Forums: Helping Hand > Ed Greenwood's Candlekeep Responses

Use the following template for a nicely presented post:

{{Forum post|Write your message here!|~~~~}}

I was wondering if Ed's response's from Candlekeep were appropriate for the Wiki. A vast amount of Lore has been delivered from the mouth of Ed Greenwood on all manner of Forgotten realms topics via these Q&A's, detailing things from the everyday (farming practice's and toilet paper) to the realms-wide events that we all follow. Obviously he is still contractually bound not to reveal anything that goes against any NDA's Wizard may have and is perhaps the foremost authority on the realms.

Here is a collection of some of his responses (though his more recent one's can be found in the chamber of sages forum): [1]

Personally I consider Ed's recounting of the Realms the highest level of canon but I am not sure what this Wiki's policy is regarding this and would like to discuss it further.
Eli the Tanner 21:22, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
According to Forgotten Realms Wiki:Canon, "Canon, according to Ed Greenwood, is any published source relating to the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting", and technically Ed's responses on the Candlekeep forums aren't officially published material. However, I too think anything confirmed to have come from Ed, concerning the Realms, should be considered canon.
Cronje (talkcontribs) 00:02, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we could introduce some sort of Ed-Canon template, I think there is a level of authority in Ed's words that we should consider including them in some way. That said, I am aware of this opening the floodgates somewhat.
--Eli the Tanner 02:47, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

Cronje, it's been stated many times, in many places, that what Ed Greenwood says about the Realms is canon, by definition, unless or until superceded by published TSR or WotC Realmslore. The last time this was said was in a GenCon panel with Ed and several WotC staffers and managers present (who did not contradict the statement). Just sayin' . . . me, I think the appropriate thing to do would be to ask Ed, in his thread at Candlekeep, for an official ruling. [Baelish]

Getting this going again...

As brought up in the Candlekeep discussion, here, Ed Greenwood's responses at Candlekeep and elsewhere are indeed canon. This was firmly pointed out by his official herald, The Hooded One. So we can and should accept his responses.

In fact, this is already more-or-less the case at Forgotten Realms Wiki:Canon. The heading "Forum posts" says "Cannot be considered canon unless made by a Wizards of the Coast employee." That includes Ed Greenwood. Of course, this is somewhat contracted by the earlier line "This excludes forum posts, discussions, and Realms authors' work on non-Wizards websites."

I will propose a small revision to clear up this point at Forum:Revised canon policy. — BadCatMan (talk) 11:15, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

I've been testing out the Candlekeep forum template with regards to the Candlekeep responses. The only thing I'm curious about now is whether we should be listing the author as Ed Greenwood or The Hooded One (the one who posts ed's responses)?
--Eli the Tanner (talk) 13:10, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

I'd go with "Ed Greenwood", as he's the one the information comes from and is the canonical source. THO usually quotes Ed's words, and is usually just the messenger on these.

I used one of these on Inhil Lauthdryn.

— BadCatMan (talk) 13:28, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to locate the Post_ID's of old Candlekeep threads? The Topic_ID is in the address bar but most of Ed's responses from previous years are locked from editing so I can't check the info for specific posts. Any suggestions?

--Eli the Tanner (talk) 14:04, July 29, 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, but you could try as an alternative {{Cite web}} and reference Candlekeep's compiled responses, here. Though they are for older responses, the website links may be easier and more reliable.

— BadCatMan (talk) 01:24, July 30, 2013 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.