Talk:Hairy Maclary and Friends

(untitled)

OK, a little more background and analysis, a portrait of the culture from which this masterpiece sprung, a hefty reference section and and some inotes, and how could it NOT be a FAC? But I see some empty section headers here. Should it spend a little time in Giano's userspace? Remember, we admins can get quite frisky about speedying stuff. --Bishonen | talk 13:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

No, it should not. Hairy is a well known and very popuar hero to many children. The books have been translated into many many languages. Hairy will be well known to many editors who will wish to contribute to this interesting page on a well known subject, (far more well known than many of the subjects currently on FAC, and of, at least equal fictional value to that of a dalek - and a lot less frightening to children). The section headers are merely "pour encouragement les autres". Giano | talk 14:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to take this to Wikipedia:Requests for turning a blind eye. Filiocht | Blarneyman 14:34, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

There is no need to turn a blind eye - this is a perfectly legitimate and notable subject (see how manty gooogle hits he gets) and quite frankly I am surprise that both of you with your literal leanings are not more enthuesiastic to promote literature on Wikipedia Giano | talk 14:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't question the reality of the subject (in fact I could probably recite one or two of the stories from memory), but I wonder about referencing some of the more interesting claims made under the social implications heading given the current state of the relevant research. Filiocht | Blarneyman 14:45, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

If you say so. Me, I'd never heard of the books, but I've now done a little research into critical approaches—predictably, the main meat turned out to be Sontag and Montesquieu—and made a start on a new section. Feel free to remove it if desired, but I'm confident I'll be able to remedy the rather vague and fluffy quality of the writing once I've managed to read one or two of the actual books—still haven't clapped eyes on them, unfortunately. Bishonen | talk 01:27, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Having read the book, I have a strong feeling that the 'critical interpretations' section is (to put it mildly) bunkum. Are there some sources or references that have evidence of this critical approach? Ziggurat 04:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• The caption of the Egyptian photo is hilarious - "On one level, Hairy can be read as a modern re-invocation of ancient Egyptian avatars." You have got to be kidding me... Lisiate 00:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I beg your pardon. That caption was added by an arbitrator, and noted writer of cultural Featured Articles, User:Filiocht. Bishonen | talk 00:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC).
    • So what? It's silly to suggest that a series of children's books about the capers of a small hairy dog bear any resemblence to Anubis or any other Egyptian deity. Oh and the comparison to Ezra Pound is pretty far-fetched as well. The Iliad and the Odyssey are both narratives written in verse as well. Shall we add them to? Lisiate 23:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
      • <coughing fit> By all means. Please do. Bishonen | talk 00:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC).

Removal of "Comparative Analysis" section

I notice with sadness that the section on comparative analysis has been removed from this page. I would like to ask the reasons for this, and to gauge whether or not there was a general consensus that the piece should have been removed.

I feel that it is legitimate to compare pieces of literature within the same genre; and that although the tone of the analysis was light-hearted, it was well referenced, it added interest to the article, and it helped the reader to appreciate the genuine talent of Lynley Dodds.

What do folk think? WikiwikiwikiwikiWildWildWest 15:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Analysis needs citation, per WP:OR. Ziggurat 20:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think it is a very sad loss that such a theory has been lost to mankind in this wantonly vandalistic edit [1]. Doubtless the education of children will suffer globally as result of this narrow minded philosophy and I think the social implications of the edit should be considered also. It is all too easy to see Lynley Dodd. as a mere children's author and forget the hidden messages and deep philosophy behind her writings. We should ask ourselves - Where would we be if Plato had been forced to conform to wikipedia standards and his writing mercilessly censored by those who did not understand it. Giano | talk 13:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to see this once flourishing page suffer the death by a thousand cuts. It would almost be more humane to put it out of its misery. :-( Frutti di Mare 15:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC).

I know you mean it as a joke, but I don't appreciate the edit being described as vandalistic. If you don't want this content lost to mankind, can I recommend Uncyclopedia? Ziggurat 20:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What breed?

[By way of context, it used to say just 'Skye Terrier', and I added 'citation needed' around that. Someone then removed the 'citation needed', so I changed it to what it is now - "Lynley Dodd has not stated what breed of dog he is, but the depiction in the books suggests a Scottish Terrier a Skye Terrier, or perhaps a cross breed." and made this comment..]

Regarding the removal of 'citation needed' around the breed... Fair enough, I guess. People probably go overboard with their use of 'citation needed'. But in the meantime I suggest we down-play the claim, as I have done.

I've been doing some research and can't find any decent source for the claim that he is a 'Skye Terrier'. Though often quoted in newspapers it is usually in a trivial, incidental way, and the second oldest place this was stated is on Wikipedia itself. I'm sure Lynley Dodd could clarify the matter easily, if asked properly, but for now, wikipedia itself seems to be the most authoritative source and quite likely the source of the other mentions of this claim in news papers and the like. I can't find any quotes attributed to the author on this point. (The oldest place I could find this mentioned on the internet was a comment in a consumer review of the book at ciao.co.uk)

Perhaps it doesn't really matter (or matter to you) but I think it matters to some given how beloved a dog he is (and how much folks love their own dogs). I think its best, in any event, not to have Wikipedia be the main source of uncited information if at all possible.

FWIW when I look at the book, I think he looks a heck of a lot more like a Scottish Terrier than a Skye Terrier. In any event given his depiction (in the books) as such a scrappy, 'down at the dairy', family kind of dog seems to me he might also just as likely be a mongrel/mixed breed. Utunga (talk)

[[ Update: For reference the first edit stating Skye Terrier is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hairy_Maclary&diff=prev&oldid=187047515 from an anonymous IP address. No citation or even an edit comment was added Utunga (talk) ]]

[[Update2: For even further reference earlier versions of this page had "As Hairy is not a pedigree hound, there are none of the debilitating social implications which encourage aspirations to own a thoroughbred dog, hence children may enjoy Hairy as an imaginary pet without him being a display of parental wealth. ".. but such tendencies towards socialism have, sadly, long since been stamped out in the edit cycle. Utunga (talk)]

Lynley Dodd's depictions of the breeds of dog are extremely accurate, from their appearance right down to the sound that they make. The mastif goes WOOF! just one single WOOF! That is what mastifs do. The Dalmation goes Ro-ro-ro-ro! That is how they sound. And, as any Whippet owner will confirm, the Whippet is one of the few dogs that truly says Bow-wow-wow!

Hairy Maclary is a tiny dog, longer than his height, but without the sturdy bowed legs of the Skye terrier. His legs are fine and delicate. And he does not have the Roman nose, wiry coat and stubby, thick-set quality of a Scottish Terrier. The only similarity is that he is black.

The dog which is relatively common in Australia and New Zealand and has the characteristics of Hairy Maclary is the Australian Silky Terrier. It has the same shaped head, the very delicate little legs and feet, the high-carried tail and the perky, arrogant way of trotting out to take on the world. Moreover, they say, "Yap! Yap!" very loudly and persistently, interspersed with ferocious growls, to anyone that dares walk past their gate, .

Australian Silky Terriers (otherwise known as Sydney Silkies) are a miniature breed, bred from Yorkshire terriers and are the same colours, grey and silver, or black/charcoal and tan. They don't come in all black. However, at a time when dogs were allowed to roam free and people's pedigreed pooches chose their own partners, there were quite a few little black doggies around, similar to Hairy Maclary.

I would say that Hairy Maclary is a Silky Terrier cross. But this is just an opinion.

Amandajm (talk) 05:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

After a search, I came up with this lovely pic of an all black Cairn Terrier which also answers the description. [2] They generally seem to look more stocky and shorter-coated than this one. Amandajm (talk) 05:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That's Hairy Maclary not Hairy

I've never heard of him being referred to by his first name alone: the article should not do this. Nankai — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.46.225 (talk)

Syggestions for improvement

Note {{One source}}. This article could use another source. -- œ^™ 07:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

He isn't a 'hero'

Not as suggested in the first line; he's the 'protagonist'. He isn't vaguely heroic, and in fact is mischevious, cowardly, and takes delight in tormenting most of the local cats (except, of course, Scarface Claw...); the link needs deleting and changing to the appropriate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.180.125 (talk) 09:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Couple related items and sources

Apparently there was a play: [3] And an IPhone app: [4]

Both could stand a short mention here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Merge Scarface Claw with Hairy Maclary

I propose to merge Scarface Claw into Hairy Maclary. I think that the content in the Scarface Claw article can easily be explained in the context of Hairy Maclary, and the Hairy Maclary article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Scarface Claw will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Noahe123 (talk) 04:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

yeah... looks like a non significant character as well... robertsky (talk) 05:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Unnotable but related topics should be merged. This follows the norm. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 18:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, Claw is a central character in a number of Dodd's books, including being the "star" character in two: Scarface Claw ISBN 9780908783625 (review here), and Scarface Claw, hold tight! ISBN 9780143770985 (review here). Claw is also the central figure of an art exhibition (have added info about this to the article). The article should be expanded, not merged.Coolabahapple (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Claw is also part of a permanent sculpture at Tauranga (see here), and was also included in an earlier exhibition of Lynley Dodd's works: "The Lynley Dodd Story" (see here). Coolabahapple (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

sorry for this, but my cat Mitskie has also taken umbrage at an earlier comment in this discussion - "a non significant character as well" and would like me to point out that Claw is a key character as the anti hero of Hairy Maclary from Donaldson's Dairy who scares ("heroically defends her territory" says Mitskie:)) off the dogs at the end of that book. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Website

Website non functioning 31.94.2.67 (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)