Craig Browning wrote:ProfWag wrote:NetMarissa wrote:I'm doing a research paper for my religious studies class and thought that this might be a good reference. If anyone can help me out, it would be super appreciated! Thanks, everyone! =)
Obviously you can do what you want, and obviously every college professor is different, but most of us would not accept a History Channel reference in a research paper...
While I can understand one reason as to why that would be, I can't fully wrap my head around such an attitude (no pun intended); a resource and especially a cited and studied resource is a resource nonetheless. Does this go for NatGeo as well?
Ok... I did see some silliness on the Green network this morning about the validity of Vampires, Where (?) Wolves, etc. so I can see why such sources would be questionable at best and yet, depending on how that reference were used it could very well be viable.
Sorry, but it sounds as if certain facets of the education world are still looking down on Television when it comes to being a viable source/resource. I've found tons of very credible material on the History/TLC networks as well as NatGeo (two of my favorite networks I should add). In fact the material found in such programs prompted me to get books and manuscripts mentioned in these articles so I could take a deeper look at things which has included some interesting correspondence with show principles. So I'm quite lost as to why such material would no longer be weighed or even remotely seen as credible now days.
AS TO THE SHROUD. . . I believe it was Lawrence Gardner that brings up the whole Templar connection to the artifact in BLOODLINE OF THE HOLY GRAIL (quite a good read actually).
Perhaps I need to clarify the resource thing. If the source is cited as "Dr. John Smith, Archeologist at the University of Denver, said on a History Channel Documentary..." well, that's one thing. but if the source is simply "according to History Channel's program on the Shroud of Turin, the shroud is a 600 year old forgery..." then that's what I wouldn't accept. There is virtually no difference in citing that show in and of itself as there is citing Unsolved Mysteries, Penn & Teller's Bullsh!t, or one of Winston's youtube videos. The source should be credible and verifiable.
I love the History Channel, NatGeo, TLC, etc. as well, but the issue at hand is that many/most of the stories are presented as entertainment rather than educational.