Talk:300 (film)/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about 300 (film). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

What was archived

What was archived - linked references from the prior archive for easy recall
Pick a Numbah, Any Numbah, Take 2 - Prev. archived vote (seeking consensus). After much ballyhoo and threats, choice #7 narrowly emerged as choice by siply 10-9 majority.
Voting will end - Disc. re. problems with the vote, incl. suspicions of meat-puppetry,canvassing and non-AGF annoyances - ne real resolution
"Hollywood declares war on Iran" - commentary regarding WB's press release, and arguments regarding which cite to use
Archiving Soon - partial archive achieved w/ dissenters claiming cover-up
Lead Statement - Yet further disc. regarding whther film was wholly fictional or semi-fictional
Archiving Performed - Disc. re. how all the prior votes should have been kept in the open, opposing views suggests links to actual votes good enough - another partial undo of an archiving
WB Statement - Yet more disc. regarding WB's press release
Persian Wikilink - Disc. regarding this Diff.
Pop Culture Effect - IP comment and response about inclusion of pop culture catch phrase fromthe film "this is madness."
Political aspects clean-up - a call for clean-up of the eponymous section.
Information missing regarding 'Historical accuracy' - Disc. about just how many Persians faced the Spartans & Co. at BoT.
Quotes - Someone asking about quotes fromt he movie, and beign directed to WikiQuote entry at bottom of page
Excuse me - Disc. regarding arbitrary ending to vote, one side declaring consensus, while others disputed it.
historical accuracy - questions about hitorocity of Leonidas' actual background
Mistake - a report of messed up link and its repair
Internet Phenomenon - Queries as to inclusion of YouTube and related references.
Stroking? - grammar debate as to improper word use; resolved through conversion into prose the direct quote
NPOV - argument about neutrality of Lead statement, and a proposed alternative, which was instituted
Article stability - calls for renewing application for GA (as some of the edit-warring had simmered down); wait and see attitude appears to be consensus, awaiting DVD release
Hand to Hand - expanding the phalanx attack advantage of Spartans to include use of terrain and fighting skill
The Spartan Queen was not "raped." - Disc. regarding reviewer's incorrect application of the word rape, and disc. regarding removing the citation completely or reqording in prose to downplay the inaccuracy
Removal of soundtrack image - Disc. regardingthe soundtrack image as "decorative" (admin's description). Discussion continued here at IfD. Discussion ongoing.
Problem with Derek Malcolm review: provocative misrepresentation of film - Discussion re. yet another reviewer inaccuracy, and whether to trim or remove (replace with another source)

I would suggest the removal of the above; this is not commonplace methodology for archiving. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 07:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand; this method seems to allow for easy accessing of recurrent topics for discussion. This way affords the convenience of not having to wade through multiple archives. As it has been the practice to summarize the archive on 4 prior occasions without significant dissent as to the above format, I see no real issues with it. Perhaps the reason it isn't commonplace is the time involved in summarizing and linking the archived sections. I don't have a problem doing it, if it makes things easier to find. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Revisiting GA status

There hasn't been many edits in regard to the wording in the lead paragraphs... has the issue been resolved? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 07:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a compromise was reached. The problems of the mass image deletions remain. I think the article is a lot less without them. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I think that at least the "uber-immortal" one could safely stay, it seems eminently relevant to the passage in question, to my mind. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You might wish to also address the image removal of Leonidas fighting, as the Spartan way of fightin is actuially addressed within the article, as well. Please, feel free to reinsert the images right away. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

While I am disgusted that the soundtrack image was deleted under an admin's justification that all cover images should have direct "critical commentary" (despite finding remarks to the contrary at the talk page of Wikipedia:Non-free content, that cover images are acceptable in identifying the subject of the article), I think that the rest of the images should obviously stay. The Spartan fighting image describes the nature of the film (fighting throughout, really), and the Leonidas/Xerxes is a fine image for showing the protagonist and the antagonist. The poster image under "Depiction of Persians" is also appropriate for illustrating the issues that some critics had. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I second that disgust, and raise you a need for some serious oversight. We've got folk running around deleting whatnot and flashing a badge saying that they are following wiki policy. I almost wish this were some wickedly clever parody of the US Executive branch's activities, but I am pretty sure no one has the time for parody.Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that this article again should be renominated soon, as I hope that the image issue has been taken care of. It's unfortunate that arguments arise over popular articles such as this, but this article should be acknowledged for its excellence. This article is well-referenced and broad in coverage. Before nominating however, there are two "citation needed" tags that need to be addressed. Whenever the editors here are comfortable with the article's stablity, please nominate. Good work on improving the article. --Nehrams2020 01:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I created an "Award nominations" section which could be expanded, as I don't know if 300 has been nominated for anything else at this point. I also removed the other citation-needed sentence, as it seemed to be an OR-based blanket statement. It seems that the lead paragraph wording has been accepted, though I'm not sure about the images. From my perspective, their limited use meets the fair use rationale fine. This article should be re-listed based on its excellent content, especially in regard to the controversy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to renominate it for now, and it is likely that it will sit there for a few weeks to a month anyways (as there is currently around seven or eight film articles that would be in front of it). That way, if there are still any problems, they should be dealt with by the time it is reviewed (unless some reviewer decides to review these articles out of order). --Nehrams2020 21:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

So I guess the edit warring died down and consensus was reached on most of the main points? Oops, maybe I'd better keep quiet lol. Quadzilla99 22:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots

Screenshots are not for illustrating every single point made in the text, or every event we mention. They should be used sparingly when absolutely necessary. An example on this page would be if the physical appearance of one of these creatures was being discussed fully, then an image would be necessary to make our point. Another example is the images I left in which are they only way to show the way the comics were translated to film. Putting a screenshot of a scene because the event is merely mentioned (e.g. "Xerces talks to Leonidas") is non-essential and should be avoided. Our policy does not afford us the luxury of a storyboard. ed g2s • talk 16:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

We're not doing a storyboard, and secondly there was no need for you to start a new topic and draw further attention to your opinion. Alientraveller 16:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The first screenshot illustrates the fighting that takes place throughout the film, and the second screenshot illustrates the protagonist and the antagonist. Quit being disruptive. Look at film articles at WP:FA#Media; you are just being disruptive with your deletionist spree. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(2xEC) I guess a fair-use case could be made, for instance with the Xerxes image - I seem to remember sources were commenting on the presentation of his physical appearance (extraordinary height etc.) and his sensuality/sexuality, right? The image seems to be quite powerful in illustrating points like that. Also with the fighting style of the immortals in the battle scene, possibly. Just put the images somewhere where they can actually be referred to by the surrounding text, and it should be okay, in my view. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not doubt there are other film articles too many unfree images, however too wrongs do not make a right. You must justify they use of the image in relation to making specific critical commentary, and not just decorating a plot description. The shot of the fighting made no specific connection with a style of fighting described, nor (as a still image) did it aid the description in any particular way. ed g2s • talk 16:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The point is, the images were chosen to help illustrate the events within the film. The editor who removed the screenshots is making a blanket statement, that TWO screenshots are all of a sudden a gateway fair-use act to abuse, to an endless storyboard via images. I do believe that there was discussion about what images, with an intended limit in mind, would best illustrate certain aspects of the film's universe. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"the images were chosen to help illustrate the events within the film" - but justification must be given as to why those specific screenshots add significantly to the content of the article. ed g2s • talk 16:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:300 (film)/Archive 7#New Images is a sample of the discussion that took place. Maybe it can be seen why I consider the removals disruptive in the light of appropriate discussion like that to decide specifically what images will help the article. And how about you read the fair use rationale for these images, Ed? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

As well, there appears to be no oversight to prevent abuses of the FU justification that have been arrayed, which is disturbing in the exteme. You have already agreed with us that the images should remain and Ed has been counseled on doing such, and yet Ed still reverts the images. To quote Cool Hand Luke, what we have here is a failure to communicate. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

And it should be pointed out that Ed has violated 3RR in nsisting upon the removal of the images. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe so. He's reached his limit, though. Any more, the gallows are within a click. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Being as it is not a content dispute, I will continue to enforce policy on this matter. With relation to the Xerxes/Leonidas shot, the image in no way furthers the commentary ("Xerxes, impressed, personally approaches Leonidas and promises him wealth and power in exchange for his surrender. The Spartan king declines, saying that he will instead make the "God King" bleed.") - none of those points are illustrated in the image. The image shows us 1. the appearance of Xerces, 2. the appearance of Leonidas and 3. that they meet and at one point, Xerces is standing behind Leonidas. None of those things are relevant to our commentary on the film. As such the images fail our policy and will be removed. ed g2s • talk 16:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(2xEC) I say, just tie those images a bit more closely yet to the text and you'll be okay. If there's something in the movie worth analysing that warrants support through images, and I think there is in this case, just say it. If there's one thing we should learn from this case it's this: write a good article and you'll have good rationales for good fair-use images. This page has the potential, because there actually is a lot of solid content. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite, I am not saying screenshots can ever be justified - they just should be used when they are absolutely necessary, not to illustrate scenes at random. Given your current reasoning (e.g. "it illustrates the scene that is mentioned") our policy would allow for a dozens of screenshots, and this is simply not the case. ed g2s • talk 16:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, reverting is reverting no matter how you slice it. Personally, as far as the plot goes, I would rather see an image of the 300's defense, as its depiction in the film, in correspondence to history, can easily be justified. I'm not to up on how their actually fought, but their defense is what was important. It could be used to illustrate how the film makers kept up with how history depicted the defense of the 300 (namely, how they blocked that narrow corridor leading to the beach). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Image of Leonidas fighting the enemy → "The Spartans use the phalanx formation, the narrow terrain, and their fighting skill to effectively fight off numerically superior waves of attackers including Xerxes's elite guard, the Immortals."

Perhaps you could then justify an image of the phalanx. And still image of someone wielding a spear does not illustrate a fighting skill (to any significant degree). ed g2s • talk 17:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Image of Leonidas and Xerxes → "Xerxes, impressed, personally approaches Leonidas and promises him wealth and power in exchange for his surrender."

It's a plot summary, so excuse us if the scenes aren't too detailed for your liking for the most appropriate tie-in. And this is a content dispute. We think the content is appropriate, and you don't. It's that simple. It doesn't excuse you from edit warring. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you are clearly violating WP:NFCC - the images are not adding significantly to a specific and relevant point in the text. The text is a description of events which are not discussed in any detail, let alone the appearance of any particular scene. ed g2s • talk 17:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the content is "inappropriate" - it just violates policy in its current context. ed g2s • talk 17:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, dude. Read this again. "It identifies the subject of an article, or illustrates specific, relevant points or sections in the text." Section in the text, that's the Plot section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The meeting of Xerxes and Leonidas is not a section of the text (we mean paragraph and above, not line). The appearance of it is not discussed, and the image added nothing of any significance to what was already said. It merely showed them meeting - but we've already said that. ed g2s • talk 17:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

So if the text specifically said that "Xerxes placed his hands on Leonidas and attempted to convince him to surrender", would that be acceptable, even though that's an unnecessary addition of detail? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I find the Xerxes image quite useful. Isn't the way he is standing behind Leonidas (touching him and looking at him almost tenderly, if I'm not mistaken) very illustrative of some points of critical analysis being made somewhere else in the text, about him being portrayed as "androgynous" or homosexual or whatnot? (I haven't seen the movie, so excuse me if I got things completely wrong...) If that was joined with an appropriate caption for instance, I'd say the image could "contribute significantly", quite a lot actually. But that's the kind of analysis it needs - just illustrating that "they meet" is not enough. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite, if the significance of that is discussed in a way that is not original research then perhaps the image can be justified. At the moment there is no discussion beyond "the event happened". ed g2s • talk 17:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so, for the sake of peace, can we now stop reverting for a moment and let the authors take a moment to think if they can come up with such a textual link? I'm sure it should be possible, and the article will only have won if it can be done that way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

While I disagree with ed's revert warring, might I suggest expanding the text a bit so there's no question that the images are specifically discussed? --Minderbinder 17:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just added some text to better tie the images to where they belong. Where the hell were these guys when we were fighting off the dudes wanting to include bas reliefs of Xerxes? I guess it wasn't so m uch a priority to act then. If it isn't group raising hell, its another. Leaves one with the impression that fixing the article isn't so much the point as it is serving one agenda or another. Maybe that's unfair, but it is an observation not entirely without merit. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Break

Please appreciate this is not a disruptive deletionist campaign, as some have labelled it. We are simply trying to ensure that our threshold for the use of non-free content is kept high. The images that were being used in the plot, although there were just two, were being used without any significant discussion of their contents, or explicit mention of their relevance. If the reasons given were good enough then one could justify adding an image for every line of that plot summary. Please reserve the use of unfree images to significant and relevant parts of the article, where we have no alternative but to show a screenshot to get our point across. ed g2s • talk 17:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Might I add that constent reverting of any content, no matter who is right and who is wrong, is not productive in any way, shape, or form on Wikipedia. The page isn't going anywhere, and the images were there since before this started. If the outcome turns out to be removing them, fine, but if you spend days and days arguing over their removal/insertion...and they are tagged as orphans, then it is only a matter of time before they are completely deleted. Let's all discuss this thing like rationale (no pun intended) adults, and stop playing children's games with the undo button (this goes for both sides). Please play nice, and lets try and make this article the best that it can be. IMO, that means both sides need to make suggestions here (which it appeared like some were doing just above this section), because simply saying "your wrong, and I'm right" is not going to advance this article anywhere. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The article must be altered to justify specific screenshots, or different screenshots must be chosen (the phalanx, for example). This really should happend before the images are re-added, but given the determination of the "keepers" of this article... ed g2s • talk 17:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The plot summary was written to summarize the story arc of the film. This results in a general overview of the events that took place, rather than a series of detailed moments, for the sake of being concise. This makes tying in an image to a specific point in the film's timeline difficult, but with the discussion that has taken place in choosing the images and the silence of consensus as well as widely accepted screenshots to illustrate the Plot section of the text, the idea already seems to be captured. Why is there a need to include specific wording to tie in these images? Image selection for the Plot section is subjective by nature, and like I've said, specific frames just aren't critiqued by reviewers, and specific frames aren't chosen "wisely" by movie sites because they're not bound to the limits of using non-free content like we are here. Intelligent discussion has already taken place in regard to choosing these images, so I don't see how they can further -- and specifically -- be addressed, when it is scenes and the overall film that is reviewed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

We do not use non-free content as stand alone material. We cannot simply choose a couple of screenshots which we feel represent the most important parts of the story, or give a good idea of the feel of the film - regardless of the practice on other film sites. They must be used for specific, significant and encyclopaedic purposes. As a result, trying to compare us to film review sites is only going to result in disappointment. With regards to your "silence of consensus", it is irrelevant in the face of our policy, as would be a vocal consensus. ed g2s • talk 19:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

And please take a look at the production stills provided by the studio to promote the film. Do any of these shots actually match any particular detail in the Plot section? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If our plot section describes no visual element of the film in any particular detail then there is no need for a screenshot. ed g2s • talk 19:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Saving the trouble of looking, both images ([1] and [2]) are listed here as images released for promotional purposes. Could we then infer that Warner Brothers has released these images, and given their consent in their use? Hewinsj 18:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. WB still retain copyright and will impose conditions on their use that do fall under our definition of free. Any image that is not available under a free license is subject to our non free content policy. ed g2s • talk 19:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, and this is where fair use is supposed to come in, so that images can be used in an academic sense or to illustrate a talking point in a way that won't harm the rights of the Copyright holder. There has never been a policy illustrated on how detailed the information needs to be, it's just your point of view on what the description means. Also, in this entire discussion, you seem to be the only person with a problem with the level of detail used between the text and the image (I've never seen someone actually claiming that you need to take time out of the article to describe the image being shown).

I've seen you state that your afraid articles like this will lead to floods of images on film and TV articles, but this hasn't happened. Quite the contrary. This article has a conservative 2 images depicting both the action and what has been argued as a significant scene in the film. Also, one poster used to demonstrate the depiction of Persians that has caused all the controversy with this film. I will admit that I like the phalanx image in the above gallery more than the one that is currently shown, but the editors here have been capable of maintaining the number of images on the page, and no other admin that's been through here has had a problem with it. Hewinsj 23:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"I've seen you state that your afraid articles like this will lead to floods of images on film and TV articles" - not at all. I stated that if the reasons given for included these images were sufficient (namely that the scene be mentioned) then one could justify a gallery of screenshots / storyboard, thus demonstrating by reductio ad absurdum that the images are not justifed. ed g2s • talk 01:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

As a defense for your activities, reductio ad absurdum is not Wikipedia policy. Even if it is, it hasn't been broken here. No one has initiated a gallery, or storyboard method of displaying the plot so the images meet fair use as they relate to passages in the text (an accepted use) and are of a limited quantity (also listed as part of fair use). There is no policy against the conservative use of images in an article so long as fair use rational is valid, these images did not stop this article from reaching GA. Hewinsj 02:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Forget what I said. I did not realize that Ed was an admin. Obviously, they have the rule of the roost. "Contribute" as you see fit. Good day. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that is relevant to this discussion... ed g2s • talk 22:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The special treatment that you get, being unblocked from your 3RR violation, invalidates the point of any discussion with you. You see how it's relevant now? Our perspectives and contributions don't matter as long as this kind of privilege exists. Like I said, "contribute" as you please. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Since you don't think the same rules apply to you, and we could get blocked for reporting you violating the most basic of rules in Wikipedia, while you skip right out of lock-up rather invalidates the entire idea of discourse. You don't have to abide by the rules, so you don't.

The point is, you either forgot or ignored the 3RR rule. It doesn't matter if you were making contributive edits, or was following the rules or listening to your own personal Banjo the Clown. Any revert not undoing vandalism is counted towards the 3 everyone gets per day. Unless you are calling us all vandals for opposing your editing, you broke the rules. Since you seem to think the rules don't apply to you, and are backed up by your fellow admins, it calls into direct question your validity as an authority. Respect is earned; you need to work a whole lot more on earning it, sir.

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This is most certainly not the first time Ed was unblocked after being blocked for WP:3RR (and having used the same rationale for reverting). 2 bits says this isn't the last either. Cburnett 02:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, you're being unfair at best. First, if there really was a cabal to let admins sail above the rules, he never would have been blocked for three-revert rule in the first place. Additionally, the three-revert rule policy mentions specifically that reverts that don't count toward the limit include reverts to remove clear copyright violations. Now... I'm unsure whether clear applies here (I certainly would not have done the unblock myself), but one could make the case that the violations were and still are. Cburnett, the comparisons to previous blocks and unblocks are irrelevant, especially because they were unarguably justified. -- tariqabjotu 03:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a difference. Ed deletes and reverts in the name of policy. That's his MO. 3RR is there to prevent edit warring. What occurred on this page was an edit war. Using an extremely heated policy is hardly a "clear copyright violation". The fact that you aren't sure if it's clear indicates that it is not clear. Cburnett 03:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, but it's more clear than you think. I used to argue with Ed all the time, too, and it took me a while to really understand what is unnecessarily non-free content. There's a lot of misconception about non-free content, but just because there's a large group that doesn't understand doesn't mean they get to violate the policies. -- Ned Scott 04:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. No one gets to violate the policies. Not me, not you, and not any admin. An admin who breaks the rules pays the same price all the rest of us do. One only has to look at the block log for Ed to see that his can is being protected by at least a few folk. It's either that, or they are unblocking based on false information. And when might an admin ever act on false info. It's a moot point because whenyou get unblocked, it isn't right to reinstate the block, even if the initial block was for a blatant violation.

Perhaps I am being unfair, Tariq. Perhaps this is all some grand misunderstanding, and Ed is only edit-warring to educate us on our misconceptions regarding non-free content. Perhaps a few more reverts would bring all that enlightenment. As for Ed's previous blocks, I don't care about them. I am only addressing the violations he slipped the noose on twice today. I don't even know Ed, and don't think he's actively trying to be a WP:DICK; he is just coming across that way to no fewer than five editors. Now think on that or a moment: how often is it that five unassociated editors are going to agree on anything?

While it sucks that nothing is going to be done to rectify this situation (or can be done, as Ed's apparently got the thumbs-up to break Wiki rules), you should be more incensed by this than me, Tariq. Thius admin's behavior affects how people relate to you. If the word gets out that admins back each other up when they break the rules, how much of that 'ooh, he's an admin, i'll ask his opinion' auto-respect do you think is going to be tainted by this sort of nonsense?

I don't mind admins enforcing new rules or reinterpreting them, or whatever; it would be nice if they brought us all intotheloop before going on a witch-hunt for images, but I guess no communication system is perfect. Maybe we all just missed the memo. Wha I do mind is admins breaking a simple friggin' rule and using their positions as admins to get away with it. That is the focal point for my frustration.

You aren't admins because you are super smart - clearly. You guys are admins because you are supposed to represent, (in some ways like FA articles) the best of us. This behavior has not been your finest hour. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

They're admins because they can be trusted with admin tools. Bedside manner is a plus, not a requirement.

Given how many of these situations these guys go through, I'm not at all surprised that they don't take the time to hold everyone's hand for each and every incident. Don't forget that these guys are unpaid volunteers, who take tons of crap from people all the time. People have it in their mind that they have to be convinced in order to follow the rules, but we can't realistically work that way.

This is a problem, as it does cause needless conflict, but that's more of a Wiki-wide problem than something with individual admins or editors. -- Ned Scott 05:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I am not expecting them to hold our hand, and I am fully aware of the crap they put up with. This begs the question - do you think they garner more respect or less when they hold themselves above those same rules the rest of us are expected to follow? And I may be misinterpreting what you say about being convinced, but if you are referring to the need of the Wiki community to be convinced that the rules are there for good, solid reasons and not applied arbitrarily, then I disagree with you. Precisely because none of us editors get paid is why we earn the right to be convinced. That an admin is just someone who is trusted with a bigger toolbox is pretty pathetic. That means that the fantastic admins I've met along the way were aberrations, and not sysopped for their abilities to act neutrally and foster solid Wiki policy. I hope you are wrong in your assessment, Ned. I really do. If all we have are a bunch of tech wonks with god complexes, then we are going to end up going off the rails.
Wiki-wide problems, much like RL problems usually start to repair themselves when individuals take a bit more responsibility upon themselves to help themselves and others get better. Otherwise it is just a greedy little ego farce. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing Daryaee from this article

I believe that the references to Daryaee (final historian in 'historical accuracy section') should be removed as innaccurate themselves. There are several claims which oversimplify the matter or ignore statements made in the film.

His claim that the film ignores the fact that 'Sparta collectively owned an entire enslaved population,' a hierarchical reality which, while stated unconditionally, is at least implied by Theron in his remark; 'all men are not equal, you know that that is the Spartan code,' or words to that effect (mentioned before his coercion/rape of Gorgo), clearly carries little weight. Nor indeed does his reasoning concerning slaves and others. Athens, as a whole, the proportions should not truly be seen as impacting more widely on a state's 'status' as democratic. After all, many western states in the early twentieth century had (quite) low percentages, at perhaps 30% I believe, of eligible voters, but few would not call them 'democratic' in a broader sense.

There are many other assertions by him that also carry little weight; certainly, to claim that Sparta is certainly a democracy is unconfirmed due to the paucity of evidence for this period, but all the elements are in place that, later, Xenophon could claim 'the kings' would 'run' to the ephors, so in awe were they of their power. As the ephors, although not portrayed as such, were 'democratic' by most standards, appointed based on a majority of citizens, even if by shouting, such a remark carries almost no weight. If anyone doubts this, I would request that they first examine the various controls, exiles and other attacks on the kings' power by the ephors first, see Thucydides and Xenophon in particular.

Daryaee, while certainly a foremost historian, one imagines, has been poorly cited here and, unless accurate criticisms are drawn from his work, suggest that he is removed from the article. I would not like to have to go further than this into Greek politics, but hope that these points are sufficient to ensure this removal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.40.26.169 (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

You would need to provide an attributable source disputing his claims because we can't rely on you for accuracy. Read about the Essjay controversy -- attributions need to come from someone besides the editors themselves. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, although, for the point concerning democracy, this was intended as a statement that proportion of popuklation alone cannot be seen to determine whether a state is truly 'democratic.' However, I'll have evidence for the others up soon.

And perhaps you could also remember to sign your posts, please. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In reality Spartans did have their own form of what could be inferred as ‘democracy,’ or rather the maintaining of a stake in government by individual Spartiates, granted this develops as can be seen in the contrast between the power of the ephors in Herodotus (concerning Anaxandridas challenge of the ephors and, later, Kleomenes) and Xenophon ('accordingly the ephors are competent to punish whomsoever they choose,’ including the ‘military monarchy’). Indeed, the idea of a ‘military monarchy’ is laughable, for one, Sparta is a diarchy in which there are two, non-absolute, kings. While they have power in the field, they are limited at home, perhaps the finest indication being Thucydides’ description of Agis’ leading the Spartan army to Leuktra (in Laconia) with no opposition, before returning home at being ‘impeached’ by the citizens. Alternatively, Agis being fined by the ephorate, before the battle of Matinee (again Thuc), shows further this degree of ‘democratic’ power of the citizen body, manifested in the ephorate. The ephorate could even depose one of the Kings based on configurations of the sky, or, as Demaratus shows, if an oracular pronouncement was made.

Undeniably, Spartans were primitive in their election practises (whoever shouts the loudest, which Aristotle calls ‘childish’- ‘Politics’) is unquestionably democratic in the sense of ‘most votes.’ Daryee claims the opposite, suggesting ‘Sparta was governed by a council of elders which decided political matters, but it was not a democracy.’ The Gerousia were also elected, after retiring from military service, but the ephorate were elected from the citizen body. The Spartans were indeed famed for this combination in which the King’s were checked by the ephorate, who were checked by the Gerousia- as can be seen from Tyrtaeus’ oracle or (if one disagrees with the idea of the two being identical) the ‘Great Rhetra.’

Contrast then the arbitrary actions of Xerxes in executing a man’s son, for no other reason than the man’s whole family was at war and he asked that one of his (five) son’s could leave the army to continue his name or the example of Xerxes, supposedly, coercing his officers to kill themselves to save him (both Herodotus, although he himself disputes the latter). It is important to remember that Persian ‘slavery’ consisted of this arbitrary power of the Great King. In Sparta notably, the ‘stronger a man is the more readily does he bow before constituted authority’ (Lak Pol), which included King’s, as Xenophon states in his ‘Agesilaos.’ To Greeks, and indeed to most later political thinkers (albeit Western), the construct of ‘liberty’ was similar in its cognizance of ‘formal’ power and resistance to arbitrary tyranny (notably Machiavelli). The difference is the idea of a lack of absolutism within Greek poleis, in which Greeks have ‘no master than law’ (Demaratus, ‘quoted’ by Herodotus) in contrast to the absolute rule of Xerxes who, while perhaps atypical of Persian Kingship, is undeniably arbitrary to the point of delusion-witness his ‘scourging of the Hellespont.’

To claim Greek democracy and modern are identical is obviously flawed, but the theory behind them remains essentially the same- power of enfranchised citizens rather than an individual with no legal restraints.

I apologise for the lack of more accurate references, or indeed for the continuity of translations, these have been recalled rather than cross-references, but I am confident in their, very precise, accuracy. If there is any doubt, please answer, but unless there are any within a few days, I will remove the paragraph on Daryee. Of course, if there is anyone here who recognizes these references off the top of their heads, please be so kind as to give the precision that I have not. (Also, if anyone could explain how paragraphing can be acheived in these edits, the edit system is not allowing me to break this up out of a block of text, rather than an ordered one.

Glad to see things have calmed down over here -- and also glad to see that the article is back to GA. Quick reply to the unsigned remarks directly above. This is not an article on comparative political systems, and therefore Daryaee's remarks are included as a significant response to a film, not as an authoritative statement on Spartan social or political structures. I'm sure one could formulate intelligent objections to any of the opinions cited in that section, but that's not the point. Since they're cited as opinions, and in the reception section, the question of their accuracy is left for the reader to decide. What is important is to provide a balanced selection of notable (i.e. verifiable) opinions, and that has, IMO, been acheived.

Of course it shouldn't be necessary to point out that the remarks above, although they appear to be well-informed and well-considered, are at best OR (an interpretation formulated through selection and analysis of primary sources), given that there's hardly a dearth of expert secondary literature on Sparta. But even if they were to be supported through the secondary literature of a certain school of thought (as I believe they could be), it wouldn't make a difference, so long as Daryaee's remarks also represent significant, albeit divergent, opinions from the seconary literature (which so far as I know they do).

Therefore the only suggestion above that should be taken seriously is that "Daryaee, while certainly a foremost historian, one imagines, has been poorly cited here." It's not necessary to imagine; the source is linked and it is a simple matter to compare the original with the summary. I find that they correspond well; but if I'm missing something, then please speak up! Best, --Javits2000 12:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

My objection to the inclusion of Daryaee is in the fact that if one reads Daryaee's article, it appears as if he possesses very little actual grasp of, or focus on, Spartan society itself, which at least half of the citations could be said to be commenting on. His article is an effort to assert that the film paints an flawed 'black-and-white' message against Persians, and should not be cited in regard to Sparta. Consequently, if not removed altogether, he should be relocated into the section relating to the 'portrayal of Persians,' not 'Historical Accuracy,' and then with his points made in the first half of his article (those concerning the abhorrences of middle-America). If, as you indeed claim, they are not a statement on 'Spartan social or political structure,' then the citations of his 'analysis' of Sparta's political system seems somewhat anomalous. --217.40.26.169 12:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

First to the technical stuff -- I'm assuming the post above is by the same editor who has previously posted in this section, but (as Arcayne has already remarked) everything becomes much clearer if posts are signed; simply by typing four tildes; or by clicking on "sign your username" in the box directly beneath the edit window; or by clicking the icon showing a signature in the box above the edit window.

My claim is that Daryaee's remarks are not included "as an authoritative statement on Spartan social or political structures"; this simply by virtue of the fact that they appear in an article about the response to a film, and not in an article about Sparta. Whether or not a given editor agrees with his remarks, or feels that they display "very little actual grasp of, or focus on, Spartan society itself" is, again, doubly irrelevant. First, we have no reason to accept the claims of said editor on this matter (see Erik's remarks about the Essjay controversy, and my own about WP:OR). Second, even if secondary literature were produced arguing an opposing point of view, this would only demonstrate the existence of opposing points of view (which, for a society as poorly documented & controversial as Sparta, would hardly be surprising). Actual exclusion of any given point of view would require demonstration that it is insignificant or represents a "tiny minority" (i.e. fringe -- see WP:NPOV). As Daryaee is a respected scholar of ancient history, this might be rather tricky, especially as similar remarks are cited from a colleague (Lytle).

In short, what we have is an attempt at a balanced representation of the responses of various members of the scholarly community to the film. Personal disagreement on the part of various editors with certain of those views is to be expected; it is not a reason to remove the passage, and indeed the removal would disrupt the balance. (I happen to think Hanson's rot, but recognize all the same that he serves an important role in this article, and vaguely recall adding him in the first place.) It will be obvious to any reader that there is no unanimity on the film's historical accuracy; at this point hopefully the faculty of critical judgment clicks into gear. As to the appropriate section, "Historical Accuracy" is where we have been placing evaluations of the film by historians. --Javits2000 17:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

So if a historian contributes a comment that is of moral, rather than historical, significance, such as is the main thrust of his argument, it is automatically included in a section on 'historical accuracy?' As Daryaee himself remarks: 'it is these insinuations in the film that are more troublesome to me as a Persian immigrant to the U.S., than as a historian of antiquity.' By contrast, Lytle, although he too makes minor, but still significant, errors, focuses mainly on the historical nature of the film with only brief forays into the 'moral universe' on which Daryaee focuses. Daryaee is focusing on the moral message of the film and its role in forming modern stereotypes of Oriental culture, in contrast to Lytle's primarily historical criticisms. Incidentally, it might equally be worth noting that only Cartledge is an academic focused primarily on Sparta proper, as opposed to historians whose interests lie in more wide ranging fields of history; it should also be noted that only Cartledge has ever published a mainstream article in the 'International Sparta Seminars.' It is my understanding the Daryaee and Lytle have only encountered Sparta in relation to their, distinct, fields; to imply that they are specialists is to overstate their qualifications somewhat.--217.40.26.169 22:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

...and Daryaee is the only historian cited who deals w/ ancient Iran as a specialty, presumably just as important in the present connection. If I understand him correctly, his standpoint as a "Persian immigrant" makes him perceive the errors he would impute to the film as a matter of urgency; whereas normally one would not be disturbed by historical errors in a Hollywood film. Nevertheless that he does perceive errors is obvious, which makes this a statement on ... "historical accuracy." So enough. I don't see any suggestion in the remarks above that his statements are falsified; the Helots are indeed not mentioned, even if a passing remark by a "bad guy" is to be read as an oblique reference; and the proper characterization of the political system of Sparta is clearly a matter of some dispute, on which a wide range of opinions might find support. The view that the Spartans did indeed represent "freedom," at least to other Greeks, and in the narrow connection with Thermopylae, is represented by Hanson. If Cartledge has commented elsewhere on the film, it would be great to know about it, and we could supplement the present account of his own views, which is already given pride of place. But "I don't agree" is simply not a reason to remove Daryaee, especially when his inclusion serves to maintain a NPOV. --Javits2000 13:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I am beginning to suspect that you have misundersood my motivation for removing Daryaee. I do not deny that I think his argument complete twaddle, but since no other historian on ‘Sparta,’ save Cartledge, has directly expressed views on the historical accuracy of the film, and his own in insufficient quantity to suffice as a counter, it is impossible to debunk his case on this basis alone. However, there appears, through statements made by other historians as to Spartan society, to be a consensus anyway against the readings, by Daryaee, by Jones, Cartledge, Hodkinson, Michell and almost every other 'listed' Spartan historian. Unfortunately, since my own counters, echoes that they are of the before historians perceptions, do not suffice due to the lack of a preceding ‘Dr’ or even an MA to follow, it appears that his views are inviolate in this sense. Even so, I would remind you that the wikipedia article on Sparta states a case implacably opposite to Daryaee's views; will you then please cite Daryaee in that article so as to make it neutral, or will you accept his lack of qualification to speak on such matters?

This is however not to degrade my main point, which is that of his argument being primarily pointed towards modern interpretations of Persians and that the points cited are directed towards the historical portrayal of Sparta. I will not claim that my method is superior to anyone else’s, and indeed I could not without citation, but it has always been my understanding that a persons point is made in the introduction and conclusion of a piece of work. If he is indeed debating the historical accuracy, halfway through the work is hardly the place to do it. Such an action reads more as an effort to gather sympathy than to make sweeping statements for posterity. That he actually uses a line, ‘then add a horde of Black people, deformed humans who are the quintessential opposite of the fashion journal images,’ nearly coincidental to one found outside the historical accuracy section, ‘Dana Stevens of Slate states that as the "bad" side the Persians are depicted as black people, brown people, homosexual, handicapped and/or deformed in some way,’ should be clear evidence that his focus is not to forgo criticism of the historical accuracy, ‘after all, Hollywood tries to sell movies and does not care if they are historically accurate, but movies also carry a subtle message which has very effective and current consequences;’ but is one aimed at attacking this ‘subtle message.’ He then goes on to ‘address the historicity of the film and the way in which the film uses history to mount a defence of “Western Civilization” against the invading “Other,”’ not for any reason other than to buttress his own argument, to consider that these comments are historical criticisms directed at the film would be to argue for the inclusion of the article concerning representation of gay culture (Reference 92), in regard to its comments about the historical inaccuracy of homosexuality in the movie or to include the concluding statement (see below).

His usage of ‘historical accuracy’ is that it paints a message reiterated through modern scholarly literature that ‘“freedom” and “democracy” are projected into the past onto ancient warfare.’ What he is not doing is offering a neutral counterpoint to Hanson, he is simply throwing out a collection of historical views which might as well have be imbibed by a first year undergraduate, indeed if one reads any work on Sparta, one finds that helots are always referred to as being ‘douloi’/ captives rather than slaves; one might as well claim geographically defined feudal serfs to be the slaves by this logic. Such work does not ‘balance’ or act as a rebuttal towards Hanson, it offers a simplistic perspective of Spartan society, that modern viewers might condemn, rather than ancient evidence acting to counter Hanson's theories. If you are to keep him in this interest, at least link it to the wiki description of Spartan social practises which offers conclusions opposed to his own, so that people might judge for themselves, rather than be seduced by what is an innaccurate reading.

To hide behind ‘NPOV’ is therefore no reason. If I do indeed understand him correctly, or even if I have read his continued inferences, he is writing as an extremely well-educated Persian expat who disproves more of the ‘subtle message’ and relies on the ‘historical’ criticisms as only a tool to furthering this. This belongs, if it belongs anywhere, in Political aspects or depiction of Persians, not in ‘Historical Accuracy.’

I will close with yet another particularly illustrative remark of the travesty of making this distinction; ‘however, my response is not so much to the inaccuracies of the film, but rather to its ultimate motive and its possible use in the current issue of war on terrorism.’ If he is to be cited here, than be sure to include ‘"American cultural officials thought they could get mental satisfaction by plundering Iran's historic past and insulting this civilization," he said. --217.40.26.169 03:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

WHY IS DARYAEE IN THE "HISTORICAL ACCURACY" SECTION?!

The inclusion of Daryaee’s view in the “Historical Accuracy” section is out of place and therefore should be removed. Just apply common sense in examining what he says.

(Toyraj Daryaee…criticizes the central theme of the movie, that of “free” and “democratic loving” Spartans against “slave” Persians).

Nowhere in the movie are the Spartans presented as “democratic loving”. There is simply no mention about democracy. (So that part should be erased). In the context of the movie the Persians are the aggressors and the Spartans defend their freedom. How could they not be portrayed as the ‘free’ in the movie with its given context of the Battle of Thermopylae? In addition the script –probably in an effort to avoid similar criticism and include rhinos- makes use of the voice-over narrative technique, telling the story from the perspective of a Spartan. For the Spartans who were free citizens of a city-state, the Persians were indeed servant subjects of the Great King. The Persian army was comprised of detachments from nations that were part of the Persian Empire and in many ways unwilling participants in wars, occasionally whipped to battle (so in the eyes of a Spartan, slaves). Daryaee instead of criticizing the movie’s accuracy should criticize Herodotus’s accuracy. (That part should also be erased).

(Daryaee states that the Achaemenid (Persian) empire hired and paid people regardless of their sex or ethnicity).

The film never denys something of the sort. He may believe that the world needs a reminder of that, however not in the particular section of the entry. In fact to counter his view with one of the same logic, the movie points exactly to that fact when Ephialtes is rewarded. More seriously though, one could easily argue that the slaves of the Persian empire suffered horribly and that could be backed up by several historical facts. In any case the movie never discusses the issue he is worried about and therefore there is no reason his irrelevant reference should be included.

(Whereas in fifth-century Athens "less than 14%" of the population participated in democratic government, and "nearly 37%" of the population were slaves).

Xenophon would not be glad to hear such a statement. However why on earth do we need to learn about what the situation in Athens was while examining the historical accuracy of ‘300’? What does Athens have to do with it? Do we also need to learn about the situation in Thebes? Again the part is irrelevant and should be omitted.

(He further states that Sparta "was a military monarchy, not a democracy," and adds that Sparta collectively owned an entire enslaved population - the Helots).

Irrespective of the crude knowledge he exhibits on the issue of the Helots, the movie is under no obligation to discuss the ‘Helot’ affair and in any case, it never denies it. Sparta is not portrayed in the movie as a democracy. And Sparta was not the simplistic ‘military monarchy’ he brands it. So again he view is irrelevant and should be omitted.

His take on the film can only be viewed as an account of what he thinks people watching the movie might understand regarding the civilizations involved. But that is hardly relevant under the ‘historical accuracy’ section.

Daryaee’s view is poor for a historian but I think that he doesn’t speak as one. In the link provided in the entry, in his article, which is loaded with bias, he admits that “It is these insinuations in the film that are more troublesome to me as a Persian immigrant to the U.S., than as a historian of antiquity”. Indeed he speaks like a man worried about the Persian Empire's image and not like one commenting on the historical accuracy of the film.

What he thinks the insinuations are is irrelevant to what is said in the film. The film’s historical accuracy should only be judged by what is explicitly mentioned in it. Not what people might understand watching it. I can’t see why his view was added in the first place. He simply does not comment on themes discussed in the film.

The sections ‘Political Aspects’ and ‘Depiction of Persians’ should be merged under the title ‘Controversy’ or a similar one. Regarding the first, as it stands, implies intentional political aspects made by the makers of the movie and therefore is misleading since the makers of the movie never said anything of the sort. Regarding the latter it simply is terribly biased and badly titled. There is no mention as to why the moviemakers depicted the Persians as they did which would be the only relevant reference in such a section. Instead we learn what angered certain people by their own understanding of the depiction. That indeed is interesting but should be placed under the ‘Controversy’ title proposed. The article in its present state is not objective. It largely portrays the Iranian take on the film. 62.30.182.24 02:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance. Purely out ouf curiosity, but why would Xenophon, in particular, be so indignant about such an idea? --217.40.26.169 03:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)/0622 25th May 2007

You are right, perhaps I should have included the whole sentence.

(Daryaee states that the Achaemenid (Persian) empire hired and paid people regardless of their sex or ethnicity, whereas in fifth-century Athens "less than 14%" of the population participated in democratic government, and "nearly 37%" of the population were slaves).

Daryaee says that the Achaemenids hired and paid people regardless of sex or ethnicity and contrasts that with the fact that in Athens not everyone voted. He compares the Persian Empire without giving a time reference point with the Athens of the 5th century. In every respect he compares apples and pears…

Xenophon clearly states when writing regarding the polities of Athens and Sparta that in Athens the situation was as follows (even during parts of the 5th century) “…in the next place, in regard to what some people are puzzled to explain--the fact that greater consideration is shown to the base, to poor people and to common folk, than to persons of good quality…..Another point is the extraordinary amount of license granted to slaves and resident aliens at Athens…Or if the fact itself that slaves in Athens are allowed to indulge in luxury, and indeed in some cases to live magnificently…we have established an equality between our slaves and free men; and again between our resident aliens and full citizens…”.

He also attests that nowhere in the world the situation was more favourable for the foreigners and the slaves and that wasn’t just his personal view.

What Daryaee should compare is an empire that clearly had slaves, where people were also hired but were in no position to climb the social ladder with, a city-state that clearly had slaves but where people were also hired but who were in a position to live as equals to the citizens of that city-state. We should remember that even some slaves in Athens had gone to the city willingly for a better life and of course the fact that any foreigner could challenge any Athenian citizen in a court something which would be unthinkable in Persia.

And again he should compare an empire where all the decisions were taken by units appointed by the Great King with a city-state where citizens could vote on everything. Even if we accept the percentages he gives -which btw are by definition false since the Athenians never conducted a census and we can only infer as to what their population and these percentages were- he begs the question “What is the percentage of the Persians who voted in the Achaemenid Empire?”. The answer would be 0%.

Daryaee’s point is bad sophistry. Xenophon, an aristocrat himself who disagreed with the choice of democracy, would be furious to learn that although the Athenians chose democracy (the rule of the many) over aristocracy (the rule of the best), and left the city to what he saw as the rule of the many and the base people, nowadays some see his Athens as a place were the select few ruled. He would punch Daryaee in the face. 62.30.182.51 14:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Now two anonymous IPs editing from London -- and supporting each other, no less! The Spartans are represented as democratic when the counsel assembles to vote on the war. As to whether the Persian soldiers are referred to as "slaves," a quick look at the list of quotes on IMDB should clear that up (e.g. "You have many slaves, Xerxes. But few warriors." -- Leonidas; "I'm afraid killing all those slaves of yours has left me with a nasty cramp in my leg." -- Leonidas to Xerxes). So much for the supposedly inaccurate statements that "should be erased." The Wiki article on Sparta is of course already linked. The rest is more amateur history -- in any case, nothing wrong with ticking off Xenophon. --Javits2000 19:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly the attitude that permeates the whole entry. Some people are simply biased and see only what they want to see. The assembly you speak of, which in the movie gathers to vote on war is the Apella. Part of the Spartan political system. All Spartan citizens took part in the Apella and they voted on proposals prepared by Gerousia. They voted on whether to go to wars or not too! The Spartan assembly in the movie is a testament to the historical accuracy of the film. The Spartans didn’t like ‘democracy’ but they invented ‘republic’. I don’t think we should change history because Daryaee forgot all about it.

I never denied that the Persians are branded as ‘slaves’ in the movie. But as I said clearly, this is exactly how the Spartans called them. Again it is historically accurate that the Spartans viewed the Persians as slaves just like all greeks did. Daryaee should read some Herodotus among others.

His entry is simply out of place, terribly biased and should not have been included in the first place. He simply doesn’t address the accuracy of the film. He is trying to push his point across. 62.30.182.31 23:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I regret that this new entry is not made with interest to further the point which I have already been expounding (although as yet no credible challenge has been raised in opposition to it), and I am curious as to whether my compatriot is also from London. The pool of knowledge at this specialist a level is a very limited one, and, as I am sure that we are not the same person, it is therefore probable that we are acquainted.

To return to the main point though, since none of my points have been opposed, I propose someone removes Daryaee from this section or implements the inclusion of the other 'historians' that I suggested. From what I can gather, although you will all forgive me for oversimplifying, the debate here is centred on Daryaee's removal being neccesary as he is not commenting as a 'historian,' with the result that his criticism of the 'historicity' is both inaccurate and irrelevant (and Javits opposition to these views). In light of this, does anyone else have any other suggestions? Personally, I am beginning to favour the creation of a 'controversy' section regarding all issues taken in a modern respect as 62.30.182.31 suggested into which Daryaee will be transferred with different quotations. Anybody else have a suggestion? --217.40.26.169 03:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)/0900 26th May 2007

Hold on, which "other 'historians' "? Of course inclusion of other notable historians who have commented on the film should be seriously considered, and would certainly be more useful than a string of classical authors quoted "from memory." Do you know of additional material that isn't included here? --Javits2000 09:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If you read my posts earlier, you will notice that I suggested those who made similar comments were not 'historians,' in the literal sense, but were making comments identical to Daryaee. My point was that to include a person in historical accuracy was defined by what they were alleging, not their chosen profession. --217.40.26.169 03:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)/1138 26th May 2007

I do live in London but it is unlikely that we are acquainted given that my profession is not related to the historical field and I understand yours is. I think it's been proven conclusively that Daryaee does not belong in the 'Historical Accuracy' section and since he proposed it, 217.40.26.169 should feel free to remove him. In my view Lytle should also be removed. As a rule of thumb, as a test of relevance if you like, everything under such a section should answer clear-cut questions like: 'Was there a system called agoge?', 'Was there an assembly of citizens in Sparta?' etc. Only Hanson's inclusion in the section is fully justified as he answer the question 'Was that how the Spartans viewed the Persians?'. Daryaee and Lytle try in essence to answer the question 'Was that how the Persians were?' which is an invalid one since the film-makers only portray the Persians through the eyes of a Spartan. In addition Lytle in the link provided, amazingly presents as facts the views of only one side in ongoing debates regarding the issues of infanticide and krypteia. I understand that Cartledge is relevant since he advised the makers of the film although from what I know the pronunciation of the greek names made Greeks laugh. It seems that the whole entry is one sided. We learn a lot about the views of those who disliked the film but not near enough about the counter-arguments of those who liked it. 62.30.182.26 02:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for interjecting here, but allow me to ask a few conclusionary questions here:

Can someone state, briefly, why or why not Daryaee statements should be included?
Who do we substitute for aforementioned comments that are reliable, relevant and speak to the film's accuracy. Comments that do not address the film can't be tied to it without running the risk of synthesis. -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back Arcayne, the case made for Daryaee's exclusion is two-fold. To condense most of the above arguments, Daryaee is primarily impugned as offering a historical perspective which is, as a whole, antithetical to the majority consensus of historians. Second, he is speaking in his capacity as a 'Persian immigrant' to the US rather than as a historian; his statements of history are mere throw-offs without greater impact than to support his opposition to the portrayal of Persians and the ramifications of such an approach by a film. His comments are therefore opposed in their inclusion as unnecessary and innapplicable.

There is, to my knowledge, no request, or need, to offer a replacement substitute. To remove, or transfer, Daryaee is not to damage NPOV, as has been consistently shown, and the Historical Accuracy section will not suffer without it. I cannot agree with the removal of Lytle however, while he too makes several errors, quite easily identifiable, he acts as a historian, not as a critic of the films message per se, but I will leave that debate to those capable individuals who have already made suggestions in this discussion. To close, it is my opinion that Daryaee is removed completely from the Historical Accuracy section and a selection of valid quotations, relating to his argument, are entered into the 'Depiction of Persians' suggestion or, ideally, User 62.30's suggestion, of merging the afore section with 'Political Aspects' into one entitled 'Controversy,' is implemented. Does anyone have a another suggestion or template for these changes? --217.40.26.169 03:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)/0721 27th May 2007

You know, I must have read the Daryaee piece at least a dozen times, and while I had misgivings as to the statements made, I had completely missed that he was approaching hte subject as an immigrant, an not as a historian (and I actually havemultiple degrees, history being one of them!) Daryaee cannot remain because of that. I also recommend removal.

As for Lytle, his comments should remain. I am not sure of whether OR via synthesis would be involved in pointing out factual discrepancies of his remarks, but we could avoid the entire issue by simply not including those remarks that we know to be incorrect. Something similar was performed on a source that had been poorly translated from Greek into English.

That said, it would be approrpiate to ensure that the remaining commentary for the section(s) speak authoritatively to the controversy and cultural/political aspects. While some noted its racist overtones, there has since been a temporizing influence that suggests that people will see what they want to see in a given medium. Some see a blatant homosexual tone, whilst others will see it as a mailed fist to Persian culture. Still others (short bus morons, to my reckoning) will see a current political agenda. I think that such a merging could work at this time, as some of the flare-up over the perceived threat to the Persian cultural identity has in fact died down somewhat. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, on this basis I propose that we remove Daryaee from the Historical Acuracy section and place him in a condensed version of the 'Political Aspects' and 'Depicition of Persians,' entitled 'Controversy.' The edit I was thinking about was as follows; (after the comment by Dana Stevens) 'Similar sentiments have been expressed by Touraj Daryaee who also expressed concerns that ‘“300” is just another of the propagandistic tools to reiterate this preposterous belief and to get the American people, children and adults, ready to endorse another Shock and Awe operation.’ If anyone thinks that this could be improved, please change it back and leave a message. --217.40.26.169 03:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)/0858 28th May 2007

Hmm, I think that perhaps a more neutral point of view might be helpful here. Since Daryaee is speaking as an immigrant first and a historian second, he should be purged en toto, and not paraphrased. However, I have dopy-edited it a bit, setting up quotation marks around the specifically quoted text and trimming out some extra stuff. Again, I think it doesn't really belong a all. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Lastly, can we restart this topic in a new section? This one is somewhat long, and we are preparing to archive. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Daryaee is a relaible source, a published historian, and what he says, in whatever capicity, is very relevant and meant to bring the historcial accuracy section in line with NPOV! The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.--Alborz Fallah 15:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

He is a professor of UCLA and the top expert in Sassanid history and an expert in Pahlavi.. --alidoostzadeh 15:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you here. if he was actually speaking as a historian, and not as an Iranian immigrant. I do not see where you have provided reliable citation as to the man's position as the "top expert in Sassanid history and an expert in Pahlavi". Were he speaking on these specific topics, there wouldn't be a problem. The problem arises when he does not. Please read the above section in its entirety before getting all upset, please.

As well, you might have made these comments much, much earlier during the discussion. If your want your opinion and concerns to be registered, you need to actually speak up while we are discussing matters, and not just matters that concern the Persian viewpoint (ie, image removal, etc). You want to be involved, be involved. -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The following is the link to the article http://www.suntimes.com/news/roeper/289178,WKP-News-hundred09.article and this an this his view regarding the controversy http://www.brightcove.com/title.jsp?title=626875232&channel=296474766.

Given the sheer volume of the negative comments if his view is to have some opposing impact for the sake of maintaining the balance of the entry I think that it should be placed just before the final paragraph about the Warner Bros response. 62.30.182.52 03:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

This is SPARTA!!!

Now I SINCERELY doubt it, but I was wondering if mention of all the internet parodies were worth any sort of mention. The term "this is sparta" has spawned all sorts of internet memes (something I know Wikipedia's standards shouldn't normally care about) that are so widespread that they really can't be ignored. In all likelihood, it won't make the article, but someone had to bring it up.--Katana314 03:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, THIS IS WIKIPEDIA!!! Manic Hispanic 03:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the decision from older talk threads was to hold off and see which things become lasting pop culture references vs. short lived fads. Hewinsj 12:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

However, if Leonidas had bellowed 'where's the beef?' I imagine that would have been worthy of note. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I love how Erik feels that "NO THIS IS WIKIPEDIA!" and "where's the beef?" are both on topic, but saying "TONIGHT WE EDIT IN HELL!" is sooooooo far off topic that he has to delete it every time. DurotarLord 19:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This meme seems to have become something worth noting. currently i have seen it almost on over 80 webpages, things like: Madness? This is Warcraft!!! and so on.--88.212.102.217 10:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

moronic edit

I rolled back an idiotic edit to the cast, you can see it on the history tab. can someone block/punish the moron who did it please? -- Cars 04:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Review - Pass

See Good Article Criteria for further details.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

The article is in exceptional shape, extraordinarily well sourced, and has an informative, well elaborated, prose. It certainly deserves GA, to say the least. I have nothing to add, other then continue to maintain the article's high quality! NSR77 ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Captain's name - Artemis?

Can anyone tell me where you got the Captain's name from? The official site does not list him as such. Nor does IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes. Quite frankly, if the Official site doesn't mention this - then it should not be in the cast list as such. I welcome other opinions on this before I change it though. Sources I have found were newspapers such as Las Vegas Review Journal. For further explanation read the Production Notes from the official site • master_son^Talk^- ^Edits 01:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Visual effects

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

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