Talk:Puck (folklore)

Alternate spelling?

Wouldn't one of the other spellings be more useful to someone looking for this? Sean Griffing

One supposes that Sean Griffing did some #REDIRECT pages . As for this Maureen Duffy claims that “puck” is cognate with “fuck”, as is the word “poke”. One can't help add:" And why not "fake" and "puke"? As well as "fickle"." Wetman 04:33, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Celtic and Old Norse

THE TEAPOT POOPED cBold text--82.37.179.251 (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Puck's origins may lie on an even deeper language layer, before the Celtic and North Germanic language families split.

is nonsense. That is to say, it is impossible that any word inherited from the common ancestor of Old Norse and Celtic would look as similar in Old Norse and Celtic as puki and pwcca do: Germanic p and k correspond to Celtic b and g. If words that look that similar in Germanic and Celtic are related, they must be comparatively recently borrowed in one direction or the other. Unless someone can propose a rewrite, I'm just going to delete the offending sentence wholesale. AJD 05:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite it to suit your own POV. But don't suppress the factual information: the O.E.D. does in fact debate whether the origin is Germanic (Old Norse puki) or Celtic (Welsh pwcca and Irish pooka), okay? Just because it doesn't suit your POV. But do draw more justified conclusions: interesting that you say it's "impossible." Do you disagree with the compilers of the O.E.D. too? Quote some sources won't you. --Wetman 05:55, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OED doesn't say that Welsh pwca and Norse puki are commonly inherited from the mutual ancestor of Celtic and Germanic, which is what the sentence that I take issue with implies. It says that it is unknown which branch borrowed the word from the other, which is exactly the opposite of that implication. AJD 07:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OED says nothing of "borrowing' but offers cognates in languages that most people recognize as in separate Indo-European groups. AJD has made the following sensible edit: " According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the etymology of the name Puck is "unsettled", and it is not even clear whether its origin is Germanic (cf. Old Norse puki,) or Celtic (Welsh pwca and Irish púca). " But AJD, brimming with self-confidence, forbids the following logical thought: Puck's origins may lie on an even deeper language layer, before the Celtic and North Germanic language families split.' Why should this conditionally offered possibility be censored? Is not a deeper language layer always a natural possibility when cognates appear in long-separate languages? Perhaps a moment's consideration of the Indo-European family tree might enlighten our censor. --Wetman 08:23, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OED says "the question whether it was originally Teutonic or Celtic, is unsettled." That sentence—the implicit claim that it was originally one or the other—is only consistent with borrowing. If it were a common inheritance, it would not be originally one or the other; it would belong to both equally since its origin.

And regarding the question "Is not a deeper language layer always a natural possibility when cognates appear in long-separate languages?": No. It is only a possibility when the words in the separate languages obey the sound laws of their respective languages. For example, we can know that the English name Jove and the similar Italian name Giove for the sky god cannot be a common inheritance from Indo-European, for the following reason: sound change is regular, and no Indo-European sound that evolved in Italian into Gi evolved into English J. If an Italian word with Gi has an English cognate, that cognate must begin with T or K. So either Jove or Giove must have been borrowed by one from the other at a post-Indo-European time—in particular, English borrowed it from an ancestor of Italian. (English does have a cognate for Giove; it is Tiw.)

By the same token, no Indo-European sound that evolved into p in Welsh also evolved into p in Irish and Old Norse: Welsh p corresponds to Irish c and Old Norse hv. So a word that begins with p in all three of those languages, assuming it is an actual cognate and not just a chance resemblance, must have been borrowed from one by the other two at a post-Indo-European (and, in fact, post-Proto-Celtic) time. AJD 16:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The reader may judge which is actually nonsense. The above, or the simple suggestion Puck's origins may lie on an even deeper language layer, before the Celtic and North Germanic language families split.

Actually, this reader finds AJD's explanation above to be quite persuasive. I'd favor deleting the reference to the "deeper language layer," unless we can find a scholarly source that posits the parallel evolution of Celtic and Germanic puck-words from an older Indo-European word. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The OED doesn't systematically distinguish loans from cognates, unfortunately. "Puck's origins may lie on an even deeper language layer, before the Celtic and North Germanic language families split. Why should this conditionally offered possibility be censored? Is not a deeper language layer always a natural possibility when cognates appear in long-separate languages? Perhaps a moment's consideration of the Indo-European family tree might enlighten our censor. --Wetman" Wetman, your logic is false. If it's from an older pre-Indo-European layer, then the word should have undergone sound changes in *both groups* and would therefore be more dissimilar. AJD is right, and your view is illogical. Claire (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

A Small Edit, noted

I just wanted to record a simple edit I made, fixing the grammar in the reference to the 'Berserk' series to fit proper tense (When referencing literature, whether continuing or not, one uses present tense unless said literature has a fixed point as historical literature or one is speaking from a specific timeframe reference within the literature) as well as to fix the spelling of 'allie' to the correct singular 'ally.' I'm still new to the editing thing so I apologize if I did this improperly (both the edit and the talk). I'll eventually make an account. I swear. 68.96.255.13 02:11, 21 January 2

Norwegian "Puk"

I cut the following text from the article as it seemed that someone had inserted a comment more suited to this discussion page (it was also randomly placed in the beginning of the "Puck in Literature" section for some reason). I don't know enough about Norwegian mythology to ascertain the truth of this statement, or even to make it make more sense(!), so have posted it here in the hope that someone else can look into it.

Puk is not the other Norwegian word for "Draug" it is called NØK or his name "NØKKEN" sounds similar, but is actually very different. He is a wather demon and that thing with the girls is true(according to the stories) but he is green with big eyes and has no links to shakespeares "Puck"

Missdipsy 22:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The information about the mythological nøkken is more or less true (he isn't necessarily green with big eyes, he appears in many forms, but everything else is true I think), but of course it has nothing to do in this article. 96T 20:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually only a very little of that is "true". The Nøkken is for one thing a different creature to the Draug, and differs from him a great deal. Also there are two different Draugs, the original Draugr who was what we would call a Barrow-Wight (thanks to Tolkien's influence) and the other, more modern, is a seaborne variant, the Draug, a spirit of dead seamen. This Draug has a few minor similarities to the Nøkken (being a water-wight) however they are not *that* similar. I'll let you read up on the subject and find out why, for yourself! Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge?

• Don't merge. There's a brief Midsummer Night's Dream section here now, with the standard heading Main article: Puck (Shakespeare). There's been so much written about Shakespoeare's Puck, and the changes he effected in folklore of Puck, that should be represented in the Wikipedia article, that it would overweigh this one. It's a bare-bones stub as yet. It'll grow.--Wetman 06:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Not conducive to beginners?

Much of the start of this article assumes that the reader also has some basic knowledge of what a puck is. For instance, it makes references to Robin Goodfellow, which some readers may not understand. This should be addressed. Elfred (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Name origin

I've read that the origin of "Puck" is from the word bucca, which is, I think, Old English for "goat" - which evolved into "buck" (English), and "bode" (Portuguese) for male goats. As goats were believed to be animals of the Devil and of the faeries (the British used to say it's impossible to see the same goat for 24 hours straight, since at some point of the day it must meet the fey to comb its beard), the word bucca also gave origin to other faery names, like boggart, bogey man, pouque, phooka, púca, bug-a-boo, bugs (used by some to refer to demons), pixies, etc.

This information comes from The Illustrated Encyclopaedia of Faeries, by Anna Franklin.--Midasminus (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that Bucca was the Old English for a he-goat or buck. I shall look into whether this could be the root of the word, and I'll see what I can add!. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 13:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow! I was about to write the same origin here, after my own lookins. Good work. One site also said "spook" came from "pook", puuca. If Puck came from buck, did ghost come from goat?! or did both come from go? -lysdexia 05:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No. Goat is from the Proto-Germanic *gaitaz (which is like the Old English meaning in that it is a "she-goat" rather than a buck) and ghost is from the Proto-Germanic *ghoizdoz. *Gaitaz is from the Proto-Indo-European *ghaidos ("young-goat") and *ghoizdoz ("ghost") from *ghois- ("to be frightened" "to be shocked"). Incidently I doubt that "puca" and thus "puck" is from "bucca" ("buck"). Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Just letting you all know that Peter Ellis, in Celtic Mythology, suggests it may have a Danish origin, and seems very uncertain it originated in Ireland.

Not sure how to officially do things, more important someone adds that as it is relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick Bertlein (talk • contribs) 11:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello there, my original contribution has been removed for being "original" work. This was just taken and aggregated from dictionaries. It's a fact that the French word "bouc" is cognate with the English word "buck" and other words from different languages that mean "male goat, ram" (breton, bouc'h, welsh, bwc, corninh, bock, gaulish *bucco-, old frankih, bukk, medieval Latin "buccus"). All of these words are derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *bhug-. And for what regards the celtic mutation b > p, it's known and very common even in nowadays Welsh or Breton language for instance (mutations and sandhis alike). Is there really a need of a thesis on the matter when the obvious is here in different dictionaries and encyclopedias ? https://welsh-dictionary.ac.uk/gpc/gpc.html https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/buck#Noun https://geriafurch.bzh/fr https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/bouc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandhi https://www.cornishdictionary.org.uk/?locale=en#goat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%BAca — Preceding unsigned comment added by RomainBzh (talk • contribs) 07:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Your text merely said that a 'strange similarity' is worth noting, but you didn't provide evidence of any actual link with 'puck'. Citations based on reliable sources will definitely be needed. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Moving material

I've moved the popular culture material to a new article, Puck in popular culture. This has the pleasant effect of combinding all of this information, from both this article and the Shakespeare article, into one place, where previously there was a lot of duplication. Further, this material isn't really appropriate for a scholarly investigation of mythology, and shouldn't be shoehorned here. The popular culture refs are all the standard fare, and they are more at home in Category:In popular culture (where there are dozens of articles that are of that precise form) than here. Mintrick (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. It is better that there be one small section here that deals with references or allusions to Puck in modern popular culture. The Puck that appears in the Shakespeare work needs to be dealt with separately, as they are different subjects in a number of important ways. I am wholly opposed to this move and the combination of material in one poorly-thought-out article. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

What, exactly, is wrong? No doubt you'd like to portray your opinion as fact, but I'm afraid it's a tragically transparent move. Yes, the characters are distinct, but the references rarely give enough material to make the distinction of which one is being referenced clear. These minor references do not belong here, as they do not contribute to a scholarly understanding of the article's subject. Mintrick (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Art

I deleted the user-created "picture of Puck as a fairy". Lovely and all, but a modern Wikipedian's drawing of the character is not encyclopaedic.Downstage right (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Santa Claus

Although, I actually really like the following bit, I had to remove it as being original research:

In modern mythology, the "merry old elf" who works with magical swiftness unseen in the night, who can "descry each thing that's done beneath the moone", whom we propitiate with a glass of milk, lest he put lumps of coal in the stockings we hang by the hob with care, and whose trademark laugh is "Ho ho ho"—is Santa Claus.

If there is a viable reference for it, then by all means put it back. Ekwos (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Piers Plowman

Langland in Piers Plowman uses "the pook" to mean the devil - this is glossed in the scholarly edition I have. Is it worth adding? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Puck in literature

I propose that we take all the literary references currently in this article, and merge them with the current content of Puck in popular culture, to form a new article (technically done as a rename of Puck in popular culture) under that theme. Plus the Piers Plowman that I didn't get round to adding. The article would be structured roughly chronologically. Significant 20th and 21st century references can stay in, e.g. to feature films, as that is only a slight stretch of "literature". Itsmejudith (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Stop reverting edits in progress

I have been improving the page with links to other articles as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Orphanage - which makes it more likely content will be improved. And every time I add links someone keeps deleting them. The links have been to other Germanic legendary creatures and they have an etymological or a mythological connection. They are not random. The removal is not put on the talk page and no justification is given - yet they ask for a reason to be put here.

Pagan goat like figures surely DO have a similarity with other pagan goat like characters in Germanic mythology and having to demonstrate a close symbolic mythological connections is surely not necessary for a wikipedia see also link is it???

Dobby?

Are Dobby and other house-elves in Harry Potter novels essentially Puck-characters? Stub Mandrel (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of Puck's appearances in the DotA franchise

I had added the inclusion of Puck in DotA to the "In literature and popular culture" section. However, user MichaelMaggs contests the inclusion as both non-noteworthy and trivial. However, before addressing those concerns, it's perhaps better to address their Wikipedia guidelines they cited in their reversion of my edit:

1. WP:NOTEVERYTHING: I do not believe any of the bolded sections (or subsections, in the numbered lists) apply to the edit at all.
2. WP:VNOTSUFF: "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content." Hence discussion here.
3. WP:TRUE: This one is not even a policy/guideline but a user-written essay. Additionally, it is irrelevant to the edit.

With that out of the way, let's address claims of being "non-noteworthy" and "trivial".

• "Non-Noteworthy": Let's be clear that, as per WP:NOTEWORTHY, notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article, and what is relevant are due weight and other content policies. Due weight does not apply here, and I also see no relevance in the other content policies listed. If you can produce a specific content policy that is relevant here, then provide it, along with your reasoning for why its relevant. I have no interest in giving another lengthy response to 3 apparently arbitrary links.
• "Trivial": What we have to look at here is MOS:CULTURALREFS. I believe the most notable portions to be the following two points:
  • "Short cultural references sections should usually be entirely reworked into the main flow of the article. If a separate section for this material is maintained, the poorest approach is a list, which will attract the addition of trivia. It is preferable to develop a normal article section with well-written paragraphs that give a logically presented overview (often chronological and/or by medium) of how the subject has been documented, featured, and portrayed in different media and genres, for various purposes and audiences."
  • "The consensus is very clear that a secondary source is required in almost all cases. A tertiary source is even better, if available. In the rare case that a primary source is judged to be sufficient, it should be properly cited. The source(s) cited should not only establish the verifiability of the pop culture reference, but also its significance."

Ultimately, the list as it exists now is already less than ideal, but there is no harm done in continuing to "noteworthy" information in the flawed format until someone has the will to rewrite the information into proper sections. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 01:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The list as it exists is indeed less than ideal, but the fact that there are already non-significant (trivial) examples shouldn't be used as an excuse to add more. The mere existence of a 'playable character' called Puck in a video game series is not in itself evidence of significance. The character isn't even important enough to warrant a mention in the article on the series. We don't want more things added to this list that are included simply because there is something called Puck in some story. I don't see any external evidence so far that this character is significant in any way. Can a source be cited that not only establishes the verifiability of the reference, but also its significance to this article? MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Overlapping articles

It seem that for a very long time there has been overlap between the section of this article headed "In literature and popular culture" and an entirely separate article Puck in popular culture. The latter article seems unloved; perhaps it could be merged back into this one? MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Done. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Sabrina

Twice I added a reference to the character appearing in The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina, and twice the reference was removed as not noteworthy. I’d just like to say that this was rather obnoxious...the Sabrina series has more viewers than most everything else on the pop culture list. Also, the editor keeps leaving a reference to Carnival Row in the list, in which the character never appears but an unrelated race has a name that’s an homage. It’s not clear to me why this would be noteworthy but the use of the actual character is not. Or why random novels that appear on no best seller lists would be,listed over a major studio production.

The reason I added the reference was because I came to Wiki to verify the character connection when he showed up in the series, which isn’t evident until well into the plot line, and the article didn’t contain a reference. So I did the research and fleshed out the reference with appropriate citations, as this is a series still in production.

I’m not going to put it back in, but just wanted to express that when boomers take out references that would be meaningful to Millennials and Gen Z readers, it decreases the value of the articles. There should not be a self-appointed censor who makes themselves the arbiter of what can and cannot be referenced. Contributions should be appreciated...this is our page, not one person’s page. Davey1107 (talk) 09:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

This isn't anyone's personal page, but Wikipedia does have some pretty comprehensive rules about what is and what is not considered noteworthy - and the decision is never based on an editor's personal experience or opinion. So while it's not permitted to add information based on a bald statement that it would be "meaningful to Millennials and Gen Z readers", if you could provide reliable sources that support such a statement that would be a different matter. You might like to read MOS:CULTURALREFS, WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:VNOTSUFF. (I've moved your comment to its proper place at the bottom of the page, btw). MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A "merge" tag was recently added to the Puck and Púca articles. Typically this is done to prompt discussion (or draw attention to an existing discussion) on a merge proposal. As the tagging editor has not opened any discussion/thread, and I can find no existing discussion here or at Talk:Puck (folklore) or separately at Talk:Púca, I will do so. Mainly to:

• Oppose - The proposing editor has provided no rationale for the merge. Nor does there seem to be any existing discussion in which a significant overlap was discussed. Absent any rationale for a merge, I'm unclear how it can be supported. For myself I don't see that any of the typical WP:MERGEREASONs apply (neither article is especially short, overlapping/duplicating of the other, or requiring that both be read to provide the full context to the reader). Otherwise, while there are acknowledged etymological overlaps between the Irish púca, English puck, Cornish bucca, and other types of pixie and bogies, the folklore and traditions surrounding each (mythical) creature are largely distinct. And I don't see the case for dealing with any/all of them together. As if each was indistinguishable from the other. Guliolopez (talk) 11:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• I agree, and also Oppose. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

A formal request has been received to merge: Púca into Puck; dated: March 2021. Proposer's Rationale: I was going to work on the Púca page (well, the french version, but not the point). Problem, starting my work by looking at what exist in english, I noticed that there is already a Puck (mythology) page that refers to the same creature! Yes, there are pages in English for BOTH terms, pages translated in both cases in many languages ​​... BUT the Puck (mythology) page uses Puck or Púca indifferently for these creatures, ditto for the Púca page, the two terms are entirely synonymous and describe the same creature, there are just variations in the writing according to the regions, indicated on both pages (Pooka, Phouka, Pwca, etc.) and a common Celtic origin, both pages giving more or less the same information, just formulated differently, as well as most of the same examples in popular culture (a true tomayto-tomahto case). If some other creatures (I mean those with a common ancestry) have evolved into different creatures or at least with enough specificities to be considered as such (Poulpiquet, Pixie, Bucca), a bit like different "species" or "subspecies", this is not the case between Puck and Púca, treated as identical. The two should be merged and a redirect link put on Púca. Oh, Shakespeare's Puck, inspired (as said on BOTH pages) by the creature, has its own page (justified, as he is a specific Puck / Púca, I just wanted to clarify that none of the pages are about him -or when they are, they are equally so). --Zeynel 23:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

(Proposer did not create and copy his notice to this discussion area:) Discuss continues here. GenQuest ^"scribble" 12:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Guliolopez. ~ HAL333 17:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hockey puck

How is it related? The link exists in other languages too, so it's not a coincidence.79.180.57.39 (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)