Talk:300 (film)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Historical accuracy

So instead of deleting what I say, how about commenting it?

How about not top-posting, signing your comments, and checking if your previous comments have been archived before accusing people of deleting them?

--82.182.37.3 14:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's all please remain civil. Also, remember WP:BITE Arcayne 20:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

An Iranian historian is qualified to discuss the history of his own culture, especially to point out the errors made in the movie.

"The Achaemenid kings, who built their majestic capital at Persepolis, were exceptionally munificent for their time. They wrote the world's earliest recorded human rights declaration, and were opposed to slavery. Cuneiform plates show that Persepolis was built by paid staff rather than slaves And any Iranian child who has visited Persepolis can tell you that its preserved reliefs depict court dress of velvet robes, and that if anyone was wearing rags around 500 B.C., it wasn't the Persians. " —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Costos (talk • contribs) 03:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

I disagree, unless that same historian specifically addressed the histoical inaccuracies of the film. To present his stand-alone comments of the Persian empire as a contrast to what the film gets wrong is considered original research, as you are the person who is connecting the two ideas.Arcayne 14:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Xerxes Image

I am not sure I understand..what was the reason people want/don't want it included in the article? Arcayne 12:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I am confused, too.--Kamikaze 15:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm missing how we can accurately compare the film's Xerxes to the wall carving. I could get it if there were paintings of him, but the detail of the wall art, compared to that of a film is kind of hard to compare. Are there any other images of Xerxes? I mean the real Xerxes not the film guy. Also, if you are going to compare Xerxes (film) to Xerxes (reality) you need to cover that in the text. I only saw one mentioning of Xerxes in the "depictions" section and it was 1 sentence about him being androgynous. It just concerns me that the images won't be accepted in a review for fair use because they aren't really talked about in the section that are sitting.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, reasonably, there isn't going to be one, as paintings aren't really going to survive both the passage of time and the erosion by the elements. As with the Greeks and other early cultures, we are left with bas reliefs or sculptures. However, I think the differences are moot, as there is adequate commentary that the visualizations of the movie and the book were - and I quote Snyder - "crazy." While the events that took place were somewhat accurate, the fashion sense and shape of those events is admittedly incorrect. Zerk prolly looked more like Leonidas, what with the beard that was all the rage at that time. Arcayne 21:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Project 300

Do you guys think this should be included? http://300themovie.info/ It has been talked about here: http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=18730f4a-5275-41c0-8b2a-4203bfbb081e VanGuy85 21:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It's basically an online petition, the same as petitiononline.com. As such it's a violation of NPOV because it's an entire site devoted to fighting the film. A source that discusses the website is fine, but an external link for the website itself wouldn't be appropriate. It wouldn't pass WP:EL and the Conflict of interest for campaigning as they are basically campaigning against the film, just in an unusual way. It's being included as an external link, and not as a source for anything.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The previous comment was about the link: http://300themovie.info/ (and not the petition. The link was discussed in the petition). I think inclusion of the website (i.e. http://300themovie.info/) is relevant and should be considered.

It has been considered. As a rule, films and television programs are limited in fan-site links. this is an anti-fan site, which begs the question: why would a non-fan visit the article in the first place? The answer is, of course, that they wouldn't. Therefore the link is just excess baggage. I hope that explains matters sufficiently. Arcayne 14:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Critical Reaction Question

Is there a reason why we are listing the user approval ratings at RottenTomatoes.com? Arcayne 15:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Bootleg

Hi. Some sources have mentioned that this is being bootlegged in Iran, but this appears to have disappeared from the article. It may be important to mention this. While Azadeh for Time has claimed nobody has seen it, other sources have mentioned the bootlegging. What happened to it? The Behnam 17:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I just came across this while trimming the article. Shahingohar removed the rest of the Time quote, stating that the Variety article had mentioned that pirated copied were all over Iran. I reverted it, suggesting that he write up a statement citing that claim. If you are saying that the info has disappeared (which would be kinda odd), then we should find out why (with a source, of course). Arcayne 17:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll look in the archives for the post. It may actually be in one of the sources used in the page. I'll get back on this. The Behnam 18:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The conclusion from this post was that mentions of the bootleg are definitely out there Talk:300 (film)/Archive 3#Please include this quote. I'll look up the specific sources at some point. The Behnam 18:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That there are I have no doubt. We just need citations, so we can add it in the approriate area of the article (likely to follow up the quote from Time). Arcayne 18:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is one [1]. The Behnam 18:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a very good reference, as it is to a subscriber site. We're supposed to avoid those if possible. Is there another one that is free to view? Arcayne 18:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There are others out there; just search Google news for: the 300 bootleg . It is subscriber? I don't see the problem if you don't have to register. The Behnam 18:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the one that I was referring to. [2](Shahingohar 19:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

Outstanding, Shahingohar. Since you found it, go ahead and put the statement in the article right after the Time reference - unless you want someone else to do it. Arcayne 19:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Critical reaction (Victor Davis Hanson)

I am not sure if the "pro-300-movie" folks wish to keep Hansen's quote in this section as ironically this inclusion supports those who are opposing this flick.
Hanson is more a political figure than a historian: "Hanson believes that the Iraq War is a good and worthwhile undertaking and that it has been, with some reservations, a laudable success. Hanson has been called a neoconservative, and Hanson has applied the term to himself on his weblog in a recent blog defending Donald Rumsfeld" ...
"According to Hanson, Western values such as political freedom, capitalism, individualism, democracy, scientific inquiry, rationalism, and open debate form an especially lethal combination when applied to warfare. Non-Western societies can win the occasional victory when warring against a society with these Western values, writes Hanson, but the "Western way of war" will prevail in the long run. Hanson emphasizes that Western warfare is not necessarily more (or less) moral than war as practiced by other cultures; his argument is simply that the "Western way of war" is unequalled in its devastation and decisiveness"....
"Hanson sees rural values as underpinning successful democracies, whether they be of ancient Athens or the modern United States.".. excerpted from Wiki
As it is clear from his views [3], he takes the history exactly as what Herodotus says, and has a Victor's Justice view on the history. However Herodotus knew no language but his own, and he was therefore forced to rely on interpreters or on natives who spoke Greek. He himself is perfectly frank about the matter, and usually tells the source of his information. “This is what the Persians say,” “Thus the priests of the Egyptians told me,” are types of expressions which recur again and again.
But even given that, Herodotus deplored the Greco-Persian war not as a clash of civilization (an expression coined by Neocons). He blamed it on the Greeks. But not only on the Greeks: he blamed it on the Athenian democrats. Herodotus writes next: "The Athenians indeed, convinced [by Aristagoras], voted to dispatch twenty ships as succors for the Ionians and appointed as general Melanthius, who was a man among the townsmen esteemed in all respects. And those ships proved the beginning of evils for both the Greeks and the barbarians." Histories (5.97) Many historian (e.g. Plutarch) believe that Herodotus's praise (in other passages e.g., in 5.78) for Athenian democracy is rather sarcastic (see "On the Malignity of Herodotus" of Plurach).
About his quote on free citizen (perhaps in the oligarchy sence!); The Persian kings wrote the world's earliest recorded human rights declaration, and were opposed to slavery. Cuneiform plates show that Persepolis was built by paid staff rather than slaves.
Although Herodotus helped a lot in recording the history, his accounts of history were not perfect and somehow flawed. (see "On the Malignity of Herodotus" of Plurach and "The Lies in the History of Herodotus" Aelius Harpocration). If we accept it as the exact history, we (including Hansen, Miller, Snyder) should blame ourselves and not defintely Herodotus! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.49.196.147 (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Personally, I think the reasoning for the statement's inclusion is tenuous at best, but the quote addresses the movie, and why critics are likely not going to enjoy it. Honestly, i don't think its needed, and bloats the section unnecessarily. However, he has a closer connection to 300 than any of the reviewers do, so i guess his opinion is noteworthy. Arcayne 18:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If it tries to show another perspective of the criticism, that's fine but needs to be summarized to one or two sentences, as it is done for the rest of the critics, and should be incorporated in the whole body of the text (if the article advocates neutrality).

I don't think it does, but the only reason I held off on summarizing it is because I wanted to avoid claims of non-neutrality. If you want to take a crack at it, please go ahead. I may tweak it, though.  ;) Arcayne 18:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

This talk page is currently at 43k, so I am thinking to archive the data above the Xerxes Image section. Arcayne 18:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Text archived to #4 Arcayne 19:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation

The top notes linking to 300 (comic book) and 300:March to Glory are unnecessary and unintuitive. Top notes are for disambiguation, not for redirecting readers to related articles, which is the only reason to have them here. The article title 300 (film) is unambiguous, no one will mistake it for a comic book or video game. There is already a disambiguation page dedicated to things named 300: it's at 300 (disambiguation). Unless someone offers a real reason to keep them, I'll remove them again after a while.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Hatnotes#Disambiguating_article_names_that_are_not_ambiguous.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed them; doubtless they'll be back. What's the point of multiple top-notes, anyway? I noticed this on firefly, and I do hope it's not the latest wiki-trend. Alai 01:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No, good reasons have been supplied as to why they don't need to be there. We'll keep them out. :) Arcayne 02:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

(merged from duped section)

Recently, the Disambiguation links at the top of he article have been removed. Why should we have them? Why should we not? Arcayne 02:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

They should go, the removal citations of policy are right. All references to 300 no including the already disambiguated year are related to this story, be it paper, celluose, or digital. ThuranX 02:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well the hatnotes page is a little unclear on exactly what you SHOULD do, but it seems that because "300" doesn't lead to a disambig page, but to an article, that it would be better to have a hatnote at the top for at least the graphic novel. I think the graphic novel should be hatnoted at the top, and the game should either (if based on the film) be in a section for adaptations, or (if a stand alone game with no connection other than being based on the GN) be placed in the "See also" section of the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That's why I asked. two folks had thought it unimportant enough to remove, and they didn't seem to be wild-eyed English folk (a joke, for all of the non-western folk reading this). I was thinking that there were mentions of both within th article, and so therefore really didn't need mentioning. Arcayne 02:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point, at least for the GN, because it's kind of right there in the first line they just have to read it. But I don't know, or see, where the game is linked. I think if people are only interested in the game (btw, I just watched the trailer for and it looks crappy) then maybe we should just put that at the top, because there isn't mention of the game in plain site as soon as you entire the page. Someone shouldn't be required to read an entire article searching for a link to a game just because they don't know the actual article title.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

For more on this, I suggest you look here 300. YOu'll see that a seriosu amount of disambig goes on there. All the 300 related stuff for the Miller story are already here; they're linked to in the article and thus not easily confused. ThuranX 03:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The hatnote page is perfectly clear. "300 (film)" is an unambiguous title. Readers will not come to this article by mistake looking for the game or the comic. They will come by either typing it in or clicking on link at another article or 300 (disambiguation). As for redirecting to only the game and comic (rather than the disambig page), hat notes are not for directing to related topics. The disambiguation page already lists all the other articles for anyone interested; those other articles will be found easily enough.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if the game merits a mention in the lead section, but a link in the "See also" section would seem fairly logical, and might be handy for someone reading this article (for some reason...), and wondering about the game (re-)adaptation. Alai 15:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Leonidas' title under Xerxes rule, should he choose to accept

Leonidas would have been titled the Warlord of Sparta if he conceded to Xerxes' rule, in contrast to the title of King of Sparta as mentioned in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samsoccer7 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Honestly, I would have just split with the promise of a jelly donut, a cold beer and safe passage. To each their own. :P Arcayne 21:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow...tough crowd. :) Arcayne 14:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Iran blames Jews for 300

As expected it took Iran only a couple of days to blame the Jews and Zionists for this movie. I have added that in the article. Mercenary2k 21:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

ercenary frankly u dont understand that xerxes was heterosexual and his wife esther was jewish (bible)-- ironically, the spartans are portrayed as straight-- look at the persian jews article, persian jews have played a strong role in iranian society.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.170.161.135 (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

It was actually FoxNews who connected the dotts [4]

I actually removed that,as YouTube is not considered a reliable source (WP:RS), placing it pretty much on the level of a blog.Arcayne 22:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

When was this? --75.5.0.193 22:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. A Blog is someone's personal opinion where as youtube is actually showing you footage of the Iranian Media. I will try to find written text about Iran blaming Jews for 300, which looking at Iran today isn't that far feteched. Mercenary2k 22:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you read WP:ATT/FAQ#Are IRC, MySpace, and YouTube reliable sources? on YouTube? There is no way to guarantee authenticity of these sort of things. Just wait; I am sure that something like that will be mentioned in a news report eventually. The Behnam 22:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There you go! We didn't have to wait long. It comes from a familiar source my friend, FOXNEWS, and also associating it immediately to the Holocaust conference:

"Iran, which turned a deaf ear last year to protests over its attempt to rewrite history through a Holocaust conference, now is crying foul over what it calls a "fabrication of culture and insult" to Iranians in the Hollywood hit movie 300." [5]

Anyways found it so put it back in the article. Mercenary2k 23:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That petition is a mess. On its' face it's unverifiable that the signatories are all persian, or even all distinct individuals. I'm not sure that, despite the fact that it's been printed and can be cited, I do wonder if WP:COMMON shouldn't override such, especially in light of the fact that the link is right there, and a cursory glance reveals prank names, like ali baba, abudla the butcher, and asdf asdf. As such, attributing all signatures to persians is obviously false.ThuranX 23:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

And while I think ThuranX pretty much seals the deal on that, allow me to ask you one more thing: what if one person who isn't Persian signs the petition? What if there are a 100 non-Persians? 1.000? See, even if we remove the fraud factor, we still get caught up by the fact that there is no guarantee that it's Iranians signing it. A quick check of the petition indicates that one's nationality is not even asked for. It's an assumption, which of course, equals Original Research. Arcayne 01:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

What some random and unknown commentator has claimed on an Iranian TV channel about the movie, in a political commentary, is neither relevant nor significant. If it had any real News value, the news articles reporting the controversy would have cited it. --Mardavich 18:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mardavich. --Pejman47 22:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Some people are missing the point here. There are tons of crazy reviews out there and of course some of them may come from people (or even someone from government) of Iran. We can not mention all reviews and quotes here. I have been following this controversy closely and I can say I haven’t read such a thing about blaming the Jews from a notable source. (Shahingohar 22:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC))

I beleive that the quote (MEMRI) is insignificant and inappropriate and will iscredit the whole section.--behmod talk 23:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I am living in Iran, from when I remember I have never heard the word "Jew" (yahodi or kalimi) in state media in such a situation. They only use "Zionist" as I think you may hear in that video, I told this here to ask you at least be honest to the sources and quote them as what they say not altering it to show it more negative. regards, --Pejman47 23:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This Article should be upgraded to A

This article looks very good and has lots of citations. I think it should be upgraded to A. Mercenary2k 03:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Where are the grading criteria? While we are at it, wi might want to consider having someone give us a glimpse of what we need before applying for GA status.Arcayne 03:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Here you go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Film_articles_by_quality Mercenary2k 05:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is definitely not well written, and good writing is one of the criteria. Cognita 06:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Before it gets to A, it has to pass GA nomination. We're not ready for that, however. María: (habla conmigo) 14:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Touraj Daryaee Statements and Citation

Could someone take a look at the historical accuracy section? The statements added about Touraj Daryaee seem kinda-long-winded, but I am more concerned about the ciation itself. Is it up to snuff, wiki-speaking? Arcayne 03:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked in to it. He did write the article himself and he is what he is claimed to be (Professor of Ancient History at California State University, Fullerton). I think it is up to snuff to be used as a citation since he is an expert on the subject. That review also gives the article a more balance perspective regarding the historical accuracy of 300.VanGuy85 04:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he's a highly respected historian of ancient Persia. But that said, this section seems at present to be a two-paragraph direct quote: it should at the very least be put in "blockquote" format, and should also probably be trimmed down.--Javits2000 10:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Quick addendum: It is a direct quote, and I've formatted it as such. But having read through it once more I'm no longer sure it should be trimmed -- the whole thing strikes me as a useful addition, as per VanGuy85 above. --Javits2000 10:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I can appreciate that. Maybe there is a way to summarize what he said, without losing the meaning. If no one has takena crack at it by this afternoon, I will. I am glad it's been verified, but we need to lose all the flab from the article (not saying that Daryaee is flab - I read his stuff in college), and that includes trimming quotes to their essential meaning. Arcayne 14:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

YourGeekNews.com Video News Pieces

As I've not yet heard an opinion one way or the other on whether YourGeekNews.com's 300 video news piece and talk back area are of a quality and value that merits inclusion on the same policy that IMDB and Rotten Tomato are included, I am re-posting in the hope that there can be a definitive majority of opinion expressed one way or the other ~Zymaseman YourGeekNews.com 02:00 March 17 2007

Sorry in taking so long to respond. The link looks good, but I am concerned that the video might not be there 2-3 years from now. Arcayne 20:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Council's support

It is stated that "Persian coins fall from Theron's purse exposing his treason, and the Council unites in support of the 300."

But in the movie it is clear that the council does not in fact unite in support of the 300. They rush to the floor, pick up the money, and shout "treasure". How on earth is this in any way supporting the 300??

I believe it should be changed to: "Persian coins fall from Theron's purse exposing his treason. The Council, however, remains indifferent, and instead rejoice in their newfound treasure."

Or something along those lines —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Americanuck (talk • contribs) 06:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Did they say "Treasure"? I thought they said "Traitor."

Yeah, they definitely say "traitor." Whether they "unite in support of the 300" is perhaps another question, but is strongly implied by the final sequence, where the united Spartan force faces the Persians.--Javits2000 09:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Having seen the movie 3 times now (twice more than I think I needed to), after Theron's traitorous behavior is exposed, the entire council changts traitor. As he was the motivating force behind remaining out of the fray, so one was goingt to continue to support that position (and be labeled a traitor as well). Its common sense that they got off their asses and shuffled off to the fight.Arcayne 14:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If this is so then I stand corrected, does anybody have a script to confirm this? Americanuck 19:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Header

Two problems with the header.

• 1. "The story is framed by a voice-over narrative by the Spartan soldier Dilios (David Wenham), lending the film a historical fantasy feel." But the linked article on "historical fantasy" says nothing about this style of narration, nor does the film itself accord particularly well with the description of the genre given there. Remove participial clause?

I agree on this account: the statement has always seemed childish to me. It's already mentioned in the Production section about how the narration is a departure from the GN, so should it be mentioned in the lead at all? I vote for deleting it all. María: (habla conmigo) 14:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• 2. "Since its release, 300 has stirred up controversy, being labeled as part of a series of Hollywood films with political overtones aimed predominantly at Iranian and other Asian cultures." Clearly something about the various controversies needs to be said in the header. But the footnote directs to an AP wire story that is solely about the domestic Iranian response, and says nothing about "a series of Hollywood films with political overtones" etc. Rephrase; or find new reference? --Javits2000 11:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think historical fantasy is the best way to go. How else can we describe a film primarily based on Herodotus, but also features monsters from Frank Miller? WikiNew 14:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I vote for rephrasing. I'll work on it. :) Arcayne 14:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I've worked on the Lead. How do folks like it now? We don't want to go overboard, as the controversy is limited. Arcayne 15:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot more to the historical fantasy then just Xerxes. Try Spartans in nappies. I think plot and reaction should remain seperate. WikiNew 15:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Both problems remain. I agree that the controversy shouldn't be overemphasized; that's not the problem. Rather, the line refers to a "series of Hollywood films with political overtones aimed predominantly at Iranian and other Asian cultures," a suggestion that appears nowhere in the AP story that is cited . WikiNew may be right that the film is "historical fantasy"; here the problem is that the lead posits a causal link between this "feel" and the narrative device of a first-person voice-over, which doesn't seem appropriate.

I would suggest characterizing the "controversy" more concisely, and without a footnote, as it's amply addressed in the main text. And I would prefer to place "historical fantasy" in the main text, or at least decouple it from the narrative structure. Best, --Javits2000 15:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

oops, I did further work before reading this. Darn, and I was kinda pleased with how I re-worked it. Poor, unappreciated me... ;) Arcayne 16:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the link between a narrative told to inspire troops and the historical fantasy componenets are very clear. Dilios paints the Persians as more monstrous than they are for two reasons: first, when the troops finally see they are not monstrous as they had been girding themselves to face, will fight with a renewed confidence. Secondly, the narrative device serves to further emphasize the heroism of the 300 who faced these monsters. Essentially, it's halftime pep-talk strategy. Arcayne 16:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I can see this point. But it strikes me that this might be a bit of lit-crit "OR"; do we have citations for critics or others who have made the connection? --Javits2000 16:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

I've asked for a peer review over at WP:films, in anticipation of hopefully nominating the article for GA status in the near future. I'm looking forward to reading what a few outside sources have to say. María: (habla conmigo) 16:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Three Minor Items

1. IMDb lists the character as Pleistarchos, not Pleistarchus. I'm going to change it.

2. Do we really care that Santoro had heard of the graphic novel before being cast? If not, I propose deleting that little factoid.

3. This one's a bit controversial, and may have been discussed before, but I couldn't find it. There is an ongoing debate about whether the film is anti-Iranian. I don't know one way or the other (though I think before this happened most Americans probably didn't know that Persia and Iran were the same), but isn't putting "Anti-Iranian Sentiment" in the "Additional Links" section a tacit assertion that the movie _is_ anti-Iranian? If it's a controversy, the Wiki article should not look like it is espousing either side. Roscius 18:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

re: 1 - agreed, it is a Romanized form of the name.

re: 2 - that no other cast memeber knew about the book is not noteworthy. That one specifically was, is.

re: 3 - I think that Iranian (and pro-Iranian) folk think it is anti-them, and whether it is or not is not as noteworthy that they do. See the Last Temptation of Christ (film). People were up in arms about the film, and that controversy was addressed in the article as well. On a side note, I think that the assumption that Americans don't know that much about Iran (that it was Persia) is a miscalulation. After the hostage crisis of the 70's most American schoolchildren raised during that time know more about Iran's history than most Europeans and many Iranians do. Granted, one of my degrees is in History, but I think we aren't going to score any points by considering the American audience to be a pack of slavering dolts. Arcayne 19:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I just don't see why it is noteworthy that Santoro had heard of it. Maybe if he was an avid fan, and pursued the role because he loved the graphic novel (as Elijah Wood campaigned to be Frodo), then that might be noteworthy. But for every movie that is an adaptation of a literary work, we don't really need to go listing every cast member who had read it. Do we?

Sorry, wasn't intending to insult Americans (of which I am one). I just did not get the impression from casual conversation that the Persia/Iran connection was widely known. And of course the controversy should be addressed, I was just wondering if the Additional Links made it sound as if Wikipedia was labelling 300 as "Anti-Iranian sentiment" when that is up for debate. Roscius 20:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep the Santoro ref. Considering the recent controversy over the film's depiction of Persians, it is necessary to retrieve more information: the fact that Santoro researched a lot into Xerxes. WikiNew 20:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

What does the fact that he knew about the graphic novel before he auditioned have to do with the research he did into the role after he was cast? Roscius 21:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It's in the same reference, sorry for my lack of clarity. WikiNew 21:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Then we should mention that fact in the article, and take out the (less meaningful) pre-audition fact. Roscius 21:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong ref. I'll remove the "meaningless" one. WikiNew 21:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Zionist Statements

As I had privately predicted, we are seeing the attempted removal of the MEMRI statements that go on a tear about the Zionist underpinnings of this movie, by folk who are simultaneously pushing for more information about how the film denigrates Iranians. this seems extraordinarilly hypocrtical. If we are going to include the statements about the depictions of Persians in the film, and cite news sources decrying the attack on Persian culture by the Iranian government, then it all goes in. Anything else smacks of POV Arcayne 19:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

arcayne frankly u dont understand that xerxes was heterosexual and his wife esther was jewish (bible). look at the persian jews article, persian jews have played a strong role in iranian society. ironically, the spartans are portrayed as straight.

An opportunity has been extended for those wishing to have the MEMRII statments removed fromthe article based upon the idea of them not being RS or noteworthy. The article, located here was first cited by User:Mercenary2k. I have made a point of inviting both Khoikhoi and Mardavich (the two editors reverting the cited statements out) to address their concerns here as to why the statements should or should not be included. Arcayne 22:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, it's a rather heated source, my only problem is that I don't know who this MIMRI is. Are they just a bunch of people that put on a news program about their particular views, or are they like our 20/20--60 Minutes? If it's the former then it's not reliable, because it would be like using a YouTube video of some guy conducting on the street interviews on people's reactions. If this is a legitimate news broadcasting station then it's ok. But since it says "Media Research Institute TV Monitor Project", it makes me think that it's nothing more than a privately funded organization, like what you might find with your local university television stations. If FSU had a news program claiming that UF were a bunch of racists, but 20/20 or any other major news program didn't follow suit, then it's probably not going to pass reliability arguments in a review. But that's my opinion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

From their own source, they appear to be a supposedly impartial org that looks at all the news issues (their self-description). They translate news stories from Iranian and other channels into English, providing transcripts. They seem to be relating information, not originating it. Arcayne 22:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I deleted that statement because if it was significant, it would have been quoted by major news agencies, and it wasn't, it's just to discredit Iranians' concerns about the movie. and by the way it is of course stupid to affiliate Jews with making that film, because I think Ancient Persia is also sacred for them. cheers to all--Pejman47 22:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The above == "I DONT LIKE IT" The Behnam 22:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That's irrelevant, read WP:AGF. MEMRI is not a reliable source. If this information had any significance, it would have been quoted by a news agency or in a reliable news report. --Mardavich 22:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It is just a translation of IRINN commentary. The Behnam 22:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

And don't give me the whole "they're insignificant" thing. We quote many commentators on the movie in this article. The Iranian state commentators are just as notable as critic X. The Behnam 22:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, MEMRI has a history of mistranslations, and you know that too. What some random and unknown commentator has claimed on an Iranian TV channel about the movie, in a political commentary, is neither relevant nor significant. If it had any real News value, the news articles reporting the controversy would have cited it. --Mardavich 22:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

actually, not speaking Farsi or any other languages from the region, I wasn't aware of the mistranslation issue. Would you happen to have any citable proof of the claim of a "history of mistranslations"? Also because of the language barrier, it would be nigh impossible for us to indicate where the zionist angle would have been addressed in the Iranian news media. Sorry. The statement meets the criteria of berifiability. We report on the claims made by the KKK and neonazis without having to judge the truth or falsehood of their statements. we only have to verify their attributability (WP:ATT). If you can provide citable evidence that MEMRII has a 'history of mistranslation,' we can revisit this subject. Arcayne 23:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Besides the fact that MEMRI is neither neutral nor reliable, just because something has been said by someone, it doesn't mean that it belongs here, if the attributed comments had any significance, they'd have been quoted in the mass media or the news reports. Adding these comments is POV/Undo Weight to discredit the Iranians' concerns about this movie. --Mardavich 23:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Iranian TV, MEMRI and Fox are all unreliable sources. It is not even revealed who made this quote. I remember once a similar program related Pirates of the Caribbean and even Tom & Gerry to Zionism. But none of them are reflected in Wikipedia since they are just a review. The news of Iranian outrage is mentioned in the article since it is supported by millions of Iranians and reported by reliable sources.(Shahingohar 23:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC))

Iranian TV is a reliable source on its own views. MEMRI just translated it, and normally does well. It is usually criticized for its selection of sources to translate, not the actual translation accuracy. Fox is irrelevant. Anyway, since we are covering different reactions in this article, the inclusion is fitting. After Mercenary added it I adjusted it so that it wasn't 'milking' the MEMRI transcript. I encourage you to improve the coverage of the MEMRI transcript but not remove it simply because you don't like the fact, and you don't like MEMRI, and you don't like people seeing these things. Thanks. The Behnam 00:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not the matter that I like MEMRI or not. Actually I use it a lot. Iranian TV always relates Hollywood to Zionism but many non Iranians don’t know that and if we make a special quote for this movie it will deceive them. If you want to add this to the article you should mention that Iranian TV always blames Zionism to be behind Hollywood hits.(Shahingohar 00:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC))

The problem is that I don't have a source for that 'disclaimer'. All I have is MEMRI's translation of IRINN's reaction. If we can source the idea that "Iranian TV always blames Zionism" it may be appropriate to mention in the article in proper form. But the continuous removal has been based on baseless claims that MEMRI's translation is unreliable. MEMRI is often criticized as unfairly selective but rarely for the actual accuracy of the translation, so I think that this really boils down to certain editors disliking the information & MEMRI. Hence, "I DONT LIKE IT" removals. The best thing now is to keep it, but in the meantime, look for something that we can cite to fulfill the 'disclaimer'-like description of IRINN. Of course the 'disclaimer' shouldn't be POV either, but rather a simple description of IRINN's usual reporting style. This must be explicitly sourced. Anyway, I'd like this to be done but that part keeps facing blind reverts by a group of users. Hopefully they will agree with this and just look for the desired information about IRINN, but I'm rather pessimistic that they will be so cooperative. The Behnam 01:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

As am I. Assuming good faith does not mean ignoring bad behavior. Perhaps the people concerned with ensuring the legitimacy of the Depictions of Persians section are concerned that if this particular ugly viewpoint comes to light, it would damage the credibility of the section, as evidenced by a user's comments here. This is also evidenced by the reverts of certain editors seeking to alter the perception of Mps in Iranian Parliament who wanted the film banned. For a good many reverts, some editors wanted it to replace "few" with "several" despite the fact that the citation only list four MPs out of 290 who endorsed such an idea. When it appeared that specificity was required (stating the actual number of those seeking banning), to allow the reader to make up their mind on which term fit better, that was also reverted, affering up the equally disingenuous "some." I am sorry, but that is simply POV editing. If those editors wanting to utilize the words of Iranian media to support their claims of Persian insult presented by the film, they must permit the inclusion of those media who present outlandish theories as to the reasons for the perceived insult. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Clearly, POV editing is occuring, and it seems suspiciously organized, although not quite like a cabal. It seems curious though, that just as one POV editor reaches their reverts for the day, another comes out of nowhere to revert precisely the same material, and using the same reasons.

Of course, I might just be acting paranoid. :) Arcayne 01:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

the whole quote is from unreliable and partisan source which doesn't meet the WP;RS requirments --alidoostzadeh 01:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, from the above statements, that is an inaccurate assessment. If all Iranian news sources are unreliable and partisan, then most of the Depictions section might have to go with it, as the sources cited all refer to Iranian news stories. You cannot have it both ways. However, if you can provide previously requested citations as to MEMRII's "history of mistranslation" or cite how the news story translated from IRINN's news story, I wnt you to feel free to do so. Until then, the source is valid. I look forward to seeing either of those detailed below. Arcayne 01:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Bottomline, MEMRI is not a realible source and doesn't meet WP:RS. We don't make news here, we report it. If this quote was refelcted in any news reports, then it can be reported in the article too, like the other new reports. --alidoostzadeh 01:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That isn't an appropriately backed assertion. Are we supposed to just take it from you that MEMRI is unreliable on this matter without any explanation? By the way, your desire to use the original text to verify the translation is actually not what we should be trying to do. WP:RS#Language on language, "English-language sources should be used whenever possible ... Published translations are preferred to editors' translations." See for yourself. I'm really inclined to think that these are "I DONT LIKE IT" removals of acceptable sourced translated information. I recommend you revert yourself and just find a good description for IRINN instead. Of course we aren't making news, we are simply covering IRINN's reaction via a translation. It is as relevant to this article as any of the other reactions listed. If we remove IRINN on such weak grounds, a whole lot of reactions will be removed from the 'Persian controversy' coverage. You should reconsider. The Behnam 01:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If IRINN's attributed reaction merited any coverage, it would have already been covered by the news articles covering this story. The only reason certain users with agendas are trying to insert this controversial quote into the article, is to make a mockery out of the reaction section. I was assuming good faith until I found out that the user who originally added this controversial quote to the article, had previously added an anti-Shia hate video to another Iranian article [6] which violates every Wiki policy on racism. --Mardavich 01:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we have somehow been unclear, so I will state it clearly: those contributors feeling the MEMRII statements to be be non-RS need to support that claim. Explain why, and provide citatable proof. Otherwise, the argument that the statement is not reliable has no weight at all.

As well, the claim that MEMRII's has a history of mistranslation of Farsi needs to be backed up with citable proof; someone's word that "everyone knows" is simply not good enough. The statement is from a website that translates news reports, and a survery of their prior articles there do not indicate a partisan bent. It cites the news station quoted, and the day it was quoted.

Lastly, it is important to impress amongst the contributors wanting this comment to be removed (who all, from their various user histories appear to be, at the very least, deeply interested in Iranian issues) that the inclusion of this comment is not going to devalue overmuch the other comments in the Depictions of Persians section. I think it is a mistake for these editors to have so little faith in the readership that they would want to manipulate a citable, verifiable source that is both noteworthy and pertinent to the subject (the article is in fact a response to the film). As I said before, i do assume good faith, but that doesn't excuse bad behavior. Arcayne 02:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

What is more important than validity of MEMRI is the importance of the matter to be mentioned in the article. There are many more notable and verifiable quotes in this regard inside and outside of Iran that can be mentioned. Therefore it is POV to try to add something to the article from a 2 min commentary in Iranian TV in which at its end it doesn’t even specifies who is making that argument! Right now each single sentence of this section is also mentioned in more than 10 reliable references so what is the point in adding a sentence which is not as important and questions the whole section?(Shahingohar 03:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC))

http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD150607 Thats the link to the transcript. I think we should include this because it shows the mindset of Iran. Since Iranian TV is controlled by the Government, what the TV report is what the government is stating so the TV commentator's views reflect the government's position and given Iran's current hatred of Israel and Zionists that is not too hard to believe. Mercenary2k 06:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I Suggest anybody wanting to use MEMRI as a source see: [7] for historical discussion. The arguments, without taking sides, would be that:

1. MEMRI is closely related to Israeli intelligence.
2. MEMRI admittedly selectively picks pieces to translate.
3. MEMRI admittedly makes translation choices that fit its own agenda.

My own personal perspective is that MEMRI is about as accurate as George Bush was on Irag WMD: blinded by their ideology and desire. They are an informational source, but they are hopelessly tainted by their ideology. Ronabop 05:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It is actually not a translation in this case but coverage of what appears to be a 'special program' done in English. See the clip for yourself. I don't believe it is in the article at this point anyway. The Behnam 07:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

good read

[8] --alidoostzadeh 23:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

We need to incorporate this info as it is from published scholar in ancient Iranian studies. --alidoostzadeh 00:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I like it. I am not sure about the publication history of Dr. Kaveh's work, but it seems very interesting. Where was it published? Arcayne 02:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ban of film

The statement about the 4 Iran members urging the film be banned, the source that is listed after it does not say anything of the sorta number. Did I miss it somewhere? I looked but couldn't find where it said anyone, other than Mr Ahmadinejad, wanted to ban the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The cited http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2033630,00.html article (No.91 in the article) states as follows:

"President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government has joined MPs, bloggers and local media in denouncing the newly-released Warner Brothers epic, 300, as a calculated attempt to demonise Iran at a time of intensifying US pressure over the country's nuclear programme. Mr Ahmadinejad's spokesman branded the film "an insult to Iran" while four MPs have urged the foreign ministry to pressure other Muslim countries to ban it."

-Arcayne 01:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC) ps-the link provided in the article details the 290 members of Iranian Parliament. -Arcayne 01:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. I see what happened, I'm so used to people using numerical values for numbers in the middle of sentences that I just missed the fact that "4" was actually spelled out.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that someone got it, because now even that is getting reverted, the idea being that mentioning the number of Iranian parliamentary members is POV. I am having trouble fathoming that, as the link to the parliament is in the cited statement. Not everyone knows that the Iranian Parliament has almost 300 members, and not knowing this is the difference between thinking that a significant percentage Iranian Parliament is calling for the banning of the film and recognizing that the parliamentary action is not that reactionary, and not indicative of the entire parliament. I think that not including it is deceptive. Arcayne 03:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is people slaping "POV" on everything they revert. The funny thing is that, per Wiki, NPOV is not the opposite of POV. Saying 290 is not POV, it may be irrelevant, but that's a judgement call, and not a violation of NPOV.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

BBC: “Three MPs in the Iranian parliament have written to the foreign ministry to protest against the production and screening of this "anti-Iranian Hollywood film". I think you agree with me that this news is not important. I argue that we should not mention this in the article. But by emphasizing on 3 (or 4) out of 290 some readers may think that other MPs voted against it. I think this news is more important and can be mentioned in the article instead. (Shahingohar 04:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC))

I am not sure if I am understanding your reasoning here, Shahingohar. You are now stating that we shouldn't report at all the 4 MP's who chose to call for a ban of the film, because it isn't important. You think we shouldn't use the MEMRII citations because, as you stated here, "Iranian TV, MEMRI and Fox are all unreliable sources". And yet, you want us to consider a news story from that very same Iranian news source? How can this be seen as anything but a cynical attempt to shift the subject away from an active, valid citation that you are afraid is going to throw into question the "whole [Depiction of Persians] section".

I am beginning to agree with this fear of yours. That you would advocate banning news that doesn't support your point of view is unacceptable. The comments from MEMRII are valid news translations. They are citable, and they are verifiable. Therefore, if you want any statements derived from Iranian news sources to be used, you must accept that some of the statements made decrying the film are also going to be included. If you want to include statements that members of parliament wanted the have the film banned, then you have to accept that a full and unbiased view is going to reveal that the ministers represented a very small fraction of that august legislative body. The only word used to describe this number of MPs will be "a few". I can see from Mardavich and your contributions that Iranian topics are pretty much what you edit and contribute to. Is it entirely inappropriate to point out that you might be biased towards ensuring that Iran appears in the best possible light? I think perhaps you need to take a step back from the article for a while, and allow for a more unbiased approach to address the article. Arcayne 05:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all I am not afraid of telling the truth. But here in Wikipedia we should be careful when summarizing to avoid misrepresenting a fact. Moreover, we should distinguish between News and Reviews on the movie.

• News are pretty much the same in all sources but we should pick the most important one. I think if we want our article to be GA or FA the Persian controversy section can not get more expanded. I think there is no need to mention all statements of several parts of government of Iran. I put more weight on a letter to UNESCO than on a letter from 3 MPs to foreign minister.
• There are thousands of reviews out there and we should select the best ones from notable critics. Regarding Zionism part the statement that you are trying to include is a Review not a News. But the problem is that it is not coming from a notable critic. FYI that part is in fact in English and MEMRI didn’t do any translation. You can watch it here. As you can see Iranian TV is not acting professionally and doesn’t even say the name of the critic. So while several more professional Reviews are out there why should we mention this one?
• You are accusing me for being biased and asking me to step back for a while. For the past 4 days I haven’t contributed so much rather than cleaning up and reverting vandalism. But I have participated in talks a lot. Is there any thing wrong with expressing my opinion in the talk page?
• I hope we can some up here.
  • Relating Zionism to 300 from Iranian TV is worthless commentary and there is no point in including that since there are more better and accurate reviews.
  • I don’t give much credit to MPs news and I think we can replace it with the letter to UNESCO if this news is well reflected in notable sources tommorow.
  • All of us try to be more neutral, accurate, polite in our discussion before accusing each other.

(Shahingohar 06:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC))

Iranian TV is controlled by the Iranian Governemnt. What they report is the official position of the Iranian government and thus if Iranian TV reports that 300 was a Jewish conspiracy against Iran than its the official position of Iran's governmnet and thus is important enough to be reported. Mercenary2k 06:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

There is always dispute in Iranian government and it doesn’t have one voice. So you can not say TV is completely representing the government. If Iranian government (Ahmadinejad group) wants to say such a thing they clearly say it and don't include it in a commentary. In fact they may do it in following days and there will be no need argue about that :D. (Shahingohar 06:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC))

True, it doesn't necessarily represent the entire government's position. When Mercenary first introduced the cite I modified it (to its present form) in a way that I believe reflects accurately that this is commentary from IRINN, not the government's formal stance. I don't see what the big deal is at this point. Right now it is just another reaction, much like the others. The section should capture the different views put out by different parties, and I feel that this inclusion only adds to that. Again, some Iranians are getting offended by this, but I encourage them just to make the wording more accurate rather than remove the inclusion entirely. I've done what I could to improve the coverage of the source but if you all can do anything more, that is much better than simply deleting a valid inclusion. The Behnam 07:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the video clip at MEMRI. But now I'm confused: is this an English-language feed for broadcast outside Iran, or is an English-language portion a standard component of broadcasts within Iran? The "crawl" appears to still be in Farsi, while the audio-track in English definitely appears original / synched, and not dubbed. The question of intended audience makes a great deal of difference to proper evaluation of the quote.

Incidentally, after the initial two paragraphs, the section of "Depiction of ancient Persians" seems to lean too heavily on the domestic Iranian reaction. But this isn't a section about the critical reception of the film in Iran; at least, the title would suggest that it would be a more general treatment of specific critical issue in the film's reception worldwide. We might want to rethink criteria for inclusion, or place the last three paragraphs, which deal almost exclusively with the domestic Iranian reaction, under a separate header.--Javits2000 09:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That is an interesting observation. I never looked at the video. Apparently it was done in English. If you watch the guy at the beginning his mouth movements match the speaking. What does this mean? The Behnam 09:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I don't know what it means, but it would be nice to know where this was broadcast (domestically or as part of an international feed?). Unfortunately MEMRI doesn't give any help on this score. Therefore, although I agree that the sentiment of the broadcast is noteworthy, I also agree with those who posted above that it would be better if some news agency had covered this particular allegation (re: the "Zionist studio," or whatever). That might give us the needed context. Of course, Shahingohar is right; Ahmadinejad & co. are hardly subtle folk, and may make the allegation directly in the coming days, which would render this conversation pointless.

If any of those posting here are familiar with Iranian media, could you perhaps clarify: does domestic Iranian TV usually include English-language broadcasts? Thanks, --Javits2000 10:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I believe we have the news in English on certain channels, at certain times. This is definately a domestic Iranian TV station. In fact from the intro, it seems to be "IRINN" (Islamic Republic of Iran's News Network) -Rayis 11:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added the wiki-link to IRINN. Of course this doesn't settle the notability dispute, but it has satisfied my own personal curosity! Best, --Javits2000 11:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems more neutral now but there is also another fact. Iranian TV always shows similar commentaries which relates Hollywood products to Zionism (see this one for pirates of Caribbean so it is not an action that has been done specifically for this film. Therefore, I suggest we wait to see if a couple of neutral news agencies report it or they just neglect it like previous IRINN's commentaries. (Shahingohar 13:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC))

Thanks, this is also illuminating. My general concern, as noted above, is that this section has turned into an account of the film's reception in Iran, and not of its depiction of Persians. If we were to limit it more strictly, this passage would have to go; as would things like the UNESCO complaint, etc. The fact that the film has, shall we say, not met with approval in Iran can be covered by the Time article which is already prominently cited, and by one (two at the most) "official" responses; I'm not sure we need to go much deeper than that. --Javits2000 13:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

After a few green St. Paddie's Day beers and a good night's sleep. I can see that The Benham and Javits2000 have once again scraped away the cruft and gotten to the core of the argument. It has been argued that news sources inside of Iran are unreliable, being state organs of propaganda. While this is disturbing, WP manages to report on goings-on within other actors on the global scene. News from Iran shouldn't be given a pass simply because it's spun, but a due diligence needs to ensure that i is accepted on its face.

That said, We should probably consider melding the information about the depiction of Persians into the Political Aspects section, renaming it "Political Reception" (similar to Critical Reception). As the main thrust of the statements is the highlighting of the Internal Iranian reaction at the depiction of Persians in the film, and not the depictions themselves, this makes increasing sense. This would condense the article further, which is one of the points that peer review thought needed cleaning up. After all, that is the main goal here.

While I am still concerned about MEMRII's gauging of Iranian news' anti-Zionist sentiments, it seems clear that the 'chain of authorship' has made purposely vague. Therefore, it shouldn't remain in the article. As previously mentioned, if it becomes news in the coming days, it would resolve this 'chain of authorship' and likely require inclusion.

-Arcayne 15:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm, this is an interesting possibility. I'm inclined to keep most of the "depictions" stuff out of "political aspects," which at present focusses on 1) alleged plot parallels to contemporary political events and 2) "ideological" readings of the film. This has a certain coherence, and I'm not sure the "depictions" material (effeminacy, luxury, mysticism, and all that orientalist jive) fits in. The "Zionist" allegation on the other hand, if we choose to keep it, is ideological in character.

Here's what I have in mind. Keep the first two paragraphs of "depictions" more or less as they are. Finish with a third paragraph stating, in some way, that the reaction against the depictions of Persians was particularly strong in Iran. Use the Time article, a statement from the Iranian government, and very little else. Cut the rest entirely, or, if we think the references are worth saving, stack them in footnotes. If anyone feels that the topic requires more attention that that, i.e. wishes to document the Iranian reaction more thoroughly, it could of course be the subject of a main article that would be linked from this subheading with a "main article" reference. At present my major concern is trimming the article, and this section is one of a few that remain somewhat unruly. What do other people think? --Javits2000 15:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. Make it so, to quote everyone's second-favorite bald guy (I of course refer to Kojak - "who loves ya, baby!") Arcayne 17:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Time magazine

There is an error regarding the title of the Time's (magazine) article in this reference:

ref name=moaveni>Moaveni, Azadeh (2007-03-13). "300 Versus 70 Million Iranians". Time (magazine). Retrieved 2007-03-14. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)</ref> . The correct title is "300 Sparks an Outcry in Iran."

There is also a brief quote in the current (printed) Time magazine, European edition, vol.169, No.11, column: Briefing, subsection: Verbatim, p. 16, March 26, 2007. I (verbatim) quote the fifth row:

" --- 'Not only would no nation or government accept this...but it would also consider it as hostile behavior which is the result of cultural and psychological warfare.' GHOLAMHOSSEIN ELHAM, Iranian government spokesman, about the film 300, which depicts a battle in 480 B.C., when the massive Persian army was held off for three days by a small band of Spartan soldiers. Source: ABC News. " -- 172.214.150.169 08:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Who deleted the Fullerton professor's well researched contributions

Was it Arcane? --75.27.186.31 17:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Presumably no one; Daryaee's remarks are still there. --Javits2000 17:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he's referring to the converstion of block-texted quotations to a format more in keeping with a WP article. If that is what he meant, then that was me. Well, me, and several others who helped tweak it to make sure that what Prof. Daryaee had to impart was communicated more effectively. (now I get the bald comment below - he thought he was referring to me - lol! some people) -Arcayne 18:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Depicting Xerxes as bald

What does everyone think of depicting Xerxes as bald? I mean the man had hair didn't he? Isn't it racist to portray him as bald? Next they'll portray him as a Wikipedia censor who deletes the Cal State Fullerton's well researched contributions. What do you think Arcayne? --75.27.186.31 17:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, not knowing what deletions are being referred to or being bald (not that ther is anything wrong with that), I would have to say I am not sure what you are asking. Being portrayed as bald is racist? Pray, do tell. Captain Picard and Kojak and the late, great Yul Brynner are dying to know... Arcayne 18:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously this individual cannot read, because Javits2000 is correct: the Fullerton mention is still in the article. My boyfriend shaves his head, and when questioned (about five seconds ago) if his baldness was due to racism, he said in response, "Uh, racism? Am I being repressed because I hate my hair?" Obviously, dear! María: (habla conmigo) 18:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Damn you, Maria! You made me noseboot hot coffee! rotflmao!! thumbs up to the bf with all the Clevers! Arcayne 18:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

??? =

Why cant any1 post the petition website, Wikipedia was designed to display all veiwpoints. Also, people need to start adding the specific historical errors. I know there is a plethora, but any amount would be a good start (e.g. Xerxes was straight married to Esther, while spartans usually werent (cultural norm)).

First of all, please add new sections at the end of the talk page, not the beginning. Secondly, the petition website does not meet verifiability standards. Please review the talk page and its archives -- the reasoning has already been mentioned in detail. Lastly, this film is based on a comic book that took heavy artistic licensing in using the historical event. It's not intended to be a historical depiction of the battle, and trying to correct the film's "discrepancies" is trivial. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It is far from trivial when many people are angered over the fake display of their history (both persians and greeks). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Costos (talk • contribs) 19:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

They are uninformed about the source material for 300 -- it's based on a comic book, not collaborations by historians. Ignorant bitching doesn't really float. The protests are encyclopedic, but nitpicking over the differences where it's accepted that there are differences doesn't qualify. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Further on this point. Fidelity to history, or lack thereof, is currently addressed through four citations that, rather than dwelling on minutiae, attempt a general characterization of the film, from differing viewpoints. Any further edits ought at the very least to be supported by citations, and would ideally introduce a significant new perspective, not a particular gripe. --Javits2000 19:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, enough of this sexuality debate. Xerxes is not portrayed as gay in the movie, regardless of what his real-life inclinations were, and the Spartans also regularly had wives and children, if my freshman classical civ. history class serves me correct, which I know it does, because I got an A. Enough. María: (habla conmigo) 19:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a Ph.D in Spartan history (really!) so I can vouch for María's info! —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to explain. The Petitions webiste is, by Wikipedia standards, not reliable (see WP:RS). Additionally, the article is too long. There have been archives of discussions about the inclusion of historical errors being balanced out by the need for both brevity and at least three previous mentions in the article that the movie is not intended to be hostorically accurate (which the previous editor - in posting moments before me - has already mentioned). The examples that have been provided are inthe Historical accuracy section and the Depictions of Persians section. Those are the inaccuracies that are being directly applied by this article, and that has only come at considerable effort to find a concensus within a differing group of contributors over the past few weeks. I am not going to address the generalities that you brought up there at the end because your peculiar definition of cultural norms is inapplicable here. None of them can be cited here.

I hope that explains matters more clearly. :) Arcayne 19:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Time to Archive

Most of the conversations appear to have lulled. What should remain here, and what should be archived? Arcayne 23:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)