Talk:William Wallace/Archive 3

The Battle of Falkirk subsection

According to one account, during his flight Wallace fought and killed Brian de Jay, master of the English Templars in a thicket at Callendar.

Interesting, given the Templar heavy cavalry that backed the Scots, can we get a reference for this? I'm a bit loose on my history of these conflicts, perhaps someone can enlighten me as to why the Templars were allegedly on both sides of this battle? Jachin 13:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The story that a force of Templars supported Bruce at Bannockburn(which I think is what you are referring to) is a 18th century myth. Individual Templars could have 'national' military obligations and thus might be found in any European army of the 13th and early 14th century.

Vandals

The introductory paragraph stated that "he was fat and ate mcdonalds" and like things, I deleted these acts of vandalism. Looking at the discussion it is not the first time that this site has been vandalized.

I just deleted a lot of vandalism in the "Wallaces execution" section. This page should be semiprotected. Actually, first off, one of the admins should ban the users who vandalised it (from the history page).

Yoda921 09:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Yoda

Hanged or Hung

Hanged means "executed by hanging." Hung means "suspended" otherwise.

Both are past tenses or past participles of the verb to hang, but each applies to specific cases.

   Examples: The five plotters in the Lincoln assassination were hanged.
   We hung the towels out on the clothesline to dry.

Therefore its Hanged, please do not continue to change the spelling back and forth. Matthew Yeager 15:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

meat is hung, men are hanged

"Wallace got married to Vanessa also known as Nessa or Poati84"

First sentence of the third paragraph of the section 'Wallace's exploits begin'. It don't know what it should be, but I've removed the bit about Poati84.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.75.151.10 (talk)

I've restored it to an earlier version, so it's now (hopefully) as it should be. In future, you can use the 'undo' function on the edit history to be sure you remove all the vandalism (or check the earlier versions). Gwinva 09:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Makes No Sense

"In support of the Elderslie origins some proposed that William's traditional father—known as Malcolm Wallace until recently when David Wallace's seal was found — David Wallace of Low Fell, a knight and vassal to James the Steward, actually came from Riccarton, Ayrshire, near Loudoun.

"To the contrary, the Elderslie origins are defended with the arguments..."

To the contrary of the "Elderslie origins" are the "Elderslie origins"? Say what? —The preceding unsignedcomment was added by GeneCallahan (talk •contribs) 06:03, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

NPOV

I feel that the article is very pro-Scotland and anti-England, violating NPOV. I welcome discussion on the issue though.--mjwilson 15:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That's because its being confused with an Oscar-winning film.

Can you please point out some examples of where in the text of the article you believe this bias exists? 74.9.58.34 16:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that an example can be found in the first paragraph:

Sir William Wallace (c. 1270 – August 23, 1305) was a knight and Scottish patriot, who led a resistance against the English occupation of Scotland during the Wars of Scottish Independence. He is considered to be the greatest hero in Scotland's history

It's possible I'm wrong, but when I first read it my gut interpreted it as biased. --mjwilson 16:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well the first sentence is accurate. If you interpret that as bias against England how would you rephrase it? Wallace was pretty biased himself, it's difficult to write his life story without reporting that. The second sentence is, however, dodgy. Weasel word 'considered' and no cite to back it up. If no-one has a cite (such as a good solid public survey or the like), then it should be removed.--Escape Orbit 01:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to note that that if Mwilso24 doesn't respond in the next few days, I'm removing the NPOV tag. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there was a recent survey placing Wallace as most famous scot ever.Can't quite remember where i saw it,perhaps someone can find it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.136.74 (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The terms "occupation" and "subjugation" (double meaning) placed on these articles by Braveheart fans is extremely bias and worrying. Edward I of England himself was related by blood to the line of Scottish monarchy that was in turmoil via Malcolm III of Scotland. Ironically since William Wallace's family origins probably lay in Shropshire, Edward was more Scottish than Wallace and certainly has more say when it comes to its monarchy. It really is a shame for us historians that silly movies like Braveheart have to ruin real life history. I suppose that is a weakness for open database encyclopedias, in closed ones by experts the silliness can be easily kept out. - True as Blue (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

In what sense was Wallace not Scottish? He may have had an ancestor from Shropshire - or possibly not; there is no actual evidence. Even so, that ancestor would only represe4nt one of several lines of ascent. —Precedingunsigned comment added by 81.154.90.213 (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Extra Info

Hello there. Added extra info on the skirmish at the River Irvine. I also noticed that the Wallace page gives no coverage to Ardrossan Castle. I have added a section on that and linked to Wallace's Larder. The pictures are my own. :)TheBourtreehillian 16:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Headline text

What did I miss? And who the hell is Zach Morin?? Well done ohnoitsjamie for reverting that nonsense.TheBourtreehillian 17:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

His birthdate

According to other sources he was supposedly born in 1276. Can I ask how one would structure his alleged birthdays to make it clear he was born c. 1272 or c. 1276?

Since we truly do not know the year in which he was born, it is not strictly correct to assume a date of circa 1272 while disregarding a possible circa 1276. However, the addition of the c. (circa) is a sound one but the favouring of the earlier birthday over the later date is not.

There is no evidence he was born on either date.

Ah...I have an idea.... TheBourtreehillian 12:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The opening paragraph in Background claims his birthdate to be 1672or6; this must have become confused with the 16th century work it references. --Cammacleay I've changed this now (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Descendants

Since there is no known evidence that Wallace ever fathered a child, any notion that one can possibly be descended from him is rendered absurd. Possessing the surname Wallace is not really enough. In Ayrshire the name is extraordinarily common. In addition to this, it is usually only the aristocracy (from Royalty downwards) who can trace their ancestors so far. Since Wallace was neither, and since he left no evidence of having fathered a child, I have undone the last addition which claimed that more than 300 people in New Zealand and Australia are descended from him. My suspicion is that the user is a Wallace and wants to connect his or herself with the Scottish patriot.TheBourtreehillian 11:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that the user who included such dubious information has recently published a book about the matter. How he was able to verify such claims and subsequently publish a book about it is beyond me. Then again, many pseudo-historical works have been published. I am sure this is one of them. The user also created a page about himself and his book, but since the book cannot possibly contain verifiable evidence, his own entry and the entry dedicated to his own book have since been deleted. TheBourtreehillian 12:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted the addition of the same information. If the quality of the paragraph added to the article is any indication of the quality of the book, I think we need say no more on the subject. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)