Talk:Ranavalona I

Fictional description?
I'm unsure that a fictional description belongs in the main body of the article. Rhinoracer 10:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Placed in /Fiction section. Ekem 02:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

In this article, it states that Ida Pfeiffer died, "presumably of malaria"

However, the article on Pfeiffer herself says that she died, "probably of cancer"

Quite possibly she was as bad as some accounts have made her out to be, but I feel a little cautious about depending heavily on an account with a title like "female Caligula" and the "mad Queen of Madagascar". PatGallacher (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You can always read the sources; the novel 'Flashman's Lady', mentioned at the end of the article has a long list of contemporary accounts of her reign. Incidentally, the author does not think she was mad.

About the picture of the queen in the article, Fraser's description makes her sounds darker. Since he did such a lot of reading in primary sources, is it possible the picture is not an accurate likeness, but done second-hand from descriptions, and lightened up a bit by the artist? She is unlikely to have sat for it, personally, what with all the xenophobic massacres and so on. 76.2.154.213 (talk) 05:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I recall reading that she did sit for portraits during this time and even requested European artists to come to Tana to do the work despite her distrust of foreign motives - there was day-to-day normality in the capital then as under many authoritarian regimes today. The accounts of this queen by people researching primary sources are likely to be biased and Fraser's description is proof: Ranavalona was Merina, meaning in genetic terms that she had primarily Austronesian genetics and so would have been much fairer than the majority of her subjects who were non-Merina and therefore had some African genes in their background. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hold on, I have to retract that. It seems she may have been from Menabe, the western part of the island, in which case she did have more African genetic background. That could explain the description - darker than the average Merina, but most likely the same as the average Malagasy (that is to say, still much fairer than the peoples of Sub-Saharan Africa). But in the end, it's pretty irrelevant - especially without the information about where she's from, which could have at least provided some insight into where she grew up etc. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed that description. It was so biased, it felt like it threw off the neutrality of the article. -- Lemurbaby 14:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Truth is always relevant - 'what did she look like' is a fair question. It is a problem in historical research what with galleries full of flattering court portraits. You did not always get someone like Cromwell asking for 'warts and all'.

Was the description biased? Or all too accurate? However it may be that a fictional distillation is not quite encyclopedic, as an earlier comment said. I will put in a reference to the Fraser work, and anyone interested can go look it up. 184.6.129.149 (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

A lot of the stuff here is cited from a Christian devotional. I'm skeptical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.143.177 (talk) 09:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is she default-sorted under I instead of under Ranavalona?
It looks pretty weird in the category page this way. All the other Ranavalonas are sorted under their first name as would be natural. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.104.52 (talk) 05:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. It's now sorted as Ranavalona 01 -- Lemurbaby (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

POV?
"Ranavalona's objections to Christianity were generally based on her antagonism to the Christians' behavior. They prayed frequently, but refused to pray to her idols. They shunned fornication. They assembled repeatedly for worship.": Although anyone might condemn her behavior, why not represent her *motives* a little more faithfully (or at least with some contextual explanation)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.82.61 (talk) 07:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Th thing is that Christianity is seen as a great good in the world when it brought the cruel idea of hell, religious corruption and extreme intolerance to all the nations missionaries carried it too. Her hatred of Christians was due to the factors I listed, probably. Yes, she was a tyrant and a horrid woman, but this is not the place to defend a religion that sets about to replace indigenous beliefs. 86.131.247.34 (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

And Wikipedia is not a place to go on some rant about your personal obsessions - I hope none of this unsourced nonsense is allowed to creep into the article.184.6.129.149 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC).

Ridiculous euphemisms
"The death of nearly half the population (largely by torture) during her reign is seen as a unique cultural quirk."

A cultural quirk?! Would anyone put such a description in a Holocaust article, I wonder? 94.193.35.68 (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Major edits justified
I made substantial edits to this piece that were afterward reverted by another user; I have since reverted those reverted edits (!) and finished inserting the citations that provide the sources for the additions I made. These edits are intended to fix the issues of bias and inaccuracy in the earlier version of the article due to the largely missionary-based source material and the Laidler book (which is widely condemned as sensationalistic and itself draws primarily on older, outdated and biased European source material). I also added significant new factual information that paints a more accurate and complete portrait of the queen while providing better historical and cultural context for her actions. The contributions of earlier users were retained when substantiated by reliable sources to the extent that they contributed to a balanced and factual presentation of this historic personage. Please do not undo these major and substantiated edits without giving due consideration to the content and reasons for the changes. Thank you. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining your edits and adding references. In future please try to include explanations in edit summaries and use references, especially when you make major changes to articles that remove sources and significantly alter the presentation of the subject. We don't all have telepathic powers. :) Tameamseo (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I will try to be more systematic about that in the future. :) Lemurbaby (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

These revisions help enormously in that they clarify the nature and motivation of the Ranavalona's rule. However, I think information along the lines of the scale of the executions she committed, rough estimates of how many of her people were displaced or killed, etc. would help the reader to understand the consequences of her actions more clearly. Was she looking to set an example of some Christian leaders by execution in order to maintain stability and promote an adherence to traditional Merina culture, or did she originate a religious genocide? I think that this is a question that needs answering in this article. ScSabella (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, ScSabella. I'll compare several credible sources and flesh that part out in the next couple of weeks. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope it's clear now that the persecution of Christians resulted in very few deaths (there were very few Christians in Madagascar at the time, after all - about 5,000 by most estimates), relative to the deaths caused in warfare etc -- Lemurbaby 14:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. The edits are helpful and clarify the issue considerably (sorry about my emphasis on the religious nature of the deaths, I had only read earlier information on her). It's a fantastic article, excellent work. ScSabella (talk) 07:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Editing introduction
I am going to remove the following from the introduction:"Recent research, however, has recast Ranovalona's actions as those of a queen attempting to expand her realm while protecting Malagasy sovereignty against the encroachment of European cultural and political influence, a concern that ultimately proved only too valid upon French colonization of Madagascar in 1896." I am aware that there has been controversy over whether or not this woman truly was the monster she seems to have been, and I do not intend by this edit to engage in that controversy. However, the assertions I am removing are not developed within the body of the article, nor are they supported by any reliable sources cited anywhere in the article. The introduction should summarize the article, and these statements do not. If someone has reliable sources to support the claims, please cite those sources and develop your position more thoroughly within the body of the article instead of presenting them without support and only in the introduction. Thanks.--Jim10701 (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for identifying a weakness in the article, Jim. Although I thought the discussion throughout the article made it clear how historic characterization of her was biased, your comment shows me that I could do more to make that more explicit. I can't agree with your assertion, however, that the assertions in the lead are not supported by any reliable sources in the article - they are, but again the connection was evidently not explicit enough so I've now indicated which sources can be consulted to verify those assertions. But since I'm into this material so deeply sometimes I forget what other people don't already know or what isn't obvious enough (I'm writing so many of the articles on WP about Madagascar so more complete information about a tangent is often found in a linked article, and then I don't recognize when I've left out something in the first one that is critical to developing the article's ideas fully) - so it would be helpful for me if you could describe a bit more what seems to be missing or not making sense in terms of seeing the links between the lead's assertions and the content of the article. I tried to demonstrate how Ranavalona repelled numerous foreign threats to her sovereignty, how foreign Christian missionaries put all the emphasis on how terrible a person she was due to how she treated the Christian converts when in reality very few were executed for this reason and far more died in warfare that had begun before she took the throne, etc.  If you could help me to see where I could make things more explicit, I would appreciate it. I'd like this article to get to FA eventually, after I can spend some more time writing about the political choices of her reign, particularly in regards to foreign policy and her patronage of technological advances in Madagascar. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Flashman's Lady
An earlier version of this article referenced Flashman's Lady and quoted an unflattering, highly biased depiction of Ranavalona. I removed it when I brought this article to GA level and worked to ensure the depiction here is historically accurate and as objective as possible (constructive edits and comments welcome). I'm a bit reluctant to reincorporate information about this book as the "research" it is based on is hardly academic. If any mention of the book is to be included here, it will need to meet GA standards, including proper citation of sources. How do others feel about mentioning this fictional account here? Lemurbaby (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The inclusion of fictional accounts should be based on their notability, not any judgement about their impartiality. PatGallacher (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What are the criteria to determine whether this is notable? Lemurbaby (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the inclusion in this published work (which in itself is notable) makes it merit inclusion. However, please do not soil a perfectly good good article with uncited material.  If you are going to include material on Wikipedia, please do your homework.  If you need help formatting your citation, just ask on the talk page.  For the material in question, you may cite the original work, but you will also need to find a modern critique of the work in order to note its bias.  Also, the text stating that the work draws "a memorable picture" is not the right tone for an encyclopedic article.  This is an encyclopedia, not a book review. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 19:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been putting this section back only for it to keep vanishing. So to clarify where I'm coming from on this. GM Fraser, author of the Flashman series, wasn't some casual romantic novelist - he did serious research into the worlds in which his fictional character found himself, and he backed up his depiction of these worlds with comprehensive explanatory end-notes supported by cited sources. Flashman's Lady is no exception (see end-notes 33-45). This novel is relevant to the subject as it indicates how her fame has crossed into the world of literature, so I think the article is weakened by ignoring the most notable fictional book written about the subject, the product of a significant author. There need to be compelling reasons not to let this section stand. asnac (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no problem with including this information in the article, Asnac. However, as Visionholder noted directly above, there are two things missing from what you've added that justify removing this remark. First and most importantly, it's not referenced. Second, the author does clearly have a bias against this woman, and mentioning the book without providing an objective contextualization can impact on the neutrality of the article by implying that the characterization in the novel is an accurate depiction. The fact that the author researched Ranavalona I before writing the book doesn't guarantee his objectivity, especially when the sources he drew upon were biased themselves (missionaries' accounts, European accounts, and earlier scholarly literature that itself drew upon these accounts... as explained in the body of the article here), especially relative to more recent scholarly research that puts her actions into historical context. Since this article is already at GA and we don't want to do anything to lose that quality, I'm going to move that piece of information here to the talk page so we can work on it together until the material has been appropriately referenced and we agree that it provides meaningful, contextualized and unbiased information. I appreciate your desire to contribute to the article. If we make certain the quality of the contribution stays high, this material will help to strengthen the article. Lemurbaby (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

In fiction section
Per the discussion above, let's keep this here until we all agree that it's appropriately referenced and adds objective value to the article. Lemurbaby (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ranavalona and other figures from the Madagascar court feature as characters in the historical comic novel Flashman's Lady by George MacDonald Fraser; the book emphasises the more lurid reports of Ranavalona's reign.


 * And to clarify, you would want to create a reference to the book itself, and potentially one or more reviews of the book that back up the assertion about it focusing on the "lurid reports" because otherwise it's not NPOV and OR. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's leave out the 'lurid' bit, not necessary. I suggest the following will be adequate:
 * A fictionalized account of Ranavalona and her court appears in the historical novel Flashman's Lady by George MacDonald Fraser, published in 1977. The main character, an English soldier and agent, becomes Ranavalona's military adviser and lover. [Reference to: George MacDonald Fraser, Flashman's Lady (Collins:London, 1977, 193-311)]. The book contains end-notes by Fraser giving additional historical information and sources [Reference to: 325-328]. asnac (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see the reason to include the sentence beginning with "The book contains...", since the objectivity of the sources he uses has already been called into question. Can you find any reviews of the book (or the author) that highlight the liberties he takes with history at times, or that underscore the humorous rather than authentic nature of the stories he tells? I do understand he does research for ideas, but he's certainly no historian. Lemurbaby (talk) 12:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Lemurbaby, I rewrote this section to address your stated concerns. The paragraph does not suggest that the novel is historical, it says it's fiction. Nor does the paragraph say it's humorous. Should anyone be sufficiently interested they can get this information from the wikilink - bear in mind that this article is about the character and not the book; this para is just to show that the subject of the article has found her way into modern literature, so let's not confuse the issue. I have tried to make this para as simple and moderate and neutral and inoffensive as can be, but since you aren't happy with the final sentence I can change that to The book contains end-notes by Fraser giving additional historical information based on the limited sources available to him. Please let me know if that is satisfactory or if you see any other hurdles to overcome before this can be published. asnac (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Then let's remove the word "historical" from the first sentence. I propose removing the sentence referring to the sources, unless you can help me understand a reason to include it. Its inclusion now almost sounds like a suggestion to the reader to refer to the sources in the Flashman book to learn more about the real Ranavalona I, when doing so would further contribute to the biased picture of this queen (in addition to the characterization in the book itself). I think part of my issue is it would look strange to me to create a new section at the end of the article that will consist of only one or two sentences about the book, when every other section of the article is so developed. Otherwise it just looks like trivia. I feel like there should be more said, and that's part of the reason I'm suggesting you look at reviews or something else in order to somehow provide a tie in from the fictional account to the historical person the article is about, by remarking on its accuracy (or inaccuracy) or something else. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Lemurbaby, the phrase 'historical' novel means only that a novel has a particular period of history for its back-drop. It doesn't mean there's any claim to be history, so there's no reason not to use the expression in this context. On the other matter you are concerned about, I agree that the section is short and increasingly has the air of trivia but ironically its brevity is in part due to the strictures you have laid down, which have caused the section to be ever shorter! I'm keeping to your strictures (against my instinct to provide users with full information) simply because I don't want to get into a revert war. The 'tie' from the fictional account to the real person is - and this is the third time I've said this - to demonstrate the significance of the subject in that she has found her way into modern literature. I don't need to dig up 1977 newspaper reviews to demonstrate that. Any remaining objections?asnac (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Op Ed tag
Philip72 flagged the Christianity section as having an "op-ed" style. Please sahre any comments to clarify issues with the section or provide recommended changes here. If no concrete issues are identified I will remove the tag. Lemurbaby (talk) 08:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Tag removed. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

featured articles are great, but
I'd like to see something contemporary and controversial be improved to featured article status, like LAPD, currently diluted with infotainment.199.33.32.40 (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Ranavalona's Prime Ministers
I'm trying to understand the sequence and dates of the early Prime Ministers under Ranavalona I and have begun a conversation about it at Talk:Prime_Minister_of_Madagascar. That page has a low number of watchers and I would be glad if contributors to this article might be able to weigh in. - Astrophobe  (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Advanced maternal age
Is it really the case that no biographer comments on the fact that she had her only child at the age of 51? Pregnancy over age 50 is rather infrequent without medical assistance. Surtsicna (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Is gwyn campbell a reputable source for this article?
I've been reading something by david graeber, who discussed malagasy history and this queen in some detail in the book 'On Kings', and he says this of Gwyn Campbell :

" Campbells work cites only European sources, almost entirely uncriticially,while systematically ignoring almost all sources written in the Malagasy language ..... in his 'economic history of imperial madagascar', he provides a chapter with what he claims is a comprehensive list of sources on nineteenth century merina demography containing no sources that have not been translated, and shows no awareness that Ranavalona's governemnt carried out a census in the 1840s, and that the census documents still exist, easily accessible, within the Malagasy national archives"

Keep in mind that graeber worked for years in madagascar and wrote an ethnography, has cited data from the malagasy national archives and could read malagasy, so is probably not speaking out his ass, in my opinion.

Sorry if this isnt the right tone for wikipedia, this is the first time I've done anything on here in a while, but i figured it was important so thats why i opened this topic. 86.8.166.19 (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Where are the citations??
There are a lot of unsupported claims made in this article. Why? wilful (talk) 03:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, what claims are you talking about? Can you give examples? - Astrophobe  (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)