Talk:History of Arda

History of Arda has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: January 27, 2022. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Middle-earth High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien, his legendarium, and related topics. Please visit the project talk page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.Middle-earthWikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earthTemplate:WikiProject Middle-earthTolkien articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Note: Though it states in the Guide to writing better articles that generally fictional articles should be written in present tense, all Tolkien legendarium-related articles that cover in-universe material before the current action must be written in past tense. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards for more information about this and other article standards. Mythology High‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Novels: Fantasy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Fantasy task force (assessed as High-importance). Literature High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature 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.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Archives

1

An IP editor has repeatedly replaced "Years of the Lamps" with the phrase "Days before days", on the grounds that the latter is at least mentioned by Tolkien. We had the following inconclusive discussion on their talk page:

On sourcing, the situation here on Wikipedia is radically unlike what you may have experienced on Middle-earth forums and chatrooms, where people naturally assume that Tolkien is the authority. Here, Tolkien is the primary source, which means he can be quoted to tell people Tolkien's view: but nothing else. For an article to work, reliable secondary sources are required, which means citing scholarly books and articles, newspapers and suchlike. The scholars and critics have their own viewpoints, and crucially, it is these that establish "notability", i.e. whether a subject deserves to have an article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scholars are Robert Foster and J.E.A. Tyler. David Day who actually "invented" the term "Ages/Years of the Lamps" is not a "scholar", but a specualative sribber whose works are not recommended by, for example, Bratman. Both Foster and Tyler never used this term just like Tolkien himself, so Day's fakes are entirely non-canonical.

Besides, you pointed out that "I can't make names up". Okay, but this is exactly what David Day did! He made names up. Foster and Tyler did'n made names up. I probably made up, however my insinuation is supportted by Tolkien's abbreviation YV (Year of the Valar) which he used to chronicle the events before the Trees bloomed for the first time after which he chronicled following events with an abbreviation YT (Year of the Trees) EXCLUSIVELY. -- 94.25.181.241 (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for discussing; there is all the difference in the world between things cited to statements by scholars, critics (and even flaky popularisers like Day, though I carry no candle for him), where those statements are published in reliable sources like books and journal articles. Editors are not allowed to "make things up", indeed: WP:OR applies. The other obvious point is that a term like "Years of the Lamps" can be seen simply as a label for a topic under discussion: we do not have to suppose it are "official" or "canonical" terms, or anything of that sort, just a useful shorthand so we know we are discussing the same thing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. It seems that you are still supposing, contrary to Wikipedia's understanding and my very brief exposition above, that "primary source" is somehow equivalent to "good, authoritative". Unfortunately, Wikipedia takes it in a very different sense, to mean "unsupported, one person's view", and hence allowed to be used only in a limited way for us to say "and X thought that ABC (of themselves)". In other words, we take an almost opposite position to Tolkien fans for whom Tolkien is the one, only, and revered source. For the current discussion, if Tolkien had frequently named the era under discussion in some way, and that had become familiar to scholars, critics and fans alike, then obviously we'd use that name (notice the "and that..." – our understanding of notability depends on wide usage, not (just) on primary sources). But as we know, he didn't. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that there is no convenient, readily-available and equally comprehensible substitute for the clear "Years of the Lamps", i.e. the era when Arda was lit by the two great Lamps, followed by the similarly and conveniently named "Years of the Trees", the era when Arda was lit by the Two Trees of Valinor. These are in my view sensible and helpful labels for these early eras, and since they have been used by various authors, we should feel free to use them also. The Tolkienesque "Days before Days" gives no clue as to what the era included, and is certainly going to be unfamiliar to the great majority of readers. The article is currently in the IP-edited state as they have inserted their choice of name three times now. Would be glad to know what other project members think of this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "Day before days" (singular, not plural) appears in The Lord of the Rings once, and day is capitalised, this wasn't a mistake on Tolkien's part I think. It appears twice in The Silmarillion, again in it's singular form and with a capitalised days. The tale of the creation of the Lamps is in the chapter called "Of the Beginning of Days". Therefore there is confusion in the primary source, owing to Galadriel remembering "The Day before days", but not being there when the lamps where created. Therefore we cannot say for certain what Tolkien meant to call the era and have to fall back to what other commentators and scholars have written about it. GimliDotNet (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gosh, just check out The Annals of Aman from Morgoth's Ring. If you consider only works published during Tolkien's lifetime, then good luck to find "Years of the Lamps" in The Lord of the Rings. -- 94.241.192.146 (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. The Silmarillion which I cited was not published in Tolkien’s lifetime. Please read my comments carefully before making sarcastic responses.

2. It’s already been explained to you, Tolkien does not trump scholarly sources. GimliDotNet (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then where did you find the term "Years of the Lamps" in the published Silmarillion? Besides, this term doesn't cover all those 3500 Valian Years between the Valar's arrival to Arda and first blooming of the Two Trees since the Lamps shone for only 1550 Valian Years. -- 94.241.192.146 (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Competence is required to edit wikipedia. If you're unable to follow the thread of a discussion (this has already been addressed), perhaps this is not the place for you. You are not a reliable source to claim "Days before Days" is a better name than the scholars cited in the article. GimliDotNet (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but both Robert Foster and J.E.A. Tyler do not use the term "Years of the Lamps". Why do you (or the Wikipedia itself?) prefer David Day's misinterpretation over their opinion? -- 94.25.181.241 (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They use the term days before days to describe the years that cover when the lamps lit the earth before the trees were alive? GimliDotNet (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, because both of them published their books before the publication of the last four volumes of The History of Middle-earth. They just used the entirely canonical term "Spring of Arda" to describe those time. -- 94.25.181.241 (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well it may be canonical but it's hovering on incomprehensible (where "Days before Days" is well over that edge). I'd be happy with "The Spring of Arda (the time of the Lamps)" or some such phrase, the advantage of the gloss being that it doesn't look like a name. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I have just one question. If you use the term "Age of the Children of Ilúvatat" that appears only once in The Annals of Aman, then why do you reject the term "Days before days" that also appears in the same manuscript? -- 94.25.181.241 (talk) 06:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enough already with the continual sniping. We're trying to make things comprehensible for non-aficionados while remaining true to the sources, as has already been explained to you extremely clearly and repeatedly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're not resolving an evident contradiction, upon which I pointed out, with such an answer. -- 94.25.181.241 (talk) 08:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am. This is not an academic forum; we're trying to find a simple, plain, and workable way of putting the ideas across for non-technical people. It may be we can avoid using "Age of the Children of Ilúvatar" but that has no bearing on the current discussion. Why? Because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, every time: Wikipedia is very large and no doubt many small infelicities of editing exist: they always do. Tough! Never mind! Drop the stick! Let's get on with something more useful! Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We need a simple and comprehensible descriptive label for the period that people can relate to. "The time of the Lamps" or "The era of the Lamps" would work just as well as "Years of the Lamps", with the advantage of not signalling adherence to Day. It's just a table row heading. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But again, is it not strange for you to apply the term "Years of the Lamps" for the time before they were constructed? First War ravaged for 1500 Valian Years before it. And even after the War the Valar repaired damage made by Melkor for another 400 Valian Years until the Two Lamps were constructed in Y.V. 1900. -- 94.25.181.241 (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not modify earlier comments in the thread, as you've just done today to the text just here dated 15:34, 11 June, as it gives a misleading picture of the discussion. But I think we're all finished here now anyway. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per my suggestion above, I'd go for "The Spring of Arda (inc. the time of the Lamps)" which I think gets over the technical difficulties. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it stated in the article that the Spring lasted for 33,573 solay years i.e. 3,500 Valian years? Actually, the Spring lasted 1,550 Valian Years i.e. 14,852 solar years. Also, there's no any word concerning the First War with Melkor in the article. -- Ar-Zigûr (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would be much more clear to most readers, since outside Tolkien fans and scholars, nobody knows what Arda is but many people have heard the term Middle-earth. The lead of the article already contains that other name, boldeded. @Chiswick Chap (I am sure you'd see this anyway). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recall the reverse discussion was held in some form a few years ago, and the article was moved. The accuratists versus the populists. As the pendulum swings we rename it one way, then the other, ad infinitum. Best we leave it as it is; the redirect (in either direction) and the pair of boldface names will do the rest. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]