User:Writing bookworm/sandbox

Wikipedia Article
The Wikipedia article on Mary Tudor is extremely extensive. The article covers her life from birth to death and delves into detail concerning things that shaped her decisions later in life. The Wikipedia article explains that Mary was a child of Henry VIII and his first wife, Catherine of Aragon; she was the only child of the pair to survive infancy. She was highly favoured by her father and studied a wealth of languages, including a fluency in Latin by the age of nine. Later in the same year, Mary was sent to Wales to preside over the Council of Wales and the Marches, where she remained for three years, until 1528. When Mary was 15 she was stripped of her title of Princess when her father married Anne Boleyn. Her title and right as heiress to the throne was ceded to her newborn half-sister Elizabeth, whom she would remain in contest with for the rest of her life.

The article continues, talking about Mary's life once exiled from her father's favour and her life outside of court as well as her refusal to accept the legitimacy of Elizabeth and Henry's rule over the newly founded Church of England. At first, Mary refused, until she was forced to agree to Henry's demands. Doing so returned her to her father's favour and she was once again allowed to return to court and given back a privy purse and multiple places of residence to her name. When her father married his sixth and final wife, tensions between the immediate royal family began to decrease and with the aid of her new step-mother, Catherine Parr, Mary was returned to the Line of Succession in the family, but placed after her half-brother Edward. This order was maintained when Henry died three years later and Edward was crowned.

It is during this time that tension between Henry's children started to mount. Mary started to notice persecution for her continuing practice of Roman Catholicism in a now Protestant country. During Edward's rule she removed herself from court and spent time within her own estates. The article discusses an event in 1550 at Christmas during which time Edward, then thirteen, ridiculed his oldest half-sister for her continuing worship of Catholicism and reprimanded her for ignoring his rules and chastised her for her continuing disregard of him and his rule. The event ended with the two of them in tears. It is likely this fight that made Edward weary of ceding the throne to his sister, and when he fell ill two years later, he was advised to write both Mary and Elizabeth from his will shortly before his death. Lady Jane Grey, daughter of Edward's adviser was named Queen and Mary and her supporters mounted an opposing force. Nine days after her ascension to the throne, Jane Grey was deposed and Mary became Queen of England.

From this point on, the article discusses the attempts to return England to Catholicism under Mary's rule, as well as her vehement persecution of Protestants and her extreme aggression towards her younger half-sister. The article also discusses Mary's hysterical pregnancies in detail, her foreign policies while Queen, her marriage to Philip of Spain, as well as trade and commerce during her rule. The article finishes with discussing, briefly, Mary's cause and date of death (17 November, 1558), before continuing with the legacy her rule left, and her infamy as Bloody Mary.

Britannica Article
The article within the Encyclopedia Britannica is much more concise than that of Wikipedia. This article only has two major sections detailing Mary's life; that of her early and adolescent life, and a secondary section on her reign as Queen. The article covers much of the same information as the Wikipedia article. However, the Britannica article covers many of the fruitless attempts to marry the young Princess and later Lady off into various politically affiliated or wanted families, such as the Holy Roman Emperor, and her cousin, Charles I of Spain – who was 22 at the time to Mary's approximate age of 12. The article states, though, that this attempt at marriage dissolved, and that is why Mary was sent to Wales by her father.

The Britannica article also discusses Henry's public reasons for breaking his marriage from Mary's mother, aside from pure greed and want of a male heir. Henry claimed that Catherine was married to his deceased brother, making their marriage one of taboo and incestuous. This claim made Mary a bastard child, and it was through Anne's powerful manipulation that Mary was stripped of her title. Through Anne's workings Mary was forced from court, forbidden from seeing her parents, and was made a Lady-in-Waiting to her newborn half-sister. Furthermore, Mary was never allowed to see her mother again, a rule that remained in place until Catherine's death. Mary's title and brand of bastard would remain even when she regained favour of her father. The brand, unfortunately, would restrict her movements, according to the article, until she became Queen.

The article details the hatred of Mary, lead by angry Protestant noblemen who had gained much wealth and power through the implementation of Henry's Church of England and had much to lose with the return to Catholicism. The marriage between Mary and Philip caused an uproar with the people of Protestant Church and led to the Wyatt Rebellion, which Mary managed to defeat the rebellion through use of her skills as a magnificent public speaker and amassed her own fighters. With the defeat, Mary sought to secure more power and stability in her rule and fought to return to Catholic dogma and struck out against those who opposed her, killing about three hundred people in her five years of rule.

Contrast and Comparison
One of the first things I noticed about the two articles, was simply length. After printing out both the Wikipedia and the Britannica articles to read as hard copies, the difference in length was abundantly clear. The Britannica article was only two pages in length while the Wikipedia article had around sixteen pages worth of information. The Wikipedia article gives a wealth of information on Mary's life, down to some topics a layperson simply looking for basics would no doubt find to be irrelevant. The Britannica article is much more concise. The knowledge inside of the article is much more basic, covering only who Mary was, to whom she was married, why she lost her title, when she was made Queen, the persecutions she committed while reigning, and the date of her death. There are only two subheadings given: “early life” and “Mary as queen”.

The Wikipedia article, contrarily, has many different subjects that it covers. The article begins with talking about her birth and early life, it then talks about her education and the plans by her father to marry her off at an early age, then it moves on to discuss her adolescent years, adult hood and ascension. Within the area of her rule, the Wikipedia article gives five subheadings on her marriage of Philip of Spain, her 'pregnancies', her religious policies, her foreign politics, and the commerce and revenue that occurred during her Queendom. The article then discusses her death and her legacy as well as giving information on her titles and her coat of arms before providing further reading.

I also noticed that the Wikipedia article has a large array of hyperlinks to different, related Wikipedia page while the Britannica page does link to some related pages, there is not as many links. However, this difference could simply be due to the fact the two websites simply formatted differently and Wikipedia seems to have pages for anything considering their medium of relating and sharing information. Also, another difference I noted between the two of the articles was the related art. The Britannica article did have some in a sidebar rollover selection. There were three to four images that if you clicked on them they would open; however, with the Wikipedia has nine to ten related images with information on the artist, the date of the painting and any related symbolism within the image.

There are several things both articles have in common. I noticed that there were no discrepancies with dates in either one of the articles. All the important dates in Mary's life; her birth, death, marriage, and ascension were all the same. Additionally, there were no controversies or alternative theories concerning Mary's life or rule, yet the Britannica article did mention Anne Boleyn as a major factor in separating Mary from her father after Henry's second marriage. As well, the Britannica article takes the time to mention that Mary and her mother never saw each other in person after Mary was deposed from court after Henry married Anne.

While the Wikipedia article is significantly longer and provides more in-depth information, it could be seen as rather bulky for the average user who is simply looking for a quick rundown of who Mary was and what she did. The Britannica article is much more in this form. The Britannica article does not trouble itself with the trivialities of Mary, her life and her rule, it is very cut and dry with its viewpoint and its purpose.

Lastly, I find it important to state that neither article had a slant or bias. They both come across as very impartial views and extremely objective. Both mediums simply convey the knowledge they contain and let the outside reader decide for themselves the legitimacy of their knowledge and if there is any opposing standpoint they wish to take.

Article References, Further Readings, and Contributors
Beginning with the Britannica article, there is only one major contributor to the page, and his name is Eric N. Simmons. According to Mr. Simmons's profile page within the Encyclopedia Britannica's website, Eric Simmons is the author of “The Queen and the Rebel: Mary Tudor and Wyatt the Younger.” A quick Google search of the book title brought me to the “World Cat” website where extremely basic information on the book, such as it had been published in 1964, was provided. After that, I attempted to find out any information about Mr. Simmons himself, but it was to no avail. The last time the Britannica page was revised for content and correctness, not simply to add media material, was February 9, 2007. Therefore, I can state that this can be seen as one of the main reasons as to why the article itself is not as comprehensive as the Wikipedia article. Furthermore, in the 'further reading' section of the Britannica article, the most recent information, a book by the title of The Reign of Mary Tudor: Politics, Government, and Religions in England 1553–38 by D.M. Loades was published in 1979. While the article totes the book as being scholarly and through, it is by all intents and purposes, and in my opinion, rather dated.

The Wikipedia article, on the other hand, has a wide list of contributors. While most of these contributors go by personal, non-academic user names, they cite and reference a wider variety of sources than Britannica's single author source. Interestingly enough, even as I write this paper, the Wikipedia article is being edited and reviewed for currency of information and the most recent edit is November 6, 2012 with contributions to the section on Mary's adolescence. The footnotes of contributions added to the page is currently at 169, with from a cursory glance at least seven different authors being cited. This information is supported by the “references” section on the article's page, with ten difference sources listed, the most recent of which being Fires of Faith: Catholic England Under Mary Tudor by Eamon Duffy and  Mary Tudor: England's First Queen by Anna Whitelock, both of which were published in 2009.

When it comes to the legitimacy of the authors for either page, it is hard to say how relevant they are to their respective fields considering with Wikipedia all of the contributors are hidden by user names and with well over fifty different contributing persons, reading their profile pages, if any information is provided, is a lengthy, possibly misleading process. As for the Britannica page, I already attempted to judge Simmons's legitimacy through a Google search and it seemed to be in vain as I was only led to his World Cat page, which provided little to no relevant information about who he is or his area(s) of expertise. However, when it comes to the references listed both the Wikipedia article and the Britannica article are very through and relevant in their listings. Both websites list their books and articles in their further reading section and reference section in proper bibliographic format, and in the case of Wikipedia, include ISBN numbers for any and all books.

Article Analysis
As I mentioned before, there is a significant difference in length between the two articles. The Wikipedia article examines much of the surrounding factors to Mary's life and choices as opposed to the Britannica article which simply sticks to the facts. Having a Bachelor of Arts in History, I tend to prefer the Wikipedia article over the Britannica, simply because it gives reasons behind the choices. It discusses Mary's life in terms of choices and treats her as a once living person instead of just being a font of information.

Not only are the ways in which the two websites approach the information different, but the way they maintain their websites also differs. Though Britannica is arguably the more prestigious of the two organizations, its maintainable of the academic portion of its online encyclopedia is almost tragic. The article was created in 2006 and its most recent revision is in 2007, almost six years without a revision makes it seem as though Britannica has little care for its online users. However, as most people who work within Britannica's online community must be approved and have rather scholarly standings, it could simply be that Britannica cares only for the basic facts and only updates with relevant information that deals with only those facts. As Wikipedia is open source and allows anyone and everyone access to its pages the article on Mary was updated frequently, sometimes even several times in a day by multiple users. I am personally unsure if it is fair to critique the websites for how they control their content beyond its legitimacy, but it is obvious that both websites conduct themselves in entirely different manners.

Both articles are good in their own way as I previously mentioned. If you are a student of history or have a fascination with the complexities of monarchy, the Wikipedia page has much more to offer in that facet of Mary's rule, if you are simply looking for quick reference as to who Mary Tudor is and what she did during her rule, than the Britannica article is a much better choice as you do not need to dig through a cacophony of subjects unrelated to your search. Both articles provide much of the same, or necessary information in their own ways, the question is, what is the information you are looking for or need to reference?

Concerning the Wikipedia article, all of the information seemed to be correct with simply cross referencing of my outside sources. The article was not a 'stub' and had no headings asking for further information to be added. All information was properly cited and all links outside of Wikipedia lead to the proper pages. The information discussed within the Wikipedia page was more current and more theoretical than the basic, hard knowledge of the Britannica article, but I nevertheless found it enjoyable, informative, and found it to raise a few questions and curiosities within myself that had me looking at its sources and clicking around the internet to find out more.

Additional Resources
Castor, Helen. "Exception to the Rule." History Today 60.10 (2010): 37-43. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 Nov. 2012.

Edwards, John. "A Spanish Inquisition? The Repression Of Protestantism Under Mary Tudor." eformation & Renaissance Review: Journal Of The Society For Reformation Studies Dec.4 (2000): 62-74. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 Nov. 2012.

Goodrich, Jamie. "Mary Tudor, Lord Morley, and St. Thomas Aquinas: The Politics of Pious Translation at the Henrician Court. ." ANQ 24.1/2 (2011): 11-20. Print.

Ives, E.W.. "Tudor Dynastic Problems Revisited." Historical Research May.218 (2008): 255-279. Academic Search Complete. Web. 2 Nov. 2012.

"Mary I." History of the Monarchy. The Royal Household, n.d. Web. 1 Nov. 2012. .

Monter, William. "Gendered Sovereignty: Numismatics and Female Monarchs in Europe 1300-1800." Journal of Interdisciplinary History 41.4 (2011): 533-564. Academic Search Complete. Web. 2 Nov. 2012.

NPG., Lucas Horenbout.. "Mary I, Queen of England (1516-1558) [Mary Tudor; Bloody Mary]." Luminarium: Anthology of English Literature. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Nov. 2012. .

Richards, Judith M.. ""To Promote a Woman to Beare Rule": Talking of Queens in Mid-Tudor England." The Sixteenth Century Journal: The Journal of Early Modern Studies 28.1 (1997): 101-121. Academic Search Complete. Web. 2 Nov. 2012.

Streckfuss, Corinna. "England's Reconciliation With Rome: A News Event In Early Modern Europe.." Historical Research 82.215 (2009): 62-73. Academic Search Complete. Web. 1 Nov. 2012.

Woodall, Joanna. "An Exemplary Consort: Antonis Mor's Portrait Of Mary Tudor.." Art History 14.2 (1991): 192-224. Academic Search Complete. Web. 1 Nov. 2012.

Topic Choice and Introduction
The topics I chose for this section of the assignment were based on personal interest and fascination. In university I focused on a B.A. in History, and decided that since my passion is history, and historical culture, I would use that as a stepping stone for my search. During my earlier studies I focused mainly on the Tudor-Stuart period in England and not on many other topics aside from some Victorian focus. Admittedly, I don't know much about Canadian history aside from what I learned in high school, so I decided to take a broad approach to what I remembered aside from where my passion lies, which is why I included the topics of the Plains of Abraham and Louis Riel.

Finding the sources was easy enough, all of them had extensive pages on Wikipedia, but some of the more academic, or well known encyclopedias did not have as much extensive information. The two topics that I managed to find the most information outside of Wikipedia were on Mary Tudor (Mary I of England), and Louis Riel. Shockingly, the Canadian Encyclopedia did not have much information on the Plains of Abraham, aside from basic information about the Battle. I thought the Canadian Encyclopedia, being a Canadian source would have more information on Canada and Canadian topics, but I was mistaken, or chose less popular topics.

The differences between the two mediums was very apparent in my initial searches. Due to Wikipedia's large range of users there seems to be a variety of information available on the website. People with specializations in various fields can publish on there, and the information is definitely more current and modern. The more traditional encyclopedias suffered from the exact opposite problem. The information found there was very basic, stepping-stone information, with simple dates and facts, no room for exploration, controversy or discussion. The fact the pages on Britannica Online, or the Canadian Encyclopedia cannot be readily edited by anyone means that the information may also be a bit dated, or not as current as it is on Wikipedia.

However, one of the things I enjoyed about the Canadian Encyclopedia when it came to the topic of Louis Riel was that it had extensive information. There were links ti images, corresponding articles, links to other academic and scholarly sources, as well as embedded videos and images about his life. I found all those resources helpful and engaging; they were definitely using their website and the fact they had access to more mediums to the best of their abilities. I think that the contrast between Wikipedia and the website for Canadian Encyclopedia will be useful in writing up and researching further for the second phase of this assignment.