User:Arianabarron/sandbox

Discussion Questions
I believe a content gap is a part of a Wikipedia page that doesn't contain enough information. This could include missing sections of information or even missing facts within a section. A possible way to identify a content gap is seeing a section that is significantly shorter than another. Not all sections are going to be large or equal in size, but a much shorter section could be a reflection of a lack of information. Another way to identify a content gap is not seeing a section relating to something you consider to be important to the subject. In other words, if you consider a certain topic important and it is not found on the Wikipedia page, it could be a reflection of a lack of research, which contributes to a content gap. As mentioned in the previous response, a content gap might arise due to a lack of information on the part of the writer. This could probably be due to a lack of research on the topic or a lack of reliable sources. A lack of reliable sources contributes to a content gap because if the source isn't reliable, the information isn't reliable either, thus making it null to use. A way to remedy this content gap would be to visit a library, database, or any other source of reliable information in order to fill in what is missing. Not only does this give the information authenticity, but it also opens the doors for more information to be discovered. Technically, it does and does not matter who writes Wikipedia. It does not matter in the sense that Wikipedia has no specific demographic restrictions for who can create a Wikipedia account. Anyone is open to contribute their research to a page. However, Wikipedia won't allow information that is plagiarized or cited incorrectly. Wikipedia has a strong policy for backing up information with reliable sources and has a system in which individuals can peer review and edit pages they feel are incorrect. Being "unbiased" on Wikipedia simply means that you are presenting the information in a manner that doesn't display preference for a certain side. In other words, objectivity. Wikipedia expects "unbiased" individuals to use scholarly, peer-reviewed articles, rather than biased blogs or media articles, because it makes them less inclined to present information in the same manner. This does not differ too much from my perception of bias. I also believe that bias is presenting information in a manner that favors your point of view, which isn't beneficial to the general public.
 * Wikipedians often talk about "content gaps." What do you think a content gap is, and what are some possible ways to identify them?
 * What are some reasons a content gap might arise? What are some ways to remedy them?
 * Does it matter who writes Wikipedia?
 * What does it mean to be "unbiased" on Wikipedia? How is that different, or similar, to your own definition of "bias"?

Discussion Questions
The reason why blog posts and press releases are considered poor sources of reliable information is because usually, they are written by one individual or a group of individuals who might have a biased point of view. When seeking reliable information, the goal is to find a source that provides information in the most experienced and objective manner. For example, an article from a scientific journal would be a much better source of reliable information than a blog post or press release because it is written by a scholar who specializes in whatever topic he/she is writing about, as well as peer-reviewed by other scholars so as to ensure the piece is free of inaccurate information or grammatical errors. Peer-review also helps enhance objectivity because not all scholars will have the same point of view on a subject, therefore they can easily pinpoint when something is extremely opinionated. Similar to blog posts and press releases, a company website shouldn't be the main source of information about a company because it can tend to be biased and misleading. First of all, most company websites don't mention who wrote the information found on their website. For all the consumer knows, the information can be written by the owner or someone hired by the owner to sell the company in a positive light. A company may have hidden facts or overly stated falsehoods on their webpage that other sources may be able to discredit. It is always important to seek multiple sources of information to see if they concur. Sincerely, the main difference between a copyright violation and plagiarism is that one is protected by law, while the other one might not be. Copyrights are ideas or works protected by federal law, meaning it is 100% illegal to copy any of that information. People who violate copyrights can face large fines and even time in prison. However, some ideas or texts that are plagiarized may not be protected by federal law. They can simply be texts found on a website. Although both acts are equally immoral, people are more willing to plagiarize than to violate a copyright because they feel that the consequences won't be as harsh and they might be able to get away with it easier. There are many good techniques to avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism. Although it may seem obvious, the first technique is to make sure you are citing a work properly. If you are taking a piece of the information, make sure you use quotation marks and cite the author(s) in the proper format. If you are taking an idea, make sure you also cite the author(s) in the proper format. Another good technique, which is something I use frequently, is to not have the article open while writing a paper or creating an argument. While conducting research, simply jot down the main ideas in your own words, and reinforce your argument with whatever you remember or whatever you feel is important. When you don't have the article open, you are less inclined to look back and try to copy the same words.
 * Blog posts and press releases are considered poor sources of reliable information. Why?
 * What are some reasons you might not want to use a company's website as the main source of information about that company?
 * What is the difference between a copyright violation and plagiarism?
 * What are some good techniques to avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism?

Choose possible topics
Louis Philippe II, Duke of Orléans

I chose this topic because Louis Philippe II, Duke of Orléans is my assigned character for my Reacting to the Past (RTTP) course. Since I already have to immerse myself in this character for an entire semester, I feel that I have done plenty of research and can contribute new facts to this Wikipedia page. There is a lot of information on this page, but as mentioned, I feel that I can contribute new information to the page. For example, the article briefly mentions the duke's relationship with his cousin, King Louis XVI, but it's very important to his actions throughout the French Revolution. With enough research, I plan to create an entire section about the duke's relationship with the king. I have conducted research on this topic building on the sources already found on this page, and my university's library resources.

The talk page is really what astounded me about this article. It is extremely inactive, with only six posts. The most recent post was in 2013, which leads me to believe that most of the information on the page could be outdated. In addition, it hasn't really been reviewed by many people, so who's to say that the author's work is factually accurate? I believe my interest in the topic after so long while allow me to expand on the topic, possibly correct inaccurate information, and add new exciting ideas.

Week 5 - Finalize your topic / Find your sources
The article I finally assigned to myself is Louis Philippe II, Duke of Orléans. As mentioned in week four's "choose possible topics" discussion, I plan to contribute many new things to the article. Primarily, I hope to add new information to each section that comes from more recent research. One of the major critiques I had about this article was the fact that the most recent post was in 2013. There may be many incredible sources of information ready to be discovered that can be used to replace outdated information. Also, I can use my research to fact check the information currently on the page because it hasn't been reviewed by many people at all. Another point I mentioned was adding new sections to the article, particularly one in regards to Égalité's relationship with King Louis XVI, which was crucial to many of the decisions he took during the French Revolution.

Notes for improving the article

 * make introductory paragraph larger
 * add citations to statements without citation
 * rename marriage section
 * move pictures of children to family section
 * add a heading to illegitimate section
 * include more on military service
 * include section on relationship with the king
 * include section on saint domingue
 * include section on death
 * remove "titles and succession" section

Discussion Questions
I personally agree with Wikipedia's definition of "neutrality." Wikipedia basically defines neutrality as presenting information in the most objective way possible, avoiding sources that favor a specific point of view. These sources usually include blog posts or information from the media, due to the fact that they usually come from independent sources that are biased. I think it's crucial that Wikipedia enforces the importance of neutrality because it ensures that the general public is getting information from reliable sources. Although Wikipedia has gained a bad reputation for being an unreliable source of information and does have its limitations, Wikipedia also has a positive impact as a source of information. One of the major limitations that Wikipedia has a source of information is that anyone can make an edit to a page. In all reality, a person can make a change to a page and unless a peer or Wikipedia bot notes that a page is cited incorrectly, uses an unreliable source, or plagiarizes, the general public may accept it as a truth. This is the primary reason why most scholars won't accept Wikipedia as a reliable source. However, Wikipedia can also be very beneficial as a source of information due to the fact that it is a peer reviewed source. It challenges individuals to really do their research on their information or improve it. Possible sources that would be excluded from the category of "reliable, published sources" would be blog posts and press releases. The reason for this is because they are usually written by one individual or a group of individuals who might have a biased point of view. The problem with this, however, is that blog posts and press releases can bring a lot of great information to the table that could actually be accurate. Researchers' primary goal should always be objectivity, but objectivity is also hard to define. Sometimes, what is considered to be "objectivity" is an idealistic presentation of a subject or event, far from reality. It's quite unfortunate that all blog posts and press releases fall under this umbrella. If Wikipedia was written 100 years ago, its content and contributors would be much different than it is today. The information would be much more limited, and probably more close-minded, due to the fact that 100 years ago there weren't nearly as many resources as there are today. In addition, most information from 100 years ago would probably be presented with the point of view of the time. This is why I say that objectivity is hard to define. For example, objectivity in 1917 would probably be that women should have limited rights in society. In this day and age, we would consider this irrational, not objective. The same thing goes for 100 years from now. There will probably be many more resources open to the public 100 years from now then there are today, and things that are considered objective today may not be the same 100 years from now.
 * What do you think of Wikipedia's definition of "neutrality"?
 * What are the impacts and limits of Wikipedia as a source of information?
 * On Wikipedia, all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. What kinds of sources does this exclude? Can you think of any problems that might create?
 * If Wikipedia was written 100 years ago, how might its content (and contributors) be different? What about 100 years from now?

First Draft Outline
Since I will only be editing an article, rather than adding a new article to Wikipedia, this first draft will be a compilation of the original article as well as new information or edited grammar added to each section. It might not look complete at first glance, but that's because it's not meant to be.

Lead Section
Louis Philippe Joseph d'Orleans (April 13, 1747 - November 6, 1793), primarily known as Philippe Egalité, but also known as Duc d'Orléans, Hugh Bourbon Capet, Philippe de la France, and Monsieur Philippe d'Orleans, was a member of a cadet branch of the House of Bourbon, the ruling dynasty of France. He was Louis XVI's first cousin and the wealthiest man in France after the King. Unlike his family, he actively supported the French Revolution and changed his name Philippe Égalité. He was a strong advocate for the elimination of the absolute monarchy present in France and supported replacing it with a constitutional monarchy. Ultimately, he was guillotined in 1793 during the Reign of Terror. His son Louis Philippe became King of the French after the July Revolution of 1830. Following his career, the term Orléanist came to be attached to the movement in France that favored a constitutional monarchy.

Early Life
Louis Philippe Joseph d'Orléans was the son of Louis Philippe d'Orléans, Duke of Chartres and Louise Henriette de Bourbon. He was born at the Château de Saint-Cloud, one of the residences of the Duke of Orléans, a few miles west of Paris. Through his father, Philippe was a member of the House of Orléans, a cadet branch of the French royal family. His mother came from a more distant cadet branch, the House of Bourbon-Condé.

He had an older sister, born in 1745, who died when she was two months old. His parents had another daughter, Louise Marie Therese Bathilde d'Orléans.

Succession
Philippe d'Orleans first title was that of the Duchy of Montpensier. After his grandfather's death in 1752, Philippe inherited the title of Duke of Chartres from his father. After his father's death in 1785, Philippe became Duke of Orléans, head of the House of Orléans, one of the wealthiest noble families in France.

Marriage
On June 6, 1769, Louis Philippe married Louise Marie Adélaïde de Bourbon at the Chapel of the Palace of Versailles. She was the daughter of his cousin, the Duke of Penthièvre, an Admiral of France and one of the richest men in the country. Since it was certain that his wife would become the richest woman in France upon the death of her father, Louis Philippe was able to play a political role in court equal to that of his great-grandfather Philippe II, Duke of Orléans, who had been the Regent of France during the minority of King Louis XV. She brought to the already wealthy House of Orléans a considerable dowry of six million livres, an annual income of 240,000 livres (later increased to 400,000 livres), as well as lands, titles, residences, and furniture.

Unlike her husband, the Duchess of Orléans, did not support the revolution. She was a devout Catholic who agreed with keeping the monarchy in France, as well as following the orders of Pope Pious VI. This would create issues in the long run as d'Orléans's first son, the future king of France, would follow his father's footsteps and join the Jacobin faction.

Children
Together, the duke and duchess of Orléans had five children:
 * Louis-Philippe d'Orleans (October 6, 1773 - August 26, 1850), became King of the French (1830-1848);
 * Louis Antoine Philippe d'Orleans (July 3, 1775 - May 18,1807), died in exile in Salt Hill, England;
 * Louise Marie Adelaide Eugènie d'Orléans (August 23, 1777 - December 31, 1847);
 * Françoise d'Orléans Mademoiselle d'Orléans (twin sister of Adelaide) (1777-1782);
 * Louis Charles d'Orléans (October 17, 1779 - May 30, 1808), died in exile in Malta

Scandals
During the first few months of their marriage, the couple appeared devoted to each other, but the duke went back to the life of "libertinage" he had led before his marriage. The Duke was a well-known womanizer and, like his ancestors Louis XIV of France and Philippe II, Duke of Orléans, had several illegitimate children.

During the summer of 1772, Philippe began a secret liaison with one of his wife's ladies-in-waiting, Stéphanie Félicité Ducrest de St-Albin, comtesse de Genlis, the niece of Madame de Montesson, the Morganatic wife of Philippe's father. Passionate at first, the liaison cooled within a few months and was reported to be "dead" by the spring of 1773. After the romantic affair was over, Félicité remained in the service of Marie-Adélaïde at the Palais-Royal, a trusted friend to both Marie-Adélaïde and Philippe. They both appreciated her intelligence and in July 1779, she became the governess of the couple's twin daughters born in 1777.

It was alleged that Lady Edward FitzGerald, born Stephanie Caroline Anne Syms, also known as Pamela, was a natural daughter of the Duke of Orléans and the Countess of Genlis. He recognized a son he had with Marguerite Françoise Bouvier de la Mothe de Cépoy, comtesse de Buffon, Victor Leclerc de Buffon (September 6, 1792 - April 20, 1812), known as the chevalier de Saint-Paul and chevalier d'Orléans.

Military Service
In 18th century France, it was very common for royal princes to receive high positions in the military. From a young age, Philippe d'Orleans displayed his interest in the navy, from which he received three years of training. Due to his great relationship with navy officials, the French army entrusted him with the command of a French fleet squadron called the "Holy Spirit" in a battle against Great Britain at Ouessant during the American Revolutionary War in 1778. After not obeying thecomte d'Orvilliers's orders to close in on the rear British squadron, the British escaped, leading him to lose this battle. However, this gave a false impression of victory. The next day, the people of Paris greeted him with open arms, calling him a "hero" of war. When the news got out that the victory was false, Philippe could never recover. He withdrew from the navy and asked the army if they could give him a position, but it was denied.

Liberal Ideology
Philippe d'Orleans was a member of the Jacobin faction, and like most Jacobins during the French Revolution, he strongly adhered to the principles of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Montesquieu and was interested in creating a more moral and democratic form of government in France. As he grew more and more interested in Rousseau's ideas, he began to promote Enlightenment ideas, such as the separation of church and state and limited monarchy. He also advocated and voted against feudalism and slavery.

Philippe was also a strong admirer of the British constitutional monarchy. He strongly advocated for France's adoption of a constitutional monarchy rather than the absolute monarchy that was present in France at the time.

Palais-Royal
As Duke of Orléans, one of the many things he inherited from his father was the Palais-Royal, which quickly became known as the Palais-Égalité because he opened up its doors to all people of France, regardless of their estate (class). He employed Swiss guards to only refuse entry to "drunkards, women in excessively indecent dress, and those in tatters." He built shops and cafés wherein people could interact, and soon enough it became a hub for social life in Paris. Due to the fact that the Parisian police had no authority to enter into the Duke of Orléans's private property, it also became a hub for illegal activity, such as the trade of stolen goods, suspicious deals, and the spread of revolutionary ideas. In fact, it was a common place for Jacobins to meet and discuss their plans and ideas. Many members of the National Assembly claim that the Palais-Égalité was the birthplace of the revolution. Philippe's goal was to create a place where people could meet, which he argued was a crucial part of democracy and a "physical need for civil life."

Leadership in the Estates-General
Philippe d'Orléans was elected to the Estates-General by three districts: the nobility of Paris, Villers-Cotterêts and Crépy-en-Valois. As a noble in the Second Estate, he was the head of the liberal minority under the guidance of Adrien Duport. Although he was a member of the Second Estate, he felt a strong connection to the Third Estate, as they comprised the majority of the members of the Estates-General, yet were the most underrepresented. When the Third Estate decided to take the Tennis Court Oath and break away from the Estates-General to form the National Assembly, Philippe was one of the very first to join them and was a very important figure in the unification of the nobility and the Third Estate. In fact, he led his minority group of 47 nobles to secede from their estate and join the National Assembly.

October Days and Exile
One of D'Orléans main accusations was the initiation of the October Days of 1789, which people believed was done in order to overthrow the King and gain popularity amongst the people. He was accused of funding the riots, as well as calling the rioters "his friends", who were chanting: "Long live our father, long live King D'Orleans!" The High Court of Châtelet also accused him of acting as an accomplice to Honoré Gabriel Riqueti, comte de Mirabeau in an attempt to murder Louis XVI and his wife, Marie Antoinette during the Women's March on Versailles.

Marquis de Lafayette, who was a strong power in France at the time and a supposed "friend" of the Duke of Orleans, suggested him to leave to the British Isles with the promise that he could potentially become the head of state of Brabant. However, the truth is that Lafayette viewed d'Orléans as a threat to his control of the French Revolution, therefore he just wanted to get him out of the country.

At first, it was difficult to convince d'Orléans to leave France during these troubling times, but after strong pressure and enticement from Lafayette, he ended up leaving. Throughout his weeks in exile, he wrote several memoirs talking about his strong desire to return to France. When he did return, he never regained the same power and influence he enjoyed in the years before he left. Those who did not support him, as well as people overseas, labeled him as a coward for fleeing to England as a result of his accusations, calling it a period of "exile." However, he was able to keep his position in the National Assembly until it disbanded on September 30, 1791.

Citoyen Égalité
Due to the liberal ideology that separated Philippe d'Orleans from the rest of his royal family, he always felt uncomfortable with his name. He felt that the political connotations associated with his name did not match his democratic and Enlightenment philosophies, thus he requested that the Commune of Paris allow his name to be changed, which was granted. On or around September 11, 1791, he changed his surname to Égalité, which means "equality" in French. As one of the three words in the slogan of the French Revolution ("liberté, égalité, fraternité"), he felt that this name better represented him as a symbol of the French people and what they were fighting for.

Égalité also attributed his new surname to the reputation of generosity that he had among the people of France, especially the poor. He was well known for distributing food and money to the poor, as well as providing shelter for he crowds during the winter of 1788-1789.

Relationship with King Louis XVI
Although a relative of King Louis XVI, Philippe d'Orleans never maintained a positive relationship with his cousin. After inheriting the title of Duke of Orléans, Philippe also became the Prince du sang - the most important personage of the kingdom after the king's immediate family. Therefore, he would be next in line to the throne should the main Bourbon line die out. For this reason, many supposed that Philippe's goal was to take his cousin's throne. Philippe and the King's wife, Marie Antoinette, also detested each other. Marie Antoinette hated him for what she viewed as treachery, hypocrisy and selfishness, and he, in turn, scorned her for her frivolous and spendthrift lifestyle. The King's reluctance to grant Philippe a position in the army after his loss at the Battle of Ushant is said to be another reason for Philippe's discontent with the King.

One of the most astounding events occurred when Philippe took a vote in favor of King Louis XVI's execution. He had agreed among close friends that he would vote against his execution, but surrounded by the Jacobin faction in the National Convention, he turned on his word, to the surprise of many. A majority (75 votes) was necessary to indict the King, and an overwhelming amount of 394 votes were collected in favor of his death. The King was especially shocked by the news, stating:

"It really pains me to see that Monsieur Orleans, my kinsman, voted for my death."

Death
On April 1, 1793, a decree was voted for within the Convention, including Égalité's vote, that condemned anyone with "strong presumptions of complicity with the enemies of Liberty." At the time, Égalité's son, Louis Philippe, who was a general in the French army, joined General Dumouriez in a plot to visit the Austrians, who were an enemy of France. Although there was no evidence that convicted Égalité himself of treason, the simple relationship that his son had with General Dumouriez, who was already had a negative image in the eyes of the Convention, was enough to get him arrested on April 7, 1793. He spent several months in a jail in Marseille until he was sent back to Paris and sentenced to death.

Philippe Égalité was executed by guillotine on November 6, 1793.

Popular Culture
Philippe d'Orleans has been portrayed in several films, such as the 1938 film Marie Antoinette, in which he was portrayed by Joseph Schildkraut, and the 2001 film The Lady and the Duke, in which he was portrayed by Jean-Claude Dreyfus.