Misplaced Pages

Talk:William Wallace: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:00, 24 February 2014 edit92.12.104.120 (talk) →Patriot?← Previous edit Latest revision as of 10:27, 22 December 2024 edit undoFavonian (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators287,928 editsm Reverted edit by 2405:6E00:263F:C4A:58E1:CB96:C02E:C95B (talk) to last version by Lowercase sigmabot IIITag: Rollback 
(193 intermediate revisions by 85 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|living=no|listas=Wallace, William|1=
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=People|class=C}}
{{WikiProject Biography|military-work-group=yes|military-priority=mid|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=mid}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|living=no|class=C|listas=Wallace, William}} {{WikiProject Military history |class=B |B-Class-1=no
<!-- 2.reasonably covers topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies--> |B-Class-2=yes
{{WPMILHIST|class=start
<!-- 1.suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations-->|B-Class-1= no <!-- 3.defined structure, including lead section and one or more sections of content--> |B-Class-3=yes
<!-- 2.reasonably covers topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies-->|B-Class-2= yes <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes
<!-- 5.contains appropriate supporting materials, eg infobox, images, or diagrams--> |B-Class-5=yes |Middle-Ages-task-force=yes |British=yes |Biography=yes |Medieval=yes}}
<!-- 3.defined structure, including lead section and one or more sections of content-->|B-Class-3= yes
{{WikiProject Medieval Scotland|importance=Top}}
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->|B-Class-4= yes
{{WikiProject Middle Ages|importance=High}}
<!-- 5.contains appropriate supporting materials, eg infobox, images, or diagrams-->|B-Class-5=yes
{{WikiProject Scotland|importance=High}}
|Middle-Ages-task-force=yes|British=yes|Biography=yes
}}
|Medieval=yes}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2004-08-05|oldid1=5068915|date2=2005-08-23|oldid2=21616042|date3=2006-08-23|oldid3=71483276|date4=2007-08-23|oldid4=153079591|date5=2012-08-23|oldid5=508852465|date6=2020-08-23|oldid6=974554693}}
{{WikiProject Medieval Scotland|class=c|importance=Top}}
{{Daily pageviews}}
{{WikiProject Scotland|class=C|importance=High}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{WikiProject Middle Ages|class=C|importance=High}}
| algo=old(365d)
{{WikiProject Lanark|class=c|importance=high}}}}
| archive=Talk:William Wallace/Archive %(counter)d
{{OnThisDay|date1=2004-08-05|oldid1=5068915|date2=2005-08-23|oldid2=21616042|date3=2006-08-23|oldid3=71483276|date4=2007-08-23|oldid4=153079591|date5=2012-08-23|oldid5=508852465}}
| counter=2
| maxarchivesize=75K
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadsleft=5
| minthreadstoarchive=1
}}


== Patriot? == == Capture - more detail ==


The short section describing Wallace's capture is very short on detail. And to a certain extent is misleading.
(William was not a patriot. he was loyal to him family and clan chief. He done was he was told to do and not for the love of 'scotland' while during the independance wars scotland pulled together there was and still is a riff dividing the clans. how there for can one be a patriot if there is no love for the nation as a whole? -AileyAngel64) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Here's an extract from a website which goes into the matter and the events leading up to it in much more detail
You bet your bloody boots he was a patriot!!!! He saved all of Scotland let us not forget! Well yeah, maybe his first act might have been revenge for his father but he is a patriot. First of all I am Scottish by heritage but I admire William Wallace.You should check your definition of patriot.
Scotlax20''' <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!-hello the name is william wallace'''there nothing to do so go away'''


William Wallace was eventually betrayed (by whom, it is not known) in 1305. He was captured on 3 August by John of Menteith who, since his submission to Edward I between September 1303 and March 1304, had been entrusted with the sheriffdom of Dumbarton. Although Scottish sources put all the blame for the betrayal on him (and Edward I was keen to reward him with land worth £100), it is not certain whether Menteith was doing any more than fulfilling his duties in the area of his responsibility. As Menteith later appeared in the following of Robert Bruce, it has even been suggested that Robert Bruce could have been implicated in Wallace’s arrest. Bruce undoubtedly would feel that the removal of one of the two mainstays and supporters of John Balliol’s kingship – John Soules being the other – could improve the chances of a Bruce claim. Bruce came close, indeed, to taking Wallace himself near Peebles in late February 1304. It seemed rather that the traditional ruling families of Scotland preferred to leave Wallace to his fate.
Rather than begin an edit war with ] over this issue, I bring it here for discussion. Is the use of the word "patriot" appropriate in describing Wallace? The monkeyhate says "The concept of patriotism didn't exist at the time, so Wallace cannot be called a patriot." I think this reasoning is flawed. It does not matter whether Wallace would have referred to himself as a patriot, it is simply the most appropriate word for us to use to describe him. Anyone have any thoughts? ---<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 14:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
:Patriotism can only be applied to the love of a '''nation''', and the nation as a political entity as we all know didn't arise until the 19th century. Calling William Wallace a patriot makes as little sense as calling Plato a Marxist. --] (]) 22:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
:I've read in a couple books things along the same lines as what monkeyhate is saying. But i'm pretty sure Wallace is described as a patriot in bios more often than not. I dunno what should be done. Could we say something like 'today he's considered a patriot and national hero'? There's a book called ''William Wallace : Man and Myth'' by Graeme Morton at my library which assaults the romanticised Wallace that exits in popular culture today - not sure if it should be used as a reference though.--] (]) 07:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


Cassandra
Monkey Hate said "...the nation as a political entity as we all know didn't arise until the 19th century..." and I would like him to explain what he means and provide some evidence for it. ] (]) 13:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


== Removal ==
: I thought that was common knowledge. Read this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Nation_state --] (]) 17:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


"It is possible that all the Wallaces in the Clyde area were medieval immigrants from Wales, but as the term was also used for local Cumbric-speaking Strathclyde Welsh, it seems equally likely that the surname refers to people who were seen as being "Welsh" due to their Cumbric language."
::BBC's History Of Scotland has just finished an episode about Wallace. It concluded by saying that many regard him as Scotland's greatest patriot. Whether this is reliant on there existing a nation (rather than just country), and whether Wallace can therefore be called a patriot, appears to be firstly ]'s definition of the word, and secondly ]'s opinion. Neither is good enough to determine what the lead on the article is. --<font color="purple">]</font> <sup>]</sup> 22:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


I've removed this section. It's unsourced and also ridiculous. It's not possible that all or even the majority of Wallaces in the Clyde area were Medieval immigrants from Wales, there is absolutely nothing to suggest a large scale movement from Wales to Scotland around these times.
The wiki article is on nation states. I am well informed about these. What is your evidence that the "nation as a political entity" didn't arise until the 19th century? ] (]) 13:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


The word Wallace derives from was a common Germanic term for foreigners or foreign language speakers. There's absolutely nothing to suggest William Wallace was Welsh (either linguistically or ethnically) or that he harboured any notions of a Welsh identity.
:I've restored mention of patriot. ] has so far not explained his edit, and indeed it appears to only be based on his opinion. The status of the nation state at the time is an irrelevant red herring unrelated to the lead's description. --<font color="purple">]</font> <sup>]</sup> 20:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


Sorry, I was PLANNING on removing it but the article is locked. Hopefully, someone else will see to it.
It's also a significant changing of goal posts. Monkey first said that the Nation didn't exist until the 19th century. Now he changes it to "nation state" a more modern concept. In comparison, Scotland was one of the first nations. ] (]) 12:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


== No charge of treason - either remove or find a supporting reference ==
It's quite evident for anybody who has ever studied history at graduate level that the word Nation applies with som sense only from the 19th century onwards. If you really want to use it in a broad sense, than maybe you can stick back to the 26th (But the majority of scholars would not agree with that). Even if one agrees with the slightly untouchable difference between Nation and Nation-state - that makes no concrete sense to me, and Misplaced Pages pages are not so clear nor so well informed - still I find very, very hard to apply the term to the medieval period. I'm just going to give you some bibliographical reference and quick quotation from the most influent and important scholars of the subject: than you can evaluate the problem. So, the three main authors that dealed seriously with that in recent times are Benedict Anderson, Eric Hobsbawn and Ernst Geller. Respectively, the most important books are "Imagined communities", "The Invention of Tradition" and "Nations and Nationalism": they do not always agree, nor give a simple or straightforward explanation. But all of them, and easily the entire serious work that followed, agree on the point that a nation is NOT something naturally (i.e. biologically, geographically, ethnically and so on) existing, but something that is created and acknowledged by people: and that this acknowledgment started at most at the end of the 18th century. About the possibility to apply the term to the middle ages, once again medievalists stands on monkeyhate side: Just look at Professor Geary's work (for example: "Before France and Germany", or more recently "Nations and Nationalism"), or to the whole amount of Walter Pohl studies, or to Walter Goffart's ones. Here again, there is not a consensus about what went on in the medieval period. About who were the "people" (natioes, latin word) that inhabiteted Europe and that we find in contemporary - but more oftem more recent - sources. But we have a strong, very strong consensus about the total inhexistence of Nations of any sort. So, Nation makes no sense here, and more the less patriot. ] (]) 20:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Wallace was not charged with treason, and the two references cited in the article (Solis, Goldstone) do not mention treason, so treason should be removed. (Note to editors: the movie "Braveheart" was not based on historical fact - Scotland was never ruled by England.) ] (]) 05:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
:Incorrect on both counts (Edward I did manage to achieve control/occupation of most of Scotland, however temporarily - hence why the ] is called that.). But I agree the current sources (which are rather odd as they are on human rights law rather than by historians) don't refer to the treason charge. I've corrected that by adding another source which references it. ] (]) 10:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2024 ==
:This sort of dogmatism is inherently contestable. It's not cut and dried. The ''Oxford English Dictionary'' shows the word 'nation' was already in use in English by the early fourteenth century, adding: 'In early examples notions of race and common descent predominate.' That Scots already had a strong sense of collective identity is obvious from fourteenth-century literature, such as John Barbour and Fordun's Chronicle. British historians of the dominant Whig tradition have long regarded Scotland as historically precocious in its sense of nationhood, partly because of the Wars of Independence. Similarly, English patriotism is said to have been aroused in the latter stages in the Hundred Years War, and is abundantly attested to a century later in Shakespeare. Michael Lynch, Professor of Scottish History at the University of Edinburgh, writing in ''The Oxford Companion to Scottish History'' (2005), describes Wallace as a 'patriot', but also comments on the idea of national identity in the middle ages: 'Such collective self-awareness, however, is not necessarily the same as national consciousness and identity. In so far as the latter presupposes, not just a shared sense of the past, but also a community of language, culture, custom, and law, late medieval Scotland was only just beginning to acquire the defining characteristics of nationhood.' ] (]) 07:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


{{Edit semi-protected|William Wallace|answered=yes}}
Anyone who questions the notion of nationhood & patriotism in Scotland at this time should read the ].] (]) 11:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The part about war crimes is very wrong. MAY BE would be a better way to put it. The war crimes Edward I committed in Scotland and France far outweighed anything committed by Wallace.


SO CHANGE "As a result, the trial has attracted the attention of modern legal scholarship as it is one of the earliest examples of, what would now be considered, a prosecution for war crimes."
To suggest 14th century chronicles give an accurate representation of the sense of "nationhood" in 13th century Scotland is seriously questionable. The chroniclers were frequently in pay of someone whom it would of benefit to to create such a fiction, notably Bruce. Bruce's propaganda machine is also entirely relevant to the last, throwaway remark regarding the Declaration of Arbroath. Before any discussion of medieval Scottish identity can proceed, it is imperative that claims of Brucean propaganda be considered. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


TO "As a result, the trial has attracted the attention of modern legal scholarship as it is one of the earliest examples of, what may be considered, a prosecution for war crimes. Though in reality Edward I committed far more war crimes in France and Scotland than did Wallace." ] (]) 23:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
If we apply the innocent until proven guilty concept here nobody should tar Wallace's good name with a slanderous word like patriot. ] (]) 14:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
:] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> Also, a source would be needed supporting the statement. ] (]) 07:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
:@] Your suggested change adds nothing to the subject. What Edward I may have done doesn't change anything about Wallace, so is quite irrelevant. It's also adding an unsourced opinion, while attempting to disguise this by labelling it "in reality". ] <sup>]</sup> 08:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


== Inaccuracies ==
Monkeyhate wrote: "Patriotism can only be applied to the love of a '''nation''', and the nation as a political entity as we all know didn't arise until the 19th century." The word patriot was (at least) used to describe Wallace throughout the 18th century, so MH's reasoning is not quite correct. ] (]) 13:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
-- Not to mention the fact that "patriot" in the context of being a patriot for one's native country, was being used to describe certsin Scotsmen before 1640. Just because Monkey doesn't think so, doesn't make him a useful scholar in the conversation. ] (]) 13:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


I do not have proof; however, the demise of William Wallace and his legacy has been told and passed down through generations. Each generation beginning with William Wallace's children but only told to and by the eldest daughter down the line. ] (]) 15:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
:Don't know what you're on about, we don't even know if Wallace had any children. ] (]) 15:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
:An example of the inaccuracies: the body that was quartered was not the body of William Wallace. ] (]) 16:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
::@] Are you claiming to be a direct descendant through a long line of daughters? Regardless, you need a reliable source to publish your remarkable tale first. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Given that the OP has begun this with "I do not have proof" I think engaging in this is unlikely to be productive. ] (]) 22:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


== Orphaned references in ] ==
The above comments illustrate the problem of applying modern conceptions to the past. Words like 'Scotland' and 'England' 'the Scots' and'the English' didn't mean quite the same thing at the time of Wallace as they do today. Kings behaved more like mafia dons than the polite royalty we are used to today. Allegiances were often fluid. Scot-land was a different and much smaller entity than the Kingdom of Scotland. The kingdom of Scotland was a multi-ethnic entity which included not just the Scots of Scot-land but also the English of the Lowlands and the Gallowegians of the south west. Scotland's Norman-descended aristocracy described themselves as 'French' not as Scots, a term then reserved for the Gaelic-speaking clans of the north. The 'English' aristocacy too considered themselves French not English, whilst their kingdom included large tracts of what is now France. The idea that anyone, 'Scots' or 'English', was 'a patriot' at that time is an anachronism - men made war for power, plunder, glory, vendetta, and out of loyalty to a lord who looked like a winner. Our concept of patriotism undoubtedly belongs to later centuries. Cassandra.


I check pages listed in ] to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for ] in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of ]'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for ''this'' article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
== Removal of external link Robroyston.org ==


<b>Reference named "bbc":</b><ul>
Can you tell me exactly why the external link robroyston.org was removed?
<li>From ]: {{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-55035520|title=Scotland's national investment bank launches|date=23 November 2020|publisher=BBC News|accessdate=23 November 2020}}</li>
<li>From ]: BBC History Magazine July 2014, pp. 24–25</li>
</ul>


I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. <small>Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs.</small> ]] 03:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
The link was relevant, has no advertising, and contributes to the contemporary understanding of the Wallace legend.


== Wallace Sword ==
WJT. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Could someone add a link to the ‘Wallace Sword’ article under ‘See also’? ] (]) 17:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:The site is not an information resource for readers, it is an advocacy site with a "mission" (from the Objectives section: ''it is time to try to raise the profile of the Robroyston Wallace Monument. The objective of this modest website is to stimulate interest''). The site was added here just to raise its own traffic, not to help Misplaced Pages readers. External links are only supposed to be added when the link helps the article, not the other way around. <b class="Unicode">]</b>&nbsp;<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 13:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


== Not "Drawn and Quartered"... ==
I have never read so much contrived nonsense presented in such a petulant, petty manner. WJT seems to think that the objective of the site and the objective of Misplaced Pages are, by WJT's limited interpretation, mutually exclusive. Raising awareness of the monument encompasses helping Misplaced Pages readers help understand the nature of the article. Perhaps if WJT bothered to read part of the linked website then WJT would recognise errors in the reference to William Wallace in the article, but what's the point of correcting these when sanctimonious contributers spend their time wasting the time of others. -- A concerned reader.<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 4 May 2009</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->


It says that he was "drawn and quartered",before further torture and eventually death. But this is not possible. He may have been "drawn", but if he was "quartered" he would not have survived. "Drawn and quartered" means to be pulled to pieces by horses. You would have your limbs each tied to a horse and they would be made to run, thus tearing the person to pieces. ] (]) 22:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
:To 'A concerned reader'. Actually I think you'll find that your comments should be directed towards 'Rjanag', as it is the comments by that contributor that you refer to (not mine, WJT). I do though happen to agree with you that Rjanag's comments, and the original removal of the link, are both "petty" and "petulant". Indicative perhaps of someone with too much time on their hands! One wonders what Rjanag's "mission" is... it is certainly NOT to promote knowledge, understanding and debate. ] (]) 11:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

::Please read ]. Particularly items 1 and 4. If there is information on this website that would be of value to the article, why not cite it within the article? The website appears to be a well researched collection of information about the Robroyston Wallace Monument. Some of which could be cited comfortably on this article without the need for an intermediate website.
::It seems curious that this website was created on the 8th of April, then linked in number of Misplaced Pages articles by a new editor one week later. The reason for adding external links should not be to promote a new website. I'd also ask ] to read ], and consider if it might apply here. --<font color="purple">]</font> <sup>]</sup> 12:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

:I agree with ] that the insertion of the link was to promote the website. ]'s note that the site was added as an external link right after it was finished seems to confirm this. Just google "Robroyston.org" and the top hits are postings on various message boards and blogs in the months of April and May promoting the new website. (a few examples: ). Spam.--] (]) 05:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

== Wallace's capture and execution ==

This sentence fragment is nonsensical:

"...where he was tried for treason, and the execution of civilians and prisoners, and was crowned..."

Are there no Scots who care enough to correct it?

] (]) 10:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems fixed to me. ] (]) 16:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

==The Scottish Gaelic perception of Wallace==

Ive added a paragraph from a lecture by John Macinnes because the perception amongst modern Gaelic poets and in the Gaelic oral tradition regarding the ethnic/linguistic status of William Wallace is an important, and all to often overlooked aspect of the subject of the Scottish Wars of Independance and the view, even within Scotland of Wallace as an individual. ] (]) 17:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
:The problem is that you're adding it in the middle of the section about Wallace's background. This revolves around the facts that are known, few that they are. It is not the place to go into a discussion about Gaelic perceptions of Wallace. --<font color="purple">]</font> <sup>]</sup> 19:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

]
This file is on the commons should you want to include a picture of the the Smithfield plaque... ] (]) 18:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

== Trial ==

Is there not a little more that could be said about Wallaces trial as it would be interesting if anyone has any knowledge of the transcripts. I know it was a show trial and the verdict was never in doubt. I've read in many accounts that when accused of treason Wallace replied "How can I commit treason when England is foreign to me". <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Rewrite ==
This is a poor quality article which in places finds it difficult to separate fact from fiction, too much uncritical regurgiation of Blind Harry and other legendary material. If anyone knows of a good recent biography of Wallace I will use it, but otherwise I propose to significantly rewrite it using Peter Traquair's "Freedom's Sword" as my main source. ] (]) 12:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
:Please do. An article which relies on an ] page as a source is in desperate need of careful attention. This article is terrible. <big>]</big> 01:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

God almighty rewrite it. It is awful.] (]) 04:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

:Pat, email me. ] (<small>]</small>) 04:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

A separation of the Blind Harry fiction from what is actually known would be a great start. Perhaps make a section for the BH texts alone. I have added a little explanation for BH's work in the intro, an attempt to inform readers between now and your rewrite.] (]) 08:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I have now don a significant rewrite of the article. However the independent page counter shows that this is a very widely viewed article, os is it worth doing more work? Can someone do a check to see if it is now B class? ] (]) 21:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


I read I think in Froissart's chronicles, the single sentence that Wallace said in the mock trial before execution - something on the lines of 'I was never a traitor, you were never my king and while the breath breathes in my body you never shall be' Unfortunately, i can't find the source anymore - anyone know it? ] (]) 19:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

== excecution ==

i deleted the following sentence from the execution part as william called no one king. in the legends of old he was loyal only to his family and clan. while he may of helped the supposed throne of scotland, it only suggests his loyalty but is no fact.

With this, Wallace asserted that the absent ] was officially his king. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== anglo/english terminology ==

things such as knight being used. explanation needed as to why he is being called such. in the legends of my family he was a barbarian assasan and a brilliant one. scotland had not knighthood back then as far as i know as its an english term/word. alot of the info here seems taken from english history. english history is wrong. the only true histories about scotland are scottish histories. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:"Knight" does not need to be explained here; those who don't know the meaning of the word can follow the link. Your family legends sound fascinating, however, Misplaced Pages requires ] for its information. If you have any specific, ], reliable Scottish sources, then perhaps you can direct us to them. ] (]) 01:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
The term 'knight' had been in use in Scotland for well over 100 years before Wallace was born; not many people were knighted (much the proportion same as in France or England), but there were still several hundred knights at any one time. It is a word of German derivation, originally meaning an inferior or young lord. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Video Game Character ==

There's a William Wallace playable character in the PS3/360 downloadable game Deadliest Warrior Legends. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Painting ==

]

Anybody knows where this painting comes from? Who made it? Where is the original now? Has the painter ever seen William Wallace alive or is it based on stories?] (]) 07:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

:I don't know myself, but I think that maybe we should only use an image that we are certain about for the infobox. We don't even know what year it dates to.--] (]) 07:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

:I did a quick search and found this one . It's very similar. IMO a better image for the article at least. This link shows that the painting was recently purchased by a museum of sorts .--] (]) 08:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
::Image states © Stirling Smith Art Gallery and Museum --<font color="purple">]</font> <sup>]</sup> 15:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
:::The painting dates to the 17th century, that means that the original painter died hundreds of years ago, and that it is out of copyright. A mere photo of it is in public domain. See ] (to quote the template: {{colour|purple|The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "''faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain''"}}). When you have the creation-date of something, it's a lot easier to determine its copyright status. I'm just guessing, but I think that the black and white image might be some sort of interpretation of the painting that appeared in a Victorian book of some sort.--] (]) 06:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The section on physical strength seems speculative and poorly sourced, and has been bunged in at an incongruous point in tne article. ] (]) 16:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Is a fictional painting really worth putting in this article? I know it is a problem that no genuine images exist but surely including this 'idea' of what he looked like is pointless. The chances are that he looked nothing like this. ] (]) 20:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC). On a purely non scientific basis this photo does not look very Scottish. ] (]) 20:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

On a similar theme the is height of 1.96m. I have been trying to find a source for this and so far come up with nothing more that he was tall. ] (]) 20:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC). Is this a Citation needed case? ] (]) 20:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone give me a good reason why I should not remove this photo? I admit that it is clearly labelled as fictional but surely it does not belong on the page of the actual person. ] (]) 19:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

::Maybe use this one: File:William Wallace.jpg It's from the Library of Congress. Or any random Mel Gibson &#9786; ] (]) 19:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

::One of the few absolute facts is that the statue of Mel Gibson in Stirling is a disaster. ] (]) 20:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

::::Clearly POV! &#9786; For the curious, here's the LOC image:

]
{{clear}}
] (]) 20:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

That is a perfectly good picture of someone with the words "William Wallace" written underneath it but it is still just a work of fiction. Nobody knows what he looked like so how can there be a picture in the infobox? I am perfectly happy with the assorted statues, stained glass and such like in the body of the article which nobody would expect to be realistic but IMHO (is there a WP: policy on this?) the infobox should just contain facts. ] (]) 18:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

:Another totally unscientific and totally personal opinion is that the photo could be much worse. Look at "Edward I of England" for a genuine painting that sadly seems to have been done by a 10 year old. I suspect that at some point some amateur decided to 'improve' that painting. ] (]) 21:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
:I don't understand the distinction you are drawing between an engraving and "a statue or stained glass". What's the difference when it comes to being realistic? Besides, Misplaced Pages is full of examples of portraits of historical figures based on little or no proven factual basis. I think it's enough for the portrayal to be notable, rather than discounting it because it's not 100% factual. --<font color="purple">]</font> <sup>]</sup> 21:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
:My point is that this is 0% factual. From everything I have been able to find nobody has any idea what WW looked like. What is the value of a picture created centuries later? All we will see is that eras idealistic view of a figure, the image is purely a artifact of that point in history and tells us nothing of the actual person. ] (]) 21:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
:On the statues/stained glass comment I don't think that anyone actually looks at these as accurate representations. They are generally far more generic than a painting/woodcut. As a example the "Statue of Wallace at Edinburgh Castle" in the article is a totally generic knight from that era - he actually looks like a archetypal crusader. ] (]) 21:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

::My thought is that we are trying to draw too fine a point. The articles on ], ], and ], as three examples, are all on personages of unknown visage, yet they have images. The images used there are historical in their own right, and we should seek one similar. ] (]) 14:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

::The ] has eight . ] (]) 17:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

== Sources ==

The sources section has grown out of control. Are any of these titles actually used as "sources" for the text? Perhaps one or two of them are, otherwise, it is simply a listing of books related, sometimes only peripherally, to Wallace. I suggest that the list be trimmed to 10 or so books that are most reputable and relevant. ---<font face="Georgia">''']'''<sub>'']''</sub></font> 17:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

== Background of the Wallace name ==

Within the background section the Wallace family background and Surname orgin could be elaboated on; a paragraph from another wiki page could be cited( http://en.wikipedia.org/Cumbric_language ).

'A more controversial point is the surname Wallace. It means “Welshman”. It is possible that all the Wallaces in the Clyde area were medieval immigrants from Wales, but given that the term was also used for local Cumbric speaking Strathclyde Welsh it seems equally if not more likely that the surname refers to people who were seen as being "Welsh" due to their Cumbric language. Surnames in Scotland were not inherited before 1200 and not regularly until 1400. William Wallace (known in Gaelic as Uilleam Breatnach – namely William the Briton or Welshman) came from the Renfrew area – itself a Cumbric name. Wallace slew the sheriff of Lanark (also a Cumbric name) in 1297. Even if he had inherited the surname from his father it is possible that the family spoke Cumbric within memory in order to be thus named.'

This may be a interesting point but may need to be edited quite a bit as this paragraph is far too chunky. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Offspring to William Wallace ==

In your picture of William Wallace you have that he had offspring. In my researches it is as follows:

Wiiliam de Baliol, 2nd son of Sir Alexander of Cavers Baliol, was owner of the lands of Penston, Haddingtonshire, and Carnbrue Lanacshaire, both in the Barony of Bothwell, the ancient possession of the Baillies of Lamington. The parish of Lamington was founded by a Saxon named Lambinus, who fled with his brothers from England to escape the cruelties of William the Conquerer. Lamington subsequently fell into the hands of a person named Braidfast, who, together with his son was killed in the seige of Lamington Tower by the English.

His daughter Marion was taken prisoner, carried to Lanark Castle and brought up as ward of the crown by Lady Hazelrig, wife of Sir William Hazelrig, English governor of Lanark. William Hazelrig designed Marion Baidfoot to be the wife of his son Arthur, but she escaped from the Lanark Castle and was married at Lanark Church to the celebrated WILLIAM WALLACE. On this marriage there was only one daughter who became the wife of William de Baliol and so brought the land of Lamington into the Baillie family.

William de Baliol accompanied WILLIAM WALLACE in his expeditions for the relief of Scotland and rendered himself obnoxious to Edward 1 in defense of Scotland against the invasion that he was fined 4 years rent of his estates in 1297.

He obtained a character of confirmation of his lands on Penston from King Robert Bruce. He was succeeded by his son. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_original_research ] (]) 20:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

== Did William Wallace really have childern? And was he really a born and bred Welshman? ==

In my research of Wallace nothing seems historically right. We don't know what town bears the honour of his birth place. We're not sure whether or not his wife Marion even existed, so why should it surprise any of us when historical records don't mention childern. Can anyone give me a soild document thzt indicates he really did have kids? There's another thing that dumbfounded me, a historian now proclaims Wallace wasn't a Scottish born hero. But a born and bred Welshman. What do y'all think?<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 27 October 2012‎</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:Who is the historian who thinks Wallace was born in Wales? What evidence is there for that? From what I've read, it is suspected that William's family may have been related to the Wallaces who were recorded as tenants of the Stewarts in Scotland. In the 12th century, the family of the Stewarts came to Scotland from ] (which borders Wales); and a Richard Wallace is recorded as a Shropshire tenant of ] (ancestor of the Stewarts). So the theory is that the Wallace tenants in Scotland may have been related to the Wallace tenants in Shropshire. But the actual Shropshire connection was long before William Wallace's time.--] (]) 08:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

== Free Beer? ==

Are there any reliable sources linking William with the one accused, by Christina of Perth on the 1296 Plea Roll, of stealing a keg of beer?

] (]) 20:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

== Birth place ==

I noticed that the side bar says that the birth place is "Elderslie, Renfrewshire, Scotland" but the main article says: William's birthplace was at Elderslie in Renfrewshire, and this is still the view of some historians, but Williams own seal, suggesting his father was Alan Wallace, has given rise to a counter claim of Ellerslie in Ayrshire. How to we update the side bar to mention that his birth place is not really agreed on? -- ] (]) 19:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 10:27, 22 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the William Wallace article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 12 months 
This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBiography: Military / Politics and Government
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Biography / British / European / Medieval C‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
CThis article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Military biography task force
Taskforce icon
British military history task force
Taskforce icon
European military history task force
Taskforce icon
Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)
WikiProject iconMedieval Scotland Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medieval Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Medieval Scotland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Medieval ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject Medieval ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject Medieval ScotlandMedieval Scotland
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconMiddle Ages High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconScotland High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on August 5, 2004, August 23, 2005, August 23, 2006, August 23, 2007, August 23, 2012, and August 23, 2020.

Capture - more detail

The short section describing Wallace's capture is very short on detail. And to a certain extent is misleading.

Here's an extract from a website which goes into the matter and the events leading up to it in much more detail

William Wallace was eventually betrayed (by whom, it is not known) in 1305. He was captured on 3 August by John of Menteith who, since his submission to Edward I between September 1303 and March 1304, had been entrusted with the sheriffdom of Dumbarton. Although Scottish sources put all the blame for the betrayal on him (and Edward I was keen to reward him with land worth £100), it is not certain whether Menteith was doing any more than fulfilling his duties in the area of his responsibility. As Menteith later appeared in the following of Robert Bruce, it has even been suggested that Robert Bruce could have been implicated in Wallace’s arrest. Bruce undoubtedly would feel that the removal of one of the two mainstays and supporters of John Balliol’s kingship – John Soules being the other – could improve the chances of a Bruce claim. Bruce came close, indeed, to taking Wallace himself near Peebles in late February 1304. It seemed rather that the traditional ruling families of Scotland preferred to leave Wallace to his fate.

Cassandra

Removal

"It is possible that all the Wallaces in the Clyde area were medieval immigrants from Wales, but as the term was also used for local Cumbric-speaking Strathclyde Welsh, it seems equally likely that the surname refers to people who were seen as being "Welsh" due to their Cumbric language."

I've removed this section. It's unsourced and also ridiculous. It's not possible that all or even the majority of Wallaces in the Clyde area were Medieval immigrants from Wales, there is absolutely nothing to suggest a large scale movement from Wales to Scotland around these times.

The word Wallace derives from was a common Germanic term for foreigners or foreign language speakers. There's absolutely nothing to suggest William Wallace was Welsh (either linguistically or ethnically) or that he harboured any notions of a Welsh identity.

Sorry, I was PLANNING on removing it but the article is locked. Hopefully, someone else will see to it.

No charge of treason - either remove or find a supporting reference

Wallace was not charged with treason, and the two references cited in the article (Solis, Goldstone) do not mention treason, so treason should be removed. (Note to editors: the movie "Braveheart" was not based on historical fact - Scotland was never ruled by England.) 14.2.196.164 (talk) 05:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect on both counts (Edward I did manage to achieve control/occupation of most of Scotland, however temporarily - hence why the First War of Scottish Independence is called that.). But I agree the current sources (which are rather odd as they are on human rights law rather than by historians) don't refer to the treason charge. I've corrected that by adding another source which references it. DeCausa (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The part about war crimes is very wrong. MAY BE would be a better way to put it. The war crimes Edward I committed in Scotland and France far outweighed anything committed by Wallace.

SO CHANGE "As a result, the trial has attracted the attention of modern legal scholarship as it is one of the earliest examples of, what would now be considered, a prosecution for war crimes."

TO "As a result, the trial has attracted the attention of modern legal scholarship as it is one of the earliest examples of, what may be considered, a prosecution for war crimes. Though in reality Edward I committed far more war crimes in France and Scotland than did Wallace." CWIFFER911 (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Also, a source would be needed supporting the statement. DeCausa (talk) 07:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
@CWIFFER911 Your suggested change adds nothing to the subject. What Edward I may have done doesn't change anything about Wallace, so is quite irrelevant. It's also adding an unsourced opinion, while attempting to disguise this by labelling it "in reality". Escape Orbit 08:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

I do not have proof; however, the demise of William Wallace and his legacy has been told and passed down through generations. Each generation beginning with William Wallace's children but only told to and by the eldest daughter down the line. 2604:3D08:2C80:8C00:3C26:B263:AF4A:156 (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Don't know what you're on about, we don't even know if Wallace had any children. PatGallacher (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
An example of the inaccuracies: the body that was quartered was not the body of William Wallace. 2604:3D08:2C80:8C00:3C26:B263:AF4A:156 (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
@2604:3D08:2C80:8C00:3C26:B263:AF4A:156 Are you claiming to be a direct descendant through a long line of daughters? Regardless, you need a reliable source to publish your remarkable tale first. Escape Orbit 21:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Given that the OP has begun this with "I do not have proof" I think engaging in this is unlikely to be productive. DeCausa (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned references in William Wallace

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of William Wallace's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "bbc":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Wallace Sword

Could someone add a link to the ‘Wallace Sword’ article under ‘See also’? 2A00:23C8:3D81:7801:4DD:33EA:A2B:BBDF (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Not "Drawn and Quartered"...

It says that he was "drawn and quartered",before further torture and eventually death. But this is not possible. He may have been "drawn", but if he was "quartered" he would not have survived. "Drawn and quartered" means to be pulled to pieces by horses. You would have your limbs each tied to a horse and they would be made to run, thus tearing the person to pieces. 2601:190:8200:6A80:29A9:74B2:A3F3:158 (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:William Wallace: Difference between revisions Add topic