Talk:Madame Roland

Political Spectrum
What was madame roland's place on the political spectrum? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.217.57.20 (talk • contribs) 28 Oct 2005.


 * She was a Girondist. The balls were definitely considered to be on the left when they first emerged, though in the course of the next few years there came to be a more radical left. In particular, the people who consolidated around Robespierre and became known as The Mountain, had slightly different politics than the Gironde in 1791 but the differences would not be easy to describe in left/right terms. The Mountain, were largely responsible for the Reign of Terror, which is generally considered a move to the hard left. It was certainly a move away from liberalism. Also, during the same period, among the sans coulottes the first real popular mass-based politics emerged, generally counted as being to the left even of the Mountain. (Of this last group, Jacques Hébert was about as far left as you could go. Like Mme. Roland, he was also executed for political reasons, considered by Robespierre to be an enemy on his left as the Girondists were considered enemies on their right.


 * So, in short, initially she would have been perceived as very far left, but politics farther to the left emerged over the few remaining years of her lifetime. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The page "Feminism in France" mentions Manon Roland, but the link does not follow through to this page. That link should be redirected here. EvaBW (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As her mind matured?
I changed this statement to be more NPOV. The sentence is correlating that by not entering a convent, it was a marked sign of intellectual maturity which definently contains an inherent bias. I approached it also to maybe indicate that the decision at first to enter the convent was one made of fancy and not true mature commitment but I cannot find any sources that could counter this or give more depth to the timeline of her studies and POV's. I feel the new sentence accurately explains the reasoning for her change since her cirriculum contained the works of many French liberals and secularists that opposed the Catholic Church and its institutions (eg. clergy.) On another note, I have the word "studies" twice in there and couldn't find an accurate synonym to change it to. Anyone want to give this a shot? --Unreal128 6 June 2006, 05:33 (UTC)

Debating neutrality
I debate the neutrality of this article, and its use of quite strong emotive language in places. It feels like most of the article was taken from an opinionated author with a positive bias towards Madame Roland. In some ways I think a complete overhaul (though keeping the actual facts of course) is in order, and in particular I think more citations are needed. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.126.94 (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Madame Roland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110712133055/http://www.usask.ca/history/cjh/e/iss/toc/0108.shtml to https://www.usask.ca/history/cjh/e/iss/toc/0108.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Major overhaul
I have replaced the text, which did not incorporate the most recent sources, with a translation of the article on Dutch language Wikipedia, which recently was awarded the designation Etalage-artikel (Featured Article). Nl maclean (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Sources for recent changes?
Hi @User:175.38.42.62. Recently, you made some changes to the intro and infobox of this article, which I reverted because - i.m.o.- they were inadequately referenced and not an improvement. You restored your text, but I still do not agree. I want to explain why and of course would love to hear your arguments.

You added to the intro that Marie-Jeanne Roland was commonly known as Dame Roland. Later, you changed your wording to say she was ‘less frequently known as Dame Roland’. You also changed the image in the infobox from (1) to (2).

You did not provide sources to back the claim that she is often referred to as Dame Roland, apart from the image you added which indeed gives that name. The sources I can find online calling M-J R  ‘Dame Roland’ all appear to relate to this particular image. It is a postcard from 1915, and can hardly be called a reliable source. No serious biographies of Madame Roland or studies of the French Revolution ever refer to her as Dame Roland. She is always Madame Roland or Manon Roland.

As to the image 2 itself, I am unclear why it should replace image 1. Image 1 is one of the few portraits of Madame Roland made during her lifetime. Image 2 (1915) is actually a derivative of (3), which was published ca. 1825 (and calls her Madame Roland). That said, I think (3) may be a derivative of (4) published in 1796, three years after she died. If you want to replace something, replace (1) by (4). But then again: why?

Nl maclean (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * This book:

deals with her under that name - Dame Roland. We know that the words "Dame" and "Madame" were often used inter-changeably in the 17th and 18th centuries in France. I appreciate your keeping of my careful re-phrasing  and  I will continue to do more research on this subject. Thanks 175.38.42.62 (talk) 06:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying, but sorry - again not a reliable source.
 * The title they have chosen is Manon-Jeanne-Philipon Roland. She is not Manon-Jeanne, she is Marie-Jeanne, or Manon. Her maiden name is not Philipon, it is Phlipon and it should not be hypenated to her first names. That is three mistakes in the title alone. This is a publisher who prints off copies of (public domain) texts. There is no editor, no scholarly review. (By the way, the memoires were published originally as Les Memoires de Madame Roland. There is a link to Gallica in the article.)
 * The fact, as you suggest, that dame and madame were often interchangeable in general is not relevant. What counts in the context of a Wikipedia article is whether this particular woman is referred to as Dame Roland, according to reliable sources. And there is no reliable source to support that claim.
 * I really appreciate your efforts to improve this article, but this is just not correct. If there is nothing better, I will revert. Nl maclean (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is another 19th century book that refers to her as "Dame":

https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Costumes_historiques_de_la_France_d_apr/hYblLtsNinUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Dame+Roland+Philpon&pg=PA123&printsec=frontcover PAGE 123 P. L. Jacob. XXXIX JEANNE PHILIPPON, dame ROLAND , femme du précé- dent. - Ellenaquit à Paris en 1756. Cette femme remarquable eut une grande influence sur la conduite politique de son mari, comme sur les actes ... PHILIPPON, dame ROLAND,

Does this help clear things up for you ? - the words Dame and Madame - as many European newspapers testify - were interchangeable in the 18th and early-mid 19th centuries. Thanks again for your interest 101.182.70.182 (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Are you User:175.38.42.62 or a new participant in this discussion? Nl maclean (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Again: the fact that the words dame and madame may have been generally interchangeable does not matter. What matters is whether there are any credible sources to back up your assumption that Madame Roland was/is, with any frequency at all, referred to as Dame Roland. And you are having a hard time finding these, for so far we have (1) an early 20th century postcard, no author mentioned, (2) the title of a print-on-demand text where Madame Roland's name is riddled with mistakes, also no author or editor mentioned, and (3) one line in a 19th century book on costumes, the authors of which are probably not experts on Madame Roland as they too get her name wrong (Marie-Jeanne or Manon, not Jeanne, Phlipon not Philippon). Why, if two of your three sources make basic mistakes concerning her name, should we assume that they are right in calling her 'dame'?
 * I really respect that you wanted to improve the text. But if we make mistakes in the introduction and info boxes of Wikipedia articles, it spreads all over the Internet in no time. I am OK with mentioning 'Dame Roland' in a foot-note to the text, though. Something like: 'some occurrences of Dame Roland, but no concrete evidence that this was common practice in her case'? Nl maclean (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Please put in the text - as a footnote - the line "There are some occurrences of her being referenced as   Dame Roland but this was not common" with the  relevant citations.

Thank you for your interest 175.38.42.62 (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)