Talk:Braveheart/Archive 1

message: Someone claimed that "The film also makes no mention of Andrew de Moray, Wallace's companion-in-arms and a major contributor at this battle [Stirling]." If I remember correctly, was it not Moray who brought the largest portion of the forces to the battle in the film (the one's who wanted to run) and was later told to flank the English with his cavalry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.23.99 (talk • contribs) 23:00, May 16, 2006
:He was called 'Mornay' in the film, and yes, he did flank the English and later Mel Gibson smashed his head in with a ball and chain. Augustulus 00:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Andrew de Moray

message: You got to love that blue. -G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.66 (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: lol, Best Makeup?

message: "In the beginning of the film, the narrator describes the marriage between King Edward II and the Princess by saying, "It was widely whispered that for the princess to conceive, Longshanks would have to do the honors himself." Although the marriage between Edward II and wife was not a good one, it produced four children." Edward II also fathered a number of illegitimate children.
I think whoever wrote this part is misinterpreting the message. Here,it is written as if the narrator meant to say that Edward II was impotent. I think its just an allusion to Edward II's homosexuality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ashmole (talk • contribs) 21:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily, but it does imply that EDward II did not have any children.--Jack Upland 23:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: we should stick to the substance of the movie, though. If we can find substantive arguments in the form of reviews, we can address that in an future Inaccuracies section. First the synopsis of the plot needs to get trimmed a bunch, then we can tighten up the language and deal with stuff outside the film. :) Arcayne 23:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Longshanks would have to do the honors himself" 

message: Can anyone lock this article? I just fixed about three vandalisings in five minutes!--JesseOjala 12:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Locking it down now would prevent us from fixing the article. When you see vandalism, revert it, let the person know they cannot do that. If you see they have a lot of vandalism posts in their talk, report them to vandalism, so they can be dealt with on a more permanent basis, by blocking their IP address or breaking their kneecaps (okay, maybe not that last one). Arcayne 23:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request a locking 

message: I've rearranged the headers to something a bit more in keeping with articles on the WP:GA and WP:FA lists. Feel free to check out some exampoles, to get a feel for what we are all foing to be working towards. I've also rearranged the Discussion lists a bit, archiving discussions prior to December, 2006 (the posts before that were in June, 2006). 
Some duplication of topics is bound to occur, so it would be helpful to discuss big changes here before adding them to the article. If you think you are going to encounter resistance to the changes, try to find some concensus with the rest of the folk editing, so we can avoid a lot of the nonsense that seems to occur elsewhere.
The way I see it, we need work in practically every area, but first and foremost, we need to tighten up and trim the plot significantly. As well, we need to find and add reviews of the film, perhaps developing the Production and the new Themes header. I am sure there is more, and I hope folk will pipe up and add your 2p. worth.Arcayne 19:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the list of inaccuracies should be in chronological order (as they appear in the film).--Jack Upland 23:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems pretty reasonable. Also, I am thinking that if some of them are related inaccuracies, we can combine them. I forsee a time when we, rather than listing them, it is arranged in paragraph form.Arcayne 23:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What Needs Work

message: ...of which there are many need to be cited. As it is, the section looks very much like a trivia section, which are not present in most FA articles. I am going to remove uncited instances of historical innacuracies to here. When they are properly cited, they should be included back into the article.Arcayne 19:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ones with links to other wikipedia articles that corroborate them should be kept in though, like Edward III's birth, and similar ones --AW 19:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, so long as the sentences that the Wiki-links appear in don't make uncited claims. For example, one of the last numbered inaccuracies have a Wikilink for "York", but the remainder of the notation requires citation.Arcayne 19:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I'll add some back if you want to check shortly --AW 20:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You understand what I mean about citing the material, right? I've noted you've added the points I removed from the article, and ported over here until it could be cited. Check out WP:CITE. What we need to have is verified references for the things like the Battle of Stirling. Check out some of the Featured film articles WP:FA#media, and see how they handle inaccuracies and the like. I am not trying to talk down to you (and if it is coming across like that, I am sorry). I am going to remove those inaccuracies without proper citation. After we cite it, we can put it back into the article.Arcayne 04:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the stuff is obvious though, like "Edward III of England was born in 1312, seven years after Wallace's death; thus it is impossible for Edward III to have been Wallace's son." If you go to the page for Edward III, it says he was born in 1312. Wallace died in 1305, thus to me this one is fine --AW 23:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a problem with the phrasing (stating that something is "impossible" is seen as OR - even if it is patently so), but many of the other inaccuracies need confirmation, citable through an outside source.Arcayne 05:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can also add most of 1 (except the "curiously..." sentence) 4, and 10, since those also deal with dates --AW 06:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. However, I am looking over the list, and I think that using bulletpoints as opposed to numbering would be smoother, I think. Go ahead and add 1,4 and 10 in, and we can tweak the language to make it more neutral.Arcayne 09:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do --AW 16:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical Inaccuracies

message: (re-added to article)
* Braveheart's plot includes an affair between William Wallace and the Princess Isabelle, based upon Isabella of France. The film implies she is pregnant at the time of Wallace's execution,  carrying the future Edward III of England. Historically, the real Isabella was a child of nine still living in France at this time, meaning she never met Wallace, and furthermore, was never a Princess of Wales, as she married Edward II after he became king - four years after Wallace's death. This idea may have been derived from the play The Wallace by Sydney Goodsir Smith, or it may be derived from a fictional episode in Blind Harry's poem, where  Marguerite of France, second wife of Edward I, attempts to seduce Wallace.
# The Battle of Stirling Bridge, the first skirmish in the film, was filmed without a bridge. Far from being an ambush, the English army was well aware of the location opf the Scottish army, in fact they were activley seeking battle with the Scots - which is why they were at Stirling in the first place.>
# The film depicts Edward I dying at the same time as Wallace was executed.  In fact, Wallace's execution took place in 1305, in Westminster, and King Edward died in 1307, two years later, en route to put down another rising of the Scots, led by Robert the Bruce.
* Edward III of England was born in 1312, seven years after Wallace's death; thus it is impossible for Edward III to have been Wallace's son.
# The opening juxtaposition of the line "The King of Scotland had died without a son" and the caption "Scotland, 1280" is inaccurate: Alexander III did not die until 1286, and the country was not immediately taken over.
(Remaining to be confirmed through citation)
#The English soldiers before and at Stirling are seen to be wearing the red-and-gold livery of the king of England; in reality troops did not yet wear 'national' colours, not, in general, the 'liveries' of great lords. It is not the case that they were 'Surrey's' troops, he was their commander.
#(It is rumoured that Gibson told a Scottish local the bridge was removed as it got in the way, and the local replied "that's what the English found" .) The fight shown in the film is not remotely like the Battle of Bannockburn or any other Scoto-English battle of the middle ages.
# The film also makes no mention of Andrew de Moray, Wallace's companion-in-arms and a major contributor at this battle, although it mentions a nobleman named "Mornay" who betrays Wallace at Falkirk and is later killed by him. If this was supposed to be Andrew de Moray it is in error - Moray died of wounds after the Battle of Stirling Bridge.)
# Edward I's second wife, Margaret, whom he married in 1299, is absent from the film, although the span of history covered in the production includes this year. This implies his first wife Eleanor of Castile was his only spouse.
# There is absolutely no controversy among medieval historians about whether the jus prima noctis (also known as the droit de seigneur), the supposed right of a Lord to deflower virgins in his territory ever existed, but it certainly never existed in either England or Scotland at that time.  It is most likely a fabrication of the "Enlightenment" period or of Victorian romance.
# The evidence is strongly agiainst the possibility that Wallace had a wife. As a candidate for the priesthood (according to Bower and Blind Harry) he could not have been able to amrry.  According to much later Scottish romances her name was Marion Braidfute.
# The then-future King Robert the Bruce is described as "Earl of Bruce", but his title at the time was Earl of Carrick; Carrick was a Gaelic-speaking province in south-west Scotland, and Bruce (more accurately "de Brus") was Robert I's family name, of Norman origin.
#Braveheart suggests Wallace supported the Bruce claim to the Scottish throne; however, Wallace supported the Balliol claim while Bruce was convinced of his grandfather's rightful succession.
# Bruce did not betray Wallace at Falkirk.  He did eventually switch sides but this was a few years later and as a result of a dispute with the Comyn family (not depicted in the film) who supported the Balliol claim to the throne (as had Wallace himself).  The Scottish war effort collapsed a few years later because of the defeat of their French allies by the Flemish at the Battle of the Golden Spurs in 1302. Wallace was hunted down when the Scots were forced to surrender in 1305.
# The film depicts Edward I defenestrating a friend and (implied) lover of Edward, the Prince of Wales. There is no record of Edward ever killing or harming his son's favorites, though one, Gaveston, was exiled twice. 
# At the end of the film it shows what is implied to be the beginning of the Battle of Bannockburn, but it also implies that Bruce only decided to fight the English at that stage, in fact he had already been fighting a perfectly convenmtional campaign for eight years.
#prima nocte was not in actual practice
#Blue facial war paint was not used by the Scots
#*The film shows Wallace as a man of average height but in reality he was acctually around 6"foot 2"inches, when in the 13th century the average height would have been around 5"foot 4-6"inches.
:The ones with links to other wikipedia articles that corroborate them should be kept in though, like Edward III's birth, and similar ones --AW 19:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, so long as the sentences that the Wiki-links appear in don't make uncited claims. For example, one of the last numbered inaccuracies have a Wikilink for "York", but the remainder of the notation requires citation.Arcayne 19:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I'll add some back if you want to check shortly --AW 20:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You understand what I mean about citing the material, right? I've noted you've added the points I removed from the article, and ported over here until it could be cited. Check out WP:CITE. What we need to have is verified references for the things like the Battle of Stirling. Check out some of the Featured film articles WP:FA#media, and see how they handle inaccuracies and the like. I am not trying to talk down to you (and if it is coming across like that, I am sorry). I am going to remove those inaccuracies without proper citation. After we cite it, we can put it back into the article.Arcayne 04:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the stuff is obvious though, like "Edward III of England was born in 1312, seven years after Wallace's death; thus it is impossible for Edward III to have been Wallace's son." If you go to the page for Edward III, it says he was born in 1312. Wallace died in 1305, thus to me this one is fine --AW 23:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a problem with the phrasing (stating that something is "impossible" is seen as OR - even if it is patently so), but many of the other inaccuracies need confirmation, citable through an outside source.Arcayne 05:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can also add most of 1 (except the "curiously..." sentence) 4, and 10, since those also deal with dates --AW 06:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. However, I am looking over the list, and I think that using bulletpoints as opposed to numbering would be smoother, I think. Go ahead and add 1,4 and 10 in, and we can tweak the language to make it more neutral.Arcayne 09:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do --AW 16:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Innaccuracies

message: Braveheart draws inspiration from real historical events as related by the myth poem The Acts and Deeds of Sir William Wallace, Knight of Elderslie by Blind Harry. However, due to the intense level of detail in costuming, makeup, and special effects, audiences may incorrectly assume that the production is intended to be historically accurate. Some of the "inaccuracies" in Braveheart may have been motivated by artistic reasons. The anachronistic kilts worn by the Scots make the rebels more visually distinctive, the incomplete armor and missing helmets allow viewers to recognize the actors, and changes to characters and names make the story easier to follow. Modifications to the sequence of events create dramatic juxtapositions, allowing different lines in the story to appear to occur simultaneously.  Gibson, in his DVD commentary to the film, admits many of these historical inaccuracies quite candidly, such as:
However, for a film of its kind, Braveheart is still unspeakably inaccurate. The English did not, so far as history knows, kill Wallace's wife - as a candidate for the priesthood he not have one,  He, along with many others, did lead a rising against them, but he was not captured and executed until more that a year afer the collapse of that rising. . The most inaccurate element of the movie is the chronology. Longshanks outlived William Wallace by a few years. The princess of Wales was actually born 
several years before Wallace's death, so the love story between the two never occured. However, her dislike of Edward II was accurate, and she eventually removed him from the throne in an attempt to sieze power with her lover. The portrayal of Edward I "Lonkshanks" is controversial. There is no question that from a Scot's perspective, as well as that of the Irish, Longshanks was a tyrant and a villain, a feeling that is certainly justified. He did manage take over Scotland betweeen February 1304 and March 1306, and was sometimes brutal in the treatment of the natives. It must be remembered that, despite today's United Kingdom, in medieval times, Scotland and England were two entirely separate nations, so Longshanks had absolutely no right to rule Scotland. Whether he was as overall a depraved person as the film portrays him is debatable. 
By far the most important debate over Braveheart's accuracy is about the role of Robert the Bruce VII. Wallace was  actually a  supporter of John Balliol, and they state in the movie that the Wallace family were traditional supporters of Balliol. During Wallace's lifetime in the movie, his relationship with the Bruce is quite conflicted, as it would have probably really been. Nonetheless, it is well known that Robert the Bruce led the Scots to their freedom at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314, and it is quite possible that he would have been inspired by the rebellion of Wallace, and would have probably had many of the same warriors that Wallace had fought with. The deeds of the Irish in the movie are totally invented, possibly motivated by the modern day romantic notions of Celtic unity. In 1316, Robert the Bruce invaded Ireland, a move much welcomed by the Irish in the north, who were at that time under English control, and this was seen by both the Irish and Bruce himself as an attempt to free Ireland. This was successful to a certain extent, though he had little support in the south of Ireland, despite his Northern popularity.
</blockquote>Arcayne 19:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical Accuracy

message: Most of the sections are pretty bloated, with little in the way of citation (WP:CITE, WP:ATT). Specifically, the Plot Synopsis is too long by far, and the Wallace Monument section, while noteworthy, is in danger of being removed by an editor for not having any citations. What do you folks think also needs work?Arcayne 00:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What still needs work

message: The article gives his height as 6'2" but I wonder if this actually known or what.  70.54.126.197 22:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I keep going over that part in the inaccuracies section, and I keep wanting to remove it as inconsequential. I truly don't think it matters, even if Wallace was a big man. The film doesn't focsu upon that, but rather the path he cut for the Scots. Arcayne 22:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wallace's height 

message: Is the plot summary of 13 paragraphs (a) too short (b) too long (c) just right?  Bigturtle 02:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, look at the word count. We should be aiming for around 900 words. We are at close to 1500. Look at paragraphs like Acts in a play, or scenes requiring major scenery change. lol. Kidding aside, it could stand to have a lot more trimmed down, paraphrasing and condensing material. Remember that the is a Wikiquote area for those nifty bits of dialogue, so don't be afraid to bump them in order to provide a bir'd eye view of what happens. Arcayne 00:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot summary

message: The "Battle of Stirling" scene, where many horses of the English Heavy Cavalry were impaled on a wall of improvised wooden spears, had sparked minor concerns of animal cruelty.
True or False?
--Arima 03:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Needless to say, no animals were harmed in the making  of this movie, or else it would be illegal. Other than that, Animal protestors protest at the use of animals in films, so naturally any film with animals would spark such protests. 
Tourskin 22:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a concern. I am working on the production section, where that is included. Fromt he Braveheart DVD commentary, Gobson talked about how some animal rights person was so convinced that the scenes witht he horses were so real that he had to be shown a videotape of the production being made for a Make-a-Wish child that showed that the horses weren't being hurt at all. I should be finished with the production section this Sunday. Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humane Rights Controversy 

message: I'm not sure thats how its spelled, but what about the Pre monacta stuff Longshanks talks about - you know, stealing a married man's wife on their first night. Tourskin 22:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its actually called Prima noctae and, while it was a pactice, there isn't really that muchin the way of evidence that it was still in practice during Wallace's time. It may have been fudged historically in. Check out the link, which explains more about it. Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre monacta 

message: We cannot include information which is not cited through a reliable source. There are lots and lots of articles about this film out there. Please find citations for any statements added to the article.Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced Info

message: I agree with David and Phil on this. We don't need these ugly little warnings because this isn't a fan site, it's an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 00:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm changing the policy by changing the way I edit. This is the way we do things on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 00:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess maintaining the current policy is the way I edit. It's also how we do things in WP. Perhaps you can fight this particular battle in the appropriate venue until then. :) Cheers. Arcayne (cast a spell)  01:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no battle here. Policy is not fixed and immutable.  It changes. --Tony Sidaway 05:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. When it does in fact change, let's chat then. Until then, I would appreciate it if you would stop altering my sig. It isn't too long, and I am fully aware of your reasoning that you've used in the past to defend this peculiar abberent behavior. It doesn't apply here. Please stop; you may be quite unaware (though I cannot see how) how annoying this is to your feelow users. Perhaps you might want to consider that it is rather uncivil to mess with another person's edits, Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're too late. Wikipedia policy changed while you were worrying about the size and beauty of your luxuriant and voluptuous signature. --Tony Sidaway 18:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: All over the wiki. How many of you are there in there, Arcayne?  Or is it the royal plural? --Tony Sidaway 20:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia policy isn't prescribed, it merely describes. --Tony Sidaway 01:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, I guess that means you don't have a policy to cite, and are instead elevating your personal opinion as policy. Thanks for the clarity, Tom. Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoilers

message: I don't recall Argyle taking young William to Ireland, as indicated ina recetn edit. It is presumed they left the area, and Wallace talks later of having knowledge of French and having been to Rome. No mention of Ireland, though. Can someone get back to me on that? I am going to edit it out for now, but I will gladly change it back if someone can cite the statement. Arcayne 16:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just watched it yesterday and I would have to agree with you. It seems to me that we are told he left the British Isles. During one of their first meetings as adults, Wallace answers the question about being Rome with the statement, "Aye, my uncle took me on a pilgrimage". So, I would take that to mean that he did some extensive traveling. He might've visited Ireland as a part of that pilgrimage but it would've only been a visit. ---> Benseac 22:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ireland?

message: I think we that the article is shaping up pretty nicely (and might I say WOW on all the most excellent edits!). I think the article is ready for a Peer Review. they will give us some insight on maybe upgrading the aticle to A Quality, and maybe see if we cannot get yourselves a Good Article rating. If not, then we will at least know what we need to work on still. Arcayne 17:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The peer review has received comments from an editor here. Changes occurring are being made on the basis of that review. Arcayne 18:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: :*Rewrite Production into useful prose and support with citation.  Origin of the project would be good as well, like why Gibson chose to pursue this particular time in history.  Move Wikiquote template to External links section.
:*Rewrite Response and awards section as prose.  Also, are there any other notable awards that Braveheart won?  Check out the Awards section on the film's IMDb page.  Stuff like Golden Globes could be added; a possible rule of thumb is that if an award has its own Wikipedia article, it may be acceptable.  Other criteria should apply, though.  As for box office performance, more detail could be provided -- its premiere, anything unique about its opening, how it performed overseas, especially in the countries that are portrayed in the films.
:*Cultural effects section needs to be cited.  There's an embedded link for what Lin Anderson said about the film shaping the political landscape; does the link have any information about how it was shaped?
:*Historical inaccuracy -- give it the 300 treatment and avoid synthesis.  Find references of historians criticizing Braveheart directly.
:*Spoofs and references... equates Trivia, in my opinion.  Might be better replaced by useful prose about the impact of Braveheart on certain aspects of popular culture.
:*Soundtrack and More Music from Braveheart -- I'd suggest a content fork, and if the music was a major part of the film, you could be redundant in having information about the music both at the film article and the newly-created soundtrack article, but only have the track listing at the latter.
:*External links -- there's two film reviews.  I suggest making "Critical reaction" and "Historical inaccuracy" subsections under "Response and awards" (re-title the section as "Reaction" or "Reception").  Focus "Critical reaction" on the merits of directing, acting, editing, effects, violence, etc.  Focus "Historical inaccuracy" on differences from the actual events, but keep it succinct.  Not sure how far this film strays from the actual event compared to 300.
:*Expand lead paragraphs after all above points have been addressed.
-Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To Do List

message: The picture of Murron is very dark.  Can anyone fix this? Wrad 21:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally. Now the new image is uploaded. As for the placement of these images, I am going to leave them where they are. However, I can tell you that their current placement makes them ripe for removal as "decorative". I've seen it happen in at least two other film articles. You folks might want to take a bit o' time and read up on Wiki-films project page. Keep in mind, Macho, you broke 3RR with your little edit-war. I'm going to cut you a break and not report you, because I'm in a good mood. You can say thank you. Now, play nice, from now on, please. Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Since there seems to be some warring going on, I thought it best to only do a few minor edits (whitespace, etc) and bring my concerns with the article as a whole to the discussion page.  First and foremost, there are many statements that require references, including several that are in the cast section.  "The 10-year old actor reportedly spent weeks trying to copy Gibson's mannerisms for the film" and "Her name was changed from Marion Braidfute in the script so as to not be confused with the Maid Marian of Robin Hood note," notably.  Speaking of the cast section, I'm confused as to why the actor and character descriptions/items of note are mixed in such a way.  The two statements I quoted above can be moved to the Production section, for example, and that way the Cast section will better first a Characters section, since that is what it mostly pertains to.  On a similar note, I find it odd not to mention more about the characters' origins, since nationality plays such a large part in the movie's major themes; nowhere is it mentioned, specifically, that Wallace is Scottish -- only that he grew up outside of Scotland and that he led the Scottish rebellion.  Everyone should know and infer that the man and a majority of his followers are Scottish, but it's never clarified.  The Princess is French, oui?  Her arranged marriage was unhappy, but many circumstances of the film's plot is left unsaid.  I recognize that the movie is long, but the part about Isabelle's allegiance and love for Wallace rather than the English crown and the suggestion that she bears his lovechild and such is certainly of note.
I hope this helps direct the editing away from the images and more towards the content, which is in dire need.  It's a great movie, and a great story, so it should definitely be done justice.  I'll watch the article for a bit to see if there's anything I can do to help.  María (habla conmigo) 12:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean-up, questions