Talk:Braveheart/Archive 4: 05/07 - 09/07

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Ireland?

I don't recall Argyle taking young William to Ireland, as indicated ina recetn edit. It is presumed they left the area, and Wallace talks later of having knowledge of French and having been to Rome. No mention of Ireland, though. Can someone get back to me on that? I am going to edit it out for now, but I will gladly change it back if someone can cite the statement. Arcayne 16:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I just watched it yesterday and I would have to agree with you. It seems to me that we are told he left the British Isles. During one of their first meetings as adults, Wallace answers the question about being Rome with the statement, "Aye, my uncle took me on a pilgrimage". So, I would take that to mean that he did some extensive traveling. He might've visited Ireland as a part of that pilgrimage but it would've only been a visit. ---> Benseac 22:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Since it isn't mentioned in the film, out it goes. Thanks or the confirmation. Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review

I think we that the article is shaping up pretty nicely (and might I say WOW on all the most excellent edits!). I think the article is ready for a Peer Review. they will give us some insight on maybe upgrading the aticle to A Quality, and maybe see if we cannot get yourselves a Good Article rating. If not, then we will at least know what we need to work on still. Arcayne 17:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The peer review has received comments from an editor here. Changes occurring are being made on the basis of that review. Arcayne 18:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To Do List

  • Rewrite Production into useful prose and support with citation. Origin of the project would be good as well, like why Gibson chose to pursue this particular time in history. Move Wikiquote template to External links section.
  • Rewrite Response and awards section as prose. Also, are there any other notable awards that Braveheart won? Check out the Awards section on the film's IMDb page. Stuff like Golden Globes could be added; a possible rule of thumb is that if an award has its own Wikipedia article, it may be acceptable. Other criteria should apply, though. As for box office performance, more detail could be provided -- its premiere, anything unique about its opening, how it performed overseas, especially in the countries that are portrayed in the films.
  • Cultural effects section needs to be cited. There's an embedded link for what Lin Anderson said about the film shaping the political landscape; does the link have any information about how it was shaped?
  • Historical inaccuracy -- give it the 300 treatment and avoid synthesis. Find references of historians criticizing Braveheart directly.
  • Spoofs and references... equates Trivia, in my opinion. Might be better replaced by useful prose about the impact of Braveheart on certain aspects of popular culture.
  • Soundtrack and More Music from Braveheart -- I'd suggest a content fork, and if the music was a major part of the film, you could be redundant in having information about the music both at the film article and the newly-created soundtrack article, but only have the track listing at the latter.
  • External links -- there's two film reviews. I suggest making "Critical reaction" and "Historical inaccuracy" subsections under "Response and awards" (re-title the section as "Reaction" or "Reception"). Focus "Critical reaction" on the merits of directing, acting, editing, effects, violence, etc. Focus "Historical inaccuracy" on differences from the actual events, but keep it succinct. Not sure how far this film strays from the actual event compared to 300.
  • Expand lead paragraphs after all above points have been addressed.

-Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


-Add a section for critical reviews, and list the Wallace monument as a subsection of the Cultural Effects.

-would recommend addressing the description of the film's ending. The ultimate fates of Robert the Bruce and Wallace's army are left vague; there is voiceover by Mel Gibson stating that, 'They fought like warrior poets. They fought like Scotsmen. And won their freedom'. This can be interpreted literally, that the Scotish army won the fight and ultimately the war for their freedom (not supported by history); or, it can be interpreted that the Scotish were actually killed, having won their freedom by not submitting to the British, even at the cost of their lives (as William Wallace did earlier in the film).

[edit] References for use

1 - historian review of movie
2 - Edinburgh newspaper discussing the real Wallace
3 - film review
4 - about the historical accuracy of the film, with a nod to the idea that no one really cares
5 - historians and history
6 - 10 reviews, awards listings
7 - film reviews, a plethora of material
8 - cultural influences?
9 - JSTOR reference that might need sorting out first. It looks useful, though
10 - scads of reviews here as well as box office info

[edit] The fate at the end?

(the following was mis-posted tot he Peer Review. The poster is new to WP, and didn't understand the vagaries of where to post Discussion related material).

Address accuracy of the description of the film's finale. The actual fate of the Scottish army is not revealed; based upon Gibson's voiceover, it can be interpreted that the Scots won the battle and won their freedom, or that they were in fact killed, and remained free vecause they never surrendered. Either way, any interpretation should be left out, as a synopsis of the plot is not the right place for interpretation. A simple statement that the fate of the army is not seen on film, followed by a transcript of Gibson's voicover, would be more appropriate. (posted by User: 68.46.142.17)

  • Sorry, that is not the job of the article. At all. It is a film article about a film. If, at the end, Gibson's (as Wallace) voiceover saying that the men charged the English at Bannockburn, fought like wattior poets, fought like Scotsmen, and won their freedom, that's pretty much telling it as it is. They won. If history tells a different story, there is a historical innacuracy section to quote someone else pointing out the historical defects of the film. Not in the synopsis,a nd certainly not here. As this is a content issue, it shoudl be more appropriately addressed in the Discussion area of the article, and not in a peer review. -Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I've got to agree with Arcayne here, the film makes it very clear that the scots win. Wrad 23:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That's a misinterpretation of the voiceover. Nowhere does the film state that they won battle or defeated the British. The whole point of the film is that Gibson and the Scots never give in to the British. If they had surrendered at the end, they would have lost their freedom ... refusing to surrender is how they won it, not by winning the battle (similar to how Gibson's character refuses to claim Longshanks his king while he is being disembowled, instead shouting, 'Freedom!' ... he won his freedom as well). Either way, I'm not arguing to change anyone's mind; my point is only that there is more than one interpretation of the ending. A statement that the Scots' fates are not shown onscreen, with a transcription of Gibson's voiceover, would be an accurate description of the ending, and not a reflection of the author's opinion.

"The whole point of the film" sounds a little strong to me. Another important point in the film was how William's efforts gradually changed Edward the Bruce's attitude, eventually freeing the Scots from the English, which the voiceover clearly states. To state things in the way you want would be a major distraction to the summary of the plot. Whether it is a voiceover or not is of little consequence, the fact is, that is what the film expresses, that is the way the plot goes. Historically, as well, Edward the Bruce did win the eventual war, and freedom, heart, legal rights, and all. They didn't just never surrender, they won. Wrad 18:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  • The historical accuracy of the entire film is very questionable. The purpose of an encyclopedic plot summary is to report what happened on the screen. The voiceover states that they fought well and won their freedom ... NOT that they won the battle or won the war. Stating that they did so is interpretation (as is stating that they did not), and shouldn't have a place in an encyclopedic plot summary.

I am sorry, but that is an OR asssertion as to "the whole point of the film". I appreciate your concerns, but - and this is worthy of emphasis - we don't accept primary opinion resources here. Here is the specific text of the voice-over (which is precisely how it appears in the novel by Randall Wallace):

"In the year of our Lord 1314, patriots of Scotland, starving and outnumbered, charged the fields of Bannockburn. They fought like warrior poets. They fought like Scotsmen. And won their freedom."

Now, perhaps I am being somewhat condescending in my next statements, but are you suggesting that:

  • A) the film is historically accurate, and doesn't condense events? and
  • B) that the intent of the method of the film's ending was not to imply that they did not defeat the English?

If you hold these rahter silly contentions, then perhaps you are imparting far too literal a historical view into a movie. Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

But instead of belaboring the point back and forth, I created a new edit that reflects the intent of the film and addresses your concern. :) Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I won't continue to belabor the point after this, because it doesn't seem as if you've actually read my postings. To answer your two questions:

  • A) I suggested nothing of the sort. In fact, I believe that I mentioned specifically that the historical accuracy of the film is questionable at best.
  • B) Not to be condescending, but it's tough to fight through your double negative; I believe that you're asking my opinion as to what is intended by the ending. I don't think that's really important, because I agree completely that my opinion as to the ending has no place here or in a plot summary (and on reflection I shouldn't have argued that earlier). My point is simply that, nowhere in the film do they show you the results of that battle; nowhere do they state that the Scots won the battle or won the war. The voiceover at the end states only that they fought and 'won their freedom'. This can be interpreted literally, that they won their freedom on the battlefield, or figuratively, that they won their freedom by never bowing to the Brits. Prior to the final battle, they seemed to be on the verge of losing their freedom by setting up the Bruce as a puppet king. Your belief that it is to be taken literally is only your opinion (unless you've seen or read interviews with Gibson where he states that the Scots did win that battle), and that's what's being presented on the main page. I'm not suggesting that my belief should be on the main page either, only that their final fates are not shown on the screen, so that readers can draw their own conclusions.

It's interesting that you find my opinions silly because I'm taking the film too literally, when my whole argument is that the last line does not need to be taken literally.

Perhaps I was being a bit harsh. My apologies. I have altered the sentence so as to avoid the problem which you describe. Take a look and see if you can live with this. Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Murron's pic

The picture of Murron is very dark. Can anyone fix this? Wrad 21:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I could, but the point of the addition of the picture is to ensure it was not a copyright infringement. It is a DVD capture, and the lighting was not very bright. I hesitate to digitally alter it and risk copyright infringement. As Murron is still quite visibile, I've left it as a necessary evil. Even though dark, it is far better than the picture that was ther before. the pic itself might be moved over to Production once I upload it. Gibson speaks about how he tended to film her in slower than normal time because she "looked good slow." I hope that answered your question. Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have the DVD. I wonder if I could capture a brighter picture. Wrad 03:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I placed another one at the right place in the article, the cast. It was deleted before by Arcayne, this one placed by him is terrible and is not linked with the writtings and must be removed. Machocarioca 04:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca

Yeah, no, it doesn't need to be removed. First of all, your contention that the image is terrible and not linked to the wrtitings is actually rather incorrect, especially since you are simply replacing a darker image with one that is small, grainy and totally unsuitable. Secondly, you were doing a bit more than just replacing a dark image of Murron. You were rearranging the pics of the cast. Totally uncool without discussing it here first. That's how edit wars get started. I will upload a brighter image of Murron. If it gets pulled, I expect both you and Wrad to fight like hell to make sure it doesn't get cut as a copyright infringement. Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

These images were at that place (cast) for months,long before you came here. Uncool was your move deleting it. Murron image you placed is ridiculous, I'm sorry, we can't see anything (is it a joke?) and totally out of line in the article. Machocarioca 05:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca

Perhaps, you might stop edit-warring a little bit and give me a chance to upload a lighter version of the picture. Do you think you could wait just a bit, sweetheart? Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I can baby, but do not revert it again. Upload a pretty one, brighter, cleaner and place it at the right place, Cast. I think these war-edits ridiculous too :-)Machocarioca 05:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca

Finally. Now the new image is uploaded. As for the placement of these images, I am going to leave them where they are. However, I can tell you that their current placement makes them ripe for removal as "decorative". I've seen it happen in at least two other film articles. You folks might want to take a bit o' time and read up on Wiki-films project page. Keep in mind, Macho, you broke 3RR with your little edit-war. I'm going to cut you a break and not report you, because I'm in a good mood. You can say thank you. Now, play nice, from now on, please. Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No my friend , see the history, YOU broke 3RR first. But I'm im good mood too and you can say thanks to me. :-) Well, I think this new image awful too, but nevermind. The current place is perfect, not the older one where you've placed that unseen image before. Cheers. MachocariocaMachocarioca

Heh. I guess we can both push back from the table then. Play nice, don't be prickly, and we will get along swimmingly. And do check out the Wikifilm thing I pointed out to you before. You might find enlightenment regarding what I was referring to there. Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine, thanks Machocarioca 05:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca

[edit] Clean-up, questions

Since there seems to be some warring going on, I thought it best to only do a few minor edits (whitespace, etc) and bring my concerns with the article as a whole to the discussion page. First and foremost, there are many statements that require references, including several that are in the cast section. "The 10-year old actor reportedly spent weeks trying to copy Gibson's mannerisms for the film" and "Her name was changed from Marion Braidfute in the script so as to not be confused with the Maid Marian of Robin Hood note," notably. Speaking of the cast section, I'm confused as to why the actor and character descriptions/items of note are mixed in such a way. The two statements I quoted above can be moved to the Production section, for example, and that way the Cast section will better first a Characters section, since that is what it mostly pertains to. On a similar note, I find it odd not to mention more about the characters' origins, since nationality plays such a large part in the movie's major themes; nowhere is it mentioned, specifically, that Wallace is Scottish -- only that he grew up outside of Scotland and that he led the Scottish rebellion. Everyone should know and infer that the man and a majority of his followers are Scottish, but it's never clarified. The Princess is French, oui? Her arranged marriage was unhappy, but many circumstances of the film's plot is left unsaid. I recognize that the movie is long, but the part about Isabelle's allegiance and love for Wallace rather than the English crown and the suggestion that she bears his lovechild and such is certainly of note.

I hope this helps direct the editing away from the images and more towards the content, which is in dire need. It's a great movie, and a great story, so it should definitely be done justice. I'll watch the article for a bit to see if there's anything I can do to help. María (habla conmigo) 12:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the matter with the images has largely been resolved. The other editor and I just pushed each other's buttons, and now we are apparently happy as clams now. I have been meaning to knock out the Production section for a while. As is usual, Life intervened. I will make sure something solid is up this weekend for everyone's perusal and tweaking. Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot

Firstly, the trial and execution section needs altered because it implies that Wallace was guilty. In the film the point is clearly made that the trial is a sham and that Wallace is innocent. Wallace's argument (as in real life) was that he could not possibly be guilty of treason as he never once paid homage or made an oath of allegiance to the English monarch. Without wanting to labour the point, would you consider George Washinton or Mahatma Gandhi to be treasonous in their actions? Secondly, the English army shown at Bannockburn is clearly not a 'ceremonial line', it's the full army. And the Scots didn't 'eventually' win their freedom, they won it back. I've made the necessary changes, cheers. Golfer45 22:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You are operating from a number of OR misconceptions. The MOVIE doesn't say the things you want it to say. But lets look at the edits one by one which you are not discussing here beforehand:

  • firstly, Robert the Bruce is more appropriately wikilinked in the Cast section, not in the plot.
  • secondly, the term is 'unbeknownst', not 'unbeknown'.
  • thirdly, in the film, Wallace doesn't argue the matter, save to say that he never swore fealty to Edward I. Your arguments comparing Ghandi and Washington to Wallace are immaterial, and not on point. As a matter of fact, Wallace was guilty of treason by prevailing law, and invading York was in itself a treasonous act against the English crown. If you truly think that Wallace argued the point before the English high court, please cite a reference that states such. It isn't present in the movie save for one line, and that is not enough to contravert the pre-existing edit:
"Wallace refuses to admit his guilt and is brutally tortured to death in a London square, being alternately hanged, racked and finally eviscerated alive. Despite the agony, he refuses to declare his guilt, cry for mercy, or even cry out in pain"
  • fourthly, in the film the English forces arrayed at Bannockburn are in fact ceremonial, in that they are not expecting a fight. This is noted by the commander's snide commentary and the general dressiness of the forces arrayed (in comparison to those of the Bruce).
  • lastly, it has been pointed out that this battle was not the final one of Scottish independence, and was in fact only one of the last. In the film, the Anglish are in fact surprised when the Scots charge the lines.

I would ask that if you have significant issues with this edit that you bring them here in the future. Discussion via edit summary is both uncool and unsatisfactory where it concerns content dispute resolution. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, do you even understand the difference between 'English', 'British' and 'Scottish'? I suspect this is where a lot of your confusion is stemming from. Kanaye 12:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC) EDIT: Just to make it clear, I'm the same user as Golfer45 and am not attempting to use a sock to influence the discussion. Kanaye 12:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate you clarifying the identity issue, KanGolf. And yes, I do understand the differences. What I guess I am not getting is why you chose to ask if I knew them. Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I mentioned it because in your previous comments you were talking about the "British forces" and "the Brits". Since there was no state called Britain until the 18th century, it seems unlikely that "the Brits" would be making an appearance in a film about the 13th and 14th centuries! I think this misunderstanding around the different terms would also explain the confusion in other areas, such as the trial scene. You may find the following articles illuminating:
Kindly, KanGolf 17:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I understood the difference; you will note that the use of those terms was here in Discussion, and not in the article. As well, I appreciate you taking hte time to supply me all the wikilinks. While they are useful for an overview of the Wars for Scottish Indepe4ndence and are of unique historical interest, we do not have commentary regarding their connection to the film. Please see WP:ATT. That link tells us that we (as primary sources) don't get to decide what is accurate or not about the film. Only those secondary sources from reviewers or reliable commentators are to be included in the article. We are merely noting the plot as it occurred in the film. Nothing else can be included in the Plot Summary. You might want to direct your efforts into researching one the many, many external links I provided for the editors in the article to point out, in prose fashion, the specific deficiencies of the film's historical accuracy. Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, allow me to reiterate how things tned to work more smoothly, Kanaye (or Golf45); when an edit is shown to be in contention, it is best to take discuss the matter on the article's discussion page. Until it is resolved, the article is left in its pre-existing condition. What this means is that you don't post commentary that doesn't address your edits and then go and revert them back at your whim. This creates a deleterious editing environment. As you have spent most of your two years in Wikipedia editing football teams and the like, perhaps that sort of issue hasn't really come up before. In a wiki-film article, it is vital that editors be able to work together effectively. I hope that you inderstand that this is an attempt to help appraise you of how certain things work here in Wikipedia, and not as a chastisement. (Arcayne)

[edit] Removed Bits

Bits that were removed:

  • Braveheart's plot includes an affair between William Wallace and the Princess Isabelle, based upon Isabella of France. The film implies she is pregnant at the time of Wallace's execution, carrying the future Edward III of England. Historically, the real Isabella was a child of nine still living in France at this time, meaning she never met Wallace, and furthermore, was never a Princess of Wales, as she married Edward II after he became king - three years after Wallace's death. This idea may have been derived from the play The Wallace by Sydney Goodsir Smith, or it may be derived from a fictional episode in Blind Harry's poem, where Marguerite of France, second wife of Edward I, attempts to seduce Wallace.
  • The Battle of Stirling Bridge, the first skirmish in the film, was filmed without a bridge. The actual conflict was more of an ambush of the English as they attempted to cross the River Forth.
  • The opening juxtaposition of the line "The King of Scotland had died without a son" and the caption "Scotland, 1280 A.D." is inaccurate: Alexander III did not die until 1286, and the country was not immediately taken over.
  • The opening narration continues "and the King of England... claimed the throne of Scotland for himself". Edward I never claimed the kingship of Scotland: he claimed lordship over it, but after the deposition of John Balliol in 1296 did not recognize its status as a kingdom.
  • Edward III was born in 1312, seven years after Wallace's death; thus it is impossible for Edward III to have been Wallace's son.
  • The film depicts Edward I dying at the same time as Wallace was executed. In fact, Wallace's execution took place in 1305 in Westminster or Smithfield, and King Edward died in 1307, two years later, en route to put down a fresh rebellion of the Scots led by Robert the Bruce.
  • The film depicts Scots going into battle wearing woad, an ancient Pictish practice not thought to have still existed in the thirteenth century. However, in Blind Harry's poem, Wallace does dream that the Virgin Mary paints a saltire on his face, and this is the likely inspiration for the anachronistic use of warpaint in the film.[1]
  • The 16th Cent Highland Kilts are just wrong for the 13-14th Cent.
  • The film opens with the Wallaces seeing the hanged bodies of the thirty Scottish noblemen and their pages who went there thinking they were there for a meeting with Edward's men. While Longshanks was capable of such a deed, (see the Battle of Evesham) in 1280, when this was supposed to have happened, he was busy with putting down revolts in Wales and dealing with their leader Llywelyn ap Gruffydd. In fact many Scottish nobles, who actually held lands in both Scotland and England, were serving in Edward's army at the time. This included the Bruces.
  • A Welsh rebel who had been captured by the Scots in Edward's service reportedly told his captors, "When Longshanks is done with us he'll turn on you."
(Discussion regarding historical inaccuracy continue below)

[edit] Historical inaccuracies

What happened to the long catalogue of the historical inaccuracies of the film? I really enjoyed that section, but it has been removed. It should be reinstated, or at least given a page of its own and linked into this one. In fact, I will make such a page myself. It's criminal that such an excellent section was deleted. Bigdaddy1204 10:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The Historical Inaccuracy section was removed here by an admin, as much of it was OR and uncited. I would have preferred cited instances to prosify, but there it is. Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The article William Wallace points to a section called Historical Inaccuracies in this article but that section is no longer here. We should either remove that reference or reinstate that section here.AmritTuladhar 19:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I just found out this is where the section was removed: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Braveheart&diff=131228189&oldid=131222556 AmritTuladhar 19:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think they should be restored, but also cited. Wrad 19:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have created a new article at Historical inaccuracies in 'Braveheart', which contains all the material that was removed. I have added a link to the new article in the introduction to this article. Hopefully that is a satisfactory solution. Bigdaddy1204 10:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

And that article was deleted because it contained naught but uncited info and original-research-by-synthesis information. I will fix the broken link in the article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, meant to reply earlier. Someone else fixed the broken link, so good on ye. :)
And I am not opposed to a section regarding the historical inaccuracies, but they have to be cited by someone speaking specifically to the inaccuracies in Braveheart. Adding info proving that some of the characters could never have met by providing the actual various birthdates of the characters is Original Research by Synthesis. We don't do that. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh Arcayne, most of that stuff doesn't need citation, as it is well-established historical fact, and can even be found in wikipedia. I say that we should put this back in the article. CJ DUB 15:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually Dub, just about everything in WP needs citation. Also, we need to be careful to avoid synthesis; its worth a read if you aren't already familiar with it. The short of it is that while the image depicts what looks like the Hershaw cyborg, and you see an image (or even multiple images) that resemble - or even specifically identify themselves as the Hershaw cyborg - we don't get to connect the two. Someone else has to do that, and that reliable someone has to do it in a verifiable medium. Our connecting the two is not allowed, as we are synthesizing the unexplained image with identified images.
Even shorter answer? We don't get to quote ourselves. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

These could all be verified with a google search. They are not only factual, but well known facts. CJ DUB 13:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You may very well be correct, CJ. That said, we can only add in those bits of factual inaccuracy that are addressed by an external source commenting about them in the film. Acting outside of that is considered original research and synthesis. So, googling the "well-known facts" by yourself would be an instance of you citing your own web results in the article. Unless you are a notable source in regards to the film or the film reviewing community, your web results are not usable in WP. Sorry for all the harsh, but there it is.
Say, if these are all so well-known, you should find it easy to find where a reviewer pointed out the well-known. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Film or reviwing community? Oh geez any amateur historian knows all the inaccuracies in this film. About 90% of what is in wiki is "original research", of the type i have proposed anyway, although it is usually not regarded as such. How else are wiki pages to be constructed? Strictly from books and news reports? HAHAHAHA. Think about that for a minute on current events that suddenly become wiki pages. A large part of the article is editorialized heavy bias of the writers. What about when wiki calls for expert consultation on a page? Is that too not "original research". For example, what if I was Randall Wallace or perhaps the director of the british museum? CJ DUB 16:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Last questions answered first:
Were you RW or the director of the British Museum (or any museum) speaking on the inaccuracies of the film, your comments would be notable and - in the case of you being Randall Wallace - were providing cited information already published (as per the Original Research page section that discussesciting oneself). I think you are missing the point of my disagreement; it isn't that I am arguing that there aren't historical inaccuracies as there of course are.
What I am pointing out is that unless we have a citation by someone notable and verifiable speaking out regarding the inaccuracies of the film (addressing primarily the subject of the article - the film - and discussing the historical inaccuracies of such), we cannot include our own observations of them. We are not citable, as that is a primary source - Wikipedia utilizes secondary sources of references exclusively. As well, making connections that a notable personage has not made in regards to the film is called synthesis, and that isn't allowed either. Most of this is discussed on the WP:OR page, and some people tend to feel a bit constrained by it.
Wikipedia is not a forum to discuss new thoughts on the same material. It is a place wherein the notable comments of the world at large are gathered together. We are the folks who weave it together. We do not add our own thread to that weave. As the weavers, of course the pattern of that weave is going to be our own - if in fact we are the only ones weaving the article. We have to contend with a great many others doing the same thing, so a lot of that pattern, or viewpoint is going to get cancelled out by others until a common consensus is formed by what all can agree upon.
I hope that explains matters a bit more fully.

I have now provided a source for claims of historical innacuracy in the film, in an important recent work on the Wars of Scottish Independence. PatGallacher 18:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong Support - I am in favour of an "Historical Innacuracies in Braveheart article" although I'd prefer if it was cited, and support the Admins decisions to block the article's creation until it is cited. Ryan4314 18:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
It isn't a vote, my friend. You want the section, head out, and find sources for the film that identify the inaccuracies. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The article needs to be restored, but with proper citations. However, not every citation needs to be "speaking on the film": if we have publicly available external sources that directly contradict information in the film - or, for that matter, directly support it - why should it matter whether they are speaking in context about the film itself as opposed to the history in general? (Also, it's needed because several inaccuracies which actually date back to Blind Harry's poem have been wrongly identified elsewhere as originating with Braveheart. Precisely why the world and his wife has been over and over the accuracy of one historical film with a fine-tooth comb while ignoring hundreds of equally inaccurate ones is beyond me, though.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.243.235.94 (talk)

Actually, every single one of the citations need to speak to the film. You might have noticed the title of the film article - its for the film, Braveheart. If it didn't happen in the movie, and if it wasn't discussed in a review or article about the movie, then it doesn't belong. Any historical inaccuracy notation needs to be addressed with citations and in respect to the film's release. There are articles about it; I've seen them. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracies should be put back! It seems very odd to me that the entire section was removed under the pretext of "original research". In other articles where there are unreferenced sections, a [citation needed] is added, so as to mark it up for others to provide references. The section was clearly not original research, (google and you'll find citations). If I have a spare afternoon, I shall do it. --Dumbo1 09:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
To begin with, there was no pretext; the info was a random, wandering list of information that had no citation at all. Was it true according to history? Probably. However, tht isn't what is required for inclusion. The citations need to speak of both the film AND the historical inaccuracy in question (ie, a cite that says something along the lines of, 'in Braveheart, the chamber pots were inaccurate, as that particular style wasn't introduced until 100 years later' or whatnot'). If the citation isn't connected to the film (such as an academic review or film review or interview with cast or crew), we cann't use them. To do so is to allow original research by synthesis - a cardinal sin in Wikipedia. If such are included, even in a spare afternoon, I shall remove it. I am not opposed to a historical inaccuracy section; I am opposed to a poorly sourced one. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Hang on, so what you're saying is, if the chamber pots in Braveheart were inaccurate, and we found an essay or something done by a genius that tells us exactly how chamber pots looked in 1270 AD, we couldn't use that information because it's not in an essay called "Why the chamber pots in Braveheart are innacurate by A.Genius"? Ryan4314 07:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly what I am saying. It's called OR by synthesis, in that you (the editor) note that the chamber pots (or whatever) are incorrect, and then post what is accurate, or a historical cataloging of aforementioned items noting what is accurate, you are synthesizing what you know or have found to disprove the accuracy of the film. As neither you nor the historical reference are speaking specifically to the film, you (the editor) cannot connect the two.
Fortunately, Braveheart was one of those movies that made the sorts of mistakes that people like to argue over and chat about (unlike any given King Arthur movie, wherein fans and critics alike want to kill anyone associated with the making of such a film). There are quite a few fairly notable folk (mostly in Scotland) who wrote articles and reviews from a historical perspective of what Braveheart got wrong and (surprisingly) what it got right. The source we can draw from is someone speaking about Braveheart primarily, and the inaccuracy second. I hope that explains matters better. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, you obviously have never been on any of the peer-reviewed sports team pages on wiki. They are all synthesis of material, and surprise surprise, there is quite a bit of POV, e.g. on what contributions players have done for teams, etc. The information comes from newspaper stories, or synthesis of hard stats. So it would seem that synthesis for an apparent POV is an accepted practice.

Of course what we are talking about here are historical inaccuracies, i.e. facts, and not a POV at all. Therefore, I think you have the OR by synthesis definition wrong, and you are certainly out of step with established peer-reviewed wiki practices. As per my experience and by the strict OR by synthesis definition above: synthesis to support a POV is not acceptable (but common); synthesis to support established facts is completely legitimate, and the basis for much of the core information wikipedia. The example with chamber pots above illustrates this as well, it is not a POV whether they are wrong, it is a fact that they are wrong. CJ DUB 14:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I handily admit that I haven't been involved in sports-related peer reviews. That said, I have been involved in over a dozen film-related peer reviews, so I think I know my way around the room a bit. I know what will and what will not fly with both the FAC committee and with the Films WikiProject.
You note in your opening paragraph what you feel are instances of synthesis - the incorporation of sports stats and newspaper stories. However, it is presumed that those stas and news stories were actually about the team in question; if such is the case, it is not synthesis to advance a POV position - the stats are already about that team, as are the stories. The editor is merely joing those already-related facts together.
What OR by synthesis states is that the marrying together of two unrelated pieces of information is unacceptable. Using the aforementioned example of chamber pots, their historical innacuracy in the film is not related to how they were actually used. What is needed in this case is something to find that commonality; a reviewer or a historian pointing out that chamber pots are historically inaccurate in Braveheart. Without that citable, verifiable 'glue', they cannot be connected. The only criteria that the 'glue' needs to do is to be speaking of one thing in relation to another (ie, historical inaccuracy as it relates to Braveheart) while at the same time fulfilling all those special things that citations need to be for inclusion in Wikipedia.
While I think that the synthesis rule is a bit too restrictive, I can understand the necessity for it. you can imagine the abuses someone like a toady little skinhead would make without the synthesis rule being strictly enforced. I hope that explains matters better. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No you missed the point entirely. The sports pages are full of POV by synthesis from raw stats, which is technically not allowed but is widespread and accepted. The case we are talking about here is synthesis of facts, but the intent is not a POV, rather merely providing peer-reviewed/accepted support for an actual FACT, not a POV, which is core of much of wikipedia. In short, what I'm saying is you are completely misinterpreting the definition of OR by synthesis. I can give examples all day long on that if you wish, from the metric system, to the parentage of Winston Churchill. You have to accept that some things are factually accurate and are not just someone's point of view or wikipdia would not exist. CJ DUB 21:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Dub, I don't think I'm missing the point at all. You are saying that some things just have to be synthesized because that's how it all works out anyway...in sports articles and their peer review. I have alrady stated the film articles and their peer reviews do not operate that way. Because of the massive potential for interpretation, nothing is left to pov aside from the consensual agreement as to the plot synopsis. It is not whether something is true, Dub - Wikipedia could give a fig about that, All that matters is what can be cited. If it cannot be cited in connection to the article, it cannot be included. It is no simpler or more difficult than that.
I am not misinterpreting Or by synthesis, and have clearly pointed out how it applies - and how it does not in this or any film article. That you are given a certain amount of leeway in sports-related articles is likely the exception rather than the rule for Wikipedia, and i would expect that now you have pointed that out, that might change. However, if you wish to have the policy restructired so as to allow for your viewpoint, I would direct you to one of three places: WikiProject:Film, Discussion:Original Research or the Village Pump, arranged here by increasing sphere of influence. As the policy is currently interpreted by a great many others than myself, we cannot include historical information that is not brought forth by someoe not commenting on it in view of the film. They must be connected by the focus of the article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. The sports was just an example of misuse of the policy. However, the approach on the inaccuracies is totally in line with wiki policy. Man I need a simpler example. Without synthesis of certain facts, such as birth certificate and interviewing your parents I would not be able to state that YOU in fact exist. In your world this would merely be a POV, rather than a actual fact supported by other facts. This is getting nowhere, and you seem to be the only one of this completely irrational viewpoint as I have notcie over the last 5 weeks. We will put it to a vote, then you can do whatever the heck you want. CJ DUB 23:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did whatever the heck I wanted, which was to point out that you shouldn't be asking peoiple to vote to change a policy of Wikipedia within an article, and deleted the inappropriate vote. I have suggested before that you have four recourses if you wish to reinforce i misinterpretation og the policy. You can:
1. Go to WP:An/I and complain about how mean ol' Arcayne won't allow you to misinterpret policy, despite the fact htat he's politely explained how you were misinformed with your interpretation, or
2. Go to the Village Pump and attempt to have policy reinterpreted the way that you wish. Maybe that will work, or
3. Go to the talk page for WP:NOR and ask and admin there to clarify for me what you feel is a gross misunderstanding of the policy. I am sure that if I am as crazy-wrong as you seem to think I am, they will be happy to come here and do so. Lastly, you can,
4. Accept that perhaps you are wrong here, and maybe work within the criteria given to you by Wikipedia to find appropriate sources of that do not synthesize the editor's knowledge into the article.

That's it, those are the choices available to you. Please choose accordingly. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


CJ DUB: Arcayne has been trying to explain to you a basic tenet of Wikipedia: We only publish what reliable published sources say about a subject. In this case, we can only include material about historical inaccuracies in this film if we can find sources that specifically describe these inaccuracies. There are other wikis in which original research is encouraged, such as Wikiinfo, if you want to create and edit articles without these constrains. The fact that some popular culture and sports articles are not compliant with WP policies, only mean that these articles have not been challenged on the basis of compliance. When they do, they will need to be so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This is pointless. You guys obviously can't see what I am trying to get at here, and you have deleted my comments. Nice work. I'm not advocating original research; having a properly cited historical inaccuracies section supported by facts is not POV and does not violate policy. The sporst example only serves to show you one extreme. With this article, it is not the case and is cut and dried.
This comment by the way is POV and does NOT accurately reflect the policy of wikipedia: In this case, we can only include material about historical inaccuracies in this film if we can find sources that specifically describe these inaccuracies.
WRONG. This is not correct otherwise wikipedia would never have existed, since there is not specific sources about all subjects. It seems you are both of you under the impression that only your interpretation of wiki policy is correct. My vote was to show you that there are other users, other than you guys, that actually interpret the policy properly, rather than censuring established facts that are well supported, but don't have a specific source about them. Here are my examples again: Here's another couple examples:
Player X is a "team player"-POSITION ADVANCED FACTUAL EVIDENCE -WRONG
The sun will come up tomorrow -ACCEPTED FACT SUPPORTED BY OTHER FACTS -RIGHT CJ DUB 05:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have already pointed out where you can go to work to change how the policy is written and interpreted, Dub. Clearly, you think we are wrong. You have that right. You also have the right to go forth and change it through the proper methods (that don't disrupt wikipedia to do so). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I would be surprised if there are no sources that analyze this movie in regard to historicity. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, there are. I'd added the links to a large number of citations that folk could sift through. No one has, it would appear. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Win their freedom?

I just saw Braveheart yesterday on TV for the first time in a while. One question, when he says they "won their freedom" in the end, does that mean the Scots won the battle or that they were all killed (thus gaining freedom from Longshanks?). Sorry if I am obtuse. Jjj222 14:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, no one who accurately uses the word obtuse can be described thusly. :)
The phrase at the end was the source of a bit of back and forth about a month ago, but that was about whether the phrase meant they won their freedom that day on the battlefield (it was more like the American Civil War battle of Gettysburg - it was the decisive turning point in the war) - but I don't think that's what you were asking about. I think that the narrator meant freedom in the real sense, and not the spiritual freedom of death. Cheers! :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - when I first watched it, I interpreted it as if they had won. However, when I watched it again yesterday, I was beginning to think maybe he meant spiritually (as you put it) and that maybe they actually lost the battle. Maybe I was just over-thinking. Jjj222 17:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think they kicked English arse at Bannockburn, and more info about what actually transpired can be seen here. To clarify, I don't think the narrator was speaking to a spiritual win, as I think something more meatier was what was being discussed. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fact and Fiction agree

Robert was 'never' described as Scottish heir-apparent, in the movie (only a claimant, along with the Bailols). GoodDay 19:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've edited in 'future King of Scotland'. Near the end of the movie (in the Battle of Bannockburn scene), Robert was 'King of Scotland'. GoodDay 20:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The title is "King of Scots". Strictly speaking, there has never been such a person as the King of Scotland, except post-Union when, if referring to the kingdoms separately instead of to the UK, "Scotland" has conventionally been used to avoid "clashing" with mention of England and Ireland. ("Queen of Scotland", on the other hand, is a legitimate pre-Union title, referring to a King of Scots' consort as opposed to a reigning Queen of Scots.)