text:
Ageratina altissima

Ageratina altissima, also known as white snakeroot, richweed, or white sanicle, is a poisonous perennial herb in the family Asteraceae, native to eastern and central North America. An older binomial name for this species is Eupatorium rugosum, but the genus Eupatorium has undergone taxonomic revision by botanists, and some species once included in it have been moved to other genera.

Description
Plants are upright or sometimes ascending, growing to 1.5 m tall, producing single or multi-stemmed clumps in mid to late summer and fall. Stems are smooth with opposite leaves spaced well apart, with each pair of leaves positioned at a 90-degree angle from the pair above and below (decussate). The upper part of the plant has multiple branches, which usually appear in opposite pairs. Leaves have sharply serrated margins and are up to 6 in long.

At the end of the upper branches, flat-topped panicles or compound corymbs of white flower heads appear, measuring 2 - 6 in across. The flowers are a clean white color and after blooming, small seeds with fluffy white tails are released to blow in the wind. The plant can spread either by the wind dispersal of its seeds or by rhizomes.

There are two different varieties: Ageratina altissima var. altissima and Ageratina altissima var. roanensis (Appalachian white snakeroot); they differ in the length of the flower phyllaries and shape of the apices.

Distribution and habitat
A altissima is native to the central and eastern United States, from Texas in the west to Maine in the east and north, and Florida in the south. The species is also native in Canada in Quebec, Ontario, and the Northwest Territories. The species is adaptive to different growing conditions; it is found in woods and brush thickets and also in shady areas with open bare ground, and it can be weedy in shady landscapes and hedgerows.

Ecology
The plant blooms in the fall, from July to October. Its nectar attracts many species of butterflies and moths, bees, wasps, and flies. It is a larval host for a few varieties of moths, including the Clymene moth (Haploa clymene), Leucospilapteryx venustella, and the hitched dart moth (Melanchra adjuncta).

Galls
This species is host to the following insect induced galls:

 * Asphondylia eupatorii  Felt, 1911 (spring and summer generations) stem gall midge
 * Neolasioptera eupatorii  (Felt, 1907) stem gall midge
 * Schizomyia eupatoriflorae  (Beutenmuller, 1907) Stem gall midge (see image).

external link to gallformers

Toxicity
White snakeroot contains the toxin tremetol; when the plants are consumed by cattle, the meat and milk become contaminated with the toxin. When milk or meat containing the toxin is consumed, the poison is passed on to humans. If consumed in large enough quantities, it can cause tremetol poisoning in humans. The poisoning is also called milk sickness, as humans often ingested the toxin by drinking the milk of cows that had eaten snakeroot. Although 80% of the plant's toxin, tremetone, decreases after being dried and stored away for 5 years, its toxic properties remain the same.

During the early 19th century, when large numbers of European Americans from the East, who were unfamiliar with snakeroot, began settling in the plant's habitat of the Midwest and Upper South, many thousands were killed by milk sickness. Notably, milk sickness was possibly the cause of death in 1818 of Nancy Hanks Lincoln, mother of Abraham Lincoln.

It was some decades before European Americans traced the cause to snakeroot, although today Dr. Anna Pierce Hobbs Bixby is credited with identifying the plant in the 1830s. Legend has it that she was taught about the plant's properties by a Shawnee woman.

In addition to cattle, the plants are also poisonous to horses, goats, and sheep. Signs of poisoning in these animals include depression and lethargy, placement of hind feet close together (horses, goats, cattle) or held far apart (sheep), nasal discharge, excessive salivation, arched body posture, and rapid or difficult breathing.

Cultivation
A cultivar, sold under the name Eupatorium rugosum 'Chocolate', is grown in gardens for its dark-tinted foliage. The darkest color, which is a chocolate black, occurs in plants grown in a sunny location. The plants are shade-tolerant and do best in moist soils. More recently, the plant can be found under the correct species name.

Etymology
Ageratina is derived from Greek meaning 'un-aging', in reference to the flowers keeping their color for a long time. This name was used by Dioscorides for a number of different plants.

Altissima means "the tallest", and probably indicates that this is the tallest species in its genus.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Ageratina altissima


text:
Talk:Festen/Archive 1

Plot
The Celebration is not birthday celebration, at least this is not essential, the essential celebration is the celebration of the listening to the avoided truth.

I propose a new plot summary which focuses on Christian's character, not Helge's. Because without Christian's character (and his confrontation with the long-avoided truth that nobody - including himself - did not want to listen to) the Festen would be just yet another boring birthday party on movie.

Despite aversive ignoring of basic obligations that any human society obliges any father with (not to abuse his own children), the Helge's character would keep enjoying the society's respect, as indeed many perpetrators of these kinds of crimes do in reality. But not in the Festen.

Christian's character's determination to confront the genetically programmed psychological responses such as self-victimizing loyalty of victims to their perpetrators (see Stockholm syndrome), such as denial, such as memory-avoidance (inappropriately called memory-repression, although it is avoidance), by confronting both his father, his wife (who happens to be Christian's mother) and the whole world, who never wanted to see the truth (Christian's mother once saw her husband sodomizing him as little boy, but did not protect him, she closed the door and pretended she saw nothing), nor wanted to listen to his painful story.

(I wander how many of the victims of the childhood sexual abuse by their parental figures even try to talk about it, even to a psychotherapists if they look for a therapeutic help for some reason, and for how many of them it is too hard to bring it up to anybody at all and walk around emotionally dead until they die (emotionally they are already partly dead)...?). Therefore I don't think "The story centers on Helge"! No! Maybe in real life everything revolves around perpetrators who are protected by the shield of truth-avoidance by the society and themselves, but in this movie this is happly not the case.

The perpetrator, "Helge is the subject of a family reunion..." and enjoys society's respect, only until his victim is not determined to tell the truth. In this movie Helge's character happens to be subjected to long-avoided truth.

Festen is the celebration of truth, that all of them - including Christian - wanted to go away, but it did not go. His sister even committed suicide in order to kill her memories, and her story - because nobody in society wanted to listen.

I disagree, too, that this celebration "is marred by the recent suicide of Helge's daughter and by ... Christian". Without Christian's determination to stop running from the truth, there would be no celebration of the truth at all, just yet another birthday party.

SloContributorSince2005 14:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't I agree with the line "The Celebration's use of the dogme rules makes the film look like a home video." This movie is shot on film, not video, and there are not many scenes where the camera shakes excessively. The scenes are framed very well, and the film has several strikingly artistic shots. It's true that the film feels very "real", but the 'home video' comparison is, in my opinion, misleading.

Statolith 23:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Technical Correction

This was shot on video, but was then subsequently blown up to film for distribution. It is an irony of the rules of Dogme, since people now associate DV with Dogme. In fact one of the rules of Dogme was that films should be shot in Academy 35mm format.

With regards to the assertion that it looks like a home video, I believe this to be true and that this is an asset to the film. In Richard Kelly's book 'The Name of this Book is Dogme 95' he refers to the film as having a disturbing home video feel and I must agree that it certainly makes the film feel that much more real or true.

Changed African-American to Black, as there is no evidence to know if the character is an American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.1.77 (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Søren Vinterberg?
Who is Søren Vinterberg, named in the "Basis in a radioshow hoax" section? He is not mentioned anywhere else in the article, and he does not seem to be mentioned in the original source either. Is it just a typo for Thomas Vinterberg? — Emil J. 14:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems likely. The cited source doesn't mention a "Søren" either. I have corrected it to "Thomas".--Saddhiyama (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hoax
The section concerning the inspiration (a radio hoax) begins with an incredible run-on sentence that is both confusing and vague. It'd be nice if someone who knew the details of this could tidy/clarify this section, as it is of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.29.215 (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Trivia
Interesting for Gartner, but not significant for article. (Notable but trivial in relation to the film: Psychologist Richard Gartner reported in 1999 that The Celebration was one of only two feature films he had seen to feature male-male incest as a theme (the other film was the 1996 suspense-thriller Primal Fear). Additionally, Gartner suggests that the guests' responses to the disclosure of sexual abuse in The Celebration are a vivid depiction of denial. ) i recommend this be deleted, even though it has a citation. That's not the only reason to keep content. Parkwells (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Title
I have changed The Celebration so it redirects to Festen, which the film is known by outside of the United States. The English-language play adaptation also uses the original Danish title, which influenced my decision that Festen was the correct title for the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrainSpecialist (talk • contribs) 17:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Festen/Archive 1


text:
Sinnamary

Sinnamary (Sennmari) is a town and commune on the coast of French Guiana, between Kourou and Iracoubo. Sinnamary was the second French settlement founded in French Guiana: the town was founded in 1664.

Sinnamary lies on the Sinnamary River and is home to the Guianan Soyuz launch site. In 1792, the first prison for priests and political enemies was constructed in Sinnamary. The town contains an Indonesian community, as well as a Galibi Amerindian community. Both communities produce artwork and jewellery that can be purchased. The main hotel in Sinnamary is the Hôtel du Fleuve.

History
The first colonists arrived in the area in 1624, however the town of Sinnamary was officially established in 1664. Sinnamary was taken twice by the Dutch, and once by the British, until in 1763, it was awarded to France by the Treaty of Paris. In 1764, about 40 families of Acadians, still living in exile after the Grand Dérangement nine years earlier, settled in Sinnamary. In 1792 during the French Revolution, the first prison for priests and political enemies opened in Sinnamary which was a precursor of the penal colony of French Guiana. After Napoleon reintroduced slavery in 1802, the town started to grow, and the discovery of gold caused a second boom.

The Guianan Soyuz launch site is situated within the territory of the Sinnamary commune. Colloquially the site and/or project are thus sometimes called "Soyuz at Sinnamary". However, because most other facilities of the Centre Spatial Guyanais are in the neighbouring and more populous Kourou commune, and because the entire CSG itself is thus often called the Kourou space centre, the Guianan Soyuz site/project is also occasionally called "Soyuz at Kourou", even though this is technically incorrect.

Sports
The town is home to US Sinnamary who play at the Stade Omnisports (French Guiana) which has a capacity of 2,500 people.

Climate
Sinnamary has a tropical monsoon climate (Köppen climate classification Am). The average annual temperature in Sinnamary is 26.9 C. The average annual rainfall is 3020.0 mm with May as the wettest month. The temperatures are highest on average in October, at around 27.6 C, and lowest in January, at around 26.3 C. The highest temperature ever recorded in Sinnamary was 35.7 C on 6 November 2008; the coldest temperature ever recorded was 18.7 C on 17 March 2003.

Transport
Sinnamary can be reached by the National Route 1 between Saint-Laurent-du-Maroni and Cayenne.

Sinnamary is served by the Sinnamary Airport.

Nature
Crique et Pripri Yiyi is a 284 km2 protected area and wetland located in the commune.

Notable people

 * Jean-Victor Castor (1962), politician
 * Jean-Claude Darcheville (1975), football player
 * Marvin Torvic (1988), football player

title: Sinnamary


text:
Coin Street Community Builders

Coin Street Community Builders (CSCB) is a development trust and social enterprise which seeks to make London's South Bank a better place in which to live, to work, to visit and to study. Since 1984 CSCB has transformed a largely derelict 13-acre site into a thriving mixed-use neighbourhood.

History
Since its creation in 1984, CSCB redeveloped the Oxo Tower Wharf, Gabriel's Wharf, Bernie Spain Gardens and set up four housing co-operatives (Mulberry, Palm, Redwood and Iroko). The housing co-operatives are housed in new buildings commissioned by CSCB. Palm (also known as Broadwall) was designed by Lifschutz Davidson (now Lifschutz Davidson Sandilands) completed in 1994. Iroko was designed by architects Haworth Tompkins and was completed in 2001.

In 2007, CSCB occupied new offices at the Coin Street neighbourhood centre, also designed by Haworth Tompkins. As well as offices the building includes a day nursery and crèche, conference and meeting facilities.

CSCB also offers a variety of community programmes for people of all ages including youth clubs, sports and dance sessions and family and children's activities.

CSCB opposed the Garden Bridge project which would have been partially built on their land.

Management
The Group Chairman is Dr Scott Rice. The Group Director is Iain Tuckett.

title: Coin Street Community Builders


text:
Harrow on the Hill

Harrow on the Hill or Harrow-on-the-Hill is a locality and historic village in the borough of Harrow in Greater London, England. The name refers to Harrow Hill, 408 ft, and is located some half a mile south of the modern town of Harrow. The village dates back to early medieval times, built around the 11th-century St Mary's Church, and is the location of Harrow, St Dominic's and John Lyon schools.

Etymology
Etymology before 1398 derives from Harrow, & The Saxon Chronicles/The Peterborough Chronicle, which first recorded Harrow Hill in 767 as Gumeninga Hergae. A suggested meaning is "heathen temple" of a tribe called the 'Gumeningas', sons of Gumen. One of the earliest recorded uses of the name is found in 1398 as Harrowe atte Hille. The hill has historically been used as a place of pagan worship. It is alternatively explained to mean the church upon the hill.

History
Harrow on the Hill was an ancient parish in the Gore hundred of Middlesex. The parish historically covered a large rural area surrounding the hilltop settlement itself, extending to Pinner, Harrow Weald, Wealdstone and Wembley. Pinner became a separate parish in 1766. In 1831, the parish of Harrow on the Hill had a population of 3,861 and occupied an area of 9870 acre. In 1850 a local board district was established for the central part of the parish, including the main village and the adjoining hamlets of Greenhill, Roxeth, and Sudbury.

Following the opening of Harrow-on-the-Hill station in 1880, a new town centre grew up around the station, which was at the northern foot of the hill, in the Greenhill area. The new town centre became known simply as Harrow to distinguish it from the older village on the hill.

The Local Government Act 1894 converted local board districts such as Harrow-on-the-Hill into urban districts, and established elected parish and district councils. It also said that parishes could no longer straddle district boundaries. The parish of Harrow-on-the-Hill was reduced to just cover the urban district, and the remainder of the parish was split into three parishes called Harrow Weald, Wealdstone and Wembley (with the latter two also being made urban districts at the same time).

By 1931, the parish occupied a reduced area of 2129 acre and had a population of 26,380. A County Review Order in 1934 abolished the neighbouring urban district of Wealdstone and parishes of Harrow Weald, Pinner, Great Stanmore and Little Stanmore, merging them with the urban district of Harrow-on-the Hill to become an enlarged urban district that was called just Harrow rather than Harrow on the Hill. In 1954, Harrow was incorporated to become a municipal borough. The same area became the London Borough of Harrow in 1965, when it was transferred from Middlesex to Greater London.

King Charles I
On 27 April 1646, King Charles I, when fleeing Oxford on his way to Southwell, where he was due to surrender to the Scottish Army, stopped at Harrow on the Hill near St Mary's Church, so that he could take a final glimpse at London and also to water his horses. A plaque on Grove Hill near Harrow School marks the spot, and also says that the spring below has ever since been called King Charles' Well.

Photo record
The Hills & Saunders photography company had a studio on Harrow on the Hill in the 1860s photographing the schools, families and local area. The archive of c. 80,000 glass plates still exists and much of it is online at the Harrow Photos website.

Demography
The population of the Harrow on the Hill ward of the London Borough of Harrow was 9,578 in 1991 and 10,632 in 2001. It occupies an area of 357 hectares though the hill itself occupies approximately 100 ha and in 2001 had a population density of 29.74 persons per hectare. There were 4,539 households in the district in 2001. The ward's boundaries encompass the majority of the hill and also Roxeth, Sudbury Hill and parts of West Harrow.

The 2011 census showed ethnically Whites were largest at 47.3% (34.4% British, 9.6% "Other White" excluding Irish), 35.4% were Asian (19.1% Indian, 11.6% "Other Asian"). The most spoken foreign languages were Gujarati followed by Tamil. The Asian community in Harrow is among the most affluent in the UK. Of the over 4,500 households, the amount of whole house/bungalow and of flat/maisonette accommodations are about evenly split; 57.6% of property tenures are owned, 28.8% are privately rented, and 13.8% are socially rented. A relatively large share of residents, 28.4%, have a professional occupation. The unemployment rate for working people was 4.1%. The median age was 33.5 years.

Religion
Harrow on the Hill is also an ecclesiastical parish with St. Mary's, Harrow on the Hill at the apex. It was consecrated by St Anselm in 1094. There is also a Roman Catholic parish church at the foot of the hill, Our Lady and St Thomas of Canterbury, Harrow, dedicated to Our Lady and St Thomas of Canterbury.

Churchfields, Harrow on the Hill, centre of the Harrow Pentagram: Hergae Mound Oak trees leading from the Yew tree grove in Churchfields to the (Leyline-linked) Yew tree grove in St Mary's Church. Hergae Mound is also a direct flight line for pipistrelle bats and barn owls - very active at dusk. The Harrow Pentagram: Centre is St. Mary's at Harrow-on-the-hill. The five points around it are: Belmont Hill Stanmore, Horsenden Hill Greenford, Barn Hill Wembley, Dabbs Hill, St. John's Pinner. Harrow on the Hill's original name 'Gumeninga hergae' suggests that the pagan practises may have still been taking place on the hill – despite increasing conversion to Christianity at the time.

The area has four Catholic schools and three Church of England schools.

Transport
Harrow-on-the-Hill station, although named after the settlement, is located some distance to the north of the hill. The London Underground service at Harrow-on-the-Hill is on the Metropolitan line, and the station is also served by the Chiltern Railways London to Aylesbury Line. These services run in to central London, and out west/north west to the outer reaches of London and beyond.

About equidistant to Harrow-on-the-Hill station from the top of the hill, is South Harrow on the Piccadilly line. The 258 and H17 London bus routes run over Harrow on the Hill itself.

Street accident fatality
A roadside plaque unveiled on 25 February 1969 states that the first recorded motor accident in Great Britain to have involved the death of the car driver took place at Harrow on the Hill on a road called Grove Hill seventy years earlier, on 25 February 1899. The plaque makes no mention of the name of the dead motorist, but it does name the civic dignitary who unveiled it: his name is given as Alderman Charles Stenhouse, who was Mayor of Harrow at the time.

The driver involved in the crash was 31-year-old engineer Edwin Sewell, driving a 6HP Daimler. A rear wheel collapsed after breaking its rim and the car hit a sturdy brick wall. Sewell was killed immediately when he and his passenger, a Major Richer, were thrown from the vehicle. Richer died three days later in hospital.

Early railway accident fatality
In the graveyard of St Mary's church is a gravestone recording the death of Thomas Port in the railway accident on 7 August 1838.

title: Harrow on the Hill


text:
AYS

AYS or Ays may refer to:

 * About Your Sexuality, was a comprehensive sex education course from the Unitarian Universalist Association
 * Ay dynasty, a ruling lineage in south India
 * The National Rail code for Aylesbury railway station in Aylesbury, United Kingdom
 * The Eyeish people, also known as Ays, a Native American tribe from Texas
 * Waycross-Ware County Airport, IATA code AYS, airport in Georgia, United States
 * Amaysim Australia Ltd, a company listed on the Australian Securities Exchange

title: AYS


text:
Tremors 2: Aftershocks

Tremors 2: Aftershocks is a 1996 American Western comedy horror film and the sequel to the comedy horror film Tremors. In this sequel, the character of Earl Bassett, returning from the first film, is hired to deal with a subterranean "graboid" infestation at a Mexican oilfield. It was directed by S. S. Wilson, and stars Fred Ward, Christopher Gartin, Michael Gross, and Helen Shaver.

After spending all the reward money from his first encounter with Graboids, Earl Bassett agrees to hunt more of the deadly creatures at a Mexican oil refinery for $50,000 each. Knowing that he cannot face the monsters alone, Earl recruits Burt Gummer, another veteran of the incident in Nevada, to supply the firepower. There is only one problem: the Graboids have now evolved into creatures able to attack above ground.

Reviews for the film were mostly positive, with some critics labeling it one of the best direct-to-video sequels ever made.

The film is the second in the Tremors franchise. It was followed by a 2001 sequel, Tremors 3: Back to Perfection.

Plot
Years after the events of the first film, Val McKee has moved away and married Rhonda LeBeck, while Earl Basset has squandered his fortune on a failing ostrich ranch. He is approached by Carlos Ortega, who informs him that Graboids are killing his workers at his oil field in Chiapas, Mexico, and hires him to hunt them down. Earl initially declines, but Ortega's taxi driver, Grady Hoover, convinces Earl to change his mind after mentioning that Ortega will pay $50,000 for each Graboid killed; both join the hunt. Upon arrival, Earl learns that the company would pay him double if he caught one of the creatures alive. He also meets geologist Kate Reilly, her assistant Julio, and a mechanic named Pedro, all of whom are scientifically investigating the Graboids.

Earl and Grady begin systematically killing the Graboids by using remote-controlled cars rigged with explosives. Though their strategy seems to work, the vast number of Graboids overwhelms them and Earl enlists the help of Burt Gummer, who arrives with a "deuce-and-a-half" truck loaded with firearms and explosives. The next day, Earl and Grady are surprised by one of the Graboids, causing them to drive backwards in a panic and crash the truck into an inclined ditch. Returning to where they saw the Graboid, Earl and Grady find that the creature looks sick and non-aggressive with all of its tentacles mysteriously dead. Realizing they have one of the creatures alive (which Ortega offered $100,000 if accomplished), they call Pedro to come and pick them up along with the Graboid. However, the Graboid later begins making horrific and painful sounds and is soon found dead with a huge hole torn open into its body. They see Pedro's truck approach from the distance but it suddenly stops, prompting Grady and Earl to investigate and discover the truck’s destroyed engine as well as Pedro’s remains. They make their way to a nearby radio broadcasting building which has similarly been destroyed, only to be met by strange bipedal graboid-like creatures. Earl successfully kills one as it charges him, but the two flee in a car they had found as more of the creatures arrive. Meanwhile, Burt's truck is ambushed by a pack of these new creatures while returning to base.

The following morning, the creatures have made their way to the oil refinery, where Julio is violently killed by one. Grady and Earl arrive before it can attack Kate, with Burt shortly arriving thereafter following a near-fatal firefight that has left him drained of ammunition. Through experimentation, the group discovers that these creatures (now dubbed 'Shriekers') are hermaphrodites that can replicate at an incredible rate after eating enough food. They also learn that the creatures cannot hear unlike their predecessors, but rather see heat through special infrared receptors on their heads. However, they are attacked by the Shriekers, who have discovered Burt's MRE food supply and have rapidly doubled their numbers in a matter of minutes. They run for Julio's car, but Burt accidentally disables it while killing a Shrieker.

Hiding from the Shriekers, Burt is trapped in a bulldozer bucket while Grady, Kate, and Earl are on top of an oil tower. The Shriekers work together in an attempt to climb the tower before Burt traps them in the storage shed with the truck. However, they discover rice flour is stored inside as well, enabling the Shriekers to continue eating and multiplying inside. Earl douses himself in CO2 from a fire extinguisher to hide his body heat, and tries to find Burt's explosives amongst the Shriekers, who have multiplied into dozens of creatures. While the plan initially works, the quickly wears off and the Shriekers detect his body heat, forcing Earl to throw the detonator among Burt's supplies before escaping. The group manages to escape before a massive explosion devastates the entire facility, destroying all of the Shriekers with it. In the aftermath, Earl and Kate decide to pursue each other romantically, while Grady suggests opening a monster-themed theme park due to the money Ortega now owes them.

Cast

 * Fred Ward as Earl Bassett
 * Christopher Gartin as Grady Hoover
 * Helen Shaver as Dr. Kate Reilly. Credited as Kate White.
 * Michael Gross as Burt Gummer
 * Marcelo Tubert as Sr. Carlos Ortega
 * Marco Hernandez as Julio
 * José Rosario as Pedro
 * Thomas Rosales Jr. as Oil Worker

Development
Tremors 2: Aftershocks began production in 1993 when MCA Universal (feature films division) liked the script. The film was originally planned to be filmed in Australia on a 17 million-dollar budget with the proposal that Kevin Bacon and Reba McEntire would both be returning. McEntire declined due to a major tour she had currently been on, and Bacon, while intrigued, ultimately turned it down to do Apollo 13. Due to the lack of star power and the mediocre box-office performance of the first film, the distributional and promotional cost for a theater release was considered to be too high and the feature film division lost interest. The film was on the verge of being canceled entirely due to high costs when several actors and effects artists offered to lower their rates or do the jobs for free just to help the film get produced; this included S.S. Wilson, who offered to direct the film for free to save money on hiring another director.

Although the first film was only a minor theatrical hit, it would go on to be far more successful on the home-video rental market. This caused Tremors 2 to be moved to the MCA/Universal home video division on a budget of $4 million. Despite the budget being severely slashed, the same script was ultimately used but with several special effects sequences scrapped, including a scene where Burt Gummer commandeers a tank and a scene where characters fight the monsters using American Civil War muskets. To assist with costs, the location was changed from Australia to southern Mexico. Filming took place near Valencia, California in a total of 27 days in early 1994. The film was also released straight-to-video with only a limited theater release.

Props
In Tremors 2: Aftershocks, the creature design team, Amalgamated Dynamics, was faced with a challenge different from the first film. In Tremors, the graboids spend most of their time underground, and thus a prop was not needed for these scenes. However, in this film the shriekers spend all their time above ground and there are always more shriekers than graboids, thus the need for more props. The shrieker props used in the film include two fully articulated, full-scale puppet shrieker, three hand-puppet versions of the shriekers, and three un-jointed non-articulated rubber shrieker dummies. The fully articulated, full-scale puppet shrieker required 16 puppeteers to operate, while the rubber shrieker dummies, not requiring puppeteers, were used in scenes when a shrieker needed to be dropped, shot, or exploded.

One of the full scale graboids used in the film was a refurbished model that was used in the first film.

Effects
To achieve the infrared view of the shriekers as seen in several scenes, the actors wore red suits and yellow stockings, then were shot in Hi-8 video tape and blown up to 35mm film to add an additional grainy effect. The post-production video engineers then rendered the faces and bodies in different colors.

The scene where a baby shrieker is seen was created using a full size shrieker in a large cage, making the shrieker look small. As a consequence, no actors could be shown at the same time as the cage and shrieker.

In addition to the shriekers designed by Amalgamated Dynamics, some scenes in the film utilized shriekers that were computer generated imagery (CGI) designed by Tippett Studio. These animated shriekers were used when ever the film depicts them as walking, running, or climbing, as these movements were beyond the capabilities of the fully articulated puppet shriekers.

Release and Reception
After the film had been finished, its release date was delayed numerous times when test screenings were met with glowing reviews, which lead to its creators and the studio to consider theatrical distribution. A release date was finally set for April 9, 1996, over two years after the film had been finished. Although a theatrical release was deemed too expensive, the film did receive a very small limited screening in international theaters with an exclusive premiere screening that took place on April 9, 1996 at 8 PM in the Alfred Hitchcock Theater in Hollywood, California. The film was released on video cassette on April 9, 1996 and on LaserDisc on April 16, 1996.

As of April 2024, Tremors 2: Aftershocks holds a 64% rating on Rotten Tomatoes based on reviews from eleven critics, with an average rating of 5/10. TV Guide gave the film a positive review, saying "this movie is a rarity among direct-to-video sequels, one that's not only worthy of its theatrical predecessor but suggests that it too, belongs on the big screen...despite the significantly lower budget, the monsters remain entirely convincing." Ty Burr of Entertainment Weekly gave the film a mixed C+, calling it "definitely not as bad as a lot of straight-to-tape sequels" and further praised the acting, cinematography, and effects, but gave negative criticisms to the film's second half, saying "the movie becomes a bald-faced imitation of Jurassic Park."

"While Tremors 2 lacks the vulgar humor, which made the first film feel so appealing, it retains its predecessors redneck charm and gleeful creature-killing violence and gore. Not merely a rehash, this is a moderately original film."

title: Tremors 2: Aftershocks


text:
Tsuutʼina language

The Tsuutʼina language, or Tsúùtʼínà Gūnáhà (and formerly known as Sarcee or Sarsi), is spoken by the people of the Tsuutʼina Nation, whose reserve and community is near Calgary, Alberta. It belongs to the Athabaskan language family, which also include the Navajo and Chiricahua of the south, and the Dene Suline and Tłı̨chǫ of the north.

Nomenclature
The name Tsuutʼina comes from the Tsuutʼina self designation Tsúùtʼínà, meaning "many people", "nation tribe", or "people among the beavers". Sarcee is a deprecated exonym from Siksiká.

Language revitalization
Tsuutʼina is a critically endangered language, with only 150 speakers, 80 of whom speak it as their mother tongue, according to the 2016 Canadian census. The Tsuutʼina Nation has created the Tsuutʼina Gunaha Institute with the intention of creating new fluent speakers. This includes full K-4 immersion education at schools on the Nation and placing stop signs in the Tsuutʼina language at intersections in the Tsuutʼina Nation.

Consonants
The consonants of Tsuutʼina are listed below, with symbols from the standard orthography in brackets:

Vowels
There are four phonemically distinct vowel qualities in Tsuutʼina: /i a ɒ u/, represented〈i a o u〉. While /a/ and /ɒ/ are fairly constant, /i u/ can vary considerably.

Vowels are also distinguished by length and tone, similar to other Athabaskan languages, so that Tsuutʼina, taking the total number of vowel phonemes to 24 (i.e. / ī í ì īː íː ìː ā á à āː áː àː ɒ̄ ɒ́ ɒ̀ ū ú ù ūː úː ùː ɒ̄ː ɒ́ː ɒ̀ː /).
 * long vowels are written doubled, e.g., aa
 * high tone is marked with an acute accent, e.g., á
 * low tone is marked with a grave accent, e.g., à
 * mid tone is marked with a macron, e.g., ā

Nouns
Nouns in Tsuutʼina are not declined, and most plural nouns are not distinguished from singular nouns. However, kinship terms are distinguished between singular and plural form by adding the suffix -ká (or -kúwá) to the end of the noun or by using the word yìná.

People

 * husband - kòlà
 * man, human - dìná
 * wife - tsʼòyá
 * woman - tsʼìkā
 * grandmother - is’su
 * grandfather - is’sa
 * mother - in’na
 * father - it’ta

Nature

 * Buffalo, cow - xāní
 * Cloud - nàkʼús
 * Dog - tłí(chʼà)
 * Fire - kù
 * Mud, dirt - gútłʼìs
 * Snow - zòs
 * Water - tú

Words and phrases

 * my name is (..) - sizi

Noun possession
Nouns can exist in free form or possessed form. When in possessed form, the prefixes listed below can be attached to nouns to show possession. For example, más, "knife", can be affixed with the 1st person prefix to become sìmázàʼ or "my knife". Note that -mázàʼ is the possessed form of the noun.

Some nouns, like más, as shown above, can alternate between free form and possessed form. A few nouns, like zòs, "snow", are never possessed and exist only in free form. Other nouns, such as -tsìʼ, "head", have no free form and must always be possessed.

Typical possession prefixes

 * 1st person - si-
 * 2nd person - ni-
 * 3rd person - mi-
 * 4th person (Athabascan) - ɣi-

title: Tsuutʼina language


text:
Kitchener station

Kitchener station is a railway station located in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, slightly to the northeast of downtown Kitchener, at 126 Weber Street West, near the corner of Victoria Street. It is a heritage building containing a waiting room and ticket counter built beside a set of tracks also used as a freight yard. A separate building to the east of the passenger area, originally built in 1925 as a freight building, now serves as the headquarters for the Goderich–Exeter Railway.

The station is served by GO Transit regional trains operating between London and Toronto, Via Rail intercity trains operating between Sarnia and Toronto via London, and GO Transit regional buses operating between Kitchener and Bramalea.

History
In 1856, the Grand Trunk Railway was in the process of a westward push, extending its Toronto–Brampton line. The first Grand Trunk train arrived in Guelph on January 30. On Wednesday, June 18, the first train arrived in Kitchener (then known as Berlin) with 150 passengers. The first Berlin railway station opened shortly after, on the 1st of July. The railway was extended beyond Berlin to St. Marys Junction in 1858, and to Sarnia in 1859.

In 1857, shortly after the arrival of the Grand Trunk, the Great Western Railway also arrived in Berlin via its subsidiary, the Preston and Berlin Railway. This branch line, the northern section of which still exists in the form of the CN Huron Park Spur, connected the northern Grand Trunk and southern Great Western mainlines to each other at a junction west of the newly-built Kitchener Grand Trunk station, near King Street. The Great Western began to construct its own wooden station close to the junction, and had purchased land near the Grand Trunk station which would allow for either adjacent stations or a future union station. However, service on the Preston and Berlin line ended only a few months after it began due to the catastrophic collapse of its bridge over the Grand River, and the plans for a union station never bore fruit.

The Grand Trunk Railway built the current station building in 1897 to replace the original, smaller building built in 1856. The station building originally included a prominent Gothic clock tower. A second tower was added to the station after a 1908 fire. In 1916, the town of Berlin was renamed to Kitchener, and the station was renamed accordingly.

After the Great War, the Grand Trunk and several other financially distressed railways were nationalised and merged into the Canadian National Railway. The Guelph Subdivision was a secondary mainline for trains from Chicago, Michigan, and Western Ontario bound for Toronto and points East. Kitchener station served international GTR / CNR trains such as the Maple Leaf (Chicago - Port Huron - Toronto), as well as numerous regional trains.

In 1966, Canadian National Railway (CN), by this point the owner of the station, removed the clock tower and the other roof features. In 1983, CN threatened to demolish the station, but Via Rail, which had assumed responsibility for CN's passenger services in 1978, opted to retain it. Under the provisions of Canada's Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act, it was designated a railway heritage structure on February 15, 1994.

Between 1982 and 2004, Kitchener was served by the joint Via Rail-Amtrak International service between Chicago and Toronto.

In November 2010, a partial rollout of GO train service was announced to be in place by late 2011. Two Kitchener line trains daily served Acton, Guelph and Kitchener with layover for those trains at a small facility in Kitchener. $18 million was spent to get this first stage operational, with further upgrades to come. Service began on December 19, serving only Kitchener and Guelph to begin with.

Services
Service directly to the station is operated by GO Transit and Via Rail. In addition, GO Transit and Grand River Transit operate other bus services which stop near the station on either Weber Street or Victoria Street but do not enter the station's bus terminal.

Via Rail
Kitchener station is an intermediate stop on the Via Rail Toronto–London–Sarnia intercity train service, which forms a component of Via Rail's Corridor network. As of 2021, service consists of a single round trip per day.

GO Transit
The station is nominally the western terminus of GO Transit's Kitchener line regional/commuter rail service connecting Kitchener to Toronto via Guelph, Georgetown, and Brampton. As of 2021, the station is served by 10 eastbound and 9 westbound trains per weekday, one of which extends beyond Kitchener to London. That train to London ended service in October 2023. There is no GO train service on weekends.

GO Transit bus route 30 also provides hourly bus service from Kitchener station to Bramalea GO Station where passengers can connect to hourly off-peak trains.

Future
The Region of Waterloo plans to replace the existing Kitchener station with a new Kitchener Central Station or "Transit Hub" located at King Street where the railway crosses the Ion light rail line. The station would accommodate regional GO and intercity Via Rail trains, as well as intercity coach buses. In 2016, it was estimated that the new station could only open in 2022 at the earliest. The Central Station light rail stop opened in 2019 along with the light rail line itself.

A larger GO train layover facility is planned west of Kitchener near Baden, in order to allow increased train service to Kitchener. In the meantime, trains are stored in an interim yard in Kitchener off Shirley Avenue east of the station.

In addition, an infill station known as Breslau GO is planned in the residential community of Breslau, across the Grand River to the east. The new station would be oriented around park and ride service, in order to address parking capacity without large-scale station parking downtown.

title: Kitchener station


text: User talk:85.206.202.162

title: User talk:85.206.202.162


text:
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. "Jerk, Beefy!" (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)

title: Talk:Greyfriars Bobby


text:
User:Ichigo~enwiki

/monobook.css

title: User:Ichigo~enwiki


text:
User:Jhaygood86

I do exist.

title: User:Jhaygood86


text: User talk:193.30.108.34

title: User talk:193.30.108.34


text:
User:Sweet-indigo

Sweet-Indigo is also known as Sweet Indigo, Sweets, Indigo, Indigo Ziona, Ziona, and Helen. It is probably self-evident that she thought up all the former names at the age of 16 (With exception of Helen, which her mother thought up 25 years ago). She is currently 25 years old.

You can find ramblings of Sweet-Indigo in her Diaryland Diary, her Blogger Blog, her other website and some other places that she can't be bothered to link to right now.

She's planning on filling out the Adrian Plass article soon.

title: User:Sweet-indigo


text:
Abdulqawi Yusuf

Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf (Cabdulqaawi Axmed Yuusuf) is a Somali lawyer and judge serving on the International Court of Justice since 2009. He served as the court's president from 2018 to 2021.

Early life
Yusuf was born in the northeastern town of Eyl, Puntland, Somalia. He holds a Juris Doctor (Somali National University) and holds a PhD in international law from the Graduate Institute of International Studies of Geneva. Prior to his doctorate, Yusuf completed post-graduate studies in international law at the University of Florence in Italy.

He is fluent in Somali, Arabic, English, French, and Italian.

Career
Yusuf's previous positions include: Legal Adviser and Director of the Office of International Standards and Legal Affairs for UNESCO from March 2001 to January 2009, Legal Advisor (1994–1998) and Assistant Director General for African Affairs, United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), Vienna (1998–2001), Representative and Head of the New York office of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (1992–1994) and Chief of the Legal Policies Service of UNCTAD (1987–1992), Lecturer in law at the Somali National University (1974–1981) and at the University of Geneva (1981–1983), and Somali delegate to the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (1975–1980). He has also been guest professor and lecturer at a number of universities and institutes in Switzerland, Italy, Greece and France.

Yusuf was elected to the Institut de droit international in 1999 and is currently a member. He is the founder and General Editor of the African Yearbook of International Law. Yusuf is also one of the founders of the African Foundation for International Law, as well as the chairperson of its executive committee. In addition, Yusuf has authored several books and numerous articles on various aspects of international law as well as articles and op-ed pieces in newspapers on current Northeast African and Somali affairs. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of the Asian Yearbook of International Law, and a member of the Thessaloniki Institute of Public International Law and International Relations curatorium. He also previously served as a judge ad hoc at the International Court of Justice.

ICJ Judge
On 6 February 2009, he was appointed as a judge at the International Court of Justice. On 6 February 2015, he was elected vice-president of the court.

In 2011, Yusuf would later gain a seat in the advisory council of The Hague Institute for Global Justice.

On 6 February 2018, Yusuf was appointed President of the International Court of Justice. He became the third African to hold the title after Nigeria's Taslim Olawale Elias (1982-1985) and Algeria's Mohamed Bedjaoui (1994-1997).

Publications

 * Panafricanisme et droit international, Académie de droit international de La Haye, hors collection, 2017.
 * Intellectual Property and International Trade:  The Trips Agreement (ed. with C. Correa), 3rd Edition (Kluwer Law International, 2016).
 * African Yearbook of International Law, (Founder and General Editor), (Vols. 1-21), 1993–2016, Kluwer Law International and Nijhoff Publishers (London, The Hague, Boston).
 * Pan-Africanism and International Law, Brill, Nijhoff, 2014.
 * L’Union africaine: cadre juridique et institutionnel. Manuel sur l’organisation panafricaine (ed. with F. Ouguergouz), Paris:  Pedone, 2013.
 * The African Union:  Legal and Institutional Framework.  A Manual on the Pan-African Organization (ed. with F. Ouguergouz), Leiden: Nijhoff, 2012.
 * Standard setting in UNESCO/L’action normative à l’UNESCO (ed.), Paris: UNESCO Publishing and Leiden: Nijhoff, 2007.
 * Intellectual Property and International Trade:  the TRIPS Agreement (ed. with C. Correa), The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1st edition, 1998, 2nd edition, 2007.
 * International Technology Transfer:  The Origins and Aftermath of the United Nations Negotiations on a Draft Code of Conduct  (ed. with S.J. Patel and P. Roffe), The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2001.
 * Legal Aspects of Trade Preferences for Developing States:  A study in the Influence of Development Needs on the Evolution of International Law, The Hague:  Nijhoff Publishers, 1982.

title: Abdulqawi Yusuf