Talk:Sir Thopas

Middle Ages Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-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.

Title

The Riverside Chaucer and Harvard's Chaucer site both have this tale listed at "Tale of Sir Thopas"--what's the logic that leads it to be here? I'm not a Chaucer scholar myself, but curious nonetheless... --Dvyost 02:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looked into this a little more. The tale seems to be spelled "Sir Thopas" throughout Academic Search Premier and JSTOR--couldn't find the alternate spelling except in reference to Twelfth Night, where Feste imitates "Sir Topas the Curate." Can we move this one to "Tale of Sir Thopas" and fix the template? --Dvyost 02:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well you should probably blame Gheorge he created it. Thopas was probably named for topaz, also spelt topas or thopas, and probably something to do with his luster or lustiness as a knight. The standard spelling Thopas is probably best though. MeltBanana 03:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sure, blame me. It's how the title appeared in the ME anthology I first read it in, and then it was different in Riverside, and I reckon this is one of those things where it depends upon the manuscript and how much modernization the editors have done. Still, Ich haveh jhoy in the fauhlt. Geogre 20:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I also am not a profession Chaucerian, I have been doing a lot of research lately (especially on Thopas). Did you only read a modernized translation? As far as I (and other real scholars) can tell, the 'h' should be there. And I also really must point out that your summary is inaccurate in great degree. There is no kidnapping or anything like that. I humbly request a change. 129.101.30.183 (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)ERA[reply]

article issues

This article has many issues, namely that it does not cite sources and reads like an essay rather than an encyclopedia article.Mrathel (talk) 07:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

It seemed that the tag of original research was unnecessary where the article says "He presents himself as a reticent, maladroit figure who can barely summon a tale to mind", given that Chaucer's text itself says these things. I have merely added the reference to the prologue to the tale. Other statements in the article however, require referencing.Beregnoth (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax tag.

My edit summary was "I'll take a derp on this, but something just doesn't smell right. I can't find Sir Topas at all in my copy of Chaucer, & the first <Chaucer (topas OR thopas) hit in EBSCO was written by a high school student in 1975." when I added it.

I apologize if I have witlessly lucked myself into that derp I mentioned. You have to draw quick out on the badlands where I usually edit, a lot of the time; you also have to be a few versions of a human being in real life. The junction of the two, or however many, can lead to rash decisions. Consensus will fix it if I'm wrong, or I suppose if I'm right. What I know of Chaucer, and what I know about looking for things about other things, limited though those two both may be, suggest to me that however brilliantly linked this article is, and it is brilliantly so, something is not right.

On the other hand, what I know of Chaucer is limited, my ability to find things likewise. I could be making a colossal mistake, and if I am, I apologize to every English teacher I've ever had. I hope I'm not going to embarrass myself here, but I suppose I'll have learned something, if I do. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally have no idea what you're talking about; "Sir Thopas" exists, so I'm not sure what 'copy' of Chaucer you're using. A simple Google search confirms its existence and authenticity. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]