This thread hit me just now, thinking about the Familiars fiasco about Academic vs Non-academic sources. Is there a time and a place for a Non-Academic source? What should be classed as a non-academic source? (well besides things like Wikipedia)
Myself personally I think academic sources are either direct sources (such as myths, legends, things like that) and indirect sources (writings by scholars on the primary sources). These are useful when discussing general relgious terms and the like.
Then Non-academic sources is either UPG, or perhaps some one writing a book on the source though their profession isn't directly related to it. I think these are useful for when talking about practices, and in the case of UPG, when talking about personal practices. I don't believe they are mutually exclusive either, I think both are needed to have a well founded base.
So what are y'alls thoughts on the matter?
- Message Board: Join in our discussion
