From Tolkien Gateway


Since it is claimed, here goes... (change the US/UK if it's bothering the rest of the article, and the ref numbers too)

Arnor was the colloquial name for the North Kingdom. The North Kingdom, as the land was called at its conception, was also known as Turmen Follondiéva in Quenya and Arthor na Forlonnas in Sindarin. These names quickly fell out of use, in favour of Arnor: the Land of the King, so called for the kingship of Elendil, and to seal its precedence over the southern realm. In full, poetic Sindarin, it was called Arannor, which mirrored its Quenya name, Arandórë[1]. Though technically Arandórë would have a Sindarin form Ardor, Tolkien chose Arnor because it sounded better. This linguistic change was ascribed to a later, Mannish development of Sindarin.[2].

And for the references:

  1. J.R.R. Tolkien, "Words, Phrases and Passages in The Lord of the Rings" (edited by Christopher Gilson), published in Parma Eldalamberon 17 (July 2007), page 28
  2. The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter 347 (December 17, 1972); see also The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion page 17

How's that? -- Ederchil 07:47, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Thank you very much for your contribution.--Theoden1 19:13, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

Arnor in The Hobbit film trilogy[edit]

Arnor, allthough indirectly does have a role in The Hobbit film trilogy.That is why i beliieve that The Hobbit film trilogy shoild be put in the Content Portrayal in Adaptions.It can be seen clearly in the film itself,especially in the First movie.Do you agree or not?Do you understand what I am saying? --Unsigned comment by (talk).

I don't agree. The battle of Fornost can be said to have a very indirect reference "when Angmar fell", but Arnor is not even remotely referenced. If so, you could say that Glorfindel is also indirectly mentioned, as he participated in the Battle. This is not the right logic to go with. Sage 21:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with your opinion, but your opinion is accepted.I talked about a kingdom, not a person.This indirect reference can not be considered as an indirect reference to Glorfindel, because it talks about an event that takes place on this position.Did you understand what I am saying? --Unsigned comment by (talk).
I am in full agreement with Sage. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 13:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that just because Galadriel (as I remember it was her) said "when Angmar fell", we can't consider it a reference.--Shivam 11:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


User:Tengwar made a massive edit on this article, removing almost 10,000 characters, and rearranging some sections making it impossible to check and see if I agree with all of them or not (with some I don't). Furthermore I see he re-introduced some elements from past edits that had been reverted by User:Mith (some edit war?). User:WhiteWizard had also made such reverts and introductions. For example: Geography section moved to the end of the article, the names of the Kingdom with a capital "The", mentioning the Hobbtis of the Shire and Bree-land, and mentioning Arnor's "independence" in T.A. 2. These elements were first reverted by Mith while reverting User:Kulid123's last edit, and I don't know if it goes further back. It seems like an edit war with some elements that are deleted and reverted back from time to time. I really don't know what to think. Sage 06:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

BTW I was in agreement with some of Kulid123's additions, which Mith had to revert on copyright grounds, which was sad. The article is in a big need of cleaning up and just yestrday I had began to re-introduce some of Kulid's edits, avoiding the plagiarism, while cleaning up the article. It is a big coincindence that Tengwar reverted some of those edits back on that same day, and that's how I remembered the similarities. However I don't agree with them, and I don't agree with making so radical revisions in one edit, making it impossible to recheck the differences. Sage 06:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)