Talk:Wild haggis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Popular Culture (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of popular culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Scotland (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

[Untitled][edit]

Has nobody else noticed the problem here? "It is also believed that male Haggis run only clockwise and female Haggis run only in a counterclockwise direction." That would mean that males have longer right legs and females have longer left legs. "Fictionally, there are two species of Haggis, one with longer left legs and the other with longer right legs." That would mean that males are one species and females are another, and since turning around would make them fall, they would be unable to mate.


—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.140.55 (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I was always lead to believe that there aren't two species, just that the legs are different on male and female Haggai. Typically I don't think the Haggis mate so much as meet... The kind of gullible people to whom you would tell this tale wouldn't immediately jump to the actual mating, they'd just think a kiss and that's it! Sjtaunton (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the logically inconsistent claim that males and females run in opposite direction. -- Eb.hoop (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Man... my Dad (who is Scottish - from Dundee) told me this story when I was a kid, and I believed him for years until I found out what it actually was. I'd always thought this story was my Dad's own invention - didn't realize that it's actually told a lot in Scotland.

Just wondering - my Dad also told me specifically that the Haggis was a type of bird that ran on Hills in Scotland, and that it had evolved with one leg longer than the other to run on hills, but it could only run one way because of this - making it very easy to catch. He said that that was why it could only be hunted once a year - or the Haggis would surely go extinct.

Has anyone heard this detail of the story repeated?

Tommertron


Heh, not me. Since it's an entirely fictional creature, the teller of the story is free to make up any details he pleases. :-) Evercat 11:57 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I heard practically the same story some ten years ago, while drinking with some members of Estonian Scottish Society. Somehow, I had forgotten it for all these years. Glad to remember. --Oop 22:57, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

I heard it could only be hunted when drunk, in order to give it a fair chance. It makes the story less believable - as if it wasn't odd enough already - but makes it even better if the person doesn't catch on. To be honest, I was somehow disappointed with how flatly this article debunks the myth. It's a fun legend. I even have my own furry wee haggis.


Possible link to the Magic Puddin in Australia? sounds like a source...

I tell this to tourists, and they believe me. It's incredibly funny =oD


Well I was born and live in Scotland and I have heard this story for most of my life (always new it was not real). When I can a kid the story was always told about a bird which was able to fly and there was no mention of different lengths of legs. But recently I have heard a lot about the small ground mammal with 2 sets of legs of different lengths. I added a few details about this alternate version.

I recently also added some format to the article. I did not delete any thing but i did need to edit some text to make it clearer. If you do not like it please return to the old format i will not be offended.

Also we need to get a picture some this like this one. http://graphics.stanford.edu/~bjohanso/england/glasgow/haggis.jpg But not copy writed.

I also fixed the link but i was not logged in at the time.Elfwood 21:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


Link #2 is broken.

My name is Sara. I was born in paisley in 83 and moved to australia in 98. so figure the maths that makes me 22. :-) My Papa Harrigan told me the true story of Haggis (hehehe only the aussies beleive it). It is a little furry animal only found in the Highlands of Scotland. In order for it to balance on the steep slopes it has two long legs on one side and two short ones on the other. it runs around the hills but sometimes falls over, like a sheep it gets stuck on it's back and can't get up, so the farmers go out and collect them and kill em, bag em up in sheep stomach and sell them in the supermarkets! Haha Beat that one! :-)


My uncle told me (and my cousins, some of whom still believe the story) about the four-legged species that Sara's talking about. He said Haggis were hunted with Haggis Hounds, dogs trained to run the opposite way around mountains to the Haggis, which would get scared, try to turn around and fall over. Maybe there are actually two genera of Haggis, a three legged variety and a four-legged one. 213.107.24.178 15:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

'fictional'[edit]

I'm sure it's very funny to keep removing the word 'fictional' from the introduction. But please don't do so. It's vandalism, and users doing it may get blocked.--MichaelMaggs 21:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Not just Americans[edit]

Its not just tourists (mainly Americans) who believe this story - a few years ago when I was in my early 20s a Scottish co-worker and myself convincved a very gullible slightly older English colleuge that a Haggis was a real creature. Penrithguy 21:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

inadequate source citation[edit]

Although the first sentence of the article is accurate, much of the level of detail in the remainder of the intro, in particular, and some of the rest the article goes way beyond anything that could be said to exist in supposedly widely-held folklore tradition in Scotland. Are these quotes from a book, or the label of a tourist shop gift, in which case citations should be made? Are some editors just concocting their own myths to add here? Mutt Lunker 23:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


Other Uses[edit]

This reads like a sarcastic narrative. Probably needs to be deleted.

What's the point in deleting articles from an encyclopedia that's supposed to cover everything anyway? Chris (talk) 07:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Tartan Fur[edit]

Does anyone have a more appropriate citation than this Halls Haggis for it having tartan coloured fur? If so I think it should be added.Jonathan Cardy(talk) 23:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

not a cryptid[edit]

Wild haggis is not a cryptid as there has never been a serious suggestion that it exists. Leg-pulling of tourists is not the same thing. I've removed it from List of cryptids. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

So it's not a cryptid, and it's not a legendary creature (they wouldn't accept "wild haggis" as a legendary creature on the list of legendary creatures, and "fictional animal" redirects to there), so perhaps you'd like to suggest what it is? Chris (talk) 06:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so if we've established: it isn't a cryptid as there has never been a serious suggestion that it exists; it is a joke animal, of fairly modern origin (I guess - it would be interesting to establish the first written ref. to it), so not truly one of "legend"; it is certainly fictional and it is a creature. I'd suggest "fictional creature" redirecting to "legendary creature" may be what needs to be addressed as they are not the same thing. There is a Lists of fictional species page, but none of the lists therein is really appropriate for wild haggis. Perhaps creating a new list there, say List of joke animals would be appropriate..? You might want to discuss it on the talk page there. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd put it in the same category as something like a Drop Bear or a Jackalope. ~ Brother William (talk) 04:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

earliest references[edit]

Can we establish the earliest written reference or other verifiable reference to the wild haggis? Currently in the article we have 1967 with "The Owl Service". Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Owl Service doesn't mention wild haggis, it only mentions stilts for sheep with legs of different lengths. There is no evidence that this was influenced by wild haggis, so I've removed it from this article. Also the word used in this article ("fimbulwinters") appears to be incorrect. snigbrook (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
A search on Google Books find a reference to "wild haggis" apparently from 1938, however it describes it as a bird. snigbrook (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I think I've seen Edwardian-period postcards depicting a haggis as a real animal, so it probably goes back to Victorian times. Meowy 22:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

sources[edit]

There is no specified requirement for ""serious" reference"s , only reliable ones (arguably largely the case in this article now). The policy is the same if the subject matter is in regard to humour. --Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Qoutation. I think that does affect inclusion of sources that are less-than-serious. That said fiction and humour can be dealt with seriously.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Separate species?[edit]

The article refers to both Haggis scotticus and Haggis scoticus. Presumably these are the long-left and long-right variants, but which is which?
Varlaam (talk) 03:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to first catch and then ask them - preferably before cooking! I think the Latin adjectival form is "scottus" or "scotius", but I'm not sure. Roger (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Quoted Text[edit]

A large section of text in the first paragraph of this should be quoted rather than simply put in, as it is almost entirely derived from the second paragraph of the text on this website: http://www.windsorscottish.com/ed-folk-wildhaggis.php TheWhitefire (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It's at least likely to be the other way round. Wikipedia articles are quoted verbatim all over the internet, attributed or not. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact one of the photos is attributed to Wikipedia, so I think that points to the source of their text as well. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I shall concede to your points. I suppose the only way to be certain of either would be to look up the date the article was formed on both pages. TheWhitefire (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: unopposed; will be done when the redirect is releted Kotniski (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


Wild HaggisWild haggis — Swap the names of this page with the existing redirect, so that the article has the correct capitalisation (lower case 'h'), and the incorrectly (upper case 'H') capitalised article is the redirect. "Haggis" is not a proper noun so should not have an upper case 'h'. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Fences&Windows 20:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


Wild HaggisWild haggis – So that the article and talk page have the same title, and are linked. Currently, the article links to an empty talk page. There was an unopposed move request a year ago, and the move was agreed, but for some reason not carried out. RolandR (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Beano Comic[edit]

A strip in the Beano comic includes several haggis. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_McTickles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.55.4 (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Addition to WikiProject Mythology[edit]

The addition of this article to WikiProject Mythology seems of questionable suitability. The Wikipedia definition of mythology certainly does not fit. To be classed as a myth, surely there has to be a body of belief in the story or entity within the originating culture. In this type of case, the whole point is that the originating culture has consciously concocted a falsehood in order to play a joke on those from outwith the culture. It's no more a myth than tartan paint. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps Category:Animals in mythology should be removed also; without that I doubt that I would have added WP Mythology.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Good point, I hadn't spotted that. I'd be happy to see them both ditched, if you'd like to? Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Science[edit]

@Mutt Lunker and Altenmann: I don't actually feel very strongly about this, but I originally added this page to Category:Humorous hoaxes in science because of this publication in a scientific journal, which brought haggis into this page on jokes in science. Seemed to fit as much as anything. I don't know about "hoax" as applied to something purported to be real in some cases, but not actually intended to fool anyone. There are some others in the category that could probably be described as such. Since there's already a separate category for hoaxes in science, maybe it would be better to create "humor in science" as a somewhat broader category that would include jokes as well as hoaxes (which would then also be in hoaxes in science)? Eh. Most of my comments here are, I realize, more suited for a discussion on that category's talk page, but it came up here :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The part about taxonomy and "scientific" description is pretty much hoax IMO. - üser:Altenmann >t 19:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
And on the contrary, no referenced evidence it is a Scottish folklore piece. It is rather fakelore. - üser:Altenmann >t 19:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we need put this article into categories unless they notably fit in them and are helpful. The mention in this scientific paper was not noted in the article, making the addition of the cat obscure; it is, as far as I know, not widely known and there is no real attempt in it to hoax; it just references the existing and widely known joke. The exhibit in the Kelvingrove museum likewise is its take on an existing joke and not the source of it or definitive, though probably notable enough to mention as an example of the joke. Putting it in the category makes it look like there was a notable attempt to genuinely fool people in a credible scientific manner, which there was not. Perfectly happy to have the folklore cat removed though it's not really fakelore either as that purports to be genuine. Also, @Altenmann, don't casually make accusations of warring and complain that it hasn't been taken to talk when you are the one repeating the bold change, without edit summary expalanation or talk page discussion. Per WP:BRD kindly self-rv until the matter have been resolved here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
kindly look at the article history and then look at yourself. Now, back from editors to content. You say it is a well-known joke. "Humorous hoax" is a special kind of joke, right? "A hoax is a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth" - wild haggis is not a superstition nor a legend. It is a deliberately fabricated humorous falsehood. In order to "masquerade the truth" the pseudobiological lingo was used. Hence the category reasonably fits. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
P.S. I don't quite understand what did you mean in: "The mention in this scientific paper was not noted in the article". It is not a pure "mention" it is a full-blown article devoted to dwindling wild stock of the source of haggis, its domestication, and attempts of cross-breeding with a species from Southern hemisphere. It exactly sci hoax. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Rhododendrites has been perectly conciliatory about this matter but Altenmann, I do not appreciate your abrasive tone. You were the one to initiate discussion of editors by your implication of bad faith regarding supposed warring and I request again the adoption of WP:BRD regarding this bold edit.
Apologies if there was any confusion regarding the article I was referring to: this Wikipedia article makes no mention, in the article text, of this commonplace joke having also been laid out in a scientific paper, notably or otherwise. The paper is used, perfectly appropriately, as a reference for aspects of the text of the article but the article text itself does not discuss these aspects in terms of a scientific hoax, let alone one that was notably attempted or successfully perpetrated. As far as I am aware this paper is obscure, is not the origin of any of the aspects of the story noted in this Wiki article and did not notably play a part in promulgating them. This subject, and these elements, is comparatively modern but long pre-dates this 2007 paper (as a tourist guide I can remember leg-pulling of tourists by fellow guides back in the '80s, rehashing all this material (also the stock of asymmetric soft toy wild haggises in the gift shop (and soft toy Nessie burgers, God help us)). If sources can be found that reference the notable impact of this scientific paper in originating or promoting the story, particularly if it notably succeeeded as a hoax, that would be fine. In that case it would be appropriate to add it in the text as a notable aspect of the subject and to add the "scientific hoax" category but if not, not. I don't believe classification of this as a notable scientific hoax is appropriate or proportionate.
OK I think I understand your point now. Basically, classification of it as a sci hoax requires a tad of original research. - üser:Altenmann >t 02:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I was not particularly concerned either way about the "folklore" categorisation but note and appreciate your investigation and restoration regarding that. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2017[edit]

I would like someone to add to the Influence on Media section a reference to the children's book series Pongwiffy by Kaye Umansky (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaye_Umansky). The best friend of the titular character, Sharkadder, has a familiar called Rory, who is a haggis. Flammable55 (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Unfortunately, the link to Pongwiffy redirects to the author of the series. We only include media i.e. movies, books, video games, etc.) with an actual Wikipedia page. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)