Talk:Braveheart/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

DVD/Blue Ray

Information on the various versions available on the various home video formats would greatly enhace the article. It is an article about a movie (not a historical account) lets not forget, and most film pages include a section on the DVD/Blue Ray versions. It would be helpful for those debating on which version to watch or purchase and would therefore make the article more useful to readers wanting to experience the movie.

Rumour Control

As per previous discussions and consensus, please note that the following decisions are already in place and derive from policy and guidelines:

• If you are going to comment on Historical Inaccuracies within the film, please make sure that each notation is properly cited. 'Properly cited' means that the cited reference is not a blog or a fan forum, and that the inaccuracy noted speaks to the inaccuracy in the film while speaking about the film's inaccuracies. Any other reference usage (ie, noting that Wallace couldn't have met Isabella because historical records say so, etc.) is not acceptable. Again, every notation of historical inaccuracy must come from a source speaking about the film's historical inaccuracies. If you can't find it within those confines, you will not be able to include it.
• When adding images, please check their Fair Use licensing. There is no point in adding images that are going to be removed lickety-split.

Holy Amazement--All these archives of detailed dicussion and the actual article is that skimpy and brief? The historical context alone should probably be way more expounded on. That's hilarious.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.12.152 (talk • contribs)

Historical vs. biographical

I suggest changing the type of movie in the lead because it is more about the person than the period.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree; it's as much about one as it is about the other. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Additional Sources

• re: the impact of Braveheart as an epic film
• story noting other epics

Comments

the article claims this 1995 movie revived the genre but most of the examples came out over 10 years later.... specious much!124.177.94.145 (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought it a fairly bold declaration as well, and I am glad that it since has been cited. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the best example I have yet encountered of what seems to me to be a fallacy in the ban on "original research." I could find a book on 14th century Britain co-authored by seven Oxbridge professors all of whom attest that Izzy didn't marry the prince until after Wallace died, but ah! ah! that doesn't count. I have to find Granny Stutz's article entitled, "I'm now going to tell you the inaccuracies in Braveheart while discussing the inaccuracies of Braveheart," and if and only if she says that Izzy didn't et cetera, then I may quote it. Sorry, I don't believe the Emperor really has any clothes on here. What is the alleged difference between "original" and "unoriginal" research? I suspect that what you think you mean by "original research" is really something else, and I devoutly wish that that something else would be given another name. As it stands, the rule makes no more sense to me than the ban on "goal-tending" in the NBA. Play the game, fer gawdssake--i.e., state the truth by fair means or foul. What higher good can there be? Terry J. Carter (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for eloquently expressiong your opinion. Might I suggest that you direct such commentary to those avenues where it might have a chance to be acted upon, like the Village Pump? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This part of this article is an arrant attack on Scots by implying that any Scot who is a Nationalist is a racist/nazi and that Scots are so stupid and/or gullible that the only reason they would want independence is because of a movie.

This is an excellent example of Scotophobia. Who would make such ridiculous comments about the Irish, about the Czechs, or any of the other small nations that have achieved independence in the past few decades. The statements need to be moderated and removed. They are strictly opinion and racist opinion at that and have no place in Wikipedia not to mention the slap in the face to 5 million Scots (and millions of the diaspora world-wide). JRScotia (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me expand on that. The Scottish National Party (SNP) Won the Scottish Parliament election in Scotland in May 2007. Scottish nationalism is a perfectly legitimate movement with strong support in Scotland. Putting it down to a movie or saying it is racist is a slap in the face to the Scottish people. JRScotia (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

All of that is a splendid sentiment. Now, do you have citations to back up any of that? We currently have citations that say what is currently in the article. We don't replace cited material with uncited material, nor do we replace reliable, verifiable material with stuff that isn't. Just like we cannot address historical fact in the article - as the article is a fictionalized, dramatized retelling of events in history - we cannot turn the article into a vehicle for either English or Scottish propagandist ends. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you want, seek out citations that address the negative reviews of the film, paying particular attention to those that slam the Scots. Without these references, we are in a bind; we cannot use your impression that they are unfair. The citation you added talks about current seats in parliament; had you added a citation about scotch eggs, you could not have been much further off the target.

To that end, I've reverted yet again the unrelated statements and citation. Please do not add in this sort of info again, and do not use Wikipedia as a soapbox. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This article should be removed from wikipedia or at least completely changed. The problem is that it is 100% PREJUDICED against Scottish people, the filmmaker and many other. The problem here is that too much is being assumed. You cannot ASSUME that kilts were not worn during the middle ages. The citations are weak at best and the historical accuracy section is unimaginably prejudiced. I am APPALLED to see such an article on wikipedia.

 Alright, I get your point about needing citations, and I understand that nothing can be changed without them. Over the next few days I am going to find some citations and consequently revise the article to encourage some kind of neutrality on wikipedia. I'm a huge wikipedia fan and I'd rather it wasn't abused. 

I have, however, a question: what kind of citations do you consider legitimate and illegitimate? For instance, I found some citations that were used previously and they seemed to me fairly ineffectual. What does a statue being taken down in Scotland have to do with wearing kilts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.40.70 (talk) 05:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Total Takings

I am challenging the total takings for this film because it's been reported several times that Braveheart and Titanic were the biggest takers in the 90's, also I'm sure I've seen several legit reports that the film took over 800 million. 91.107.137.215 (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide some citations that support that? Recent ones would be better. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism for Excessive Violence

I don't understand why this isn't mencioned too. The film depicts mass killings and massacres that never existed, like the mass hanging at the beginning of the film, or the burning alive of english soldiers, just for purposes of spectacularity. The main point of the film is that it doesn't show enough respect for human life and turns mass killings in a mere show. The way as William Wallace appears as a "bloodthirsty" mass killer also doesn't help.81.193.189.100 (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It has not been mentioned because we do not have citations of someone speaking about the film an noting these rather specific inconsistencies/ Or personal knowledge of history, and our connection of actual history to the plot of a film is not allowed as per WP:OR and WP:SYN.

One might be persuaded to recall that this is a film, and not a documentary; different criteria apply to both genres.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

And yet this film is part of the military history Wikiproject. Its total fiction. I don't understand the logic johnnybriggs (talk) 08:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC).

It's a movie about the 1st Scottish independance war. Notice the last word. It's "war." That means you will probably see lots of people being killed during to movie. If one wants to see a movie abour birds and bees, he shouldn't grab one with a picture of a man worh a big sword on the cover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.197.130.112 (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

historical documentary

the people on discussion seem to think the film is a historical documentary the simple fact it is only a film nobody ever said everything that happened in this film is true so people should stop critisising the historical innacuracies of the film and just take into account that it is a thouraghly entertaining film which nobody ever realises because for some strange reason people seem to think it is a historical documentary and just constantly criticise historical innacuracies.Scotland the brave1297 (talk) 07:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotland1297 (talk • contribs)

wow - okay, take a breath (that is one very long, run-on sentence)! :)

Most of the people who visit the article and the Wiki are fairly new, and are unaware of how the encyclopedia constructs itself. It takes some getting used to, and we should patient in explaining it to them, as most have something to offer the community. For my part, I think that most people fail to miss that this movie is told from the point of Robert the Bruce (remember, his narration begins the film), and therefore is something of a tall tale, like Paul Bunyan, the Monkey King and the Republican win in the American 2000 Presidential election. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently of the opinion that all historical accuracy examples should be removed from this page, as Mel Gibson has never claimed that Braveheart is an accurate depiction of William Wallace's life. Multiple films throughout history have claimed to be based upon true events, but rarely will you find a Wikipedia page about that movie that completely exposes the film for its egregious historical inaccuracies. My favorite example is 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre'. This is a film that used the ever-so-popular 'based on true events' tagline while the movie has absolutely nothing to do with actual events. The movie is supposedly inspired by the story of Ed Gein, but it's still a tremendous stretch as the two stories are infinitely different from each other. If someone were to contrast Gein's story with that of Leatherface's on Wikipedia, the perpetrator would immediately be lauded as a 'retard lol' by all of the douchebags who insist on listing Braveheart's historical inaccuracies. Rob Roy is an example closer to Braveheart that is much more inaccurate than Braveheart, and yet there is little mention on that page about how inaccurate Rob Roy is. A simple "Braveheart made Times list of 10 most inaccurate films" would suit just fine and serve the same purpose without being redundant and unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.210.77.133 (talk) 03:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason? Mel Gibson is a Christian and pissed off many liberals...who runs Wiki? Look at Arcaynes comment above and see!!! That's why the movie is villified even though it's a MOVIE!! Read:FICTION!! It does not need to be historically accurate to be entertainment. Just mention the fact that is is factually inaccurate in areas and move on. The criticism of the movie is 1/3rd of the damn article. WIKI is an unreliable politically charged info source!!!!!!! Libs have entrenched themselves and will ban you if you correct too much of their crap and lies. BTW "ARCAYNE" you don't need the pop vote to be president...think about why. 209.115.232.65 (talk) 12:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No offence intended, but all stuff like "Braveheart is historically incorrect" is bullcrap.
1) there are almost no details about William Wallace and his life and deeds known / proven. Most we know about him, we know from the poem The Acts and Deeds of Sir William Wallace, Knight of Elderslie, by the 15th-century minstrel, Blind Harry.
2) As is said in the movie: Historians would say I'm a liar, but history was written by those who hang heroes.
3) The movie Braveheart is not a historical documentary. It's main purpose is to entertain people for about 170 minutes, not teach them about some medieval war in Great Britain.

You're rather missing the point. Unlike Hans Christian Andersen, there's no disclaimer indicating that most of the film is either speculation or objectively incorrect. This must be stated, because anyone watching a film about an historical figure would naturally assume the film more or less accurately presents the events of that person's life. You can't excuse the inaccuracies with "It's just entertainment".

I'm reminded of the remark of a direct descendant of Jesse James, who said that the only accurate things in a film about the James brothers was their names, and the fact they rode horses. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The 'Plot' Section

I feel the section on the plot inappropriately discusses the historical background in addition to the events of the film.Coreyyeroc (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if that section has been edited since you posted, but the plot section describes the events depicted in the film. It doesn't appear to dwell at all on the historical inaccuracies or to attempt to give any context to the events. Are there any specific examples that are particularly problematic?Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Stirling Bridge

Not only did the film fail to accuarely depict the scene of the battle, but failed to name the commander of the English forces, John de Warenne, 7th Earl of Surrey. It is a grave ommission. IMO, a bit like making a film about Napoleon and failing to name the Duke of Wellington at Waterloo! Another thing, was Stephen based on a real historical Irishman or was he just a fictional character? These ommissions need to be addressed in the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Does it matter who Stephen was based on? This isn't a documentary, it's fiction. I love history and I loved the movie. But I don't confuse the two. I know it's not historically accurate, I just don't care. It was made to entertain me, not educate me. It would seem to me that complaining that a movie willing to depict the battle of Stirling Bridge without even a bridge was inaccurate about who was in command is a minor complaint. Just my take on it. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

What the hell is it with you people calling the film "fiction". It is based on true events, on true people. If there is some inaccuracies of a landscape or a little love story added as a subplot, how the hell does that make the movie fictional? There is a freakin Article about William Wallace on wikipedia, it doesn't say he's fictional. The film's a documentary about a real person.--Propaganda328 (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It is loosely based on a (bad) poem that was loosely based on historical events. Many of the events depicted in the film are entirely fictional. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

So is every other historical figure based on poems. But just cause you don't like the fact that Wallace kicked the English invaders' asses, doesn't mean you can call the movie fictional.--94.187.96.34 (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

I realise this is the most controversial part of the article, but I think you could include primae noctis as an inaccuracy, as if you go to the Wiki aritcle on it, it makes it fairly clear (with sources) that it's a myth in general, let alone in the English-Scottish case. 144.32.126.12 (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Or we could cite the following sentences, "The poem however is near entirely fictional", "Is Blind Harry true? I don't know. I know that it spoke to my heart and that's what matters to me, that it spoke to my heart," and then delete the entire historical inaccuracy section because it appears the only critics who are asserting historical inaccuracy aren't the production staff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.184.93 (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Can anyone interpret the princess telling the king she is with child to just be a fake in order for her to make the last days of his life agonizingly miserable? That is how I saw it.74.90.110.7 (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)74.90.110.7 (talk) 04:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

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. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

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

I have an objection. It is truly epic.74.90.110.7 (talk) 04:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

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. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 15:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 14:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 00:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• 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)

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. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 02:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 15:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, yes the Loch Nessheart bagpipes.--GoShow ([[User

I mean no disrespect, but I'm pretty surprised this is even a question. It essentially both looks and "quacks" like an epic. In terms of scope and story it resembles other films openly acknowledged as epics. Including the likes of its predecessors that helped influence it Spartacus (1960) and El Cid (1961). Or its successor that it most likely had an influence on Gladiator (2000). It's also worth noting that AFI had it as one of their fifty nominations for their Top 10 Epics list that was a part of AFI'S 10 TOP 10. Them defining epics as "A genre of large-scale films set in a cinematic interpretation of the past." Which Braveheart definitely matches. Though I suppose that's all just in my own opinion. ---DarthKurgan (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC) talk:GoShow#top|...............]]) 00:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

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. Targaryen^{speak or forever remain silent} 21:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

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.

---

• Braveheart (1995 film) → Braveheart
• Braveheart → Braveheart (disambiguation)

– 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)

• Revert now. The move can be discussed BEFORE it is done next time. Moving it without any discussion is a dick move.Niteshift36 (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • For technical reasons, the sequence of moves can't be reverted without the use of admin tools, and that tends to get frowned upon. Not that I wasn't tempted! Favonian (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• This is stupid. One individual decides to do something like this and now it needs admin involvement. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• "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)

• I'm not a developer...... :) I asked an uninvolved admin to assist. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support revert.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 Jacobite_{The '45} 14:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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 Jacobite_{The '45} 22:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, we can clearly state that no such affair happened. BearMan998 (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

Because you are over-egging the pudding. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (GG-J's Talk) 20:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Well it wouldn't be the first ANI report for you. TheLou75 (talk) 08:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Jacobite_{The '45} 18:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

That was a good move (removing the stone passage) ----Snowded ^TALK 21:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 Jacobite_{The '45} 19:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Jacobite_{The '45} 23:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

I assume you mean this. A misleading and false edit summary. LOL, how juvenile. BearMan998 (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• I am happy with Betty's combo ----Snowded ^TALK 08:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Okay! To put this to bed, although I would prefer the original, Betty's combination of the first two options is perfectly alright with me. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (GG-J's Talk) 09:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Like I said, I was fine with any of the versions in the first place. :) I'm happy to go with the rest of you on this one. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• 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)

• Looks like it. Any other aspects of the article you want to review? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  Not at this time, I think we got some of the glaring items out of the way such as the dubious connection with the Stone of Destiny, but thanks for acting as a mediator in all of this Erik. TheLou75 (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  Indeed. Thank you Erik! You have done a sterling job. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (GG-J's Talk) 15:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

... and not like this! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (GG-J's Talk) 14:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yeah, I could take a crack at starting something. Cliff Smith 18:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I ended up checking out a couple of the references that are posted in the sticky section at the top of the talk page, and... yeah, well, here's what I've drafted.

As John Shelton Lawrence and Robert Jewett write, "Because [William] Wallace is one of Scotland's most important national heroes and because he lived in the very distant past, much that is believed about him is probably the stuff of legend. But there is a factual strand that historians agree to", summarized from Scots scholar Matt Ewart:

Wallace was born into the gentry of Scotland; his father lived until he was 18, his mother until his 24th year; he killed the sheriff of Lanark when he was 27, apparently after the murder of his wife; he led a group of commoners against the English in a very successful battle at Stirling in 1297, temporarily receiving appointment as guardian; Wallace's reputation as a military leader was ruined in the same year of 1297, leading to his resignation as guardian; he spent several years of exile in France before being captured by the English at Glasgow, this resulting in his trial for treason and his cruel execution.

A. E. Christa Canitz writes about the historical William Wallace further: "[He] was a younger son of the Scottish gentry, usually accompanied by his own chaplain, well-educated, and eventually, having been appointed Guardian of the Kingdom of Scotland, engaged in diplomatic correspondence with the Hanseatic cities of Lübeck and Hamburg." She finds that in Braveheart, "any hint of his descent from the lowland gentry (i.e., the lesser nobility) is erased, and he is presented as an economically and politically marginalized Highlander and 'a farmer'—as one with the common peasant, and with a strong spiritual connection to the land which he is destined to liberate."

Colin McArthur writes that Braveheart "constructs Wallace as a kind of modern, nationalist guerilla leader in a period half a millenium before the appearance of nationalism on the historical stage as a concept under which disparate classes and interests might be mobilized within a nation state." Writing about Braveheart's "omissions of verified historical facts", McArthur notes that Wallace made "overtures to Edward I seeking less severe treatment after his defeat at Falkirk", as well as "the well-documented fact of Wallace's having resorted to conscription and his willingness to hang those who refused to serve." Canitz posits that depicting "such lack of class solidarity" as the conscriptions and related hangings "would contaminate the movie's image of Wallace as the morally reproachable primus inter pares among his peasant fighters."

Elycia Arendt quotes Randall Wallace as having said "the story of William Wallace in Braveheart follows the pattern of Jesus of Nazareth as told in the Gospels". She writes that some parallels possibly could be drawn between William Wallace, as depicted in the film, and Jesus of Nazareth in the Gospels—Robert the Bruce's betrayal of Wallace and Judas' betrayal of Jesus; Robert the Bruce, Hamish, and Stephen of Ireland and Jesus' disciples, who continued their respective leaders' causes after their respective leaders' deaths; and the crucifix-like positions Wallace is put in during his execution—but concludes, "there simply aren't enough coincidences in Braveheart to support a solid Wallace equals Jesus argument. Randall Wallace may have started out with Jesus of Nazareth as his basis, but even he admits that finding a copy of Blind Harry's Wallace in the [University of California] library garbage bin gave him 'new material and insight' yielding a different pattern for the story." Stephenson Humphries-Brooks writes that Braveheart's "final sequence, in which Wallace is wheeled in a cart with a cross-beam of his future 'Crucifixion' bound to his shoulders, establishes Wallace as the Christ of Scotland."

How does this look? Cliff Smith 17:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Really well done! The tone sounds neutral throughout. I also like the last paragraph, but it should belong in a section outside "Historical accuracy". Probably more of an "Analysis" section. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree about the last paragraph. Any objections to posting the rest of it? Cliff Smith 18:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

SUper shiny. Ditto Erik on the last paragraph; awesome work but possibly out of place in a historical accuracy section. But definitely a keeper. I wonder if there's more in those sources to flesh out a themes section with... I haven't done much to this page other than revert a vandal here and there but it's been real neat watching it develop over the last few months. Millahnna (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. There's some material in those sources that could flesh out Production as well. Cliff Smith 20:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I've added to the article what I drafted above, except for the final paragraph (for now, anyway). Cliff Smith 02:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

References

Wallace did have a wife who was murdered when he was 27. Footnote #39 references it. I think some know-it-alls like to try to impress everyone by saying that it is 97% historically inaccurate. It is a movie and yes, Gibson (the best film-related person of our time) took some license, but not as much as is made out.74.90.110.7 (talk) 04:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)74.90.110.7 (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Wrong Oscar

Braveheart did not win Best Film Editing at the Oscars, Apollo 13 did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.34.211 (talk) 04:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)