Talk:300 (film)/Archive 6

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 1

←

Archive 4

→

Intro Paragraph

I didn't want to change it myself because I saw that there'd been some controversy, but the intro paragraph should mention the Battle of Thermopylae somehow. It would be sufficient to attach with a phrase like "loosely based upon" or "inspired by" or "an exaggerated interpretation of". Does anyone agree? Surely there is a neutral way to link the film to the historical event which it purports to recant. --Xiaphias 03:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to do the same. I whole heartedly agree. -- Fropuff 03:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

On the same POV, again

Concerning this edit: "Through this narrative technique, all manner of fantastical creatures are introduced, placing 300 within the genre of historical fantasy"
Eventhough the word "therefore" was removed, this claim is still an editor's personal point of view. The ones erroneously characterised as "fantastical creatures" are in reality deformed persons. So unless deformed and ugly people are taken as fictional, the claim stands wrong. Miskin 13:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, we now have Synder stating in the article that it's a "fantasy film," and his other statements, also cited, particularly on the role of the narrator, conform to the genre. The connection crops up quite a bit on Google, admittedly mostly on blogs, but also in slightly more reputable sources: [1] [2] [3] I think it's a fair characterization. Cheaper by the Dozen isn't actually funny, but we're still calling it a comedy. --Javits2000 14:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

All those times I brought this up nobody ever said to me that this had some basis. Yet in my opinion this is still not justifying the claim of "fantastical creatures". Alexander also has a narrator but I don't think anyone would call it historical fantasy. And blogs are no sources. Miskin 15:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is not simply that it has a narrator, but rather the particular role that he serves in this film. The relevant interviews with Snyder are all cited in the article; probably the most useful is this: "300 Mixes History, Fantasy". I know that blogs aren't sources, which is why I placed the adverb "admittedly" at the start of that phrase, and didn't link to any. --Javits2000 15:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Judging by what the respective wikipedia article claims, historical fantasy is a very specific type of cinematography, and not just the combined elements of history and fantasy. I guess someone recently discovered this and removed the wikilink, although I don't see how that makes any difference. It seems to me that historical fantasy applies on films such as Monty Python and the Holy Grail, using it in 300 is kinda pulling it by the hair. And yet, people would even be arrogant enough to remove the 'fact' tags I added when I first complained. This is how how neutrally this article has been compiled. First you see articles like The Patriot (2000 film) (arguably the most disgusting cinematographic bias I've yet to encounter), which not only does it not mention anything about the unorthodox "depiction of a certain culture", not only it doesn't mention anything about historical fantasy theories, but it actually contain a section which emphasises the film's historical accuracy (!!!). Then you get films like 300 which are about people from like a guzillion years ago, and 90% of the article talks about how the film received negative comments from the Iranian and Pakistani governments (along with the actual cited comment), or how did mr X notable Iranian historian of the University of Springfield perceive the movie, or how does the film degrade ancient Asian fashion designers, or how does common fuzzy logic classify it as Sci&Fi and similar laughable information. And the most ironic thing of all is that no-one even notices that this imbecility is taking place. It's just being rationalised in the editors' heads by thinking "yeah man, that's NPOV", when it is actually the opposite extreme. Miskin 18:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The link to the genre page was removed recently by an editor who wanted to trim the excessive links in the opening paragraph (discussion under "the opener" above) ; no dark plot there, just a smart decision. But we could always put it back.

Problems with the Patriot should of course be taken up on that discussion page. I would say this article is around 70% production, marketing, box office, etc., and 30% controversy; that probably is a bit skewed and we may want to trim down the latter. The best way to do that will be to extract the most salient critiques and cut the redundancies, etc. And honestly, if while you're reading through those sections, all you can do is to think up (hm, witty or juvenile?) ways to mock the concerns of the critics, I doubt you'll be of much help in that process. --Javits2000 19:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that both the giant rhinoceros and the giant elephants could easily be considered "fantasy creatures", as they bear little resemblance to real animals. Even the wolf could be considered some sort of fantasy creature, given it's minimal resemblance to real wolves. 129.128.233.48 04:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

That might be fair, but that might be just a tall-telling - remember, it's Dilios telling the story. He might have never seen either of those critters before. He has seen other humans before, and the turning of Xerxes and the disfugured, chain monster into literal giants, and making the faces of the Immortals lose-your-lunch hideous, that is where it crosses the line into historical fantasy. It isn't enough to mix up events, or misrepresent clothing or hairstyles (or lack thereof in Xerxes' case), it has to add something fantastical, ie. within the realm of fantasy. Arcayne 15:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement that fantastical creatures were involved in the film. The animals aforementioned were, at least to my eye, not feasible living creatures. I know that historically War Elephants were used in combat, however I have never heard of that same use with the rhinoceros. Also, Xerxes being 10 feet tall seems a bit out of the question, and the man with the donkey's head in the tent seems to be a bit fantastical also (drug use aside). To make anothe point, the movie was based off of the graphic novel by Frank Miller, not the actual battle. If one chooses to investigate, few and far between are historical similarities with the actual Battle of Thermopylae. The lack of armor is a glaring example, as that was what gave Spartan warriors their edge in battle. In a kind of conclusion, I agree with those in the Historical Fantasy camp, one but has to look at history to see this.Jbrw21 05:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Trimming Controversy sections

Javits2000 recommends trimming some of the extraneous controversy sections down. Here's what I think could be done

Persian reaction - trim to one government source, currently it cites this and that minister, the president, etc.
Political aspects - this seems to be a history of how Snyder has reacted, why not simply have one statement with Snyder's intentions, then another with the critics.
Historical inaccuracies - remove last paragraph, since it overlaps with Persian reaction.

LilDice 20:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The first two suggestions look solid to me. I'ld be against removing the last paragraph (Daryaee) from the history section; he's not really addressing the way Persians are depicted (what I've been calling the "orientalist" aspects), more the general historical framework of the film. I think Daryaee and Hanson are the two strongest voices in that section, representing very different points of view, and both should be retained. Lytle, on the other hand, could probably go, and Cartledge could be cut down to a sentence on his advisory role. --Javits2000 21:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds pretty good to me. The point of the trim is to include those parts that create the strongest, more comprehensive view of the subject. Keep in mind that one or two editors have been pushing for the inclusion of Farrokh's statemens. I want to make sure that the essence of Daryaee is retained. Including F would open the door to a ton of unsourced, pov-based nonsense that the article simply doesn't need. Arcayne 22:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

External links (Farrokh, Part 1)

Unfortunately this discussion was prematurely archived. The Farrokh article should be included in the external links. There is no guideline or policy that sets a limit on the amount of external links provided. If you believe undue weight is given to a particular view, we can provide a link to the opposing view. So far you have assumed that Farrokh is some how biased and lesser than Daryaee. Although this may be your view, you must prove before enacting it. We cannot chose one author over the other for personal reasons. Even if you believe they are so different in quality, should not both of the critical views be given? After all, not all people who are critical of the film's historic accuracy share the same complaints. For these reasons, Farrokh's article should be included in the External links. Agha Nader 20:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Sorry, all sections without posting for 4 hours, or seem concluded were archived.Arcayne 20:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, this topic seemed concluded. The Farrokh article was rife with personal anecdotes, and the substance of the article, when weighted against that of the Daryaee statemetns already in the piece, doesn't contribute anything new. It covers no new ground, which would be the sole reason for its inclusion. We aren't here to provide a balanced review; we are herr to provide a neutral one - there is a difference. While the criticism of the film was still significant while the film was in early release, it has since reached a far wider audience through general release, and the criticism appears to be in the specific minority. The article should reflect this resultant importance. Arcayne 21:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not archive ongoing discussions with unresolved issues. Allow discussion to achieve consensus on all issues. --Mardavich 21:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

(sigh) fine, Mardy. Talk it alllll out. lol. Arcayne 22:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, just because you do not like the Farrokh article it does not mean it should not be included. You say the "article was rife with personal anecdotes"; it does not matter if you agree with his mode of discourse. I completely reject this statement you made: "It covers no new ground, which would be the sole reason for its inclusion". This is your opinion, not a fact. Farrokh's article has plenty of material not in the Daryaee article. You think the sole reason for it's inclusion would be if it had new material, eh? Which guideline says an external link must cover "new ground". So tell me, how do you know that Farrokh's article was not written first? I am not sure what to say about your claim "We aren't here to provide a balanced review". Please cite a Wikipedia guideline or policy for your claim, otherwise I will consider it your opinion. Removing Farrokh's article as a link is basically an "I DON'T LIKE IT" edit. Agha Nader 22:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

It is not about me "liking" or "disliking" the article. Had you done the slightest amount of research,m you would have seen that I was initially in favor of their inclusion, but was presented with convincing arguments as to why they were not as satisfactory as Daryaee's. I am not the only person that agrees that the Farrokhe statements cover no new, reliably sourced, germane material. The Daryaee is a better sourced, more on-point article, Period. if you disagree, move the focus away from attacking me and tell us all - specifically - how the Farokhe article is better than the Daryaee statements. If you want them in, tell us all why they should be in, citing specific examples, please. Arcayne 23:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Not semi-historical, fictional per producers of the movie

The lead states that the movie is a "semi-historical account of battle of Thermopylae" when the producer of the movie Warner Bros has clearly states that "The film 300 is a work of fiction inspired by the Frank Miller graphic novel and loosely based on a historical event.". I'm changing the lead accordingly. --Mardavich 06:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reliable source saying it is "semi-historical"? If not, we can say "fictional". Otherwise we can say that according to X it is fictional and according to Y it is semi-historical. --Aminz 06:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but are we suggesting that the Battle of Thermopylae was a fictional event? that's quite a statement. The fact that there are fictional elements doesn't make the entire film fictional. If Leonidas and his merry band of grunts had pulled out light sabers and went to town on Ol' Baldy and company, then it would be fictional. Seeing as the main fictional elements of this story were the portrayals of the Persians, while leaving quite alone the actual events, the term "semi-historical" seems far more appropriate. I could posit other ideas as to why fictional is offered, but that would not quite be AGF. Arcayne 07:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As well, when I reverted the statement fromt he article before, it was because major changes to the article (or intent) need to be discussed here first. This doesn't mean that an editor posts their point of view and then proceeds to add the change which they know will be met with opposition. Please play fair. I will be reverting the change yet again. Please be so good as to allow other editors to discuss the change as well. Arcayne 07:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are my suggestion: "a semi-fictional account of the Battle of Thermopylae in 480" This would be more faithful to Warner Bros's description of the film as "a work of fiction" and addresses Arcayne's point. --Aminz 07:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No Arcayne, it's not suggesting that the Battle of Thermopylae was a fictional event, it's clearly stating that this movie is a fictional account of Battle of Thermopylae. That's what the producers of the movie believe and that's what we should have in the lead. --Mardavich 07:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Arcayne means that a fiction is 100% non-historical. We can say "fictional but with some elements of truth". Another suggestion would be to use the term "mythical"(?). --Aminz 07:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

While I don't think the Lead needs any work at all, I would like to hear why the two of you favor using a 'fictional' designator for the film, and why it would be better than 'semi-historical'. As it depicts a historical event, to my mind, that makes it at least partly historical. That the Persians and Greeks were depicted in more fantastical ways detracts from that historical value, and in fact it is those components which palce it in the realm of historical fantasy. That term cannot be applied to other semi-historical films like Braveheart, Troy, Alexander, and The Scarlet Pimpernel (although the film Hero does fit within that category). The fact that - despite the fantasy elements of the film, it is still about a hisotrical event. Therefore, the fictional descriptor do not apply. Arcayne 11:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

We do quote the director as saying that the film is 90% factual if that helps. Hewinsj 11:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

He means factual to the source, which is a comic book fictional account of battle of Thermopylae. Regardless, this movie is not a documentary, labeling it "historical account" or "semi-historical account" is POV and inaccurate. --Mardavich 21:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

We're clearly operating with different understandings of this term. Mardavich, whatever you understand semi-historical to mean, it could hardly require that the film be a documentary. "Semi" means "half". As Hewinsj noted, the director's estimate is 90% "accurate" (not 90% like the comic book, read the interview). So actually we're underselling it. --Javits2000 21:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The movie is nowhere near 90% accurate. Historians have condemned this film for its many inaccuracies so give us a break with this nonsense. It is not a historical epic. It is based on a chauvinistic comic book by Frank Miller (who has gone on record as stating his hatred for "barbaric" Islamic civilization and peoples) with a very specific agenda. His latest work is going to be a Batman story involving Al-Qaeda. Oh yeah, real "accurate". Anyone who thinks this movie is "90%" historically accurate might as well just come out and say "Sieg Heil!" And FYI, Mardavich understands the term perfectly, so quit patronizing. Khorshid 21:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Even according to Warner Bros (which thankfully most Iranians are boycotting from now on here in the States) there is nothing "semi historical" about this bigoted movie: "A Warner Bros. spokesman said: "The film 300 is a work of fiction inspired by the Frank Miller graphic novel and loosely based on a historical event. The studio developed this film purely as a fictional work with the sole purpose of entertaining audiences; it is not meant to disparage an ethnicity or culture or make any sort of political statement."

If you don't understand English, "loosely based" is not the same as "semi-historical". Warner makes it clear that the movie is purely fiction. Khorshid 21:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, getting it from both sides today. Clearly Frank Miller's current projects and views on Islam are better addressed elsewhere, and have no bearing on this article. The 90% figure doesn't represent my personal opinion, but rather a quote from the director, which may be found in the article. The Nazi rhetoric is tasteless and contributes nothing to the conversation. But what if you do understand English? --Javits2000 22:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Javits2000, Warner Brother has clearly stated that "The film 300 is a work of fiction", so we're not underselling anything, "semi-historical" is overselling it, please propose a new and NPOV wording to reflect these realities. --Mardavich 22:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's my understanding that a "semi-historical" film is roughly equivalent to, for example, a historical novel, i.e. in the manner of Walter Scott, and is therefore a valid description of a fictionalized narrative of a historical event. That said, I find Khorshid's recent edit ("highly-stylized") to be equally appropriate, and if it soothes some frayed nerves, then all the better. --Javits2000 22:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If this article is labelled 'fictional' then we might as well claim that the whole Thermopylae story is just a product of Greek mythology. I'm sure some Iranian scholars have already suggested that, and I know that Iranian editors like Mardavich have already proposed it. I hope the point I made in my previous comment becomes clearer and clearer. Miskin 22:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are you putting words in my mouth, Miskin? Where did I propose such a thing? I'm talking about the movie, not the actual battle. The movie is a fictional account of the actual battle, that's a fact. --Mardavich 22:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Just seeing people considering such proposals is just sad. How about stating that the movie is Science&Fiction based on Greek mythology and adding a section called "reactions of Al-Qaida"? Miskin 22:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

(Like I had said a week ago, gird your loins...) Sifting through the pov and lack of civility, we find that the heart of Khorshid's argument is that that he is objecting to any usage of the historical descriptor being applied to the film. Being stated as defense for this objection is the Warner Bros. statement that the film is a "work of fiction". I think that this is a misapplication of the statement, focusing on the text and not on their meaning.

All films are by definition works of fiction (even documentaries are, as they undergo an edit process and serve to illustrate a very small range of issues), and that was what WB was speaking to. We have well-qualified historians speaking as to the various historical accuracies and inaccuracies, which begs the question - if this is a total work of fiction, without any basis in reality, why bother having any historical commenatary at all? I mean is the real issue here the film's historocity, or the inflamed Iranian pride, as evidenced by the post above, the nonsense edits that have shown up in the article, and the minor threatening of editos that seems to be coming solely from those contributors who's neutrality would certainly be in question.

I cannot speak for any other editor, but there is no way in heck I am going to allow POV to make it into the article, either for or against. It is not the way that WP works. Perhaps some of our editors could have a little more faith in the process. Those wanting a POV view are not going to get what they want. Arcayne 22:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the new suggestion as pov-pushing. The fact that a group of partisan editors do not agree with Snyder and a cambridge historian is not enough of a reason to make a compromise. Miskin 22:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually prefer the 'semi-historical' descriptor over the 'heavily stylized' alternative. Even though it might be cited, it may be viewed as peacock wording. Arcayne 04:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That imaginary movie can't be semi-historical.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It'sa fictional account of the BoT. BoT really happened, but the account given in 300 is fictional. we can use the plot section to explain that miller's work of fiction is based on the events of the BoT, but write it so as to be clear that it's HIS ideas about the highest points of the history and the rest fiction. ThuranX 04:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, as the film does contain a basic historical premise, and follows the history of the BoT closely (not the conversations or hairdo's of the time, but the history). That it digresses from there makes it semi-historical. The semi part being fiction. Since the film is entirely about a historical event, and not a story made from wholecloth, imaginary events, it is semi-historical, and not semi-fictional. Arcayne 06:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why are we having this same conversation in two separate headers? (here and here) Arcayne 06:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that it's both "semi-historical" and "highly stylized." That this single phrase should be the subject of an ongoing edit war demonstrates the degree to which conversation over this article has disintegrated over the past two days. I think we should flip a coin. --Javits2000 11:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Lol, then it would be an argument over what sort of coin it should be. Look, highly stylized sounds OR, and in fact it is OR through synthesis. It is a historical event with a lot of embellishment. I think they usually call that sort of thing a movie based on actual events. That the Persians (and the Greeks) have had parts of their portrayal altered is what I am guessing Frank Miller would likely call creative license. It is historical, and parts of the historical story are fictional. Were it a fictional story with a few historical figures tossed in, it would be semi-fictional. Ergo, a story based in history is primarily a story about history. When you add some fictional elements, it does not detract fromt he fact that it is still a historical story. It makes it a semi-historical story. Arcayne 12:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should call it by what is verifiable. What is verifiable is the fact that it’s been labeled as a fictional account of the BoT by Warner Brothers. VanGuy85 19:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The article on Battle of Thermopylae says that the initial waves of Persians were held off by an alliance of 7000 Greeks, lead by Leonidas. On the third day of the battle, Leonidas sent home most of the Greeks, staying with only 300 Spartans and 700 Thespians (i.e. 1000 men total) for his last stand. The article also suggests the Spartans may have had over 1,000 helots (slaves) with them, although this claim is uncited. If this is correct, I find it hard to credit the claim that the film is "90% factual". I think it would be worth noting these discrepancies in this article. Repton infinity 00:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Accurate historical images

Discussion still active. Please see Talk:300 (film)/Archive_8#Accurate_historical_images and continue the discussion there.

Summary of the content: inclusion or exclusion of the following pictures in the article: File:Officer2.jpg File:Tresury relief.JPG

External Links

Please see Talk:300 (film)/Archive_8#External_Links and comment there.

Summary: should we create a subsection in external links section for reviews?

Lead

This discussion is still active. Please see Talk:300 (film)/Archive_8#Discussion_continued and continue the discussion there.

Summary: Some argue that the lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article and describing its notable controversies. The question is whether the sections "Critical reaction", "Historical accuracy", "Political aspects" and "Depiction of Persians" need to be summarized and added to the intro, and if so in what way this should be accomplished.

Semi-historical or Highly Stylized?

Please see Talk:300_(film)/Archive_8#Not_semi-historical.2C_fictional_per_producers_of_the_movie and continue discussion there.

Summary: Should the lead says: the move is a "semi-historical", a "semi-fictional", "according to X it is 90% historical and according to Y it is fictional" or that the subject is essentially moot.

Highly stylized seems a POV step, in that it makes the film sound like a hairstyle rather than the semi-historical romp it is. Why are we getting folks completely disregarding the requests to seek concensus prior to deciding to make changes based on the "I don't like it" bias? Leave the Lead alone until we all find a clear consensus on the subject. Arcayne 03:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Critical reaction section

Please see Talk:300_(film)/Archive_8#Critical_reaction_section_2 .

Summary of discussion: Renaming the Critical reaction section to "Reviews"

Good Article Review

Due to the lack of stability for this film article, I've brought it to the attention of WP:GA/R. Perhaps its recognition was too soon, as there continues to be frequent debate and revert-warring over the article's content. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am going to have to agree; the subsequent edits to the article, ignoring the requests to discuss changes here first seems to have been offered by those desperate to make sure their POV is brought across, has served to destabilize the article. Arcayne 23:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Due to the film still being in theaters and certain global affairs currently afoot, it may be best to wait until a later date to seek a GA or FA nomination. I'd like to remind all editors to assume good faith of others and practice civility. Wikipedia does not profess to be the gospel truth, so don't get too heated over preferential differences. From my perspective, the article seems to have a fairly balanced amount of information regarding the purpose of the film and how others have received it. It seems to be a matter of addressing loose ends, so I encourage civil debate. Save the drama for your mama. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur. I did warn them about stability. GreenJoe 04:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I have de-listed this film article as a Good Article due to edit warring, which has resulted in at least one editor being blocked for a 3RR violation. When the article is more stable at a later date, it can be re-nominated. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Farrokh (Farrokh Part 3)

Let's deal with Farrokh once and for all. I have explained this above but I can see it is brought up over and over again.

There are some claims that some of his statements are not true. Well, per WP:RS and Wikipedia:Attribution policies, wikipedia is not about "truth"; it is about attributability to notable sources.

There are many Iranians who criticized the film. As far as I know, among them Farrokh is notable as a critic of 300 film.

This "convention" is followed in many other articles I have been involved in like "Criticism of X" articles. Many of these articles use known critics as sources (some of which do not even have any formal education on those issues but are notable as critics). If Farrokh is making an untrue claim, his view can be neutralized using other reliable sources. Please also take a look at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete --Aminz 23:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have the following problems with Farrokh as a source:

1) It is full of digressions that are not germane to the primary topic. Although there may be some material that is of use in the disucssion of military apparel, this is overwhelmed by the rest. Why should we care that he thinks burning the Acropolis was an error? Is it mentioned in the film? No. Why should we care that Plato might have gone to Egypt? etc.

2) A good criterion for inclusion in the historical accuracy section would be a professional degree in history, and an academic appointment. Farrokh is a trained linguist, without an academic appointment.

3) As to the actual merits of the article, he makes extensive use of Sassanian evidence, with the implication that it somehow applies to the Achaemenid period. He likewises uses late Roman authors (e.g. Libanius, whose name he spells "Libianus," which isn't encouraging) and visual evidence (the Ravenna mosaics) -- i.e. material from nearly 1000 years after Thermopylae.

4) Something that the Behnam drew attention to a while back, but bears reiterating: some of the visual evidence is dramatically manipulated. So for example, instead of reproducing the actual rock-relief of Valerian's submission to Shapur at Naqsh-i Rustam, he uses an absurd painting into which novelties have been introduced (e.g. a woman officer), from which he then proceeds to draw conclusions. This is simply dishonest. And, to return to 3), what is a Sassanian relief doing in here in the first place?

Now, I suppose you're right that these claims could be "neutralized" by using other sources, but then the article would be about Farrokh's shoddy scholarship, and not about the film. Better to leave the field to Daryaee, who's to the point and extremely solid. --Javits2000 00:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Point #1 is valid. Farrokh goes into much unnecessary detail. We should use them where he is writing about the film.

Point #2. That's correct. Farrokh does not fully satisfy me. The fact that he is a linguist specializing on ancient Persian gives him some credit though. But I think as a persian critic he is notable. I particularly mean when he is complaining about depictions of Persians and how the case would have been different if the same film had been made for other ethnic groups say Jews. He is writing that sentence as a Persian critic. But for scientific opinions, I would rather use other sources. Again, this wouldn't mean that Farrokh should be completely excluded.

Point #3. This is a technical point I should say. I wouldn't judge it on face. It is not so unlikely that there are many similarities between Sassanid Iran and Achaemenid Iran in certain aspects.

Point #4. I think I have addressed this on point #2. On scientific terms, Farrokh is not prefarable to others. But as a persian critic, he is notable. --Aminz 00:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I would note that Daryaee is as "Persian" as Farrokh, and I still fail to see what substantive contribution Farrokh makes that is absent in Daryaee. As to the Sassanian / Achaemenid split, I think it's more than a "technical point." We're talking about a 750-1000 year difference. The equivalent, in strictly chronological terms, would be to interpret contemporary Iran through the Ilkhanids. The point that "the case would have been different if the same film had been made for other ethnic groups say Jews" strikes me as purely speculative, and I don't know where in the article in would fit. --Javits2000 07:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You (Javits) completely misunderstood the meaning of the article! The article is trying to portray the truth about the ancient world at that time, and dispell things implied in the film 300, such as Greece was superior in culture, education, etc... It is supposed to be a critique of the film, and also and education piece shedding some light on the reality of Persia and Greece in the ancient world. Kaveh Farrokh is a very very very reliable source, and you should respect Wikipedia NPOV by not letting your own POV from keeping factual information out of this article. It does not matter what you think of him or his article (thats POV and is against Wiki policies), the fact of the matter is that he is a highly reliable source and his information is relevant. Furthermore, your points are completely confused, and I will respond in more detail later.Azerbaijani 01:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey. Be civil. You can construct a more mature response than that. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

As I had stated earlier, Dr Farokh is a published author and a reliable source, that's why, our own opinions about his academic work is simply irrelevant. --Mardavich 01:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that compared to Daryaee there have been more problems with Farrokh's work even though they address the same topic with a relatively similar position. Since we decided awhile back that we simply can't put everything on this page, we decided to use Daryaee's to represent the position instead of Farrokh since no substantiated problems arose over his criticism. I don't understand what there is to be worried about here since we have represented a view similar to Farrokh's already but without the problems. Please consider the possibility that the coverage in this article is good as it is. Thanks. The Behnam 06:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict>Mardavich, I am confused. Farokh is certainly notable as a critic of the film. As such, I certainly agree that his criticisms of the film could be summerized in 3-4 lines and be added to the article(that's what I am doing in a section above). Now, I would like to know the specific scientific statement in his article you would like to add. I just did a very quick search and found the following scholarly articles on the battle: *Thermopylae, Hugh Last, The Classical Review, Vol. 57, No. 2. (Sep., 1943), pp. 63-66., *Review: Thermopylae, Problèmes historiques autour de la bataille des Thermopyles by Apostolos Dascalakis, N. G. L. Hammond, The Classical Review, New Ser., Vol. 13, No. 3. (Dec., 1963), pp. 316-317., *Herodotus and the Strategy and Tactics of the Invasion of Xerxes, Arther Ferrill, The American Historical Review, Vol. 72, No. 1. (Oct., 1966), pp. 102-115., *The Pass at Thermopylae, Greece, John C. Kraft; George Rapp, Jr.; George J. Szemler; Christos Tziavos; Edward W. Kase, Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 14, No. 2. (Summer, 1987), pp. 181-198.;*Herodotus and the Dating of the Battle of Thermopylae, Kenneth S. Sacks, The Classical Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 26, No. 2. (1976), pp. 232-248.

I can email any of these to you if you would like. There are two cases, either Farokh has some views specific to him (shared by no expert in this field) or not. If yes, then since Farokh is not a pioneer in this field, I would say we shouldn't mention it. If not, then why not use the scholarly literature on this topic. I just don't know which of his statements you would like to add and where. --Aminz 06:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't JSTOR great! --Javits2000 08:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed. Good guess. I found these articles from there. --Aminz 07:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to Javits2000

First of all, I would like to mention that Kaveh Farrokh's article is not simply a critique of the film, but also and education article meant to educate the reader regarding several subjects. I agree that only parts which criticize the film should be included in this article:

1)It is full of digressions that are not germane to the primary topic. Although there may be some material that is of use in the disucssion of military apparel, this is overwhelmed by the rest. Why should we care that he thinks burning the Acropolis was an error? Is it mentioned in the film? No. Why should we care that Plato might have gone to Egypt? etc.

Material that should be included in this Wiki article include:

The Notion of Democracy and Human Rights should be summarized, as it criticizes the film on its historical distortion regarding democracy and human rights pertaining to ancient Greece and Persia, and how the movie has effected western notions, as portrayed by this quote:

“300 men stood between victory and the collapse of Western civilisation.… If the barbarian hordes…overran these defenders, Greek democracy and civilisation would fall prey to alien forces whose cruelty was a byword.”

[Christopher Hudson, “The Greatest Warriors Ever”, Daily Mail, London, England, March 9, 2007]

Its pretty apparent why this is significant...

What really led to War, this section should also be summarized, as it counters the point the movie makes that the Persian monsters were simply a scourge out to conquer land and take slaves, etc...

The sections The Military Conflict: Separating Fact from Fiction and The Portrayal of Iranians and Greeks should also be summarized and added for obvious reasons (The first section mentioned criticizes the portrayal of the armor, weaponry, etc... used in the film, why the other talks about the physical appearance and portrayal of Persians and Greeks).

Lastly, the section The “West” battling against the “Mysticism” of “the East” should also be summarized and added, as it counters the movies argument that the East was backward.

2) A good criterion for inclusion in the historical accuracy section would be a professional degree in history, and an academic appointment. Farrokh is a trained linguist, without an academic appointment.

Kaveh Farrokh is a world known and respected historian. Infact, he is considered a leading figure, and has been invited to join organizations such as WAIS and a History Channel documentary, among other things. He also does teaches sessionally at the University of British Columbia's Continuing Studies, and is attempting to launch programs on Pre-Islamic Iran at another major university. One does not have to teach to be a great and reliable scholar, there is much more to it than that, such as being part of organizations, launching programs, etc...

3) As to the actual merits of the article, he makes extensive use of Sassanian evidence, with the implication that it somehow applies to the Achaemenid period. He likewises uses late Roman authors (e.g. Libanius, whose name he spells "Libianus," which isn't encouraging) and visual evidence (the Ravenna mosaics) -- i.e. material from nearly 1000 years after Thermopylae.

I agree, we should use the material directly related to the Achaemenid era, however, by using Roman and Sassanid example, he shows that prior to the era of nationalism and race theories, that the objective Romans and Sassanids depicted each other relatively the same. We cannot rely on modern interpretations in regards to how Persians looked or how Greeks looked (you must remember that for a long time, the Western perception of the ancient Greeks was "blonde haired and blue eyed", which was a result of superior race theories...). Get what I'm saying?

4) Something that the Behnam drew attention to a while back, but bears reiterating: some of the visual evidence is dramatically manipulated. So for example, instead of reproducing the actual rock-relief of Valerian's submission to Shapur at Naqsh-i Rustam, he uses an absurd painting into which novelties have been introduced (e.g. a woman officer), from which he then proceeds to draw conclusions. This is simply dishonest. And, to return to 3), what is a Sassanian relief doing in here in the first place?

Again, you dont seem to understand that he uses them for example purposes only. If you notice, those types of pictures are meant to be education, depicting different things all in one picture rather than several... Those pictures are very very common, especially in educational books.Azerbaijani 16:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your thoughtful response. I'll just note quickly that

as to 1) the topics addressed under "The Notion of Democracy and Human Rights" are already addressed in the article through Daryaee; physical appearance & portrayal are addressed by a number of citations in the first two paragraphs under "depiction of Persians"; the sources of the conflict are not, if I am remembering correctly, described in the film, so that to address them in the article would be inappropriate; likewise the question of whether or not "the East was backward" takes us too far afield from the film itself (after all, remember that Leonidas describes his own priests as "relics of mysticism," or something to that effect, so it's not a charge that's levelled only against the Persians).

That leaves us with "the portrayal of the armor, weaponry, etc." which I've suggested for some time now (see most recently below under "Farrokh, Summary", plus in multiple posts in the archives) is a useful contribution from Farrokh that covers something relevant and not at present addressed in the article; in other words, I would support using it, until such time as we could find a better source covering the same topic.

I don't have much to add to the other three points; I still believe that history is a science that requires professional training, and therefore shouldn't be practised by amateurs; the dangers of doing so are borne out by the points I raised in 3 and 4. I'm not so much bothered that he doesn't have an academic appointment, as I am by the fact that his degree is in, correct me if I'm wrong, language acquisition, which is as far removed from the historical sciences as, say, physics. And I still maintain that his use of certain images borders on dishonesty; the "educational books" I'm familiar with argue from the realia. --Javits2000 20:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A note

Since the archiving was undone, we currently have three conversations occurring regarding a single reference. As much as I am going to kick myself for mentioning it, is it all possible that a new header could be created so as to converge these topics, and perhaps archive the items which are not really being discussed? I say 'kick myself', because last time I archived, I was accused of trying to "hide conversations". Just let me know when everyone takes a breather so we can create new headers, carrying on the topics. Allow me to reiterate for the conspiracy-minded: I am suggesting that you can resume your conversations or begin them anew in a new area. Find some sort of resolution or summary - temporary-like - and use that to begin a new section header. Arcayne 08:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Farrokh, summary

Can we please settle this issue; the various threads make it difficult to understand the state of the conversation, and the revert warring is just unseemly. Farrokh Pt. 1, above, reached no consensus. Farrokh Pt. 2, above, is moving towards an agreement on the use of Farrokh in the "Depictions of Persians" heading. Aminz suggesting using the following points:

1. For the filmmakers, portraying Iranians as monsters, troglodytes, degenerates, and demons is “artistic entertainment”, but other nationalities are exempt from this “art form” as this would be “tasteless and politically incorrect” and would be regarded as a “hate crime”. 2.As noted earlier in this commentary, viewers and media outlets (especially in the English-speaking world) are already interpreting much of the movie in a “historical” light.
3.The Greco-Persian wars evoke very intense emotions in northwest European culture, in some ways even more so than in modern-day Greece and Italy. The movie 300 has successfully capitalized on those very emotions in the quest for profit.

Arcayne suggested that these were not the strongest in Farrokh's article, and I suggested the following:

I would suggest that the most useful statements in the Farrokh article have to do with the military apparel and strategy of the Achaemenids. Since points to this effect have often come up here in talk, and we haven't found a way to include them in the article yet, I have suggested before (but good luck finding it in the archive) using Farrokh on this unless / until we could come up with a better source. This has to do quite literally with "the depiction of Persians." The following passage from Farrokh could be summarized: "The 300 movie displayed the equipment of the Spartans relatively well, considering that the producers were intent on reproducing the images of a comic book, leaving little room for consultation with modern scholarship. If the portrayal of the Greek side was adequate, that of “the Persians” was pure fantasy."

to which no one has yet replied.

Farrokh Pt. 3, above, has, I believe, reached substantial agreement (Aminz, the Behnam, myself) that Farrokh is not an ideal "scientific" source, and that he should not be used under "Historical accuracy," but rather, if anywhere, as a "Persian critic". Points that are made in Farrokh that may be useful to the article may also be found in other sources, of which Aminz helpfully provided a list.

I hope that presents an accurate statement of the present conversation. And I would respectfully submit that no one should insert a text on Farrokh, especially not the poorly-composed text that was first added under "historical accuracy" yesterday, until we reach agreement on this. --Javits2000 15:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice summary. The proposed summary to which no one had yet replied had gotten lost in all the other...stuff is okay with me. Correct me if I am wrong in assuming that when you say "Persian critic", you are using shorthand to denote that his remarks would be in the Depiction of Persians section. Arcayne 15:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, the phrase was used by Aminz in Pt. 3, above, and that's what I understood him to mean, but I don't want to put words in his mouth. --Javits2000 15:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Javits I have long accepted to keep that scholar there, even when his partisan background was to be hidden. I think it's a much wiser idea to describe him as a Persian critic. I reverted Behnam because his rv changed the edits on the lead again. I also agree that the Spartan society and mentality is accurately depicted, while the Persian equivalent is largely fictional, and so I agree to have this specified in the article. That might prevent the use of POV labels. However, not everything about the Persians is fictional. For example Herodotus explicitely mentions that the Persian army's inefficiency was largely the result of its being an "army of slaves", and that soldiers were "lead into battle with whips". Whether or not this claim is true is irrelevant, the point is that Frank Miller did not make it up. Maybe it deserves to be mentioned, it might enlighten some enraged, anti-western readers. Miskin 15:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Miskin, just to clarify, the previous dispute over the attribution of critics' nationalities concerned Daryaee, not Farrokh. Farrokh has never been included in this article (at least not for any longer than a few minutes). I would retain my previous position on the statement of nationality / ethnicity, and would not myself describe want to describe Farrokh in the article as a "Persian critic," but rather as an "independent scholar of Iranian military history."

That said, I think we are moving towards a consensus on use of Farrokh to make the point that, while an effort was made to accurately represent Spartan society and military tactics, the image of the Persian army is "largely fictional." But first I'ld like to hear from some of the other editors who have been involved in the ongoing discussion of Farrokh. --Javits2000 15:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been convinced that Farrokhe isn't a useful source to add, bc someone is going to say, "well, we added this bit about the costumes, why not add his opinions as well, as he is a Persian scholar, and just knows." However, with assurances that that sort of nonsense will be stopped with an almost OCD stringency, I am leaning towards allowing his statements in.
Under no circumstances do we play the ethnicity card here or anywhere with our critics they stand or fall on those academic or employment credentials which make them noteworthy enough to warrant inclusion of their commentary. We don't call them Persian critics or Persian cheerleaders, or Persian cats. Their academic titles, such as associate professor of Thinking Up Clever Things to Say at Dinner Parties, are all that should be used, as denoting them as Persian scholars is, at its core, OR. We are not "hiding" their ethnicity; we are simply precluding them for brevity's-sake as inconsequential. As for the mentioning of Herodotus' account, we have seen earlier in the Discussion (repeatedly, actually) that the nay-sayers are discounting the generally accepted Greek accounting of the BoT for Persian accounts of the same. therefore, I don't think comments of that nature will enlighten and will likley have the reverse effect. Arcayne 16:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree. You cannot bar information to be presented because you do not agree with it. And that is the truth. You do not agree wiht Farrokh's mode of discourse and do not want it to be included. All sorts of criticisms of Farrokh's article is provided, but not one policy or guideline to support your view. I propose that Arcayne be forbidden from archiving this talk page. He has prematurely archived, seperated, and prolonged this debate. Whether he did it in maliciously or not, is not important. Agha Nader 16:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Nader, if you had noticed, the discussion was trending toward including Farrokh before you wrote, so to whom you think you're responding, I have no idea. Your remarks about Arcayne, although concluding with an interesting example of praeteritio, constitute a digression in the present context, and are lacking in civililty. --Javits2000 16:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, Arcayne has prematurely archived, separated, and prolonged this debate. If you think I am being uncivil by proposing someone who has prematurely archived with negative results, from archiving, then I suggest you read WP:AGF. For your information, I was responding to user Arcayne. How can you not know that? I wrote my comment directly under his, and indented. Agha Nader 17:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Okay, I will correct you and your merry little band. The most recent archiving was done too soon - I admit that, and I should have waited longer. However, to assume that I did it on purpose actually sidesteps that whole AGF thing you seem to be wanting other people to read. You may find enjoyment and enlightenment in reviewing that particular policy yourself. And yes, it is uncivil to jump to the conclusion that someone who has archived this article on at least three prior occasions would suddenly archive to block continued discussion. In what world do you think that would stop you from commenting, or that I would think that as well? Please, use your noggin, good sir. That you place the sole responsibility for prolonging debate of this article on me is rather insulting - not to me, but to the other editors who are keen on keeping out POV edits, unsourced and unrelated material. Well, at least you aren't blaming me of sock-puppeting, which appears to be interesting sport amongst some of the more POV editors. Thanks for that small compliment, at least.

That I find little patience for proven POV editing is not against Wikipedia policy; while I choose to be perhaps a bit insulting of the POV nonsense and not at all sensitive to the frail post-Persian psyche, I would remind you and others that it is not my job at WP to make you feel better. You have mommies for that, and I am not your mommy. I edit for Wikipedia, and for all its problems, Wikipedia isn't for sale to any POV outside of the Five Pillars. You would do very well to remember that the next time you choose to make this personal.

Lastly, if someone wants to address comments made to me in my absence, they need neither my nor your permisson to do so. Javits2000 is an exceptionally conscientious editor, and hs been quite restrained, considering the nonsense he has had to endure. Rather than jumping on him for trying to educate you, you might simply take the time to learn, and say 'thank you very much sir'.

Here endeth the personal reply. Take from it what you will. Arcayne 05:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not assume bad faith, I assumed nothing. I stated "Whether he did it in maliciously or not, is not important." Although it is now evident you did it out of bad faith. This is because you have ranted and raged with personal attacks. This is not tolerated in Wikipedia. I will no comment on this issue any longer, but you should be banned from archiving this talk page. If for no reason other than the carelessness you exhibited. Agha Nader 03:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

I found it ironic that you claim I have a "merry little band". I have not assosiated with any other user here, and I haven't even shared their views. Furthermore, I don't even share their plans. It is you who has a list of "Interesting Wikipedians". I wonder, is not it a band of flattery? Agha Nader 03:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

More importantly, the issue remains: Why is it undue weight to include the Farrokh material. He does not have fringe views. In fact is not his view the view of many? The only argument that was provided that had to do with policy and guidelines was the undue weight clause, and no elaboration has been given. Agha Nader 03:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Perhaps you will find the question answered below, where you asked and were answered. If you feel I have unduly attacked you or the merry little band, please accept my apologies. You might find that AGF is a two-way street, Nader. ~~Stalking~~Intently checking out my User page and citing those users who I respect as an insinuation of something darker is by no known definition of the term, Assuming Good Faith. You might find that by not making personal attacks on your fellow editors or stalking their user pages, will eventually place yourself under less of a microscope.

Now, with that little bit of further clarification out of the way (which is to say I am done talking to you on this subject), perhaps you could instead re-focus your attention on the Farrokh article detractions, enumerated below. Try to make an effort to remain civil in this Discussion and please, make the effort to follow AGF. I think we're done here. Arcayne 03:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You must be kidding! You think I stalked your User page? How is referring to an abnormal aspect of your User page stalking? I just found the flattery list interesting, given that you accuse me of having a band. Please refrain from ill-considered accusations. Who is your User page for? I assumed it was for other editors. Tell me, is it some sort of diary? If so, I recommend adding a disclaimer to the top of your User page: "Stop! Do not read this User page. It may be considered stalking". Agha Nader 03:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Hmm, yes. I am feeling the warmth of all the AGF and Civility. Maybe you could return your focus back to the article, if that isn't too much to ask. Arcayne 03:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Miskin, I don't believe my edit restored anything to the lead. In fact, I don't recall taking part in the whole "semi-historical" debate at all. Also, are you confusing Daryaee and Farrokh here? It seems that way. Anyway, the current version using Daryaee represents that 'camp' just fine, so I don't see any good reason to include Farrokh without moving into undue weight. We could give him a sentence under the "depictions" section for the military portrayal (i.e. the sword length), though I question whether it is necessary to add even more to that section. We are trying to keep things short here, and we don't need to mention every criticism in the world. Agha Nader's inclusion was completely inappropriate anyway; POV projecting, weird linking, way too much coverage of Farrokh, etc. Still, I don't mind talking about this further but I'm not seeing very strong reasons to add him. Basically people just keep saying 'he is scholar' without addressing any of the other issues brought up here. So, his inclusion is completely unnecessary and amounts to placing undue weight on his views. The Behnam 16:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please elaborate on how it would be undue weight. If you keep saying it, it won't make it so. Agha Nader 05:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

You might find it easier to receive a response to your questions if you frame them at the end of the section rather than popping them into the middle, especially if you are not addressing commentary directed at yourself.

That said, it might be that the term "undue weight" might be unfamiliar with you, given the many different ways it is used in the language. what he is referring to is that, because of the unsupported statements that appear to be biased, it detracts from the strenght of his otherwise supportable, citable statements. Care needs to be taken that his pov bias is not included along with what might be utilized from the review so as to prevent pov from making it into the article. That very few of his statements introduce information that Daryaee has not already stated (with less bias) has been made clear by no less than 4 other editors on at least 3 prior occasions. To coin your phrase, just because you want his comments included "won't make it so". In the furute, you might also find it helpful to address other editors a tad more civilly than you have been. If you disagree with the explanations given, you may ask for further expansion on the explanations; however, ignoring and deriding these repeated efforts to accomodate your understanding make it less likely that someone will want to make the effort to assist you in understanding. I hope that clears matters up a bit for you. Arcayne 07:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

How can you "coin" my phrase? I am referring to your statement "To coin your phrase". If it is my phrase, I would be the one that coined it. Please explain what you meant. Agha Nader 04:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

I completely agree that the Farrokh article is POV. It has to be POV. That is what article's are, they are the point of view of the author. That is why it must be said, "According to Farrokh..." Obviously we wouldn't try to present Farrokh's view as fact. This is all irrelevant, because I wanted elaboration on why it is undue weight to include Farroks's information. Agha Nader 04:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Tell me, Oh "Interesting Wikipedian" (The Behnam), was what you were "referring to is that, because of the unsupported statements that appear to be biased, it detracts from the strenght (sic) of his otherwise supportable, citable (sic) statements" when you said it was undue weight to include Farrokh? Agha Nader 04:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Can I suggest that the Farrokh bit be left out temporarily while the discussion goes on? It seems that it would be better to withhold disputed content in the meantime, as to prevent revert-warring and potential 3RR violations. I don't want my suggestion to be miscontrued as opposition to including the statement, but the talk page's discussions make it clear that the argument will go on. I haven't quite been involved with these discussions, so I hope my suggestion is objective enough for the short term. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That is a good idea. Also it might be noted that ghandchi.com is a personal website (for Sam Ghandchi) that appears to be a soapbox for "Iran Futurists", whatever fringe view that may be. The Behnam 16:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There's an alternative link at Payvand.com that doesn't seem to be a personal website. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That would then be a better source to use, if we are to use this. The Behnam 16:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just noticed that Payvand.com drew Farrokh's content from the source in question, so I don't know if that makes a difference. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll note that at present we've moved backward; a vague ("the notion of human rights and democracy," etc.), POV-worded ("criticizes the movie for its many distortions"), inaccurate (Farrokh is not an expert in Greek history) text has been inserted, that no one here has supported besides the editor who added it. This is not a satisfactory conclusion. I've removed the same text twice before, so I'm not going to do it again, but I would suggest that its repeated insertion by Agha Nader despite the patient and well-reasoned arguments of multiple other editors constitutes an act of bad faith. That said, I'll leave this discussion alone until after the Absacker -- or, for all intents and purposes, until tomorrow morning. --Javits2000 17:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

(Last call for alcohol), in other words - using my rusty German language skills. Arcayne 05:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

POV-check

Regarding the following edit:

Controversy arose over its depiction of the ancient Persians as barbaric, demonic hordes, and the Persian King Xerxes as androgynous.

How come a POV characterization is presented as something factual? Did I miss some major film-critic consensus which concluded that the film presents Persians "barbaric" and "demonic hordes"? What about the Spartans at home, ruled by corrupted politicians and perverted, monstrous, old charlatans? What about the non-Spartan Greeks who are represented as cowards and weaklings? How come none of this is mentioned in the lead, whereas emphasis is put on the physical appearence of the Persians? Maybe it's because some people put different utility on the various "artistic elements" of the movie. Miskin 01:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, my POV is that Farrokh's interpretations are a load of rubbish. Anyone who thinks that this movie has political implications is chatting plain old rubbish. Farrokh's claims sound a little _too_ silly, it's as if he doesn't even acknowledge that the movie was an adaptation of an old comic and he blames it on Zach Snyder. Such silly interpretations are basically the result of ignorance about Frank Miller's work. Anyone who fails to see the common elements between the caracters of Leonidas, Hartigan and Marv, is completely missing Frank Miller's moral, and is therefore making crap interpretations of the corresponding films. As I implied above, the movie (or rather the graphic novel) does not aim to belittle the Persians, but it does try to explicitely emphasise the personae of Leonidas and the 300. In order to achieve this, the author belittles and "corrupts" everything related to Leonidas and the 300, including Persians, Spartans and Greeks. Until this fact has been acknowledged, you'll never succeed on on making a neutral article. I'm not expecting form the Asian and Iranian editors to reach such levels of neutrality, but I do expect more from the non-partisan editors. Miskin 01:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that the sentence may be POV projection, I believe Aminz changed it in an attempt to reflect the article's contents. Before it mentioned Greeks but no section of the article talked about their inaccuracy of depiction. I think we should add sources that discussed the inaccurate depiction of Greeks, then reflect this in the lead. The Behnam 01:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

How come this article has to be based on a harsh and POV criticism on the alleged historical inaccuracy of the film? This practice is not followed by any similar article I've come across, don't you find it weird that we make the exception here? The film never claimed to be a documentary, yet if we pile all everything which is historically accurate versus inaccurate you'll be very surprised by the result. It's just ridiculously one-sided to list all "historical errors" and neglect the historical truths. Either remove all historical criticism (which I find the wiser thing to do) or mention the historical accuracies. I cannot perceive that a purely historical fantasy film like "The Patriot" is actually focusing the "accuracies" side while neglecting the Mel-Gibson element. Miskin 01:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

While I feel strongly that this article has devoted far too much time on assuaging the tender feelings of the minority, I do feel that mention of the controversy does need to be made. How often does a government leader speak out on a semi-historical action film? I imagine not all that often, and therefore it is noteworthy. That said, it's relative value to the article needs to be properly evaluated and - to my mind - trimmed drastically. Certainly, this sort of reaction didn't come from Braveheart, or South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut.
I don't think the criticism in the article thus far has been too harsh, and that is due to editors ensuring that the really off-topic edits and sources have been screened out via group evaluation. Is there POV influence on the article? Of course. There is no way that is going to be avoided when a film pokes fun at the desperately cherished figures from Persian history. However, what can be avoided is allowing that pov (and it needs to be said here that the POV is mainly seens as coming from those interested in either overpowering the article with positive influences of Persians or failing that, diminishing the article's capability to ever make it to FA status) edits do not influence the article. Clearly, the pro-Persian/anti-300 feel that they are on the defensive (why else would someone accuse a good faith archiving of being a sinister act of "hiding" conversations). I don't know how to alleviate these concerns, or that they even warrant addressing. So many editors have already stated that the film is just a film. It isn't Triumph of the Will or The Eternal Jew or some propaganda plot of the US military or zionist conspiracy. It's a movie. Based on a comic book. Yet, however many times this clarification is repeated, the persons seeking a different POV than neutrality choose to ignore this and press on. It is little wonder that the article is destabilized.
I think it's time folks started finding some consensus, instead of arguing their little hearts out over The Unfairness Of It All^tm. All it does is waste time. Arcayne 03:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this article should represents all POV not some of them. We can say x believes/claims this one and y x believes/claims that one.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, Sa. Could you explain that a bit clearer, please? Arcayne 06:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As To Miskin's first point: I agree that that sentence in the lead is POV, and should be switched back to its previous version. There are some remarks about the inaccurate depiction of Greek society in the article, so if you stretch "depiction" to mean more than costumes, etc., it worked just fine.

As to Miskin's second point: we are obliged (that is, if we want to write a good article) to document the reception of the film, and as that discourse has focused to a certain degree on issues of historical accuracy, then we are obliged to document that as well. Before the most recent flurry over Farrokh we were discussing a proposal to trim the redundancies from the "Reception" section, and I'm confident we'll be able to return to that. I agree that it would be "ridiculously one-sided to list all "historical errors" and neglect the historical truths"; but as the article at present includes two historians who praise the film (Cartledge and Hanson) and two who find it objectionable (Lytle and Daryaee), I think we have achieved a good balance. --Javits2000 09:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but once again - if something does come along that more succintly puts into words views pro or con better than the four we have, bring it here and we can shiny it all up before we replace one of them. Make no mistake, for a new one to come in, something else should go, to preserve article size. Arcayne 09:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Lead Statement

User:Sa.vakilian has offered the following alternative to the existing lead paragraph:

300 is a 2007 film adaptation of the graphic novel 300 by Frank Miller, itself partly inspired by another film, The 300 Spartans,^[1] and is an . The film is directed by Zack Snyder with Frank Miller attached as an executive producer and consultant, and was shot mostly with bluescreen to duplicate the imagery of the original comic book. However while some recognized it as a semi-historical account of the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC^{[citation needed]} others believe it is highly stylized and imaginary representation of that story.300 Spartans, The Real Story! A Historically Accurate Review on 300, The Movie (2007)300 Lost Opportunities To Do Something Different[ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/08/AR2007030802188.html?nav=hcmodule '300': A Losing Battle in More Ways Than 1]

which would replace:
300 is a 2007 film adaptation of the graphic novel 300 by Frank Miller, itself partly inspired by another film, The 300 Spartans,^[2] and is a semi-historical account of the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC. The film is directed by Zack Snyder with Frank Miller attached as an executive producer and consultant, and was shot mostly with bluescreen to duplicate the imagery of the original comic book.

Ignore the misuse of the word crystallized. I think he meant stylized. -Arcayne 06:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like an attempt to shoehorn in some more links to criticisms of the film, and in the lead, at that. The lead, in fact, should probably not have any footnotes at all, and this might be the time to suggest again that we remove the line about the 300 Spartans. --Javits2000 09:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, and I don't recall any other people objecting to it, either. I'll remove the 300 Spartans bit tomorrow afternoon, giving folks some time to pipe up if there's some issue with its removal. It belongs better in the GN article anyway. Arcayne 09:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

There is completely 2 POV. I'd put POV tag on the article if you removed just one them. This is another reason to pot POV check until we achieve consensus. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 12:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

These are 2 viewpoints: However while some recognized it as a semi-historical account of the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC others believe it is highly stylized and imaginary representation of that story.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 13:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with 'highly stylized'? It isn't saying anything much different. To have a neutrality tag on an article over that is definitely akin to WP:LAME. The Behnam 14:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, actually it's both Highly Stylized and Semi-Historical, the two aren't mutually exclusive. Something can have style and substance... LilDice 14:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What's your proposal?--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 16:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"a stylized, semi-historical.." how's that wording? LilDice 16:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"A stylized, semi-historical.." is the same as saying "semi-historical". The whole disagreement is over the term "semi-historical" which implies that this movie is somhow a historical account of a historical event, when the movies' producers have explicitly stated that it's a fictional account of a historical event. --Mardavich 16:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that 'fictional' is just as correct. Maybe we could say something about 'semi-historical fiction' as sort of a subtype of 'historical fiction', but against 'fictional' is completely true. The Behnam 17:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

fiction is what it is, "semi historical" gives the reader the feeling that it is at least half historical while it is not. it is fiction and should be labeled as one. Gol 19:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It's based on a historical event, thus it is not 100% fiction. Are you sure you're not trying to push your own POV? I notice that you edit Iranian and Persian articles. Please verify that your suggestion is not a conflict of interest. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that nobody can agree what "semi-historical" actually means, and as I haven't been able to find it in a dictionary (checked Webster & the OED) I'm not sure there's any way to settle the dispute. So here's a thought -- either somebody finds a dictionary of definition of "semi-historical," and we decide whether it is or not, or otherwise we call the thing "highly stylized." In my opinion the two terms mean almost exactly the same thing, so we're really just wasting kilobytes with this nonsense. --Javits2000 19:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't care less. It's nitpicking. The article doesn't pride itself on historical accuracy at all; that much is reflected in the Reception section. If anything, let's make it straightforward. "Semi-historical" isn't a dictionary term, and "highly stylized" isn't clear. It's a fictional account of a historical event. It's that simple. Does anyone have an issue with that, or do we need to persist with this debacle? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. Somehow in the article itself it's turned into a "fantasy depiction," and as "fantasy" isn't even an adjective, that can't stand. For the time being I'm editing to "account of," which is as neutral as it gets. Either that or "100% accurate historical recreation of," I haven't decided yet.... ;) --Javits2000 20:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Historical fiction is fine for me, there is no 50/50 requirement for historical fiction or a fictional account of a historical event as Gol suggests. LilDice 20:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have always understood the term semi-historical to mean historical fiction. That is, a fictional account of historical events or time period told from an omniscient or specific point of view. Stylized however has always played to the appearance or presentation of the film, rather than the telling of the events in the story. "An account of" is very neutral, but you'd have to be careful that no one reads too much into that and thinks that it's say, an account of one of the soldiers that was there. Maybe just call it "a fictionalized account of the historic battle of Thermopylae"? This would both room for the film's creative license without denying that the battle occurred. Hewinsj 23:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we say it is a free adaptation of the Battle of Thermopylae?(Shahingohar 06:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC))

How about this:

300 is a 2007 film adaptation of the graphic novel 300 by Frank Miller and is a fictional retelling of the history of the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC.

That should give "Quisque pro omnibus" - something for everyone. As well as adapting a new lead statement addressing all the back-and-forth, I've removed the reference to the 300 Spartans, which I recall a few people commented didn't need inclusion. -Arcayne 15:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

POV template

I notice that User:Sa.vakilian has placed a Wikipedia:POV check template at the head of the article, without offering any reasons here on talk. I personally feel it's inappropriate, and I encourage other editors to read the WP page on its use. I would note in particular the following passages: "the POV check template is not for disputes" and "the POV check template cannot be used to brand articles as non-neutral without a justification." --Javits2000 11:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Pull it until/unless we get some feedback on why it was thought imperative to have it? Arcayne 12:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

My dear friend, if you notice to this talk page you'll find a debate about this issue just few lines above. (POV check)--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 12:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Which debate? Miskin's remark about the last sentence of the lead, or your proposed lead? I'm guessing the answer might lie in your comment above, "There is completely 2 POV. I'd put POV tag on the article if you removed just one them. This is another reason to pot POV check until we achieve consensus" -- but as that's not intelligible English, I have no idea what the issue is. In either case, I'm agreeing with the Behnam, definitely WP:LAME. --Javits2000 19:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotect

BTW, when that admin protected and then unprotected the article a few days ago, he didn't restore the semi-protect we'd had before, and now were getting socked with a lot of nonsense from anonymous IPs. Would anyone be opposed to requesting semi-protect again? --Javits2000 09:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Christ, no. The admin's reasoning for the unprotect (in the edit summary) was "unprotecting in the hope editors will take the runaway truck ramp before things go too far downhill," so it wasn't an oversight. I think it was a premature move, and we definitely need some help, especially since we don't have to worry about maintaining GA status anymore. María: (habla conmigo) 12:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I've requested it before from the editor who removed it after being requested to visit the article by Mardavich - they both have interests in the same sorts of articles. Apparenlty, I'm not the only one who asked for the semi-protect. When I didn't hear back, I asked another editor, but still no response. For the 3rd most visited article in WP, we seem to be getting ignored, as requests go. Arcayne 14:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've placed a request at WP:RFP.--Javits2000 19:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Now semi-protected. Rock. María: (habla conmigo) 20:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Foreign language refs

We now have three references that are in languages other than English: one Turkish, one Uzbek, and one Russian, all of which are from the Depiction of Persians section to clarify which Iranian Iranian embassies (France, Thailand, Turkey and Uzbekistan) protested screening of the movie. Because this is the English Wikipedia, English references and links are strongly preferred. I've asked the individual who added Turkey (with a Turkish ref) to provide an English link if possible, and I've received no response so far. So the question is, can we find English sources, as per Wikipedia:Attribution#Language? María: (habla conmigo) 12:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

More to the point is whether it matters that the Iranian Ambassador to Uzbekistan is unhappy with this film. Short answer: no.--Javits2000 19:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I agree. I didn't want to revert two separate users, although it's obvious they just wanted to have their respective countries included in a long list of countries who hate this movie like whoa. I think it's akin to listing the dates of release in the infobox; people wonder, why not include Fiji? So, why include Thailand in this section and not Turkey, Russia, Guam, the Faulkland Islands, etc? If we name two, do we have to name the rest? Must we have any mention of it whatsoever? Gah. María: (habla conmigo) 20:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Article on why the Spartans were made heterosexual for the movie

Hi, I would like to link to an article about this film that discusses the economic reasons the historically homosexual Spartans were made heterosexual for the graphic novel and movie [but focusing on the movie]. The article argues that since the primary audience for the film is males 14-25, the makers have to find a way to make the film NOT GAY, or risk losing their audience. It then discusses some of the methods the movie uses to do that [comment on homosexual Athenians, heterosexual sex scenes, copious breast shots...]. Here it is: [4] See what you think. Scott / Cinema de Merde 204.95.152.66 19:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for not inserting the link into the article. This would have constituted a conflict of interest, since you profess to be part of the site. Also, I'm not sure if the source is considered reliable. Per WP:ATT, "A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process or with a poor reputation for fact-checking." Also, if you published this yourself, WP:ATT also says, "A self-published source is material that has been published by the author, or whose publisher is a vanity press, a web-hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight... With self-published sources, no one stands between the author and publication; the material may not be subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review." It's my stance that the link shouldn't be included, but other editors are welcome to share their opinion. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I was going to say precisely the same thing, but you beat me to it, Erik.lol. Seriously though, I was going to address the COI thing as well. While the website is interesting, the reviews are very much like blog entries, as they aren't published reviews (leading to the problems that the editor described above). Arcayne 19:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, from a quick skim it seems well-written and interesting, but I would decline to include a link for the same reasons stated above. But thanks for coming to talk & not posting direct to the page --Javits2000 19:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, it's Scott. I see what you are saying about the COI issue and the fact checking... I consider the piece to be more interpretation than information, and I don't see anything else on the page addressing the aspects of sexuality of the film: that while the Ancient Greeks were known to live in a society that valued homosexuality, the Spartans in this film are all very devoted heterosexuals. This is an aspect of the film that seems to just slide by without any discussion at all. I thought it was worth considering for those interested in the film, but perhaps Wiki is not the place for it. Thanks.

204.95.152.66 20:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Lead, Take II

(brought forward from Proposed Lead Statement, where I imagine it would have languised amidst the very weight of commentary beforehand)

How about this:

300 is a 2007 film adaptation of the graphic novel 300 by Frank Miller and is a fictional retelling of the history of the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC.

That should give "Quisque pro omnibus" - something for everyone. As well as adapting a new lead statement addressing all the back-and-forth, I've removed the reference to the 300 Spartans, which I recall a few people commented didn't need inclusion. Arcayne 19:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Although diplomatic, it's awkward: "fictional retelling of the Battle..." would be better prose, but I see your point, it might not appeal to the pro-"historical" crowd. I think this points to a more general problem -- accomodating multiple points of view in the article as a whole is relatively easy, but trying to summarize them in the lead is a pain. But here's another suggestion:

300 is a 2007 film adaptation of the graphic novel 300 by Frank Miller, a work of historical fiction about the Battle of Thermopylae.

BTW, in that version I've also cut the date, which seems unnecessary as long as the battle is wiki-linked. --Javits2000 19:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that's the best one I've read. It tells us that this is a film, what it's based on, and puts the responsibility for the content on the source material without leaving out what the film is about. Nice job. Hewinsj 21:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Javits wins! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LilDice (talk • contribs) 00:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

I just have question. "Historical fiction" is redirected to "Historical novel". Can a comic be considered a novel?(Shahingohar 01:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC))

Technically it's a graphic novel and not a comic, so I'll say yes. María: (habla conmigo) 01:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I like Maria's alternative. Does this affect the additional descriptive of historical fantasy? Arcayne 02:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No need to link to this article. It's all opinion and not encyclopedic in any way. Off point, when Leonidas says "boy-lovers" I think you could interpret that as meaning the Athenians are attracted to weak fragile things, whereas the Spartans admire strength and verility. There is no implicit homosexual activiity between the Spartans but I wouldn't say there aren't overtones of "guy-love" in the battle scenes. Just a thought SkullyD

"fictional account"

Why do some people keep restoring that? Using some guy's statement from Warner Bros in order to label this movie a "fictional account" is a rather desperate thing to do. What about Snyder's statements on a 90% accuracy? Some editors are being selective in their sourcing. I think "Semi-historical" is somewhere in the middle of those two statements. There's already the POV about "historical fantasy", let's not just take this over the top. Next step would be to label the film as an "adaptation from Greek mythology". Miskin 01:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Miskin, how would you feel about the phrasing proposed above ("Proposed Lead, Take II")? --Javits2000 01:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

And btw, this page needs to be archived. Miskin 01:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Snyder's statement is biased. Agha Nader 01:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

And? He's the director. María: (habla conmigo) 01:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

According to Will '300' controversy result in higher ticket sales?, "The movie creators maintain it's a fictional account based loosely on facts." Khoi khoi 01:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Khoikhoi read also the section "historical accuracy", which also comes with a source. Now see Agha's argumentation above and make your own conclusions. Miskin 01:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Javits2000, I find that "fictional retelling" gives undue weigh to the fictional elements and neglets the numerous historical elements that the movie represents accurately. In other words it's not too different from simply "fictional". This wording is unfair in comparison to how other similar film articles are treated. I don't see why the English wikipedia needs to constantly compromise with the caprices of the extremist crowds. It is already mentioned that the movie falls under historical fantasy few lines below, although this is a blatant personal view. We have included an entire section on how the Islamic "Republic" of Iran have "condemned" the film, plus the comments of a bunch of muslim scholars as if they were non-partisans. What more do they want? To delete the article? Miskin 01:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Even the studio Warner Bros. (whose quote I have repeated here before, which you and others like Arcayne ignored) has stated in its press releases that the film is "pure fiction". Give it up already and stop pushing POV. The film is fictional. Period. Khorshid 02:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What about Zach Snyder's comments? Are we going to consider Warner Bros' diplomatic statements over the director's sincere opinion (which btw cites historians)? So much for my "POV-pushing", what an irony. Miskin 02:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is this WP:LAME still going on? Semi-historical and historical fiction are subsets of "fiction" and so "fictional" is the best general description. Does anyone here disagree that it is a 'fictional' story? For those who want to specify with 'historical' or other controversial descriptions, please consider that the historical aspects are implied by the subsequent mention of the Battle of Thermopylae, and so it isn't necessary to make this specification. Besides, its similarity to history really isn't comparable to, say, a Charles Dickens book anyway, so I completely understand why people contest the 'historical fiction' description for this movie. Let's all just agree that it is 'fictional' and state it as so, rather than having a lame edit war over a unnecessary specification. The Behnam 02:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the phrasing is fine. The story was written by a comic book artist, and the article already explains the subjective nature of the storyteller's perspective. The events did take place, but the creative licensing is reflected just fine. Is it really such a travesty? There are many ways to explain the nature of 300, and no one's going to all agree on them (as was just demonstrated). I suggest to just leave it. If anything, 300 (comic book) should be fleshed out to explain in full the background of how Frank Miller took the actual historical event and transformed it into 300. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, blatantly personal view? Perhaps you might accurately depict how the film does not meet the criteria for historical fantasy. I am certainly not a part of the pro-nationalist editing team, and I think the descriptor is accurate. How this film differs from Troy, Alexander, Braveheart or the 300 Spartans is that none of the aforementioned introduce otherworldly components to their films, such as 9' giants, leprous priests and mummy-faced attackers. That the film is based upon a historical event is immaterial. The fantasy elements are within the fictional elements - amidst the portrayal of a bald Xerxes and the various conversations and the entire Gorgo subplot. They shouldn't be confused with being the same thing. Arcayne 02:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, I said I have already swallowed that one, but I'm not intending to do the same about the lead, especially after witnessing the partisan crowd's disruptive editing. They're trying to win this over by edit-warring, very unorthodox. My last edit added the neutral "based on", I bet Behnam didn't even check the diff before reverting. He couldn't even waste one minute in order to reach a consensus and consider other people's opinions in discussion. Which phrasing were you referring to Eric? Miskin 02:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The phrasing before your removal. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

All I see yet is more POV argumenation, nobody actually considers the alternative view, i.e. Snyder's comemnt. Check out the answers I've received so far form the partisan crowd: "Snyder is biased", "it's fictional - period", accompanied by rv-warring. Is this how edits are done? At least Arcayne is using actual wp procedures. So how about leaving it blank? There's no need to label the film with something. Consider my last edit that Benham reverted in a blind manner. To merely state that the film is "based on the Battle of Thermopylae". Miskin 02:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What Snyder said was that the visualization was crazy, and it seems that the protests have a lot to do with how the Greeks' enemies were portrayed. This is already explained with the creative licensing and the storytelling angle. The events themselves are not disputed so much. What phrasing would you prefer? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Since "semi-historical" is disputed, I suggest the older and only neutral phrasing:

300 is a 2007 film adaptation of the graphic novel 300 by Frank Miller, itself partly inspired by another film, The 300 Spartans, and is based on the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC

or:

300 is a 2007 film adaptation of the graphic novel 300 by Frank Miller, itself partly inspired by another film, The 300 Spartans.

No labels. You've witnessed one party doing its best in order to pass their POV, and another party proposing to simply remove all POVs. Which approach does it seem more neutral to you? Miskin 03:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

And no Arcayne, I had sincerely never thought of those priests and mummy-faced attackers as anything but deformed individuals. In fact I didn't get the impression of seeing supernatural things in that movie - I knew already that none was in the graphic novel. I'm sure that different viewers share my view or yours, but I don't see why wikipedia should regard yours as factual by promoting the historical fantasy and "fiction" statements. Miskin 02:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Miskin, please answer yes or no: is the movie fiction? By the way, 90% non-fiction still means the movie is fictional, because it certainly couldn't be called non-fiction is 10% is made up. The Behnam 03:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Miskin, considering that it has been sufficiently well proven that the film makers and the studio have stated quite clearly that the film is fiction - do you get this or what? - the fact that you continue to edit war over this issue proves that you are intent on pushing a very bizarre POV, by claiming a fantasy movie with monsters and mutated creatures and a feminine Xerxes and buffed Spartans wearing no body armour as "semi-historical". What a joke! LOL Khorshid 03:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the quote from Warner Bros. again (which is included in the article as well): Read this carefully: "The film 300 is a work of fiction inspired by the Frank Miller graphic novel and loosely based on a historical event. The studio developed this film purely as a fictional work with the sole purpose of entertaining audiences; it is not meant to disparage an ethnicity or culture or make any sort of political statement." [5] Khorshid 03:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Got it. However, there are two major flaws with your argument, Khorshid (and I am not talking about reinstating the bold, shouty text or the lack of civility displayed to Miskin):

While Warner Bros are a very large movie company, I don't think anyone in their marketing department is speaking as a historian; ie. they don't get paid to teach and discuss history. We have comments from actual academic historians arguing the historical (and non-historical) merits of the film.
As well, you might be arguing without cause. In two sections above this one, Maria (aka Yllosubmarine) suggested an altered Lead that seems quite suitable to everyone. Perhaps you can take a moment to look at that after revisiting WP:Civil and WP:AGF.

And I am the one who initially un-boldened your text (without altering the text of course) to make it less like a shouted personal attack, and more like an observation. That you reinstated it out of hand implies that that perhaps you might wish to take a break and cool down. Arcayne 04:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Butler called the movie a mythological presentation of the battle tonight on Jay Leno. It seems to me that each person has a different view regarding this matter, even the ones who made it. I think we should call it a “fictionally stylized adaptation of the historic battle of Thermopylae that took place in 480 BC” Klymen 07:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll have to see if I can find that interview somewhere. As far as rewrites go, I still like Javits2000's from the section above this one. Fictional and stylized are two different things. You could say heavially stylized, which would indicate that there was alot of artistic liberty taken with it or that it is a fictional adaptation, but the two terms do not mesh. The reason I like the other quote is that it's a well structured sentence that mentions that the film is basaed on the book, which itself is historical fiction. Whether there is historical truth in the film becomes arbetrary, because first and foremost 300 is a faithful representation of the book. Hewinsj 13:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll post it once more, since it's been buried in all the mudslinging:

300 is a 2007 film adaptation of the graphic novel 300 by Frank Miller, a work of historical fiction about the Battle of Thermopylae.

Responses thus far to this proposed edit: Hewinsj and LilDice approve. Shahingohar wonders if "historical fiction," which redirects to "historical novel" is appropriate for a comic book; Maria points out that Miller's work is in fact a "graphic novel." These responses suggest to me that we are closer to achieving consensus around this version than around any other. And as soon as we settle this, we can shrug off this (unwarranted) full-protect and get back to improving the article. --Javits2000 15:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I approve as well. Arcayne 16:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering if historical novel and historical fiction should be reversed. As it stands historical novel seems to indicate that all historical fiction has to be presented in novel form, rather than say short stories, plays, films, ect. It looks like a user did a merge/redirect here without going through the normal merger process, and now historical novel is above the catagory of literature that it falls into. Hewinsj 19:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's strange -- in fact there seems to be no entry for "historical fiction" in general. But as the work in question is a "graphic novel," I think "historical novel" is suitable.--Javits2000 09:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The director of 300 will inherently be biased towards his film. Of course he will say the movie is 90%, he has a COI. He wants to sell more movie tickets. It is similar to using an autobiography as a source for a biography article. The lead should definitely say something to the effect of "fictional depiction" of the battle. I think this point has already been brought up, but say it is a depiction of a historic battle implies it is based on that battle. Agha Nader 00:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Just so I am clear, Nader, what you are concerned about is that people seeing this movie (or reading the article) will think that it is a true representation of how events actually transpired? Arcayne 03:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

We must present an article that is factual. Saying it is a Semi-historic is misleading, given the evidence provided by Khorshid and myself.--Agha Nader 04:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Okay, now I understand your concern. If I could impose further, could you please reiterate the information that you say supports your statement that the matter is not semi-historical but instead fiction. Also, how are you defining semi-historical and historical fiction? I do want to understand your view better. Arcayne 04:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read Khorshid's comment above (I am referring to the one that was adulterated), it says "The studio developed this film purely as a fictional work with the sole purpose of entertaining audiences; it is not meant to disparage an ethnicity or culture or make any sort of political statement." [6]" --Agha Nader 04:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Okay. Just to confirm, you are basing the sole reasoning that the film is a fiction based upon the statements of Waner Bros. Is that correct? If not, could you please provide more information that supports this position? Arcayne 04:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I base it off not only Warner Bros. (which is irrefutable evidence), but also of many critics. So you can see the past discussion for more information. If you insist I will copy and paste. But please, lets discuss the evidence that has been provided (i.e. Warner Bros.'s statement.--Agha Nader 05:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Nader, I think that before you started this new thread (see directly above your post beginning "the director of 300") we were discussing a compromise which makes the contradictory statements of studio and director moot, by shifting attention to the status of the film as a faithful adaptation of a historical novel. Would you mind weighing in on this? As it stands, further rehasing of the "semi-historical / fictional" dichotomy represents a step backward. --Javits2000 09:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it will be easier to understand your position more clearly if you put all your cards on the table, so we can look at everything all at once. That way, it doesn't go on and on. I am sorry if it would be a bother to cut and paste, but it would help. I would gladly assist you, if I knew what other statements you are inferring. tell you what, why don't we put a new header below, and put this evidence that you say is irrefutable in it, maybe even numbering it. so if people have questions about it, they can just refer to the number? I think this will help clarify your position to everyone, so pov-editing will be harder to claim. Let's just put it all out there. Sound good? Arcayne 05:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Article protected

I have protected the article again. The edit warring is has not been non-stop, but it's become enough of a problem here to warrant a cool-down period. Please try to settle the issues at hand here as soon as possible. When the protection expires, it will return to no protection. If you feel semi-protection is still needed then, go to WP:RPP to make the appropriate request. -- tariqabjotu 02:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit

{{editprotected}} Can an admin add a citation tag to the end of the first paragraph? It doesn't reference anywhere that the film has been criticized for its depiction of the ancient world. ^Talk User:Fissionfox 12:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please wait until the protection is lifted, and then you will be able to add the fact tag yourself. CMummert · talk 12:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's already in the lead section. That's the last sentence of the third paragraph, which discusses how the film was received. It doesn't belong in the first paragraph because it wouldn't fit with what is being discussed there. Hewinsj 13:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Fact and fiction

How confused the Greeks would have been about this whole argument... (not to mention the absurd idea of democracy being applied to knowledge gathering, but I digress) If anything this film tells the story in the closest possible modern generic style in the spirit of ancient story-telling. Why does it matter? Let them call it fiction, wholly fiction, mostly fiction, semi-fictional fiction... If it helps people with their lives, sure: let them go tell the Spartans... Jgda 07:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Who are you referring to when you say 'them', Jgda? Arcayne 08:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Pick a Numbah, Any Numbah

Here are the current choices brought up in various sections over the past week or so. One of these could replace the current phrase in contention. Note that the authors are not listed, as each choice has been worked out by consensus of one group or another

1. 300 is a 2007 film adaptation of the graphic novel 300 by Frank Miller, a work of historical fiction about the Battle of Thermopylae.

2. 300 is a 2007 film adaptation of the graphic novel 300 by Frank Miller and is a fictional retelling of the history of the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC.

3. 300 is a 2007 film adaptation of the graphic novel 300 by Frank Miller, itself partly inspired by another film, The 300 Spartans, and is based on the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC

4. 300 is a 2007 film adaptation of the graphic novel 300 by Frank Miller, based upon the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC

5. 300 is a 2007 film adaptation of the graphic novel 300 by Frank Miller, itself partly inspired by another film, The 300 Spartans.

6. 300 is a 2007 film adaptation of the graphic novel 300 by Frank Miller.

7. 300 is a 2007 film adaptation of the graphic novel 300 by Frank Miller, itself partly inspired by another film, The 300 Spartans' and is a fictional account of the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC.

Arcayne 11:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this; I've removed one exact duplicate from the list above and fixed the numbers. My personal preference is for No. 1; I'm not terribly happy with 3 or 4, simply because I would rather remove the reference to the 300 Spartans. (If I understand correctly, the story is that Miller saw the film as a kid and that was the origin of his interest in the battle; but that's more psychobiography than a crucial bit of information). So either 1 or 2 would be fine with me.--Javits2000 10:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you want, I've added the last two w/out the 60's movie reference, fixing the grammar with the removal (indicated by ital.) Arcayne 11:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I find 1, 2, 4, and 6 all to be perfectly acceptable; 1 is my personal preference. But I frankly haven't cared much one way or the other throughout this whole discussion, so I'ld like to hear from the editors who have strong opinions on the subject, which of these options would be acceptable. --Javits2000 12:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Tough choice. I wouldn't argue if either of the first two were picked, but I'll go with #1. I'd also move the 300 spartans reference to the graphic novel's article if that was the case. Hewinsj 12:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be fine with either #1 or #2, but #1 bothers me in the sense that the film is being tied specifically into that category. Doesn't seem inappropriate, but I've no idea on the emphasis on the historical or fictional natures of that genre. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 12:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I also prefer #1, since its context seems to emphasize that the graphic novel is a work of historical fiction, and not just the film that was adapted from it. I also don't miss the 300 Spartans ref. However, I would prefer to keep the year of the battle somewhere in the article, whether it be in the lead or whatever. It's not mentioned anywhere else, which may be confusing as for the setting. María: (habla conmigo) 13:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

1 ftw. LilDice 17:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so far, we have five votes for statement example #1, and a bunch of mebbe's for the others (#2 being the second likely choice). Would anyone else like to weigh in? Arcayne 20:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I couldn't reply earlier. I'm in favour of 3, 4, 5 and 6, and strongly against 1 and 2. A "fictional account" of the Battle of Thermopylae could even imply that Leonidas or even the battle itself were a work of fiction. I feel that the "fictional" claim remains unsourced and that the Warner Bros "statement" is a red herring. Despite what the relative majority may decide, options 3, 4, 5 are unarguably the most neutral of all. Miskin 23:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "fictional account" appears in none of the proposals above; in any case, all are linked to the historical entry on Thermopylae, in which the historical Leonidas figures prominently. I honestly don't think there's any danger of confusion. --Javits2000 00:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favour of your proposal too Javits. Now I understand better where you're coming from. Miskin 00:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The current wording is beter than any of the options here. --Mardavich 04:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the user is correct in that we should also have as a choice the statments already in place, despite that they have been unreasonable enough to foment weeks of arguing. It might be why there hasn't been enough response thus far. It is included at the end of the choices. -Arcayne 04:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And this vote is not a legitimate survey since User:Arcayne is a party to the dispute and he's cherry picked the options himself. --Mardavich 04:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This sort of remark is the Wikipedia equivalent of the opposition party who refuses to back the elections, preferring to go on fighting in the country-side. Not to mention that there's no possibility of corruption here, since changing the options would have been as simple as hitting the edit button. --Javits2000 11:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The options weren't "cherry-picked", my fine young gentleman. They were the only ones there, as little of the weeks-long bickering actually led to alternative statments. If I've missed some, it was certainly not intentional. As well, I certainly don't have to remind you to maintain civility when talking to or about other editors., AGF, please. Arcayne 04:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You should watch for civility Arcayne. I don't like your tone or how you address me as "my fine young gentleman". This is not how consensus is reached, by forcing people to vote options that are favorable to your position, and you have cherry picked. --Mardavich 04:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for the assumption that you were either fine, young or a man. I will endeavor to keep that in mind with future edits. It wasn't meant uncivilly; what might be seenas uncivil is your accusation that a fellow editor fabricated or manipulated the available choices. Is that what you are suggesting? I think it would be important to phrase your response carefully, as you wnt to remember AGF. My position is NPOV. -Arcayne 04:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You made yet another personal attack by saying "My apologies for the assumption that you were either fine, young or a man". I am now seriously considering opening a RFC on your uncivil behavior and disruptive editing pattern on this page. And stop your harassment with putting baseless warnings on my talk page trying to intimidate me. Let me repeat it again, this survey has no legitimacy, for reasons I have already stated. If you want a real consensus survey, you have to start it all over again, in a neutral fashion, allowing users to propose their own wording instead of cherry-picking it for them. --Mardavich 04:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And as I stated below, including a new option just now (#7), after several people have already voted on options you had cherry-picked, makes little or no difference. The whole process is flawed, that's not how you achieve consensus. --Mardavich 04:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point in that you think that, because in an oversight of not including the existing statement which had been the source of weks of contention, people are locked into their prior votes. I can assure you that they are not. I do accept the responsibility for putting all the avilable alternatives and yet forgetting to include the one already in place. It was not some grand conspiracy, Mardavich. Please, AGF, okay? Treat people as you would like to be treated. Arcayne 04:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Because of some contributors crying foul of the choices up above (mainly the accusation of specifically-picked choices and having left out the current statement already on the list), steps have been taken to ensure through double-checking through the article for any other proposed replaced statements (there aren't any, but if someone else wants to slog through the three prior archives like I did, please feel free). As well, a fe have "suggested" that the failure to include the original statement likely skewed the results. Therefore, we will reintroduce the section again, below, and the editors who have been contributing to the article thus far can vote on it (sort of to prevent vote-stacking and the like). We can go from there. Arcayne 07:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing was "cherry-picked", the idea of not putting a label on the film had been applied long before its release. Such accusations, Mardavich, can only make you look bitter. It becomes ironic to someone who knows that the supposedly "non-cherry-picked" choices were forced into the article by a coalition of Iranian editors. The article was locked due to certain editors' disruptive behaviour. Let us get back to the point, my voting preference is the following: 3 ~ 4 ~ 5 ~ 6 > "historical fiction". Judging by the number of Iranian editors involved here, I wouldn't be in favour of a vote, as the result would be determined by an oligarchy. Miskin 16:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, Mardavich, if you think that an editor has delivered you a personal attack then you should report him under NPA and let the admins decide. Making threats a priori for something that was clearly _not_ a personal attack, makes you again look bitter. Your accusation about "cherry-picking" was much more offensive than the reply it instigated. Miskin 16:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What is this racist rant. Just because some users are Iranian it does not mean they form a coalition to make the article bias. This sort of accusations of "a coalition of Iranian editors" has no basis. Please do not make prejudiced and ill-considered accusations; it will not be tolerated. Agha Nader 17:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

As I've stated, there is no basis for this vote. The studio and most importantly scholars/historians (people with education! remember kids, education is important, stay in school, otherwise we'll have more Frank Millers in this world!) all agree that the film is pure fiction, so given the weight of evidence, the current leader is fine. Nevertheless, noticing #7, this would be my second choice as it clearly states that the film is an adapation of the fictional Frank Miller novel. Khorshid 18:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC) "Racist rant", "more Frank Millers in the world" and "no basis for this vote"... I rest my case, those statements save me a great deal of typing. Miskin 12:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Young Leonidas reminder

Could someone remember to change "Tyler Neitzel as Young Leonidas" to "Tyler Neitzel as Leonidas (at 15 years)" and to add "Eli Snyder as Leonidas (at 7 years)". (I'm afraid I'll forget to. Thanks. =^.^=) 24.124.29.130 08:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the bit was in there before, and was removed - likely to trim the Cast section. That said, do you have a source for your information? -Arcayne 11:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Both are listed at the IMDb page for 300. I'm usually wary of IMDb, but it should be fine post-release because I believe they copy the credits from the end of the film to their pages. I also checked the official website, but they're not major enough to be listed with the actual stars of the film. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Inspired by BoT?

I know I am a bit late to the table here, but after having read through the discussion (on this page at least) regarding the question of whether the film is fictional, semi-fiction, 'stylized', etc., I decided to look for another example on WP to compare the way a film with a historical setting is described. Bobby (2006 film), a film released in 2006, is described as "a fictional account of the lives of several people present during the final hours in the life of the late Senator Robert F. Kennedy, a former candidate for President of the United States, on June 6, 1968." Now, responding to one of the persistent complaints that I noticed in the earlier discussion, I don't think that a person reading the Bobby article would conclude from the sentence that the assassination of Robert F Kennedy was a fictional event. Continuing with the case of Bobby, I don't think that it would be appropriate to call the film 'semi-fictional' as it is instead a fictional story set within a historical setting (in this case, the night of the RFK assassination). Does this characterization hold true for 300 as well? As has already been established, 300 (following from the graphic novel, but also as a result of independent decisions of the filmmakers) embellishes, neglects and invents facts and events to tell the story, which to me suggests that it is a fictional story that takes place within, and is inspired by (is that language that has been considered for the opening sentence?) the BoT. Alternatively, we could consider following the route that The Patriot (2000 film) takes and simply describe 300 as 'a film' (in this case, 'based on the graphic novel'). Just my thoughts. Cuffeparade 20:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not quite the case with 300. The film describes very accurately the series of historical events, from the Spartan warrior-citizen lifestyle, the departure of Leonidas and the 300, the attested Laconian sayings, to the "arrow shower" that killed the 300 etc. It introduces some fictional storyline such as Queen Gorgo's struggle at home, but this is something inevitable in historically-inspired films (comare to Alexander, Braveheart etc). It also introduces a fictional physical appearence of the Asian hordes the Spartans came against, a physicality which appears offensive to a certain group of viewers. Labelling the movie a "fictional account" simply gives undue weigh to the fictional element over the historical one, and it therefore reflects only one side of the story. Another problem lies on the fact that Frank Miller based much of the storyline in the histories of Herodotus, a work which is largely resented in non-western scholarship - albeit acceptable by the English WP:CITE policy. That's pretty much all there is to it. Some guy from WB called the movie "fictional" in order to defend it from various attacks, while Snyder declared that it is 90% accurate. It is unarguably a controversial topic, and this is why I suggested to remain agnostic on the subject. Nobody proposes to label it as a "historical" account, it is only "fictional" versus blank. I proposed the same thing as you did, which is clearly the most neutral approach, but a group of partisan editors have vetoed this proposal. All the inaccuracies concerning the physicality of the Persians etc are already described in detail within the article. Some irrelevant information concerning the criticism the movie received by the Iranian government and scholarship is also provided. Yet the same group of partisan editors insists on labelling the film as a plain fictional account right in the lead. I find this behaviour unorthodox and a violation of the NPOV policy. Miskin 01:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow. This is definitely what kills my mood when it comes to editing Wikipedia. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Right backatcha. I'm going to go curl up with Knut's article. María (habla conmigo) 02:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The film is strongly fictional in a few areas, most notably that in reality, Spartan society was very dependant on slaves. Also, Sparta had a dual king system that isn't mentioned at all, nor that an exiled Spartan king was helping the Persians. 220.253.54.244 13:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Are we done with this topic? As consensus was finally reached on the subject, I will be archiving at days' end. Please address the Farokh section before, as that appears to be the only remaining debate. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I am tempted to remove the post above, as it is simply not on point, and only serves to revisit the incendiary atmosphere that has permeated this discussion from the get-go, As it has inspired an AN/I complaint, I think it doesn't belong. Of course, its existence would be preserved in the edit history. I just think it is uncessarily caustic, and some new person is bound to come, see it and take up space sommenting about it. Thoughts? -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Best nuked, and get down to useful editing. Tom e r ^talk 21:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Very well, it shall be archived along with everything else outside of the Farrokh commentary currently occurring below.
Please not that an archiving will occur around midnight (UTC-5) or, as we Yanks call it, CST).
(and yes, I am using bold to shout this. I want no bleating later on claiming there wasn't ample warning) -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a real blessing waiting to happen. Tom e r ^talk 23:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Casting

Completely unrelated to any of the other discussions going on right now. We have a list of actors cast in the film. Do we need a paragraph describing the order that they were brought on in addition to that? Hewinsj 16:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah, we don't. The encyclopedic value is pretty minimal. I'd say to go ahead and remove them. Watch out for destroying multiple references, though -- a citation in that passage might be tied somewhere else in the article. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I took a look; reference #3 is cited in both Cast and Production, with the primary citation in Cast. When the film article is un-protected, just move the primary citation to the multi-ref tag in Production before you delete the passage. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. Hewinsj 16:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I pulled the paragraph and left the list up. All citations are working fine. Hewinsj 02:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Rober Maillet's character

In the film, Robert Maillet's character is credited as Über Immortal (Giant), not as the giant. That's the way he should be credited in this article. For the same reason, the caption of the poster image showing the character should describe him as an Immortal, not as "a 'monster' of the Persian army", a very un-encyclopedic description, as the filmmakers created him as part of their depiction of the Achaemenid Immortals in the film. Also, notice that he wears the lower half of the Immortal's armor. --Chatzaras 18:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, you're right, and Benham and I were wrong. It's been confirmed as such. I offer my apologies for the revert. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It's okay. --Chatzaras 18:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I admit I have never seen this film. The Behnam 19:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

^ Frank Miller, 300 #3 (July 1998),"Slings & Arrows" letters page, Dark Horse Comics
^ Frank Miller, 300 #3 (July 1998),"Slings & Arrows" letters page, Dark Horse Comics

[1] Frank Miller, 300 #3 (July 1998),"Slings & Arrows" letters page, Dark Horse Comics

[2] Frank Miller, 300 #3 (July 1998),"Slings & Arrows" letters page, Dark Horse Comics

[1]

[2]