Jump to content

Talk:300 (film)/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

What was archived

  • Intro Paragraph - stating that the Battle of Thermopylae be incuded in the Lead.
  • On the Same POV, again - discussion reagarding fantasy elements of 300, and the application of historical fantasy.
  • Trimming Controversy Sections - discussion addressing trimming sections Persian Reaction, Political Aspects and historical inaccuracies
  • External Links (Farrokh, Part 1) - discussion regarding the inclusion of Farrokh statements.
  • Not semi-historical, fictional per producers of the movie - discussion of the semi-historical vs fictional descriptors of the movie in the Lead statement.
  • Accurate historical images - continued discussion carried over from prior archiveTalk:300 (film)/Archive_8#Accurate_historical_images, discussing Farrokh article illustrations denoting apparent Persian period dress.
  • External Links - summarization from prior archive: should we create a subsection in external links section for reviews?
  • Lead - discussion regarding the Lead carried over from prior archive: 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? - further discussion as to the film's descriptor in the Lead (semi-historical v. semi-fictional v. highly stylized)
  • Critical reaction section - summary from prior archive: Renaming the Critical reaction section to "Reviews"
  • WP:GA/R Good article Review - a review of the article's GA status, resulting in de-listing due to to edit-warring
  • Farrokh (Farrokh Part 3) - further discussion regarding the inclusion of Farrokh statements.
  • Response to Javits2000 - discussion between Azerbaijani and Javits2000 regarding Farrokh statements for and against inclusion
  • A Note - requesting the merging of three separate discussions on the Farrokh statements, and continuing discussions under new headers at the bottom of the page
  • Farrokh, summary - further discussion of Farrokh statements
  • POV-check - further discussion of Farrokh statments, possibility of "POV projection"
  • Proposed Lead Statement - a discussion of various proposed lead statements
  • POV template - discussion regarding the POV check tag on the talk section
  • Semiprotect - discussion requesting the renewal of article's semi-protect status, removed along with full protection
  • Foreign language refs - discussion as to the inclusion or removal of references in languages other than English
  • Article on why the Spartans were made heterosexual for the movie - discussion of a CoI link into the article
  • Proposed Lead, Take II - continuation of Proposed Lead Statement, an earlier section discussion
  • "fictional account" - further discussion regarding historical v fiction descriptor of the film
  • Article protected - announcement by admin User:Tariqabjotu of full protection on article (expiring 04.08.07) to create a cool-down period and allow for settlement of consensus issues
  • Edit - request of a citation tag that was explained as uneccesary
  • Fact and fiction - a user comment regarding the nature of the historical v fictional (descriptor of the film) argument
  • Pick a Numbah, Any Numbah - discussion specifying a number of proposed lead statements, with dissent noting the failure to include the article's pre-existing statement in the choices, accusations of cherry-picking or mf'g of statement choices.
  • Young Leonidas reminder - discussing the inclusion of the age change in Cast of Leonidas age protrayal by Tyler Neitzel.
  • Inspired by BoT? - further discussion of POV editing in regards to historical v fictional descriptions
  • Casting - discussing the removal of Cast section info as to when various actors were cast for the film
  • Robert Maillet's character - discussion concluding that giant was listed as Über Immortal in film credits, and article needed to reflect that.

Appearance of the Persians

In the 'Depiction of Persians' section of the article no mention is made of the appearance of the Persians in the movie. They appear quite dark and swarthy, with consistantly brown hair and brown eyes, yet the ancient Persians, prior to the Arab conquest, were an Aryan tribe and would have had quite fair features - probably more so than their Greek opponents. Take for example the inscription of Darius, Xerxes' father: "I am Darius the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage." Yet Xerxes in the film appears quite dark. Perhaps the article might remark on this inaccurate depiction of the physical appearance of the Persians. Also, though of little bearing to the article itself as it is pure speculation on my part, could it be that the Persians were depicted in a dark and swarthy manner so that people would more readily think of them as the bad-guys (that is to say, perhaps the producers thought a fair-skinned, blue-eyed enemy wouldn't seem to have that nefarious, foreign quality desired of the Asiatic enemy?). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.212.151.153 (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

since this is an adaptation of Frank Miller's comic book, this matters how? dab (𒁳) 21:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Because it gives people the wrong impression of iranian/persian people. I saw the movie, and having met persian people, I laughed at there ridiculous portrayal, many even have colored eyes! They way the persians were portrayed was racist to me. Manic Hispanic 02:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you need to give people more credit. If you picked up on the laughableness, why can't you presume that other people are capable of doing so as well. We are not in the business of spoon-feeding. Arcayne 02:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
It appears to be an OR request anyway, so I guess this discussion doesn't really serve a purpose anyway. The Behnam 02:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
How wrong you are. Many people have noticed and discussed this repulsive aspect of the movie: article from iranian.com, article from CNN, article from Ghandchi, article from an Iranian archeologist. So much for "OR". The fact is that the movie is overwhelmingly offensive to Persians and Iranians. It would be nice for people to stop dismissing such arguments or lambasting us. It's not civil. Not civil at all. Khorshid 03:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
As it is indeed civil to explore the arguments of people who appear to have opposing viewpoints, I looked at each of the references you provided.
  • The first is a comedy skit about a fictional conversation between King Khamenei and Pres. Ahmadinejad. I believe the skit actutally poked more fun at the Iranian government than it does to expose the supposedly "racist sentiment" of the film. It's amusing, but not on point.
  • The second is a film review that i believe has been incorporated into the article.
  • The third are Dr. Farrokhe's remarks, which I believe we have also discussed repeatedly, and are in the article, as well.
  • The fourth seems to be a source of interest, written on 18 March, 2007. I wonder why this was never introduced before. Someone else can evaluate the timbre, verifiability and reliability of that article.
Looking over your statements supoported by the inclusion of joke, two comments already included in the article, and a heretofore unseen review, I have to conclude that at this time (and you are welcome to work up the last citation so we can take a look at your proposed additions to include in the depiction of Persians section), the stance is that this isn't as well supported as it needs to be. It isn't about what we feel, Khorshid. Its about what we can prove. Arcayne 03:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I've also known a number of people from Iran, and if you're going to say they all have white skin, then you are mistaken. And while some may have have non-brown eyes, brown eyes are still predominant. Bbagot 15:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
T'would be wise to read it in entirety, he's refering to a different time period than today. Though I personally doubt the tribes speaking the Aryan-language groups would have been all THAT fair skinned at that time and location. Jachra 10:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since the film is told from the point of view of a Spartan, of course the Persians would look like monsters. When you're fighting an army, you're not going to see them as supermen. 58.178.76.6 08:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the in the film, and in Miller's original work, the Persian empire is refered to being made up of "a thousand nations." An empire made up of so many nations would have many races. In fact, in the film we see that the armies of Xerxes are made up of men with black skin, brown skin and white skin. Xerxes himself could have been of mixed descent. Keep in mind, also that Xerxes is using slaves as soldiers, who are fighitng because they have no choice, which could be interprteed as making Xerxe's tyranny the true enemy of Leonidas and his Spartans. Another important point, the comment made by Manic Hispanic refers to "Persian/Iranian people." The original Persians are not Iranians, they where Aryans. Refering to those of Iranian descent as Persian is innacurate and is also offensive to many Iranians. User:SkullyD

Actually, Xerxes of all people would have the least varied ascent, as dynastic rule is predicated on pure bloodlines. Unless he was the result of his mother dallying with a servant of an entirely different race (Which would have made it obvious that he was a bastard) there's no way he would end up looking like a giant African fellow. Jachra 10:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that in the original graphic novel, there are no monster-persian soldiers. you never see a one of those vampire-like maskless Immortals, much less the ogre-like soldiers or the scarred lesbian dancers as in the movie. Hell, there's not even rhinos, which, AFAIK, were never used as warbeasts.--Gonzalo84 21:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Another important point, the comment made by Manic Hispanic refers to "Persian/Iranian people." The original Persians are not Iranians, they where Aryans. Refering to those of Iranian descent as Persian is innacurate and is also offensive to many Iranians.

Interesting comment, given that a girl from Iran in my Archeaology class made sure I knew she was Persian, not Iranian. Probably to distinguish from the variety of ethnic groups living there. You also ignore the historical force of mixing; today's Persians are descended from yesterday's Aryans. Jachra 10:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
SkullyD wow you are an idiot, saying Persians aren't Iranian is like saying Saxons aren't Germanic, your comments amaze me as to how stupid they sound, I can only hope you speak of ignorance. I have no other way to put it. Iran means land of the Aryans. The word Persian is just a Greek word to refer to the pars people of the pars province that subdued the medes and other Iranian tribes and went on to create there various massive empires throughout antiquity. Persians are Iranians, as Iran is simply a cognate of Aryan. Persians fall under the broad umbrella of the Iranian peoples i.e tajiks, kurds, pashtuns, baloch, persians laks and lurs. And I quote the wikipedia article on the Persians. "The Persians are descendants of the Aryan (Indo-Iranian) tribes that began migrating from Central Asia into what is now Iran in the second millennium BC.[6][7][8] The Persian language and other Iranian tongues emerged as these Aryan tribes split up into two major groups, the Persians and the Medes, and intermarried with peoples indigenous to the Iranian plateau such as the Elamites.[9][10]" Manic Hispanic 08:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
"SkullyD wow you are an idiot". WP:NPA anyone? 58.178.9.58 09:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The user has already been warned on their talk page, but yes, I agree. María(habla conmigo) 12:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

...Just a note...that post by User:203.212.151.153 is slightly misinformed when he describes the physical appearance of the Persians around the time of Xerses and the 300 Spartans. The Parthians, Saka, and other peoples that made up the Persian Empire in later times (after they invaded from the Steppes during the time the Seleucids ruled Persia) had light complexions, not the Persians of the period in question. When ancient sources use the word "Aryan" it is not in a modern context where one would imagine the Nazis and such...check your infomation before you complain about racism. 04:52 2 May 2007

In an article by wikipedia about white race it has mentioned about skin color in a comparison of white-skinned Persian soldiers from the sun-tanned skin of Greek troops in Xenophon's Agesilaus , so in fact they mentioned iranian soldiers whiter than themself. and even now many greeks have not fair complex and many iranian even in southern part of iran like some baluchi tribe or in fars or bushehr have fair complex.Spitman 22:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

General Editorial Problems

So far, I have only noted one, and it is a single sentence, but it is significant. As written, the first paragraph of the plot reads:

Leonidas then visits the Oracle, explaining his plan of war with the Persians and offers a customary payment in gold.

This makes it seem that Leonidas is, oddly, conferring with the Persians about going to war with the Persians, which he is obviously not doing. I think this is more a matter of poor sentence structure, rather than misunderstanding what is happening in the movie. The sentence should read something like:

Leonidas then visits the Oracle, explaining his plan of war with the diseased, priestly Ephors and offers them a customary payment of gold.

Links should probably be made to 'Oracle' (referring to the generic 'oracle' article, as there is no documented Spartan oracle in history); and 'Ephors,' since that article covers both the historical office and the fictionalized portrayal in 300. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.61.13.4 (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

A few points: first of all, I agree with you about the faulty sentence structure. However, your suggestion is just as faulty: "explaining his plan of war with the diseased, priestly Ephors" makes it sound as if Leonidas wants to war with the Ephors. I would much rather suggest something along the lines of
Leonidas then visits the Oracle to explain his war plan with the priests, offering a customary payment in gold.
We can pretty much omit the "Persian" reference since it's clear from the previous sentence that he's resolved "to face the Persians." Perhaps we should tack "in battle" to the end of that bit. Any thoughts on that? Second of all, the article in the past has both linked to the Ephors and the Oracle, but editors have discussed this and decided to omit both of them due to the source material, and not the historical accuracy. In the graphic novel as well as the film, the priests are not referred to as Ephors (just had a look, and they are referred to as Ephors in the graphic novel, but it is still the film that matters here); to name them so in plot summary would be to rewrite the circumstances of the story. I hope this clears things up for you. María: (habla conmigo) 22:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I was reading over it and I thought a third option that doesn't use the word explains might be another option. I also tried to punch up the sentence that follows.
Leonidas then visits the Oracle and presents his war plan to her priests along with a customary offering of gold. Having already been bribed by Xerxes, the priests interpret her message to mean that Sparta should not go to war and deny the request, citing that anyone interrupting the upcoming Carneian festival would be committing a sacrilege.
Any good? Hewinsj 23:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the use of "her" regarding the Oracle (though, yes, it's a woman), but perhaps I'm merely being picky. I do like changing "exchange" to "present," however. Not bad! María: (habla conmigo) 00:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The identifier appears in the film as well, through Dilios' narration. Something trimmed down:

Having been already been bribed by the Persians, the priests of the Oracle reject Leonidas' plans, citing the upcoming Carneian festival as a reason to not go to war.

Thoughts? -Arcayne 02:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't like using the word oricle twice in two sentences because it's like we're restating who the preists work for. Maybe something in between what we have?

Having already been bribed by the Persians, the priests interprit her message to mean that Sparta should not go to war because it would interrupting the upcoming Carneian festival.

Maybe after that add a third sentence with something like the following to lead into the next paragraph:

This attempt to block Leonidas puts the king at odds with Spartan tradition, and any act on his part could be considered treasonous by his people.

I also didn't like the usage of her in first sentence, it was just the best adjective I could fit in there at the time. Hewinsj 16:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Plenty of these phrasings sound fine (if a bit lengthy), but I have to point out that the priests are referred to as 'Ephors' in the movie, once. Right when they are introduced, Dilios calls them by their proper name in the voiceover, so it is not inappropriate to refer to them as such in the article, and thus a link to the explanation would be in order.

I stand corrected, thank you. The reference may have only been removed for issues of space, but there has been so much debate, I honestly cannot remember. If that is the case, I have no qualms with adding it back in. María (habla conmigo) 13:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

Since Warner Bros. themselves (you know, the people who actually made the film) have stated quite emphatically that the movie is a "pure fiction", consensus has already been reached. The current title is fine. If people still oppose what Warner Bros. themselves (you know, the people who actually made the film) have stated, then I suggest an RFC because there is no jusitification to change it. I am sure any legitimate and credible person would agree that we should accept what the studio says about its own movie. That it is a pure fiction as the current leader states. I will continue to strongly oppose any change of the leader, which is not only sourced, but comes from the top, i.e. Warner Bros. (you know, the people who actually made the movie). Cheers, Khorshid 03:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Using your same reasoning, we could also state that "any legitimate and credible person would agree" that we should accept what the director says about the film (you know, the guy who actually made the film), being 90% accurate. Now, we have these two apparent polar opposites, neither of which are students of history. If only we could find some of those...
Well, hey - we have four of those, right there in the article! How lucky is that?! Both argue as to the historical accuracies and inaccuracies of the film. But darn, none of them come out and say that the film is a "pure fiction." So I guess this means that concensus is going to have to rely upon us, deciding what the film actually is, based on all the info, and not just the one bit by a marketing department trying to ensure that they aren't characterized as racists. Arcayne 03:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Well 'pure fiction' and '90% accurate' (aka 10% fiction) both still mean 'fiction', so while the two may not agree on 'pure fiction' it can certainly be said that the sources admit to the film's 'fictional' nature. The Behnam 03:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
So Khorshid, should we infer from this statement that you abstain from voting on the choices for the replacement lead statement above? -Arcayne 03:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
You can't force people to vote on options you've written yourself. That's now how you get consensus. --Mardavich 04:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree with Mardavich. You did not include the current version ("fictional account") as a choice. Agha Nader 04:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
Actually, I just did include the current version, as per Mardavich's remarks. No one is forcing anyone to vote. However, if you don't vote, you don't get a say. That's the way it works here. And I appreciate you removing the accusation that I fabricated all the choices. That would not have been civil. -Arcayne 04:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Including a new option now, after several people have already voted on the options you had cherry-picked, makes little or no difference. The whole process is flawed, that's not how you achieve consensus. --Mardavich 04:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
If there has been cherry picking going on, which options are missing? Also, I think we've all proven that we don't mind sitting around and talking about this subject so I doubt anyone would be opposed to users changing their votes if they feel it's necessary in light of this addition. No one here seems that uptight from the conversations that I've read. Hewinsj 04:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
To comment on the quote from the producers used here, the full quote states that the story is fictional (I won't dispute that) but also based on a historic battle. If that's the case, the film could be classified as "historic fiction". This term is considered a subdivision of fiction that classifies a story as having taken place during a notable time period or event in the past (in this case the battle). I don't mind calling the film fictitious, I just want to see the right literary term is used in doing so and that quotes aren't taken out of context. Hewinsj 05:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem with the current wording ("fictional account") is that it ignores the fact that the narrative of the battle itself follows the ancient sources. This is presumably what Snyder means when he describes it as "90% accurate ... it's just in the visuals that it's crazy," or words to that effect. And as the "visuals" are precisely the source of the controversy (everything about the depiction of the Persians), this strikes me as a fairly accurate assessment. Thankfully, there's a word for narratives which base themselves on historical events but take artistic license in their elaboration; and that's "historical fiction." --Javits2000 11:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the word fiction used in the abstract label "fictional account" is a red herring. What WB stated does by no means put a label on the genre of the film or its content. If we were to follow Behnam's logic ("if a film is even only 10% historically inaccurate, then it is "fiction") then we should label _all_ non-documentaries as "fictional accounts" rather than historical films. We should also thank the Iranian editors for opening wikipedia's eyes on the real meaning of the Anglo-american genres of cinematography, and for showing the correct use of english terminology. Then wikipedia should contact all film critics and warn them about their use of erroroneous terminology such as "historical epic" [1]. Miskin 17:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is not necessary. This movie has big differences from actual historical-based films that just change a few things. Consider Lawrence of Arabia (film). 300, however, adds a very, uh, 'fantastic' element that takes away from the 'historicity of the fiction.' Usually historical fiction tries to emulate the actual history feeling as much as possible, but having a fantasy army of deformed people doesn't quite achieve that here. Anyway, it seems you have deluded yourself into thinking that this film is non-fiction, but regardless, both sources support the 'fictional' description. While it may be possible to use more specific terms, there is no agreement here as to which term to use, so for now it should simply say fictional. The Behnam 17:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains that this movie belongs to the category called "historical" or "historical epic", any further categorisation is a POV. Have a look on the tv critics and reviews on the internet, the vast majority calls it a "historical epic". Not only we have neglected this, but we have additionally introduced a "Science Fiction" genre. And you are in favour of this. Have a look at Gladiator (film), a purely fictional storyline based on an actual historical era, labelled simply as a "historical film" right in the lead. You are not in position to redefine english terminology on cinema and your argumentation falls under original research. Miskin 12:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If we are going to avoid making judgments as much as possible, then we must call this film "pure fiction" in the article. The Behnam 11:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The film is an accurate portrayal of much of the history we know from that time period including Spartan training regime for male youths, the strength of the council over the king(s), the ability of women to speak their mind, the saying of "come back with your shield or on it" the asking for "earth and water" by the Persian emissaries and the killing of those emissaries, etc. It's a historical film with fantastical elements that makes for a more exciting story. To in any way label it as complete historical truth or pure fiction would be to greatly miss the mark of reality and would do an injustice to truth. Bbagot 15:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Bdagot, my point exactly all this time. Miskin 18:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Pick a Numbah, Any Numbah, Take 2

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. These are the only choices that have been suggested thus far to either replace or maintian the statemetn currently in the article. For those of you who had chosen before, perhaps you can be imposed upon to select the choice you prefer afterward.

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 (comics)|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.
8. 300 is a 2007 film adaptation of the graphic novel 300 by Frank Miller, a fictional account of the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hewinsj (talk • contribs) 16:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Arcayne 07:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, you don't have to cherry pick options for people to choose from. Asking everyone to propose their own wording is sufficient. I'd support the current wording. (#7) --Mardavich 07:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
As I have said at least twice before, these are the only Lead statement choices that have evolved over the past week or two. The only way in which they were "cherry-picked" to coin your non-AGF term is that they were the only cherries to be found amidst all the back-and-forth from the past two weeks. However, if other editors wish to search through - not just the current bloated talk page but the past three archives (as I did), you have my best wishes to do so. However, everything that the three of you - Mardavich, Khorshid and Agha Nader - have demanded, I have taken the time to provide, despite the lack of civility and the accusations of dishonesty. Perhaps we can all now choose one of the choices above (none of which I had a hand in writing save for one), and pointedly stop the bickering. It is the quintessential defininition of WP:LAME.
-Arcayne 11:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The advantage of a list is that it keeps all options present before the eyes, and provides an easy convention for referring to them (instead of the impossible confusing "what so-and-so said the time before last"). And nothing is preventing anyone from adding to the list.
My choice remains 1, with 4 and 6 also acceptable. I have strong doubts about 2 on stylistic grounds (wordiness) and 7 on factual grounds. --Javits2000 11:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I happen to agree with Javits2000; this process is orderly and applicable. We've already been through the messy, lengthy discussion to go through the possible wordings and rewordings, and this is the result of it. By seeing all of the choices in one place, it is much easier to choose what seems the most acceptable and therefore reach a consensus. "Cherry picking" is insinuating that Arcayne is only listing the options that he approves of, which is untrue since it is open to additions by anyone. I still believe that #1 is the best, mostly because it correctly gives the genre, and I like labels. María: (habla conmigo) 12:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
This is what I like about the process. It's flexible enough that we can go back and correct errors, and allow users to change their choice before concensus is acheived. We also get to see all of the suggestions lined up to save us from having to slog back through all of that conversation to find them, and add new ones as they come up. That said I will still go with #1, as I feel it is well written, indicates that the film is an adaptation of the book, and cites the correct genre. It also doesn't mention the earlier film, which should go in the book's article. Hewinsj 12:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
1,2,4, or 6 - I am pleased that folks are liking the format, although Javits and Agha Nader gave me the initial idea to pool all the ideas together for us to look at. They should get the credit for it; I just cobbled them all together (through 3 archives - gah!). Hopefully, we can take care of this and move on, archiving a lot of the conversations this resolution will resolve. Arcayne 14:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC) (closet neat freak)
As a watcher from the "stands", I'll speak up and say that I vote for #1Calviin 17:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

My preference order is 3 ~ 4 ~ 5 ~ 6 > 1 (with a veto on 2 and 7) for the repeatedly explained reasons. Arcayne you don't have to reply to Mardavich's provokations; everyone can tell who is really concerned about the neutrality of the article. Miskin 17:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Mine is: 7, 2, 1, 6, 5, (with a veto on 3 and 4) --Rayis 17:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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. Thats it for me. If you guys have any more objections, I strongly urge we go to RFC and ArbCom (since your behaviour regarding this matter is out of line given the weight of evidence supportive of the current wording). FYI, Snyder is not a scholar, historian, what have you. He has no academic credentials or education in the area of history, let alone Classical history. Get back to me when he gets such an education. Khorshid 18:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

In addition to Maria's remarks, it has been pointed out to you in your own Talk Page, your main argument that Snyder's comments do not count because he doesn't have a Classical History degree. I am wondering why you have not offered a verifiable reference that anyone in the Warner Bros. Marketing Department has such a degree either. Since both fail this test, we should look for people who do have such degrees weigh in - wait! Yup! We've had this conversation before!
In fact, we've had it repeatedly. We are not ignoring what Warner Bros said. We are simply affording more weight to matters of historocity to those who are noteworthy historians. They seem to agree that the BoT actually occurred, and that there was a great deal of fantasy and fiction tied to it. As you have been told at least 5 different times by myselkf and different editors, just because just because something has fictional elemetns does not make it "pure fiction". I have no idea what the prevailing consensus will find, but if you feel that you cannot agree to working within a group setting, you may need to do what you feel you need to. If you are finding it difficult to work in this article specifically, you should seek out those articles which bring you the greater amount of joy. After all, Wikipedia is supposed to be fun. None of us are getting paid for this, so why be unhappy for free? Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Who said that Snyder is a scholar? His credentials stem from the fact that he's the director and therefore knows something about the film he made and its subject. Your last sentence has no bearing on the discussion at hand and is completely off topic. María (habla conmigo) 18:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll go with '1' and 7 should I be limited to these options. I prefer '7' but reference to the old movie is totally unnecessary for reasons also mentioned by Javits in the beginning of the forum. So some version of '7' that would really prefer to vote for would be:
the name of the battle and the year already take into account the historical aspect, not to mention the link (saving space too). --siavash siavash
The people that organized this dialog stated that they don't mind new candidates being added. Hewinsj 22:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
7 bodes well for me. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 11:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Present state of the poll, if I've understood everyone correctly: First choice: Option 1 (5 votes); 3 (1); 7 (5); 8 (1). Also acceptable: 1 (3); 2 (2); 4 (3); 5 (2); 6 (4); 7 (1). Strong feelings against: 2 (2); 3 (1); 4 (1); 7 (2). --Javits2000 09:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you hadn't count my vote. As of now, first choice option is 7 with six votes. --Mardavich 17:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
7 Due to evidence provided by Khorshid. Agha Nader 17:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
Actually, it was due to more people voting for one choice than another. Khorshid's comments (at least, comments here) had very little to do with it. We call it consensus. :) Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, 7 > 2 > 1 > 6 > 5, (with strong objections to 3 and 4). I can't understand the desire to emphasise the disputable historicity of this film given that the same people keep on saying "what's the big deal, it's just an action movie." Hornplease 20:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, when is this vote closed? One user has already acted upon what the likely result is, and I've reverted it once. However, he does have a point. We appear to have a clear consensus. Could someone without a vested interest either way weigh in with their opinion? Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd still prefer #8 to #7, as it's the same sentence minus the 300 Spartans reference. It just clutters things up. Hewinsj 02:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Same here. I don't think anyone who coted for number 7 here, would have any objections to 8. Just go ahead and execute the consensus please. --Mardavich 03:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
It already sort of is. This just sets precedent if anyone else chooses to argue over it again. If anyone makes drastic changes to the item in question refer them back here.
Over time this item may be changed and if no one objects it will stay. Also, it can be brought into question again and revised (as opinions change over time), but for now it's either #7 or #8 (if no one objects to that too). Hewinsj 03:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not. The current wording is not the same as #7 or #8. --Mardavich 03:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. I missed the omission of the " and is a fictional account of the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC" in the main article. Lately I haven't been checking the main article as thoroughly as I should because most of the action is taking place here. Having followed the discussion I just assumed #7 was the existing sentence. Hewinsj 04:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to prove a point, I'm changing my voting preference to 1. Now option '1' goes back at the top by relative majority. Miskin 04:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Btw does User:Alborz Fallah have a sufficient number of edits? Miskin 04:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


Vote for #7. I've been keeping away from this article, the level of nationalistic jingoism here precludes any real long term improvement to the page, but the lede at least should stay encyclopedic. ThuranX 06:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

#1 gets my vote, though #7 isn't bad either. --Xiaphias 15:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Javits2000 did a prior tally, and it wouldbe nifty is omeone could perform a similar tally. I am hesitant to suggest we conclude the vote, as someone will think I cherry-picked the termination of the vote according to some vast, conspiratorial plan. :) Arcayne (cast a spell) 12:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, remain WP:CIVIL; the sarcasm and tone of your response are inappropriate.

It appears new voters keep coming all the time, I say we keep the vote for a little bit longer. Miskin 14:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

7 is the current consensus. Thus it should be enacted. Remember, a change in votes is needed to change the status quo, not enact it. Agha Nader 16:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

#1 - historical fiction seems to best describe it.--Domitius 16:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should wait, and add the final result to the article. Doing such maintains the article's stability, until which time we reach a lasting consensus. I don't want anyone feeling that thye aren't being heard, so I am willing to wait. Let's leave the statements in question be until then. Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer #4, but since only 1 and 7 seem to be in the running, #1 appears to be best. The history present is quite extensive and while the story may be interlayed with fantasy, any solution that ignores mention of the historical aspect would be deficient. Bbagot 00:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

(I've overlayed the previous IP with my user since it had logged me out for inactivity before I posted a response, and therefore reverted to an IP. I apologize for the inconveniance.) Bbagot 00:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

::This user may be a sockpuppet or the subject of canvassing; this is his one and only edit. [2]. Agha Nader 18:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader User forgot to login, as says the above. María (habla conmigo) 16:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anyone apart from siavash voting for 8. Neither anons, nor new/red users should be counted. Miskin 18:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I see your concern, Agha. How do you think we should approach the subject of sock- and meat-puppets? What sort of standard do you think we should set in place to properly evaluate the votes?
This whole thing is getting silly time to invoke WP:DUST.LilDice 19:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Weighing in late in the game once again, I would vote for 8, as I think the reference to 300 Spartans is a bit superfluous for the first sentence. Cuffeparade 05:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd go for #1. Clear, concise and comprehensive. It mentions all relevant info, and tells us why we are about to see monsters, androgynous Persian leaders etc etc. NikoSilver 12:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I go for 7 or 2 or a mixture of them. I have most objections to #1: historical fiction redirects to historical novel and defines it as "A historical novel is a novel in which the story is set among historical events, or more generally, in which the time of the action predates the lifetime of the author...Historical fiction may center on historical or on fictional characters, but usually represents an honest attempt based on considerable research (or at least serious reading) to tell a story set in the historical past as understood by the author's contemporaries."- I certainly disagree with this definition. --Aminz 20:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I would consider that a bad redirect, and the redirect should be removed as inaccurate. Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
But it seems that these two terms really refer to the same concept since the page historical novel uses the term "Historical fiction": "Historical fiction may center on historical or on fictional characters, but usually represents an honest attempt based on considerable research (or at least serious reading) to tell a story set in the historical past as understood by the author's contemporaries."--Aminz 20:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
A historical novel is an example of historical fiction, and since there seems to be no article for the genre itself, it redirects. I would like to know why you disagree with the definition of the genre and how 300 fits into it. Obviously 300 is not a novel, but the story is "set among historical events" in which the "action predates the lifetime of the" writer and director. The main characters are historical figures, but historical fiction is titled so for a reason; there are fictional elements, including slight differences and even fabrications. I suggest you look at some other examples in film, such as Spartacus or even Julius Cesar (both of which were based off of works of fiction as well as historical events, like 300). María (habla conmigo) 20:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the whole point of some editors is in usage of the term "fictional" to describe this film. As you said a historical novel is an example of historical fiction; the article further informs us that "Historical fiction may center on historical or on fictional characters, but usually represents an honest attempt based on considerable research (or at least serious reading) to tell a story set in the historical past as understood by the author's contemporaries."
I personally don't think this film represents any honest attempt whatsoever. --Aminz 20:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Personally, to any Iranian, this film is a load of racist garbage. It's unfortunate that many Greeks seem to approve of this film, considering how much they were offended (and rightly so) by Oliver Stone's Alexander, just as many Iranians were by the historical inaccuracies. However, in this case, with a few exceptions here and there, Greeks seem to love this movie and criticize Iranians for being offended. Go figure. Khodavand 20:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Khodavand, it is improper to classify wikipedia editors as Iranians and Greeks and make it seem that there is a war going on here. We are supposed to reason here and vote for what we think the most accurate formulation is. Please comment on the content and not on the editors here. --Aminz 20:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • 7 or 8 - as others have stated, making claims that this is historical fiction is original research. Evidence has been provided by editors clearly showing that scholars, academics, along with the studio itself as well as reviewers, that this is not historical fiction. Quite frankly, I don't understand the massive push to label this as "historical" and honestly, it smacks of WP:POINT, even worse so considering that any labeling as "historical fiction" is not only incorrect, but also in turn antagonizes editors and readers of Iranian background. If you want to discuss the actual battle and the historical issues surrounding it, take it to that article. However, this film is fiction - anyone with a mind can see that a movie with fantastical elements can never, ever be labeled as "historical fiction." That is just plain ridiculous. Wikipedia is not a democracy, so this "survey" is clearly not warranted, as per policy (see WP:RS and WP:V) the film should be labeled as fictional, even if 300 editors were screaming and fighting to have it labeled otherwise. Khodavand 20:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
An interesting opinion, Khodavand. I see from your user page that you count yourself amongst the group of 'antagonized Iranian editors'. Are you suggesting that if the voting doesn't turn out the way you think it should, that you would simply disregard the consensus it implies? I mean, that would imply the same sort of assumption of bad faith as say, pointing out that you have never once posted any criticism here in your entire 5 months in Wikipedia, but have posted on a number of religious and Iranian topics. A lack of bad faith might suggest that you were asked to come to this venue and voice your support for an issue that you feel "antagonizes editors and readers of Iranian background."
However, I won't do that. I will instead suggest that those editors who are allowing their background to be antagonized by an article should likely step away from the article, as the bias being antagonized interferes with a neutral point of view. -Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Do not make ill-considered insinuations; they are considered uncivil. Why do you have to be reminded so many times to remain civil, yet you create civility templates? Agha Nader 20:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I think you might want to revisit the definition of WP:Civil. I haven't made any insinuations. However, you might wish to allow Khodavand to respond, hmmm? Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I will comply with WP:DNFT. --Agha Nader 16:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
This is another user whose vote cannot be counted [4] Miskin 11:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
His vote will definitely be counted.--Agha Nader 19:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • 7 is the most accurate one but it's a bit complex; on the other hand 8 sounds better but isn't as complete as 7. Other than that both works for me. Sbn1984 19:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

A few additional sources

What is Historical Fiction?

There seems to be substantial debate over whether or not to classify this film as 'historical fiction', but the term has not yet been defined. Though the phrase doesn't have a dicionary.com entry, I did locate some definitions:

  • Encyclopaedia Britannica: [historical novel] "a novel that has as its setting a period of history and that attempts to convey the spirit, manners, and social conditions of a past age with realistic detail and fidelity."[5]
  • The Historical Novel Society: "To be deemed historical (in our sense), a story must have been written at least fifty years after the events described, or have been written by someone who was not alive at the time of those events (who therefore approaches them only by research)."[6]
  • ALA RUSA: "Historical fiction is defined as a story that is set at least a generation (25 years) prior to when it was written. In the best historical fiction setting, character and historical details combine to bring a historical period to life. These stories may center on real historical figures and real events or on fictional characters living in a particular time and setting. By reading historical fiction, one can gain insight into lives and times of the past. The best authors writing in this genre have conducted extensive research to authenticate their novels’ settings and details."[7]
  • Easttown Library: "Historical fiction is defined as fictional works (mainly novels) set before the middle of the last century, and ones in which theauthor is writing from research rather than from personal experience.”[8]
  • Teacher Materials: "Historical fiction is defined as “a bit of make believe” based on a factual historical event."[9]
  • "Historical fiction is defined by keeping in with true history and creating a fictional, but fully plausible story in a historical time period."[10]
  • "Historical fiction is defined as fiction that is set in a past time."[11]

Note: these results are not censored nor hand-selected, I searched for "historical fiction is" and "historical fiction is defined" using Google.com, and these were the relevent hits from the first few pages.

It seems to me like the common point is that historical fiction is, pretty simply, fiction in a historical setting. The Historical Novel Society even counts alternate history or time-travel books as historical fiction, though I'm not sure if this is the norm. --Xiaphias 07:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the quotes. Wikipedia on the historical fiction article says: "Historical fiction may center on historical or on fictional characters, but usually represents an honest attempt based on considerable research (or at least serious reading) to tell a story set in the historical past as understood by the author's contemporaries."- This was the reason I didn't approve its usage. I don't think the film-makers have made any honest attempt to be historical. --Aminz 07:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, one of the sources I found alludes to that as well: "The best authors writing in this genre have conducted extensive research to authenticate their novels’ settings and details." However, in neither instance is 'historical accuracy' listed as a requisite of categorization. It may well be that this is the case -- that historial fiction in neccesarily, to a degree, veracious -- but I haven't found any source that says so (which may indicate little, as those which I did find are not particularly canonical). It seems to me that this is the subject of the true debate, as most people can probably agree that the film in question is not concernedly accurate. --Xiaphias 08:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Aminz. There is no room for WP:OR here. Reliable sources clearly demonstrate that this film is not historical, but a fictional story concocted by a bigoted graphic artist named Frank Miller who, in his own words, despises the "barbaric" Eastern civilizations, and namely Islam. Please refrain from continuing your POV that the film is "historical fiction." The facts and sources are clear in this case, as so many others have stated. I urge you to cease and desist, as this is a encyclopedia. Consider your POV position carefully. Khodavand 11:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Um, have you read the article? We have two reputable historians on record praising the film for its historical accuracy, and two ripping it to shreds. This is clearly not a cut-and-dry case. Frank Miller's opinions on Islam have come up here before, but I fail to see their direct relevance, given that the Achaemenids were presumably Jahiliyyah. In any case, we could probably find racist or inaccurate passages in Ivanhoe, which wouldn't make it any less a work of historical fiction.
BTW, the incessant citing of WP:this and WP:that in preference to engaging in rational discourse, although it does make me misty for my Trotskyite youth, doesn't contribute to the discussion. The interpretation of any of these policies depends naturally upon the facts of the case, which are precisely what are in dispute. --Javits2000 18:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we need not be too hasty. This is clearly a difficult question to answer in the context of this article, as there is a blend of historic facts and fictional elements in the film. Myself, I think that the fictional departures of 300 are significant enough (in other words, not just imagining dialogue between historic figures) to disqualify the film from being described as historical fiction, especially considering a few of the definitions offered above which refer to writing aided by research, which result in conveying "realistic detail and fidelity". That said, there is still room for reasonable editors to discuss whether or not the film qualifies as a piece of historical fiction. And as has been pointed out numerous times before, Khodavand, the graphic novel that serves as the basis for the film was published in 1998, well before any of Miller's statements that you quote had been uttered, not to mention the fact that Islam plays no role in either the novel or the film. I can appreciate that people may disagree with the author's political position, but I do not think that that alone is sufficient basis to end the discussion. Cuffeparade 11:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Xiaphias. Aminz I think you've misunderstood. Frank Miller based much of his storyline and dialogues on actual historical accounts, notably the works of Herodotus. An "army of slaves" versus "free men", barbarians led to battle by the whip, Spartan request for "glory", etc, all of those concepts and more were directly taken from the Histories. I think the non-partisan editors who voted for '7' are not aware of those facts. The article mentions only the historically inaccurate side of the story, the historical accuracies are ignored. This is a violation of NPOV already, passing POV judgement on the lead can only make it worse. As you can probably see for yourself, many editors' judgement is blinded by personal agendas and anachronistic parallels. This should not affect wikipedia's neutrality. Miskin 12:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

We've gone over this several times, but as I understand it your claim that the Spartans were free men fighting against an army of Persian barbarian slaves (to paraphrase) is an example of one of the historical inaccuracies in the film, right? It may be that you are saying that this is how the battle is presented in the Histories of Herodotus, which, not having read them, I cannot say. Nevertheless, given that this is a film that is based upon historic events, aren't the ways in which it deviates from the accepted history of the battle to be considered more significant than the ways that it adheres to it? Cuffeparade 13:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Herodotus attests dialogues in which King Xerxes questions the efficiency of the Greek soldiers due to the fact that they were "free men" as opposed to a "unified army" such as his own. This is interpreted in modern terminology as "men abiding by laws and cultural bonds" against "men subjected to the will of a sole ruler"[12]. Also it is common knowledge that the Greeks (and later also the Romans) called the non-Greeks "barbarians". So the terms "free men", "army of slaves" and "barbarians", are the actual terms that were used at the time. If we made a movie about the crusades the Christians would be calling the muslims "infidels" (and the other way around), and that would be the accurate thing to do. Many people here suggest that the movie is inaccurate because it's not anachronistic (i.e. misuses the modern definitions of "slave" and "barbarian"), and therefore find it "politically incorrect" or "offensive". This is not a documentary so people shouldn't be expecting a historian to pop up at every scene and say "warning: 'barbarians' was a term used by Greeks to refer to non-Greek-speaker, it doesn't necessarily mean that those people are uncivilised" or anything similar. I see the faith on Herodotus as a historically accurate element rather than the opposite. Regarding the sequence of historical events, as far as I know Herodotus' account is sole version of the story, and it is commonly accepted in modern scholarship. However Frank Miller doesn't take Herodotus for granted, for example Leonidas said "the Persians claim their armies numbering in the millions", he doesn't use Herodotus' account of 2 millions, so there has been an effort to retain accuracy vis-à-vis modern historiography at a basic level. On the other hand a wide number of events have been depicted extremely accurately, let me just name a few:

  • Persians envoys getting thrown into a pit
  • the Ephors forbidding Leonidas to use the Spartan army because of the Carnea (albeit not because they were bribed)
  • the Spartan warrior-citizen lifestyle (agoge at age 7 etc)
  • the privileged position of Spartan women
  • 300 soldiers with male sons to carry on their names
  • a Spartan-led Greek alliance against a massive Persian army
  • a storm wrecking a part of the Persian navy,
  • description of the phalanx
  • existence of Ephialtes and his part on Persian victory
  • the existence of the Immortals
  • the Laconic sayings of the type "with the shield or on it", "come and get them", "then we will fight in the shade", "tonight we dine in Hades" etc.
  • Persian offers to Leonidas of ruling the entirety of Greece
  • Spartan ideal of "glory" (=death in the battlefield)
  • death by an "arrow shower"
  • Battle of Marathon and Battle of Plataea
  • "go tell the Spartans passer by..."
  • and more which I'm probably forgetting.

As you can see the storyline is based on historical facts, the dialogues inbetween have to be fictional, this is inevitable. The only fictional elements are the Persian physicality and the story of Queen Gorgo in Sparta. After all this is a film not a documentary. I found this film very accurate compared to Braveheart, Troy or even pure historical fantasy such as Gladiator and Patriot, yet it receives very harsh treatment due to personal agendas and modern political conditions. This should not affect wikipedia's NPOV policy. A massive undue weigh has already been given to the alleged "inaccuracies" of this film, and I think it's about to go over the top. The biggest problem is that a minority of non-western historians do not accept the Herodotian version of the story, and alas those views are popular in certain nations today. If we label this movie a "fictional account" we will instantly give those views the status of a scholarly consensus. In my opinion the comment in question should be left out, but since people are eager to coin a name, then we might as well do it the right way. Miskin 14:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is about right. It clearly shows, at least, that some (quite a bit of?) effort was made to hew to a particular historical narrative, and the film-makers can hardly be faulted for not taking ("revisionist"?) scholarship into account; after all, their primary goal was entertainment, so they can't be held to the standards of academic peer review. That certain elements might be racist or offensive to some viewers is really beside the point. Not to sound callous, but it has nothing to do with the proper genre designation. --Javits2000 18:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Well put together. You've done your homework. The only additions I can think of are the Persian envoys asking for "earth and water" and the use of spears in the phalanx to stop an initial charge, both documented and used in the movie. Of course I'm not saying that no liberties were taken. For instance there were instances where the Spartans continued to fight with spears in regular combat where swords would most likely have been used instead. Nevertheless, there is certainly a lot of material that matches history as it has been recorded. Bbagot 02:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, I appreciate your effort in enumerating some of the historic accuracies of the film. My position is certainly not that the film lacks any semblance of accuracy. Nevertheless, I do reiterate my point: if the film is based on historic events, then should we be surprised that it adheres to that history for much or most of the film? To me, given that the film is presented as being seated in history, it is more surprising, and more notable, in the ways that it deviates from history. I don't think that anybody is arguing that the article should include a section on "historical accuracies" as a counter-balance to the section on historical inaccuracies (unless I am wrong?), but given that we are beginning from an acceptance that the film is based on historic records then I think that it is appropriate to enumerate the ways that the film does not reflect history as we know it. I would response to a few of the points you presented:
  • I accept the Persian envoy being thrown into the pit as that appears to be a part of the historic record
  • As you yourself note, the film inaccurately depicts the decision of the Ephors, who are bribed by the Persians in 300
  • The film does depict the agoge period, but as some have noted, the kings were not submitted to this process as Leonidas was in the film (I'll excuse the battle with the wolf as dramatic license)
  • The film does depict the privileged position of Spartan women, but only through the entirely fictional storyline of the queen
  • I don't dispute the 300 Spartans with heirs to carry on the name
  • The film does depict a Spartan-led Greek alliance, but it is grossly misrepresented - reduced to a paltry group of 20 Arcadians whose fighting ability is mocked in the film, and entirely ignoring the Thespians who stood by the Spartans side to the end
  • I don't dispute the destruction of some of the Persian fleet, and will accept the avoidance of discussing the Athenian navy's role in the war as being out of the scope of the film, even as it takes shots at the 'boy lovers' in Athens
  • The depiction of the Phalanx was probably my favorite part of the movie, so I don't dispute that either
  • Ephialtes is indeed depicted in the film, but I hardly need to mention the way that he is (inaccurately) presented as a physical specimen
  • Again, the Immortals are indeed present, but not depicted in any kind of accurate way

The rest of the list I either don't dispute or can't refute. I hope this doesn't appear to be nitpicking, but I think that these various inaccuracies and misrepresentations all add up to provide a pretty strong case for categorizing this as a fictional film, albeit one inspired by historic events. As to your comment that this article is the victim of harsh judgment by those who have personal agendas or are affected by modern political conditions, I can assure you that I am in neither of those camps. I am simply interested in making this as strong a WP article as it can be. Finally, I would say that I don't think that any article on WP can be considered as granting 'a scholarly consensus' on any subject - I certainly don't pretend to call myself a scholar. Cuffeparade 06:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well most of what you said had already been taken into consideration from my part. The graphic novel by the way does explicitely state a Greek force of 7,000 but the film does not mention a specific number, probably in order to keep the focus on the 300. However, most of the above concerns the degree of historical accuracy, and not the existence of accuracy. In other words this criticism is done at a completely different level than what has already been claimed in this talk page (e.g. pure fiction, a lie, bigotry, racist, eurocentric etc). In any case it would be silly to claim that the film has no fictional element involved, the way I see it this is something taken for granted, hence why I've always been in favour of a mid-way solution (something that '7' is not). By 'fictional elements' I'm referring to the physicality of the "bad guys" (Ephors, Persians, Ephialtes etc) and the stories of Queen Gorgo and the wolf. I think that the "degree of accuracy" regarding the historical elements is compensated by the relatively low "degree of fiction", in other words I find that the fictional element is not so much affecting the historical accuracy per se. As you elegantly put it, they can be from my part excused as dramatic or artistic license. I advocate that this film needs to be judged in respect to other "historical" films and not at an individual level. For example 300 is much more "historical" than Gladiator, which may not contain deformed and monster-like individuals, yet it is based on a purely fictional storyline. In that respect, 300 is a historical account enriched with fictional elements. Regardless, to someone who knows nothing of ancient Greek or Roman history, Gladiator will ironically appear as a much more realistic account. To make the long story short: option '7' and all similar one-sided labels are violating NPOV by presenting only one side of the story, and by impying that the movie is pure fiction. This has been my initial point. Miskin 13:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Miskin, your comparison to Gladiator indicates that you have no clear understanding what historical fiction is about. Historical fiction typically tells stories that fit in the lacunae of our knowledge of a particular era. The Three Musketeers, for example, features real people - D'Artagnan, Richelieu, Buckingham - but puts their relationship, the details of which are not part of the historical record, together in such a way that it is both a compelling story and in keeping with what is in the historical record. That is what historical fiction has traditionally been about. 300 chooses to flout what we know about the historical record, and ignore the nature of Spartan society etc etc in order to tell a (disputably) better story. The superficial similarities to the story of Thermopylae - which you painstakingly enumerate above - is precisely why we need to state up front that this movie's pretensions to historicity are precisely that - pretensions.
The movie is pure fiction. It based on Miller's GN, which has elements similar to a 1960s movie, which was inspired by the battle. A sufficient number of steps ago, someone - that well-known historian, the 1950s screenwriter, also responsible for turning Cole Porter straight - read the Idiots Guide to Herodotus, wrote a screenplay, and, some decades later, you're arguing in favour of his scholarship. Incredible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hornplease (talk • contribs) 20:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
What strikes me as "incredible" is the fact that you regard your personal interpretation and judgement as the most reliable view there is. Those "superficial similarities that I painstakingly enumerated above" aim to point out that the movie is not a pure fictional story as it has been previously stated. Your interpretation about the film "choosing to flout out what we know about the historical record" is clearly an extremist view, which would require a lot of effort and sourcing before wikipedia could even consider it. It seems to me that you're forgetting that this film is not a documentary, and most importantly, it never claims to be one. The fact that "some" viewers would have been more interested in a documentary (focusing on their side of story) is irrelevant to wikipedia. I don't know what criteria you've used, but you have obviously failed to see that this is about a blockbuster movie in the lines of Gladiator, Braveheart and Troy, and it needs to receive the same treatment. I'm almost amused by the absurd reasoning of the type "if a historically-inspired movie is not 100% faithful to its source then it's 'pretentious' and 'fiction'". Regarding the "nature of the Spartan society", unless you have published scholarly works on Sparta more credible than Paul Cartledge's, I would advise you to drop the subject. Finally I would advise you to mind your tone and manners. You speak as if you considered yourself the most intelligent person among all participants, and as if your views were _the_ definite answers to our dispute that should have been common knowledge to everybody. In reality your conclusions are the result of an irrational reasoning, accompanied by pretentiously blunt language. Miskin 11:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Errr, I do aplologise if I had given you the impression that I considered myself to be the most intelligent person among all the participants. I certainly didn't intend to convey that. Perhaps something else led you to that assumption? :)
That it is a blockbuster movie on the same level as Braveheart or the Patriot I do not deny. That it is different from the Patriot in purporting to tell a real and important story as opposed to a story on the margins of a real and important story should be evident. That it is different from Troy in that the Iliad is itself generally recognised less as history and more as myth is evident. That it is different from Braveheart in that Longshanks' army in the latter does not feature rhinos and the like is also evident.
You simultaneously want this movie to be held to the 'relaxed' standards that it seems you think should apply to 'blockbusters', and yet to stand up for it's historical accuracy - to the extent of claiming that its depiction of Spartan society is accurate. (Even Cartledge, who as is noted here is something of a Laconophile, said somewhere that the movie can make no claims to veracity.) This is unsustainable. More to the point, I cannot see why an encyclopaedia should have the same standards of historical attribution as a film director.
Finally, you need to work out in your head what fiction is. If the occasional superficial accuracy of setting meant that something was not fiction, then is anything fiction other than Star Trek?
Also, please note the difference between pretensions (which 300 has) and pretentious (which 300 is not.)
Finally, calm down. Perhaps a break to recharge your batteries? Hornplease 19:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Not to interrupt, but you stated that the 3 Musketeers was real, when in fact it was not; it was simply a dramatization of events using characterizations of people (often renamed). Events were greatly distorted to fit historical events, sometimes bizarrely so by Dumas. One need only recall the books The Vicomte de Bragelonne and The Three Musketeers to reaize to see that events were tailored to fit an audience. Richelieu was not considered as vile as he was written, nor was Buckingham that pleasant of an individual, as evidenced by the historical record. No one the novels anything but historical fiction. This film is very much the same thing. The historical elements are in fact in place. No one has sucecessfully argued that the Battle of Thermopylae did not occur, or occurred in a manner different from Herodotus' account. The sole reason we are debating this issue at all is how it depicted the ancient Persians.
Using that hypothesis, we should explore the idea of whether this much hubbub would be missing if ancient Persians had been portrayed accurately in dress and weapons.How much of this angry villification would there be if King Xerxes had been portrayed as noble and, well kingly? I think the fair answer is not very much at all. Other examples of this sort reaction would be Braveheart, or Troy, wherein folk were more upset at Edward II being portrayed as a homosexual, or Achilles as a blond caucasian.
Working from that conclusion, it becomes apparent that the sole reason we are dealing with this level of animosity is that some editors are reacting emotionally to this movie when they are editing. They are acting emotionally while editing (evidenced just in the immediately preceding post by the editor who thought that attacking Miller was an effective tool of editing, when it is not). This appears - to me, at least - to be the absolute worst time to be attempting to edit neutrally. The assumption of good faith goes out the window, and people start getting angry with those editors who seem to add insult to the perceived injury that the film represents to the affected editor. How is that any fun at all for anyone?
Does this movie portray historical events, in the order in which they occurred? Yes. Does it fill in the blanks with dramatic license, often at the expense of the ancient Persians? I think so. Does this depiction render the entire film is completely fiction, and devoid of any historical note? Clearly, it doesn't. -Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Finally, more reasonable points. Arcayne, the reason that I mentioned 3 musketeers rather than any of the subsequent books in that series was because most of the individuals were historical figures, the affair between Anne and Buckingham was suspected at the time, La Rochelle was beseiged, Buckingham was killed by a puritan when preparing to lift the seige, and so on. However, there is no evidence that the puritan in question was egged on by a French agent, or that Richelieu set elaborate traps to ensnare the queen, etc etc. The fact that the Cardinal comes across as vile and Bucks as saintly is a matter of interpretation; consider the widely ranging fictional depictions of Caesar and Cicero's characters for an extreme example.
You say the objections wouldnt have been there if Xerxes had been depicted as a nice guy. Some people wouldnt have been infuriated, definitely. However, if he had been depicted as a ten-foot tall androgynous nice guy, I at any rate would be here making the same points, and the people questioning the historicity of the movie would not have gone away. In none of the other movies you state has a simple, obvious historical fact (Xerxes, dude of medium height with beard) been so blatantly ignored. And that's just one of the facets. Very simply, this movie is not representative even of Hollywood's most blockbuster-y attempts at pop history. At least, not Hwoods recent attempts. Hornplease 19:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that the discussion at this point is limited to the depiction of the Persian army, I still hold that there are significant omissions of the historic record in the film. While I agree that it is wrong to describe the film at 'completely fiction', given that it features historic figures who took place in a historic battle, I would likewise insist that it is irresponsible to ignore the numerous, patently ahistorical elements of the film. I don't agree with the suggestion that some have proposed of simply not addressing the historic veracity of the film as an adequate solution. I don't want to give a reader who knows nothing of the BoT the impression that this film has invented a battle between Greek states (or really, as the film depicts it, just Sparta), but neither do I want to give a reader the idea that this is an accurate depiction of the battle. Cuffeparade 06:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Clearly this movie is directly or indirectly based on the account in Herodotus. It is surely not completely faithful to that account, and there are a gazillion things which the moviemakers and the graphic novelist simply made up, many of them no doubt fantastical. What's more, Herodotus's account is not reliable, either; even in antiquity, some called him "Father of Lies". Is it "historical fiction"? I'd think so; it is a fictionalized account of an episode from the past. Is it good historical fiction? The reviews I've read think it is not, but that doesn't change the genre. Is Valley of the Dolls not a novel because it is a trashy novel? Is it "accurate history"? Surely not, but that doesn't change the genre. --Macrakis 17:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

New approach

As the only neutral options were rejected, it is more than evident by now that a consensus in this Talk page will always be determined by an oligarchy, notably a group of partisan editors supporting a partisan view. Since the question at hand has proved itself controversial, I'm suggesting to adapt a new approach on the dispute: Use the most popular terminology as it is appears in credible anglophone sources (critics, reviews etc), regarding the genre of the film. Since the majority of editors insist that a label should be coined, it might as well be done the right way. Miskin 12:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Should such an appropriate label be found, (and good luck finding that as there is already dispute between the critics), it still has to be with the consensus of others (whether "you" believe there is oligarchy or not.) Alternatively, you can ignore the ostensible oligarchy and propose a new option as you suggest. I'll certainly vote for it if it appears neutral to me. (Neutral here I take to mean: not selected from a specific variety of critics) --siavash siavash

How long have you been editing wikipedia siavash? As far as I know, a certain amount of editing experience is required before participating in voting procedures. Miskin 01:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This 'new approach' just suggests that Miskin is unhappy that the voting didn't turn out the way he wanted. Are we going to keep having 'new approaches' until the result is what you want? The Behnam 22:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

See my comment above to see how the vote was biased. Miskin 01:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you think it was biased because some users are Iranian? Agha Nader 02:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
Yes I do, for the following reasons: (a)Iranian/partisan voters form an absolute majority over the non-Iranians (b)many of those partisan editors had never participated in this discussion and showed up out of the blue for the vote and (c)new editors with very few edits such as asiavash should not be counted in. Miskin 12:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I’m sorry but I've been watching this forum for long time, and have tried on different occasions (when I have the knowledge & background to intervene) to contribute as I see fit. I beg you to at least check out the archives, before declaring my vote invisible. Considering my always polite attitude toward other wikipedian editors your ignorance is uncalled for. I do think that you make sound argument at times, but alas you have an ostensible authoritarian bias in your thoughts (and manners as it appears), I suggest studying some philosophy (as I did) to rid this disease. Then maybe we shall be able to conduct a healthier (and more profitable) discourse. --siavash siavash
This isn't a forum. Miskin 04:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Farrokh Commentary

Now that that's done, what's the consensus on the statements by Farrokh? Include? Please (briefy) explain why or why not. Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Obviously I don't think it should be added, for all of the same reasons as before. The coverage of the criticism is fine as-is. The Behnam 16:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Not necessary unless we decide we need a line about military gear (the importance of which is not obvious to me), and in that case only if no better source can be found. --Javits2000 16:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I also am against its inclusion. It's importance is questionable, and the article already has a fairly extensive criticism section which does not, and should not, delve specifically into each and every historical inaccuracy. Obviously there are many to pick and choose from, but do we need to name each of them? Of course not. María (habla conmigo) 16:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I am against inclusion. Except for the military gear, each of his talking points area already hit on by other critics but lack his harsh tone. Hewinsj 18:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Farrokh's article is very different from Daryaee's and should be included. I have not understood the undue weight argument though. Futhermore, if it cannot be included in the article, it should be linked in the external links. Agha Nader 19:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
  • Should be included and expanded upon. Its very informative and touches on several topics not discussed by the other historians listed, including the causes of the war, military gear and military units, appearance of both sides, culture of both sides, etc...Azerbaijani 22:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Who is Farrokh and why should his commentary be removed? When you make a proposal, you should explain what it is all about since many people are not going to be aware of what is going on. Khorshid 03:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You might wish to revisit the two sections entitled, conveniently enough, Farrokh. They are, also conveniently located by way of the TOC above. Cheers. Arcayne (cast a spell) 12:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I performed an archive in the intervening time, so you may find the links for the material here, or the actual sections here, here andhere. I hope that helps. Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversy: Another view

Dimitris 04:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC) I think that another paragraph with a link to http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Apr07/Kashani05.htm should be included in the Political Aspects section as many people, including me, believe that nothing is <<too darned silly to withstand any ideological theorizing>>. Hence there is a need for another HOWEVER depicting the view that movies are a pedagogical tool and maybe not as simple and apolitical as the industry people want to present them. The above link also contains a part of Miller's radio interview. By reading it, one can understand that he is heavily political and that he makes the ideological conection and therefore what Seymour and Snyder think or say is almost irrelevant. They cannot know better than the author...

I wouldn't be opposed to adding a short graph to the Political Aspects section outlining Kashani's views, it may dovetail nicely with the existing references to Sontag's concept of 'fascist art'. I would only suggest that it is important to convey Kishani's views dispassionately, remembering WP:NOT#SOAP. That said, if 'proto-fascist cinema' is an emerging term in a critical tradition, perhaps it could be expanded into an article of its own, given that sufficient sources can be provided. I can imagine that some may object to the source as being a self-published source, but given that the author is identified as an academic lecturer at several colleges in the US and has thoroughly documented his sources, I wouldn't object. As to your point that nobody can know better than the author (Miller), I'd only mention that the film contains several departures from the graphic novel and, as I understand it, some of the more controversial aspects (notably the depiction of monstrous members of the Persian army) are among those departures. Miller cannot be expected to know the ideological connotation of aspects of the film that he did not contribute better than Snyder. Cuffeparade 06:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Archival Notice

26 Different sections were archived in Archive 9. Due to the possibility that folk might wish to utilize info from those srchvied sections, I've taken the liberty of inclusing a very brief synopsis of each sections contents and provided a link to that section int he archive. I have not archived ongoing discussions. I would like to also include the Pick a Numbah, Any Numbah, Take 2 soon, but only after someone has done a Javits2000-like tallying of the results and we have concluded that the voting is done. I will also archive those sections in between ongoing section conversation that are no longer being discussed. -Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Tally so far

I've only counted the prioritized votes (for example, if someone listed their vote as "3, 4, and then 6," I only counted #3 for this vote. Since it seems to be a horse race between 1 and 7, I've discounted the other choices for now. Regarding preference, the count is #1: nine votes and #7: seven votes. Please correct me if I'm wrong; I'm an English major for a reason. María (habla conmigo) 17:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I counted at least eight votes for 7. I did not count those who voted for 8, but they said they would votes for 7 if necessary. If we added those for 8, the total would be higher. Agha Nader 18:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
If we accept the terms put forth by Miskin, new user and anon IP are to be ommited to protect from sockpuppetry and other ill-doings. The vote would be 8/7 -- Agha was correct and I missed Mardavich's vote, and one vote was discounted on each side. María (habla conmigo) 19:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, the vote is in favor of option #7 with a 8/7 vote. Agha Nader 15:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

#1 now has ten votes to #7's eight. María (habla conmigo) 16:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

#7 has ten votes. Agha Nader 18:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
#7 has ten votes. Let the vote run its course, there is no clear consensus yet. --Mardavich 18:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
You said it had eight. No one had added a new vote for #7 since you last commented above, so I took your word for it, Agha. María (habla conmigo) 19:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
That is exactly what we are doing, ladies and gentlemen. No one is assuming that consensus has been reached. We are going to wait, and are not going to make any assumptions. Let's just wait for the dust to settle. Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record I am voting 7 (for the nth time). Please note I also oppose removing Farrokh's commentary. I didn't realise Arcayne was referring to Kaveh Farrokh, the archaeologist. The man is a scholar and an academic, his views are very notable. Also note the analysis by Ephraim Lytle, assistant professor of hellenistic history at the University of Toronto [13]. I don't know if his view is included in the article because my browser has trouble loading very long articles, but if its not, it should be included for sure. Khorshid 22:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Your vote has already been previously counted, Khorshid. Worry not. :)
Could I impose upon you to put your comments about Farrokh in the section titled for that purpose? It might be easier to keep track of it that way. I know you probably put it here for the purposes of economy, but I think your opinion might be put in the proper frame in the aforementioned section. Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

New/red users or users with a minimum number of edits cannot be counted in the vote. Those are not my terms, they are the standard terms as far as I'm concerned. Also nobody agreed that 8 and 7 is the same thing, this was just an assumption made by Mardavich. Miskin 23:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC) As previously, my vote is 7, or 8. Thanks. --siavash siavash

Please everyone, if you have voted before, do not register your vote again here. Let's not confuse matters. Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I did not mean to say that these were your terms, Miskin, only that you proposed them. I do agree that anon IP users and users with few edits and wiki experience should not be included in the vote. As of now, however, we have only had one IP vote, which was later changed when the user signed in, and one editor whose name was a redlink, but they have contributed a fair amount since February. [14]. It seems unfair to discount them simply because they haven't created a userpage. María (habla conmigo) 23:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, this [15] edit history certainly does not surpass the minimum number of edits. This user should be removed from the lot (if he's been already counted in). Miskin 23:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia guideline about minimum amount of edits. No one will be disenfranchised based on your opinions of their edit history.... or race. --Agha Nader 00:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Miskin, Agha - please stop right there. Let's not drop the race card, because no one will win that particularly loathsome little argument. The user in question has posted comments in 300 before, and should be included. That should be the real criteria here, that they have posted here before on the article, as it indicates a prior interest in the article before this vote came up. New visitors weighing in all of the sudden bring concerns of vote-stacking and meat-puppetry we would be better off avoiding. -Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
My comment has basis. Miskin said "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." Also he said there is a "a coalition of Iranian editors", while no such coalition exists. To clarify I asked him, "Do you think it was biased because some users are Iranian?", he replie: "Yes". This is blatant racial disenfranchisement. --Agha Nader 02:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that both parties withdraw from this particular argument, letting it go.
In the absence of precedent (for which I am sure there is), the voting criteria should be that they have posted substantially here in either the article or discussion before this vote came to pass (excluding of course, vandals), as it indicates a prior interest in the article before now. New visitors (not to be confused with new editors) weighing in all of the sudden bring concerns of vote-stacking and meat-puppetry we would be better off avoiding. Votes from people who do not fit the prior criteria should likely be discounted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 10:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
I suggest that both parties withdraw from this particular argument, letting it go.
In the absence of precedent (for which I am sure there is), the voting criteria should be that they have posted substantially here in either the article or discussion before this vote came to pass (excluding of course, vandals), as it indicates a prior interest in the article before now. New visitors (not to be confused with new editors) weighing in all of the sudden bring concerns of vote-stacking and meat-puppetry we would be better off avoiding. Votes from people who do not fit the prior criteria should likely be discounted.Arcayne (cast a spell) 10:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I will say one thing, which in my opinion needs to be acknowledged by every participant of this talk page, and then I'll let go. You forgot to mention that Agha reported this "incident" on my alleged "racism" to the administration noticeboard, where he received some detailed explanations from uninvolved parties [16]. Alas the admin who explained to him that this is not racism nor an incident, was also indirectly accused to be a "racist". Frankly, throwing around such strong terms as "racist" or "prejudiced" is just laughable, in fact this is borderline violation of NPA, and it reveals a poor understanding of freedom of speech. Just because you don't like another editor's opinion, it doesn't mean that he doesn't have the right to say it. By calling me "racist" and "prejudiced" you bring an irony upon yourself: You are judging my whole socio-political persona by my argumentation on a wikipedia film article. So please, Agha, Behnam and anyone who's prone to using such terminology, just drop it and concentrate on the question at hand. It can only make you look bad, as it has done once already. Now I consider the matter closed. Miskin 11:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Now that it is a question of 1 or 7 I suggest we run a separate vote: "pick a numbah 1 or 7". Behaafarid 22:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That's probably what we'll do, after the week is up. Another choice might make itself apparent. and we shouldn't jump the gun. Nice to see you thinking ahead, though.. :) Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
7 is currently winning by a landslide.--Agha Nader 21:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Fundamentally flawed process

I have been observing this 'vote' for awhile now and I cannot help but comment that this sort of thing is exactly what we should not do on Wikipedia. The reason that things are often stressed as 'not a vote' is because voting doesn't necessarily determine what is best for the article by itself. This purpose of creating good articles is why Wikipedia is not an experiment with democracy. Y'all should be actually trying to sort out points rather than making tallies. Points were brought up previously, but now the conversation has digressed into petty arguments about how to count, when the vote ends, who is a sockpuppet or should be discounted, etc. This conflict should be resolved by further discussion, and if it comes to an apparent stalemate again, perhaps an authoritative uninvolved party can come in to make the final decision, much like an AFD. In any case this is what I think should be done. The Behnam 07:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite right, I understood this explicitly not to be a vote, but rather an attempt to generate consensus, that is to find a version that would be acceptable to all concerned. In fact I've emphasized this (e.g. here and on numerous other talk pages) from the start, although it should probably have been stated more clearly here. As it stands, the discussion has degenerated into some kind of a horse-race, and has led straight back to a "two-camp" situation ("1" and "7"). I personally consider one of those options (namely 7) to be fundamentally inaccurate, and am furthermore not alone in this, so the attempt to generate consensus has apparently failed, and another approach needs to be tried. Arbitration is not out of the question. --Javits2000 12:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The survey/vote was intended to point out a clearer consensus from those editors working on the article. What it has turned into is precisely what Benham and Havits have noted, a horse-race and a rallying call for those who feel their culture has been unfairly treated. Frankly, I am of the opinion that if you have strong feelings/emotions about a subject, you shouldn't be editing it, as you cannot be objective, and you are going to react defensively to any attempt to make the edits more neutral.
Clearly, the voting has not functioned in the intended manner; it is not generating consensus, is yet another failed attempt to find a middle ground betweeen the pro-neutral group, and the pro-nationalism group. Anyone contesting that statement need only look over the edit history of both the article and the Discussion.
While I will continue to tally the results because I said I would, we should likely consider MedCom, as it has been suggested to me that this issue appears to be more complex than Third Opinion (which would encompass Benham's first suggestion) or MedCab. As there seems to be no consensus on the issue of the descriptor statements, we need to try something else to resolve both that as well as the underlying issue of the partisanship.
Having said that, all parties involved need to agree to MedCom arbitration for it to work. Please read over the link for medCom and consider this option. Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think arbitration is really for irresolvable conduct-related issues so it may not be the best way to resolve this content dispute. However, the other steps of DR may help, or simply seeking some authoritative outside opinions to help close the problem. The Behnam 13:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Just as a note, 'third opinion' is not appropriate unless there are only two editors involved. The Behnam 13:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

From my part I cannot help but comment that Behnam's opinions, preferences and remarks, are all variables depending on the circumstances. Last time I made the same remark, Behnam accused me for trying to avoid the result of the vote [17]. Now that the tide has turned against him, he advocates the same idea, except for different 'abstract' reasons. My reasons had been very specific: people showed up out of the blue, probably after being notified by email. Behnam's reasons are simply motivated by the fact that his preference is about to lose. Miskin 14:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please AGF sir. I shouldn't have to keep telling you this. I commented on the apparent 'rule adjustment' you were making because it seemed you were trying to change rules whenever it wasn't looking the way you wanted. Lacking solid proof of canvassing this could have very well been the case. So please stop assigning motivations to me haphazardly. The Behnam 14:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, aren't you about to do the same thing? At least my reasons were motivated by a fair amount of "coincidences" combined with past experience on wikipedia which made me suspicious. Maybe this is not solid proof but it was still a valid reason. You're abstractly advocating that the vote is not a good solution. I've been the first person who generally thinks that voting in WP is a ridiculous way to reach a "consensus", and the bias of this vote serves as a proof. By definition we cannot have a true voting result if we don't define a fixed set of voters and a fixed set of candidates - both of which are missing in wikipedia's voting procedures. For that very reason I've been trying to ellaborate above (section 'historical fiction'), as to why it is against NPOV to label this film a "fictional account". Feel free to participate. For the time being the vote shows that despite the possible bias, a relative majority is in favour of a certain proposal. Miskin 14:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it seems we agree that voting isn't the best way to solve these issues, so I don't see why we should argue further. The Behnam 14:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Because I think that if the vote had been favouring your preference, you would have never questioned its reliability. When I made the same proposal you attacked me, so apparently, you were in favour of the vote's reliability at the time. It seems you've had a sudden change of heart since then. Miskin 14:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Also the vote's vulnerabilities were exploited in favour of your view (albeit not by yourself), yet the result still ended up leaning towards the opposite view. The way I see it this is what happened: we start an exploitable vote, you weigh in, a questionable input gives weigh to your view, I propose that the vote is biased, you turn me down, I weigh in, the result leans against your view, you suddenly attempt to cancel the vote by claiming that it's not a good solution. In respect to this sequence of events, you can't expect me to AGF on your motives. Miskin 14:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you are being paranoid at this point and imagining all sorts of strangeness behind my motivations. It is akin to thinking a movie is part of psychological warfare. Welcome to the family Miskin. The Behnam 15:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You (and some other editors here) have already accused me and other people (such as a random admin in AnI) who have dared to oppose your view, for being "anti-Iranian" and "racist". So let's not speak about paranoid behaviour. Miskin 15:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Paranoid? What are we afraid of? It is just an observation based on your automatic designation of Iranian editors as partisan, as if Iranians are incapable of objectivity. That is definitely prejudiced, or in informal usage ,'racism'. Yes I know we aren't a 'race' (though some beg to differ [18]), but the term was used in equivalence to general prejudice in this situation. You did this with me previously, and then gave some silly explanation about how you just can't AGF at all. I suggest that you drop this attitude. The Behnam 15:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The Benham and Miskin both: this discussion has ceased being about the improvement of the article and has delved into the realm of the personal. If you wish to continue this heated discussion, please take it to either one of your talk pages where it belongs. The rest of us do not need to bear witness to this. María (habla conmigo) 16:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. This digression occurred once Miskin entered the conversation, but anyway, do you have anything to say about the original ideas before Miskin came back with his conspiracy theories? The Behnam 18:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think a section with this heading should be created as I've seen the film used for humor purposes on a vareity of Comedy Central shows, such as Colbert and Daily Show, and as a major stylistic element of last night's episode of South Park, complete with the narrative, the battles against Persians, a 9 foot Xerxes, the slow motion, etc. --164.107.223.217 14:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We should wait on that option until sources about those features evolve. The Behnam 14:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I am for that, there is all ready a 300 section on the south park page heres the link (D-Yikes)

am sure you can get some stuff there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peavey5150 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

What's the Hubbub, bub?

Not to interrupt, but you stated that the 3 Musketeers was real, when in fact it was not; it was simply a dramatization of events using characterizations of people (often renamed). Events were greatly distorted to fit historical events, sometimes bizarrely so by Dumas. One need only recall the books The Vicomte de Bragelonne and The Three Musketeers to reaize to see that events were tailored to fit an audience. Richelieu was not considered as vile as he was written, nor was Buckingham that pleasant of an individual, as evidenced by the historical record. No one the novels anything but historical fiction. This film is very much the same thing. The historical elements are in fact in place. No one has sucecessfully argued that the Battle of Thermopylae did not occur, or occurred in a manner different from Herodotus' account. The sole reason we are debating this issue at all is how it depicted the ancient Persians.
Using that hypothesis, we should explore the idea of whether this much hubbub would be missing if ancient Persians had been portrayed accurately in dress and weapons.How much of this angry villification would there be if King Xerxes had been portrayed as noble and, well kingly? I think the fair answer is not very much at all. Other examples of this sort reaction would be Braveheart, or Troy, wherein folk were more upset at Edward II being portrayed as a homosexual, or Achilles as a blond caucasian.
Working from that conclusion, it becomes apparent that the sole reason we are dealing with this level of animosity is that some editors are reacting emotionally to this movie when they are editing. They are acting emotionally while editing (evidenced just in the immediately preceding post by the editor who thought that attacking Miller was an effective tool of editing, when it is not). This appears - to me, at least - to be the absolute worst time to be attempting to edit neutrally. The assumption of good faith goes out the window, and people start getting angry with those editors who seem to add insult to the perceived injury that the film represents to the affected editor. How is that any fun at all for anyone?
Does this movie portray historical events, in the order in which they occurred? Yes. Does it fill in the blanks with dramatic license, often at the expense of the ancient Persians? I think so. Does this depiction render the entire film is completely fiction, and devoid of any historical note? Clearly, it doesn't. -Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the majority here agrees that it does not. Maybe we should move some edits from the "historical fiction" section in this one, in order to keep the discussion alive. Miskin 10:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyway the vote above is getting ridiculous, a 51%-49% preference of an arguably biased vote will never determine an editor consensus, let alone reflecting the objectively correct approach. Although evident to some, there is no way to prove what the "real" consensus is, and by WP:AGF we are obliged to assume that the topic has proved itself controversial. In that case we have no choice but to keep an agnostic stance, i.e. avoid all labels. This happens to be by coincidence my initial preference, but I think at this point it is the only reasonable thing to do. Other views? Miskin 11:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this is becoming far too headache-inducing. If no one can agree on a genre/label/whatever, it should stay out for now, fiction, historical, whatever. Is it odd that I'm growing to like the lead as it currently is? All it says is that it's a film adaptation of the graphic novel, which was inspired by a movie based on the BoT. It implies that the film is both historical and fictional. That's good enough for me. María (habla conmigo) 12:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that is the point. As has been revealed inthe header below, it would make sense to continue arguing the pov until those who not as sharply divided on the issue either leave the article in frustration (as we have aready seen in three separate instances), or until they are simply worn down. It's one thing to have a POV; its another thing altogether to coordinate efforts to ensure its influence over an article. Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. What you are saying is that you have such strong POV that you would rather discourage other editors from discussing the matter so yours would win?! wow, that's one helpful philosophy for a voluntary NPOV encyclopedia! --Rayis 13:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that the current lead is fine. Rayis I'm pretty sure that Arcayne didn't mean to imply that he intends to inject his POV after everyone stops arguing. Geesh. Miskin 13:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sure he can comment for himself --Rayis 14:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
No, you misread what I said, Ray. I wasn't saying that i had POV at all. If anything, I am the centrist of this little play, trying to pull folk back to the center and NPOV. If I think that editors solicitng others from outside the discussion is meat-puppetry, that is a view shared by Wikipedia policy. If I think that editors coordinating their efforts to shut down opposing viewpoint is Not Good, that is also supported by WP policy. An NPOV encyclopedia requires that people with an agenda leave those agendas at the door. Those who cannot leave partisan views have no place here. I certainly hope that answers your question. Ray. Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Arc. NPOV is still a POV as it is described in WP:NPOV. I am sure a lot of us are here for the same reason, as much as sometimes it might not feel like it (WP:AGF). Arc. --Rayis 18:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Arcayne, please see my comment below. You certainly have a POV about the header. Hornplease 09:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Out of Wikipedia Canvassing

Finally, the confirmation has arrived: Outside canvassing for Iranian nationalist views. The Behnam 12:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk about taking things too seriously. It's an internet article about a movie. María (habla conmigo) 12:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The plot thickens. Hewinsj 13:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
There is independent confirmation of this, as well as discussion regarding the formation of a so-called "task force" to address through coordinated efforts issues like "POV and disputed articles". Anyone remember how some of the editors have been describing 300?.
I think this seems to meet the burden of wiki-canvassing at the very least, as the only editors seemingly contacted were the same editors who have been contributing a single, unified pov here.Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
That has little to do with this. Me and User:Sa.vakilian have had and continue to share our disagreements and disputes (different POV!) and yet he left the same message on my talk page. A lot of Wikiprojects have task forces, this doesn't mean anything. I suggest you stop worrying so much about this article, Lets remember that the major disagreement is using just one or two different words in the whole article! When there is so much concern, why is there a feeling that little effort has been put in to some sort of compromise between the lines and more in to a vote gathering? --Rayis 13:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
That whole thread was posted by a new user on some obscure forum with almost no visitors, and has had no responses and 18 views so far. Besides, for all we know, that poster "Truth" or whatever his name, could very well be someone from here trying to incriminate users who disagree with him, which begs the question how did The Behnam find that obscure link on some obscure forum to begin with? Yes, the plot thickens even more. --Mardavich 13:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
That's a good point actually --Rayis 13:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, sure. Look at it from the other side, pls. A statistically significant number of edits seem to be coming from editors who work in a lot of Iranian articles (that in itself is nothing; I work on them, too).

Add to that the fact that all of these edits seem to be supporting that the film, which unfavorably depicts ancient Persians, is wholly fictional,
Add to that, the attempted (and easily linkable) RfC complaints to remove editors who oppose this viewpoint. Add to that the forum post from a highly-visited website (over 100,000 hits on the day the forum post appeared, according to research) - not some "obscure" forum, as someone has attempted to spin. It could easily be asked about how many those 18 viewers contacted (I wonder, off-topic, how many votes were cast for certain choices).
Add to that the link provided in which the people who were contacted about the proposed "controversial" (Sa.vakilian's words, not mine) almost immediately became a new presence here in this article.
Yes, this is just one article, but I think it is being considered a testing ground for this organized effort. If it works here, it can be applied to other articles more smoothly. Sure, that doesn't seem very AGF, but I don't think that policy is supposed to excuse a contempt for the process. Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I believe that the substantial canvassing is going on behind the scenes. You canvassed at the Anti-Iranianism AFD... anyway, email is probably the way this thing is getting around. The Behnam 13:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. WP:AGF Anyone?! --Rayis 13:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The assumption of good faith does not translate as ignoring bad acts by what has been suspected to be an organized POV effort. It's unacceptable. Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Quite unacceptable. How about this idea tou counteract possible meatpuppets: unless someone says something that actually moves an argument forward, we ignore them. Actually, I've been doing that already. Hornplease 19:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and in defense of Sa.vakilian, it is perfectly appropriate for him to ask for input from Iran-related editors about making that new collaborative structure, so please don't call that canvassing. The Behnam 13:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that is the very definition of the word, Benham. I think what you meant to suggest was that was not as sinister as it was made to seem. Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Notice that the poster on that forum has only one post. That account was just created to make that one post there yesterday, this is AFTER all the controvery about how to count the votes and baseless accusations of vote-stockings etc. Also, the language used in that "notice" is clearly exaggerated and inflammatory, to a point that it sounds comical, as if it's trying to mock Iranians, which is another indication that it was posted by an opposing editor from here, a perfect example of a straw-man account. And on top of all that, User:The Behnam's sudden discovery of this obscure message on some obscure forum only adds to the mystery. --Mardavich 14:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
It's impossible to not suspect someone in here, after all that post practically asks from people to participate in edit-warring and win the specific dispute by means of numerical superiority and vandalism. I mean, this dispute _is_ the topic of the post. Maybe a CheckUser and the co-operation of www.iranian.ws's administrators could shed some light to the case. Miskin 14:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that the canvassing applies only if he is asking for a view or asking people who would have an obvious view. And that poster may be that zulqarnain user who got blocked earlier, based on the spelling at least. The Behnam 14:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I suspect you User:The Behnam or whoever provided you that link, at least until you clearly explain how you suddenly found that obscure message which was posted on an obscure message board only yesterday, this looks like a clear case of straw-man account to incriminate the opposing editors.--Mardavich 14:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand you suspicion, but I was notified by another editor. I don't know how he found it. The Behnam 14:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Please tell us who, because in all likeliness, that's the person behind this straw-man account. --Mardavich 14:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I received an email as well, and a comparison of the full headers clearly indicate that the originating IP address differs significantly from that of Benham, who I have email from. As for who sent me the email, I think that is immaterial. The fact that these issues seem to all be related is of greater note. Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
No, it is NOT "immaterial". For the sake of accountability and transparency, you should disclose the identity of this mystery man who has been secretly e-mailing you to do his bidding, so we can get to the bottom of these issues, because in all likeliness, that mystery man is behind it the offwiki message as well. This looks like a plain case of straw-man puppetry. --Mardavich 16:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Who says its a man? I don't know the person's gender, just like I don't know yours. Apart from that, you are entitled to believe whatever you wish, so long as it remains civil and follows WP rules. Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The fact that you're not revealing this user's identity, is a clear indication that there is something to hide from the public. There is more to this story than we are being told, that is for sure. --Mardavich 16:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

How would Behnam gain from such a hoax? This is incompatible to your reasoning above since Behnam is on the Iranian side of the dispute. I would not suspect any established user or any user at all for that matter. There are ways to find out who it is, so there's no need to play Sherlock Holmes. Miskin 14:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The Behnam is NOT on the Iranian side of the dispute. In case you didn't know, The Behnam has a history of conflicts with Iranian users all over the place. I've heard accusations that he's not even Iranian, and he himself has admitted that he doesn't speak or understand Persian. --Mardavich 14:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see how that matters, Mardavich. Just because an individual may not be full blood Iranian (and according to the userbox on The Behnam's userpage, he identifies as half Iranian), from Iran, or doesn't speak the language, does not automatically mean he can't be on the side of your compatriots. For the record, I have no idea what side he's on; however, the need to point out that race does not, should not, cannot dictate sides made me want to play devil's advocate. María (habla conmigo) 14:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
For the record, Miskin your suggestion seemed a lot more investigative [19] like Sherlock holmes than what Mardavich suggested which was basically Behnam telling the truth --Rayis 14:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I was stating the obvious, i.e. that this thread was started by someone who has already edited this article. I didn't point any fingers. I'm not sure Rayis that you understood what Mardavich meant, though his last edit makes it crystal clear. Those allegations are serious Mardavich, I hope you've got strong evidence to back them up with. Miskin 14:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and so are the allegations of "outside canvassing for Iranian nationalist views" over a message that could have been posted by anyone with ill intentions, from anywhere in the world, from Hamburg to Athens. --Mardavich 14:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The person who told me did so in confidence, because he had received threats to his personal safety. As this person provided links for their suggestion rather than asking me to interced on their behalf, I find it the person credible. Arcayne (cast a spell)
I just wanted to hear you say the name. Otherwise, I knew the source from the beginning, no big surprises. I have got my hand on a copy of the email in question too, complete with full header, I will use it as evidence in a RFC I will open soon on the admin in question's questionable activities off-wiki. --Mardavich 19:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it seems that this is inconclusive. While Mardavich, who now questions that I am 'Iranian' because I disagree with, oh, CAIS garbage and all that, is violating AGF by not considering that this could have been a genuine canvass, and instead assuming that I or the my source of information planted it. Please AGF Mardavich, thank you. And I don't think this conversation will do anything more than collect more personal attacks and AGF violations, so how about we all just stop? Thanks. The Behnam 18:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you are in violation of WP:AGF by classifying some random message on some random board that could have been written by anyone with any agenda as "outside canvassing for Iranian nationalist views". Your assumptions are as "genuine" as mine. --Mardavich 19:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC) here.
No, outside canvassing is the only way to describe that message, and I didn't even think to violate AGF by speculating that someone did it for false flag reasons until you suggested it (pinning it on me). Oddly enough it now requires a password to access. How quaint. The Behnam 19:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
No, that's not the only way to describe that questionable straw-man message. Your speculations are as valid as mine. --Mardavich 19:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The difference is that I was gullible and did not assume that it was someone being false. And yes, I apologize for being gullible. The Behnam 19:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Lets all kiss and make up now shall we? :) --Rayis 22:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

King or Emperor?

I that Xerxes should be referred to as the correct title of Emperor (Shahanshah) of Persia, at least when referring to the reality off the movie, which inaccurately did refer to him as King --Rayis 14:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows anglophone terminology. Miskin 14:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Emperor is not an English word? --Rayis 14:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
This is an article about the movie, and not about Xerxes. As has been noted many, many times before, this film doesn't pretend to be 100% historically accurate. It's a movie, after all. Moreover, he is referred to as King Xerxes by various historical sources. Lastly, you voted for the idea that the film was a complete fiction, so what reality of the film might you be referring to?Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Calm down, I was referring to the parts and sentences in the article that are referring to the historical character, there is no need for us to follow the movie as the correct history, and any sources you are referring to are obviously inaccurate, as the movie is. --Rayis 14:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually the article Shahanshah translates the term to "King". It's a question of terminology not of linguistics. Compare to basileus which is translated in English to "Emperor", though it literally means "monarch". Miskin 14:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Erm no, Shāhanshāh (Persian: شاهنشاه ) is a Persian monarchial title, literally meaning King of Kings. It is often confused with Shah, a similar title used by Persian rulers, which is translated as king.. Please pay a little attention --Rayis 14:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
No comments. Miskin 14:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
He was an Emperor, ruling an Empire. You don't have to post comments if you don't have any --Rayis 14:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see. You are arguing that the term emperor should have been applied instead of king? Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Boss, you just admitted that it means "King of Kings" and then you said its base word means "King" and then you claimed that he should be called "Emperor". Your whole claim is oxymoronic. Miskin 14:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
King of Kings is a Persian term that means Emperor, boss. Furthermore it (Emperor) is the accurate term for ruler of an empire. You don't have to disagree with every statement outside your two man group, you know. --Rayis 14:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
He's King Xerxes in the film, and is therefore mentioned as such in the article about the film. To refer to him otherwise in any sections, no matter the correct translation/historical implications, would be confusing and misleading. People are still forgetting that this article is about a film. María (habla conmigo) 14:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I've got nothing to reply to someone who thinks that 'King' somehow translates to 'Emperor'. Please mind WP:NPA while you're at it. Miskin 14:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
If you're referring to King of Kings (a similar title was held by Genghis Khan (he was referred to as the Khan of Khans)), then, yes, it translates to Emperor. A King who holds other Kings as vassals... what possible confusion could there be? That's what an Emperor is. He is, however, referred to in the movie as 'King.' Which is technically not incorrect, a King may be an Emperor and vice versa. The King of Britain didn't stop being one when he took over India and became an Emperor. Jachra 10:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a fictional movie, so what matters is what term the movie uses. Do they use King or Emperor? I can't remember. --Mardavich 15:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The film uses the terms "God King", "King of kings" and "God of gods" when Xerxes talks about himself or when his subbordinates refer to him. Characters may have also said king when rushed, but these were the standards that I remember. Hewinsj 15:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ryais don't do that [20] again please. This was actually a warning to your own uncivil behaviour. Removing other people's edits is plain vandalism. Miskin 15:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That [21] either. Miskin 15:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Another removal of other people's text by User:Rayis: [22] Miskin 15:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Miskin, you removed both my discussion argument AND warning for your uncivil remark. So please keep your warnings for yourself and while you are at it, chill out --Rayis 15:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
(multiple edit conflicts, jeez) You're both uncivil. And it's king in the movie, Mardavich. Can we move on, now? María (habla conmigo) 15:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
How was I uncivil? I have crossed our your uncivil remark Miskin, please don't do that again, that is a personal attack. Thanks, --Rayis 15:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Fine, if you insist on keeping your uncivil comment, that's fine. Let it shine :) --Rayis 15:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The removal of your text was the result of your own actions, i.e. something that you instigated. I wanted to revert the page to my previous unvandalised version, I couldn't care about what you had written in between. It was your responsibility for having removed my text in the first place. You've been uncivil and provokative since the beginning, and although I tried to avoid you, you always provoked for an answer - until of course you became plainly uncivil. It's not my problem that you don't know what a personal attack is, what you've been doing here is trying to shut me up because I refuted your claims. I have reported the incident to an administrator so that you'll hear it from a third party. Normally I'd also be expecting an apology. Miskin 16:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Haha well I am willing to let others judge who is acting provokative and\or uncivil here. I don't have time to deal with someone who doesn't understand a simple sentence like "The term King of Kings in Persian refers to the Emperor". Have fun. --Rayis 18:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I haven't yet seen anything that indicates that Xshayathiya Xshayathinam or however the Old Persian is transliterated that actually equates it to "Emperor," as it is generally translated "King of Kings." That meant Emperor for the Shah but as far as I have seen not for Darius and friends. I will continue to look around; I'm trying to check Iranica but it is hard to use and some letters don't have any entries :( The Behnam 18:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Is the exact translation even important? Emperor means ruler of an Empire in English and I thought that would be the correct term to use here, but serious hostility from some people prevents them to understand this simple point I tried to make. Furthermore it looks like everyone is opposed to it so nevermind --Rayis 18:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
As I said on your talk page, Rayis, implication is not enough to include this in the article. When characters call King Xerxes the "King of Kings," it means precisely what is says. That he is referred to as an emperor in antiquity does not pertain to this film article, nor does the correct or incorrect etymology of the phrase in Persian or English. In the context of this film article, your "simple phrase" doesn't belong. María (habla conmigo) 18:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for letting me know of your opinion. I don't really care anymore as I said above. --Rayis 18:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
King of Kings and Emperor mean the same thing; ruler of an empire. --Mardavich 02:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
King of Kings was equal to Emperor under the Shah but nothing yet indicates the Achaemenian form of "King of Kings" should be translated as "Emperor", and most conventions call them Kings. The Behnam 02:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There's really nothing I can write that would bring sanity to some the discussion above, is there? Anyway, since the film is clearly not very concerned with historical accuracy, I'd place its terminology and that of the associated materials over historical use. --Kizor 03:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for coming in late and all, saw this going on and thought I'd add my two cents: In just about every usage I've ever come across, "Emperor" is a title that is usually attached as an honorific AFTER the name and royal title of the monarch, for example Queen Elizabeth II, Empress of the British Empire, Defender of the Faith, etc. One also finds that the Emperors of the Holy Roman empire are also usually referred to in histories by King/Queen, with Emperor following after. Furthermore, using various English translations of the Bible which refers to both Darius and Xerxes one finds the translation usually refers to one as "King Darius" when it mentions him by name and "the emperor" when it refers to merely his position. So while Xerxes' official title might translate as King of Kings (an ancient honorific that is indeed synonomous with Emperor) it is not incorrect to refer to him as King Xerxes in English.DidymusQuatro 16:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)DidymusQuatro

Now I am not arguing with you here, but I just wanted to point out that bible is not usually a reliable source for checking facts when it comes to history or English terms. --Rayis 21:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Let's not get derailed into an argument over the historical reliability of biblical accounts, I was merely stating that in addition to Xerxe's mention as king in translations of Greek accounts into English and English rules of honorifics, there is also an identification of Xerxes as King Xerxes dating back to 1611. Whether this is an accurate translation of the Persian title is irrelevant to the matter at hand, it merely supports that within the English languages and histories that would need to be referenced for an English language encyclopedia article, King Xerxes the Persian Emperor reigns and Emperor Xerxes is an unknown. If this is a matter that needs to be addressed, it is within an article about translation of historical accounts, not an article about a movie of already dubious historical accuracy.68.63.220.114 06:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)edit, this was meDidymusQuatro 07:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the scene with the oracle

216.201.194.106 22:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC) April 14th I have done extensive research on the spartan way of life, and a point i would like to make that is obviously in the movie (but in a hidden way) is that Leonidas does NOT offer gold to the Oracle, but merely bars of iron. Spartans did not use gold or silver in their way of life, but little bars iron. The people who founded Sparta did this to eliminate jealousy and theft. Thus making the act of Xerxes offering gold to them a bigger deal causing greed. For the Spartans in those times they had no need for wealth and greed.

Very interesting, historically speaking, but I'm not sure if these assertions would fit into the article. We really should stick to what is in the movie and not dwell on the small differences between that and history. I cannot remember the context of Leonidas making the offering in the movie, but I can tell you that in the graphic novel from which the film is almost obsessively copied, Leonidas pours what looks like gold discs out of a bag; they are certainly gold colored, and small enough to fit several of them in the palm of his hand. There is also the quote in the narration, directly after Leonidas hands over his offering, that "there's never been a holy man who lacked the love for gold" (emphasis in the text). Can anyone who has seen the movie more recent than I clarify if it was gold that was offered by our man Leo? María (habla conmigo) 00:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Certainly looked like it to me. That's an interesting fact about the Spartan lifestyle; unfortunately, I don't think we can use it in the article, since if we start pointing out the movie's inaccuracies we'll be here all week. --Kizor 00:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Differences between film and graphic novel

What few people, maybe nobody, has pointed out is the differences between the film and the original material. Most of the articles about film adapted from other materials include a section about differences.

  • There's no Theron. Therefore Gorgo is never blackmailed.
  • Gorgo doesn't appear before the Council.
  • There's no Council scene
  • Gorgo and Leonidas are never shown having sex.
  • Gorgo doesn't give Leonidas a farewell gift.
  • Immortals are never shown without masks
  • There are no Uber-Immortals
  • The executioner that beheads Xerxes' generals is a regular man, not some deformed, obese executioner with cleaves instead of hands.
  • While there are dancers in Xerxes personal throne-tent, there are no scarred women, no goat-headed musician and the like.
  • There are no war-rhinos.
  • The Oracle speaks directly to Leonidas.

This details should be pointed out. Part of the controversy is centered around the original stuff created by Snyder and/or the writers.--Gonzalo84 01:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You missed some there is also no "tree of the dead."

and no gift for the queen. Also its a 100 nations in the book but in the movie its a 1000 nations ( Hollywood always has to embellish the movie lol) oh and the Spartans are nude in the book, although I think that was for rating reasons.

lol Uber-Immortals.5150 03:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What part in the graphic novel are you referring to? They are clothed in the film exactly as they were in the GN; the only part with nudity that wasn't in the movie, off the top of my head, is when a few of them bathed in the waters where the Persian soldiers had just drowned. Even then, however, they're airbrushed. Very disappointing.
As for differences between the graphic novel and the film as a whole, the key difference, being the added scenes with Gorgo in Sparta is already mentioned in the Production section -- though not at length. I think many of the instances that Gonzalo84 has pointed out are relatively unimportant as far as the movie and source material go, and the fact that showing or not showing the Immortals' faces, and similar instances, doesn't necessarily an interesting fact make. As others have pointed out, the movie follows the graphic novel almost obsessively in many respects, especially in cinematography and dialog; surely we don't need to create a section to point out tiny differences between the two? If it's felt that it's needed, however, perhaps we can pump up the Gorgo mention in Production a bit. María (habla conmigo) 03:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I am fine with adding more to the Gorgo section. I didn't really want to add a section that points out tiny differences but if your going to put up a "Differences between film and graphic novel" section, then you might as well get everything in there, or there is just going to be more debate form other users who think it should be added. Just thinking ahead some. lol

oh and to answer your question King Leonidas is nude in the book when he pushes the massager down the well. As well as what you mentioned above. But like I said before I think that was for rating reasons. 5150 16:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be more inclusive to have a section on difference between the GN and the film, especially since the film follows the GN very closely.Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem with a differences section is that it could come across as original research, and become a hive for trivia and nitpicking lists. It is far better in my view to include why changes were made, considering we can't expect different tellings of the same story to be exactly the same, and I'm fine with Snyder explaining why he added the Gorgo sub-plot. Alientraveller 16:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how it could come across as original research if we can all agree on that it is a fact. We could add a page that would just talk about the differences and have a link in this page and and graphic novel page. I have seen it done with the Metalocalypse article. Or we could not do one at all. lol 5150 17:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It'll be original research because it'll be uncited. Alientraveller 17:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

True. All in favor for not making this section. "I" 5150 17:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
No. It's highly unnecessary, and as Alientraveller has pointed out, it'll become tedious and ridden with useless trivia. Every little tiny difference is not important and to point them out ad infinitum does not improve the article. We have already mentioned the crucial difference (Gorgo), and why it was included in the film; I seriously doubt anything more is needed. María (habla conmigo) 18:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to throw my $0.02 in here; when there are adaptations of source material, there will always be differences for creative and conventional reasons. An exhaustive list of these differences would be trivial and indiscriminate. To limit the scope of the comparisons, only differences that have been pointed out by attributable sources would count. Following that narrowing of the possibilities, it would need to be considered what changes were actually relevant. For instance, the subplot of Gorgo is already mentioned and explained to expand the queen's role moreso than the comic book. Something like, "He's wearing a belt in this comic, but he's not wearing a belt in the film," does not carry encyclopedic weight. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You're quite definitely right. At the same time, Gonzalo raises an interesting point: the portrayal of Persians is somewhat further embellished in the film. Worth pointing out @ controversy? --Kizor 11:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Got a cite? Alientraveller 11:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

South Park Parody

I am sure we could find sources in the south park article. There is already a comparison on that page could help out some to. I think there should also be some kind of vote on if this should be added or not.

Here is the link to south park article D-Yikes! 5150 01:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I love Southpark but I honestly don't see why the last episode should be mentioned in this article. Countless of hollywood movies have been parodied in southpark one way or another, that doesn't mean that the respective wp-articles should have a section about it. Why not a section about Family Guy's parodies? Let's keep seriousness at a basic level. Miskin 01:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
True but it could still be mentioned in a Popular Culture section. And you know more will come as soon as merchandising rights are released. They all ready have made a video game off of the movie.5150 01:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and the video game is already mentioned in the Marketing section. María (habla conmigo) 01:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
A popular culture section is a different story, I was objecting to a "southpark episode" section that was attempted earlier. Miskin 11:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
there is no need to give "full details" of the south park episode. Just with a sentence give a link to it, everybody who is interested will followed it up. blocking the mentioning of it, is a blatant POV pushing. And by the way that parody is also mentioned even in Xerxes article! --Pejman47 23:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:RT Comic Ep102 Dine.jpg|right| thumb|300px|300 in Red Vs Blue I added this image and someo0ne removed it why? We should at least put this somewhere? Pece Kocovski 05:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It was removed here

as "funny but clearly out of the scope of the article)", which is correct. Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

But then I reverted myself [23] so the pic was removed again by a different user. I still think that it's kindof irrelevant to the article, so I agree with its removal. Miskin 11:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd caution against 300 references in popular culture. If anything is pursued for this sort of section, it should be written in compelling prose and not just point out various examples (like saying, "Oh, South Park parodied 300"). I think that the best sources for this kind of section would be "bystanders" that offer commentary on how 300 has been parodied in this and that. The "bystander" would need to be an attributable source, of course. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Touché Eric. Miskin 15:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Could we not use the souces on the south park article? Like I said before there is already a comparison section on that page. Links in the above section. (under south park) :–) 5150 16:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think a non-spam external link to a discussion of the parody would be a problem, but I don't really think we should add the section since it is somewhat trivial and part of the '___ in popular culture' pattern that, IMO, detracts from articles. Call me serious but I'm recommending the 'serious' approach here. The Behnam 16:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
There are no sources on the South Park episode article, and the entire thing is unreferenced. We cannot reference another article because it is not considerd a RS. María (habla conmigo) 16:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds fine. I don't keep track of South Park so I just put the idea out. The Behnam 16:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I was replying to the user who posed the question of citing the SP ep, actually; there was an edit conflict at first, so I just added my comment after yours, so sorry for the confusion. I completely agree with you, though, about the popular culture sections seriously detracting from articles -- they're merely glorified trivia sections. Nothing wrong with being serious. :) María (habla conmigo) 16:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that means we can't report on the grafitti on the wall at a medicial research laboratory that demaned that we "clone the 300!". Prolly not. :) Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If your not going to put up the south park or popular culture section just because there is no sources, then there is also a source problem with the "Plot" section on this page. Please correct me if I am wrong on that. (This comment is not suppose to a fend anyone) :-)

5150 23:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No one is offended by your inquiry, buddy. However, I am not sure i understand what you are referring to, Peavey5150. Could you be a bit more specific? Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Go look at the Plot section on the page and see if you can find any sources in there. Thats what this whole debate is over right? (User 76. was me sorry forgot to log in it fixed now) 5150 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. Verymuch like the Lead Statements, the Plot sectiondoesn't require citation; instead, it usually is crafted through a number of editors deciding on what the objective plot (soome say synopsis) of the film. Anything beyond that, like reviews by critics, production notes - anything outside of the plot requires citation, as it is an outsider's view as to what the film is. We don't get to add our own viewpoints (unless we ourselves have published such in a Reliable Source; hint: blogs are not RS), instead relying on others who are verifiable and reliable sources. I hope that helps explain matters more. Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, Peavey5150, the film is the source. The same can be said about plot summaries in novels and other works of fiction. María (habla conmigo) 01:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If a parody or pop culture section is added, these two might be good to add: Ninja Asylym, an internet sketch group, did a parody of the 300 movie trailer, complete with green screen effects. Also, Saturday Night Live did a sketch with Peyton Manning as the host, about shooting a scene in 300. It can be viewed here. WikiWebster 22:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:300_(film)/Archive_7&oldid=1136478287"