Ridley Scott and Tony Scott - GETTYSBURG - The Documentary

[Shirkon]

Must say that I LOVE the movies Gettysburg and Gods and Generals. Some of the few Civil War movies I have or watch.
-Jack, I didn't see the GEICO commercial. Which one was it?

The one with the reenactors sitting around the campfire and the caveman telling all the farbs how they disgraced themselves for all the things they were doing that were not historical.

[Amish John]

Here's the Geico commercial.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqBFRMGLoB0

[Mazikainen]

ha, great ads. "Don't learn things from ads, watch History". If the content is like the gettysburg doc, I can't say the channel is much better. Maybe people should read books sometimes. Or if that's too 20th century for them, look up stuff on Wikipedia. Wiki is my first source when I go find information on a battle

[SouthernSteel]

Wikipedia is a great resource sometimes, but I recommend highly to only use it as an overview/introductory source. At the university level, it isn't acceptable as a source, not reviewed/reputable enough, I guess.

As far as reading books, it's the precise lack of such a thing that leads to the History Channel desperately producing something like this with that sort of (hopeful) appeal to the masses. To anyone with any interest and/or half a brain, it's almost insulting and not good programming on any level.

I may never be able to get the image of Sickles the crazy serial killer/pedophile/etc that they portray out of my head. I don't care for Sickles, but man, that was just creepy as hell.

[Jack ONeill]

AZ,

Check the link posted by Amish John. (Hat tip to AJ). I have had these "authenticity" conversations with my "Pards" on many occasions. That and the "8 questions posed by Civilians" were large sources of amusement for us around the campfire.

Jack

[Mazikainen]

I know how wikipedia is seen on the university level, working on my Ph.D and all, but I still say it's one of the finest things about the Internet today. If I need to find some basic information on some historical events or find an equation for my work, I first go to Wikipedia. Of course, when I need to CITE something on a paper, I then find a more reliable source for the equation on a heavy book, check the info for correctness and so on. In the end, it's pretty much just a necessary precaution to take as I write something, since I haven't spotted a single wiki error or falsification in articles that are not politically sensitive in the past 10 years or so. (And yes, just because I haven't seen an error in 10 years doesn't mean I can't trip over one, I know, I know)

I do remain adamant against the undergrads bringing coursework citing wikipedia though

[SouthernSteel]

Yeah, I made the mistake of citing it once as an undergrad when it first came out when I referenced it for general info. I was worried about laying out info and not citing it (it was Chinese history, not my forte), so I bit the bullet and cited Wikipedia. Oops

Them academians don't care for that none a'tall.

And you are a brave/foolish soul for pursuing your PhD. Just sayin'...What's your dissertation on?

[Mazikainen]

Computer science. I'm trying to improve on some methods of wireless indoor positioning.

[Petrus58]

Wikipedia is a great resource sometimes, but I recommend highly to only use it as an overview/introductory source. At the university level, it isn't acceptable as a source, not reviewed/reputable enough, I guess..

I agree. I teach history at a UK university, and warning first year undergraduates off wikipedia is high on the agenda. All I need to do is to show them an entry from wikipedia on a subject they may be writing on which is absolute garbage; they can make the connection between that and marks. It's never a problem after that!

[SouthernSteel]

Computer science. I'm trying to improve on some methods of wireless indoor positioning.

Definitely thought that said indoor plumbing :pinch:

And yes, I was in the UK when I received my rebuke for using Wikipedia. My paranoia/perfectionism won out over my better judgment.