Talk:Braveheart/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Historical Inaccuracies, Part Deux (arbitrary break)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Why Noteworthiness of an Accurate Portrayal?

message: 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 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 . 
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The Bruce

message: 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)
thread_title: Sources available

message: 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)
replies: text: I presume your edit addressed these issues? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical Inaccuracies inaccuracies

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Additional references

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: A Good Movie but.....

message: 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)
thread_title: Open Call

message: Anon user: 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)
thread_title:  Primae noctis (yet again) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Cultural Reference

message: 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.— DædαlusT@lk / ImproveContribs 06:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mention of Lethal Weapon 4