Talk:Authorities

I'd like to say that the context of that phrase seemed to refer rather to the historians and the loremasters who studied the Red Book as "Authorities". I was surprised to read that the Prologue meant the Valar. Sage 18:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to note the following: Foster's entry provides the reference Z 9/12/65. In the list of references, Z refers to information by Dick Plotz and the numbers are obviously one of the dates 12 September 1965 or 9 December 1965. It's surprising that 12 September 1965 is the exact date of Tolkien's Letter 276 to Dick Plotz. I looked to see whether the text of the letter makes any reference to the Valar or the Riddle Game, but there is nothing about it!! Sage 18:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Was this letter to Plotz published in its entirety?--Morgan 21:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I have a different view. I actually think we should stop referencing Foster. Going through the First Age years he has loads of mistakes. We reference Foster as if he's a primary source and he's not. I would use Foster just to find references to other things, but I would stop all referencing Foster directly. As a teenager I used Foster before I realised there were better places to get the info (like here!)

I would agree with you that "The Authorities" are not the Valar. How on earth would hobbits know that the Valar had thought about the riddle-game and discussed the legitimacy of the final question? --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 00:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand your concerns but I am conscious when I am using his references and I am well aware when he is off. Foster's educated guesses (when primary sources are not enough) are not inferior that Fauskanger's liguistic interpretations; unless you are against Fauskanger as well.

I couldn't create this article and add a "perhaps" without any source. I wish I could include my interpretation but that would be impossible without resolving to original research. Sage 16:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I would rather not source Fauskanger if I could something more primary. But actually the point I'm making is that I am increasingly of the view that we should treat Foster as we treat Day: an an unreliable source.

In terms of this article, does it even need to exist? And if it does, do we need to reference just because he has mentioned it? --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 10:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)