Talk:Romain Rolland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Untitled[edit]

Romain-Rolland said, “Life doesn’t lack beauty but discovery.”

French Wikipedia[edit]

  • Article: fr:Romain Rolland
  • Corresponding English-language article: Romain Rolland
  • Worth doing because: Material to incorporate into English-language article
  • Originally Requested by: Bogdangiusca 19:29, 7 Feb 2004
  • Status: Removed from original list by 68.192.186.195 but material does not seem to be incorporated. Certainly there is an image that could be used so I've re-added it. --HappyDog Complete (although we could still deal further with titles of works). -- Jmabel 07:04, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Other notes: Moved from Wikipedia:Requested article translations. -- ? It would be nice if someone could go through the Bibliography and indicate the English-language titles (and dates of English-language publication) of any works that have been translated into English. -- Jmabel 06:58, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Quotations[edit]

I'd like to see some mention on this page of Rolland's stance on animal rights and vegetarianism.


I've added citations on the two recently anonymously added quotations, but I'm not sure that two quotations, both on Hinduism, really belong here. I would not be averse to them being moved to Wikiquote and just referenced here. -- Jmabel 02:23, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 08:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

October 1943[edit]

In October 1943 it was widely reported that he had died. This proved to be without foundation, but the date crept into some reference books nonetheless. Anyone know what led to the media reporting a death that had not, at that stage, happened? -- JackofOz (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Some minor edits[edit]

I've just restored a couple of deletions in previous edits, so thought I'd explain why. I've wikified his professions in the lead, since reader may not know what a pacifist, etc. are. Alphabetized the categories. I did change the References back to Notes, as I thought there were more than just citations, but I see now I look closely that I was wrong about that, so reverting back to References. Quotes should be Quotations, to be grammatically correct. In terms of content, I've restored the opening sentence in the theatre section, as it contained an evaluation of his significance in the field, which is important. I wonder if the previous edit was to abolish the slightly awkward repetition of "theatre", though? If that's so, a rewrite ought to make it clear that it's for his theoretical writings that he's remembered in the field, rather than his dramas. I'd like to collect some more source material on these dramas, though, as I'm sure there's more to say about them and the information isn't readily available in the general textbooks for the field. Might take a while to get round to that. DionysosProteus (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the reasons for my edits is that the material is unsourced. You can't say he was best known for something unless you have a source, ditto for claims about his most important contribution to theater.--Gilabrand (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Err.... confused. Why do you think it's not sourced? The entire section has inline citations and the sources are listed at the end. Did you not notice the note? In fact, looking more closely at the article now, what on earth are you on about? The theatre section is the only one in the article that's fully sourced - see notes 3-9. DionysosProteus (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Mystic ?[edit]

The introduction paragraph states RR was (among other things) a mystic. I am not sure the word is appropriate here. RR was interested in Vedic thought and he studied spirituality undeniably but is it enough to make him a mystic ? The oceanic thought is a concept not a mystical practice. I would like to erase the word or at least qualify it. What do you think ? --Pierre et Condat (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)