Talk:Boggart

Farmer and boggart tale

this 'farmer & the boggart' tale which has completely replaced all the other text on the page is spurious - it is fine to have it included *as part of* the wider definition, but completely wrong for it to be the only text on the page. Star-one (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Good article. Third paragraph has "impliment" which should be changed to "implement."

---

I would take issue with the use of the term "boggart" meaning to take more than one's fair share. All the dictionaries I see list the verb as "bogart", single 'g', and relate it to the actor Humphrey Bogart. (e.g. "don't bogart that joint", meaning to let it hang from one's lower lip without actually smoking it, a la Humphrey Bogart.)

Please cite your etymology relating the Irish spirit to the above-referenced verb. ~Cavalaxis

---

Is it possible that the "tale from lincolnshire" actually comes from Jonothan Strange & Mr Norrel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.74.170 (talk) 16:24, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

The "old" tale concerning potatoes is unlikely to be more ancient than the C19: I guess that's "really really old"...--Wetman (talk) 04:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

---

i removed some pointless, noobish vandalism following the farmer and boggart tale 71.128.150.231 (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC) en.wikipedia.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.9.247 (talk) 10:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

One -g- spelling is a different word

I can find no evidence anywhere that the word bogart, with one -g- is ever an instance of boggart with a different spelling. The only assertions of that claim are those at the top of this article, and near the end of the linked page bogart (disambiguation). All the examples on this page of the magical or "faerie" creature of myth or fantasy use the spelling -gg-; and the OED only lists boggard, boggart and then adds "also buggard". Wiktionary for bogart only lists the meanings associated with Humphrey Bogart, to do with smoking. The Wiktionary for boggart does not say it can also be spelled with one -g-. Now, the Wiktionary articles could be as unsafe as the Wikipedia ones; however they seem (at the time I just looked) to agree with external evidence, namely that here are two different words, one entirely modern spelled like and originating with the surname of the actor Humphrey of that ilk, and the centuries-old word for the magical creature, with -gg-, as documented in OED 1st edition. Iph (talk) 10:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The name Bogart is of Dutch origin (from bogaard, more fully, boomgaard), and means "orchard". It has nothing to do with the English word boggart. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 23:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

"Booger"

A variant of boggart not mentioned in the article is booger, which is known from Appalachian folklore (see Chase, The Grandfather Tales) and African-American folklore (sometimes as "boogie"). Both traditions probably get the term, if not the concept, from Scotch-Irish English. In vernacular American English, booger and boogie have come to mean thing (often unpleasant or unmentionable), and so, by extension, a gob of snot and (as "woolly booger") the pudendum muliebris, whence "boogie-woogie" music. Somebody with the time to look up authorities should add a section on this to the article. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 23:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Marshes

The lead section says: "The connection between boggart and 'bog' depends on folk etymology: there is no obvious association in earlier sources between marshes and boggarts; though this is frequent in post-war accounts."

But the main body says (emphasis added): "Within the folklore of North-West England, boggarts can cause mischief in homes but tend to live outdoors, in marshland, holes in the ground, under bridges and on dangerous sharp bends on roads. The book Lancashire Folklore of 1867, makes a distinction between "House boggarts" and other types. In Lancashire, a skittish or runaway horse was said to have "took boggarts"—that is, been frightened by a, usually invisible, boggart. When a person got lost in a marsh and was never seen again, the people were sure that a boggart had caught the poor unfortunate and devoured him."

There seems to be some contradiction here? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Young seems to have not researched the connection between marshland and boggarts very exhaustively. I found, on a cursory Google Books search, an 1891 account of Lincolnshire follklore that directly described boggarts inhabiting bog land, and things termed 'swamp bogles',. I suspect that editors relying on Young's unsubstantiated statements about boggarts not being associated with marshes is the root of the problem. Urselius (talk) 10:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think you could be right. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

References

True-name section

In the "Background" header section the following sentence has no source, having been added about 19 years ago at the time of writing by a anonymous user:

In Northern England, at least, there was the belief that the boggart should never be named, for when the boggart was given a name, it would not be reasoned with nor persuaded, but would become uncontrollable and destructive (see True name).

Added a "Citation needed" as a minor edit but unsure if it should be fully eliminated due to being unsubstantiated. Sylph-Glyph (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The assertion is supported by a citation at the end of the Grizlehurst Boggart section, I have moved it. I have added another supporting citation with a new reference. What I don't understand is why add a citation needed flag, research when the assertion was added and then add a section to the talk page, when it is just as easy to find references online (I did it using Google Books) and repair a deficiency yourself? Urselius (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I attempted to find any sources discussing it but couldn't, mistake on my part. The references you have added seem to fit. Thanks so much. Sylph-Glyph (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Lead section

Articles are supposed to have a lead section that provides a summary of the entre article. The current content of the opening paragraph seems to be unique and probably belongs in its own section, whatever heading can be given. "Background" was just a first stab. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but don't have a creative suggestion for a heading. So just have something like "A boggart is a usually malevolent supernatural being from English folklore." as the lead, and shift everything afterwards into a "Background" section? Daranios (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Ha. That sounds somewhat familiar! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Gallery

Re this recent removal, which part of WP:NOTGALLERY applies? All three images looked perfectly relevant to this subject? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Source of "a squat hairy man" quote?

I searched through the book Dialect and Folk-lore of Northhamptonshire, and I couldn't find anything about boggarts at all. Surely this quote has been misattributed? Tymime (talk) 07:49, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Looking at an 1851 edition of the book (by Thomas Sterberg) online, page 142 has "small hairy dwarf" as part of the description of the Redman, but I can see no entry at all for Boggart. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:00, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I wrote the piece with the description, which was taken from Saga-book of the Viking Club. Vol. 3. Viking Society for Northern Research. 1902, which I think I found on JSTOR. This is the cited reference at the end of the para. Someone else intruded the Northamptonshire bit - I know not who or why. Urselius (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I have attempted to adjust the text accordingly. Feel free to trim down if required. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

CoI-edited illustration, which does not reflect a typical meaning.

The illustration in the article is not an archetype, nor does it have any scholarly provenance. It’s a recent linocut commisioned by a self-published blogger, and appears to be in the article as advertising for the blog. Yet @Urselius: restored it with an edit summary of “Who makes money out of this image from a mid 19th century book?” Perhaps he could explain what 19th century book he thinks it comes from, and why he would think that. Qwirkle (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

You have asserted that the linocut is 'advertising', you have not shown how it acts as advertising. There are no links to any external webpages on the caption within the article or, as far as I can see, on the image page on Wikipedia. How is the illustration acting as an advertisement? Please support your assertion with some facts.

Easily explained, I misread the information on the Wikipedia page, concerning the origins of the image. On a second inspection, it is asserted that the image is based on a description made in a 19th century book.

Given the dearth of visual material available on Wikipedia concerning boggarts, I am concerned that one of the very few images available is being removed from the article. I believe that Wikipedia in general supports the inclusion of relevant images on articles. The recent origin of the image is irrelevant, it depicts things pertinent to the article's subject. I have yet to see how the image acts as an advertisement in the absence of any links to any external webpages. Urselius (talk) 08:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

So, essentially, any old pic would do, because every article needs pictures. Thousand words, and all that.

As for what might suggest this is advertising, I invite the reader to click on the illustration and look at the sourcing and authorship, and then note who added it Wikipedia, as their only two edits. Qwirkle (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I think that the article benefits from illustrations and usable ones are very sparse, especially on Wikimedia. The particular illustration is of a specific instance of what a particular boggart is reputed to look like and it depicts this quite adequately. Boggarts, see the article, are reputed to have a myriad of forms so no typical form exists in folklore. You (incidentally, why 3rd person me, as you did above?) suggest people employ a sort of sleuthing approach to ascertain that the image is advertising. I would suggest that anything that needs extensive investigation to find its origins is the exact opposite of advertising. Urselius (talk) 09:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)