to renew?

5. Your numerous undo's are the reason why I have joined in.

6. Lets concentrate in future on the content please.

melvyn (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Melvyn, --Green Cardamom (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Thank you.
 * 2) Agreed. Your not trying to damage the book. I'm not trying to promote the book.
 * 3) It wasn't a threat, just the next step when there is edit conflict but no discussion, mods are the only ones who can intervene in that situation. But past that now.
 * 4) Your correct, I've undone my revert. I actually didn't even look at your edit but assumed it was a revert of the previous edit based on the edit comment. My mistake.
 * 5) I've made two reverts (one was part of the BRD cycle), to your one revert.
 * 6) Sounds good.

August 2012
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Further sources
 * Greyfriars Bobby tale is wrong claims Cardiff historian, BBC
 * Greyfriars Bobby part of Victorian money-making hoax, reveals historian, Metro
 * Historian Won't Let Scotland's Most Famous Dog Lie, Wall Street Journal
 * Iconic 'most faithful dog in world' just a tourist scam: historian
 * The legend of Greyfriars Bobby really is a myth, The Telegraph
 * Greyfriars Bobby was a scam to lure tourists, Reuters

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)

December 2012

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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) (with minor correctoin 14:15)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Third opinion sought
Using this page: WP:THIRD a third opinion has been asked for on the disagreement between authors over content in regard to Jan Bondeson's book. At the time of writing the disagreement is that: Rowmn (talk) 10:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Both authors believe that content about Bondeson's book is relevant and important but one feels that it is much too positive and prominent to the extent that it becomes a promotion of one view and one author (despite recent improvements), the other thinks that it is appropriate (and perhaps not prominent enough). (Please note previous edits to article as evidence.)
 * Both authors agree that content about a 'revisionist view' is relevant and important but one believes it should be supported better by reference to evidence (not only one author's opinion).
 * There is a disagreement about the use of references to support the 'revisionist view' centering on whether it is appropriate to rely on references to newspaper reports about the publication of the book to support the revisionist view section/content.
 * Hi. I've volunteered to take this case at WP:3O.  Let me read some of the history here, and I'll post a comment. --Noleander (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Questions for editors:
 * Are there any other authors or independent researchers that have independently arrived a Bondeson's conclusions? Or is Bondeson the only one?
 * Is Bondeson primarily a historian? or a medical doctor.  Their web page suggest that their training is in medicine.
 * The Traditional section is lacking citations. Can editors provide a couple of sources that support the traditional viewpoint?
 * If you all could reply to these questions, I can give more input. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Noleander - thanks for helping out - I need to leave the first two questions to Green Cardamom (or any others). That said, I share your understanding that Bondeson may well be primarily trained in medicine (I have no evidence to support anything else). On the third question - I think that sources to support the traditional viewpoint ought to be very simple to find, so long as it's presented as a 'legend' or 'tradition' rather than fact (as it is just now). I think that Green Cardamom and I both agree pretty firmly that the traditional view currently isn't adequately backed by references. In fact we probably agree that Bondeson's view may well be accurate, and the traditional story may well be wrong.Rowmn (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok I'll answer #1&2. On the question if he is a "historian": the definition of a historian is someone who writes history and who is recognized as an expert on it. Many independent reliable secondary sources have referred to Bondeson as a historian (see list below) - he is recognized as a historian of Greyfriars Bobby by reliable sources. Someone with an academic degree in history who writes academic history is known as an "academic historian", but in truth most people who write history are not academic historians. There are many examples of historians who were never academics. Bondeson might be classified as a popular or cultural historian.


 * Greyfriars Bobby tale is wrong claims Cardiff historian, BBC
 * Greyfriars Bobby part of Victorian money-making hoax, reveals historian, Metro
 * Historian Won't Let Scotland's Most Famous Dog Lie, Wall Street Journal
 * Iconic 'most faithful dog in world' just a tourist scam: historian
 * The legend of Greyfriars Bobby really is a myth, The Telegraph
 * Greyfriars Bobby was a scam to lure tourists, Reuters

On the question if anyone else has arrived at Bondeson's conclusions? Well, his book was only recently published and is the only serious history ever published on the subject. So this is a revisionist history dispelling a popular legend. Notice how many reliable secondary sources have looked at it, and none have challenged it. Typically if a revisionist history is controversial (such as Holocaust denial) the press will pick up on it or find experts to provide a counter-narrative. That has never happened here, no experts have been interviewed by news reporters to counter anything Bondeson has said - there is no controversy. That doesn't prove Bondeson right, but it does show a lack of controversy, lending support to it being legitimate revisionist history. Once revisionist history goes unchallenged and/or supported by others for some period of time it eventually starts becoming mainstream accepted "truth". However this isn't exactly a hot topic for research so we may have to wait 100 years for the next book. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I think Green Cardamom's list of press reports gets to the heart of my discomfort with the prominence of Bondeson on this page. I don't regard these are reliable sources - at least not in telling us anything more than that the book has been published. In effect they are what any good book promotion campaign would create... exciting reports in the press that the myth has been debunked. They are all very similar, and it seems clear that all or most will have come from an unquestioned press release not independent research. Wikipedia should not be used to promote a book (intentionally or not), or one historian's view (convincing or not). At the moment it also appears that nobody actively editing here has actually read Bondeson's book - making its prominence even more worrying (correct me if I'm wrong Green Cardamom, I'm sure you said that at some point).Rowmn (talk) 09:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts - Okay, I've read the article, read some of the sources, and read the comments above. My thoughts are: In summary, I concur that the Revisionist section is a bit too large, and a bit too promotional (endorsing JB's view). I would tone that section down a bit. In a few years, more sources may be available, and if that happens, the Rev section can be enlarged and moved above the Traditional section ... but not yet. Personally, I feel that JB's account is more persuasive. While it is not appropriate for WP to endorse romantic views over scientific/historical views, it is also not appropriate for WP to endorse a particular book which was just recently published. The bottom line is: the article should simply state the facts of the two views, with roughly equal amounts of text, and let readers draw their own conclusions.
 * 1) I think it is fine that the article describes the Traditional view, and then is followed by the (chronologically later) Revisionist view
 * 2) Since there is only one source that dispels the Traditional view, the Revisionism section should not be much larger than the Traditional section, per WP:UNDUE.  Perhaps in years to come, as more sources concur with Bondeson (his book is very recent) that section can be enlarged.  Someday, that section could even be moved up above the Traditional view section. But not yet, not in 2013.
 * 3) There are many press articles that comment on JB's book, and do not question his interpretation. That is fine, but they really do not serve as additional, independent, corroborators of his interpretation.  Therefore, as of Jan 2013, there is still only one source that promotes this interpretation.
 * 4) The word "Revisionist" is going to confuse many readers (it even confuses historians :-)  so I'd recommending rewording that section title to something else.  Perhaps "Alternative view" or "Modern view" or  "Skeptical view".
 * 5) The word "view" could perhaps be changed, maybe to "Account" as in "Traditional account" and "Modern account".   But this is not as important as improving the word "revisionist".
 * 6) There is a bit too much detail in the Revisionist view section.  It is over-enthusiastic to tell readers that the author published the book " after five years of research" or that the contents of his book "was widely reported" ... tone it down and make it more factual about what the skeptical account is.  This article is about the dog, not about Bondeson's book.
 * 7) It is appropriate, in the Rev section, to prominently mention Bondeson as the source  of that view, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.
 * 8) Minor text cleanup: "When the story of Bobby first broke .."   - not clear if that is talking about when the dog died, or when JB's book was published.
 * 9) I tried to find some similar WP articles to compare with (where there was a traditional view that was superseded by a skeptical view) but I didn't find much ... see Loch Ness Monster.

I hope this helps. --Noleander (talk) 13:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Noleander, thank you very much for your time. If you have a moment longer... Green Cardamom had some specific concerns over supporting the text about Bondeson with references, which led (I understand) to his/her feeling that the references to the press reports were needed. See his/her comments above on 5th February: "... 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...". Rowmn (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My thoughts on those issues:
 * No, the article should not use the press reviews of the book, either in the text or as citations. JB's book is the source, the press reviews are not.  The only value of the press reviews is here in the talk page to assess the reliability of JB as a source.
 * Yes, everything in the article must be cited with a footnote; ideally at the end of each sentence, but the end of each paragraph is also okay.
 * It appears (I'm not sure) that the JB book is the only source for the Rev. view section, and that is okay.
 * As mentioned above, there is no need for the article to say anything like "JBs book was widely reviewed"; however, the Rev section text should mention JB's name as the source of the Rev interpretation.
 * Everyone should work together to find sources for the Traditional view section and supply footnotes there. Indeed, the JB book may serve as a great source for that section since he (I presume) summarizes the tradtional view in his Intro or opening chapters.
 * Let me know if I can help in any other way. --Noleander (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What is a "press review"? These are independently written journalist articles from reliable sources. At worst case you could call them book reviews, but best case they investigative pieces. Either way they are legitimate sources and completely appropriate for use on Wikipedia. I've done a ton of work in AfD and all of these sources easily pass any criteria you can throw at it. If you want to challenge that then lets take it to the reliable source review board and see what the community thinks about it. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, if some of those sources did independent research, they can be used as sources.  I only glanced at them quickly, but it looked like they were all book reviews: they read JBs book, and then wrote a newspaper article about the book.  If one of the journalists did some independent investigation, by all means they could be used as a source.  Can you give an example of one of those where the journalist did independent work? --Noleander (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much again for your time Noleander. Rowmn (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Re-write/tidy up following on from third opinion
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)

Do whatever you want. Noleander doesn't seem to understand some fundamental principals of how Wikipedia operates, including its reliance on secondary sources, when and how to use primary sources in exceptional cases, what counts as a reliable source, what UNDUE means, etc.. So now we have this mess and the only way to untangle it is start an RFC and bring in dozens of people and it's a waste of my life to worry about a 150 year old dead mutt in Scotland. So I'm walking away. You and the other red editors from Scotland do whatever you want. My prediction: the revisionist view will be relegated to a few sentences neatly tucked away with a single source. The Greyfriars Bobby industrial complex will continue to thrive secure in the knowledge that its legend has been made safe from the iconoclastic barbarians on Wikipedia: pubs, church, town tourist tax revenue, stuffed toy makers - the long list of those with a vested interest in maintaining the legend. As Bondeson predicted, "It won't ever be possible to debunk the story of Greyfriars Bobby" - but it will be possible to remove and/or deprecate any challenge to the ridiculous legend of "Greyfriars Bobby". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)

REWRITE: I have just now completed the first steps at a re-write. It may appear that major changes have been made, but I think that the fundamental structure and content of the article stays the same. I'm intending to do more work on this soon - for example checking out existing references and looking for some new ones to support the traditional view. I don't regard this as a finished piece of work - and hope that anyone who feels that parts need to be improved can work forwards from this point rather than reverting to what we all seem to agree is an unsatisfactory article.

Specifically, I've removed some of the spurious and unsupported detail, both about the traditional and alternative views. In effect this tones down how sure the respective parts of the article sound about their content - so neither is the traditional view presented as fact, nor is Bondeson's (or any other) view. I've done as debated - 'revisionist' to 'alternative'. I've removed the numerous references to press reviews of Bondeson.

One thing I definitely intend is to return to the article, removing links to primarily commercial websites - those selling stuff about Bobby, including tours. At the present these links seemingly aren't about information... just web traffic.

Lastly, I should be clear that I write as someone with minimal knowledge of Greyfriar's Bobby - I haven't even read the books referenced. But at this point it appears that quite a lot of this article had previously been written by people in a similar situation, which is partially my justification for toning down the suggestions of a presentation of fact (rather than legend/myth/story).

Green Cardamom: I hope in particular that you will feel that this edit does not in any way return the article to an unquestioned acceptance of the traditional story as is your stated concern, nor remove Bondeson's view. I'm now happy that Bondeson's book is not promoted unreasonably by this article. I'd urge you, if you wish, to now find some (new) references to support his view (for example information about cemetery dogs or people independently questioning the traditional view) so that we/you can strengthen this part of the article.

Rowmn (talk) 12:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I had a second chance to work on this today - adding references to sources supporting the traditional view and/or facts about GB. I've also now carried out a review of links to external websites, and to related articles - deleting dead links and overly commercial links. Finally (possibly concluding my work on this article) I've found articles from the Scotsman Newspaper (including contemporary articles) to support the view that there have always been fundamental questions about the story. Rowmn (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)

Proposed merge of John Gray (nightwatchman) into Greyfriars Bobby
Not independently notable, but of obvious value for this topic to be covered here.  Schwede 66  03:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose, John Gray is notable outside of Greyfriars Bobby. He has appeared in films, books, etc. Sahaib3005 (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Both John Gray and Greyfriars Bobby are independently and permanently notable. The two are noteworthy enough for their own standalone articles and is not a case of Content forking either. LordHarris (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, per my previous comments on the DYK nomination. Literally every source in John Gray (nightwatchman) includes "Greyfriars" in their title (let alone content), and all bar one have the full "Greyfriars Bobby". There is no demonstration of independent notability. Notability is not inherited, per    WP:INVALIDBIO. CMD (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, per CMD and my comments on the DYK nomination. John Gray's notability is solely in relation to Greyfriars Bobby, not independent at all, and his article should be merged into the dog's. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Date of birth
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)

Facts
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)