This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
John de Menteith article. This is
not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles
This 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Scotland and
Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. 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 articles
The Evidence section uses many subjective and bias-inferential adjectives (e.g., "impossible", "vacillating", "turncoat, "abundant") that could be considered
weasel terms. There are also style issues such as starting sentences improperly with "it" and much needless verbosity. The main problem is that the Evidence section reads like fictional paragraphs from a novel. The writing should be objectively and studiously presented. "Just the facts, ma'am!"
Adraeus 02:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)reply
This article carries some serious factual mistakes, to the extent that it is better deleted than kept in its current state. Fix a few bits just now.
Deacon of Pndapetzim (
Talk) 06:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The use of the term traitor is not applicable as he was employed by the English king as a knight to uphold the law. This is not referenced in the article. Few actually followed Wallace so more a bandit or outlaw.
The only two people with a claim to the throne were Walter "Bailloch", John's father, and Robert the Bruce. Walter "Bailloch" was declared king so the title should have passed to his son, or Robert, not Wallace.
This is not accurate and seems highly biased.
31.124.206.253 (
talk) 00:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Fause mulitple meanings?
The article says John was refered to as "Fause Menteith" and then explains it in two different paragraphs as meaning False Mentieth or Menteith the treacherous. Does anyone know which is correct?
69.141.37.100 (
talk) 22:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)reply
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
John de Menteith article. This is
not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles
This 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Scotland and
Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. 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 articles
The Evidence section uses many subjective and bias-inferential adjectives (e.g., "impossible", "vacillating", "turncoat, "abundant") that could be considered
weasel terms. There are also style issues such as starting sentences improperly with "it" and much needless verbosity. The main problem is that the Evidence section reads like fictional paragraphs from a novel. The writing should be objectively and studiously presented. "Just the facts, ma'am!"
Adraeus 02:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)reply
This article carries some serious factual mistakes, to the extent that it is better deleted than kept in its current state. Fix a few bits just now.
Deacon of Pndapetzim (
Talk) 06:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The use of the term traitor is not applicable as he was employed by the English king as a knight to uphold the law. This is not referenced in the article. Few actually followed Wallace so more a bandit or outlaw.
The only two people with a claim to the throne were Walter "Bailloch", John's father, and Robert the Bruce. Walter "Bailloch" was declared king so the title should have passed to his son, or Robert, not Wallace.
This is not accurate and seems highly biased.
31.124.206.253 (
talk) 00:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Fause mulitple meanings?
The article says John was refered to as "Fause Menteith" and then explains it in two different paragraphs as meaning False Mentieth or Menteith the treacherous. Does anyone know which is correct?
69.141.37.100 (
talk) 22:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)reply