This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mythology Low‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Folklore Low‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Folklore, a WikiProject dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the topics of folklore and folklore studies. If you would like to participate, you may edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project's page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.FolkloreWikipedia:WikiProject FolkloreTemplate:WikiProject FolkloreFolklore Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. England Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.^[1]"

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.^[2]"

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]