Jump to content

Talk:Braveheart

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheLou75 (talk | contribs) at 13:45, 27 September 2012 (→Edit request on 27 September 2012: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Anderson, Lin (2006). Braveheart: From Hollywood to Hollyrood. Luath Press Limited. ISBN 978-1-84282-066-7.
  • Arendt, Elycia (2002). "From Blind Harry to Braveheart: The Evolution of the William Wallace Legend". Braveheart and Broomsticks: Essays on Movies, Myths, and Magic. Infinity Publishing. pp. 19–37. ISBN 978-0-7414-1233-1.
  • Bordo, Susan (1999). "Braveheart, Babe, and the Contemporary Body". Twilight Zones: The Hidden Life of Cultural Images from Plato to O.J. University of California Press. pp. 27–65. ISBN 978-0-520-21102-5.
  • Edensor, Tim (2002). "Representing the Nation: Scottishness and Braveheart". National Identity, Popular Culture and Everyday Life. Berg Publishers. pp. 139–170. ISBN 978-1-85973-514-5.
  • Flynn, Arthur (2006). "Braveheart". The Story of Irish Film. Currach Press. pp. 189–193. ISBN 978-1-85607-914-3.
  • Langford, Barry (2010). "1995: Braveheart, Toy Story". Post-Classical Hollywood: History, Film Style, and Ideology Since 1945. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 978-0-7486-3858-1.
  • Luhr, William (1999). "Mutilating Mel: Martyrdom and masculinity in Braveheart". In Sharrett, Christopher; Grant, Barry Keith (eds.). Mythologies of Violence in Postmodern Media. Contemporary Film and Television Series. Wayne State University Press. ISBN 978-0-8143-2742-5.
  • McArthur, Colin (1998). "Braveheart and the Scottish Aesthetic Dementia". In Barta, Tony (ed.). Screening the Past: Film and the Representation of History. Praeger. pp. 167–187. ISBN 978-0-275-95402-4.
  • McArthur, Colin (2003). Brigadoon, Braveheart and the Scots: Distortions of Scotland in Hollywood Cinema. Cinema and Society. I. B. Tauris. ISBN 978-1-86064-927-1.
  • McCarty, John (2001). "Braveheart". The Films of Mel Gibson. Citadel. ISBN 978-0-8065-2226-5.
  • Roquemore, Joseph H. (1999). "Braveheart". History Goes to the Movies: A Viewer's Guide to the Best (and Some of the Worst) Historical Films Ever Made. Main Street Books. ISBN 978-0-385-49678-0.
  • Sanello, Frank (2002). "Braveheart (1995)". Reel V. Real: How Hollywood Turns Fact into Fiction. Taylor Trade Publishing. ISBN 978-0-87833-268-7.
  • Storrar, William (1999). "From Braveheart to faint-heart: Worship and culture in postmodern Scotland". In Spinks, Bryan D.; Torrance, Iain R. (eds.). To Glorify God: Essays on Modern Reformed Liturgy. Eerdmans Pub Co. pp. 69–84. ISBN 978-0-8028-3863-6.
  • Toplin, Robert Brent (2002). Reel History: In Defense of Hollywood. Culture America. University Press of Kansas. ISBN 978-0-7006-1199-7.
  • Utz, Jesse G.; Swan, eds. (2005). "'Historians ... will say I am a liar': The ideology of false truth claims in Mel Gibson's Braveheart and Luc Besson's The Messenger". Studies in Medievalism XIII: Postmodern Medievalisms. D.S.Brewer. ISBN 978-1-84384-012-1.
  • Winchell, Mark Royden (2008). "One Hundred Politically Incorrect Films". God, Man, and Hollywood: Politically Incorrect Cinema from The Birth of a Nation to The Passion of the Christ. Intercollegiate Studies Institute. pp. 260–261. ISBN 978-1-933859-56-9.
  • Witalisz, Wladyslaw (2008). "Blind Harry's The Wallace and Mel Gibson's Braveheart: What do medieval romance and Hollywood film have in common?". In Sikorska, Liliana (ed.). Medievalisms. Studies in English Medieval Language and Literature. Peter Lang. ISBN 978-3-631-57217-7.

Vandalism?

From the second paragraph: "Braveheart was later proved by historians to be 97% false. Murron or Isabelle never existed and william wallace didn't win the battle, the English did."

Style and content make me believe this sentence is vandalism. "97% inaccuracy"? What battle? Isabelle existed, but was around six years of age at that time. Spelling. --89.204.153.97 (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. The sentences in question were added a couple of hours ago and are now gone. Thanks for catching it! Favonian (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Seven years pass between Isabelle getting pregnant and Wallace being captured?

"Eventually, she and Wallace make love, after which she becomes pregnant."

"Over the next seven years, Wallace goes into hiding and wages a protracted guerilla war against the English. In order to repay Mornay and Lochlan for their betrayals, Wallace brutally murders both men."

"Isabelle has her own revenge on the now terminally ill Longshanks by quietly confessing to him that she is pregnant with another's child and that she will end Longshank's line and rule following his death."

I think the "over the next seven years" line is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.199.4 (talk) 02:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genres in lede

Am I the only one who finds this a bit overdone: "epic historical drama war film"? I think historical drama would cover it. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 16:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing no objection in the last two months, I have made this change. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 23:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

The other day, I deleted the trivia section, which was a lot of random fact about the real Wallace, mixed in with bits of information about the production. Looking back through the article history, though, I noticed that this was the result of numerous, mostly anonymous, changes to the historical accuracy section, eventually leading to the bulk of that section being split off as a trivia section. Some of that could be restored to the accuracy section, if it were properly cited. Most of it, though, truly was trivial and not worthy of inclusion. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 15:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isabelle or Isabella?

While "Isabelle" is used most of the time, the character is twice referred to as Isabella, including the link to the page of the historical person. Consistency or an explanation would be helpful. Dalton Imperial (talk) 05:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Pagan King?

I have noticed no mention of the films totally inaccurate mention of King Edward as "a cruel pagan known as Edward the Longshanks". Is this line still in the movie, or has it been edited out? If it still remains then I am very sure it deserves a mention in the historical accuracy section. After all, Longshanks was far, far from Pagan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.172.103 (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recently watched the film on Amazon and it was there. Regardless of whether he was a Pagan or not, the Scots would have definitely called him a Pagan and it's very clear that they are telling the story from the narration at the beginning and the end. I believe this also makes some of the criticisms about historicity and other things somewhat bunk as 300 featured the same storytelling device. 98.114.205.85 (talk) 11:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a visit to dictionary.com is in order? A pagan doesn't have to mean they subscribe to pagan beliefs. One definition is "an irreligious or hedonistic person.". One could argue that fits. the other definition, however, would probably be best: "a person deemed savage or uncivilized and morally deficient". It would be easy to think that they felt a person who lured nobles into a trap with a lie and then killed them was savage or morally deficient. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Epic film?

I searched the past discussions, but this does not seem to have been discussed previously. Is this an epic film? Epic has been repeatedly added to the lede, but is there any reliable source that calls this an epic film? There is nothing in the article now that says so, but there may have been some mention in the past. The lede should not make claims that are not supported in the body of the article. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 14:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's your sources, even though this is obviously not something that needs a source if you had bothered reading the wikipedia definition of an epic film and see that this movie is the very definition of an epic film; you might as well remove the word "film" from the lead as well, and then ask "is there any reliable source that says that Braveheart is a film?".
http://www.combustiblecelluloid.com/archive/braveheart.shtml "Braveheart is a great big splendorific Hollywood epic"
http://www.flixster.com/movie/braveheart/ "Jack Kroll, Newsweek: Braveheart looks like a true epic -- even if it is both bloody and bloody long."
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117487984?refcatid=31 "Brian Lowry, Variety: A huge, bloody and sprawling epic, Braveheart is the sort of massive vanity piece that would be easy to disparage if it didn't essentially deliver."
This article has over the years been butchered and gutted by every single person with a emotional complex about the portrayal of English history in Hollywood movies as anything other than heroic, courageous, and honorable, so I wouldn't trust the "body" of the article too much.--77.42.141.158 (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interestingly, the article on epic film says "Braveheart (1995), a film adaption of William Wallace's life, is often credited as the film that revived the historical epic genre in the 1990s." To me, there isn't much dispute that this is an epic film. Just putting a cite in somwhere should solve this issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Anon., this is an encyclopedia, and everything has to be sourced, as you would know if you'd bothered to read WP policy. As for reading the epic film article, that would prove nothing, as one WP article cannot be used to source another. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 00:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why on earth would you try to lecture me like that? First, I didn't even suggest using the other article as a source. I said it was "interesting" that the other article used this one as an example of an epic film and credited this film with reviving the genre. Further, I quite clearly said "Just putting a cite in somwhere should solve this issue". Where do you see me saying the other article should be said citation? You've been around here long enough, have you ever seen me suggest that another wikipedia article was a reliable source? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Niteshift, my response was addressed to the anonymous user up above, not to you, which is why I said "Mr. Anon." I know better than to lecture you, and I know you know better than to make the absurd claims the anonymous user made. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 02:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize, but even now, reading it again, It looks like you addressed him, then addressed the notion of using the article I had just mentioned as a source. In any case, we're on the same page. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you only like to respond to one particular sentence and ignore everything else I wrote, and then make your own conclusions about how my intentions are to source a WP article with another WP article. Please stop being so obnoxious and read the rest of my comment.--94.187.75.92 (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since some of those sources are kind of questionable and the good one (Variety) uses it in a strange way, how about some unquestionably solid sources, calling ti an epic in no uncertain terms: Rolling Stone [1], Newsday [2], Chicago Sun-Times [3], Rocky Mountain News [4]. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, these are reliable sources that can be taken seriously. Now, the question is, where to put them? I find refs in the lede distracting, and I think they would work better in the body of the article. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 15:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, yes the Loch Nessheart bagpipes.--GoShow (...............) 00:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary

The plot summary should be about what happens in the movie. If this contradicts with historical fact put that in a separate section. Targaryenspeak or forever remain silent 21:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

There appears to be no consensus for the undiscussed move, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not support it either. Braveheart (I have no opinion on the quality of the movie) is moved back. Drmies (talk)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

– Mel Gibson's film has just, and without discussion, been "demoted" from its position as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I propose reverting this. Much as I hate the film, it's significantly more notable than an obscure western from the 1920s and a forthcoming album. Favonian (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Stupid" is such a drastic word; we developers prefer "non-intuitive functionality". I am an admin, so I could overcome the obstacle, but Wikipedia being Wikipedia, I would probably be hauled off to ANI on a cart if I succumbed to that temptation. Favonian (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article Clean Up

It appears that this artice is in need of clean up, however, any edits done to improve the article are being reverted and at many times without cause. For example, any edits explcitly stating that William Wallace did not have an affair with Isabella of France are often reverted along with any edits that explicitly state that Edward III was not the son of Wallace. Instead, the article has a vague passage that Isabella was 3 years old at the time leaving the reader to infer that that an affair could not have happened without clear indication that the two were never involved even later in life. There is no reason for such a run around. This [this], [this], and [this] are just a few examples of this. In fact, even adding the fact this was historically inaccurate was a point of tension with the first mention of it being reverted without good cause despite its factual accuracy as seen [here]. Additionally, this article contains certain statements which seem bold to state without any reliable sources to back them up. An example is that the article makes the connection that the Stone of Destiny was returned to Scotland as a result of this film. A citation is going to be needed for this claim. Additionally, for some reason Anglophobia has its own section despite it's light content and even though there a cultural effects section where it could be merged into. I'm afraid it looks like two editors have taken strict ownership of this article based on edit history and WP:DR will be the next step if such reverts continue without valid explanations. TheLou75 (talk) 13:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may help to undo your recent revert per the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. The article has persisted without the new content and can persist a little longer, especially while we can have discourse here about how to structure the article and how to add and shape new content. Otherwise there is too much pushing back and forth. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another statement in the article that is problematic is "The film's depiction of the Battle of Stirling Bridge is often considered one of the best movie battles in cinema history." Nevermind the weasel word in this statement, but the main flaw is that it is only supported by two references, one of which is a site called Double Viking which upon my visit would definately not constitute a reliable source. TheLou75 (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is precisely what I was going to say, Erik. Per BRD, TheLou75 should have posted here after he was reverted, rather than restoring his preferred version twice and demanding that other users voice their objections on talk. You clearly do not have consensus, Lou, so you should not have restored your edits. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that a select few editors have become too attached to the content of this article dispite the fact that it is problematic to say the least. It looks like WP:DRN is the best solution and the only way to solicit neutral third party opinion. TheLou75 (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We need to make this less about the other editor and more about the topic (and this goes for everyone). It looks like the back-and-forth has happened for a week or so, and discussion should have been initiated sooner. Now that we have done so, my recommendation to undo the revert is to return to the status quo, discuss an approach for which we can all find agreement, and apply that approach. We have plenty of sources out there to use, so let's make this about the structure and the content. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns and hopefully you understand mine as well. It would appear to me just based on edit history and this goes back months and years even that a neutral third party opinion on this particular page would be difficut which is why the problems have presisted as long as they have. That is why WP:DRN is most likely the best solution. I'll put it up and see what other editors have to say. TheLou75 (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want. My impression is that we are already ready to have discourse here. We just need to outline the different topics to cover, such as elements of historical accuracy and sources for them. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TheOldJacobite, I did open up a discussion on WP:DRN on this subject. You can find it here. Feel free to discuss there. TheLou75 (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to take issue with your claim that anything was discussed on this talk page. You started this discussion only today and brought up WP:DRN from the get-go. The point of asking, "Have you discussed this on a talk page?" and "Have you tried to resolve this previously?" is to find out if there has been any related discussion in the recent past that has failed. There has not been; barely any time has passed since you started this thread. Discussing through edit summaries amidst contentious editing does not count either. We finally have a forum for discussion starting today, and we do not need to resort WP:DRN yet until the attempt to collaborate has been truly explored and exhausted. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, based on the edit history of this article, very valid changes have often been reverted without valid reasons and this has been a trend for some time. If you look at the edit history, a frequent pattern is that a new editor will make a valid edit, it will get reverted immediately, the new editor will challenge the revert by reverting back, and then over a few weeks once the heat has died down, it gets reverted again to it's original state. This has happened time and time again. The Talk page would only solicit the opinions of the same editors and it appears that the best way to get things moving would be the solitication of outside editors with no prior attachment to the article. TheLou75 (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying the talk page has not actually been used. I know that you and the other editors have engaged in some contentious editing, but I think it is worth putting a hold on the actual editing and attempting a conversation with them. For example, we could collaborate on finding citations for uncited statements so we can collectively add value to the article. Do you not think that's worth a try? I'm happy to help, and we could start with a specific topic and work on it first. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Erik, I have not removed any content from the article that lacked citations, I have only added tags for the need citations which have since been reverted today without a valid cause. This is the type of pattern I am referring to. Any modification to the article (even tags for citations) are quickly reverted back to its original state. TheLou75 (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Any modification to the article (even tags for citations) are quickly reverted back to its original state." Funny, I am noticing that myself. BearMan998 (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the mess of the historical accuracy section is due to other past edits. If this is only about Isabella and Wallace, we can clearly state that no such affair ever happened, but that sentence has been rewritten numerous times in the past 6 months, and it has become ridiculous. The facts are that she was three, and it is impossible for Edward to have been Wallace's son. We need not belabour that point. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 22:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, we can clearly state that no such affair happened. BearMan998 (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming by stating "we can clearly state that no such affair ever happened" that we can clearly state that no such affair happened. Why did you revert my edit then? BearMan998 (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because you are over-egging the pudding. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (GG-J's Talk) 20:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite obvious that no such affair happened so there should be no controversy over this. The other issues are probably more complicated, but this one is an easy one to check off the list. BearMan998 (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, as it is, "... quite obvious that no such affair happened ...", there is no requirement for extending the copy, is there!
-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (GG-J's Talk) 21:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that it's quite obvious from history, not from the statement that had existed in the article. BearMan998 (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes it pays to recognise that you are in a hole, and then stop digging. That is my advice to you in this instance. Give it up!
-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (GG-J's Talk) 21:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How am I in a hole? I always assume good faith, but I'm realizing that there may indeed be an issue here as brought up by this topic. I thought that Lou's DRN was premature at first, but maybe it wasn't. BearMan998 (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is a bit of pushiness here. This is by no means a developed article, so I'm not understanding why there are such contentious reverts. There's a lot more that can be done, and this article in advanced development would definitely evolve in its coverage of the portrayals. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very surprised by the pushiness to tell you the truth as this is a minor edit which it seems like anyone can agree on. My first impression is that there is some ownership of the article going on here. BearMan998 (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, there is a lot more that can be done to the article, I don't think this article is as solid as many other film articles, especially considering how well known and decorated this film is. BearMan998 (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since this drama seems to have not stopped. I'm willing to put this back up on WP:DRN seeing as how the discussion pretty much lead to nothing with the same pattern repeating itself. TheLou75 (talk) 06:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, it looks like we have good support for clearly and explicitly stating that no such affair between Wallace and Isabella actually occurred. If you have a reason against the current statement of In actuality, Isabella did not have an affair with Wallace as Isabella was three years old and living in France at the time while Edward III was born seven years after Wallace died I'll like to hear it as I'm 100% in support of it TheLou75 (talk) 07:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how you can say you have good support when editors are generally opposed and you have been warned for edit warring before. The wording is excessive and unnecessarily lengthens the article. Neve mid DRN, if you carry on like this it will be a 3rr report ----Snowded TALK 07:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Remind me where I was warned for edit warring? What's ironic about that accusation is that you are currently engaged in an edit war in an unrelated article and have an active notice on the administrator noticeboard. Additionally, it was you who initiated the first revert and without any discussion here. TheLou75 (talk) 07:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Go to the top of the page. Oh and don't misrepresent the facts. The ANI notice relates to an editor who is ignoring consensus reached at dispute resolution. I and others are dealing with that, there are similarities with your behaviour mind you. ----Snowded TALK 07:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an ANI notice on this topic or any other topic, but you do...so again, who's misrepresenting facts here? TheLou75 (talk) 07:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well you are getting close to getting one. As far as I can see its 4 against you and 1 with you. ----Snowded TALK 07:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More like 3 against me and what's funny is that all three of you appear to be involved with one another, but that's another story. TheLou75 (talk) 07:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So now its a conspiracy against you is it? More like experienced editors who know how things work around here. ----Snowded TALK 07:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an evolving project and articles are constantly evolving so why the resistance? This article is by no means perfect. As for my prior comment I was making note that two of your both live in the UK and support Welsh rugby and the both of you came out of nowhere to revert these edits in the past hour. And another two of you communicate regularly on each other's Talk page. TheLou75 (talk) 08:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah the deadly Welsh Rugby Supporters cabal, you've uncovered the terrible conspiracy to demotivate the Scots before our next match. I suggest an immediate ANI report ----Snowded TALK 08:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well it wouldn't be the first ANI report for you. TheLou75 (talk) 08:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, there is never a shortage of editors who think ANI will support their idiosyncrasies. Note the lack of a block history however ...----Snowded TALK 08:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do note the lack of a block but at the same time I do note the multiple warnings as well. TheLou75 (talk) 08:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, lots of people don't like getting their own way. Now try addressing the content issue rather than trying to spin together various attacks and 'associations' against and between other edits. ----Snowded TALK 08:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed the content issues, in fact, I created this topic in the Talk Page and it's laid out in the very first post. Where have you addressed the issues I brought up? TheLou75 (talk) 08:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fact there's been little to no addressing of the issues after I brought them up. If no one can come up with any valid reasons against the changes I brought up, I'm going to have to believe that there are no good reasons and the changes can proceed as originally. TheLou75 (talk) 09:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons are clearly given above. On summary the addition you propose adds nothing to what is already there. There is no reason to extend the text as the meaning is clear. You may not like those reasons, but you cannot determine what is a good or bad reason. Make the change again without agreement and its a 3rr report ----Snowded TALK 09:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would not be in violation of 3rr even I were to revert one more time. You on the other hand appear to be commonly violating this rule as evidenced by your Talk page so please don't accuse me of that similarly to how you falsely accused me of having ANI reports (another accusation that you yourself were guilty of, see a pattern here?). TheLou75 (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A conspiracy?

How absurd and puerile is that?

  • @ TheLou75, One assumes that I am "one of the two" that "... came out of nowhere to revert these edits in the past hour ..." so you take no account of the fact that I have made a dozen or more revisions here since August 23.
  • @ Snowded, It seems that our both being Welsh is now a problem with our young American.
-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (GG-J's Talk) 08:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and sell him a Blues Season Ticket (in a different part of the ground) then he can join the cabal ----Snowded TALK 08:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He'll have to prove a connection with Wales though. Probably would find the game too rough for his delicate sensitivities. __ Gareth Griffith-Jones (GG-J's Talk) 09:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you all please stop the snide comments? This is not a topic with layman knowledge. It is one with specialty knowledge, so we should be able to point to a reference to discuss a certain point or to use similar language. We also have guidelines we can refer to at WP:FILMHIST. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Erik, I have no doubt of your sincere desire to improve this article, and I believe your talk page posts have been toward that end. But, Lou's attitude has been combative from the start, and he has repeatedly implied that there is collusion going on between various editors in an attempt to prevent him from altering this article. That kind of attitude and accusation is not helpful. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 18:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is collusion, but I think the reverts are too trigger-happy. This article is no gem, after all. I'm seeing this escalation taking place now when we could talk about specific items in the article. I'm indifferent to the wording about the portrayal of Isabella, but I wouldn't mind discussing other items. I removed the "Stone of Destiny" passage since I could not find anything about how the film related to it. Are we okay with that? What else can we explore? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was a good move (removing the stone passage) ----Snowded TALK 21:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statements needing citations

All, I think it would be worth collaborating on the "Around the world" section to provide citations. I think that the best way to do this is to use Google Books Search and the keywords braveheart intitle:scotland (or more narrowly, braveheart tourism intitle:scotland). This will show books about Scotland that talk about how Braveheart attracted tourists. The very first result mentions studies by tourism agencies that reveal what percentage of tourists have seen the film. We can include content like this. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the O'Farrell statement in the article, In the 2007 humorous non-fictional historiography An Utterly Impartial History of Britain, author John O'Farrell notes that Braveheart could not have been more historically inaccurate, even if a "Plasticine dog" had been inserted in the film and the title changed to William Wallace and Gromit should be removed. We have far more reliable and serious-minded sources that can discuss the film's historical accuracy. This particular topic is not a place for content with a jokey tone. We can cover it far more credibly like with sources at the top of the talk page. What do others think? Erik (talk | contribs) 20:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Satire is a form of criticism and given that the film's historical accuracy is it self a joke I fail to see why it should not be included. Having read the article for the first time it almost seems to be an apologia for the very loose approach to facts evidenced in the story line. The execution scene at the end indicates that someone tried to work out what "hanging, drawing and quartering" was from the words rather than the literature. ----Snowded TALK 03:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Isabella

I have rewritten this section to restore some older wording that was lost over the Summer. I included a quote from Alex von Tunzelmann's article in The Guardian in which she refuted numerous historical errors in the film. Now, we have precise wording from a reputable source on Isabella's age and the impossibility of her ever having met, let alone had an affair with, Wallace. This should suffice.

This citation

Ewan, Elizabeth (October 1995). "Braveheart". The American Historical Review. 100 (4). Bloomington: Indiana University Press: 1219–21. ISSN 0002-8762. OCLC 01830326. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

was included in that section but there was no direct quote from it, so I have no idea what this actually says that would be relevant or useful. Ewan was a noted expert on Scottish history, however, and this article is widely quoted for its dissection of the film's inaccuracies. If this were searchable online, it could be a good resource for the entire section. I have not read the article, however, and have no knowledge of what it actually says. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 19:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support this direct quoting of the source. I was able to find the resource. I pasted the text here. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Before changing anything, I suggest consensus be reached on the Talk page here. This is too much going on with this statement considering how much controversy it has already generated. BearMan998 (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With that said, there appears to be numerous articles written on the inaccurate portrayal when I searched on Google. Here's another from the Guardian. As for Edward the III being the product of Isabella and Wallace, there's enough sources on Edward III where you can reference that he was the son of Edward II. BearMan998 (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good job on finding a copy of the resource Erik! The most relevant passage that would relate to this subject would be the following:
"the film implies that the prince is unable to consummate his marriage to the French princess Isabella. It invents a fictional tryst between Wallace and Isabella in which the virile Wallace impregnates the virgin wife with a son, the future English king Edward III. Since the real Edward III was born seven years after Wallace's execution, and Isabella first came to England for her marriage three years after Wallace's death, this scenario may not gain wide currency among medieval historians. Such inventions grossly undermine the true complexities of colonization and resistance."
I have no issues with direct quotation either and I would actually prefer it BearMan998 (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So Erik, although I have suggested that we discuss this here before any changes are made, I have been reverted twice already with the reverter refusing to discuss on this page. Any thoughts? BearMan998 (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I am fine with TheOldJacobite's new version which directly quotes the source about Isabella's portrayal. This way we do not have to worry about the wording. I assume this is what you agree with? Gareth appears to agree with us in his revert, so that's four editors who are fine with this new draft with no one disputing it. We can go ahead and implement it. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support the direct quote from the Alex von Tunzelmann source as it seems muddled and the main points are not quite clear. I was instead giving support of direct quotation from the Ewan source that you posted. Would anyone be opposed to directly quoting the Ewan source? I think it does a good job of hitting the main points in a clear and concise manner. BearMan998 (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misunderstood. I was supporting TheOldJacobite's draft and also sharing the text of the citation he brought up. I am fine with any of the wording old and new, really—I prefer to focus on adding substance and hashing out the form in GA or FA assessments. TheOldJacobite's draft works for me because it is a draft that allows us to get away from going back and forth between two old drafts. Call it symbolic or whatever; was hoping it would unstick this sticking point. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. For me the quote, "This scene is set in 1304 or 5, when the real Isabella would have been nine years old. Accuracy on that point might have been a bit tasteless, but accuracy on the point that she was still living in France and didn't marry the Prince of Wales until three years after Wallace's death would have been fine." is a bit difficult to follow. I had to read it twice the first time. Now compare that to the Ewan source. The Ewan source is much clearer and gets to the main point. BearMan998 (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I have deduced from all this is that BearMan must have his way or he will simply bring everything to a halt. I wash my hands of this stupid petty bullshit and wish good luck to those editors who are actually editing in good faith, because this is clusterfuck. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 23:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we were actually progressing on this topic so I don't understand your immediate reaction. It was you who brought up the Ewan source and I am definitely in support of directly quoting from it. BearMan998 (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gareth Griffith-Jones writes that of the current version that "There is a clear consensus that this version shoud remain as a template for further revisions. Please read the talk page for clarification". But where is the clear consensus? I see opposition to the current direct quote above and I am not in support of it either. If anything, I see quite the opposite. TheLou75 (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean this. A misleading and false edit summary. LOL, how juvenile. BearMan998 (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article fully protected for three days

An edit war seems to have erupted over the issues discussed above, so I have protected the article for three days. Favonian (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recap

Due to edit warring in the past week, I requested for the film article to be page protected. I have also notified editors at WT:FILM to get outside opinions. The disputed matter is the wording used in the "Portrayal of Isabella of France" section. I've outlined the different drafts below:

  • Original wording: "In the film, prior to the Battle of Falkirk, Wallace is shown having an affair with Isabella of France. She later tells the king that she is pregnant, implying that her son, Edward III, was the product of the affair. In fact, Isabella was three years old and living in France at the time, and Edward III was born seven years after Wallace died." This wording was endorsed by TheOldJacobite, Gareth Griffith-Jones, and Snowded, and they reverted changes back to this preference.
  • New wording: "In the film, prior to the Battle of Falkirk, Wallace is shown having an affair with Isabella of France. She later tells the king that she is pregnant, implying that her son, Edward III, was the product of the affair. In actuality, Isabella did not have an affair with Wallace as Isabella was three years old and living in France at the time, and Edward III was born seven years after Wallace died." This more detailed wording was endorsed by TheLou75 and BearMan998, and they reverted Gareth Griffith-Jones and Snowded to use this wording instead.
  • Third wording (to get away from original two wordings): "In the film, prior to the Battle of Falkirk, Wallace is shown having an affair with Princess Isabella. She later tells the king that she is pregnant, implying that her son, Edward III, was the product of the affair. Commenting on this scene in The Guardian, historian Alex von Tunzelmann, said: 'This scene is set in 1304 or 5, when the real Isabella would have been nine years old. Accuracy on that point might have been a bit tasteless, but accuracy on the point that she was still living in France and didn't marry the Prince of Wales until three years after Wallace's death would have been fine.'" This was put together by TheOldJacobite here, but it was reverted by TheLou75 and BearMan998, who argued for talk page consensus first. Gareth Griffith-Jones and Snowded have reverted these two, endorsing TheOldJacobite's new draft.
  • Fourth wording: "The film implies that the prince is unable to consummate his marriage to the French princess Isabella. It invents a fictional tryst between Wallace and Isabella in which the virile Wallace impregnates the virgin wife with a son, the future English king Edward III. Since the real Edward III was born seven years after Wallace's execution, and Isabella first came to England for her marriage three years after Wallace's death, this scenario may not gain wide currency among medieval historians. Such inventions grossly undermine the true complexities of colonization and resistance." This is a quote from the American Historical Review source that BearMan998 wants to use instead of the quote that TheOldJacobite chose.

There have been some other content disputes, but they are either resolved or put on the back burner in favor of contesting this particular issue. I personally have no strong feelings about the wording, especially since I can see the whole "Historical accuracy" section being rewritten if there is ever an effort to develop this article as a whole. Since this is an awfully narrow issue, would a straw poll suffice to go with a particular wording? Erik (talk | contribs) 16:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I am in favor of "In the film, prior to the Battle of Falkirk, Wallace is shown having an affair with Isabella of France. She later tells the king that she is pregnant, implying that her son, Edward III, was the product of the affair. In actuality, Isabella did not have an affair with Wallace as Isabella was three years old and living in France at the time, and Edward III was born seven years after Wallace died. Elizabeth Ewan writes in The American Historical Review that the film "invents a fictional tryst between Wallace and Isabella in which the virile Wallace impregnates the virgin wife with a son, the future English king Edward III. Since the real Edward III was born seven years after Wallace's execution, and Isabella first came to England for her marriage three years after Wallace's death, this scenario may not gain wide currency among medieval historians. Such inventions grossly undermine the true complexities of colonization and resistance.""' TheLou75 (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find options 3 & 4 slightly obtuse; I have a preference for the first two, and would combine them as follows: In actuality, Isabella was three years old and living in France at the time, and Edward III was born seven years after Wallace died. We don't really need to point out the obvious that she was not conducting an affair at three years old. But yeah, since all versions are acceptable a straw poll might be the most painless solution, and if there is no clear winner stick with the original which was entirely satisfactory to begin with. Betty Logan (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Betty's combination of the first two options seems perfect to me. As she said, all of the other words attached are rather a "derp...of course not" type of thing. Frankly, if something similar popped up in a plot summary (such as Betty's example of a three year old not having an affair) I would immediately cute for being redundant to anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension and adding unnecessary word padding. I think I actually prefer Betty's rephrasing to the original text we had in place. But the orginal text is fine, too. I agree that 3 & 4 kind of meander a bit to get to their points. I get what they mean but I suspect some readers will find their eyes glazing over halfway through either option. Millahnna (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Betty & Millanna - On second thought, Betty's suggestion of In actuality, Isabella was three years old and living in France at the time, and Edward III was born seven years after Wallace died. seems fine to me as well. TheLou75 (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer a modified version of option two as the direct quotes do muddle up the main point when I read them back now. There's no need to go into the minute of the affair of when it occurred in the film and how Isabella tells the king she is pregnant. It would re-write it as "The film fictionalizes an affair between Wallace and Isabella of France with Edward III being the product of the affair. In actuality, Isabella was three years old and living in France at the time and Edward III was born seven years after Wallace died." Thoughts? My second choice would be Betty's combination of the first two options. BearMan998 (talk) 03:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it looks like we are all in agreement with "In the film, prior to the Battle of Falkirk, Wallace is shown having an affair with Isabella of France. She later tells the king that she is pregnant, implying that her son, Edward III, was the product of the affair. In actuality, Isabella was three years old and living in France at the time, and Edward III was born seven years after Wallace died." TheLou75 (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Accuracy of William Wallace's Portrayal

When adapting the historical elements to film, probably the most historically inaccurate feature was the portrayal of William Wallace himself. The film inaccurately portrays Wallace as seeking revenge for the rape of his girlfriend however, nothing of the sort happened to the real William Wallace. It appears that the real Wallace actually killed two English soldiers after the soldiers demanded half his catch of fish and he fled to avoid facing criminal punishment. This was actually the start of Wallace's campaign against England. It had nothing to do with a girlfriend or lover. Secondly, I believe the title Braveheart actually refers to Robert the Bruce who was known as "The brave of heart". BearMan998 (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you proposing a "Portrayal of William Wallace" subsection under "Historical accuracy"? That sounds doable, though I am kind of wondering if we could present the entire section a little better. To me, it feels rather piecemeal rather than a planned structure to introduce commentary on the film's historical accuracy and to explore specific elements of it, such as costume design and characters. Also, I would recommend we do not go at trying to "prove" that the film is historically inaccurate. We should seek out what commentary exists and fold them together per WP:STRUCTURE. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, Erik. It would be negative and distracting to follow the "Historically inaccurate" sub-section idea. The film is a fiction, loosly based on fact, as most – if not all – historical screenplays are. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (GG-J's Talk) 14:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We also have guidelines at WP:FILMHIST we can refer to. I don't mean to say that we shouldn't cover the film's inaccuracies, but we should be wary of that particular slant and do our best to report commentary by historians. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... and not like this! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (GG-J's Talk) 14:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I like to call an armchair historian's work — someone taking it upon themselves to watch the film and read the history books and to compile such trivial differences. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 14:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rather similar to listing the differences between a film and the novel that inspired it. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (GG-J's Talk) 15:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tiny inaccuracies need not to be mentioned in the article as it becomes excessive. I'm fine with including the major inaccuracies which are integral to the plot of the film such as the character of Wallace himself, the affair with Isabella of France which didn't happen, and betrayal of Robert the Bruce which didn't happen in real life either. 216.99.184.50 (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of sources:
  • Lawrence, John Shelton; Jewett, Robert (2002). The Myth of the American Superhero. Wm. B. Eerdmans. ISBN 0802849113. (Specifically pp. 162–164.)
  • Kaufman, Alexander L. (2012). "Robert the Bruce and William Wallace". In Matheson, Lister M (ed.). Icons of the Middle Ages: Rulers, Writers, Rebels, and Saints. ABC-CLIO. pp. 107–142. ISBN 0313340803. (Specifically pp. 128–131.)
Added another to the references list at the top of the talk page. Cliff Smith 19:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Erik - Yes, I am proposing at least a mention of this. As for the formatting of this section, the overall format of this section and of the entire article itself will evolve over time I would hope. Once we have the content in, let's start thinking of how to improve the presentation. Also, Cliff - since you seem familiar with this subject and are familiar with the sources you listed, perhaps you can draft something up on Wallace? BearMan998 (talk) 01:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I could take a crack at starting something. Cliff Smith 18:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 27 September 2012

We now have consensus on the wording of the Isabella of France subsection as discussed in the Talk Page. The existing text should be replaced by the agreed upon text of In the film, prior to the Battle of Falkirk, Wallace is shown having an affair with Isabella of France. She later tells the king that she is pregnant, implying that her son, Edward III, was the product of the affair. In actuality, Isabella was three years old and living in France at the time, and Edward III was born seven years after Wallace died.

Thanks TheLou75 (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TheLou75 (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Braveheart&oldid=514802720"