 |
This is a user sandbox of Caleb Jeffreys. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. |
This article is very sparse.
There is only a biography and selected works section.
Only 2 of the 3 external links work.
There are no citations for the biography section.
Although the article seems really short, it is neutral and provides a basic outline of Giovanni Francesco Pico della Mirandola.
Hypatia's Daughters[1]
Feminist interpretations of René Descartes[2]
Women Philosophers of the Seventeenth Century[3]
Feminist Reflections on the History of Philosophy[4]
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[5]
Republic of Women: Rethinking the Republic of Letters in the Seventeenth Century[6]
Disappearing Ink: Early Modern Women Philosophers and Their Fate in History[7]
Correspondence between Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia and René Descartes[8]
Add to the character section a comment about her ability in geometry
A lot can be added about her own views on philosophy. There is just a section on her correspondence with Descartes but none really on her own views. I could potentially add a section on her own views.
I can also remove some of the redundant language.
I could add a section about her impact on the Feminist History of Philosophy[9].
After reading many of the books for my course I felt that the place of women in the history of skepticism was lacking. I also found Elisabeth of Bohemia to be a very engaging figure. Although she is not necessarily considered a skeptic, her correspondence and criticism of a figure (Descartes) we discussed heavily in class makes her relevant.
[edit]Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[10]
Pico della Mirandola: New Essays[11]
The section on his writings could be expanded upon.
There could also be more pictures added to the article.
Elisabeth was regarded by Descartes, John Pell, and faculty at the University of Leiden as a skilled mathematician.[5]
Elisabeth originally intended the letters to be private, and has no other extant philosophical works. This makes her place in the history of philosophy complex and the subject of much debate.[8]
Much of her life outside of her familial relations is unknown.[8]
1633: King Wladislav of Poland proposes to Elisabeth.[8]
1635: Elisabeth refuses to convert to Catholicism and does not marry King Wladislav. [8]
1640: Edward Reynolds dedicates A Treatise of the Passions and Faculties of the Soule of Man to Elisabeth.[12]
Elisabeth of Bohemia has been a key subject in the Feminist History of Philosophy. She has garnered attention for both her intelligence and practical role in the development of women scholars. Her role is utilized by scholars to understand the limitations placed on female scholars. O'Neill cites Elisabeth as an example of how philosophy's roles for women excluded them.[7] Her correspondence with Descartes presents an example of the intellectual value of female scholars. Broad argues that Elisabeth's correspondence with Descartes helps feminist scholars re-conceptualize how women are to be included in the philosophical canon.[3] Many feminist scholars are concerned with how Elisabeth's gender informed her philosophy. Nye believes that Elisabeth was keenly aware of the limitations of her sex. Her health and femininity informed her questions about the immaterial soul's influence on the material body. [1] Elisabeth's influence also extends to the development of other 17th century female thinkers. She utilized her exile court in The Hague to create a network of female scholars. Including Elisabeth, the network of women consisted of Anna Maria van Schurman, Marie de Gournay, and Lady Ranelagh.[6]
Going into the Wikipedia project I knew almost nothing about the actual editing process. My assumptions were based on what I had been told most of my academic career: “Wikipedia is not a reliable source.” Going through the training modules and seeing the small details of the editing process has somewhat changed my mind. Although I still think Wikipedia is not entirely reliable, I now more value in Wikipedia. I found adding to a Wikipedia page really fun and engaging. Knowing that my work is available for all of the world to see made the Wikipedia project a unique experience. Most final projects for my past classes have never had a publishing aspect to them. Although this publishing aspect is relatively minor, it still changes the nature of the project. It feels a little more important than just writing a paper for your professor or TA.
My opinion of Wikipedia was changed by how democratic the editing process is. When I edited the Elisabeth of Bohemia article, I would always consult the talk page. In addition, I took into account the peer review I received from my fellow students. Furthermore, I was struck by how each contribution I made to the page had to be categorized before being published. I originally thought anybody anywhere could edit a Wikipedia page. Now I see that there is much more of a community surrounding the editing process. The training modules highlighted how editing can be a back and forth engagement with other editors. Although the democratic nature of the editing process was surprising, I still think it is limited. The community of watchful editors only really exists around the more popular and trafficked articles. When I edited the Elisabeth of Bohemia, I noticed that the talk page was relatively small and not many editors had really visited the page in while. In the case of these smaller articles, one could easily add shoddy work or biased information that goes unnoticed. Although I like the democratic editing process, it is only rigorous in the case of higher trafficked articles.
I added small edits and a section on the feminist history of philosophy to the Elisabeth of Bohemia page. The small edits I added were just small details to her timeline and to her correspondence with Descartes. When I was doing research for the article I tried to draw upon strong academic sources. A lot of students and academics use Wikipedia as bibliography to find sources for projects and papers. The real strength of a Wikipedia article lies in its sources. Although my addition to the article was rather brief, I tried to have a large number of strong sources. I also attempted to expand upon the story of Elisabeth separate from Descartes. I felt that it was important to add a section about her contribution to philosophy rather than her relationship to a philosopher. The article is about her, so I felt that it should be about her relationship to the philosophy rather than her as a side-character in another figures article. I was essentially seeking to give her more agency in her own history because I felt the article was lacking.
| This is the user sandboxofCaleb Jeffreys. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. Create or edit your own sandbox here. Other sandboxes: Main sandbox | Template sandbox Finished writing a draft article? Are you ready to request review of it by an experienced editor for possible inclusion in Wikipedia? Submit your draft for review! |
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
{{cite book}}: |last= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
