Talk:Braveheart

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[hide]

[edit] Open Call

I'm writing this comment in all of the articles about special editions of soundtracks. I suggest to create an article (or a portal if it was needed) with a list of soundtracks that have been expanded in several and more complete editions, as I find interesting to see which scores have been succesful enough that many editions and much more complete versions have been released. Please reply if you agree with me or if there's already something similar. --Surten (talk) 03:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Surten

[edit] Primae noctis (yet again)

Anon user:195.157.141.205 (talk · contribs) added the following to the "Historical inaccuracies" section:

"Edward I never passed a primae noctis decree; in fact, there is no convincing evidence of any such tradition being imposed anywhere in the British Isles or elsewhere in Europe. The idea of Primae Noctis being anything other than a persistant, unsubstantiated rumour dating back to the Middle Ages is largely considered innaccurate by modern historians."1

citing a Straight Dope "Ask Cecil" column. Unfortunately, this source fails both the verifiability and reliability policies of Wiki-en, and we cannot use it. As no verifiable information is available about the notability of "Cecil Adams" (itself a pseudonym for an unknown person) educational value, and he provides not citations for his comments, we cannot use them.
Additionally, we don't change the citation tag dates; its is often seen as misleading in that it suggests that information has gone uncited for less time than it has. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review Braveheart has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High
This article has been rated as High-importance on the priority scale.


[edit] What Has Gone Before

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.

[edit] Additional references

In Valve's game "Team Fortress 2", the (Scottish) Demoman has "FREEEEEDOOOOM!" as one of his battlecries. Is is a valid reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prickofdestiny (talk • contribs) 20:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say no, because it isn't a notable reference. To be notable, it has to duplicate specific (and usually extensive) information about the movie. For example, the South Park episode, Starvin' Marvin, the speech and style by Chef and the resulting battle closely parallels that of Wallace's Stirling Bridge speech in Braveheart. The same sort of thing happens in the Family Guy episode, No Chris Left Behind. In order for it to be notable spoof, it has to be more than just a meme ("This is Sparta", or "All your base are belong to us" or "Where's The Beef?"), as the ability of memes to notably connect to the source material quickly fades over time, whereas spoofs usually have a longer shelf-life. In order to be notable, it has to durably connect to the source material. I hope that helps. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm also heard that one of this taunts (lifting his flak jacket's codpiece to reveal a smiley taped on his crotch) is a spoof of the Scots' taunt to the English soldiers in that film (lifting their kilts to flash them)... Maybe that pushes it further on the side of the reference VS the meme (I had never heard of that kilt taunt before hearing of Braveheart) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prickofdestiny (talk • contribs) 11:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, I wouldn't say that is necessarily a notable connection. If you will recall, the Scots primarily showed their bums to the English, not their peckers. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Good Movie but.....

I know, and we have five archives filled with the identical sort of info. The problem with adding it is that we need citations that speak about the inaccuracies of the film. Not historical dates and instances culled from a history book, as that would be you synthesizing the material from the history book or wherever to advance a point of view (ie., that the film was historically inaccurate on one point or another). We aren't allowed to do that. We are, however, allowed to incorporate the synthesis of such information of reliable, verifiable, and notable sources. This means no blogs or that sort of claptrap. At one point, I noted the existence of a ton of reviews and the sort wherein a number of reviewers noted historical inaccuracies. It may still be in one or more of the archives. I hope my response helped to answer your question, user:134. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Historical accuracy discussion, part 47

(brought to a new section from the initial FAQ section "What has come before", so as to allow development of the discussion apart from that which should remain in place by itself)
Judging by the way the "historical inaccuracies" bit of the article has been vigourously edited, I gather that the main aim of this rule is to ensure that uninitiated readers think that the film is a good portrayal of history. Mike Young (talk) 23:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
No, its to ensure that folk actually find sources that conform with wiki rules before inclusion. If you actually feel people get their history from movies, you are are either incredibly cynical or misguided. Maybe take a moment to actually read what was written above, since your comments clearly didn't note how sources are supposed to work here. Roll up your sleeves and find them, rather than complaining about how cruel and unfair the world is. Sorry for all the harsh, but I have little tolerance for folk willing to complain about the world of crap around them, but unwilling to work a shovel. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Lots of people do get their history from historical fiction, even though they shouldn't. This film is a notable example of that, as is JFK (film), The Passion of Christ, and I, Claudius. People often come to this page specifically to look for these historical inaccuracies, and it is unfair for you to remove them. Why do you accuse me of complaining without doing the spadework? I have made many edits in the past to this and many other articles, done lots of spadework, (as you say), and found those sources. They met all the criteria above, in that it was a scholorly article specifically written about the film and it's lack of historical knowledge. But you have deleted them, on the excuse that the source was not a web page you could access, but rather a well referenced, award winning, scholarly article, which I have the PDF of, and am willing to send to anyone who wants it (if any reader would like a copy of this article please email me from my user page) Mike Young (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I apologize for not getting back to you sooner,Mike. Had I een your earlier post, I would have replied a lot sooner. Understand that no slight was intended, either by the unintended delay or the reversal of your included citations.
The source you were providing could not be accessed though normal means, nor through JSTOR (an academic research tool which most readers do not have access to anyway). I couldn't even verify that the book existed through Books in Print or through sales outlets links like Amazon (for the US and the UK). It might be a self-published piece by the author, which begs the question of reliability and verifiability.
The sources must speak about the historica inaccuracies in the film. They cannot simply state historical fact; they must say so in the context of speaking about the movie. Otherwise, its synthesis, a type of original research where one compiles unconnected material to advance a point.
I hope that explains matters better, Mike.:) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
...So, basically you can only say that the film is innacurate if a verifiable source out there says that it is innacurate. I would suggest that it should be possible to quote straight historic facts (fully referenced, of course), comparing them to the film plot. You wouldn't be saying "the film is wrong because", you would simply be stating that, for example, according to such-and-such a source the Battle of Stirling Bridge involved a bridge, whereas none was present in the movie. You are not using the historical source to debunk the film, you are merely comparing and contrasting the story with a historically accepted version of events and allowing any "debunking" to take place in the head of the reader. It's a fine line, but I think that a suprisingly large number of people DO get their history from Hollywood and so I think that the facts behind any historical scenario should be included, even if only outline the events that the film is supposed to depict. Paul-b4 (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand your frustration, Paul, but we have to conform to the WP:Verifiability policy of Wikipedia. In the first paragraph of that core policy states "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, that is, not whether we think it is true". In order to avoid synthesis - ie, processing historical fact into a comment about how the film got it wrong - we need to find sources that speak of the inaccuracies within the film. The sources have to bear the responsibility of indicating what was wrong; we cannot do so ourselves. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I totally see what you are saying, and, at the risk of extending this topic to the point of explosion would make this point; simply quoting historical fact (as detailed in other sections of Wikipedia) could only be construed as "Processing" if you were using it to say that the film was "wrong" (i.e. "the film is wrong because this historical reference says that this actually happened.") If you simply said "the film says this, and historic references say this" you aren't actually "processing" anything - you are leaving the reader to make up their own mind as to which is more accurate. OK, much would depend on the actual wording used, but I don't think that the concept of comparing various differing versions of events (without commenting) is the same as passing a personal opinion based on verifiable data.Paul-b4 (talk) 09:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(←dent)I see what you mean. It isn't my rule but Wikipedia's. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that you are being overly critical about what to include. I said that the Bruce's father could not have been involved in Wallace's capture in August 1305 since the elder Bruce died in March 1304. My sources? The Wikipedia articles on William Wallace and Robert de Brus, jure uxoris Earl of Carrick. Jhobson1 (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural Reference

In the movie Wrongfully Accused the main character is presented dressed in a kilt and with his face painted blue, referring to Braveheart. -- Anon user 22:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide a citation that mentions this comparison to Braveheart? We cannot include it without a reference. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)