Talk:Braveheart/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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.wiki.x.io/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 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)

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)

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.)

Historical inaccuracies

Yes, there were some, but we cannot include a section on that, unless the inaccuracies come from sources speaking specifically to inaccuracies in the film. You may think they used chamber pots wrong, historical sources may say that chamber pots were used differently, but unless there is a source that says 'Braveheart used chamber pots incorrectly', we cannot cite it. This has been explained in the past two archives in excruciating detail, and I am attempting to head off inquiries since the archiving. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I added a sourced section. Arcayne is totally right on this. No more historical info without sources. Wrad 02:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Wrad, the source doesn't speak to all of the inaccuracies. There are other sources out there that speak to this, and it would beneifit us to rely on more than one single source and jam all the inaccuracies under the single citation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm no longer going to edit this article. You want more sources, you add them. I really expected a little more gratitude that someone added something of value on this subject. Wrad 14:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, okay. That was a very interesting evolution of a response, Wrad. I was all set to apologize for my seeming tone and for not thanking you to do that which I have been asking for from everyone. Then revision after revision came, each a bit more snippy than the last. Sigh. I still apologize for not thanking you for contributing to the article in a good way. I think you definitely misread my economy of reply as something less than thankful that someone had begun adding good info to the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't intend you to see every step in the evolution of me spilling my guts out, but I was pretty mad. First I was mad at all the people who were adding and defending absolute junk, and then I was mad at people not doing anything about it, and then I was mad that the only person who made any sense on this page didn't seem to appreciate a step in the right direction. It just kind of built up. Sorry I took it all out on you. Honestly though, I don't have time to edit any more on this article for awhile. I've got two other projects running. Good luck! Wrad 22:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Its a fun flick, but yes, there were many inaccuracies, beginning with the fact the Scots did not sack York and that the Battle of Stirling Bridge actually featured a bridge. An effective editor would attempt to have some knowledge of the subject —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.230.233 (talk) 04:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, an effective editor would know that his/her own personal knowledge wasn't of the type we actually use here on Wikipedia. We only use secondary sources here, specifically citations from sources commenting on the historical inaccuracies of the film (which is different than looking at a history book and pointing out that the Battle of Stirling Bridge actually took place on a bridge and not a flat plain). I hope that further clarifies matters. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, every last statement I had added to the new Historical inaccuracies section was referenced in the single, scholastic article mentioned. Please don't remove it again. Also be sure to read the article before deleting, next time. If you have a question about a statement, add a cn tag to it. Don't remove legit information. Just for the record I never add information without a ref, so don't worry about that. If I added it, it's referenced. If it needs to be referenced better, let me know, just please don't delete all my work without at least leaving a comment on the talk page. Wrad 15:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrad, do you think that there might have been a way to paraphrase the historical inaccuracies from the references or perhaps not quote an enite paragraph from the reference? We can ibid subsequent quotes from the same source, and I am wondering if that may not be a more effecive way of communicating the source reference. Now that we are using solid citations of the right kind, we don't want to run the risk of a coyright infringement. Your thoughts?

Good job, btw for finding the info and adding it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, it is a paraphrase, not a direct quote. The facts I gathered are scattered throughout the article. Wrad 23:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think that a far smaller section in this article would be Historical Accuracies. Actually, that would fill a few lines. I think that the only truth about this film is that there were two countries called England and Scotland. Enzedbrit 00:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, okay. Perhaps you landed here by mistake. Imdb fan forums are thataway. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Typical Hollywood tripe though isn't it? the 'bad' English against the 'good' Scots, if only they knew the truth eh? It's fine though, i like being the underdog, the Scots should remember that next time they cash they get their fat wage packet. Gazh 10:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Gazh, this isn't the place for that sort of conversation. I would love to address the several assumptions of that statement, but this isn't a political or nationalist forum. Let it be. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Historical Inaccuracies, Part Deux (arbitrary break)

A thing to remember is that if you are going to comment on the historical inaccuracies, you must have a citation that speaks about them within the scope of the film. I mentioned this earlier, but I have been noticing (and have reverted) the tinkering of a citation added almost wholecloth from an academic review. Leave it be, please. If you want to comment further on additional inaccuracies, or want to expand on those already in place, please go out and find some more articles/reviews/whatnot to supplement what's already there. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I've actually been watching the changes, and as it is now fine and reflects the source well. I did have to change a few things, though. So yes, please don't add new info unless you have a separate source, but copyediting is fine. Wrad 05:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If it helps to clarify, my edits were purely in regard to grammar, spelling and style and also a few mildly and doubtlessly unintentionally POV/weasel phrasings. No argument with the facts therein. Mutt Lunker 10:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I thought they were very good. As it is now is much better than when I originally wrote it. Thanks. Wrad 16:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Matt. It was my initial thought that you were changing the content of the cite that Wrad had sought out (as we cannot change text in specific quotes), and yours weren't that. Wrad, this is why I had suggested that each of the statements required specific citation, ewven if they are fromthe same source, so as to denote those quotes that people shouldn't change. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I was just puzzled that you had removed the whole section altogether. Usually when people are concerned about my refs they add citation tags... Wrad 20:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Castration

At first I thought this was synthesized OR, but then I thought about it. The film itself strongly supports the idea that he was castrated. The two puppets "castrate" the dummy in the brief scene before the torture and execution of Wallace, strongly suggesting that the same thing happens to him as the camera shows his face reacting to something painful. The fact that this is what historically happened isn't enough to support this on its own, but in light of the puppet's performance, I think that it's fairly obvious he is castrated in the film. Wrad 20:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"Fairly obvious" and "strongly suggesting" are not enough for inclusion. What I recall most strongly from the dwarfy recreation was the disembowelment (rope for entrails, etc.). Unfortunately, unless we have a cite - again, speaking to the inaccuracy within the film, it cannot be included in the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, I won't push it, but I do think it's enough. Wrad 21:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrad, I didn't make the rules regarding synthesis, but I am pretty determined to follow them. This topic has come up before a few times, and maybe even with us. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Grammar

Hi Arcayne, I'm guessing the source doesn't say "in of his inconsistent supporter of"(?) either. My edit was an attempt to extract meaning from a garbled sentence rather than intending to change its meaning but I evidently guessed wrongly. So have deleted the obscure phrase pending possible re-addition of something grammatical and meaningful. Presumably the source expresses the fact more clearly and grammatically. (The handle is "Mutt" not "Matt" btw.) Mutt Lunker 07:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Another guess: "the portrayal of Robert the Bruce's wavering is relatively accurate, as his support for Scottish independence was not consistent"? (You could keep the phrasing closer to the way it was written in the previous entry, e.g. "the portrayal of Robert the Bruce's wavering is relatively accurate, especially in light of his inconsistent support of Scottish independence" but to me that verges on tautology (i.e. the portrayal of his wavering was correct in the light that he wavered).) That said, why is this remarkable – because other portrayals depict his support as consistent? Does it say this in the citation? If not, why is this included in the section on inacurracies and should it just be removed? Do we list everything else that was actually accurate? Mutt Lunker 10:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've addressed this on your User Talk page, but I will address it here, because I am sensing some vague misunderstanding with how citations and OR do not mix. The citation was written by someone who was good enough to get published. That you think it might be "garbled" carries precisely no weight - and I mean that nicely - because you are not citable, and you do not get to craft specific citations to serve a point - that's called OR via synthesis. We don't do that in Wikipedia. If you do not like the citation, go out, roll up your sleeves and find one that better serves what you want (note that the criteria of the citations from above remian in effect).

As well, if you find you are getting reverted, get off the merry-go-round, and get to the Discussion page. There, you can ask for clarification or defend your edits and whatnot. Don't wait until you ease yourself into a 3RR situation before exploring the idea of communication.

If it sounds like I am being snippy, it's because this isn't rocket science. You've been at this a while, and this childish stuff is rather far beneath you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, not rocket science. The phrasing is now "especially regarding his inconsistent supporter of Scottish independence". It's the grammar of this sentence that I'm addressing. Please read the phrase carefully and explain to me how this can possibly be grammatically correct. Mutt Lunker 14:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Gads but I was on a short fuse last night. The snippy just reaches off the page to slap folk, s sorry about that. I agree that the grammar sucks. When you run into that - misuse of words or poor grammar - you mark it with the latin word "sic" (the wikilink is provided to explain the usage better; it isn't actually used in the sentence) to denote the improper usage, as in the example below:

"The chain sums up its appeal thus: “styley [sic], confident, sexy, glamorous, edgy, clean and individual, with it's [sic] finger on the fashion pulse"

We cannot change the quote from the citation, because it is the original text. Without the exact wording, we invalidate the citaiton. Let me look into something, and it might end up being smailes all around. Again, sorry for all the snippy. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back on that.

The use of "sic" would be appropriate for any directly quoted part. However as only one part of this section is in quotation marks I assume the rest is a paraphrase and not a direct quote, in which case editing of any poor syntactical execution of the paraphrase would then be legitimate. Or does the cited text actually express the sentence re Bruce in this ungrammatical way? In which case it should also be in quotation marks. I don't have access to the text other than the first page on the internet, in which the syntax is impeccable, so this seems doubtful.

By the way I concede that my edit at 22.36 on October 1st may have strayed towards OR but this was clumsiness in trying to make the sentence make some sense rather than an intention to actually change the meaning. Hence my later choice of a safer option of removing the offending text pending clarification of its meaning. I didn't disagree with it I just wasn't sure I understood it or that it could be understood. Mutt Lunker 21:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's my understanding that Wrad (who added the citation) used the direct quote throughout. That's one of the things I will be checking. Wrad, if you are watching, this is what I was trying to avoid. If the material you added is a precise quotation from the material, please set qotation marks around it, so folk will know that it isn't subject to revision. If it is a paraphrasing, I think we are going to have to evaluate the entire added statements to determin their value. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

For info, the first page is viewable here [1]. Doesn't shed much light though. Having just checked the edit history for the last few days, "...in of his inconsistent supporter.." etc. crept in in an edit on 29th September at 04.51, not attributable to Wrad (or you or I). Mutt Lunker 23:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not all a direct quote, just the part in the first sentence with quotes around it is. Wrad 23:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Why Noteworthiness of an Accurate Portrayal?

Moving on, I remarked on the inclusion of one historically accurate part of the film in a section on inaccuracies (but I emphasise this was not the motivation behind any of the edits). Numerous though the innaccuracies are, this is not the only accurate aspect of the film so it's inclusion in the article seems a little puzzling and would be worth elaborating upon. With my own private and thoroughly uncitable knowledge of common perceptions of Bruce in Scotland, I can guess as to why it may be deemed worthy of note, however this remains unexplained in the article but possibly is explained in the cited text. If it is, an explanation of the noteworthiness of the accurate portrayal of Bruce ought to be included in the article. Do you have access to the cited text and would you be able to carry out this elaboration? Mutt Lunker 21:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I do. It is notable because, although legend, which the film could have drawn from, portrays him as a consistent supporter, the film accurately portrays his wavering. As for notability, if a film has absolutely no historical accuracy, there is no reason to show it's innaccuracies. You need a comparison. I don't see why this is a problem. They need to be side by side. Maybe just change the name to Historical accuracy or Historical accuracy issues. Wrad 22:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should stick to the format established by other period historical films, retaining 'Historical Inaccuracy' as the section. Does the cited material precisely say what you wrote, or did you paraphrase the material? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If it doesn't have quotes around it it is not a direct quote, but a paraphrase/summary of the source. Pretty standard. Wrad 23:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like there was a communication breakdown. Matt, Go ahead and correct the grammar if you wish. i was under the mistaken impression that the entire paragraph was drawn from the source, and not paraphrased. I will take a much closer look at the source material tomake sure we are still on point, and will likely add in a great many more specific quotes. Paraphrasing is a very trickly thing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Bruce

Regarding the new wording "to be a bit more in line with the source", I'd be interested to know what the exact quote is as I find a few phrasings curious. Thanks for having a go though.

• The term "surprising" seems a bit POV unless elaborated upon, e.g. "However, in light of these inaccuracies the portrayal...". What does it say in the cited text?
• Why is it a "fact that the film could have easily borrowed...". It's a possibility or conjecture but not a fact. Again, how is this part phrased in the text?
• What are the "Scottish legends about the Bruce which portray him as an unwavering supporter". Are these really referred to as legends or are these mediaeval poetic accounts, other fictional accounts, the common perception in Scotland? The only legend regarding Bruce that I can think of is the one regarding the spider in the cave[2] which could be said to show him wavering at least in commitment. I would agree that the general conception of the Bruce may be as an unwavering supporter but if this is down to any "Scottish legends" I'd like know what they are.

What's more, the supposedly "surprisingly accurate" portrayal baselessly depicts Bruce fighting for the English at Falkirk [3].

I haven't seen the cited text so this may not fit with it at all but, in regard to the above queries would something like this do: "However, in light of these inaccuracies the portrayal of Robert the Bruce's wavering is (in part/relatively?) accurate, considering the popular (conception/fictional depiction?) of Bruce as an unwavering supporter of Scottish independence."? Mutt Lunker 07:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The source actually refers to it as surprisingly accurate almost directly (The word used is "interestingly"). It also directly states that Scottish legend portrays him as unwavering (This is referred to as his "legendary image"). It doesn't say what these legends are. To add the rest of what you said about him would be OR without another source. The source suggests that the film could have easily borrowed from legend, given the fact that it favored emotion over truth in so many other cases. Basically the whole line is a pretty close paraphrase. If you want to change it, you will probably need to find another source, which would probably be a good idea anyway. Wrad 14:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Without seeing the context I'm unclear as to how "interestingly" can be rendered "surprisingly accurate" and "legendary image" as "Scottish legend"? It sounds like re-interpretation rather than paraphrase. Can you quote the entire sentences for context? Mutt Lunker 22:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources available

I had remembered putting scads of sources on the Talk Page some time back, and just found them again in Archive 4. The are reproduced here 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
  

Note that the JSTOR reference is the one that Wrad has been using as the source of his initial statements in Historical Inaccuracy. As well, the last source is Rotten Tomatoes, pletty much a clearinghouse for reviews. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Historical Inaccuracies inaccuracies

Now that I've seen the cited text by Elizabeth Ewan (thanks Arcayne) it confirms my inkling that there has been substantial re-interpretation in the entry here. What is said may well be true but it ain't in the citation. From the wiki entry:

• "Braveheart has been described by Scottish historians...". Only one historian is cited and I suspect she may well not be Scottish (Scottish surname and doctorate but undergraduate degree from Queen's Belfast (Scottish names very common in Northern Ireland)).
• "the movie portrays almost all of Wallace's men as wearing kilts, while the Lowland Scots did not wear kilts at the time". The citation says "The Lowland Scots who made up the majority of Wallace's followers did not wear kilts". Quite different; the emphasis being that almost all were Lowlanders not that almost all wore kilts and no qualification that this was just "at the time".
• "Wallace is portrayed as a commoner...". The citation is referring here to Wallace "liv(ing) in the popular imagination" as a commoner, not directly his portrayal in the film.
• "Edward I...the film goes to inaccurate extremes" (or "far beyond the mark" as per an earlier wording in this section). Perhaps more of a nuance here but this part of the citation actually states that "the screenplay goes well beyond Hary", i.e. Blind Harry's account.
• "the right of English nobles to a Scottish bride's". Although in this instance this may be the end effect, the qualification of "English" and "Scottish" is not cited, overly specific and re-interpretation.
• Spelling only but "Isabelle" in wiki is "Isabella" in the text.
• "the portrayal of Robert the Bruce's wavering is surprisingly accurate". The citation says "fairly accurate", a lesser degree than "surprisingly accurate".
• "considering the fact that the film could have easily...". Speculation, not a fact and not stated in the text.
• "...borrowed from Scottish legends". The text states that the "portrayal contradicts the legendary image of Bruce", it does not relate it to actual legends, Scottish or otherwise. Mutt Lunker 10:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I presume your edit addressed these issues? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope so. Mutt Lunker 18:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Spoof Chef.as.Braveheart.gif

Image:Spoof Chef.as.Braveheart.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracies, revisited

I've had to remove yet again some historical inaccuracies fromt he article for being improperly cited, or without citation. Do not add them back without proper, reliable citation. Remember, in order to avoid synthesis, use only those citable references that speak to both the film and the inaccuracy in question. If it doesn't reference Braveheart as being inaccurate about the point in question, it cannot be used.

• The term "Braveheart" never referred to William Wallace, but rather to Robert the Bruce whose heart was carried on a crusade against the Moors by Sir James Douglas. Douglas was killed in an ambush whilst carrying the heart and is said to have thrown the casket containing Bruce's heart ahead of him and shouted "Onward braveheart, Douglas shall follow thee or die."
• The movie portrays Wallace and his largely Lowland Scots men as wearing kilts, whereas Lowlanders did not wear kilts.(The 'nationalisation' of Gaelic culture and popular generalisation that Scotland as a whole is 'Celtic' date from the eighteenth century).. The military appearance of Scottish knights and feudal lords, including Wallace himself, would have been little different from their English counterparts. They would have been mounted on specially bred war horses, wearing mail stockings to protect the legs and a long mail shirt, over which would be worn a surcoat displaying a coat of arms.
• The film depicts Scotland as already under English occupation by 1280, however England first invaded Scotland in 1296, after the outbreak of the First War of Scottish Independence and removal of King John Balliol.
• At the beginning of the film a young Wallace, aged about 10, discovers some Scottish nobles and pages hanging in a barn. This event, known as the "Barns of Ayr" is reported only by Blind Harry, a semi-legendary scource, and occurred in 1297, the year of Stirling Bridge.
• William Wallace and, future king, Robert Bruce never actually met and were bitter enemies fighting on different sides. Wallace was fiercely loyal to King John Balliol while Robert Bruce upheld his own different claim to the Scottish throne. This is why Robert the Bruce did not fight with Wallace at Falkirk.
• Although Irish troops were present at the Battle of Falkirk, they did not desert to the Scots.

(This is an example of a source that doesn't speak to the film, but rather is a historical note. Neither citation can be used)

• Stirling Bridge, which featured centrally in the battle of the same name, is missing from the film portrayal.

(This is yet another example of a source that doesn't speak to the film, but rather is a historical note. The citation cannot be used)

• In the film, Wallace invades northern England and captures York. Although he raided northern England after Stirling Bridge the border cities of Carlisle and Newcastle were able to resist. He did not possess the capability to take any fortified city. York is much further south, and Wallace got nowhere near there.
• The film suggests that Wallace sired Edward III. Edward's mother Isabella of France was ten years old at the time of Wallace's death and never met Wallace. Edward was born seven years after the death of Wallace.
• The military appearance of Scottish knights and feudal lords, including Wallace himself, would have been little different from their English counterparts. They would have been mounted on specially bred war horses, wearing mail stockings to protect the legs and a long mail shirt, over which would be worn a surcoat displaying a coat of arms.

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The Slingshot article is specifically about the historical inaccuracies of the film, and mentions all the points restored. (I can send you a pdf if you're interested) Mike Young (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The questions wouldn't be whether you could send the pdf to me (though sure, I would like one), but whether you could send the same pdf to every single reader who peruses the article. I cannot find the article anywhere online. I know Walsh has done some work on history, primarily Irish history, but none of his works appear to directly address Braveheart as a source of historical inaccuracy. You might want to seek out a source that is more accessible.

Something which bears repeating: I don't doubt that most of the above inaccuracies are true, but truth is not the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia - verifiability and notability is. The above bulleted points had no reference. Until each of them do, they cannot return to the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course I would be willing to send the article to anyone who asked. You could get hold of it if you joined the Society of Ancients. (Which is like saying you could get hold of a book if you brought it). You seem to be raising unreasonably high hurdles to having something which you know to be true put in Wikipedia. This film has a similar problem to JFK. All people know about history is what they see in the film. They assume it is accurate when it is not. People come to Wikipedia to find out this. Removing this section implies that the film is historical. It is not. As a fellow Flying Spaghetti Monster fan, you should appreciate the importance of this.

I put back all the points that were specifically mentioned in the paper (which was most of them) and referenced them with the paper. Mike Young (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Mike, I think my wit was missed there. Are you prepared to email the thousands who visit the article? Immediately? I think not. I understadn that you think that the Slingshot article is both notable and verifiable, please feel free to include references. having to join a group (and I cannot be the only person who thinks the Society of Ancients seems like one of those creepy little Rosicrucian-style, fez-wearing, bowling parties). If it cannot be verified freely and without charge, we cannot use it, as that is part of verifiability.

As for the JFK reference as a legitimization for the instruction creep, telling folk that this is a film, it is rife with factual errors and logic fallacies,my friend. To begin with, anyone with a brain larger than a slice of ham knows the difference between movies and real life. The very fact that the Lead specifically notes that this is a movie pretty much sums that up. Allowing such instruction is the same sort of wackiness we encountered with 300 a while back, with Persian enthusiasts (to be kind) insisting that the movie article needed to include bas reliefs of the real Xerxes and that the glorious Persian empire needed to be touted more. It's a movie. the links to the actual William Wallace, Edward I of England. Robert the Bruce and Battles of both Stirling Bridge and Falkirk are already linked within the article. To push this instruction is an illegitimate method by which to present the idea of historical inaccuracy without citation. You may have noticed the months of others and myself ensuring that only those references that speak only to the historical inaccuracies of the film are included in the article. With respect, your instruction seems like an end-run.

As well, we present articles - accurate, neutral (in that they are objective) articles - so that the reader can make up their own minds about a particular subject, and can explore further upon their whim. We do not chew the food for the reader. We present them with objective, clearly and verifiably cited information so as to come to a reasoned decision on their own. We don't tut-tut the reader. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

A Good Movie but.....

• The Battle of Falkirk (1298) is shown as having been lost by the betrayal of Wallace by Scottish noblemen-among them named named "DeMoray" after helping Wallace win the Battle of Stirling Bridge-DeMoray is shown being killed in his bedchamber by Wallace; in fact Andrew Moray had fought with Wallace at Stirling Bridge, but had died of wounds soon afterward and was never at the Battle of Falkirk!
• William Wallace is shown as being betrayed to the English at Edinburgh by Robert de Brus, jure uxoris Earl of Carrick in fact:
  • Robert de Brus, jure uxoris Earl of Carrick had died in March 1304-before Wallace's capture in 1305; furthermore Robert de Brus is shown as a leper-when it is alleged it was his son Robert I of Scotland who is alleged to died of this disease.
• Wallace whereabouts was betrayed by his servant Jack Short
• Wallace was captured at Glasgow by Sir John de Menteith who had served both against and for Edward I
• Edward I is shown as dying at the same time as William Wallace in 1305; Edward died in 1307 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.132 (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

Actually, I am not. Perhaps you missed the What Has Gone Before mini-primer, but any citation as to the film's inaccuracy has to be cited by folk speaking about how the film was inaccurate, not the synthesis that arises when an editor, knowing about history, puts a historical fact together with something that happened in the film and pronounces inaccuracy. I would also remind you that Braveheart was a theatrical film release, not a documentary. The same standards of historical accuracy which are to expected for one do not apply to the other. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

Mention of Lethal Weapon 4

After reading over the section several times, I could not see the reason for the mention of LW4, it has nothing to do with the movie, or the tone of the section.

The tone of the section speaks in regards to the funding for the movie, not whether the actor decided to work on a certain movie or not.— Dædαlus^T@lk / _Improve^Contribs 06:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, as the focus of the article needs to be on Braveheart. Gibson and his career choices are secondary. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)