Talk:William Wallace

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.

"The nobles surrendered at Irvine"
The implications, or possibly more than an implication, that all nobles surrendered at Irvine is simply false. Andrew de Moray for one did not capitulate. Several of the nobles who were at Irvine, principally Bruce and Douglas, immediately violated the terms of the capitulation, hiding their children whom the English demanded as hostages. It is not clear from the records where Marjory Bruce was hidden, but William the Hardi sent his eldest son, James, to France. A more accurate passage would be something along the lines of "Some nobles, including Robert the Bruce and William Douglas, capitulated at Irvine after lengthy negations. However, they immediately violated the terms of the capitulation, sending into hiding their children who would have been hostages for their good behaviour." There is a fairly widespread belief that they were merely delaying the English and buying time for Moray and Wallace, but there is no way to be sure what their motivations were. 50.38.12.191 (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It says Moray and Wallace didn't submit. Your text is an unnecessary and unsourced digression. This article is about Wallace. DeCausa (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Inaccurate information
It has been proven that William Wallace was born not in Elderslie but Elerslie in Ayrshire. 46.64.21.235 (talk) 12:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a source for that? DeCausa (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

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
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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 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  (Talk) 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  (Talk) 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": From Scotland:  From Battle of Stirling Bridge: BBC History Magazine July 2014, pp. 24–25 

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)