Talk:John de Menteith

Evidence neutrality

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)

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)

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)

Nowhere does it claim William Wallace was the king but certainly more than a bandit.. biased much? 89.243.173.118 (talk) 06:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

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)