Talk:Goblin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Yuk!

This is a truly woeful page, and I am flagging it for a major restructure and cleanup. Sjc 04:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup.

I cannot find a work called "The Goblin Field" (Moldova) on the Internet.Kijjiketchme (talk) 04:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.7 (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

I've tried to begin this. Brainmuncher 05:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Characteristics

Goblins are nasty,cruel, and just plain mean creatures.They dress grubby and usally make their own clothes.But they are known to be like indians because they go in tribes and have a great civilization.Even though goblins live in nature and are light green.They are very weak so thats why they go in groups because the group is their strength.Goblins will steal,kill, or almost anything for something that they want that is worth anything.Goblins are very poor.

Can you refer to sources? Qwerfjkl (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

WHO SAYS GOBLINS ARE BAD

"THE HOLLOW HILL" TRILOGY BY CLARE B. DUNKLE PORTRAYS GOBLINS AS A TRULY KIND RACE OF CREATURES, AND THE EVILS THEY DO AS MERELY NECESSARY FOR SURVIVAL. JULI

There are no experts on imaginary creatures, but we can get an idea of how they are described by studying folklore. And ancient folklore has almost always portrayed goblins as evil, just like demons and devils and such. So I think the first sentence of the article is appropriate as-is. Citizen Premier 00:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

no games here

Split them please.

 Done Brainmuncher 05:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

To Split or Not to Split

I would say keep them in one place. It is a slight to remove games from an area where folklore and litearture define what a goblin is. The games of today are bending and expanding what a goblin is and it is important that we recognize some games as being important to the definition of a goblin

Ya, split it! I think the fact that all the "fatcs"(!) are lsited in the main page, having the games as a totally irrelevant to some articles like demonology looks a bit annoying!

All of the other related mythological characters: Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, Orcs have gaming sections. Are we proposing separating all of those? Fact of the matter is that games are the new medium through which these fantastic creatures now thrive. In many cases they are the predominant source of 1st contact. Gaming is a relevant and appropriate category for defining these entities. --Samunoz1 17:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

--86.133.44.35 20:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Yes, please, split the games off into a new article! --MacRusgail 20:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

If we split this one up, we need to look at many other articles which do the exact same thing. The Troll article comes to mind, for example (which even has an image of video game trolls in it). And I'm not just talking about fantasy/mythology articles either -- many other articles on many other subjects include gaming references. If Wikipedia is (supposed to be) standardised, this could become a bigger job than it seems. 19th May 2006

This is the messiest talk page I've ever seen. I edited this portion of the conversation so it can be more easily followed, but I didn't dare move the signatures or anything of that nature as I couldn't tell who had said what. Anyway, I'm not in favor of a split unless you're willing to create pages for both goblins in games and goblins in literature, as they are at about the same length. Even if you did, it seems rather silly to evict a perfectly good section of material from an article simply because it concerns an unorthadox media. Magic the Gathering, one of the games in which goblins are featured, is an excellent modern day source of "information" on these fictional monsters, so I can hardly see the advantage in moving that information to another page. I also agree that if this article was altered in such a way other articles would have to be cropped similarly. MaskedScissorDoll 08:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I say split games AND literature AND pop culture all into their own article. Make another article entirely called "Goblins in Popular Culture", which would list board games, video games, novels, poems, recreational pseudoscience books (such as the Spiderwick Chronicles encyclopedia and "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them"), films, plays, etc. This has been done, and should be done for all other major legendary creatures, including dragons and vampires. There's more information on goblins in pop culture on this page than on goblins themselves!67.167.26.239 04:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Chris G.

I have split the gaming section into a separate article. The pop-trivia and gaming information was choking this article. To the general reader, the goblin depicted in folklore and mythology is more relevant than its modern adaptions; the latter, by its sheer volume, turns this article into an ungodly mess. Anyhow, anyone interested in goblins in gaming needs to understand the traditional roots for context and perspective. Brainmuncher 05:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful, wonderful! This should be done for all of the related topics as well. If the article can be made more serious as a fokelore topic I would like to see if anyone has considered working in parallels from Hindu mythology. The closest parallel to the goblins that I have found is the Vinayakas but the parallel is not exact. Is anyone working on the Indo-European materials with an eye to these parallels? There is quite a bit of additional material on the Vinayakas which I have not yet put into that article, including dwarfish aspects of size. Buddhipriya 06:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources

I don't believe the Encyclopedia of Things That Never Were by Michael Page & Robert Ingpen is a very reliable source. The book was mostly written for entertainment value rather than informative value. Many of the info there is inaccurate. Particularly the "origins" section(i.e. the cleft in the Pyrenees). Goblins have no fixed origin according to folklore.

We reliable sources for this article period. The Wirt Sikes' book is the only truly reliable source, as the others listed so far contain material created solely by the author, and not relayed in folklore or mythology. I would at least like to see some citations from these books in the article itself, to make for a more reliable, trustworthy article.67.167.26.239 04:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC) Chris G.

The Encyclopedia of Things That Never Were is a very reliable source. It is entertaining, as folktales are entertaining. It has an extensive bibliography of folk tale and mythology study books. Some of its entries are fiction, however, such as Frankenstein and Wind in the Willows. Its folktales (African, Aztec, etc.) are as accurate as other folktale books. I've seen the same tales in other fairy tale books.64.136.48.205 12:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that goblins don't seem to have fixed origins in folklore. I don't have Dubois or Page & Ingpen in front of me, but I'm guessing they wove their own stories in with genuine folktales for verisimilitude: A nonfictional field guide would probably include info on a real species' original home & migrational patterns, so the same would be expected of a modern book presenting itself as a "field guide" to fictitious creatures. There's nothing wrong with this, and indeed it is entertaining, but unless recently invented details become independently notable, they should probably be left out of Wikipedia. That said, I've left the info in the article for now, making a note of its modern provenance, until someone better informed comes along. Lusanaherandraton (talk) 07:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Goblins in Runescape

I added some stuff about the cave goblins.--86.133.44.35 20:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Cut material

I removed the following from the article as it seemed unencyclopedic:

• In some circles, Goblins are considered to be the cousins of gnomes, except that gnomes are more intelligent and no one in their right mind would confuse the two.
• Witches will not tolerate living with goblins.
• Like other fairies, goblins were more harmless early in history, before the Puritans demonized them.
• A favorite sport among Goblins is playing deadly pranks on humans, gnomes, elfs, and dwarfs (in RPG games).
• An infant goblin is sometimes confused with a Snotling (in Warhammer).
• Goblins are often mistaken for imps among other sprites.
• Goblins are sometimes believed to be associated with trolls.

I also removed the following as I don't believe it is factual:

• In The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit Goblins consider hobbit meat a delicacy and cannot abide the furry footed creatures alive.

I've read LOTR several times and I don't think this is in there.

I plan to work on the article in the near future and part of my work will be replacing the list with actual paragraphs and probably splitting off the bit about goblins in computer games. Matt Deres 15:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The 'Description' section...

...is a mess. The main problem with it is that it provides this big list, saying "various (sometimes conflicting) abilities and attributes have been given to them", but it doesn't say which were given to them by who. Combining every creature to which the term 'goblin' has ever been applied by anyone into one incoherent list is no good. The list would be better written as a prose paragraph, describing the general concept of Goblins according to various noteworthy sources. The article on Hobgoblins might be used as a general template... but, overall, that list really needs to go. "Goblins can grow to anywhere from 30 cm to 2 m tall?" "Goblins are of the Unseelie Court, and are at war with fairies?" According to who? I'm tempted to just remove that list entirely (what limited worthwhile information it has is so lacking in context and citations as to be totally useless), but I'm not sure what to replace it with. --Aquillion 04:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed Goblin Characteristics in Folklore

The below text was removed fromt he article. It's completely unsourced and contradictory. Until more information can be provided, I think it's best to leave it here as research fodder for someone to readd later when we actually can define where the information came from.--Lendorien 19:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

---

• Goblins occasionally exhibit traits of old men, which can include shortsightedness
• Goblins are described as wiser than humans.
• Goblins are generally portrayed as green in color, despite the popular belief they are invisible to the human eye.
• They are said to steal human women and children, who they then hide underground.
• Stories tell how Goblin women steal human babies and dump them, replacing them with ugly goblin babies (changelings).
• Goblin changelings are sometimes known as "oafs" or "crimbils".
• Goblins ( in some cultures ) are described as an entirely male race.
• Goblins are members of the Unseelie Court.
• Goblins are reputed to mimic human actions in a sardonic way, twisting human rituals and culture to demonstrate their worst aspects.
• Goblin are alleged to play pranks include hiding small objects, tipping over pails of milk, and altering signposts.
• Goblins are often associated with fire, or have the ability to create it.
• Goblins are said to borrow horses and ride them all night. If a horse is tired in the morning, then according to folklore, a goblin rode it. Similarly if a horse is panicking, a goblin is trying to mount it.
• Goblins are reported as loving mushrooms, and use them for housing, recreation, and food.

---

Great! It is appropriate to upgrade this article by removing any unsourced material. Buddhipriya 19:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

New material

I have added some new material from a what is probably a reliable source. Not sure if it should stay, and if it should we should perhaps make a new subheading ("characteristics" or something) and add more material here from several different sources.

The above comment was added in this diff: [1]

Thanks for finding a possible reliable source. If you add material from it, please cite each additional statement with a page number and source name so we can improve the footnoting. See Wikipedia:Citing_sources for more information on how to add new material in a well-cited way. Buddhipriya 19:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll add the material here for others to put into the article itself. Seeing as there is not yet any consistent way of citing sources in this article, I leave to others to decide how it should be done, and if any of this information should be added into the article at all. Someone will need to rewrite this to fit into the article's various parts: - Goblins generally inhabit the houses of humans, just like the more friendly brownies. - Goblins like children, and bring them gifts when they are well behaved. - Goblins sometimes ride the horses of a farm during the night, until they are half-dead. - One way of getting rid of goblins is to throw flax seeds across the floors. When the goblin comes to do mischief at night, it will feel obliged to pick up all the seeds, something which it will be unable to finish doing before dawn. After a few nights of this, it will give up and leave the house.

Source: Rose, Carol: Spirits, Fairies, Gnomes and Goblins; an Encyclopedia of the Little People, 1998. ABC-CLIO Ltd, Oxford, England, p. 128-129. ISBN 1-57607-048-4

Since there seems to be a quite large "Further reading" section in this article, people should probably start adding sourced material from these books and others in order to expand it(information about the behavior of goblins in folklore are noticeably lacking).

I moved the 'Breeds/magic the gathering' article to goblins in fiction. 76.81.194.199 19:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

The article states:

According to "The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English" the name is probably derived from the Anglo-French 'gobelin' (medieval Latin 'gobelinus'), which is probably a diminutive of 'Gobel', a name related to the word 'kobold'.

This seems weird, because the OED gives a completely different etymology:

from med.L. cobalus, covalus, a. Gr. κοβαλος a rogue, knave, κοβαλοι wicked sprites invoked by rogues.

If no one objects, I think I'm going to insert the OED etymology and place it on top of the others. Shai H. 22:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The name "goblin" comes from the French "gobelin" and is related to the German "kobold". The French and German names originated from the Medieval Latin name, which came from the Greek kobalos/kobaloi. So really the etymologies should be combined instead of pitted against each other. 24.14.198.8 21:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC) Chris G.

The article also says "goblin" is related to "lutin". The cited source seems to say it *isn't*, and in any case, it isn't. 85.210.35.85 (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that MO is that the word is more likely to have derived from the Cymric 'coblinau', which means 'miner' or 'mine dweller'. I can't quote any sources to back that up, but I think it is a reasonable cognate. What the AF did 'gobelin' mean? it would be nice to know. Tim flatus (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

this section also mentions kobolds and tengu and such, relating them to goblins. i cannot say if this is true for kobolds, but this is absolutely FALSE for tengu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.183.175 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Early Fiction

The poem "Little Orphant Annie" by James Whitcomb Riley (1849-1916)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.66.168 (talk) 08:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Latin

Two points:

...gobelinus (Medieval Latin), and vulgus gobelinum ("demon" in Medieval Latin).[

Vulgus gobelinum is clearly abbreviated (either by the author or the quoter) from something like vulgus gobelinum vocat "the masses call it gobelinus"--a phrasing commonly used to cite vernacular words, whether Latinized or not. So this is not a separate term from gobelinus, and should be removed.

...The Benevolent Goblin, by Gesta Romanorum (England)

While it's true that the cited translation refers to the creature as a goblin, the original Latin does not (indeed, it only seems to refer to the being as a propinator and a pincerna, both of which pretty much just mean "server.") So this should probably be removed as well. --Iustinus (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, most of the other cited stories are translations as well (which presumably don't use "goblin" in the original language), so I'm a little unsure what to do here. --Iustinus (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Brownies

Brownies are invisible brown elves or household goblins who live in farmhouses and other country buildings within Scotland. While the members of the household are asleep they go about doing labours for the house owners. Brownies are protective creatures and become attached to the families if the family move the Brownie will move with them. If a brownie is treated badly by the family or is offered payment the brownie vanishes without trace. Children because of their innocent nature can only see Brownies, though this does not prevent the brownies from helping adults. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.235.156.46 (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Mold/Somerset

I thought a Welsh name like that unlikely in Somerset. Bryn yr Ellyllon is in Mold, Wales, a good hundred miles or more from Somerset, which is in England. This error is repeated all over t'internet, so hopefully editing this will start to set the record straight, and shows how pervasive errors on Wikipedia can be, given the number of websites which just regurgitate content verbatim without checking it.

79.68.5.168 (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

early fiction variously not early, or wrong

Of the four examples currently in the "early fiction" section, three are from the late nineteenth century, which is hardly "early". The fourth is from the seventeenth century, which is a bit earlier -- however, that example is not actually about goblins. Despite its title, The Goblins is actually about brigands. -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 10:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I made a note of this in the article for now, but if anyone else thinks the Suckling play shouldn't be mentioned, I wouldn't object to seeing it go. Lusanaherandraton (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

it's agreat value leave it as it is

95.35.147.152 (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

image

That image of an illustration of a goblin is really stupid. It looks like someone just drew himself as a goblin and put it up as a joke. 71.8.199.178 (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

illiteracy

A goblin is a legendary evil or mischievous illiterate creature ....

Is illiteracy really a distinctive trait? Are most other legendary evil/mischievous creatures literate? It seems a strange thing to put in the lead sentence. —Tamfang (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Dean Koontz

goblins are demons from Dean Koontz:

Assuring myself that all trolls lived under bridges, that wicked gnomes lived in caves, that gremlins established housekeeping only in machinery, and that goblins-being demons-wouldn't dare to take up residence in a rectory, I stepped into the new passageway and turned left, putting my back to the impenetrable dark.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.132.83.226 (talk) 01:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Magic: The Gathering Description

Goblins are represented in Magic: The Gathering as a species of predominantly red-colored creatures generally organized into various tribes...

I used to play Magic quite seriously up until 7th Edition and all of the several goblin cards depicted them either as an extreme green to a greenish brown. In some older cases they were leaning much more towards a brown tone. I've never seen a red goblin in the game and a quick Google Images search of "Magic The Gathering goblin" only reveals a couple of red goblin images which appear to be from more recent expansions. As insignificant as this is to the article, I'd consider revising this line.

192.193.216.155 (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I suspect the author may mean the faction rather than the skin-tone. Of course this may be wrong as well. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 10:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Most goblins are on red cards, although many with the Izzet in Ravnica and Return to Ravnica are Red/Blue. They also show up a bit in other colors.Supernerd11 (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Religious bias in depicting goblins arose in medievil times, the original folklore are lost!

This page depicts modern post-theological description of goblins as evil, malevolent, or bad. Their origins in folklore, were modified by the church in europe to destroy pagan beliefs. Tales of mischeif and cohabitation in human dwellings are probably original, the description of goblins as stupid or of low intelligence is demeaning a creature also widely held to be magical. The influence of christianity on european pagan beliefs has corrupted many popular tales to fit religious doctrine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.149.95.131 (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi - wikipedia is free to edit, if you feel you can contribute you can be bold and jump straight in. If you include references to reliable sources that would be even better (otherwise claims might be treated as original research and challenged or removed.). GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 05:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Gap of Goeblin in Croxteth?

I know there's one in Mortain (it's even mentioned on the French Folklore page of this wiki, although not the Mortain page) - is there one in Croxteth as well or have we been vandalised? 62.196.17.197 (talk) 10:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Origins in folklore is a mess!

How can we have XX. century books, Indian or Oriental creatures here? Goblins are a European myth, and superficially similar mythical creatures from other cultures may have been translated as such. Still, presenting these as examples for "goblins" is a MAJOR error. 38.125.36.194 (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed

• We don't have a source that the Erlkonig was refereed to as a goblin
• We don't have a source that Gwyn ap Nudd was refereed to as a goblin
• We don't have a source about King Gobb
• "The Goblins at the Bath House" was written 1969, so it shouldn't be part or the "origins in folklore" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.23.239.78 (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• King Gobb. In bulgarian, romanian and gypsy oral tradition we have "Цар/Крал Гъб" и "Гъбарко". Literal translation "Mushroom King" or "King Mushroom" and "Mushroom boy". XIX century (almost modern) version of one tale about Mushroom King is "Die Königsbraut" by E.T.A. Hoffmann

• There is not a single "gob***" word in original latin version of Gesta Romanorum. It have appeared for the first time in XX century modern english translation. And from there in new editions and reprints of older translations.
• Ruth Manning-Sanders is not a folklore source. Her "tales" are not translated. They are heavily censured, retold and rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.249.76.17 (talk) 00:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Related articles

How exactly is Terry Pratchett a related article..?Supernerd11 (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Possibly because he writes books featuring goblins. A bit tenuous ?

Add citation

citation was needed in the section talk about the origin of the goblin in Korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lupa0529 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Antisemitism category

I deleted the category "Antisemitism". There is nothing in the article to suggest this. If there's a case to be made, make it, with reliable sources. -- Elphion (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Merge from Goblinoid

I don't think there is much that makes other goblinoids independently notable from goblin. This should be merged here expanding the 'in modern fiction' or such sections. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Merged. In addition, lists from the Goblinoid article have been moved to the Goblins in modern fiction EchoBlu (talk) 08:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Reference to goblins in modern fiction

Goblins are referred to several times in the last discworld books, such as unseen academicals, and snuff Qwerfjkl (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

"Lagyt creatures"

I'm not sure if this edit was vandalism: this article mentions "lagyt creatures" instead of "mythical creatures." Jarble (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism, or possibly someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. I will revert it. Nolens Volens (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

USA, please.

Regarding the list of places with “Goblin” in their name, Americans generally do not refer to their country as “US”. “The United States” or even “the US”, sometimes, but in this context, we would say “USA”. “US”, “US Americans”, etc. are seen by many as politically-charged exonyms. I would appreciate it if we could (not naming names) simply not use these words. I’m not asking that it be changed to “America”, I fully recognize that there are other people who use that term to refer to themselves (even if the vast majority of people know what you’re talking about when you say “America” without any qualifiers), I’m simply asking that we leave it as “USA”. Thank you.

-TBustah, 09:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC) TBustah (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

But the main article is called United States, not "USA". Dimadick (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

So your argument is, “It’s correct because Wikipedia says it’s correct?” That’s circular reasoning, and there’d be no point to editing this site if there we just accepted everything as it was and at face value. At any rate, the argument doesn’t really hold water. The title of the page may be “United States”, but it explains, within the first few sentences of the first paragraph, that the country’s full and official name is the United States of America.

Americans do say “United States” or “US” in some contexts, but a native would use “USA” in this one. Why is it so hard to respect that? The last time I checked, we weren’t going around telling Nederlanders that they are to call themselves Dutch just because that’s how some people in the outside world refer to them, or renaming the Taiwan page to Chinese Taipei because some governments kowtow to ChiCom’s delusions and demands. These are exonyms, plain and simple. TBustah (talk) 09:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@TBustah: Wikipedia has a Manual of Style to make sure articles are written consistently. One section of that, MOS:NOTUSA, addresses abbreviations for countries including the UK and US. They can be spelled with periods or without, as long as an article stays consistent, but outside of the some clearly limited contexts, USA should not be used. —C.Fred (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Citizen of the US here: I'm sorry but @TBustah does not speak for all Americans. When talking about the US, I and most people I know either say US or United States. Their evidence is purely anecdotal. The Wikipedia MOS has it right. Theroguex (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

You're putting words in my mouth. I acknowledged that we say "the US" and "the United States", just not as a demonym and that "US" is usually preceded by "the", like you did just now. "US" in this context is an exonym. --TBustah (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)