Talk:Bogeyman/archive 1

Change from Bogeyman to Boogeyman?

I couldn't find how to edit the actual name of the page, but the spelling used here is a bit odd. To make sure I wasn't the only one thinking this, I did a quick googlefight. [[1]] As you can see, Bogeyman has only 616,000 results compared to boogeyman's 2.1 million. If anybody knows how (or has the authority) to change the spelling, I think it would be best.

It's not really a matter of what's more common, but what's correct. The spelling "bogeyman" is the original spelling when the word first appeared in the English language, having gotten corrupted over the years to "boogeyman". People can still find the article by typing "boogeyman", and that alternate spelling is indicated in the opening paragraph, so I don't think there's any real confusion. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

If English were a dead or static language, that would be correct. The original spelling would be the one that should be used. But as anyone who frequents this site knows, it's far from dead. It's alive, it's dynamic, it's always changing. And this word has changed. I'd go so far as to say that most places you find it spelled Bogeyman are typos.

But again, there's no confusion. Type in "Boogeyman" and you'll still reach this page. It's not a typo: Boogeyman is the American English spelling of it, really. In Europe, bogeyman is still the preferred spelling (as in the children's book, "Fungus the Bogeyman", for example), and considering the origins of the word, I'd argue that is the more correct one. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Please see extract from the Bugis section of this website

Respected and feared as pirates, sailors, traders and adventurers, the seafarers of southern Sulawesi looked outwards, seeking their fortunes over the horizons, throughout the Indonesian archipelago and beyond. So feared were they that the word bogeyman, some say a corrupted form of bugis man, was coined to describe these fighters.

This is what I always thought was the orign of bogeyman

It is. All the rest of that crap about "snot" etc is rubbish and should be deleted. They were cannibals and their houses all resemble ships and face Cambodia. A seriously nasty bunch with a death cult and a habit of sacrificing many many people at funerals.

The way I understand the idea is from the origin of the word "Bogs" which is a wet marshland found on the British isles. This marsh land when not careful one could get lost and find quicksand like places that would consume you. This has been confirmed with excavations of such areas. So to me the bogeyman is a mythical person/creature derived from people disappearing into the bogs. Because of lack of explanation for the disappearances the bogs were anthropomorphized to be a human that lives in the bogs, or a boggyman. Changed by time to be boogey man. I would suggest the spelling be "Boggyman" although the long O sound is more well known. Here is a good link to support the claim: http://books.google.com/books?id=B8niqD382EoC&pg=PA1&dq=bogs#v=onepage&q=&f=false I believe the boggyman was further deveolped by parents to keep children from venturing in to the bogs. However that carried far past that to scare children to quel their curiosity. Granted it's sort of a backhanded approach but people use to let their children wander longer and further than they do today. Also people sort of had worship to these areas of extreme wetted rotting vegetation also gave rise to another myth of the green man. A person covered completely with vegetation(can be either male or female). The images of it can be seen in architecture throughout western Europe. The most common image is that of a person with leafs covering most of their face. The GreenMan however does not hold the same connotations as the "boggyman" rather it evokes feelings of living symbiotically with one's environment. Much like in modern times we have evoked the earth itself as a living entity called gaia. There is a deep history of western civilization before science and modern religion took over all of the thinking. You have to realize such thought would get you killed for a few hundred years in western civilization. It's paganism and "evil". If you dig deeper you'll find how people who did not agree with the church be it catholicism or christianity hid their beliefs in right in the face of those who would kill them for believing what they did believe, and most of it was done in masonry. I'll let you draw the conclusions from there. Here is the wikipedia for the [green man]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Man: --FlaxForFlux (talk) 07:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)FlaxForFlux—Preceding unsigned comment added by FlaxForFlux (talk • contribs) 06:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes parents will, as a way of controlling their children, encourage belief in a bogeyman that only preys on children who misbehave.

This sounds like bullsh*t to me.

Sounds like it hasn't happened to you. But many parents do that. Mine didn't, but my grandmother tried this a few times. Romanski 10:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It's probably similar to how the media sensationalize stories about serial killers or anarchist bombers. Since the mass of people are likely to rely on emotion, they media has to keep people afraid of those who might disrupt or question the social order.

It's a lot easier to tell small children there's a monster that's going to get them than to explain why they shouldn't be doing something, e.g. going into the garage by themselves and playing with dangerous tools or drinking paint thinner. Not saying it's right or wrong but a lot of parents do it. :) Static Universe 21:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

fair use picture?

That's a great picture on the page, but it's claimed under fair use and I don't see how it can be fair use, since it's not being used to illustrate the work itself (it's being used to illustrate the subject of the work itself, but I don't think that counts). --Allen 16:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No response, so I've deleted it. --Allen 14:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunate, since it's a nice illustration of the idea, but for Fair Use D:... 68.39.174.238 19:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Allen, while I understand the need to be proper in the affairs of upkeeping a respectable online encyclopedia, COME ON! You just want to play police man. There was no need to delete the picture. You could have added a caption saying it was a possible rendition of a bogeyman, but really. You just wanted to delete it. Feel like a big man?

Check the spelling of "representaion". Very useful page!

El hombre del saco

En español hoya una figura parecida, denominada "el hombre del saco" que en ingles se podría traducir " the man of the bag".

Sorry if I'm sounding rude, but this is the ENGLISH wikipedia, not spanish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.180.69 (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there was a need for that: S/he's just bringing up the Spanish version of the same thing. Somewhere we had a whole list of the different international names for this. I particularly remember Quebec's "7 O'Clock Man". 68.39.174.238 (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Jisted Translation of above: In Spanish, there is a figure called "el hombre del saco" which in English, could be translated as "the man of the bag." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.10.33 (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The First Citation Needed

I believe that this is from Carl Jung's book Man and His Symbols

My revert

Sorry, read it wrong. I reverted to Boffob's revision to fix my mistake. Scienceman123 talk 04:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Folk etymologies

I don't know about you guys, but one explanation I commonly hear in my region of the US (and no racism intended; this is just what I hear) is that the boogeyman is indeed a "boogey" or a black person who comes and takes away bad children.

Is there any actual evidence of this folk etymology, though?

67.175.147.35 19:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I had an idea: b and g would easily change to p and k, depending on dialect. An example is the welsh bwg which also is named pwka, that is pooka, or, in other parts of the UK: Puck. So there we have a nature deity. An equivalent to the boggart is the scandinavian tomte or nisse, a creature connected to a certain farm and its surroundings, and with the ability to be extremely nice and pleasant, or extremely naugthy and dangerous. 84.216.59.24 23:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I read somewhere (can't remember where!) that it derives from Napoleon Bonaparte. Mothers, apparently, would scare their children with "Boney's coming to get you!", which became "Boneyman" and then "Bogeyman". This looks suspiciously like a folk etymology to me. Mon Vier (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are referring to this specific instance, but Chuck Palahniuk brings up the Bonaparte origin in "Rant". It should be mentioned that Palahniuk brings up urban legends fairly regularly in his works and refers to them as facts.... Silasthecat (talk) 09:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It was in a book about the Napoleonic Wars - the Palahniuk reference shows that it's a widespread explanation, though. Mon Vier (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Another possbility

Is the Celtic "puca" (otherwise "pooka") a possbile cognate? Tom129.93.16.177 (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Phil Bangs Monkeys

That...doesn't sound right. What was it supposed to be?

I feel it definitely deals with people disappearing in bogs. Here is a good link: http://books.google.com/books?id=B8niqD382EoC&pg=PA1&dq=bogs#v=onepage&q=&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by FlaxForFlux (talk • contribs) 07:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

REFERENCE

Why doesn't this article point to or reference the below paste from the Wikipdeia entry Bugis?

History

This section is a stub. You can help by expanding it.

The Bugis had political power in the Malaysia since the kingdom of Johore - where a leader is selected amongst the Bugis to become the Sultan of Johore (this happened when there was an intrigue within the Johorian Malay palace walls).

Dutch colonialism in the 17th century led to their entry into the politics of peninsular Malaysia and Sumatra.

138.163.128.38 02:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Should have been this paste instead: Sea Exploration Respected and feared as pirates, sailors, traders and adventurers, the seafarers of southern Sulawesi looked outwards, seeking their fortunes over the horizons, throughout the Indonesian archipelago and beyond. So feared were they that the word bogeyman, some say a corrupted form of bugis man, was coined to describe these fighters.

138.163.128.39 02:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

a legendary ghost-like monster often believed in by children as well as adults.

As well as adults?! What adults? That's the equivalent of saying that Santa Claus gives lumps of coal to adults who don't file for their tax returns with ample time. Does anyone agree? Almighty Rajah 02:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you could find at least one adult somewhere who still believes in it. People fear what they do not know, and if they were brought up to believe in the Bogeyman as a child, then it is likely that the fear will continue, even into adulthood. Slokunshialgo 04:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Psychological paranoid phenomena

I am an extremely well-educated layperson (I have a mental health diagnosis). This paragraph strikes a false note with me. I think, at the very least, it needs a [citation needed] exponent. (I would have done it, but am not sure of the correct way.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Garvint (talk • contribs) 05:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

can someone add this: from In Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels see Bogeymen.--212.202.231.117 10:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Stuff

Deleted "Psychological paranoid phenomena" as it is original research and can barely even be described as pseudoscience. A mishmash of someone's "remedies" for fighting loneliness that has no purpose on this page, was poorly written, and extremely declarative though providing no sources. - Xvall

Airforce Usage?

Would it be reasonable to add something about how the Air Force uses the 'bogey' as a designation for the enemy? 192.160.165.63 20:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that a different thing. It's pronounced like the o pronounced like Joe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.180.69 (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Of no significance

Considering that the 'bogeyman' is only an American phenomenon and has no real significance in society other than kids 'believing' in him does it really has the credibility of a wikipedia page?

OK, delete the pages on Santa, the Sandman and tooth fairy while you're at it. And it's not only American, I'm Irish and have heard of it, and the article even says that it's of Scottish origin.EamonnPKeane (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've reinstated the material on other cultures

It seems odd that an article on the bogeyman would ignore its analogues in other cultures. The bogyman is a universal myth after all; all kids are afraid of the dark. This information is not OR; it can be cited, given time. It just needs some work. Serendi^podous 08:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The italian section has useless political references

I don't really know where you found the name babau that you put before I changed it into bobo' which in the Italian collective imagery is the only monster who comes at night to eat the children. Usually it's told to the children as an incentive to go to bed or to eat when they're reluctant to do so.

I am also putting some web references I found just to let you know this is the real name:

http://forum.gravidanzaonline.it/forum/che-buffo-pillole-di-buonumore-2-t49484-255.html

http://books.google.it/books?id=ze07AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA374&lpg=PA374&dq=%22il+bob%C3%B2%22&source=bl&ots=QmXiq2aJ66&sig=7WKH-WtLhvy1Qa29HwRU8CfLN-8&hl=it&sa=X&ei=rRr2Ubf5NYiE4gSEh4D4Cg&ved=0CEYQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=%22il%20bob%C3%B2%22&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Behindthewall (talk • contribs) 07:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The political references to the fascism is unappropriate since the bogeyman is only beleived in by children. Belive me, nobody ever think about fascist when talking with children about the "uomo nero", and the comment about the racist connotation is false as well.

I suggest a removal of these parts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.4.103.17 (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the French word "croque-mitaine"

The French meaning for "croque-mitaine" is said to be "mitten-biter". However "mitten" reflects here to the old French (or Quebec French) meaning of "mitaine", while on common (metropolitan?) French, "mitaine" means "fingerless gloves". A further search on an etymology dictionary mention the original meaning of "mitaine" being derived from the old French word "mite" = "act of stroking a cat's fur" (retrieved on 23/06/2009 on the ATILF [2]; keyword: "mitaine" ). Since the aforementioned website (ATILF) is part of the CNRS, this reference may be more accurate than the book of Edouard Brasey.

Oc.Gal. (talk) 03:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Boogerman?

70.171.235.197 (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)In "True Grit", John Wayne's character, Rooster (Reuben) Cogburn refers to a "boogerman". There is no reference to this spelling;although hilarious, either Wayne couldn't read the cue cards well with an eyepatch or the script refers to a misuse/mispronunciation of "boogeyman"70.171.235.197 (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Mexico/Latin/Spanish America, et al.

In the Analogues in Other Countries section, I don't see why "Spanish America" is agglomerated the way it is. The rest of the section lists analogues by country, not by regions (why not just keep the format the same?). Obviously, in Spanish-speaking Latin American countries the analogues will be similar, but there are other instances where they are not or may not be.
The section also seems to include and refer to Spanish-speaking, "Mexican-American" folklore, and Medrano's article (which is a dead link) cites Garza's book, which deals mostly with South Texan folklore influenced by Mexican and local folklore. If this is so, then "El Coco/Cucuy" may as well be included in a new U.S. regional section, but as you may find, since the U.S. includes people of many nationalities/ethnicities/cultures, it would be very redundant.
I suggest that the section be partitioned into the respective countries, so the format will remain the same (and description of the "Spanish American" relationship be referred/relegated to the El Cuco/Cucó/Coco/Cucuy page). --Nimbvs (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Nimbvs

German game mentioned in article

I posted a number of comments with references about this game in the talk page about the game of tag. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tag_(game). In summary, my research there and since I posted edit comment* that leaves me to believe that in the German "Who's afraid of the black man" game, the "black man" is a term for "Black Peter" or the Christian devil, and not the boogyman, though the devil, "Black Peter", and the boogyman might have been considered one and the same beings.

• See this excerpt from <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=XWL8QVcSlO4C&pg=PA164&lpg=PA164&dq=devil+black&source=bl&ots=y4GSFhL0p0&sig=TXxk90e--V0Q_syCZEh">http://books.google.com/books?id=XWL8QVcSlO4C&pg=PA164&lpg=PA164&dq=devil+black&source=bl&ots=y4GSFhL0p0&sig=TXxk90e--V0Q_syCZEh</a>

"White on black: images of Africa and Blacks in Western popular culture" By Jan Nederveen Pieterse; Page 164-165

"The most common interpretation of Black Peter derive from the Christian traditions of the early Middle Ages in which he were a devil or a demon. Medieval appellations for the Devil, such as "The Black Man", or schwarze Peter, and variations on Beelzebub such as 'Bugaboo', support this. Thus he [the devil] goes down the chimneys in the guise of Black Jack or the Black Man covered in soot; as Black Peter he carries a large sack into which he pops sins or singers (including naughty children); he carries a stick or cane to thrash the guilty'. The Black Man ('Schwartz Mann') with whom mothers scared their child was either the devil or a Negro." Folklorist8 (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Correct to weight toward children?

While the scary, threatening figure which threatens children is indeed called bussemand/busemann & similar in Denmark/Norway, there is another figure, often invisible but impossible to avoid or get around, which threatens adults. It seems to me that this figure, Bøyg, has a name much closer to bogey/boogey that the ones suggested in the article.

Norwegian (bokmål) Wikipedia suggests that the supernatural Bøyg was traditonally seen as a huge, invisible snake which surrounds it's victim and allows her/him no choices in difficult situations. The English Wikipedia articles Bøyg and Peer Gynt tell more about the Bøyg.

I guess, then, that my question is about whether the figure has come to apply to children, but formerly applied in impossible situations for adults? - Hordaland (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Babau

There does seem to be a link between the Italian Babau, the Romanian Baubau, the Serbian Babaroga, Slovenian Bavbav, the Greek Babaulas, the Egyptian bobo, and possibly the Russian babay, though I'm not confident enough to merge them into a single paragraph. If anyone has a source that can connect these myths, that'd be great. Serendi^podous 21:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

"buggerman" references

Two references are given for the relationship of 'bogeyman' with 'buggerman': the first seems valid (although it's refuted by other sources and I believe it to be incorrect, it's consistent with the "it has been argued" wording of the article), but the latter (the languagehat reference) clearly signposts the relationship between 'bogeyman' and 'bugger' as unverified speculation. I'm not sure of the rules on references, but I'm not sure that should count. Can anyone clarify? -Thegooseking (talk) 11:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Bugger – buggery is synonymous with bestiality, is it not? I think it's a misspelling of booger. McLerristarr / Mclay1 13:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Buggery is anal sex, not bestiality, though it is sometimes lumped together with it. I don't see a link; "bugger" comes from "Bulgar", a reference to the Bogomils sect, which was slandered with accusations of homosexuality. "Boogyman" comes from the same root as the word "bug"- the Celtic "bwg", which means something frightening. Serendi^podous 14:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

According to the Oxford Dictionary, buggery includes bestiality. Sodomy is usually used for humans. Anyway, this is slightly off topic. In the sources provided, only one mentions 'bugger', the other only mentions it in a comment, which cannot be used as a source. Neither mention 'buggerman'. McLerristarr / Mclay1 15:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"Buggery is the Genus, of which Sodomy and Bestiality are the species." --Thomas Jefferson --Khajidha (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

re: Etymology section wording

"...from ME bougre (heretic, sodomite), fr. MF, fr. ML Bulgaris, lit. Bulgarian." - Bogeyman, 'Etymology' section

'ME fr. MF fr. ML lit.?' That is way too many acronyms and abbreviations. I don't understand it ('middle english from middle french from middle latin, literally' I guess?) and I'm pretty sure the average viewer doesn't either - would someone who does clean it up a bit? - matt lohkamp 02:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

re: Bogeyman, Boogieman, Boogerman, etc.

I've always held that it's "bogeyman." The "Boogieman" is Robert W. Walker, a (former) DJ in Miami who was the first to give KC and The Sunshine Band's first hit "Get Down Tonight" airtime. KC wrote "I'm Your Boogieman" to honor and thank Mr. Walker. "Boogerman" is just a mis-reading from John Wayne, although it could refer to Dudley "Booger" Dawson, the nauseatingly hilarious character in the "Revenge of the Nerds" franchise played by Curtis Armstrong--then again, it might be Booger's master, "Snotty."Weyandt (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Should we frighten our kids with imaginary figures?

It would be great to have a link to some article (or at least: discussion) about the common use of imaginary, frightening figures and their influence on our kids. Does anybody know? 62.178.170.13 (talk) 08:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I have neither the knowledge nor the means to contribute, but I very warmly second that motion. It would be a very valuable addition to the article. Issar El-Aksab (talk) 23:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Napoleon

Something should be written about how napoleon was referred to as the 'boneyman' (from Bonaparte) by the british press before his intended invasion of england. 68.47.212.120 (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Slender man

Yes, Slender Man probably doesn't belong here. But removing it doesn't help, because the redirects still go here. Before we get rid of it we need to decide what to do with the redirects, even if it is delete them. Serendi^podous 17:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Why doesn't Slender Man belong here? He meets the specifications for a Bogeyman and is probably more notable than other entries on the list in that he is known to more people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.25.206.175 (talk) 02:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Is the slender man used to frighten kids into eating their supper at night? Does he hide under beds or in closets? Does he take children away? No. Serendi^podous 07:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If you actually took the time to scrutinize the mythos you find that child abduction is indeed one of the Slender Man's principle behavioural traits. He's literally been doing it since his creative inception.174.137.217.177 (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source. And anyway, this belongs in List of Internet phenomena.Serendi^podous 18:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, as I understand it the Slender Man is a kind of game, rather than being a traditional fear figure which is what a Bogeyman is. Sure, its entirely possible that in time, if the idea gets around a bit, it might evolve into such a thing through tradition, but it isn't. Its quite a different phenomenon. Francis Davey (talk) 08:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

bogeyman from boggy man?

If I put this in the article it would be deleted because of original research but I suspect that bogeyman derives from a bog man. WikiParker (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Videogames, culture and encyclopedic relevance

I must confess a growing weariness of editors who sometimes show as much respect for fellow users' work as they do precise knowledge of the Wikipedia guideline/rule they claim... namely here, not enough. Wikipedia is meant to grow (responsibly), not to get pruned of everything that someone might single-handedly decide to challenge amidst routine obliviousness. For us "amateur" editors, such an attitude can become a major counter-recruitment.

I'm immediately ready to admit that any of my edits may require (significant?) improvement by people with more experience of Wikipedia form, and am always willing to discuss, AND to learn from honest constructive criticism. This is why I've slightly reworked my restored edit here (Bogeyman in videogames), into what I hope is more properly written and more clearly relevant. My strong suit, my contribution to the collective effort, lies in content more than form, to each their own. But I can't stand indifferent towards casual reverts that neither discuss nor seek consensus. Reverts, in a click, of edits made in perfect good faith and given a lot of thought and work (in average for me, one hour). I shouldn't have to still point out that it's poor etiquette. I'm now unable to spend lots of time adding internal links to mentions such as "good faith" and finding sensational references to things I "just know for sure"[3], so I'll just assume that anybody invoking WP notions already knows how to find them. Therefore, I'll try (not one of my strong suits!) to make my argument concise and to the point (while still complete):

– First and main point, the revert made under notability claims disregards the very definition made in the Notability article, which is about (eventually) "giving a topic its own article". Section #2 explicitly and specifically states this is no grounds to remove a small on-topic paragraph in an article. Therefore, I'm restoring the bulk of my removed edit and defending it in the talk page, according to proper procedure. My opening argument: notability does not, and cannot, justify deletion. Followed by my strong support to the objective relevance of that contribution, with the same rationale as all accepted "mentions/appearances in popular culture" sections in thousands of articles. This is NOT a mere "trivia".

– The videogaming industry today has officially surpassed worldwide cinema (sources: countless, have fun finding them). That domain is now at least as culturally and encyclopedically relevant as mentioning Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan on the D-day page. In the present case, I'm firmly defending the relevance of a videogame that's all about a Bogeyman. And made by a major studio, not by my cousin in his garage on a ZX Spectrum.
In fact, more horror/fright videogames might likely deserve mention here, such as the relentless monster/killer in Clocktower 3 forcing a young girl to exclusively run away and hide. If anybody finds that lead relevant, you're welcome to dig deeper. (Swagman is actually a "gothic atmosphere game suitable for kids", so let's take it one step at a time.)

– Finally, the Swagman ALSO seems very relevant to the current talk around the Slender Man.[4] [5] [6] A talk which I can't participate to. Just noting. That edit of mine wasn't some impulse of fanciness out of the blue, at the very least its obvious on-topic relevance deserves serious discussing. For that other discussion, I'll just point the (again) obvious: the Bogeyman is a human psyche archetype with many understandable cultural variants. Just like Disney's Esmeralda wasn't by far a final standard, and the 7 Dwarves weren't always seven. Rigid fundamentalism has no place on Wikipedia. (Okay, ALMOST no place!)

– Another editor's unflinching attitude didn't let me add a mention of the videogame, no matter how succinct, on the only existing Swagman page. ("Where else?") Until further notice, this game will have to wait until someone has the time and knowledge to create its specific page. I have no lack of the latter, having completed the game three times, and having somewhere in a closet its deailed walkthrough guide, but right now I have none of the former. Absence of an article doesn't constitute any criterium of irrelevance.[7] If somebody wants references on the Swagman game, last I heard Google wasn't on strike.

I'll be on this page to discuss the section, as much as my demanding work hours and unreliable electricity + internet access will allow me. Any constructive and good faith remarks will receive all the open-minded attention they deserve. Just bear in mind that one user's lack of conviction does not a criterium of pointlessness make. Ideally, a consensus from people knowing the game would be ideal.

Another ideal thing, would be for someone with article creation experience, and knowledge of the topic, to actually CREATE the game's page. I'm well aware that a "See also: Swagman_(video_game)" tag would be more appropriate here, but... the least bad solution always has priority. This is a call to the community for some worthy teamwork. Myself, I cannot be more than the occasional contributor bringing the little-known facts that most people didn't know. Nobody's indispensable, everybody's useful.

The Agora is now open!

Issar El-Aksab (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow. You could have spent all the time and effort you spent writing that creating the page's article. It's not that hard. Just look at other video game articles, see what they do, and copy them. Serendi^podous 07:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You oddly underestimate the attention I put into any article edit I make, always carefully weighing every word. As you overestimate the effort it takes to just word one's thoughts in a talk page, with far less strict quality criteria. As you overestimate my (absolutely nil) experience in creating articles. Quite unexpected, that, for a self-described seasoned Wikipedian. From the ludicrous hassle you're making it to just write one relevant paragraph, you tell me to spare my efforts and go write an entire article instead? Trying to be ironic? You know, that's a very good way to initiate needless friction in the engine.

You really need to tone the patronizing down and quit speaking like you know anything about me, before it starts sounding like covert personal attack (I'm trying to assume good faith with benefit of doubt here). Creating an entire article of half-decent quality with all proper sources is far more demanding, for one with the dedication to be intelligently constructive, than the simple defense of an edit. Which I notice you haven't even begun to address. Re-revert without bothering to address the arguments? How is that gentle, civil and good faith, I must ask? Are you even trying to be constructive, or just bent on displaying your rules savvy? Where's the basic beginning of your discussing here? All you've said so far, basically, is "I'm right, you're wrong, so give up". Not exactly the Dale Carnegie philosophy.

Claiming Wikipedia:BRD on an edit almost one month old, aside for your absence of real "D" so far, is stretching the rules. (I'll let you do the research yourself on that.) BRD is only valid anyway if indeed it WAS a "bold" edit to begin with. To me, it was 100% relevant and appropriate, and your excuses for reverting shaky POV to say the least.

Your title "Wikipedia deleted my edit summary" seems worryingly close to covert sarcasm. Basically, you're the embodiment of Wikipedia? And hinting (with little subtlety) that I'm a whining newbie, doubled with an ignorant of WP in-jokes? This, added to your unfriendly actions, is coming close to unproductive passive-aggressive bullying. I sincerely hope I'm getting the wrong impression here!

You also claim "more experience" in your message... On what basis would that be? Chronological seniority? I won't even check, because it would mean giving weight to a fallacy. Knowledge of the rules? So far, you leave me highly unconvinced you've grasped their spirit, which is their foundation, according to the Holy Word of thine Creator. The only relevant criterium here, is knowledge of the topic discussed. What do you know of the current topic you're so vigorously rejecting? Have you ever seen or played that game in the first place? Oh, wait: you write on the very next paragraph that you're not even an expert on the article's topic yourself. So then, what are your objectively convincing arguments for "pulling seniority" or authority on my edit? So far, you've only shown a lack of cooperation, and your sole argument is "I maintain my opinion here is right, the rules are on my side".

That's inadequate encyclopedia collective construction involvement. You're an expert at bossiness, I'll grant you that. At productive teamwork in WP spirit? So far, you're flunking.

But I'm always willing to change an initial conflict based on misunderstandings into lasting mutual respect, if I see any sign of honest goodwill. Your move, fellow Wikipedian. Issar El-Aksab (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Tip: If you want to engage in conversation, it helps not to overwhelm with massive blocks of text. You're trying to make a point, not write Angela's Ashes. From what I can gather, you happen to like this video game, and are looking for a place on Wikipedia to put it. But rather than create the article, and thus let it stand or fall on its own merits, you are trying to piggyback it onto another article with which it has virtually nothing in common. "In popular culture" references are frowned upon at the best of times. When you devote an entire section to one example, that's pushing it too far. Seriously, creating an article is not that hard. Just find a similar article (like, say, a horror video game) copy/paste it into your sandbox, keep the categories and infoboxes, and change where necessary. Serendi^podous 05:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

(sigh) There you go again with the snarky ad hominem assumptions and the patronizing. You're basically giving me the old fallacy: "To be a good hunter, you must really know animals. To really know animals, you must love them. Therefore, to be a good hunter, you must love animals." Transposed here: "you're lowering Wikipedia's quality because you love your pet videogame too much". Added to the typical /b/ slang of TL;DR, when dominantly criticizing form tries to cover up for the weakness of actual content criticism. You don't discuss, you just hammer your own arguments hoping to win by adversary's weariness. It's anything but mature behavior. Can't you grasp the notion? IT'S NOT A WRESTLING FIGHT.

I would love nothing more than to learn from colleagues IF their proper, intelligent discussion brought about rationally convincing arguments for removing my edit. But you, you only barge in individually waving around your expertise at how to make enemies and alienate people. As a result, you only give me a ridiculously powerful determination to defend my edits. (BTW, I also "love" that referenced book, also at least three times.)

Speaking of which, I should thank you: you have given me the incentive to spend my scarce free time on acquiring expertise at Wikipedia rules, principles and guidelines. Now I have all the necessary tools to beat Wikibullies at their own game, should arbitrations focus on appearances and form. "Welcome the wisdom, even when it comes from a madman." -- (Arab proverb)

Or, in present case and before you misquote me again, from the flagrantly unwise. You've contributed to teaching me something, albeit not what you were trying. For this, I sincerely thank you.

Back to on-topic business.

Let's see, so far we have: repeated breach of etiquette in spite of all appeals to cooperation, a double uncivil revert with complete disdain for collaboration attempts, abusively invoking of the rules to intimidate a presumed dilettante, breaking BRD, possessive attitude, arbitrary, POV and gratuitous arguments solely aimed at blocking effort to improve an article, adding up to an overall verbatim example of Wikipedia:Assume_bad_faith: "That editor knows NOTHING about what they're writing about, what business do they have with this article?" You're being a builder of walls, not bridges.

My regretful conclusion: enough's enough. I'm through bickering with a lone belligerent individual who doesn't care for proper process. Excessive unilateral assumption of good faith becomes naiveness. Unless a convincingly large and rational consensus eventually shows up, and in the absence of any visible collaboration efforts, I'll single-handedly rework my edit to make it even better, deeming my limited efforts and competence better than an obsession on chilly pruning.

It's not about personal pride. It's about respect for good faith hard work, and dedication to help the tree grow. "All the rules are with me on that one."

See you tomorrow, I have a plane to catch. Issar El-Aksab (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

So, as I understand it, Issar would like to add a new section to the Bogeyman article about videogames, in which only one reference is made. Seren has deleted this information unilaterally. If my understanding is incorrect, then please give me a brief correction, but I shall weigh in on what I've seen. I agree with Seren that an entire new section doesn't need to be added to this article for a single reference to a video game. However, I do believe Seren should have spent some time in negotiating an alternative before deleting the information. I'm sure the Bogeyman is a popular icon in a lot of today's pop culture. So instead of "videogames", you should create a new section called "pop culture" or "cultural references" or "Impact on today's culture". Pop culture sections are only frowned upon when they are poorly written because they become a laundry list of different trivial references. Issar, from what I've seen, this would be an accurate description of what you've included. What I recommend is that you do further research on the Bogeyman and find articles that discuss its relevance in today's culture. Talk about when versions or spin-off versions are created and modernized for the entertainment of others. While describing this, I'm sure you can find an area to fit in your reference to your videogame though it should be from a source and not from your own original research. If you want people to take your edits seriously, then you have to do the serious work of finding reputable sources that back up the subject. It should be obvious that your research and your edits display a good faith attempt at increasing the information of the subject and not appear as a plug to a very specific game. Hope this is helpful. Here are some places where you can get started, though you'll have to find your own for video games. The idea of this section should be about explaining the significance and impact the Boogeyman can have in today's culture.

• http://www.comixjoint.com/bogeyman.html
• http://horrordigest.blogspot.com/2009/12/cropsey-real-life-boogeyman.html
• http://horrornews.net/20311/creature-profiles-the-boogeyman/

Scoobydunk (talk) 02:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

You know something, Scoobydunk? You've just suggested precisely what I've been working on. Except I think I've found a title even better than those you suggested. Plus, I see you've done your homework about "popular culture" (what you say applies identically to trivia sections: "they're only bad when they're not good").
Basically, I see here what I was expecting/hoping initially: constructive criticism. This wouldn't be the first time my appropriate yet amateurish edits get "mercilessly rewoked" by the community, eventually resulting into a speck of excellence. I must confess, I wasn't too satisfied with my first draft. It's just that I was hoping for immediate improvement advice, instead of... ah well, let's move on. "It's never too late to do good." (french proverb)
My new section title will be "The old myth in modern culture". Basically, an overview of the Bogeyman in modern media, in the spirit of what I was trying to start. Not exactly its influence, but it may lead to that if enough competent volunteers help.
Professional occupations, power rationing and very poor internet access where I live prevent me from single-handedly doing the perfect work you recommend, re. in-depth research of publications about influence in modern culture. It's not laziness, it's the downsides of living in the Real World (and the Third World). This is what customary process is here for: User A brings an obviously relevant addition because he had knowledge of the information, User B appropriately adds tags on things we know are true but need (proper?) sources, and the expert archeologists eventually find and add references when they succeed in digging them up. I can't be good at everything.
However, the mentions I'll be adding will all be widely known in modern culture, so while perhaps not studied for it, existence of their influence will leave little room for questioning. (See the immediate next section on this talk page.)
The exact influence of modern culture versions on children (current and former)... well, this alone is material for an expert thesis. And, if such a research exists, it would make an AWESOME addition to the article. My own means and ambitions are on a lesser scale. Just trying to participate within my means.
My initial addition of the videogame DID in fact include a source. An online review of the game, complete with ESRB rating. While it may not be the best reference, finding a more official page is far from a wild goose chase warranting deletion under "unsourced", isn't it? Said "impeccable" source could provide quotes more appropriate than my own description. It never ambitioned to be more than work-in-progress, and I expected it to contain sufficient explanation as to the relation between its topic and the article. I'll let you judge how much of it remains likely to be OR after comparing with reference's text. It might need citations, but every word is pure & neutral fact. Even if only seen in old paper-print french game magazines.
BTW, I've noticed an oversight in my first text. I kinda expected someone with knowledge of the game in question to eventually correct me. What's the point of questioning my edits if people have no clue about what I'm mentioning, and don't check the refs? It only suggests I'm the sole person with solid knowledge of the topic. No biggie, error taken care of in the new draft.
I really doubt if/when I'll be able to do all the very serious work required for composing a videogame page that doesn't get speedily deleted. I've got at least two or three titles like that. But you see, what I'm volunteering to do here for free, I get paid $30/hour to do in real life. My university courses earned warm praise from my peers for the quality of their content. Of course, I was "just" asked to find and teach facts, not harvest seed by seed irrefutable proof of what I knew as certain. The classic Centipede's dilemma.[8] Athletes have the gift, coaches have the knowledge.
I was kinda counting on myriapode locomotion experts to help fill in the smaller gaps. My unexpectedly extended sick leave is supposed to end on monday. If I've been able to contribute with a few iotas of worthy material, that's great. If not... I can live with that.
Thank you for the links provided. I promise, if I can, I'll put them to good use some time in the future.
Or you could. You don't exactly seem ignorant. How do you feel about taking the baton?
Really wish I could follow your excellent advice more. But you see, my knack for intuitively piecing together bits of info that nobody else had noticed is more needed elsewhere. Apparently, not everybody is capable of nabbing a Buerger's disease in half an hour, saving a young patient's life before the embolisms worsen. Priorities...
Thanks again Scoobydunk, I'm confident your advice and my (sometimes roughly acquired) experience on Wikipedia will prove precious if some day I want to publish formal research papers. "The harshest times of our life are those that teach us the most." -- (Marcel Proust)
Next stop: my new edit in the article! Be there, Bogey-fans, same Bogey-time, same Bogey-place. Issar El-Aksab (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Your most recent edits to the article are exactly what Seren and I have described as what not to do. It is not appropriate to make just a laundry list of references because it becomes trivia instead of an informational article. You need to familiarize yourself with WP:OR and WP:weight. The fact that you write 1-2 lines for each entry, but then write a full paragraph for Swagman is directly against WP:weight. Also, what you wrote about Swagman has nothing to do with the symbolism and importance of the boogeyman, you essentially just gave a game synopsis which isn't relevant to this article. Each subject you add under this section should describe how the boogeyman is portrayed and its importance and impact on today's culture. There are also problems with using an ign review as a source. First, an ign editor is not in expert or authority figure in horror or cultural fairy tales. Second, the ign review you posted doesn't say anything about Swagman being a modern representation of the Boogeyman. It is merely only your observation that Swagman resembles the Boogeyman and that is a violation of WP:OR. As an editor, you are not allow to introduce information based on your own research. Just because you feel Swagman resembles the Boogeyman, doesn't mean he does. This is why we have to use reliable sources that verify that information before posting it ourselves. You have to find articles from reliable sources that directly make correlations between pop culture media characters and the Boogeyman. If you find an article discussing the similarities between the Nightmare Before Christmas antagonist and the Boogeyman, then you can include that as a reference and use that article as a source. However, you can not just merely assert that a character is a representation of the Boogeyman because that becomes original research. I'd also ask that you keep your responses in the discussion relevant. We don't need to know what you do for a living, how much you make, how important you think your time is, or anything else about you. If you can't put in the time or if you don't care enough to put in the time to make an appropriate and thoroughly researched contribution to an article, then don't make one at all.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall Mr Seren mentioning anything close to lists. He was very insistent on the isolation of my addition, wasn't he?

"Each subject you add under this section should describe how the boogeyman is portrayed and its importance and impact on today's culture." I'm afraid THAT would be a wide open double door to claims of OR and SYNTH. I deliberately stuck to presenting facts, gathered under a clear common theme: modern portrayals of the Bogeyman. Especially when they're aimed at children (I think the relevance is dazzlingly clear: those tales are seldom aimed at intimidating ADULTS). You're eager to see such study? I promise you won't find ME voting with the cons. I believe your idea is great, brilliant... it's just not made for me.

This is not a mish-mash of random trivia at all: it's a very specific list (needing completing) of well-known Bogeymen instances/stories/portrayals in modern culture. Unity of subject AND time period, like in the criteria of the Classics. I'm really puzzled as to why this should be off-topic in any way. The article isn't sternly reserved for OLD variants (see the HUGE list higher up). And if it is, creating a second article and just moving my edits there should take you a few eye blinks. It's nothing BUT popular culture in the first place. Trivia is about throwing together grossly unrelated tidbits. The exact opposite of what I did.

The very contrasted size of paragraphs is solely due to the shorter ones already having very complete Wikipedia articles to detail them elsewhere, and to my desire for thoroughness. Check my code-embedded remarks. Sometimes, we have to make a choice, between an imperfect edit that improves this receptacle of knowledge, and no edit at all. The Weight that so bothers you is destined to be automatically fixed, if/when there is a specific article for that item. It may be slightly rushed work, but this is precisely why I'm forced to mention that my available time for this is nearly expired.

You see, you keep fretting about those hallowed references, but you should trust me more when I tell you they exist. I've seen them, for every single element I add. I'm just no good at finding their equivalents online. If you insist that I find them myself "or forever stay silent", the Cause will receive a disservice.

Don't be overly strict with the rules. The risk of crippling the whole machinery is always just around the corner. Here's just one example: your scrutinous questioning of Nightmare Before Christmas. I mean, come on, just click on the Oogie Boogie link. Much of the research has already been made, dagnabbit! Why did I bother to put self-explanatory internal links everywhere, to articles that already ran the gauntlet? For the love of complication? Do you think I'm too thick to grasp the concept of verifiability? I only mentioned my IRL teaching in hopes that you'd understand this here dedicated volunteer editor knows about solid facts and writing them down for others. I only really wrote such a detailed description of Swagman's plot to make its relevance crystal clear. All contemporary printed reviews mentioned him as "a/the BOGEYMAN". The references are out there, Mulder. I've seen them, sixteen years ago. Instead of fretting, you could be reading them right now. While I had to wait for my electricity to return.

Geez. Sometimes, I fel like the Community doesn't trust me. Like the Community doesn't even trust itself. I really do respect the Rules, I'm just not a fundamentalist. Need I list you the guideline articles that tell us not to be afraid of being wrong, if we work in the right spirit?

Rhetorical question. I couldn't even if I wanted. Too late now. I feel like these people mistakenly declared deceased by the Administration, and straight-facedly told by a clerk at the counter to "please prove to me you are still alive". Makes one feel like a diabetic swimming through molasses instead of just walking around the pool. Except here the hopeless plaintiff is common sense. Check this link: "Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy."

Shoot, why should I care about whether my edits remain? It's not like this article's immaculate kosher perfection was Destined to save the world.

But it's not like any false maneuver would bring about the Big Crunch, either. Relax, Luke, and listen to the Force.

Apologies, but I can't stay and discuss more. Really, REALLY sorry, I've done my best, it'll have to do. I can't spend any more days splitting hairs, and I'm really not one to aim for glorious war achievements. So you people will now have to take a carefully weighed decision: consider this edit all bad, hoplessly devoid of redeeming qualities, good for the express garbage can ; or take the safest path to seeing one's advice followed: apply it yourself. Frankly, Scoob, I trust you can do some excellent work. My parting advice: gather a sufficient number of outside opinions, to achieve a consensus with as little bias as possible. There's ALWAYS bias in small numbers.

Not trying to irk you, dear colleague, but some urgent Sunday work has come up. I have a Skype remote consultation about a possibly serious case, minutes from now. I've done my sincerest duty for Wikipedia. She's all yours, Scotty.

Issar El-Aksab (talk) 06:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You didn't cite anything in that article except for the ign review and the ign review doesn't make any correlation between swagman and the boogeryman. Your entry is a clear violation of WP:OR and no, finding articles that explain the importance of the boogeyman in today's culture is NOT OR because you're citing a source the explicitly explains those correlations.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, if your inflection is any indication, I'm sure you'll firmly declare that the game manual's text, Pgs 2-3[9], is NOT a transparent description of a rechristened Bogeyman, creatively sprinkled with a wee dash of evil Sandman. And it would be an unacceptable primary source anyway, innat right Sarge? Surely, the endlessly flexible descriptions of the Bogeyman in the very article are no greenlight for the slightest hint of possible suspicion of my putting two and two twogether.

Instead of unilaterally assuming that blockbuster animation movies might actually remain in children's memory, I really should do you a common courtesy favor and start another entirely different section, referencing HOW exactly in each specific instance that lasting memory will affect children's minds when they grow up. Now if dat ain't influence, some hired muscle should be persuasive enough, right boss?

But see, we got ourselves a problem. My lawyer, he sez it's illegal under the Florida State laws to "inflict retaliatory patellar fractures". Whatever that means. So anyway, since your options for teaching me a memorable and sound lesson are annoyingly limited, just have a blast with reverting my umpteenth unworthy, D minus sweaty rag, and be done with me.

I need to get a clue already. It's plain as daylight, I should never have made those moronic edits in the first place, and I'd better go elsewhere before I stretch your experts' patience. Consider it done, sahib. Issar El-Aksab (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

In modern culture, new section?

I believe some very famous equivalents in mainstream cultures deserve mention, say, in a new specific section. Spontaneously, I'm thinking mostly of:

– Oogie, in Nightmare before Christmas, who is literally a sack-man. Besides fitting the definition to a fiddle (rather literally, in a musical comedy!).

– The boggarts in the Harry Potter universe. The bogeyman's a transparent inspiration. Maybe an official Rowling quote on this, if anyone knows? She's already stated that Dementors are an embodiment of nervous depression...

– The disco dancing Boogie Man (pun intended), in one episode of the Powerpuff Girls.

– Add your own examples below. Occurrence in culture, be it classic or modern, is quite relevant on Wikipedia.

Hope this leads to a better-and-improved article. Everybody pitch in! In the absence of an official catalog for cultural scarecrows, a collective brainstorming is the second best option.

I'm well aware there are many risks of going astray with POV and OR here, hence the opening in the talk page. Better reach a proper text before adding any of it to the article. Issar El-Aksab (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

This article's still in a state of "gestation". It really needs the attention of an expert on the subject. In fact, I think I'll add that to the top. If the article were ever truly "finished", then such a section would be fine. But now? Not sure. Serendi^podous 07:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Waiting for the article to "mature" would be a necessary guideline if the notion of Bogeyman itself were in any need of still being officially established. We're way past that point, aren't we? Such sections are routine WP practice.

This being said, requesting an expert's attention is always a good idea. Even if off-topic (for present discussion). Motion seconded. Issar El-Aksab (talk) 23:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

1995 AC/DC album Ballbreaker, has a song called Boogie Man. Louie Cipher (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Big bad wolf

Since medieval times in Europe, and surviving until current days to my direct personal notice, (some) parents scare their children with "the wolf", reputed to lurk in the dark and take away children. Not sure how much it's relevant to this here article, and how to mention it, but there's a clear kinship between both themes (as in Litte Red Riding Hood...). Possibly all the way to parts of the werewolf myth. I think an addition might be in order: section? link? Any advice? Issar El-Aksab (talk) 02:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thailand guy treated similar to boogeyman

I am just providing some links in case some wants to add this to the article. Here is an excerpt from the book

"Catherine Lim Collection: Tales of Crime, Sex and Black Magic"

http://sabotagetimes.com/travel/bizarre-thailand-the-legend-of-see-uey/

Here are some color pictures:

http://darkandbizaarestories.blogspot.se/2008/09/si-quey-thailands-most-infamous.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.21.250.95 (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Use in Politics

• I have again been reverted, this time with the explanation: "Why? "bogeyman" is a metaphor that's been used in politics, activism, literature psychology etc. If you want to mention its use in politics, mention its use IN POLITICS. Don't just drop a random example."

• The effect would be to leave the article with no mention of its use in Politics at all, even though the reverter admits that it is widely used in Politics, and even though I had already stated that "the article NEEDS some mention and at least one example of its use in politics". This is needed both for the sake of the article, and so that we can wikilink there when the term occurs in other articles. This is why I decided to create the section in the first place, as the existing wikilink was not adequately informative. In this context, let me quote from the reverter's own home page "Well, my main principle is that it is not the job of the reader to interpret what we write; it is our job to put our point across as clearly and simply as possible" - linking to an article that makes no mention of the use of "bogeyman" in Politics does not help the reader understand what is meant when a politician is called a "bogeyman".

• "mention its use IN POLITICS": I HAVE mentioned its use IN POLITICS. Specifically, I wrote "The term "bogeyman" is often used to refer to modern politicians who are portrayed in such a way as to try to frighten sections of the electorate into voting a particular way. As an example ...". And I then perfectly reasonably gave an illustrative example of such usage, extensively backed by citations.

• It is true that this is an incomplete account of its use in politics. But, as stated in WP:WORKINPROGRESS, "Wikipedia is a work in progress". In other words we don't suppress an incomplete account of a topic, leaving the reader with no information about it at all. Instead we build on it, as I or anybody else may well do in due course. But, as stated in WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, Wikipedia is not compulsory, and nobody is entitled to demand that another editor produce a complete topic, and use the failure to do that as an excuse to suppress a reasonable attempt at starting that topic. Such gratuitous suppression of good work is probably just one of the many reasons why so many good editors quit Wikipedia. Again to quote from the reverter's home page "As regards the future of this project, I think the major threat facing Wikipedia is the declining number of editors, which is a direct result of the inhospitable environment that Wikipedia presents to new users" (except that it isn't just new users who quit Wikipedia as a result of the inhospitable environment - old ones also quit).

• So I am going to try once more (this time with an extra 4 characters, due to wikilinking Downing Street). However, as already mentioned, Wikipedia is not compulsory, and I have neither the time not the inclination to waste any more time on this (and I may well be taking the page off my watchlist to try to avoid any further wasted time - this will of course have the effect of postponing any plans I had to improve the section with references to such bogeymen as Putin, Communism, Communist parties, etc..., but that is unfortunately what happens when an inhospitable environment gets created - but perhaps others will eventually make those improvements instead of me).

• So if the reverter decides to revert me again, he or she will "win" (provided he or she gets a friend to do it, or waits a decent bit more than 24 hours, to avoid what would otherwise be a clear violation of WP:3RR,the three-revert rule), and will then presumably be free to feel proud at having successfully prevented what I would see as the improvement of the article and the encyclopedia, though presumably he or she will be able to find some old or new reason to claim that he or she has prevented a disimprovement, since it's always possible to find such real or imaginary reasons.

Tlhslobus (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. Please review Bold, revert, discuss, and Wikipedia's policies on edit warring before accusing me of trying to "win". I'm not about to defend this article as a paragon of Wikipeda's virtues, but if we're going to mention one example of political use of the term "bogeyman", we'd have to mention all of them. And I don't see what is so notable about Alex Salmond's specific mention, except for its transitory importance to the current British election. If we're going to do that, we'd need to find evidence that the term "bogeyman" is somehow notable for its use in politics, over and above insults like "crook", "fascist", "clown", "jerk" or any other number of political insults. Serendi^podous 15:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Sigh! I knew I shouldn't have gone back to see how you would respond, as it's now going to have me spending even more time on this than I want to do.
• For future reference, I suspect there would probably have been no problem (or much less of a problem) if BRD had been invoked when reverting. Unfortunately it was not, and instead I was reverted by being told to do what, at least as far as I was concerned, I had already done, which didn't help. However now that you have invoked BRD, that's hopefully now water under the bridge, and I apologize if anything I said came across as over the top.
• On that basis please feel free to revert me per BRD after you've read this, if you still think reverting me would be a good idea. However if you do that, there is a risk that the article will remain permanently without any explanation or illustration of the use of the word in politics (which in turn will disimprove the article and the encyclopedia), because I don't particularly want to spend any more time on the matter (having already spent a great deal more than I intended, possibly to no good effect), and quite likely if you again revert me nobody else is going to bother spending time doing it either.
• The evidence for its widespread use in politics is implicitly there in the citations given (and, I expect, in thousands of others). And I expect that there may perhaps also be a number of academic works on the subject with titles like 'The Bogeyman in Politics' which, if they do indeed exist, can presumably be found and added over time per WP:WORKINPROGRESS. But even if it were not all that widespread or all that 'notable' (whatever that means) or all that much discussed in Academia, the fact is that political articles (such as the Salmond article) can't avoid using the word, and consequently have to wikilink to this article or to its Use In Politics section if it has one (at least unless and until such time as there is justification for a separate article about Bogeymen in politics), and that means it is highly unhelpful to our readers if this article contains nothing to explain what Bogeyman means in a political context, and that in turn disimproves the Encyclopedia.
• It is NOT used as an insult like 'clown' or 'fascist'. It is almost invariably used as a technical descriptive term, in sentences like 'Salmond is a convenient bogeyman for the Tories' or 'Iran is the bogeyman that terrifies Israeli voters'. (If you doubt this, just google Bogeyman in Politics both on the web and in Google Books.) Your apparent failure to appreciate this (at least judging by what you said above) is itself at least apparent evidence that the term's use in politics is inadequately explained in the article.
• We do NOT have to mention all examples (if that were the case no examples could ever be used in Wikipedia). One example (in this case Salmond) is perfectly adequate for this particular kind of usage. Provided good citations are available, I would expect other examples, to be added over time per WP:WORKINPROGRESS, would be used to illustrate different kinds of usage, such as foreign leaders as bogeymen (with Putin as a possible example), foreign countries as Bogeymen (perhaps Russia or Iran, and/or perhaps Israel as a Bogeyman to Arab countries, or India as a Bogeyman to Pakistan and perhaps vice versa), ideologies and parties as Bogeymen (Communism and Communist/Left-wing parties, Fascism and Fascist/Right-wing parties, Scottish Nationalism and the SNP (for which I had a citation, probably now mislaid), and so on), terrorists as bogeymen (Bin laden, Al Qaeda, etc), perhaps bogeywomen (Margaret Thatcher, etc), and so on. Generally speaking we would probably only want one sentence of explanation and one illustrative example for each kind of bogeyman, to be mainly chosen on the basis of the availability of good citations, etc. .
• I don't greatly care whether Salmond is the example or somebody else. The reason Salmond was chosen was mainly because I already had the citations for use elsewhere (it is not helpful for Wikipedians to create unnecessary extra work for other editors), and because it was when wikilinking the word Bogeyman from writing up about Bogeyman Salmond that I discovered the Bogeyman article made no mention of politics, which seemed pretty unhelpful to any reader who wants to know what the word means in a political context. However I have since realized that Salmond (who also chooses to call himself a Bogeyman) is also useful to illustrate the fact that political Bogeymen can sometimes revel in their status as Bogeymen (so that an example that can illustrate more than just one point seems rather useful). However I don't have a problem if you want to go looking for one or more different examples (as distinct from demanding that I go looking for different examples, or demanding that I use no illustrative examples at all).
• Incidentally, for whatever it may be worth, I should perhaps mention that I actually broadly agree with your first revert (when I just had Salmond without the initial sentence of which he is now an illustrative example). To that extent, I think you have helped improve the article, so thank you for that.

Tlhslobus (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

German "Butzemann"

hi guys!

just a little addition, Butzemann is correct, but he's "der böse schwarze Mann", not only "der schwarze Mann" (he's evil and black, not only black). If we would have been only told about a black man, there would have been no need to become scared... ;P

The funny thing is, i was a very good child, but also scared off of that guy, because i just thought by myself "how would he know which childs were evil and which not? i bet he's just taking all the kids!" and so i had horrible nightmares of him, sitting inside my window, me just (inside my dreams) weaking up to watch him crawl into my room. His body shape was comparable to Spiderman, but he was always sitting down on all fours (or at least 3 of them), comparable to spidey's enemy Venom. His body was all deep black, like oil, not a single body-opening, no mouth no nose, although the faceshape for them was there. there were no ears and no hair, almost like these allover body suits that u can see sometimes these days, but it surely wasn't a suit. he had sharp-clawed spiky-ending fingers without fingernails, just sharp flesh. and the only thing not oily-shiny-black have been his bright-blue glowing eyes. they were formed like drops, nothing too much unusual, but glowing so bright and still not spreading any light.

beware, this isn't a common fairytale, this is a nightmare i had over and over again for years; it seemed to be slightly different everytime, about his movement and my (inside-the-dream) wakeup-point to see him, but basically always the same nightmare. felt a little like he would never get me because i'd always wake up at time to see him.

that damn dream was so real, i'm 26 years old now and i'm still not sure if there was really "nothing" in my room.

to make clear why i posted this wall of text - everything i ever heard about that english "boogeyman" seemed to describe a different creature. but whenever i told someone about my dream, everyone knew i was talking about the "evil black man". --78.43.41.116 (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Bøhmand (Danish)

As a Dane I would normally translate bogeyman to bussemand which I just added to the article. Bøhmand is also a word used in Danish, sometimes having the same meaning and it would translate to something like boo man in English (as in a scary ghost saying boo), but where bussemand (the whole word) also means nasal mucus bøhmand (and bøh) doesn't have anything to do with things in the nose. 85.233.242.14 (talk) 07:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bogeyman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061206075253/http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/ts_comments.php?id=P67839_0_10_0_C to http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/ts_comments.php?id=P67839_0_10_0_C

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)