Talk:Braveheart/Archive 5: 09/07 - 02/08

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).[1][2]. 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.[3]
(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)
(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)