Talk:William Wallace

Patriot?

(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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AileyAngel64 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.84.53 (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Rather than begin an edit war with The monkeyhate 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? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 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. --The monkeyhate (talk) 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.--Celtus (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

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. 78.52.232.51 (talk) 13:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought that was common knowledge. Read this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state --The monkeyhate (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

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 The monkeyhate's definition of the word, and secondly The monkeyhate's opinion. Neither is good enough to determine what the lead on the article is. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

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? 78.52.231.132 (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I've restored mention of patriot. The monkeyhate 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. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

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. 78.52.224.80 (talk) 12:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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. Spree85 (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

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.' Lachrie (talk) 07:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who questions the notion of nationhood & patriotism in Scotland at this time should read the Declaration of Arbroath.Waterwynd (talk) 11:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.9.65 (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If we apply the innocent until proven guilty concept here nobody should tar Wallace's good name with a slanderous word like patriot. 78.86.61.94 (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of external link Robroyston.org

Can you tell me exactly why the external link robroyston.org was removed?

The link was relevant, has no advertising, and contributes to the contemporary understanding of the Wallace legend.

WJT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weejocktamson (talk • contribs) 11:36, 15 April 2009 (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 Wikipedia readers. External links are only supposed to be added when the link helps the article, not the other way around. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia are, by WJT's limited interpretation, mutually exclusive. Raising awareness of the monument encompasses helping Wikipedia 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.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.8.77 (talk • contribs) 4 May 2009

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. Weejocktamson (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia policy on links to be avoided. 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 Wikipedia 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 Weejocktamson to read Wikipedia policy on conflict of interest on external links, and consider if it might apply here. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rjanag that the insertion of the link was to promote the website. Escape Orbit'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: [1][2][3][4][5][6]). Spam.--Celtus (talk) 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?

Royal Wulff (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems fixed to me. 12.41.255.10 (talk) 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. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 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. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This file is on the commons should you want to include a picture of the the Smithfield plaque... Merlin-UK (talk) 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". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.71.241 (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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. PatGallacher (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do. An article which relies on an Angelfire page as a source is in desperate need of careful attention. This article is terrible. Lara 01:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

God almighty rewrite it. It is awful.87.114.229.119 (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Pat, email me. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 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.87.114.229.119 (talk) 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? PatGallacher (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2011 (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 John Balliol was officially his king. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AileyAngel64 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AileyAngel64 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"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, Wikipedia requires reliable sources for its information. If you have any specific, verifiable, reliable Scottish sources, then perhaps you can direct us to them. Gwinva (talk) 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.182.232 (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Video Game Character

There's a William Wallace playable character in the PS3/360 downloadable game Deadliest Warrior Legends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.72.171.234 (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

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?Nico (talk) 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.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I did a quick search and found this one [7]. 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 [8].--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Image states © Stirling Smith Art Gallery and Museum --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 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 Template:PD-Art (to quote the template: 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.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 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. PatGallacher (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2011 (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. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 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/wiki/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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sioni27 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)