# Talk:History of Arda

The fact is that the Two Lamps were never intended to keep the track of time in the first place. -- Ar-Zigûr (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

How do we know the 'intent' of the Valar?
In any case, the Lamps WERE used to track time. It should probably be clarified that Tolkien changed the length of the Valian year relative to solar years several times; first 10 years, 9.582 years, and finally 144 years... with several more transitory ideas considered in passing. He actually published the 144 year figure in the LotR appendixes and thus it might be thought of as 'canonical'... but he never went back and revised the First Age stories to reflect this value. As such, I think it might make more sense to note the varying duration of the Valian Year and then list things in Valian Years vs Years of the Sun as appropriate. That is, the First Age is generally thought to have lasted from VY 4500 (when the Elves awoke) to YT 5000 (when the Sun first rose) PLUS another 590 Years of the Sun. Calculating an equivalent number of solar years for this is misleading in multiple ways (e.g. time passed differently during the YT). Thus, I'd think it would be better to say that the First Age lasted for a total of 500 VY and 590 YS... and report the various other time periods as EITHER VY or YS as appropriate. Thoughts? --CBD 22:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

STOP. IT. There is zero - I repeat, ZERO - reason to take the time to establish a hyperlink that goes nowhere. It's baffling as well as frustrating that someone would take the time to do this - and given how most (all) Wikipedia articles are run like co-ops in NYC, YOU WOULD THINK that an editor would go back in and proof whether or not a link... actually links. I get it that no one actually cares, but maybe someone actually does. 173.94.83.254 (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

If you're complaining about dead external links, well, that happens with time. —Tamfang (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
A bit of a mystery, as there are no ext links in the text, no notes, and no Ext links section either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

An editor has seen fit now twice to remove the lead image from the article, arguing that The image of the Baltistan mountains represents a real-world location and does not accurately depict any specific landscape from Tolkien's fictional world of Arda. Arda is a meticulously constructed mythological setting with abundant original illustrations and concept art, the use of unrelated real-world imagery is unnecessary and misleading. Also ther reference is unrelated to the image. 
As well as ignoring Wikipedia policy in the shape of WP:BRD, the edit is I believe quite clearly mistaken in its argument. The image correctly depicts what the caption stated directly to be, in Kocher's words, quoted and cited

"our own green and solid Earth".
This is quite plainly true of the depicted image. I take it that Tolkien's statement on Arda is definitive, since he is the sole author of his legendarium. Tolkien did not say that Arda represented only part of our green and solid Earth: Arda is all of Earth, and we are at complete liberty to choose any part of it to represent his statement, and indeed the article. This is correctly cited to a reliable secondary source, Kocher's discussion of Arda; obviously we can have a primary (Tolkien) source in addition if that would help. I take it therefore that the quotation, caption, and citation are demonstrably relevant to the article; they are also directly relevant to the image, for the following reasons.
The image is not intended to "depict any specific landscape from Tolkien's fictional world of Arda", as the caption makes quite clear: it depicts a landscape on Earth. 
The other half of Tolkien's quoted statement is "at some quite remote epoch in the past". This obviously excludes definitely-modern images of Earth, such as those with factories, motorways, or skyscrapers. The Baltistan mountains image quite satisfactorily and correctly depicts a "green and solid Earth", with small houses, small fields, rough ground, a river, forested hillsides, and mountains. These depict the sort of Earth that Tolkien was describing in the quoted phrase. Accordingly, we should keep the image. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap The inclusion of the Baltistan mountains image is interpretive and misleading, as it imposes a specific real-world landscape onto Tolkien’s fictional world, despite the existence of abundant original illustrations. The argument that “Arda is all of Earth” is a subjective reading, not a justification for re-inserting unrelated imagery. Wikipedia prioritizes accuracy over what is clearly editorial interpretation, and using an arbitrary real-world photo contradicts that. Moreover el.ziade (talkallam) 16:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for discussing. I don't agree with any part of your interpretation. Tolkien stated that Arda was Earth in the letter quoted and cited in the article (I have, I suppose, constructed an imaginary time, but kept my feet on my own mother-earth for place. I prefer that to the contemporary mode of seeking remote globes in 'space'... Many reviewers seem to assume that Middle-earth is another planet! (Letter 211), and Kocher as quoted and cited in the caption and text of "Imagined prehistory" says so directly. Therefore, we are free to use an image of Earth to illustrate the statement. There is no "clearly editorial" about it, that is simply mistaken, and I am surprised you should repeat the error when Kocher is actually being allowed to speak in his own plain words: Arda is "our own green and solid Earth ... at some quite remote epoch in the past". But I see from your reply that you are not prepared to listen to my words, so there is no point our discussing this any further. Let's wait for other editors to comment. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)