Talk:Gottfried von Strassburg

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.

King Arthur Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject King Arthur, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of King Arthur, the Arthurian era and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.King ArthurWikipedia:WikiProject King ArthurTemplate:WikiProject King ArthurKing Arthur articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Mid‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Poetry Mid‑importance

	Poetry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

von Straßburg or von Stassburg

I am going to move the page to "Gottfried von Strassburg" from "Gottfried von Straßburg". While the latter seems to be common in current German, it is not so in English, even in the circles where Gottfried is well known. All English editions of Tristan I've ever seen use "Strassburg", including A. T. Hatto's common one. He is also listed under "Gottfried von Strassburg" in Norris J. Lacey's standard reference The New Arthurian Encyclopedia. I think this is enough to demonstrate that he has a common name in English.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Re Thomas authorship/personage

I love Gottfried’s Tristan.

I find this wiki article highly problematic and rife with inaccuracy.

In my course on medieval literature that was instructed by a brilliant professor named Dr Joyce Walker there was a great depth of lecture on Gottfried being the origin of this literary masterpiece.

I was watching a lecture touching on the origins of courtly love in medieval European literature and had a curious thought to want to see how far into this transition of written literature gottfrieds Tristan was, and was surprised by the nonsense Google ai generated pulling from this wiki entry.

In most probability, there was no Thomas. Gottfried’s work was rediscovered at the time of European nationalism and colonialism, during which time the rivalry between Britain and Germany was a disincentive to an honest look at the origins of this story.

Gottfried’s reference to Thomas is understood to likely be a literary device.

I found an academic journal article from the early ‘80s about the non personhood of Thomas that I’ll provide at the bottom of this post for a starting point for a scholastically accurate article rewrite which is obviously in desperate need.

I’m not going to rewrite the article but this needs to happen. I’m just not a fan of inaccurate amateur entries like this. The article I’ve provided as a starting point goes into great depth into the analysis of the problems of accepting that there was an author named Thomas. Pay attention to, for example, the earliest known version of the story written from start to the deaths of Tristan and Isolde a Norwegian saga that at the time gottfrieds work is rediscovered is the whole basis for the argument for Thomas personage, but in subsequent generations of academic study is actually the key evidence that Tristan is an original work by gottfried.

i just hope that someone does accurately rewrite the article so that the ai google etc stops trying to peddle the falsehoods in the wiki as fact .

🤷‍♂️ on a side note, how do y’all think gottfried should have finished the story? Surely not this Isolde Whitehands business? I found it so dissatisfying going from gottfrieds beautiful writing to such a junk style of writing and dissatisfying plot elements. Almost makes me want to write my own version! 😂

Bouchard, Constance B. “The Possible Nonexistence of Thomas, Author of ‘Tristan and Isolde.’” Modern Philology 79, no. 1 (1981): 66–72. http://www.jstor.org/stable/437365. 2601:601:9C81:B0D0:182D:FD1F:55DD:905 (talk) 11:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that *one* scholar casts doubt on Thomas is entirely irrelveant — the communis opinio is absolutely clear and that's what articles are supposed to offer. And exactly why you haven't taken this to the Thomas page is utterly incomprehensible. You are patently unfamiliar

with the literature on this work (though I am, of course, impressed by your citation of Google and an AI). And your sneering tone suggests you are unfamiliar with scholarly debate, too. Your tag adds *nothing* to the existing call for references. If you attempt to reinstate it, I shall report your activities to administrators.

The problem with citing a 1981 paper in support of your claim is that it shows you are ignorant of a major development in the study of Tristan: the dscovery in 1995 of the Carlisle fragment of Thomas's Tristan, which exactly parallels material in Gottfried and makes Bouchard's suggestion, a real fringe view in any case, dead in the water.--Pfold (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas obviously existed. We have the fragments of the work he wrote and where we have them Gottfried has followed him quite closely (as Pfold says). This is not like Kyot and Wolfram's Parzival where we have very good reason to believe that he didn't exist.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pfold reversion of tag

I tagged that this article is in desperate need of expert revision and you removed the tag.

You sir are what’s wrong with this Wikipedia concept. I’m not sure what you’re doing in this article if you don’t understand why I tagged it for an expert—it’s because you’re obviously not that expert.

The content of this article is highly academically erroneous.

I’m going to put the tag back in, and let you revert it back like an idiot or whatever. I’m not going to do the work and cite all the academic sources contrary to this article. The contents of this article are contrary to Phd university lectures on the subject.

to pretend that I didn’t tag it and also go into depth in the discussion is asinine. And it feeds these new ais to pass off made up wiki info as fact. 2601:601:9C81:B0D0:C19:AA0F:8EA:5B41 (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]