|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I believe the following assertion belies a non-neutral point of view: "Two feminist historians, Elizabeth Mason-Hohl and Kate Campbell Hurd-Mead, wrote about Trotula in the 1930s/40s. Both women made false and unsupported elaborations about Trotula’s life, leading to misconceptions that last to this day." To call Mason-Hohl and Hurd-Mead's claims "false and elaborate" is groundless, especially given that Hurd-Mead's text is still today one of the most reliable sources for the study of the History of Science. Moreover, primary source evidence exists to prove that women graduated from the School of Salerno. I will add this information to the article presently, but I do hope that the above quote can be removed. Alexandrathom (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
HIST495 Edits Spring 2013
Introduction: we refocused the information and brought up the issues of the authorship of the Trotula texts because it is a source of disagreement. Included a broad description of the topics covered in her works as we went into further detail later. We also introduced the various theories of her existence.
Life: expanded on information about her life including dates, relations, and information on the school of salerno
Theories: discussed various theories about her existence and gender in order to create a more thorough article
Her works: gave detailed description of various works attributed to her, specifically from The Trotula. Introduced the various sources of her works. Went into greater detail of the topics covered in the books. strengthened the difference between the books to differentiate them.
Legacy: investigated the spread of her works including the multiple languages and geographical circulation of the works. Also examined the possible reasoning behind its popularity as we felt that this showed the lasting impact of Trotula and works.
The tone of this article is wrong. WP is an encyclopedia, and articles should be written in the formal abstract style of an encyclopedia, not the discursive one of an essay. All opinion given should be sourced to reliable sources, and the material presented in an organized fashion. For example, you cannot say "These works are considered the most circulated medical pieces on gynecology and women’s problems." unless you have an exact quote for it. Otherwise, just give the facts of on which such a conclusion might be based. Don't use vague adjectives like :"many" manuscripts. The sources probably give some numbers.
An attempt should be made to find not just books but periodical articles--particularly articles available online. It's not required, but the material is likely to be available, and it would make the article much more useful to the readers.
We need an article on this subject, but as it stands, it would have to be almost completely rewritten. I suggest the fist step would be to break the material up into smaller paragraphs, and figure out some logical order for them. DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Remove edit template
After extensive edits yesterday by Historian1098, I believe the edit template should be removed. If any has any objections, please list them here. Thanks! Alexandrathom (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)