Talk:The Notion Club Papers/Archive 1

Dates
This article makes numerous references that point to the Notion Club Papers being written in the 1980s, though it is widely believed that the papers were written in the 1940s. The article ends with a statement that the Papers must have been written in the 1980s because they reference the Great Storm of 1987. The issue that I have with this is that it would have been impossible for Tolkien to have written the Notion Club Papers in the 1980s, since J.R.R. Tolkien died on September 2nd of 1973. This article brings the notion that the Papers must have been written in the 1980s, or that someone involved with the Papers (likely somebody from the Inklings) had the gift of seeing into the future. I posture another possibility: pure luck and coincidence. To say otherwise is to open conjecture that the Papers were not actually written my J.R.R. Tolkien at all, but by his son Christopher, though this article does not come right out and say that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.106.156 (talk) 10:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The text of The Notion Club Papers itself contains the statement that they were written in the 1980s. Of course in real life they were not written at that time since Tolkien had died many years earlier.  This is just a fictional frame that Tolkien created for the story.  The actual date of composition is not known, although in a letter written by Tolkien in July 1946 he refers to having worked on it "round about last Christmas."  His son postulates that this was in fact the final work done on the Papers.  The only real (but not very compelling) coincidence is that Tolkien happens to postulate a large storm in June 1987 and in fact there was a large storm in England not too much later in October 1987.  There are other references to "future" events (from the perspective of 1946) in the papers, none of which materialized, such as the "explosion in the Atomic Reservation in the seventies, which blew the Black Hole in the States", various works of literature supposedly published in the second half of the twentieth century, or for that matter the complete absence of real life space travel by the 1980s. Mnudelman (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions of forgery are ridiculous
Christoper Tolkien has devoted much of his life to bringing his father's unpublished work to the public. Suggesting that the reference to a 'Great Storm' of 1987 implies it was writen after the event is unacceptable on three counts: a) It definitely counts as Original Research. b) It could count as libellous. c) It is bloody silly, an act that would make no sense. I have removed it. --GwydionM (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is it forbidden to mention the prediction of a 1987 storm?
This has been there for a long time, never before questioned. In February 2012, I tidied up existing mention of it. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Notion_Club_Papers&type=revision&diff=474847896&oldid=473863988)

Now someone has decided I am at fault, without making the simplest checks. Tells me off for "adding it", which of course I did not.

They then removed it again when I gave actual sources:


 * "The Notion Club Papers mentions a great storm occurring during 1987 in England, on 12 June.[1] This can be seen as an odd coincidence, since the actual Great Storm of 1987 occurred in October of that year.[2]
 * Sauron Defeated, page 157 and note on page 211. Also page 252.
 * Great Storm 1987: The day 18 people were killed BBC News Online.

I am now being told off for an edit war. I am all in favour of reasonable discussion, but what can I do when someone blames me for wanting to keep a well-established fact? --GwydionM (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * It's original research as User:Zero0000 said at WP:NORN where I see you haven't taken part and in his edit summary. I don't understand why after being told about OR years ago you are still doing it. 20:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC) Doug Weller talk


 * Mention of the 1987 storm goes back at least to 2005. Do you never bother checking anything?--GwydionM (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's up to the editor who introduces the material to provide a source. You are not being "told off". You are being reminded of the procedures established for contributing to the encyclopedia. You show no inclination to being in "favour of a reasonable discussion"; you are, however, making extra work for your fellow editors. Eric talk 22:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I didn't add the original remark. But what needed referencing? The imaginary storm was in the document that the article was about: all it lacked was a page reference. I could not see a page reference was needed, but added one when it was queried. As for the real storm, it is hardly obscure that it happened. It is on the Wiki as Great Storm of 1987.

What then is my offence? Apparently, it is "original research" to call this a COINCIDENCE. Which seems weird, and it is particularly odd to be told off for it by someone who could not even be bothered to check and determine that I did not add it. And they could have re-worded it rather than ripping out an interesting fact.

A more careful person might also have asked if there was a source for calling it a coincidence, assuming one needed it for something so banal. But as it happened, Christopher Tolkien as editor of his father's work says just that. I will add it soon.

It would be nice to get an apology for the unjustified aggression I have suffered. I would also be surprised if I got one. An increasing habit of defending your errors with ever-increasing ferocity. Learning nothing and forgetting nothing. --GwydionM (talk) 07:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't mention this except for your comments directly above. You've got warnings for original research going back over 11 years. Your edit summaries often include criticism of others. No one has been aggressive towards you and the only errors I've seen are yours. I have no idea why you didn't immediately say that Christopher Tolkien called it a coincidence, that would at least have shortened the discussion. Coincidences are usually within the eye of the beholder, and Wikipedia should never call something a coincidence with its own voice, let alone an "odd coincidence". If you want to add it, please add it as an attributed quote, not as a fact. Doug Weller  talk 10:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)