Talk:300 (film)/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

What was archived - linked references from the prior archive for easy recall
Revisiting GA status - Waiting for all the Crazy to die down before renomination for Good Article status
Screenshots - A brand new controversy regarding the decorative vs. informative nature of screenshots. A roving gang of activist admins started reinterpreting policy and caused a tizzy
Break - Continuation of the above discussion after a short break.
Removing Daryaee from this article - Multiple arguments to remvoe Daryaee statements from article, and one opposed to removal. This is an ongoing Discussion
This is SPARTA!!! - Various memes offered as noteworthy
Moronic Edit - A fairly uncivil comment about a bad edit
GA Review:Pass - ...and here we are, back at GA status. :)

Removing Daryaee from this article

Parts of this section were removed to archive 12 for the sake of space. These archived parts can be found here

...To be able to verify is to be able to seek verity, truth. We shouldn’t however forget relevance as a threshold. Hoping I am not stretching your tolerance on the subject I still have doubts regarding Lytle. He seems to be famous only for the article provided in the link. But more importantly he offers arbitrary assumptions to prove ulterior motives on the part of the movie makers instead of commenting on accuracy mistakes. In the link he is not convincing at all as an authority on the subject and further puzzles me by presenting his view as fact instead of only a possibility on many issues. But I fear that not many will agree with me. The article is much better now I think. However I’d like to draw your attention to the fact that from all the eponymous views which are quite a few in the ‘Controversy’ section only Seymour and Kahane disagree with the main line followed by all others. The first because he thinks the movie is silly and the second because he thinks the movie promotes all-American values which funnily validates the opinion of the rest who see a propaganda of some sort or other. Essentially there is no view that offers a counter weight to those who dislike the film. I have found Richard Roeper’s review and I think you should consider adding it since he sees in ‘300’ just a film as I think we should all do. I understand he is influential and respected in his field and his view could serve to balance somehow the negative ones. I propose the following addition or a similar one with the particular extract as I think it is better suited for the purpose he will be included in the entry if at all of course.

(However Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-Times wrote about the film “You want realism and devotion to the hard facts, watch the History Channel. You want to experience the Battle of Thermopylae as a nonstop thrill ride, here's your ticket”).

The following is the link to the article http://www.suntimes.com/news/roeper/289178,WKP-News-hundred09.article and this an this his view regarding the controversy http://www.brightcove.com/title.jsp?title=626875232&channel=296474766.
Given the sheer volume of the negative comments if his view is to have some opposing impact for the sake of maintaining the balance of the entry I think that it should be placed just before the final paragraph about the Warner Bros response. 62.30.182.52 03:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Somebody has restored Daryaee and attempts to edit it do nothing as it restores itself. Could one of the admins please prevent this and remove the reference as has been decided on? Will contributors cease to cry 'NPOV,' at an article which adds nothing of the sort. Please, if you disagree with the removal, offer your views as to why this is NPOV, but don't just undo edits that were debated for several weeks.

I further propose that we archive this section, up until the most recent comment by Arcayne, and anyone who wants to disagree with the reasons for the removal, or wants to press the case for other edits, can do so in a new section. --217.40.26.169 03:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)/1706 29th May 2007

I will archive everything up until my most recent remarks in this section, allowing the discussion to continue. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

My thanks to the admin who protected this article, but I must ask why Daryaee, despite an agreement reached by many, is still present. He was removed AFTER a consensus was established and should only be returned if a new consensus is reaches. Therefore, anyone who would like him restored, please explain why, in the meantime, will someone just get rid of it. Unsigned. (actually, it was left by User:217.40.26.169)

Insted of complaining, you coudl set up an account and remove them yourself. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Daryaee appears in three different places in the article, which is rather unacceptable. Each critic was able to contribute a statement concerning the controversy. Darayee doesn't get more than anyone else has. As his contributions have been contested ratherly pointedly, I think that its a miracle someone hasn't purged his comments altogether, seeing as how they seem to orginate from the point of view of an immigrant, and not necessarily a historical pov. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In that case, why not return the article to the previous edit with Daryaee removed from the Historical Accuracy section and return this to my original edit (I am now coexistant with 217.40 etc).Notthemanbehindthecurtain 10:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Link should we restore it I don't see why we purge his opinion all together. It's been in the article for the longest time. Alientraveller 13:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologise about violating the rule, I was unaware that such a rule existed and, as a result, I was simply attempting to restore the decision which was reached after weeks of debate and, to date, have seen no argument (excluding unexplained cries of 'NPOV' without any backing) to challenge my actions. I was merely attempting to follow Arcayne's previous advice about removing it myself.

Again, I apologise for breaking any rules, but I remain unrepentant about editing this section- the debate can still be reopened after all, rather than other user's violating previously agreed on removals. Notthemanbehindthecurtain 14:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, stand by for a bit, and thanks for coming here for a heads-up. Sorry for the confusing signals; things will square themselves out shortly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Arcayne. 217.40.26.169 18:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay; RL sidetracked me for a bit. Alientraveler throgutht he repeated references to Daryaee should be removed. He wasn't about removing all traces of Daryaee without consensus. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick remark on the bits of the conversation that were archived. It has been repeatedly asserted that Daryaee is "speaking as an immigrant, not as a historian," and this point seems to have been regarded at decisive by Arcayne. This statement from the article is being read out of context. In the first paragraph he details certain inaccuracies; the second then begins as follows "It is these insinuations in the film that are more troublesome to me as a Persian immigrant to the U.S., than as a historian of antiquity. After all, Hollywood tries to sell movies and does not care if they are historically accurate, but movies also carry a subtle message which has very effective and current consequences." In other words, Daryaee is not surprised or disturbed by historical inaccuracy in a Hollywood film in general; this sort of thing is only to be expected. However, as an immigrant he feels compelled to attempt to address this particular case. Nevertheless, that he does perceive inaccuracy is obvious, and I can't really see the difference between addressing inaccuracy "as a historian" or "as an immigrant historian"; the value of the claims is the same. When I edit articles on German culture I do so "as an American living in Germany"; all that explains is why I'm interested, and doesn't say anything about the objective value of the edits.
Arcayne had also asked for brief statements re: why Daryaee should be included or not. Here's mine: inclusion of Daryaee maintains WP:NPOV, as he represents a "significant view" that is not otherwise represented in the article. If you'll think back to the dispute over Farrokh, for example, we decided not to include him because that would consititue "undue weight"; his point of view was already represented, and in more eloquent & professional fashion, by Daryaee. This alone should serve to demonstrate the important role that Daryaee plays in the article. --Javits2000 15:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, Javits, and I apologize for not specifying before. If Daryaee's comments are fromt he point of view as a historian, they are noteworthy. If they are coming from the point of view as an immigrant (or a foreign national living abroad), they are less noteworthy from an encyclopedic point of view. The reason we selected Daryaee instead of Farrokhe was that Farrokhe was not as strong in comparison.

I am interested in maintaining NPOV as well, but I am hoping that someone can either find a better commentary than Daryaee (and this is said by someone who has read the historian's works), or at least trim the comments to make them less of a target and more on point. If you and others feel the commentary is fine as it is, I will simmer down. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough: briefly distilled, I see the reference to Daryaee's "immigrant" status as describing his motivation for writing, and does not compromise his criticisms of the film's historical content. Actually writing "as an immigrant" would mean to me, e.g. a memoir (Alfred Kazin, for example). The bulk of the content of the article, and all that we've cited, is directly engaged with the historical content of the film, and therefore "on point". This material is all, furthermore, verifiable (although you have to follow through the links in his article): the stats, for example, are drawn from A.W. Gomme, The Population of Athens in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C., Chicago, 1967, Table 1. If his remarks are "a target" it's probably because he's the most harshly critical of the various people cited. But that in itself is no reason to remove him. To me it's telling that the "remove Daryaee" party has also gone on to attack Lytle (see first entry above); that is, they would remove both critical voices from this section. --Javits2000 08:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I am that party you refer to. I honestly cannot see why Daryaee presents such a problem. It should be obvious that he has no place in the historical accuracy section of this film. And I thought the case had been more than adequately made by 217. and me.
The section should discuss inaccuracies that exist in the film. Not possible inaccurate impressions regarding the Persian empire formed by those who watch it. That much should be straightforward.
Break down his view. ‘Touraj Daryaee, associate professor of Ancient History at California State University, Fullerton, criticizes the central theme of the movie, that of "free" and "democracy loving" Spartans against "slave" Persians’. Nothing inaccurate about that. It was how the spartans saw the persians. The film never implies that it is anyone other than a spartan retelling the battle.
‘Daryaee states that the Achaemenid (Persian) empire hired and paid people regardless of their sex or ethnicity, whereas in fifth-century Athens "less than 14%" of the population participated in democratic government, and "nearly 37%" of the population were slaves. He further states that Sparta "was a military monarchy, not a democracy’.
The film doesn’t make any reference as to whether the subjects in the Persian empire were on a pay roll or not. The film doesn’t discuss the percentages of the Athenian population that voted. Athens is hardly mentioned! Daryaee states Sparta was a monarchy as if Leonidas was presented as a prime minister and not a king. The film never implies that Sparta was a democracy. What confused him was the reference to the Apella. His view simply does not address the film! Are we supposed to include the view of a historian who didn’t like the film even when he talks about different things?! His view simply does not address what is mentioned in the film. There should be no discussion beyond that. Continuing with that topic doesn’t make sense anymore! I don’t think this article should serve as the podium at the disposal of any Iranian who would like to inform the world about how great he thinks the Persian Empire was irrespective of the relevancy of his comments.
It is obvious that Daryaee speaks as a Persian that didn’t like the movie simply because the Persians look bad according to him. His degree should not be an excuse for the inclusion of his views in an article that tries to inform objectively. It is not the status of an immigrant that compromises his fitness to express an opinion but his bias. That is what was meant before I think. In his article the man claims that the Persians won the war! He further says that the westerners do not mention the fact that Athens was burnt by the Persians, which is simply preposterous! That is not a historian speaking and the fact that he has a degree means nothing if he isn’t using it.
I do understand that many Iranians have a problem with the film and that should indeed be addressed. But this article does not belong to the Iranian press. It is independent and should remain so.
Regarding Lytle. Again views should address inaccuracies in the film. Which inaccuracy is he addressing exactly?
He says that the film idealizes the Spartan society. Is that inaccurate? Aren’t movie makers free to idealize anything they want? He may find that problematic and disturbing but that is not relevant to any inaccuracy so far.
He says that ‘the hundred nations of the Persians’ are portrayed as monsters and non-Spartan Greeks as weak. It is a comic! Do we need to know from a historian in the historical section that there were no gigantic rhinoceri and ninjas?
He suggests that the film’s moral uiniverse would have seemed bizarre to the ancient Greeks as it does to modern historians. What moral universe is he talking about? Bizarre to which historians exactly? I can understand that he tries to invoke a consensus of a supposed fraternity of historians to validate his attack on the movie but it is not clear what inaccuracy he spotted by doing so. And that because he spotted none in that passage. My apologies but I don’t see why his personal view on the film is supposed to address historical inaccuracies even when it doesn’t simply by virtue of his studies.
I never tried to promote an article devoid of criticism towards the movie. I just say that as it stands, the article simply is not balanced. Just count the negative references in the Controversy section. You will only find views that attack the film and almost all of them on the same grounds. Dana is included twice! As the article is, there is simply no controversy. It seems that everyone agrees that the film was a blatant attack on the Persian culture and a propaganda against the Iranians or in favour of the extreme right the world over! Since obviously that is not the whole story, for the article to become balanced some changes must take place.
I apologize if my answer was delayed. 87.194.82.174 19:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I took the opportunity to read through the article again -- it had been a while -- and I have to agree that there is a disproportionate emphasis on criticisms of the film. The box office numbers tell their own story, but a certain imbalance is noticeable in the "reviews" section; there is a particular dearth of "notable" reviewers giving positive opinions, and that that doesn't necessarily reflect the real situation is underlined by the Roeper review, the link to which has been posted somewhere here on talk. If it's necessary to correct the Malcolm review on a point of fact, maybe it's better to get rid of it altogether.

Historical accuracy strikes me as well-balanced (two for, two against, plus ample space for the opinions of the director), and I will not reiterate my support for retaining Daryaee, as I've spilled enough ink on the subject.

The controversy section will by definition concentrate on criticism of the film; compare, for example, Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan (which is in my opinion out of control, but that's another story). But that doesn't mean it can't be trimmed. Quite right; Stevens should not be cited twice. And there is probably no reason to name every Iranian official who made a statement (if it is felt necessary to preserve the information, citations can be stacked) nor every embassy protest (likewise).

On the one hand the film did provoke an unusually vehement negative reaction, and that needs to be documented. On the other hand, a lot of people think it rocks, and perhaps a bit more effort needs to be put into documenting that side of the story. --Javits2000 20:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, give it a whirl, Javits. Work your magic. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Very good, have whirled. Quick summary: "Reviews": added Roeper, removed Malcolm. "Historical accuracy": added second statement from Cartledge. "Controversy": removed second Stevens citation, trimmed embassies & Iranian officials.--Javits2000 09:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I will refer Javits to my archived statements about the contrast between the trinity of Cartledge, Hanson and Lytle as focusing on truly historical perspectives, in contrast to Daryaee commenting on how 'the film uses history to mount a defense of “Western Civilization” against the invading “Other.”'
Daryaee is, very broadly, utilising the historical background of the film to affirm his attack on the black and white characterisation in the film and how freedom and democracy become part of this (modern) message in the film. I am not going to reiterate my points about his drastically over-simplified conclusions on the Spartan political system, those that are referenced, but please refer to the archives for a list of historians who have argued opposing theories.
His commentary does not, in any way, 'balance' Hanson, indeed, if anyone does, it is Lytle. Whereas Hanson utilises Greek writers' opinions, Daryaee does not discuss the 'moral universe of the Greeks,' as Lytle does, but discusses modern reactions. Nor are his remarks about 'the central theme,' particularly 'balancing;' such comments are made by both Cartledge and Lytle in the section. To claim that 'two for and two against' is balance is debateable. The points adressed by Cartledge suffice for the more 'historical' vs 'fantastical' points, and the points about ancient opinions is made by both Lytle and Hanson. What other purpose does Daryaee serve? 217.40.26.169 12:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

"Referring" me to opinions that I've already read and to which I've already replied is just an artificial way of keeping this (conversation?) going. That Daryaee's statements about are verifiable through published sources has been made clear; and a list of names of historians who (supposedly) disagree, without references no less, does nothing to counteract this. I'm all for avoiding an inordinate emphasis on criticism of the film, and have indeed recently made an effort in this direction; likewise earlier when we were under significant pressure from nationalist POV-pushers. But Daryaee's remarks represent an important body of opinion, and make a greater attempt to grapple with social/historical realities than Hanson or Lytle, who remain on a somewhat abstract plain ("moral universe"; "clash of civilizations"). Alientraveller has aptly described this recent campaign as an attempted "purge," and its singleness of purpose indicates less a desire to improve the article as a whole, than to silence a particular voice, whether because of genuine scholarly disagreement or because of political inclination. That it continues to be conducted via anyonymous IP is likewise food for thought. --Javits2000 12:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, forgot to log in before entering a new point, hope that allows you to finish the meal. The 'singleness of purpose,' as you entitle it, is simply a wish to give the article appropriate balance, combined with, I must admit, almost a sense of horror that any academic of the period can assert opinions so opposed to the standard consensus and be included solely because of an essentially defunct qualification. I do not, in preparedness of this attempt to deconstruct his views, wish to claim any particular opposition to Daryaee himself, no-one gets to such a high position without being the best at what they do. Daryaee's 'best' is Persian, and particularly Sassanid, history and the degree of historical specialisation at his level makes inter-disciplinary remarks, in this case Sparta, hazardous at best.
However, I do feel as if I should clarify my objetions, as Javits has noted; the verifiable point mentioned, which I am surmising is that drawn from Gomme, is an admirable addition, and is, to my knowledge, accurate. However, one reference does not make Daryaee's comments viable in their entirety. Particularly, the 'references' that I am thinking of are in Cartledge's 'Sparta and Lakonia- A regional history' and Jones' 'Sparta' (Both chapters focusing on the ephors and their powers). I do not have these immediately to hand, but perhaps you will accept Michell; 'the great questions concerning them all...were settled by the muster of all warriors...who shouted "Yes" or "No."' Or perhaps a more succint retort to 'military monarchy;' 'the powers of the kings were so severely limited as to be non-exsitant.' He further asserts that there are two schools of thought, one of which comments sovereignty is possessed of 'the ephors alone,' while the other claims it to be fully mixed, rather than as a 'monarchy.' No school of thought exists claiming for a 'military monarchy,' save of course Daryaee. Others include; Huxley ('Early Sparta'), Forrest ('A History of Sparta') and almost every academic writing on the subject. Indeed, even wikipedia's section on Sparta challenges this (perhaps we should place Daryaee's new-found discovery there in the interests of NPOV?). It remains that there is no historian who would take Daryaee's claims of Sparta as a 'military monarchy' seriously and, as such, his remarks are defunct.
Since Daryaee's other (historical) points are mere echoes of the others, his remarks add nothing, except imbalance and inexactness, and therefore should be removed; not purged, one could remark that he shares Cartledge's views, but little beyond that. Notthemanbehindthecurtain 13:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A quick search of Google books suggests that the characterization of Sparta as a "military monarchy" can be traced back to Theodor Mommsen; antiquated, to be sure, although eminently "serious." I'm assuming that if the offensive word "monarchy" were to be replaced by "oligarchy" then all would be forgiven? But I do wonder if we're not pressing this word to hard. Leonidas was after all a ... king; one still calls the United Kingdom a "constitutional monarchy," even if the powers of the queen are "so severely limited as to be non-existent." --Javits2000 09:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on his antiquarian nature, Mommsen was part of the pre-Oliver period of Spartan historians (the infamous 'Spartan mirage'), which would be enough for most historians (CG Starr for one) to discount . However, even if this were not so, this is not actually an accurate citation as it concerns Hellenistic/Roman Sparta, perhaps a less 'quick' search might have uncovered this, notably the tyranny of Nabis, nearly three hundred years AFTER the 'events' of 300. If one applies the same logic of continuity to the British monarchy, one could (almost) claim that British politics is that of the Civil War era. Regardless, 'military monarchy' is still being read quite out of context; an appropriate reading would be of Nabis use of military force to secure his monarchy, a situation which archaic/classical Sparta famously avoids (Andrewes'-'The Greek Tyrants;' The Spartan Alternative to Tyranny) in contrast to the Hellenistic kings. For a correct contextual reading, one might 'quickly' search google for 'military monarchy' and uncover the EBrittanica example of the (nearly) contemporary Dyonisius I of Syracuse; 'his was essentially a military monarchy based on loyal mercenary power(emphasis added).' Ironically enough, as a sidepoint, Nabis' tyranny is the only point at which 'mon-'archy could be strictly applied; aside from other short breaks in the third century, the specific term would be a dyarchy (due to Sparta's famed dual kingship).
Regarding the British monarchy, the term constitutional monarchy is certainly still bandied about, but if the choices for defining the British political system were 'democracy' or 'monarchy,' I hardly think that there would be doubt as to where sovereignty lies. Oligarchy would indeed be a more applicable term, for Sparta, but would still suffer the inherent flaws which you commented on through Gomme and my original attack. As with the British monarchy, in deciding between 'monarchy' and 'democracy,' as to where sovereign power lies in Sparta, neither term is even approaching perfect, but most modern historians would choose the latter (citations will be forcoming, but still, please don't wait) if pressed. Besides, it is enough to challenge Daryaee's polemicism through negating his own mirage of a tyrannical Spartan monarchy- undoubtedly, Sparta was hardly a utopia of democracy and freedom by modern standards, but the charges of a supreme monarchy laid by Daryaee are witout basis and are, as such, a nuisance to be discarded as ancillary to Cartledge's reservations. It is this point which seems to be continually missed; Daryaee is discussing modern interpretations and how modern thought seeps into definitions of earlier political societies; an area for historiography perhaps, but not historical accuracy. 217.40.26.169 10:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

So where do we stand: "Touraj Daryaee, associate professor of Ancient History at California State University, Fullerton, criticizes the central theme of the movie, that of "free" and "democracy loving" Spartans against "slave" Persians." That this is indeed a central theme of the movie has not been disputed, and can be verified by a quick glance at the quote-collection at IMDB, cited in the archived secton of the discussion.

"Daryaee states that the Achaemenid (Persian) empire hired and paid people regardless of their sex or ethnicity, whereas in fifth-century Athens "less than 14%" of the population participated in democratic government, and "nearly 37%" of the population were slaves." This characterization of the Achaemenid administration has not been disputed, and I have little doubt that it could be verified; I believe the evidence is primarily epigraphic & sigillographic. The figures for Athens have been verified; that Athens, instead of Sparta, is cited presumably because a) comparable demographic data for Sparta is not available; and b) fifth-century Athens has traditionally been perceived as the peak of Greek democracy.

"He further states that Sparta "was a military monarchy, not a democracy."" This statement used to go on to add something like "that owned an entire slave population the Helots"; when this was removed, I'm not sure. One should never leave the country.

It now emerges that the characterization of Sparta as a "military monarchy" is the most offensive portion of this characterization; it has also been shown that this is an out-of-date, although not strictly inaccurate, characterization of the Spartan political system. (Incidentally, I don't know if it makes any difference, but it appears that this passage has been misquoted. The essay itself gives the following: "And Sparta was not a democracy. It was a militaristic monarchy with a council of elders which decided political matters, but it was not a democracy.") "Military oligarchy" is preferred.

Whether Sparta can be characterized as a democracy seems to me -- correct me if I'm wrong -- to be a contentious issue. There has been some reference to soldiers out-shouting each other. But if I'm not mistaken, to deny that Sparta was a democracy is still an acceptable historical opinion. Finally, that the Helots did exist has not been disputed, nor that their existence is ommitted from the film's portrayal of Spartan society.

Therefore if one edits the entry as follows one is left with a verifiable statement that makes a number of points regarding both Spartan and Persian society that are not addressed by the other historians cited: "Touraj Daryaee, associate professor of Ancient History at California State University, Fullerton, criticizes the central theme of the movie, that of "free" and "democracy loving" Spartans against "slave" Persians. Daryaee states that the Achaemenid (Persian) empire hired and paid people regardless of their sex or ethnicity, whereas in fifth-century Athens "less than 14%" of the population participated in democratic government, and "nearly 37%" of the population were slaves. He further states that Sparta was "not a democracy," and owned an entire enslaved population (the Helots)." --Javits2000 16:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The ‘free’ Spartans is indeed a central theme. But were the Spartans slaves? I doubt the word ‘Democracy’ is used but it is true that the Spartan political system was based on democratic principles. In any case is there any mention in the film about ‘democracy loving’ Spartans? Would the film be more accurate regarding the Spartan political system if there was no reference to the Apella?
I am afraid the Persians didn’t hire workers as much as they paid slaves. The difference in kind is huge. The same however was the case in Sparta and Athens. The helots were responsible for the running of the spartan economy. The fact that the figures Daryaee gives are verifiable is irrelevant in my view. They don’t address any inaccuracy in the film.
He disagrees that Sparta was a democracy. But the film never says it was. The term ‘militaristic monarchy’ is an invention of his and rather flawed. For the Spartan political system to qualify as such, Spartan military would need to have had political powers but it didn’t. A note on Michell. Maybe he is trying to romanticize the accounts but it wasn’t the warriors who would vote by shouting but the Spartan citizens.
If one reads the articles by Lytle and Daryaee he cannot miss their tone. They write to defend the ancient Persian culture and not to address inaccuracies. And although the film does have plenty of them, I think exactly because of their motives they fail to address them. Instead they try to attack the Spartan or the Greek culture. Both Hanson and Daryaee address the clash of ‘free’ vs ‘slave’. From the two however only Hanson comments on the respective references in the movie. The greeks did see in that war a clash between free citizens and subservient subjects. Darius in the Behistun inscription comes to their aid when he addresses his generals as ‘servants’. What Daryaee is trying to do effectively is contest the view of the ancient greeks but the ‘Historical Accuracy’ section of the 300 is not the place to do it. I can only see in his readiness to give the percentages of the Athenians who actually voted, an attempt to reduce Athenian democracy but whatever the verifiability status of his view may be why is Athenian democracy relevant to 300?
The same motives and mistakes I see in Lytle. In light of the addition of Carltledge’s reference to pederasty, I feel I should say that the film clearly takes the view of all the ancient writers and indeed of those among them who actually lived in Sparta and wrote that ‘pederasty’ was chaste. While it is true that there is an ongoing debate among historians on whether it was chaste or not if Cartledge's view is used as that of the historian who spotted an inaccuracy, the article clearly presents a winner of the debate; something the article is not supposed to do and which results in misinformation in my view even though there is a link for further research on the topic. Given that certain passages in the ‘Historical Accuracy’ section point towards several sensitive aspects of the general debate that arose after the film regarding the two civilisations and since they are presented as facts while they are only opinions I must ask why were they chosen to be included when there exist in the film inaccuracies accepted by all sides and that aren’t addressed at all.
I think I am right to say that relevance should be the primary criterion if a view is to be presented. Verifiability of views aside, maybe we should first see what inaccuracy each view addresses. If there is no inaccuracy in the context of the movie I don’t see why a view should be included in that section.
While the article itself avoids weasel words, these exist via the words of Lytle for example when he professes he knows the view of all ancient greeks and modern historians. Attribution in this instance doesnt correct the effect since he speaks as an authority and is to be believed. And part of the problem may be due to this. The existing views are not the best one could find maybe because as the film became loaded with bias few historians kept an objective point of view. I wonder if users themselves can write about the inaccuracies more carefully than some historians while of course giving proof of the truth of what they say and not only about the verifiability of what is being written. (i found my password) Talsal 19:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, a thoughtful opinion, but tending in a dangerous direction; Lytle and Daryaee to be removed, along with the one section of Cartledge's appraisal which is critical. I still believe that relying on the opinions of professional historians, and reporting them as such (opinions, introduced with "states," & similarly neutral verbs) is the only way to construct this section. Attempting to judge the film's accuracy independently would apparently require that we, e.g. open up this discussion page to the question of whether Spartan pederasty involved "touching." --Javits2000 19:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Two brief, although for me that should perhaps be read as overly verbose, points; first, it appears that this debate is gradually becoming bogged down. The fundamental disagreement should be over the emphasis of Daryaee's argument, which is, in my opinion, not to engage Hanson's argument as to Greek views of the period, as Hanson illustrates through Aeschylus and Herodotus, but is to ignore contemporary opinion and claim that we are retrojecting our own value structures back onto the Persian wars in the interests of ideology. This can be seen through his continuous emphasis on the 'legitimation' of 300 for, what he belives will be, war against Iran, and notably through his assertion that Persians, in the film, represent all that is abhorrent to the modern, Western psyche. This is, quite obviously, not a truly historical perspective that he is taking; he is establishing relative cultural merits for each society rather than establishing the historical accuracy of either. As has been often asserted, the film never makes claims contrary to the existence, in Spartan society, of its negative elements; this cannot be claimed as 'historical accuracy' per se unless we delete the whole section and replace it with a wiki link to Sparta. Historical mention must then come from those who discuss 'historical' matters, Cartledge, Hanson and Lytle, not how history is utilised for modern interests; I, for one, cannot see how this belongs anywhere other than in Controversy, if anywhere.
Second, I would like to support Javits in maintaining the reference to pederasty; this is certainly a matter under serious debate, and, it must be said, runs against the specific opinions of Xenophon (the only writer to have experienced Sparta 'first-hand.') Nevertheless, there is a link to Spartan pederasty and, perhaps with the addition of 'believed' or 'apparent' (or some other qualifier) prior to Cartledge's comments, such a comment may be said to be fair. After all, pederasty, or the supposed lack of, is directly referenced by the film and debate should therefore be perfectly viable. If doubts are raised, as are perfectly justifiable, then these should be included in the section on Spartan pederasty, which is linked. 217.40.26.169 09:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

My view was that the article should steer clear of the views that present serious and obvious problems and instead use those that are commonly accepted and if necessary, with the intervention of the users. The reference to pederasty in my view is such a case where an ‘alleged’ or sth to that effect as 217 said would make the reference a valid point instead of an unfair one. I didn’t ask for the removal of that particular view. I tried to find less loaded passages in the articles of the historians at hand. Cartledge makes important points regarding the mention of just 300 soldiers instead of the 4000 or 7000 greeks. He also comments on what he calls ‘the most controversial aspect’, the portrayal of the Persians. Very little in Lytle’s piece is said regarding any inaccuracy of the film. He offers however a comment on the scarcity of historical information about the life of Leonidas but nothing else that could be included in the section in my opinion. There is simply nothing else that doesn’t include an unnecessary attack on the movie by anyone let alone a historian. Daryaee offers nothing. Add to the previously mentioned passage that reveals the nature of his article the following: ‘However, my response is not so much to the inaccuracies of the film, but rather to its ultimate motive and its possible use in the current issue of war on terrorism….But let us address the historicity of the film and the way in which the film uses history to mount a defense of “Western Civilization” against the invading “Other”’. The man is a fanatic. He has no place in ‘Historical Accuracy’. Along with the other problematic views in the section a pattern emerges and I thought I should mention it.Talsal 18:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Has just occurred to me, although indirectly related, as to whether we should accord VDH to be a former professor at CSU; the term 'military' historian, while a perfectly eminent area of academia, seems to be selling him somewhat short. I am aware that this may be thought to compromise NPOV in some people's minds, but it seems more 'balanced' to my mind to demonstrate that his expertise is truly in Classics, rather than solely as a military historian. Any thoughts from anyone? 217.40.26.169 21:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Since I have received no feedback, I have edited the sections on Cartledge and Hanson in line with my previous suggestions. I do not doubt that the language could be better phrased and would be grateful if anyone can improve on it. The additions/changes which I have made consist of recognising VDH's previous role as 'formerly professor of Classical History at CSU,' while removing his title of 'military' historian; it seems to me that, as his subject is ideology seen through sources, it is more appropriate to cite him in regard to the qualifications which make him an expert in this field. Second, I have amended Cartledge's remarks by adding 'given his views on the' in his remark about Institutional Pederasty; as has been suggested, there remains a debate and readers with less awareness should not take the statement as concrete, as the former text implied.
Of course, if anyone can improve, or dissaproves entirely, of this edit, please offer a suggestion for change and we can discuss it. Notthemanbehindthecurtain 22:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the changes are definitely an improvement. But I would still like someone to tell me what specifically are the inaccuracies of the film Daryaee and Lytle address.87.194.82.174 03:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I cannot specify the reasons for keeping Daryaee in, but, I believe, Lytle's inclusion is based on the fact that he addresses the perspectives of the Greeks themselves on the film; just as Hanson argues that the picture is accurate, Lytle challenges this notion. He also, like Daryaee, seeks to oppose the 'selective' interpretations of Sparta, but his point is that references to Spartan institutions ignore negative aspects of the system. As has been pointed out several times, there are grounds for simply ignoring such assertions because the film is not obligated to mention them, however, that 300 mentions particular aspects of Spartan society (the agoge, ephorate, gerousia and certain other social characteristics), one could argue that this does indeed obligate it to a greater degree. Most important though, is his comment concerning the 'moral universe;' even if no other points of his were included, this point does provide an academic counterpoint to Hanson. However, if you believe that there are convincing reasons, please, continue to espouse them. Notthemanbehindthecurtain 22:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

If Lytle is included to address the views of the greeks themselves he should be in another section. He is not addressing inaccuracies in the film. By characterizing the choices made by the film makers as an idealization of the Spartan culture he implies disturbing –according to him- motives. He is not refuting the historical accuracy of the depiction. His comments on the supposed portrayal of all the Persians as monsters and on that of the non-Spartan greeks as weaklings are not made to inform us that rhinos didn’t exist but to promote his own portrayal of the Persians and make his view appear objective. His comment on the moral universe can only have an object if it addresses the clash of the civilizations. Hanson gives proof as to why that clash is accurate. Even if someone prefers to ignore the fact that the battle was one between two different cultures meeting in the battlefield with the baggage of their respective values, one must remember that the story of the film is based on the historical sources that make clear that for both the Greeks and the Persians, cultures was what clashed. Hanson addresses that issue by giving proof of that. The academic counterpoint is provided by Cartledge when he expresses reservations about the film’s west vs east polarization. Hanson speaks with proof to back his claims. Cartledge is an expert of sort on the movie subject. Lytle is known for nothing else apart from his attacks on the movie all over the web. His proof is an appeal to imaginary authorities; those of all the modern historians and of all the ancient greeks who agree with him! That is not an argument and that is not a historian expressing a view. The ‘clash of the cultures’ can either be true or false. It is not up to a biased modern historian to decide that. It was up to the combatants who viewed their war as such. If then that is the case how is a refutation of a fact relevant to the section that tries to separate fact from fiction? And of course something must be decided about Daryaee.Talsal 18:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I must admit, I am beginning to come around to the idea of removing some of Lytle's comments, specifically about the 'moral universe' of the greeks, yet I do think that his opinions should be kept, although perhaps with a change of quotes drawn from his article. For instance, if his remarks were edited to specify the fact that the film is very 'laconocentric' in its ideal and included brief comments about the inaccuracies described in the Spartan social structure, notably those concerning the ephorate. In particular, I, although others may differ, would rather the article incorporated the relative absence of other Greek contributions in the film. As to the 'war between cultures,' I can fully understand that Lytle is not exactly citing the sources that Hanson does, but I think that his views would have to be demonstrated to be of a minority in the historical community. Unfortunately, I am unfamiliar with his work, but I am sure that it must exist.

As for Daryaee, I concur that the issue is still undecided, but, with the absence of a reply from Javits, it would be a mistake to interpret his absence as an acceptance of the arguments. It would perhaps be better for suggested edits to be presented so that agreements can be made. 137.73.88.101 20:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've posted my own proposed edit to the Daryaee section (above, approximately one week ago); it essentially consists of removing the reference to "military monarchy." It is of course wise not to interpret silence as assent; I don't see that any new points in relation to Daryaee have been raised, and would consider it tedious to reiterate my own position every couple of days. The edits re: Hanson's prior post and Cartledge's opinion strike me as improvements. --Javits2000 00:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Some people might think that refusing to respond to new points just because you do not deem them important makes debate essentially futile.137.73.88.101/Notthemanbehindthecurtain 19:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC) 08:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The view of Lytle could be as follows:

'Ephraim Lytle, assistant professor of Hellenistic History at the University of Toronto, commenting on the references to the Spartan culture verifies the existence of the training regime of agoge and of the ephors who ‘elected annually…were Sparta’s highest officials, their powers checking those of the dual kings’. He adds that the Spartan King Leonidas instead of 300 men he initially ‘led an army of perhaps 7000 Greeks’ while at the final stage of the battle ‘700 hoplites from Thespiae remained, fighting beside the Spartans, they, too, dying to the last man.’ However in his view the film selectively idealizes Spartan society in a ‘problematic and disturbing’ fashion, and portrays ‘the hundred nations of the Persians’ as monsters.'

In my view if Lytle’s view must for some reason be included it must necessarily include some bits and pieces about the more trivia aspects of the movie cause otherwise he simply offers nothing else of value.

Regarding Daryaee I think that the last argument to support his inclusion was the ‘2 vs 2’ by Javits although I don’t think the numbers in this section, unlike the ‘controversy’ one, should be relevant. I’d like to ask, with no irony intended, if Javits has the last say on what goes in or not. If he does I should stop bothering you all with the issue since he seems to have made up his mind. If he doesn’t, I think those who want Daryaee out, are more and made a better case for their aim and therefore Daryaee should be out. If the debate is to be continued then allow me to ask once more: what are the specific inaccuracies Daryaee addresses in the film? 87.194.82.174 23:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

To NTMBTC, who wrote, "refusing to respond to new points just because you do not deem them important makes debate essentially futile," in fact my suggestion was that no new points (not no important points) had been raised.

To 87.194...., first, the rewrite of the Lytle passage looks fine to me. Second, of course I have no more say than anyone else; to determine whether there are actually more who want Daryaee out, or whether there have merely been a few vocal advocates of his removal, would require a request for comment; and that advocates of removal "have made a better case" will of course be the position of someone who has continually made that very case.

Specific inaccuracies addressed by Daryaee (I repeat myself): 1) Xerxes led a "slave army." 2) Sparta was a free society. 2a) Absence of Helots in contrast to constant emphasis on Spartans as lovers of freedom grows from an accidental into a conscious oversight.

The situation is structurally similar, although on a much greater scale, to the "boy-lovers" comment; i.e. the "Spartans" of the film frequently accuse their enemies, in a pejorative sense, of maintaining institutions that were in fact known in the historical Sparta.

Although, as stated, I find 87...'s rewrite of the Lytle passage useful, I also find the following remark telling: "In my view if Lytle’s view must for some reason be included it must necessarily include some bits and pieces about the more trivia aspects of the movie cause otherwise he simply offers nothing else of value." Daryaee indeed contributes little if anything that is trivial. But this is precisely what makes him valuable: he offers a broader overview. In this sense he plays nicely off Hanson, who takes a similarly broad perspective; briefly stated, Hanson remarks that later Greek authors saw Thermopylae as a struggle between freedom and slavery; Daryaee remarks that this may not have reflected historical realities. The two remarks are of course not contradictory, and together they offer a fuller picture than would either without the other. They certainly offer a more interesting account, for me at least, than a catalog of trivia; e.g. Ephialtes is nowhere said to have been a cripple, Spartans did not fight in leather briefs, the sky over Thermopylae is rarely, if ever, hell-fire red....--Javits2000 12:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If Daryaee is indeed a counter-point to Hanson, does it follow that he has to play by the same rules? If so, one can surmise that his point, which is continually couched within modern ideas (democracy, slavery and freedom), is inadmissable on these grounds. By modern definitions, yes, to pay an individual is to nullify their position as a slave, as the chap (Eric Williams), who commented on the replacement of contractual slavery by indentured (essentially 'paid') retainment made clear; however, Greek definitions vary. Slavery was, to them, defined by inter-personal relationships and formal legal relationships, not economical; Xerxes is alleged to have thought as such by Herodotus '(how can Greeks win) if they were not under a single master, but free to do as they pleased' (Book VII, Histories). I do not include this quote to try to deconstruct Daryaee, but to illustrate that he is not expressing sentiments founded on historical, but modern interpretations; he is not making a counter-point to Hanson and no appeals to his status can disguise the fact that his remarks are made through modern sensibilities, not that of 300's 'contemporaries.' The same might be said for his readings of Spartan society. Notthemanbehindthecurtain 13:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. In general I've been avoiding these discussions of historical method, as it threatens to take us off topic, but I would probably take the position that every historian writes from the present; and it is in general a virtue to state one's particular perspective clearly (as Daryaee does, and for which he's taken some flack in this discussion), rather than claiming to write out of some oracular knowledge of the mentalities of the long-dead. It would not be difficult to demonstrate that Hanson too writes as much out of present concerns as from scholarly (dis)interest. (It is of course all well and good to try to understand the Greeks "as they understood themselves"; nevertheless the present will always intervene.) I'll quickly cite a statement of this problem by an author in my own field, which will at the very least hopefully demonstrate the hazards of discussing historical method on the talk page:

...this book is conceived and written within a historical materialist framework.... One may ask, of course, why it should be at all necessary to justify one's terms of reference or indeed to situate oneself in a particuar historiographical tradition. Surely it should be enough to base oneself firmly in the sources and to apply one's historical common sense to their interpretation and to the possible shape of a given set of historical developments? The answer, and the justification, is not difficult to grasp. Theories are, in effect, sets of premises -- whether they are implicit or explicit is unimportant at this point -- which condition both the mode of interpretation as well as (crucially) the mode of appropriation of knowledge (in other words, the very way in which we permit ourselves to "know" something). Such premises or assumptions are, as I have said, implicit in every piece of analysis, whether it be of literary texts or of historical sources. Theory, in this sense, is inescapable; and there is no use in appealing to an objective, fact-based history, for such does not, and indeed cannot, exist. It is better to admit that this is the case and to make these underlying assumptions explicit.... (J. Haldon, Byzantium in the seventh century [Cambridge, 1997], 6-7).

There were of course no "historical materalists" in Byzantium, but it's still a useful book.--Javits2000 13:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You are certainly right to state that true objectivity is impossible within history, and another 'great' of the historical field, EH Carr ('What is History?'), is another maginficent example of the truth of your statement. Yet I cannot agree that utilising historiographical theory takes us away from our point, indeed, I was under the impression that this has been the prevailing issue throughout; at the same time, it is expected that we cannot approach history entirely with modern eyes, an example would perhaps be the response of 'Bastard Feudalism' by McFarlane to the medieval world view presented by Bishop Stubbs, for whom mercantilism was an underlying ideology in society. Hanson, for all his own ideological faults, engages the topic through the 'eyes,' so to speak, or at least through the words of the Greeks themselves. Daryaee is undeniably no apologist, but to rely on a modern world view is exclusionary to the idea that he is responding to Hanson along the same axis. His comment is, while not quite 'contradictory' as you point out, based on faulty assumptions; not to put words in his mouth, but it would not be a stretch to imagine him (using Lytle's phrase) claiming 'our moral universe is that of the Greeks themselves,' a ludicrous statement.
As a seperate point, I would also like to express my satisfaction at the proposed changes (by User 87.) to Lytle's sub-topic, unless anyone objects, I suggest that said changes are implemented. Notthemanbehindthecurtain 14:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I still see a certain complementarity between Hanson and Daryaee. Put it this way: what Hanson essentially states, and what is I think correct, is that the account of 300 roughly corresponds to the account of the ancient Greek historiographical tradition. Daryaee on the other hand draws on other types of material (modern demographic studies of ancient Greece, findings from Achaemenid studies) to challenge the monopoly of that tradition. And in fact what emerges from the two is probably a relatively accurate account of the "historical accuracy" of the film itself: Miller seems to have relied mostly on Herodotus, filled in with a lot of imaginative detail, but not to have read a word of ancient Near Eastern history. Nor did he had any obligation to do so, but it effects the kind of story that is told, and Daryaee serves to remind that alternative narratives are possible.

I find it difficult to imagine Daryaee stating that 'our moral universe is that of the Greeks themselves,' and can't see where the support for such a statement is coming from. It is telling that this debate is now turning around the question of whether the film, or a given historian, accurately portrays the Greek view of events; there were after all two armies at Thermopylae. --Javits2000 14:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

...Which again leads us back to that fundamental problem; to challenge the existence of 'freedom' and 'democracy' in Greece by modern standards, 'challenging the monopoly of that tradition,' is not a question to be included in 'historical accuracy,' but one of modern controversy over the portrayal of Persians, for which Daryaee's qualifications do not automatically exclude him from. To my knowledge, there is no ancient source which claims a position opposite to Hedorodotus and nor can analysis of the data mentioned prove anything other than that our definitions of political systems differ to those of the Greeks. To again quote Michell ('Sparta'), to my knowledge the only academic to make specific statements about the difficulties of such definitions, 'It (Sparta) was a democracy in the limited sense that any Spartan (who was a 'citizen')...could claim membership of the (and vote for) the General Assembly,' the Gerousia and Ephorate. This 'limited' sense is, to my mind, the only one that can truly be utilised, unless we are willing to re-write the whole of history based on modern distinctions; as I remarked right at the beginning of this debate, speculation over what 'makes' a democracy is always based on unqualifiable opinion and should be ignored. Notthemanbehindthecurtain 15:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing Daryaee from this article: the continuation

Regarding the inaccuracies of the film. 1. Xerxes did have an army of ‘slaves’. It was consisted of detachments from the 46 or so countries under his rule which were obliged to provide him with fighting men. Weren’t the greeks that took part in the campaign on the Persian side enslaved? That army had nothing to do with the Greek mercenaries Persian used to hire later. Add, that a slave army was what the greeks believed they were facing. Especially when they saw Persians killing Persians who were retreating and Persians whipping Persians to fight. 2. Sparta was free. If that itself is inaccurate we are missing their ruler. If it wasn’t the ‘law’ as they professed who was he? 3. Spartans were lovers of their freedom. To prove that point they died instead of living under the Persian brand of slavery. Personally I justify the absence of any reference to the helots. The movie is not a comparative study of the two cultures with the obligation to delve in every facet of their societies. There is no mention of the helots just like there is no mention of the Persian habit of requesting children from certain satrapies to become palace eunuchs. I think that the ‘boy lover’ issue is satisfactorily addressed by Cartledge.
Daryaee clearly offers a different view from that of Hanson but the problem is that he is simply wrong in almost everything he says. What annoys me is that he is trying to rewrite history in an insidious manner utilising several fallacies. The battle of the movie and indeed the Persian wars were between an invading army that tried to enslave a country and the armies of that country that tried to preserve their freedom. That is an undeniable fact. To turn that fact on its head Daryaee claims that the Persians were paying their slaves. Sure they were. With goods from the tributes paid to the Persians by enslaved countries. But the greeks were paying their slaves too. So why mention it? Especially when the movie uses the characterization ‘slave’ for the unwilling warriors and not for the house staff of a Persian architect. He says that Athens didn’t have the high percentages of voters some would think but what about Persia? And at last why is Athens relevant to the movie? He changes the Spartan political system to that of a monarchy but wasn’t Persia a monarchy? If all else is pretty much equal then why should his views be used in a manner to alter the truth of the clash? According to Daryaee the wars were between a freedom loving Persia and a slave owning Greece and even if for the sake of discussion that was true it was the freedom loving Persians that tried to enslave the slave owning greeks which would still leave the Spartans fighting for their freedom. His inclusion instead of broadening the discussion, falsifies the most accurate part of the movie.
I totally disagree with the view that he offers little that isn’t trivial. In fact I think he offers little that is true. His article is supposed to be read and appreciated by Iranians who felt vilified by the movie. He certainly suggests that the accepted view regarding the wars may not reflect historical realities. And to prove it he goes on to make a reality of his own. That may well be within his rights but his views should be placed under the scrutiny of his peers first and circulated in such an effective manner later. Not promoted directly to the masses. Why is he empowered with the podium to contrast Hanson’s view that the greeks saw a struggle between freedom and slavery. I can’t possibly see how that can be contested and indeed by a historian who should have read the proof of it. There were two armies in Thermopylae but however we see it only one army was fighting for its freedom.
Missing the point Daryaee focuses on irrelevant issues. What are the answers to the questions he raises? Who stood for freedom in the battle of Thermopylae? Who approximated democracy closer? Who was intent to enslave? The movie gets the answers right and Daryaee wrong. I do apologize for repeating myself but I feel I have to since to me it is clear that Daryaee represents a nasty attempt to misinform. Request for comment was not my intention. I would rather convince Javits who however should agree that Daryaee doesn’t serve well the purpose he is supposed to. This is why I proposed earlier that maybe we can mention the helots with a link to a wiki article as an issue raised by some historians. Talsal87.194.82.174 20:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I am not convinced that such an ation would benefit the article as being on-target. Either Daryaee is on the money or he is not. If he is, then his comments should remain; if not, then they should be excised. While a lot of informed opinion has gone into this, I am not sure that anyone commenting is of a notable nature so as to serve as a secondary (and therefore citable) source. Therefore, what we think of the historical value of Daryaee's comments is immaterial. If he is wrong, then we find a source that says the right thing. If we can't find one, then we have to decide if Daryaee's statmetnes are wrong, do they remain in the absence of something to contravert them, even if we (as non-citable editors) know that the guy fell out of the DumDum Tree and hit every branch on the way down? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to refer everyone to the above points raised regarding Daryaee and the inherent problems with Daryaee utilising modern criteria to establish his 'historical' statements. It is impossible to find a direct source to disagree with Daryaee only because no historian is likely to respond to such claims. As I mentioned, Michell, perhaps, puts his finger on the matter when he comments the before statement; by our definitions, no, Sparta is not truly a democracy as we understand today, but by criteria inalienable from 'democracy,' it can be called democracy in the terms which the Greeks would have used. To reiterate an often noted point, Daryaee is applying modern definitions to ancient social orders. If that is so, I am certain that, if a culture possessed enough of a variegated political structure, they could define t as whatever they chose; it should be defined in the terms by which historians would place it in the minds of contemporaries, not those of moderns or by any other which would detract from the mentality which conceived it. 137.73.88.101 21:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I am all for removing Daryaee even if no mention of helots is made. There is no doubt in my mind that he is wrong. After all either he is wrong or both Hanson and Cartledge are. No serious historian would doubt a clash of civilisations as it was by definition such a clash. And since Cartledge expresses reservations about the polarization in the movie–not the clash itself- there is no need for Daryaee. On top of that the paragraph of Daryaee is an excellent example of a false analogy and therefore invalid as an argument.Talsal87.194.82.174 22:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The kernel of NTMBTC/137...'s problem with Daryaee is clearly that he (D.) is applying modern definitions of political systems to Sparta. This strikes me as a plausible reading of Daryaee; our difference of opinion comes from the fact that I do not find this approach problematic or irresponsible, whereas NTMBTC apparently does. BTW, this very long exchange has essentially been generated by a few words: "not a democracy" and "military monarchy." The latter is actually a misquote of the Daryaee article; I've just fixed it. The former ("democracy") is clearly a problematic term in Sparta studies; the passage quoted from Michell shows that it requires quite a lot of qualfication to be admitted at all, and then in a "limited sense"; for what it's worth a quick JSTOR search shows that the phrase "Spartan democracy" rarely appears (thrice) in the secondary literature available there, which includes quite a number of major journals of ancient history & philology, and then nearly always w/ scare quotes ("Spartan 'democracy'"). So it strikes me that for the average reader, unitiated in intricacies of Spartan political systems, and who indeed may not be aware that there is a difference btw. ancient & modern democracy in the first place, and who probably associates the bare word "democracy" with the modern variety, Daryaee's characterization, if a bit too categorical for the initiated, will do just fine.

87..., in essence a single purpose account, sounds increasingly frantic: Daryaee's views should "not [be] promoted directly to the masses"; it is a "nasty attempt to misinform"; "either he is wrong or both Hanson and Cartledge are." I've gone to some effort above to argue that Hanson and Daryaee are not contradictory, but rather complementary; 137... has not responded to these points, but has rather reiterated his/her personal opinion. I do not see what the contradiction btw. Daryaee & Cartledge is supposed to be. Furthermore that Daryaee's remarks are completely verifiable has been shown; they are therefore not simply "wrong." 87... clearly feels that Daryaee has manipulated his sources in a "nasty" fashion; furthermore that his argument "is an excellent example of a false analogy"; these are points that, if true, the "masses" should be able to perceive for themeslves. My personal opinion would be that he's making do with a limited amount of evidence, and that argument by analogy is often necessary is these circumstances, but perhaps I've been deceived.

In any case, Arcayne's remarks on points of Wiki-method are of course entirely correct. I think the questions of verifiability have been settled for a while now -- correct me if I'm wrong -- which means that Daryaee is, in terms of citability, solid. Most of the argument now concerns finer points of historical method and rhetoric, which, while enjoyable and occasionally illuminating, are for Wiki too clever by half. --Javits2000 07:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

To quote J Reames, who wrote a very fine piece on the historical accuracy of Alexander, there are several levels of 'accuracy;' "the third -- and most important -- level of historical accuracy concerns the themes and worldview. These are matters both more fundamental and more esoteric. Does the film reflect how people living in that era understood life, the universe, and everything? And does the film convey this in such a way that the viewing audience can follow?" This problem is not confined to a couple of phrases 'democracy' and 'military monarchy' in relation to Sparta, but is inherent throughout Daryaee's 'criticism of the central theme of the movie,' a point which, it can reasonably be said, operates constantly in his article; were the Spartans really democratic, were the Persians really slaves?

I fear that the solution to this answer cannot truly be uncovered, unless there is agreement as to whether we follow the path of Reames and focus only on a truly 'historical' perspective, or whether we ignore the world-view and translate it only into a way to relate it to the modern consciousness, an issue which I would hasten to point out was so important in the historical criticism of the movie Troy. If we were to follow the line of reasoning that Daryaee brings, and it follows that modern definitions may be applied at will to films, regardless of the period invoked by the film, one would hate to step into the shoes of a film maker attempting to make a film about British constitutional reform in the 19th century. Would one allow slogans for 'democracy' in such a film when they would only enfranchise 1 in 7 of the population (a figure equivalent to those of Daryaee's statistics for Athens)? To reminisce briefly to the days long gone in history in which 'Whig' historians, who saw everything through the same tinted lense of progress to liberal democracy, prevailed; one would be hard-pressed to find an academic who would accept an essay continuing this tradition. To hide behind the point that the reader can decide for him/her self is equally worthless, if so, why should we not replace the sectio with a link to Sparta? 137.73.88.101 10:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

And, to respond to the claim that I have done no more than 'reiterate my opinion' for why Daryaee does not complement/balance Hanson, I remind you of my above entry:

"Daryaee is, very broadly, utilising the historical background of the film to affirm his attack on the black and white characterisation in the film and how freedom and democracy become part of this (modern) message in the film. I am not going to reiterate my points about his drastically over-simplified conclusions on the Spartan political system, those that are referenced, but please refer to the archives for a list of historians who have argued opposing theories.

His commentary does not, in any way, 'balance' Hanson, indeed, if anyone does, it is Lytle. Whereas Hanson utilises Greek writers' opinions, Daryaee does not discuss the 'moral universe of the Greeks,' as Lytle does, but discusses modern reactions. Nor are his remarks about 'the central theme,' particularly 'balancing;' such comments are made by both Cartledge and Lytle in the section. To claim that 'two for and two against' is balance is debateable. The points adressed by Cartledge suffice for the more 'historical' vs 'fantastical' points, and the points about ancient opinions is made by both Lytle and Hanson. What other purpose does Daryaee serve? 217.40.26.169 12:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)" 137.73.88.101 14:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I think I meant to say that 87... had not responded to these points. But honestly, it's impossible to keep up with these anonymous IPs. And how on earth anyone should know that 217 = 137, I have no idea. It's common practice for people with a general interest in improving Wikipedia to sign up for an account. --Javits2000 17:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

NTMBTC’s problem with D. is not simply D’d modern interpretation but that it is based on faulty assuptions. I will find new purposes as I go along but for time being allow me to focus on Daryaee. I sound increasingly frantic because I see that inexplicably you still consider Daryaee’s input of value and because you rarely address the points I consider more important in the discussion. However even if I sound frantic I remain friendly at all times. You did spot frantic words in my post but not in D.’s article.

Hanson and Daryaee are contradictory because Hanson comments on ‘Eastern centralism and collective serfdom which opposed the idea of the free citizen of an autonomous polis’ and Daryaee on "free" and "democracy loving" Spartans against "slave" Persians. Hanson accepts the depiction in the movie as valid by giving verifiable accounts which directly address the issue and depict the reality of the battle; the reality of the theme of the movie. Daryaee distorts the depiction and does not accept the version he sees in the movie as valid by giving verifiable sources which do not however address the issue. The two contradict eachother in a straightforward matter.

Different schools of historiography may offer different interpretations but always process the same core facts. The threshold of verifiability is an attempt to maintain high standards of citations. Not to sidestep the threshold of relevance. Daryaee saw in the movie ‘democracy loving spartans’ and didn’t like it. He is wrong because: according to his modern interpretation if you like, the spartans were democracy loving in that they elected the main political force of their system and voted on the suggestions of those. So he should like the depiction. For the spartans however the assemblies of apella were not a manifestation of the ‘rule of the mob’ as they considered the athenian democracy. Since the word democracy is never mentioned in the movie in relation to their political system Daryaee is wrong to see such a depiction. He goes on to refute the ‘democracy loving spartans’ by giving examples about the democracy loving athenians! So he is wrong again. Since nowhere in the film are the spartan political system branded ‘democracy’ he has no reason to say that it wasn’t such but instead a ‘military monarchy’ which again is wrong. One who knows that the army in Sparta had no political powers as Daryaee should, would easily see the problem in the characterization ‘military monarchy’. However the ‘average reader’ who doesn’t know the political powers of the spartan army, will get the wrong idea. Especially when he reads the innane critisisms in the ‘controversy’ section. Daryaee’s attempt is ‘nasty and insidious’.

He presents conjectures as facts. The numbers he gives may be verifiable but not as facts, only as crude inferences. D. saw in the movie ‘slave’ persians. To refute that he initiates an exersise in etymology. The word ‘slave’ he deals with is the one that is characterized by conditions of payment. The word ‘slave’ the movie makes use of is the opposite of the word ‘free’. ‘Free’ to fight the wars you want, ‘free’ to express an opinion, ‘free’ to chose your leaders, ‘free’ as the opposite of ‘servant’; paid or otherwise. Verifiable he may be but right and relevant he sure isnt. Hanson has a better view to counter his own offered by Cartledge: "'West' (goodies) vs 'East' (baddies) polarization." To include his view as a false analogy that could be spotted as such by the readers is not a valid point. To paraphrase your words it wouldn’t be an accident anymore but a conscious oversigh without reason.

I think I said enough to show that D. is not addressing properly the three-point list of inaccuracies you gave. I haven’t had any reply on a. proof that the 46 armies went to Greece as free warriors and not as armies of enslaved countries, b. why the Spartans were not free, c. why Spartans didn’t love their freedom, so I take it we agree and since D. is not addressing historical inaccuracies or accuracies in the movie he should not be in that section.

Briefly: Haldon’s view is directed to peers and history enthusiasts. The wiki reader does not have and should not be expected to search for D.’s terms of reference or his place in historiographical traditions. He should not be presented with D.’s untested theories since wiki doesn’t do D.’s public relations.

I think the discussion has been built for quite some time now partly because of our unwillingness to see the opposing points and I wonder whether the discussion is in danger of becoming a personal issue. To address that maybe I can propose that the following posts express a definitive position on whether D. should remain or go and maybe whether he has a place in another section or in none at all. I say he should go completely. Talsal87.194.82.174 17:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well of course I think he should stay right where he is. But I would quickly remind everyone that Wikipedia, like Sparta, is not a democracy.--Javits2000 17:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Very witty, perhaps such fearsome wit could be turned to answering the points, rather than ignoring them. 137.73.88.101 18:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC) WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought by Daryaee. WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox for Daryaee. WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information by Daryaee. WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy If anyhing I proposed a straw poll that is allowed, for the purposes mentioned in my proposal.talsalTalsal 18:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but none of those (except perhaps bureaucracy) apply. Original thought would mean incorporating your reaction to the film, not the published reaction of a professional historian. Soapbox makes it explicit that we should be reporting a range of opinions objectively, while maintaining a neutral point of view. (An example of a soapbox entry would presumably be, e.g. Reasons to boycott artichokes.) Indiscriminate collection applies to particular types of lists, etc.

A strawpoll is probably unnecessary, as everyone who has been posting in this section has made their position relatively clear. To 137..., who apparently would have me answer every point made in the mass of text above: a) I have a job; and b) I will take as an example the following "points" to which I have been asked to reply: I haven’t had any reply on a. proof that the 46 armies went to Greece as free warriors and not as armies of enslaved countries, b. why the Spartans were not free, c. why Spartans didn’t love their freedom. Since of course none of these propositions are advanced by Daryaee, there is no need to prove them to establish his verifiability.

As it stands, I have indeed no interest in sustaining an extended conversation on historical & methodical questions that have little or no bearing on the composition of this particular encyclopedia article. If a second opinion is needed, then we could always invite an arbitrator. But to me it remains clear that Daryaee offers a unique, notable, and, once more, verifiable perspective on the film's relation to history. The rest is just talking to hear oneself speak. --Javits2000 19:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As things stand then, we have a difference in opinion that cannot be settled due to intransigence. As such, we need an arbitrator to decide. The topic should be left as it is and someone who has the time to read the above, plus the archived details, must be found. Still, I cannot help but feel a degree of annoyance that the issue, despite its lengthy course, has returned to the point which I made clear at the beginning could not be definitively answered. 137.73.88.101 19:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Folks need to cool their jets. This article has seen more than its share of straw polls and rudeness, and I for one am tied of such nonsense. Talsal, you might find that responding with snarky commentary to be useful, when in actuality it isn't. At all. You will find that there are people in WP (some of whom have contributed to this very article) who can out-snarky just about anyone. So please, for everyone's sake, keep applying the civility.

User 137, you have contributed heavily to the discussion, and I for one appreciate your efforts. That said, you are missing that brevity is the soul of this project. As well, some of the points you make are not necessarily focusing on the film. It's a film, not a documentary on history. If they get it wrong, we find people who point it out. Our opionions regarding the film, or the reviewers who opine on the film really count for less than squat. the only thing we can do is make the strongest article on the subject we can. If Daryaee isn't good enough, then we find someone to replace him, in order to maintain balance in the article. We don't just cull the review because it isn't perfect. As well, 137, you have been approached to sign up for an account so as to avoid the confusion of editing from two separate IP addresses. It raises unnecessary suspicions. I am not suggesting that you need to do this, but you setting yourself up for accusations that are quite likely not warranted.

Javits, you know that some folk need more convincing than others. You have shown youself to be extraordinarily patient in the past. Both fellows mentioned above seem to be making genuine efforts to add good material in; maybe we could be a little nicer about dissenting with their pov.

Lastly, if this content issue cannot be resolved here, go to 3rd opinion and have someone neutral weigh in on this. That should put the issue to bed.

there, I've said my piece. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne my snarky comments were towards Daryaee. I think such is the criticism the man deserves. I was never sarcastically critical towards a user and if I carefully approached something similar, I never started the exchange. But I can rectify that. ;) The people you speak of sound interesting.

Javits they all apply.

In this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought there is a secondary link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Original_research. I quote from that: ‘The term –Original Research- also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." It seems it was written specifically for Daryaee. D. should first convince his peers that the greeks did not see a clash of free vs slave and then address the unsuspected public. I think both Javits and 137, agreed that Daryaee’s view is a novel narrative or historical interpetation. I think it is explicit that these don’t count. In this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox it says: ‘Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda……Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not: Propaganda or advocacy of any kind’. Daryaee’s article begins thus: ‘What do you get when you take all the “misfits” that inhabit the collective psyche of the white American establishment and put them together in the form of a cartoonish invading army from the East coming to take your freedom away?’ In his article I see propaganda. No one though could fail to see advocacy. His view then doesn’t count. D. should not be allowed to pass his messages as valid facts in a ‘Historical Accuracy’.

In this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information it says under section 9.Statistics: ….In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader.’ Daryaee’s view is an indiscriminate collection of information. He wanted to compare Sparta and Persia but compares Persia and Athens instead, and that, by picking and choosing info that suits his purpose. If we were to put the statistics about Athenian democracy in their proper context we would have to say that Daryaee confused Sparta with Athens and on top presents conjectures regarding the statistics as facts. We should also say that there isn’t even a census available for Athens let alone percentages of the voters. We should in other words ridicule the man. I think it is better to just leave him out on these grounds also.

In this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy which was a direct answer to ‘WP not a democracy’ it says: Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines… Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion. Follow the link of ‘consencus based’ and you will find this: e.g. insisting on insertion of an insignificant factoid into an article in opposition to many other editors has been judged a violation of consensus.’

I proposed a definitive statement of position on the issue by all because it seems that only Javits wants Daryaee in. Not all have commented definitively, as for instance Arcayne. Occasionally I do like to hear myself talk but I like to hear others talk as well. Javits in my view has avoided many a time to answer directly to the points so many users made, and so extensively, resorting instead on subterfuge. The last example is the following exchange. I asked him to give the specific inaccuracies in the movie Daryaee addresses. He gave this three-point list ‘Specific inaccuracies addressed by Daryaee (I repeat myself): 1) Xerxes led a "slave army." 2) Sparta was a free society. 2a) Absence of Helots in contrast to constant emphasis on Spartans as lovers of freedom.’

I showed that Daryaee is wrong in each one and requested an answer since unless we learn 1. how the army of an enslaved country is free, 2. who were the spartans enslaved to and 3. how weren’t the spartans lovers of their freedom when they died to preserve it, the list of inaccuracies Daryaee addresses is void. To that Javits answered ‘Since of course none of these propositions are advanced by Daryaee, there is no need to prove them to establish his verifiability’. As if all that, wasn’t in relation to the list and as if I was arguing against the verifiability of Daryaee’s view.

I don’t know what is the definition of civility provided by wiki but as I know it, I am entitled to ask that the participants of the discussion should follow its progress so that we don’t start all over again since I too have a job to do.

Since Daryaee only needs to get one wiki threshold wrong to be left out, someone should pick one from all the above and proceed accordingly. Why not Javits who has indeed worked hard for the article.Talsal 01:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Since no-one addressed either Talsal's points or the request to have third party arbitration, have decided on the stop-gap measure of adding statements to balance Daryaee's views and have added references to the Spartan Gerousia so Users might make up their own minds. Also, have added the phrase ' oversimplififaction of the central theme...,' obviously, there was a belief, if nothing else of freedom in the film's theme, and it is the semi-cartoonish polarisation of each society which offends Daryaee, not the basic tenets. Notthemanbehindthecurtain 12:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Visual effects

Thomas J. McLean (2007-05-24). "The Impact of 300: More Stylized VFX?". VFXWorld. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Information about the film's effects; may require registration. Check out http://www.bugmenot.com/ to bypass. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

FA nomination

Given all the irate people have calmed down, the article is a stable GA, and I would love to nominate this for FA. All in favour, cry "This IS SPAAARTTTTAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!" Alientraveller 10:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(as Woody Allen) Um, what I really want to say, kind of, and the thing is, you know - despite the fact that this looks conspicuously like the Lower East Side, it might in fact closely resemble Sparta in a drug-induced sort of way. Especially if you really squint your eyes and have been awake for close to 37 hours. -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is SPARTTTTTTAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!! BTW, i am actually wanting to nominate this article as an FA. So please, dont undo my comment.(Cablebfg 19:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

David Kahane review on National Review

I'm sorry, but does anyone else find that quote by him in the controversy section as ridiculous? The Spartans were neither monotheistic or American like in their politics. Is a quote that stupid really important to have on this page?DeviantCharles 00:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether you disagree, it's his opinion and we are adhering to WP:NPOV. Alientraveller 10:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The Traveler is right: the standard is verifiability, not truth. We do not weed out people who are too stupid to keep their ill-formed opinions to themselves. We just shine a nice, bright light ont hat stupidity. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. While the fact that it is an absurd rant may not necessarily be the reason to remove it, it may qualify as WP:FRINGE (like the Farrokh article). Also, we quote him like he is some academic or reputable source, when the face is that this guy, "David Kahane," is not a real person in the National Review. His qualifications are completely unknown to us. If you read his article, at the bottom it says, "David Kahane is a nom de cyber for a writer in Hollywood. “David Kahane” is borrowed from a screenwriter character in The Player." [1] In any case the article seems more bloggish than serious. Any ideas on what is best to do? The Behnam 18:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well if that be the case, I am going to cut it unless anyone objects. Alientraveller 18:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Put in that light, I offer the scalpel, Doctor Traveler. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong guys, I'm all for having a different opinion to the people saying 300 is evil, but to have that comment be so...idiotic...seems unfair as well to the people who might glimmer some positive messages out of this movie like loyalty and friendship. The quote saying that the film is too silly to have a serious point is a far better counter argument to the people hating on it than "The Spartans were standing up for the American way. They are against gay marriage, illegal immigrants, and abortion. You won't find that in a book though. They're all up here *points to head* and not enough here *points to gut*." I'm glad it's going away.DeviantCharles 09:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the National Review is now pretty much the standard-bearer for American conservatism, and whatever idiot they get to review their anti-furriner movie of the week is pretty much automatically notable by our standards. Hornplease 19:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Further remarks from Cartledge

BTW, there are some further remarks by Paul Cartledge on the film that have yet to be incorporated. He's also been giving a fair number of talks on university campuses about 300 (announcements, but no text, at www.clare.cam.ac.uk/alumni/documents/MODBookingForm2007.pdf, www.fsu.edu/~classics/news06.html, www.yale.edu/classics/lectures.html, www.fak12.uni-muenchen.de/ka/Kolloquiumss07.htm), so I wouldn't be surprised if there's something more detailed forthcoming. --Javits2000 08:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You should add the review written by Eugene Borza for the Archaeological Institute of America http://www.archaeology.org/online/reviews/300.html. I think it's very interesting. He is also a historian like Ephraim Lytle. Also you should remove Slate's Dana Stevens comment and add Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-Times (there is a link above). He is a well known film critic. (unsigned comment by User:85.75.206.124)

President of Iran

How is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's opinion of this movie relevant? Has he even seen it? Someone who wants to wipe Israel off the map and has set a timeline for it, probably doesn't know a damn thing about the Persian Empire. Would you include the opinion of another countries leader for a movie? unsigned post by User: 207.69.139.137

I think it is notable because he commented on the movie. Not too many world leaders comment on popular films. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Arcayne. It's the reputation of the person who is commenting on the film; it doesn't even matter if he never saw it or if he sucks at Persian history. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Order of events

I watched the scene just before editing it (I downloaded the movie, don't tell anyone) and am 100% certain that Xerxes ordered the the attack before Leonidas threw his spear.

Order of events:

Xerxes' messenger tells him to kneel
Leonidas kneels (scene of Sparta, wolf, queen Gorgo or whatever.)
Leonidas tells Spartans to attack while still on his knees
Xerxes orders men to kill Spartans
Leonidas throws spear

If you remember, their was fighting going all around when Leonidas threw his spear. --Ted87 20:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I won't tell anyone. It will just be a secret between you, me and the 500,000 or so folk who might read this particular Wikipedia. No worries; some of them might not even be cops. :D

Secondly, your order of events doesn't work with what I remember of the movie (I saw it a few times in the theate). I am not doubting your order of events, but the pre-existing edit works better, as it was Leonidas' intent to throw the spear no matter what Xerxes said. Xerxes wasn't planning on killing the Spartans, whichis why he had his messenger offer them one last chance. It was only after the Spartans attacked again that the Persian arrows began to fly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, it is usually a little bit better to suggest an edit to the plot here first, so as to avoid a back-and-forth that this edit has concerned. As well, when you bring hte edit to the Discussion page, you wait a bit to get some feedback before making the edit. I reverted it not because of this (although I feel the pre-existing edit is better) but because the new edit had some grammar and spelling errors, and had flow and logical problems. I would be happy to discuss the matter if you would like to. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Damn cops. Anyways, I see what your saying. I'll watch the scene one more time when I get home to make sure. --Ted87 22:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Lol, they are only damned until you are getting mugged; then you are praying for them to show up. When you are looking over your potential edits, might I suggest you consider bringing them here. It might seem tedious, but the article tends to benefit when considerate folk are working together. Cheers. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Watched scene again. At the order of event are the same: Leonidas kneels, screams something I can't understand (mentions Stelios' name), Stelios jumps out from protection, uses Leondias body to jump and stab Xerxes' messager, Xerxes yells "Slaughter them", arrows and spears fly, Delios narrates about how Leonidas' sheild was heavy and his target was far and whatnot, Leonidas throws spear, the barrage of arrows becomes too much, and the rest is history.

Anyways I finally found verifiable proof. Look at the trailer on 300's offical myspace and you'll see it. --Ted87 07:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't need to; if you say that's the way it went down after making a point of checking on it, that's good enough for me. Can you show us here what edit you would replace it with? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Box office

The article says Studio executives are predicting the film will make over $210,000,000 in North America before its theatrical run concludes. Box Office Mojo says that the movie already made that amount. link Should be updated. --Ted87 17:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

South Park parody

It should be noted that a recent episode of South Park parodied this movie. It was the one where Ms. Garrison(sp?) defends a lesbian bar from Persians with the help of 30 lesbians.

I believe this matter was decided a long time ago. The over-utilization of pop culture will eventually turn the article stale as the article ages. For example, when Casablanca came out, there were print ads that used the film to sell trenchcoats and cigars. Radio shows made satires and copycats of it, and every other Bogart film. You will note that these are not in the film article because they are stale, and have little value beyond the faddish, flavor of the moment appeal. As well, for the most part, they are largely unencyclopedic. This SP episode in particular was not notable enough to include. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Danikas comment

I see you have added again the comment by Danikas. Probably because it satisfies the negative sentiments some have towards the movie. You should know that Danikas was for many years the film critic of the official newspaper of the Communist Party of Greece. Maybe you should read his recent comments on the german film 'The Lives of Others' (Das Leben der Anderen). He gave the movie a bad review saying it was a propaganda. He also didn't like the way his stazi 'comrades' were portrayed. According to him most american movies are pieces of propaganda. (unsigned post by User:85.75.218.251)

So, you are arguing against the inclusion of Danikas because he's a commie? That isn't enough of a reason, 'user:251'. However, if you can find a citation for his quoting most American movies are "pieces of propaganda (sic)", that might be useful enough to temporize the remarks by putting htem into their proper perspective. Please provide a reliable and verifiable citation of that statement, if you would. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with Danikas is not that he is a commie but that he finds in every movie hidden political messages and always of the same persuasion. Sorry I couldn’t find what you have asked although it exists but let me translate some words from his LOTR review (to him a racist film with hidden political messages like 300). I think Javits understands greek could verify the translation:

‘Εγώ φταίω για τη σημειολογία και την ιδεολογία; Τότε γιατί ο σατανικός μάγος Κρίστοφερ Λι ταιριάζει γάντι με τον πνευματικό ηγέτη της Χαμάς’.

Translation: Are the semantics and ideology my fault? Then why is the satanic sorcerer Christopher Lee exactly alike the spiritual leader of Hamas?

(Here is the link: http://www.tanea.gr/Article.aspx?d=20011219&nid=4212267 )

The problem with the section is that it focuses on comments like ‘eternal jew’ and ‘adolph’s boys’ giving space to the views of anyone who tries to promote an agenda. I don’t understand the unnessessary citation of a number of these views while others equaly laughable are not included.

Specifically why is there a discount on the protestations of the Iranians and there is no mention of their accusation that the film was funded by zionists? The controversy section by its very nature is a ‘name and shame them’ section and there is no problem there. But if it focuses heavily on certain critisisms without a reply to these, then it gives the impression that there is some truth behind the criticisms. 85.75.218.251 22:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Since these points are made by those with little or no qualifications to make objective statements, there is no need to offer a reply; as Arcayne commented before, we don't remove idiots, we shine a light on their idiocy. Just as there is no need to address the existence of Giants in the historical accuracy suggestion, common sense allows the average individual to read these views without thinking that they are the truth. Notthemanbehindthecurtain 11:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

After reading your post, I decided it was probably wise to read up a bit on this Danikas fellow. I don't speak Greek, but there appears to be asizable amount of criticism about this man's method of reviewing. As was pointed out by Nottheman, we don't exclude idiots, but to render his opinions alongside those views and reviews of people who can withstand considerable scrutiny is to cloak Danikas in a respectability that (upon reflection) he apparently doesn't deserve. I am unsure how to proceed, but this ass-clown shouldn't be allowed to do that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, he could probably be removed as giving undue weight to the left critique. Granted, if he's writing for Ta Nea then he meets notability requirements, but on the other hand it could hardly be claimed that this general point of view is under-represented in the article. And 85... is right to point out that the criteria for inclusion in this section seem a bit arbitrary; if Ta Nea, then why not taz, Libération, etc. --Javits2000 14:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well since no one disagrees here then he should be out. Talsal87.194.82.174 17:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Give it a day or two, and let a few more people weigh in, Talsa. No need to jump the gun. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Danikas removed after 2 weeks w/out issue - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually I do disagree. (I apologise, I was away.) Danikas is a bit of an ass, but the objection seems to be that he views every film politically. Well, that is the source of his criticism here, of course. That he is notable enough to be regularly writing for Ta Nea means that some people agree. About why TN is notable and, say, faz, isn't, I think its purely because Greek papers are spotlighted a little in a film about Ancient Greece.

Will someone else restore it or shall I? Hornplease 19:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not that he views every film politically. He views every film as propaganda of the same group of people no matter what. Not every fanatic who voiced his disagreement to the film needs to be included in the section. His opinion is shared by an extreme minority side -if at all- and such views are not to be included anyway. He wouldn’t be part of such an article in any encyclopaedia.Talsal87.194.82.174 22:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Quick reply to the remark of Hornplease above. If Greek papers are to be spotlighted, then it would be better to include a more balanced account of the film's reception in Greece under "Reviews." Where Danakis was, that is under "Controvery," he was just one (if particularly strident) voice among many, and added relatively little. --Javits2000 00:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that reply. Greek reviews are in fact referenced in the current version; including one or two that explicitly addressed the controversy in the appropriate section seems not too much of a stretch.

More generally, about Danikas' specific shortcomings, the simple point is that we should'nt descend to analysing his whole output ourselves. The point that he writes for one of Athens' largest newspapers by circulation seems to make the point moot; we are otherwise on the slippery slope of analysing ourselves what opinions deserve to be in here rather than using WP:RS guidelines. Hornplease 20:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction?

In the box office section it says (source says they predicted this before the movie premiered):

Studio executives correctly predicted the film would make over $210,000,000 in North America before its theatrical run concludes.

But the next sentence says:

Studio executives were surprised by the showing, which was twice what they had expected.

Aren't these contradicting setences or am I just reading this wrong? --Ted87 07:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

They expected the film to make over a certain amount, but were surprised how much over that amount. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

But it just barely made over $210M. --Ted87 18:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in North American release. The returns from overseas were the surprising amounts. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Great article

This article is wonderfully written and informative. It can easily become a featured article with little trimming necessary. - Throw 08:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Meme issue

While Italic text300Italic text was a great film I noticed no references to its meme status, which is surprisingly close to the mudkip issue with the exception of the vandalism part. Clearly someone should write a section about that.````

Are you really sure "This is Sparta!" will last? No reliable source has commented on it for sure. Alientraveller 20:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a meme is noteworthy unless its picked up by commercial media, the way More cowbell has. All I've seen is a few people use it in message boards. It's really no different than Dead Rising's "I"ve been in wars, ya know." - Throw 07:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.