Talk:Rob Roy (1995 film)

I have looked carefully at other wiki entries on these racist (also see Mel Gibson) movies and followed the same criteria after reading their discussions, subsequently I created a 'Anglophobia' entry laying out the historical evidence (via a wiki link) as well as referring the student to Hollywood racism articles, i will flesh out the entry myself tonight.Twobells (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - for now, I've reverted your edits, which do not explain the point. Look forward to your appropriate edits later on.

talk) 13:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I removed the "See also" section since the figure is not just tangential to the topic (being linked in the lead section). I endorse the exclusion of the other links since they were without merit. Based on brief research, critical analysis of this film is possible, though what exists is more about colonialism (a narrow perspective of it). See this and this as possibilities. I must advise a reading of

WP:NPOV; one should not go about editing a Wikipedia article with a preconceived goal. It is more neutral to research the film in general and to identify what sub-topics related to the film can be discussed. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I'll wait for Erik's comments before acting further, but I don't think you took his points on board regarding his comment "I must advise a reading of

WP:NPOV

; one should not go about editing a Wikipedia article with a preconceived goal. It is more neutral to research the film in general and to identify what sub-topics related to the film can be discussed."

Another point is that you may like to look at the

talk) 12:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I do not find the new "Anglophobia" section to be neutral. Reviewing the references used, the section is pieced together to make a non-neutral presentation. It is very pointed, and we need to adhere to WP:NPOV in having an impartial tone when writing about the subject matter. The best way to accomplish this here is to strive for a "Historical accuracy" section; see

WP:FILMHIST. There is discussion about Rob Roy's historical accuracy that is not just about Anglophobia. There is discussion about portrayal of the era, including colonialism, nationality, and ethnicity. Twobells, are you interested in collaborating to have a more well-rounded and even-handed section like this? Erik (talk | contribs

)

The fact that I am unused to the wiki edit format does not make my edits any less important to the Rob Roy entry. If you wish to defend Anglophobia and how it pertains to Rob Roy then please go ahead. It is very difficult to offer up a more neutral pov when no-one will defend the discrimination in these films, the only entry I could find was when the inaccurate (no English involved in this story) bias was pointed out to the director by SCOTTISH historians, he said and I quote: "they (the English) can go fuck themselves." If you can find any reference to defending Anglophobia in the movie 'Rob Roy' then make the entry more neutral (in fact if you can find defenders of Anglophobia in the film Braveheart I am sure the editors would be most interested.) I expect there are many people who support Anglophobia privately but we are looking for published commentary. Other than that you will have to take your views up with the senior wiki editors who after much hatred, bias and anger decided on the format (see Braveheart) which I implemented here.Twobells (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed Wikipedia's policy of writing with a neutral point of view, and the "Anglophobia" section does not meet the following criteria: "It requires that all majority views and significant minority views published by reliable sources be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material." The article is underdeveloped with real-world context. It has no general reception section and an uncited production section. There should also be a critical analysis section, based on my research. The only references used in the article were for the "Anglophobia" section, so proportionally speaking, this section cannot belong. If any aspect of it is to be restored, it needs to be done in proportion to general coverage about the film. My research shows that Anglophobia is not a prevailing characteristic, nor is racism. Thus, it should not be such a prevalent aspect of this article at present. Rob, do you agree? Erik (talk | contribs) 21:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created a "Historical accuracy" section per

WP:FILMHIST and included the Scottish-English dichotomy based on the article from The Guardian. It's now mentioned in context of how the film approaches history (or doesn't, rather). I also added an "Accolades" section with a table of the awards and a "Critical reception" section sampling some critics' reviews of the film. There's also a "Further reading" section of references that I found that can be used in the article; I just cannot access them presently. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Someone took issue with the statement in the "Historical accuracy" section that read, "It asserted the Scottish portrayal as American-driven." This is based on the reference saying, "The baddies are English and queer, the goodies are Scottish and ruggedly hetero. And by 'Scottish', the film means 'American'." I changed "suggested" to "asserted", but is there another way to reflect this observation? Some use of "emulate"? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disney has released [1] this film on DVD now. So, at least a stub article about it is in order, and this page will need a hatnote referring to it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need a hatnote? If we can create

Rob Roy, the Highland Rogue, we can add it to the list at Rob Roy and specify the year and the director and the stars to disambiguate it from the 1995 film. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

The article exists already:

Rob Roy, the Highland Rogue. It is properly listed with other items at Rob Roy. I don't think we need a hatnote; we just need to make sure the 1953 film's description is clear-cut. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I think a hatnote is pertinent, in case someone searches for "Rob Roy (film)". No harm in adding one.

talk) 13:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

This section is confusing, and is strange in the details it puts forth. It gives details, when it could just sum it up. This movie paints Rob Roy as better than he was. The main source for this section is an article that certainly has a grudge against the movie. So what if this movie was tailored for an American audience, what has that to do with historical accuracy? As for historical accuracy, I am sure Rob Roy was accused of robbing an church and striping its congregation and stealing their bibles, but that doesn't mean he did it. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 07:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section uses one reference, but there is potential to use more (as seen above). These are print sources, though, so they are not as easy to access as the website. It may help to access these sources to flesh out the section better. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I wasn't questioning the potential. anyway, I was thinking about rewriting the historical accuracy section, pretty much removing the whole Americanization slant. I think the globe article is kinda ridiculous for a couple of reasons, and is trying to make a bigger point about Hollywood and the residents of Kansas. anyway I think I will make a list of the important inaccuracies.

• Rob Roy was red-headed with hairy legs
• Cunningham is a fictional character, although Rob Roy did lose a duel to a foppish Henry Cunningham, a Scot know for his modesty and politeness.
• Neither Montrose nor his men were suspected of stealing the money
• Rob Roy was a thief, blackmailer, and leader of a group of cateran.
• the feud lasted years, and ended with Rob in prison. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth reading

original research to sit there with a history book, compare to the film, and provide original content. That's why I was encouraging use of the references above. It would take some effort to get to them and to cite them, but the payoff would be worth it. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I have drawn attention to the most blatant error - Montrose says the dying Queen Anne has not left a surviving child to comfort the King. Her husband Prince George of Denmark predeceased her by 6 years and in any event was her Consort and not the King of England or anywhere else. This is not a matter of opinion or open to argument - it is undisputed facts and hence I don't need a source. I am surprised no-one has noticed it before. The film makers may have been confused with Mary - Anne's sister who did die childless and her widower Husband William III was King but her death was some 20 years before the events in the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.19.215 (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first three paragraphs of this section are copied, word-for-word, from a book about Scotland in the movies. These paragraphs do not discuss the production of the film (that is, the process, locations, editing, etc). It is not original and not necessary; removing. --Bridgecross (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The plot section is wrong. It is not Mary that talks to Argyll about arranging the duel. It is Rob Roy himself. Mary is against the idea of a duel. I just watched the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.114.255 (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do like the plot section as it is. I had seen the film in 1995, but now I did'nt remember but a few scenes of it. I had even forgotten the title. After a tedious and tricky search on the web, I eventually came across this WP entry, recognised it as "my" film, and appreciated the plot section accuracy, that recalled me all the train of events. I plead for it to stay unchanged, apart from possible error fixing. Vibraison (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]