Tolkien Gateway

Talk:Moon

Where is Itsil attested? Sage 14:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Etymologies, entry I-. -- Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 15:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok Helge missed it for his Doriathrin wordlist; or not. It is glossed as "silver light starlight"... perhaps it is not used for a name of the moon. Sage 21:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, entry I- seems to imply it is: "ITHIL- Moon (THIL, SIL): Q Isil; N Ithil; Dor. Istil." Oh, I typoed. It's Istil, not Itsil. Will correct that. The starlight reference comes from SIL-; I'm not sure whether they are mutually exclusive or not. -- Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 07:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Andreas Möhn

In the "Calendar" section of this Moon article is the following statement:

"According to Andreas Moehn, the orbital period of the moon as described by Tolkien, indicates that it was about 20 minutes shorter/faster than today.[1] It is not known if this was deliberate by Tolkien to mirror the astronomical fact that the moon has slowed down over the millennia by the tidal friction."

First, there is a problem with the reference - it doesn't work. In October, 2014, the page was deactivated. Instead there is a different page: http://www.alice-dsl.net/lalaith/M-earth.html However, the moon data is gone. Instead there is an advertisement for The Moon in 'The Hobbit', an e-book for people to buy. I don't believe Tolkien Gateway should have references to site that sell Tolkien-related products, but at any rate the current reference to "Lalaith's Science Pages" is inoperable and should be deleted here and anywhere else it appears.

However, my main issue is with using Mr. Möhn's speculations as if they were accurate and wondering if J.R.R. Tolkien used Mr. Möhn's calculations in his writings. Of course he didn't. I have written an explanation of why a 20-minute shorter lunar cycle cannot be used to reconcile the moon's phases in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings and posted it in User:Gamling/ShortMoonCycle. In this article you will see that the consequences of Mr. Möhn's hypothesis contradict statements by Mr. Tolkien.

In my opinion the lines in the Calendar section regarding Mr. Möhn should either be removed or rewritten to state that he came up with a speculative solution that does not withstand scrutiny. If desired, I could move my article from my pages to a "Critique of Andreas Möhn's Shorter Lunar Cycle" but I do not know if the editors of Tolkien Gateway would want this. In The Atlas of Middle-earth there is a section of "Errors and Criticism" - perhaps my article should be placed within the article about Andreas Möhn or linked to it? I would like to know what the editors think should be done but at the very least the dead reference and the sentence about Tolkien mirroring an astronomical fact should be removed.

  1. The Moon and Durin's Day; However, he doesn't explain the mathematical calculations that led him to this conclusion.

Unsigned comment by Gamling (talk • contribs).

I agree with you and I removed the paragraph. This also brings up the case of obsolete references from sites that went off-line. In the past I've put a few references that point to his articles and I wonder what it should be done with them. Sage 11:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
All the references to Lalaith's Middle-earth Science need to be checked in light of the fact he's now selling ebooks (although we can reference via Internet Wayback Machine).
If you believe if that Möhn is an unreliable source then I would remove it - this isn't as if you are removing a reference to Shippey. Perhaps, though, you need to set up Gamling's Middle-earth Science as a website! --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 13:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)