Talk:300 (film)/Archive 8

What was archived

 * What was archived - linked references from the prior archive for easy recall
 * Appearance of the Persians - discussion regarding the appearance of the Persians in the film
 * General Editorial Problems - grammar issues regarding Leonidas' interaction with the priests
 * Consensus - discussion regarding the application of pure fiction or historical fiction to the film
 * Pick a Numbah, Any Numbah, Take 2 - partial archiving of results while retaining the vote/survey options and links to Diffs and other archive for detailed votes, Vote is Ongoing
 * A few additional sources - two additional sources for use in the article
 * What is historical fiction - further discussion as to historical and fictional classification of the film
 * A New Approach - discussing the idea of pov-editing
 * Farrokh Commentary - discussion of Farrokh article (w/links to prior discussions of such)
 * Controversy: Another view - post about inclusion of a new link for controvery section
 * Archival Notice - first notice of archival, stating what was archived,and what would be archived
 * Tally so far - a running tabulation of votes as of 04.09.07 (voting still open)
 * Fundamentally flawed process - discussing the inherent flaws of the vote/survey, and opposing views
 * Depictions in Popular Culture - discussion regarding inclusion of pop cultural references to the film/aspects of the film
 * What's the Hubbub, bub? - further discussion as to historical/fictional aspect of the film
 * Out of Wikipedia Canvassing - heated discussion regarding a possible hoax at an external site wiki-canvassing for pro-Iranian POV edits
 * King or Emperor - discussion regarding the proper title of Xerxes I, and its use in the film
 * Concerning the scene with the oracle - discussion about the inaccurate use of gold as a bribe in the scene with the Ephors
 * Differences between film and graphic novel - discussions about the the aspects created for the film not seen inthe GN that caused controversy
 * South Park Parody - discussion regarding the inclusion of a South Park episode as part of a cultural reference
 * Pop Cullture - discussion re: the inclusion of a cartoon and non-citable quality of Lead and Plot sections

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  con migo ) 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  con migo ) 18:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7  Alborz Fallah 19:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7 for me also. Azerbaijani 19:36, 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:
 * 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 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)

. Agha Nader 18:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader User forgot to login, as says the above. María ( habla con migo ) 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  con migo ) 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)


 * 7 seems the most accuarte, historcial fictions don't have zombies and monsters in them. --alidoostzadeh 01:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But there were no Zombies or monsters in the film, just occasional people that were disfigured. They may have been monstrous in appearance, but did not have any supernatural origin. Hewinsj 05:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7 As I discussed before I prefer "fictional".-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 07:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7 Obviously based on is not correct and historical fiction can not be underestood by ordinary WP users. (Shahingohar 16:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC))
 * 7 is my first choice. 1 would be my second choice. - Fedayee 18:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8 or 7, I am OK with both of them. --Pejman47 22:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7 Also maybe 8 --Arad 01:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7 first choice, 1 second. Bufflo 01:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7 I've read Herodotus; this is fiction. We should say so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7 Farhoudk 07:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7 I just saw this film, it is obviously fiction --Ari 10:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is another user whose vote cannot be counted 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)

THis is pointless. If this vote is closed, then 7 is the consensus. If not, no one should be changing it, and arcayne's reversion to befoer Arad's edit should stand.ThuranX 04:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * well, there we go. #7 is in. I think that since it's been 11 days since a vote was cast, and #7's the mt chosen response, and it's been implemented, we can end the vote and consider consensus reached. Now to move on to th rest of the article. ThuranX 04:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think that consensus requires a wee bit more than that, ThuranX. Since the vote between 7 and 1 is as close as it is, we need to find an alternative to either one. No one set an end date to the vote, so we can do that now. The vote is not done; the first time someone called for that, it was soundly rejected. I say we allow votes in until the end of the month. That seems long enough to get all the votes. Arcayne  (cast a spell)  04:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's been 10 days since any movement. better to act boldly than let it get stale and die and have to repeat the process. You're the onl one objecting, and you should be glad it's over. Frankly, a longer reading of all this shows that you'er working to perpetuate this debate almost as much as the pro-persian edit warriors. It's been settled. NO one's arguing, not Mardavich, no one else. Call it done, move on to other sections of the article. ThuranX 21:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, respectfully, I disagree, ThuranX. I interpret the lack of action as folks waiting for the dust to settle and allowing sanity to set in. I am objecting because it was presented as fait accompli - a done deal, and it was not even discussed. Of course, some of the other editors you mentioned aren't complaining because it isn't a choice contrary to what they want. As well, you might wish to take a look at the edit history for the article, where folks (other than myself) took issue with the assumption of a vote conclusion. And rather than bringing confirmation that the vote had concluded to the Talk page, the editors in favor of #7 engaged in a low-grade edit-war.
 * As well, had you done a somewhat closer reading "of all this", you might have noted that i have tried to find some solution to the "pro-persian edit warriors" that everyone could live with no fewer than three times - a somewhat different approach than "perpetuating the debate". Maybe you missed those parts.
 * I disagree with the assumption that this is completely done, and that a true consensus has been found - instead, it is a simple majority, and not even one suggested by Consensus. However, since you seem to think this is a valid method of resolving the issue, I will concede the point for now. Of course, I will insist that if and when others weigh in, putting another choice into prominence, consensus will change around again. Of course, I will expect you to come hither and defend the new consensus as well. Arcayne   (cast a spell)  01:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I took a few weeks off to edit other things because I was coming here far too often and the arguments were too emotional. Now things have settled down so I might check in now and then. Hewinsj 23:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Voting will end
In the interest of fairness, this is how I think matters should occur.


 * Voting will end on Thursday, April 13th, one week after the choices were posted.
 * Voting is being tabulated by date of the editor's vote (via Diff). Only those votes of editors who have edited the article prior to the vote section being created - April 6, 2007 - will be tabulated.
 * The votes of editors visiting the article afterwards (ie, simply for the purposes of voting) should not be included in the results. This is to avoid accusations of meat- and sock-puppetry or votestacking from any party.
 * Voting will close at 02:15 (UTC-5), April 13, 2007. No votes cast after that time will be counted.

- Arcayne  (cast a spell)  14:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you don't set the rules AFTER the survey has already started and is almost over. ALL votes cast by ALL the registered users will be counted, and there will be no expectations whatsoever. --Mardavich 22:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you are about to set some rules as well Mardavich. Miskin 22:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I am not. We do not change the rules in the middle of the game. --Mardavich 23:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you feel that way, Mardavich. This is not "changing the rules". This is making sure the rules are followed. You might want to rethink your oppostion, as this assists you in making sure that meat puppets don't come in and skew the vote one way or the other. I know how concerned you are that there might be a bias going on. This prevents new folk form coming in only to vote on this topic.
 * This was not actually considered when we started voting because there was an assumption of good faith that only people who had edited here would vote. However, we are not seeing that. We are seeing people come in who have either never edited here before or just started new accounts. I am not making accusations. This step makes that unnecessary, serving to prevent anyone from claiming that meat-puppets came into play. If you wish to have an admin weigh in on this, please feel free to do so. Arcayne   (cast a spell)  00:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, we should have thought of all this at the beginning. We will not exclude or dismiss anyone's vote or opinion at this stage, that's the bottom line. Otherwise, it would look like we're setting up "new rules" late in the game to get a result that's favorable to our own position. Now, we don't want anyone to think that, do we?  --Mardavich 00:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you need to discuss this with someone else, Mardavich. While it may have been a bit too trusting to expect no one to possibly votestack, now that we are likley seeing it, it is not unreasonable to act on it. We are going to make sure that votestacking doesn't happen, and that means not counting the votes from people who just "happen" to show up. This helps both the folks who feel there is pro-nationalist editing and those who feel there is bias occurring by ensuring that no one gets to call in reinforcements to 'carry the banner', so to speak. - Arcayne  (cast a spell)  01:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, you are stepping over the line again. Consider your new "rules" rejected, with thanks. From your response to User:Khodavand on your talk page it is clear that you have a POV against letting Iranians vote or discuss here. Basically you are saying that Iranians should not edit this article, yes? I want you to state very nice and short your idea, so that there is no misunderstanding. You are you saying that Iranians should not be involved with this article, is that correct? Khorshid 01:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that is not what I am saying, I am saying that people who have never contributed so much as a comma to the article or the discussion should not get to vote. It is not about Iranians, and never has been - I don't have any idea what ethnicity you are, and for the umpteenth time, I don't care (you might be confusing me with another editor). It's about POV versus NPOV, and NPOV is going to win out in WP.
 * Every. Single. Time.
 * I have already explained twice, and quite clearly what the vote was constructed to do. I have also explained why, after noting some very peculiar votes coming in that in the interest of fairness, only those editors who have contributed to the article, be they Iranian, American or Pago-Pagoan, be allowed to vote.
 * Apparently, you seem to think that all of the rejected votes are coming from Iranians. The leaves on to wonder how you apparently know that these are Iranians that are casting their votes. Since you asked mea question, allow me to pose one to you - and forgive me for my seeming lack of grace. Did you suggest that other editors come here to vote on this matter?
 * I eagerly await your reply. Arcayne  (cast a spell)  05:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Arcayne has no authority or mandate to set up rules and regulations for this page or any other page on Wikipedia. So don’t get hung up on what some users may unilaterally declare  as "rules", "deadlines" etc. We'll count all the votes, and execute the consensus, once there is a clear consensus, do not worry. --Mardavich 03:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is true, Mardavich, but you gave me that authority and mandate yourself. You voted, thereby submitting yourself to the authority of the rules and implication of fair dealing that went with it. This leaves me with a question for you, as well. What do you plan to do if the vote chooses something other than what you or Khorshid wanted? Are you saying that you will accept the will of the vote, even if the votes that take your choice away from you are not from editors who have contributed to the article, and who just arrived for the vote?
 * As well, I eagerly await your reply as well. Arcayne   (cast a spell)  05:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but we gave you no such authority and mandate, you just proposed that we take a survey, that doesn't mean that you own the survey. You're just an editor here like me or anyone else. I will accept the will of the vote, but that does not necessarily mean that I have to blindly submit to your will or how you wish to interpret the results. All the votes from registered/legit users should and will be counted, and we will execute the consensus, once there is a clear consensus. --Mardavich 06:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where I stand on this. On the one hand, I don't necessarily think that voting should be limited to people who have contributed to the article before a particular date. On the other hand, I have noticed a number of votes coming from users who have not been actively involved in the article or this discussion. Whether they have been diligent lurkers or not, I cannot say, and frankly I don't know what should be done about it, but it is interesting to note. Part of me thinks that we should consider another round of voting, with explicit terms from the outset, with the two or three most popular choices. Cuffeparade 07:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is high time that you cite the guideline or policy that supports disenfranchising users based on them being a new users--to this discussion or to WP. --Agha Nader 21:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The 100 edit rule can be used in cases when sock puppetry and meat puppetry are suspected and voting looks suspicious. It's a blanket solution that doesn't target anyone based on demographics, just the length of time they have been editing to avoid users creating several names on the spot or calling friends over just to help them out. I found this one a while back when researching the subject for something else.  The only other solution is block out puppet accounts to look at the IPs that user names are logged at, but that requires very high admin clearance which wouldn't be given for this discussion.
 * There is no rule about blocking out people that didn't take part in the discussion that I know of. At that point it becomes a gentleman's agreement on whether to allow or disallow people unrelated to the discussion to join. Hewinsj 02:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the 100-edit rule would apply here, Hewinsj, for the simple reason that the suspicion of meat puppetry (someone calling in his or her friends to vote or edit in defense of a particular edit) is not filtered out by checkuser fro sock-puppetry or the application of the 100 edit. All I thougth was fair that people who hadn't edited on 300 weren't here to creat consensus or to argue the points. It isn't the consensus of the visitors that we are seeking, but instead a consensus of those working and debating the issue at hand. Those coming in from utside rarely are aware or interested in slogging through the archives to find the pertinet arguments. Add to that that many seemed to arrive all at once, which presents a reasonable and justifiable cause for concern. I think it is simply fair play.  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  01:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Suspicions alone are no grounds for anything. There are no rules disenfranchising users based someone's "suspicions". AGF and and let the process take its course. --Mardavich 01:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Play is not fair when rules are made after play has started. It seems unfair to me that rules are being made after voting has started. Agha Nader 04:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily so, Agha. It would be like two teams starting a football game and then one team has their fans from the stands come assist them on the field. When that sort of unexpected departure from the rules occurs, the rules should adapt to it. You cannot think that is unreasonable, as such a provision protects everyone, and not just one side in a disagreement. Arcayne   (cast a spell)  14:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Arc, it is unreasonable to change the rules middle of any game, be it football or indeed Wikipedia :) --Rayis 14:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Rayis, what would you recommend as a solution to the problem? Clearly, many are seeing this as an end-run around the spirit of the vote's intention. As well, since the vote has been shown to be quite close (amongst those editors having actually contributed to the article before), it is clear that even the consensus for number one is not to be found through this venue. I am growing unconvinced that another vote would yield a wide consensus for any choice. If naught else, the voting has clarified the fact (as well as the problem) of the lack of consensus. It is agreed that something else might need to occur, perhaps MedCom - Arcayne  (cast a spell)  16:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not football, its Wikipedia; everyone is a contributor. There are no stands, as everyone is allowed to contribute or 'play'. Agha Nader 16:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A consensus is already emerging. If Arcayne or anyone else tries to disrupt the process, we will seek higher measures like RFC and ArbCom. --Mardavich 17:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

A question posed to another is also valid here. Will you support the vote if it does not go the way that you want? Arcayne  (cast a spell)  01:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, why shouldn't I? See, you're again ignoring WP:AGF. I said that I'd accept a consensus from the start. --Mardavich 21:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"Hollywood declares war on Iran"
This comment should remain in the article for the obvious NPOV reasons. It should also be mentioned that the film was very popular in Saudi and elsewhere in the arab world. Too much undue weigh has been given to the POV of the Islamic "Republic" of Iran so far. Miskin 01:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, say something relevant.--Agha Nader 03:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What reason would the rest of the Arab world have to be peeved at 300? The Iranian reaction is due to their identification as heirs of Persia (or however), not as Arabs or as Muslims. --Kizor 10:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to the Iranians on this one. I've never seen a movie in which Persians/Iranians have been portrayed positively and rarely neutral (Only Crash comes to mind). Manic Hispanic 03:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Kizor I highly doubt that Iranian self-perception as heirs of the Persians is the only motive of the Iranian government. See the title of this section, it was a headline in an Iranian newspaper. Anti-americanism and anti-occidentalism are the primary motives. Miskin 11:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Manic Hispanic I was talking about the "Iranian government" and its comments, not the Iranian people. Miskin 11:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * According to Variety, Warner Bros is not responding to "Ayandeh No" headline. Moreover, headlines are very emotional to attract more readers and they are usually exaggerated and not precise. Therefore, it is better not to bring a headline directly into Wikipedia unless we want to discuss it specifically. (Shahingohar 16:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC))
 * Could you please cite the source in Variety that says that Warner Bros was not responding to that Ayendeh Noh headline? It is not our place to evaluate whether headlines are "exaggerated" or imprecise. The fact remains: does the source cite that? And as the statement from Warner Bros. appears to be in response to the headline, it has been mentioned specifically. However, if it would please you to discuss it here, go ahead. Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Variety is not stating that it is a response to Ayandeh No and you are saying "Warner Bros. appears to be in response to the headline" so even you are not sure. It seems it is your own interpretation. I can't understand among all of the headlines why you have picked this one? What kind of new information it adds to the article? Why not using these headlines "Movie "300" an Insult to Iranians", "Iran accuses Hollywood of 'psychological warfare'", "300 Sparks an Outcry in Iran" ? If according to Miskin it is going to prove that Iranian self-perception as heirs of the Persians is not the only motive of the Iranian government I think we can find better evidence for that. Anyways it has nothing to do with Variety and Warner Bros Response. (Shahingohar 17:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC))
 * Er, you cited Variety as saying that it was not a response to the headline, and now you are saying it isn't? Hmm. However, I think I see your point. You are suggesting that the use of the headline cited in the reference cannot be used as the sole basis for the Warner Bros. Marketing response. Is that correct? Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am saying Warner Bros is responding to the whole criticisms not only to "Ayandeh No". That is how I underestand from Variety and I think it is logical.  (Shahingohar 18:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC))
 * I agree. I'll tidy up the paragraph, making an 'overall' response to criticisms. This was a good catch and reasonably argued. I appreciate your politeness. This is how it is supposed to work, I think. :) Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is good thanks.(Shahingohar 18:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC))
 * Glad everything worked out. :) Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The article cited as a ref makes it more than obvious that WB responded to the criticism that the movie received from the Iranian government. In other words it's not necessarily a response to the specific headline, but to the attacks it received in general. Personally I cannot be convinced that the Iranian government - a country which has publicly declared their wish on the destruction of Israel - had assumed WP:AGF before making such public denouncements against Hollywood. I think you would agree on this, however I'm not sure of how wikipedia should handle this. Miskin 18:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Wikipedia's rules for conduct do not exist outside the borders of the project. It isn't for us to determine in the article the veracity of their claims, though we might have strong personal opinions as to their validity or the volume with which they are proclaimed. As the response was not specifically in regards to the newspaper article itself, but rather as an encompassing response, we cannot single out what is admittedly (to my reckoning) an incredibly bone-headed play by various Iranian government organs and newspapers. Were someone from Warner to respond specifically to any one of them, we should be able to include it. Fortunately, everyone is letting all the Crazy die down. Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Warner Bros is responding to criticism in general, not a specific newspaper. Also, not all the criticism were from within Iran, so that's a POV projection. Keep it simple and NPOV please. --Mardavich 21:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would direct you to please reread the source cited, Mardavich. In the source article entitled, "Iran's up in arms over WB's '300', it names the different ways in which Iran was all upset with 300, (with a nod to the apparent copyright piracy of the film within Iran), while making no mention to the reaction outside of the country. It then names Warner Bros.' response to it. I felt the work-around to the previous version was both sufficient and precise.
 * However, if you would like to find another source that addresses the WB Marketing Department's response to some worldwide protest, you should feel obliged to seek that out. I am quite sure we would all like the opportunity to view it. Arcayne

(cast a spell) 23:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The statement is directed at criticisms in general and does not specify any country, saying it's addressed to Iran or anything like that, is a POV projection. If that was the case, Warner Brothers would have said it in the statement themselves. --Mardavich 23:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't care as long as it stated that warner bros did not make that declaration out of the blue, which rules out the possibility of using it as a descriptor for the film's genre. It is implied in the section as well as the cited article that criticism revolved around the Iranian government and its sphere of influence. I don't mind leaving at that, after all there seems to be an organised edit-war going on - no need to get the article locked again. Miskin 23:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In the interst of investigating what you termed POV projection (of which I have none but NPOV), I figured it might be easier to illustrate why you are somewhat incorrect in your musings,Mardavich.


 * Iran's up in arms over WB's '300'
 * Shangari calls film 'psychological warfare'
 * By ALI JAAFAR


 * Warner Bros.' "300" is being greeted in Iran with about as much warmth as a U.N. weapons inspector.
 * While U.S. auds see the film as a comicbook come to life -- replete with hyperstylized action and broadly drawn heroes and villains -- it has a deeper resonance in the Mideast, where it's seen as a distorted view of very real events.
 * "Hollywood declares war on Iranians," exclaimed a headline in Iranian daily Ayandeh-No.
 * Javad Shangari, a cultural adviser to Iranian prexy Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, attacked the film as being "part of a comprehensive U.S. psychological warfare aimed at Iranian culture."
 * While the pic is unlikely to be released theatrically in Iran, pirated DVDs already are circulating on the black market.
 * "Everyone is starting to react. The DVD is already very available, and people are quite angry," one Tehran-based producer said.
 * An online petition addressed to Warner has tallied 35,000 signatures. The petition, set up by Canada-based archaeologist Hamed Vahdati Nasab, protests Warner's "irresponsible, unethical and unscientific actions ... while announcing our disgust at such a heresy, we demand an immediate historical review and quick apology from the responsible people."
 * Director Zack Snyder and the film's producers have emphasized that the film is based on the Frank Miller graphic novel and was never intended to be an accurate historical representation.
 * But that's done little to assuage concerns by those who see the film's archetypes as Western stereotypes.
 * Nasab told Daily Variety, "What would people say if they made a film about Martin Luther King (Jr.), showed him as a monster, and tried to defend it as a fiction? You can't do that. It's unethical. This is a national matter for all Iranians."
 * Iranians are descendants of Persians. The film, which depicts the 480 B.C. Battle of Thermopylae between 300 Spartan soldiers and an invading Persian army, shows them as the villains. The Persian emperor at the time, Xerxes, was descended from Cyrus, who is revered in Iran for having written the first declaration of human rights.
 * Pic arrives at a time of heightened political tension over the West's desire to rein in Iran's nuclear energy program. While the hard-line government in Tehran has insisted its program will be used solely for peaceful purposes, many outside the country suspect the end goal is to obtain nuclear weapons.
 * Otherwise, the film, with its stylized depictions of violence, seems unlikely to cause any problems in the Mideast. Execs at Shooting Stars, the UAE-based distrib repping "300" across the Arab world, confirmed that the pic would likely clear censors across the region.
 * "People are seeing it as an entertainment here," Shooting Star's Roy Chacra said.
 * A Warner Bros. spokesman said: "The film '300' is a work of fiction inspired by the Frank Miller graphic novel and loosely based on an historical event. The studio developed this film purely as a fictional work with the sole purpose of entertaining audiences; it is not meant to disparage an ethnicity or culture or make any sort of political statement."


 * Now, forgive me for pointing out what is assuredly a simple oversight on your part, but Mardavich, there are over seventeen referrences to either Iran, cities in Iran, an Iranian president or an Iranian archaeologist, We are not in the business of deciding what was within the collective heads of the WM Marketing Department. We are simply looking at the source and citing the information from that source accordingly. As illustrated quite clearly above. The source doesn't quote any other country raising a fuss to the movie. The article pairs the various reactions from the collective overwhelming Iranian outrage and pairs it with the WB response.
 * As I helpfully suggested before, the problem that you might be encountering is not with the edit, but perhaps with the source. As I advised you before, please feel free to fetch a new source, and we will address it at that time. Until then, I think the point hase been made. Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * One of the odd things with this entire dispute is that most Americans would have no idea that the Persians have anything to do with Iran. Coming from the movie, what is shown is that long ago there was a vast empire that wanted to dominate the Greeks, and the numerically inferior Greeks wouldn't let them, and prevailed against the odds.  The idea of methaphorically going to war with Iran would not be part of the equation. Bbagot 21:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Although the article clearly focuses on the Iranian government, I don't think what you say will matter a lot. Some editors have made up their minds about all aspects of this article anyways. Miskin 00:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Arcayne, you speak like Variety is the only source that has ever mentioned that statement; You can find that statement in plenty of other sources like here.
 * If you take the time to read the whole article, you will clearly see that there are non-Iranian criticism of this movie. I'll quote one part here for you:


 * Some western film critics have echoed Iranian objections. Dimitris Danikas notes that 300 depicts Persians as "bloodthirsty, underdeveloped zombies" and feeds "racist instincts in Europe and America."
 * Slate's Dana Stevens calls it "a textbook example of how race-baiting fantasy and nationalist myth can serve as an incitement to total war."


 * So as you can see there are criticism of this movie outside the Iranian community. Hence I don't think it'll be completely accurate to say that only Iranians are objecting to this movie.Sbn1984 02:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol, could you make it a bit more bold? I couldn't really see it there. ;) (sorry, I think that bold text is just silly and largely ineffective at garnering my attention for anything other than pointing out Where's Waldo-type info - see above example)
 * Seriously, take a moment and re-read this section please. We aren't talking about another citation. We are talking about this one. The statement from Warner Brothers came from the article cited (and reiterated) above. The source you cite is already in the article.
 * I presume you mention it here bc you think that it represents that WB was responding to more than the Iranian "outrage". If that were true, the article you mentioned would have had WB's statement in it - and yet, it doesn't. The cited source from whence the WB statement came from was the reporter's intention to draw a connection between the response from within Iran to WB's response. He didn't mention the Greek reaction, or the German one, or the outrage in Pago-Pago. He mentioned the uproar in Iran.
 * We don't get to interpret that, Sbn, as doing so would constitute a little something we call Original Research. We don't get to suppress it, as it something called POV-pushing. We simply present the info as it is reported and cited.
 * As I recommended before, if you are unhappy with this citation of Warner Bros' response. I strongly encourage you to find another. The soul of Wikipedia is personal research, and I wish you well as you embark on your journey of discovery. I think the version of the citation statement as I edited in agreement with Asiavashj is reasonable and accurate. Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but it seems that you are pushing your POV. Yes, Variety only mentioned the Iranian objection, but it never said in the article that WB has said that statement only because of Iranian objections. You see, you are the one who is interpreting. As you said "We don't get to interpret as doing so would constitute a little something we call Original Research. We don't get to suppress it, as it something called POV-pushing. We simply present the info as it is reported and cited." So if you mind, just quote Variety as it is written there, without any interpreting.
 * And the source I cited, has mentioned the WB statement. Just take a closer look at it please.Sbn1984 04:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I am soo sorry, I just keep chuckling every time you use bold text when italics would be so much better - your pardon - it's the former grad student instructor in me. Anyway, I actually looked closer at your citation from GMU-History department. You should have introduced this two weeks ago, when it came out. It isn't a bad source at all. However, you are dead wrong if you consider my opinion to be anything but NPOV, not even reiterating my own words changes that. I reiterate, I am "on the side of neutrality, and Truth as well, if it should come a-calling." I structured the edit based on the source material present, and in cooperation with another editor. For you to become a bit uncivil because I didn't use telepathy or omniscience to invoke a source you are just now bringinghere, seems a tad unfair. If you feel you have better material, start a section and explain why you think it should be in, or why it should replace another citation. That's how it usually works here - although you might not have seen a lot of that, what with all the bickering in the joint. You will recall that I was the editor who removed the more tendentious parts of the pre-existing edit, replacing with a more accurate, NPOV edit. I guess a simple thank you is out of the question, eh? Arcayne  (cast a spell)  04:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So wouldn't that make the south park Eps. The souces as well? 5150 16:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No. As has previously been explained to you, a Wikipedia article cannot cite another Wikipedia article.  You need an attributable source, perhaps a review or article about how 300 has appeared in popular media and what impact it has made in marketing and/or profits; I would consider sourced material like this encyclopedic and of value to the article.  The South Park episode itself is not enough, however.  María ( habla  con migo ) 17:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So if you don't mind we can change the citation for WB statement from Variety to GMU-History department; Then there shouldn't be any objection for using "In response to the criticisms" instead of "In response to a number of criticisms and concerns arising from within Iran" (or other similar statements) for the opening of WB statement. (see, I am using italic instead of bold, now :D) And I do thank everyone who is trying to improve this article and makes sure it stays accurate & neutral.Sbn1984 19:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't mind your substitution (perhaps 'some criticism' is more apt than 'the criticisms'), especially if the replacement citation is an improvement on the citation already in place. Maybe you should post the new cite here, so folks can get a look at it and weigh in on whether it should change or not. Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Archiving Soon
This is Rumor Control. Here are the facts: An archiving of inactive topics will be perfromed within 36 hours from the time of this posting. Please consider Beginning new headers for those topics which have grown too long under their current header. As was performed last time, I will be creating a summary of the headers at the top with a brief description and link to the previous header. For dessert, we will be offering a nicely tartened sorbet of responses, a chocolate cake (hold the depiction) and a glass of water, either half-empty or half-full, depending on your preference. Gratuities are excepted. :D - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not archive the vote, before the consensus is first applied. --Mardavich 23:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Please take a moment to re-read the above posting, Mardavich. I am sure you read the part about how only those sections that are inactive will be archived. Arcayne   (cast a spell)  00:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus Mardavich, the topic proved itself controversial, therefore NPOV applies. Miskin 00:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the voting section may appear "inactive" to you, but it's not concluded. So I wanted to make sure that you are not archiving it. And there is a consensus emerging (70% or more from the votes), so if the few who don't like the outcome try to disrupt it, we will take higher measures.--Mardavich 00:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes. We all heard the threat before from you. You might consider that issuing such a threat - even a redacted one is considered both a bad faith action as well as a personal threat. I would encourage you to abide by the rules of our community, or face the difficulties encountered when one cannot play well with others.  - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  00:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a threat, it's a promise. If you don't abide by the rules of Wikipedia such as Consensus, WP:AGF, WP:Civility, there will be consequences, I am willing to take this issue all the way to the ArbCom. --Mardavich 00:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That is the third time you have threatened me personally. I have shown you nothing but the utmost civility, and have not personally attacked you. As well, I am familiar with consensus. I will allow you this opportunity to apologize for your personal attack, Mardavich. Arcayne  (cast a spell)  00:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Calm down, my post was not addressed at you in particular, but anyone who tries to disrupt due process, which is why I edited a few times to make it clear who I was speaking to. --Mardavich 00:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I wonder where the 70% consensus figure came from. Mardavich if you really believe that this number is valid or that there is any consensus whatsoever, then you should jump directly to your "high measures". I'd rather ellaborate at an official level rather than waste any more of my time in here. Miskin 00:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I said there is a consensus emerging, we'll know the exact numbers once the voting has concluded. --Mardavich 00:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What about the proof on outside canvassing provided by Behnam earlier? I know you have already rationalised it as a hoax, and it may truly be the case, however until such a hypothesis is proved the vote must remain officially cancelled. Miskin 00:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL, nice try. That was no conclusive proof of anything. The burden of proof is on the people making the accustions of canvassing. Regardeless, that message was posted AFTER everyone had alerady voted here, so it's irrelevant, and no the vote doesn't "remains officially cancelled". No one can disrupt the due process, just because they don't like the result. --Mardavich 01:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If everyone is done voting, er, why are we waiting around for "consensus" that will never come? I think this dead horse has been beaten into an ugly, smelly, bloody pulp and it's time it was hosed out of the barn before the paint begins to peel.  (Yeesh!)  In other words, can't we just stop?  I honestly see no problem with the lead as it presently stands.  María ( habla  con migo ) 01:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The consensus will be clear once all the votes are counted. I think we should count the votes on April 20, that means two weeks after the vote started. --Mardavich 01:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever, this isn't getting anywhere (as predicted). To me this is a simple question of NPOV, to you it is a matter of consensus. To you a "consensus" of 49%-51% is as good as anything, to me such a result is not a consensus at all. To you the fact that Iranian editors form an absolute majority over the total number of voters means nothing, to me it does. To you the vote was never biased in any way, to me it was. To you things like pseudo-consensus, edit-warring and numerical superiority counts over NPOV, to me it does not. I'm willing to ellaborate about all this within context. From my part you're free to take any measures you want, it's your head at stake. Just hope that ArbCom will share your reasoning over mine. Miskin 01:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Miskin, please don't make assumptions about what different things mean to me or "what is what" to me. Thank you.--Mardavich 02:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do not forget that it was Arcayne that initiated the vote. Did not he know that "Iranian editors form an absolute majority"? If he did not know, what has changed that has made you so sure that "Iranian editors form an absolute majority"? --Agha Nader 02:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Agha Nader, I fail to see what your implications of Arcayne's actions have anything to do with this conversation. You agreed to the voting when you, yourself placed a vote.  Please remain topical as well as civil and keep snide remarks to yourself.  María ( habla  con migo ) 02:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see []. My comment was not snide at all. It was very civil. I will ask it again: Did not Arcayne know that "Iranian editors form an absolute majority"? If he did not know, what has changed that has made him so sure that "Iranian editors form an absolute majority"? Should he not have brought this up before the vote? What is the evidence that shows that "Iranian editors form an absolute majority"? Please refrain from calling my comments snide, as that can be an ill-considered accusation. --Agha Nader 03:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Besides, even if we act discriminatory (which we won't) and exclude all "Iranian editors" and "Greek editors", the result would remain the same, number 7 would still be in the lead. --Mardavich 02:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a small question... how do new entries get added to WP:LAME? The Behnam 02:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha! The discussion page, it would seem.  God speed.  María ( habla  con migo ) 02:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll definitely put this on after it resolves... assuming that happens. The Behnam 02:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead Statement

 * I think Maria has hit the nail on the head with her suggestion to simply leave the Lead statement the way it currently is (essentially, choice #8). If this is unacceptable to certain parties who have threatened/promised/whatever to pursue more drastic measures like ArbCom and whatnot should pursue them at their earliest possible convenience and without further delay. I for one am tired of what has turned into weeks of tendentious back and forth uncivility and personal attacks between the two extremes of people trying to convince the world that the BoT somehow ended differently than history says it does, and those who think that it happened pretty much like the movie. The answer lies within these two extremes, and I think it's high time we realized that.
 * Mardavich, you are a smart guy; you must know that attempting to force a consensus which is contrary to the truth is not going to happen in Wikipedia, as per Consensus. There are simply too many people who oppose the changes you wish to have included. And while it may appear that the wiki-canvassing forum post may have been a red herring, the perception that there are suspect votes has been brought up by numerous editors, and not just ones you and others consider on "the other side." This taints the validity of the vote, And since those who came here for the first time to vote have since gone back to whatever they were doing before, not offering anything further in the way of substantive edits, this only serves to cast further doubt. Allow me to be clear here: I cannot prove that these people came at another's bidding, and am not suggesting that you had anything to do with their sudden presence here. I am merely expressing the oft-mentioned suspicion of such. Allow yourself to consider your reaction if suddenly many folk visited here to vote against choice #7, folk who had never voted here before. Please tell me you would not find the matter disconcerting, at the least.
 * I personally have tried twice to provide a frame by which to settle these matters amicably; first with the sub-page and then with offering a fair vote (actually, three times, as the vote was offered twice, taking into consideration those concerns offered by people who now want to ArbCom). Due to my inexperience with anticipating the editorial resistance of some to both change and compromise, both of these attempts have failed utterly to find consensus, and I accept the responsibility for that. I think the sides are too sharply drawn for compromise to be found, and so therefore think that the best decision here is to not make a decision. We should simply stick with what we currently have, and move on.
 * Maria said that the contention regarding this matter is a stinky, dead horse; people need to please stop trying to saddle up and ride it. If you think that this honest illumination of the terrain we currently find ourselves within warrants pushing for an ArbCom mediation, then by all means, do so. I don't like being threatened or bullied, and I am pretty sure I am not alone in that feeling. Let's simply go with what's already in the article and move on. The instability and tendentious editing cost the article the GA rating, and I for one would kinda like to get it back. Arcayne   (cast a spell)  02:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The lead statement should be re-worded in accordance with the vote. The vote was your own idea, and there is a consensus emerging which is contrary to your POV, and now you don't like the vote all of sudden. What's already in the article is what you put there, so no we won't just go along with it and move on. Bottom line, a vocal minority should not be permitted to force its will on others. There was a due process initiated by yourself, we all took part in it, and we should all respect the results. --Mardavich 02:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Dude, for the Nth time, my pov is neutrality; I'm not in it for anything but neutrality - and Truth, if such happens to come a-calling.
 * Aren't you and the others just tired of arguing all the time? I know I am tired of it happening. Take some time and look over all you've fought about for weeks. I mean it: take the time to read what other people are posting here. Normal folk, with no investment in either side of this argument. This vote isn't going to be the magic bullet you are dreaming it will be. If you really need the ArbCom to tell you that, then go ahead and roll the dice. The arguing has to stop. The vote is not going to stop it, and I suspect you are well aware of this, judging from the evidentiary Diffs you prepared yesterday (1, 2) to show everyone's vote.
 * Just because someone don't spend every second on this board doesn't mean that their vote is framed. Not every one has enough time to spend here. Those are legitimate vote, (from users who cared about accuracy of this artivle) and you are only concerned because the majority here disagree with you. Sbn1984 03:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why did you offer to cast a vote on this matter, if you were not going to honor the result anyway!!! Sbn1984 03:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say I wasn't going to honor the vote, Sbn. You are welcome to point out where I have ever said such. I did say that I think that the vote/survey was to find a consensus - a consensus - which I have iterated above - clearly remains in dispute. Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry Arcayne, but you have a POV on this matter like anyone else, you voted which means you have a preference or point of view. The result of the vote is not arbitrary, it's just an indicator of where the consensus stands, and who is editing against consensus and who is not. It's all about behavior of the editors and the parties involved, and ArbCom doesn't look or comment on the content, they only look at the parties' behavior and yours has been very troubling. --Mardavich 03:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Apparently, you didn't examine my vote all that carefully. I chose 1, 2, 4 or 6, hardly a position of unswerving POV. And, as I have been extraordinarily helpful in helping to accomodate your concerns regarding the vote and the re-starting of that vote (1,2,3), you might be forgetting a few pieces of the puzzle here.
 * As well, I am looking at the RfC that Nader has taken 3 or four days to mull over, and I am guessing he is prolly a bit unhappy that you let the cat out of the bag. I may have been uncivil in the past, but I have managed to bring it mostly under rein nowadays. I am not sure why he doesn't submit it, but I am guessing it might have something to do with the relative strengths of his various arguments, or the fact that his own behavior might come back to haunt him. I am not going to get into that here, as this isn't an article about me, Agha or even you. I only addressed you because you seem so adamant that this vote is going to solve the problem, and have gone so far as to threaten (sorry, "promise") ArbCom. I am not interefering with your right to do so, and in fact have encouraged you to proceed with it. I've alos suggested that you let go of the argument, but that might be too much to ask of you. If so, I am sorry. Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Arcayne, you have said frequently that you dont have a POV about this. However, you certainly have made statements on this page indicating that you think this article is being unfairly singled out, that editors should accept that this is about Miller's artistic vision and not be disturbed, and so on. With respect, that's a POV when it comes to drafting the lead. Hornplease 09:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Mardavich, as I told you earlier, invoking that vote as some sort of evidence for consensus is a waste of time. I would advise you to seek higher measures already, you can forget about that vote, trying to apply it will lead to the article being locked. Hornplease - please, do not speak about neutrality, I've encountered you in related articles and you had the exact same views as here, backed up by the same lame argumentation, always assuming that you're smarter than both wikipedians and cited scholars. Cartlege is a Laconophile, CUP publications are not as reliable, we haven't understood the sources as well as you did, there's always something wrong with your environment as long it doesn't agree with you. So let's just drop the POV subject, AGF has its limits. Miskin 11:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's everyone give it a bit of a rest. Hornplease in one way is right - I guess I do have a bit of POV that extends beyond NPOV; I think that arguing about minutae is nonsense (His hair was brown/no it only looked brown). Javits2000. Maria and Benham were all correct in that this lively little debate is certainly stupid enough be an entry in WP:LAME. Having said that, let's move on. Mardavich, pursue whatever course of action you feel is best. I wished for a consensus, or at least some compromise to arise out of the vote; it has not been effective as such. As you have created two DIFFs marking who has voted, and at least one other person is keeping a current, detailed tabulation, no one needs to worry about the verifiability of who voted. Miskin, let's only discuss the article here. Even if you have dealt with some of the editors outside of this page, your concerns about an apparent pattern in edits nmeeds to be dealt with editor to editor, on their Talk Page. This discussion area isn't really the place for it. Arcayne  (cast a spell)  16:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Arcayne, thanks, that's precisely what I meant to say.
 * Miskin, I have no idea what you're on about. I can't recall where I ran into you before, and forgive me if I make no effort to check. If I have repressed the memory, it may be for the best of reasons. In any case, I can't imagine where I had 'the exact same views' as here, as I havent edited that many disputed 'historical fantasy' articles. (At least, not this sort of dispute.) Arcayne is right, take it to my talkpage, or, better still, move on and attempt to deal with the arguments I present, or, best of all, take a small break to put it all in proportion. Hornplease 10:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the invaluable advice oh wise one. Miskin 14:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Archiving Performed
This is Rumor Control. Here are the facts: As previously advised, an archiving of inactive topics was performed after notice of the previous posting. As was performed last time, a summary of the archived section headers is at the top of this page with a brief description and link to the previous header. The voting portion was partially archived, retaining the choices still remaining to be voted upon, and links to where prior votes have been noted and/or tallied. Please do not remove those links, or alter the voting choices. Your in-flight movie will be 300, playing in endless loop. For dessert, we will be offering a nicely tartened sorbet of responses, a chocolate cake (hold the depiction) and a glass of water, either half-empty or half-full, depending on your preference. Gratuities are acccepted, but a simple 'thank you' will also be appreciated :D - Arcayne  (cast a spell)  17:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I had politely asked you not to archive the vote section, but you still did it. You were previously warned by an admin about such archiving, so DO NOT archive the vote, all votes should be visible until the voting has concluded. --Mardavich 21:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If the votes are both recorded and viewable in two different ways, why should you be bothered by the presence of the same voting choices, links to the vote in the archive, and two separate folks' accounting of the voting (yours is one of them)? I presume you asked me not to archive it bc you thought, not really AGF, that i was somehow concealing them. They are not concealed at all. However, the Talk Page doesn't need to be cluttered up with a vote/survey that you say is likely going to go to ArbCom anyway. We have other matters to discuss. And while I had archived too early last time - for which i have accepted responsibility and apoloigized at least twice - I have learned from that lesson. Perhaps you might want to take a longer look at what was done instead of just becoming frustrated because another editor considered your advice and went a different way. Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify, as at least one user appears to have missed it, here is the part that shows the links to all the votes and their place in the archive as well:

Note: ''(Prior votes can be found here and in the form of Diffs (here and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:300_%28film%29&diff=prev&oldid=122921593 here. The prior record of the votes that was archived can be found here). If you have not voted on this topic before, please feel free to add your vote below.''

I guess I am unclear as to why anyone would think that votes already cast would interfere with new voters that might arrive. Please feel free to illuminate us all. And no, the arguments presented 'are what matters' is not a valid argument. Folks coming here are to vote on their opwn opinions, and not just parroting what someone else said. If they cannot make an informed vote of the presented choices, then perhaps voting is not something they should be doing. Arcayne  (cast a spell)  21:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

WB Statement
In light of the argument going on in "Hollywood declares war on Iran" section about whether the WB statement is a response to only Iranian criticism of this movie or all the criticism in general; I found this source. It has both iranian & non-iranian objection to this movie and it does mentione the WB statement. Here is the part:
 * "Even if Zack Snyder and Frank Miller had no intention of making an anti-Iranian film, or promoting any sort of "psychological warfare," they've made a film in which Iranians are indeed generically depicted in the worst possible light. A Warner Bros. spokesman says, "The film 300 is a work of fiction inspired by the Frank Miller graphic novel and loosely based on a historical event. The studio developed this film purely as a fictional work with the sole purpose of entertaining audiences; it is not meant to disparage an ethnicity or culture or make any sort of political statement." But it does disparage."

So I think if we cite this source for WB statement instead of Variety, then there shouldn't be any objection for using "In response to the criticisms" instead of "In response to a number of criticisms and concerns arising from within Iran" (or other similar statements) for the opening of WB statement.

Any thoughts?Sbn1984 21:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If there isn't any objection, I'll go ahead and change the citation.Sbn1984 00:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, we want it to be as official as possible. Variety represents the film industry. Alientraveller 15:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Although I understand your concern, I don't think that you realized the reason behind my suggestion to change that citation. As you can read in the "Hollywood declares war on Iran" section, Variety article gave some users the wrong impression that WB statement is a response to only Iranian criticism of this movie; As a result I suggested this new source . It has both Iranian & non-Iranian objection to this movie as well as the WB statement. This substitution was agreed by user Arcayne, & nobody else had any objection to it as well. Hence I think it fits the article better.
 * I am going to revert your change. Please don't change it back, until we discuss the matter here and reach an agreement.Sbn1984 16:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't there a direct link to the press release by Warner Brothers that we can cite as a source? That would be the most offcial. --Mardavich 16:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be great; But unfortunately I can't find the direct link anywhere.Sbn1984 17:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Alientraveller made the key point here. When considering the weight (reliability-speaking) of the citation, Variety does write specifically to the movie industry point of view. The citation you suggested as replacement is a great deal more opinionated, and almost reads as a historical accuracy or political aspect section sort of thing. Clearly it shouldn't replace the variety article simply because they both use the WB Marketing Department statement. I wasn't so much aggreeing that it should replace the Variety article, but should be discussed for inclusion elsewhere. Silence does not equal consensus. :)  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Persian Wikilink
I changed the wikilink of Persian from Achaemenid Empire to Persian Empire. It is strange if Persian (which referes to the nationality) be linked to the name of the dynasty. (Shahingohar 02:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC))
 * Under that logic you should link to the nationality, not an 'empire,' as that is really no different. And if we are going to keep empires, then we ought to specify the link to the empire that the king was part of.  The Behnam 02:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Persian here means someone who comes from country of Persia not someone from Achaemenid Empire. (Shahingohar 02:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC))
 * Then change it to the nationality, not the empire. The Behnam 02:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * you mean Persian people? There is a problem. To me that article does not make clear if it is talking about Persian as an ethnicity(like kurds, lurs ...) or Iranians in general. If Persian people is about the ethnicity; linking Persian to it is not appropriate. (Shahingohar 03:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC))
 * I'm not sure what is not clear. The king is generally considered ethnic Persian, but I'm not sure if that is even a useful wikilink.  I'm going to make a change; tell me what you think.  The Behnam 03:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

For reference - The diff under discussion. The Behnam 03:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with your change.This page is not intended for historians or people who are interested in history. I think Achaemenid  is very strange for many users but Persian is clear. BTW Persian is used in the movie. (Shahingohar 03:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC))


 * Don't worry Mardavich already changed it, but he also suggested that the link go to Achaemenid Empire, as it did before you made a change. I think it is best as well, so please say why Persian Empire should replace Achaemenid Empire in this situation, as your reasoning completely eludes me.  The Behnam 03:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why when I tried to explain that King Xerxes was the Emperor of Persia, it was so controversial because it wasn't mentioned in the film but now lets see, in the film it never said anything about the Achaemenid empire did it?! lets remember that it was a fantasy not historical!! --Rayis 10:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please don't open the same argument under a different banner, Rayis. The largest argument is in regards to the fictional versus historical depth of the film. It may certainly constitute the lamest agumetn I have seen recently, but until one side or the other decides to focus on the article instead of an unrelated agenda, another alternative should be proffered. Having the link for the Persian Empire correctly link to the Achaemenid empire seems fair to me, even thought the current link to the Persian Empire provides a fairly comprehensive listing of the different stages of said empire. anyone reading the article (and yes, historians read it too; we aren't playing to the lowest common denominator here but to the majority) will know to seek out the appropriate era. Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Pop Culture effect
I think we should add a Effect on Pop Culture section about the phrases like This is madness and the image macro of Leonidas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.50.195.83 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 19 Apr 2007 (UTC)


 * Must we? I dont support it. In any case Madness redirects to Sparta half the time. Hornplease 10:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Political aspects clean-up
I think the "political aspects" section needs serious cleanup. Currently there is too many unbalanced and unsubstantiated quotations from various all but serious sources. For example, there is number of rude and doubtful quotes from not well known or respected journalists and critics (Dana Stevens, Gene Seymour, etc), who I don't think need to be quoted at all in an encyclopedic article. I think to make this section look good, we need to remove most of the critics quotes, leaving only few example of both positive and negative critique. I would at least remove the ridiculous quotation regarding "incitement to total war", but most of the others as well. In fact, most of the quotation are rather silly and twaddle, hardly worth quoting. Maybe we should even leave only a general dissuasion about political occasions and studio/director response, removing the quotes all together. Beside, there is a need to make an explicit notice in some way (maybe start the section with) that all the political aspects are not necessary intended by movie/comics creators. I.e. something like "Some attribute the movie with numerous political aspects..." or "Despite the WB studio claims, many find number of political themes in the film...". --Zigmar 14:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Information missing regarding 'Historical accuracy'
I've noticed that the 'Historical Accuarcy' section of the article has left out some clear facts:

Firstly, it has not discussed the fact that Herodotus' estimation of the total number in Xerxes' army is disputed by all but the most ignorant historians on the face of the planet! The film suggests a million men fought the Spartans. Yes, the Spartans were outnumbered, but certainly by that great extent. Most historians believe that the figure that should be attributed is 100,000 men. Even then, it does not take into account the fact that Xerxes would have left behind men to garrison the occupied territories in Greece that had been conquered beforehand, including Macedonia. And, there's also the fact that a large number of men with sailors onboard Persian ships; and that many soldiers and sailors were killed when a Persian fleet was caught up in a storm and destroyed (which I'm glad the film did depict).

Also, the cloting and equipment of the soldiers was all wrong. Granted, they did get the Spartans right to a great extent, but there are so many woeful areas lacking in regards to the Persians, including armour and the use of horses.

Thirdly, which really annoys me, is that the film claims that the war started with the Spartans going to confront the Persians at Thermopylai. It didn't! The Greeks, including the Athenians et al, had decided to confront the Persians much earlier. Just before the battle at Thermopylai, the Greeks fought a battle at Artemision. There was never any doubt that the Spartans would go to war after it had been decided by the majority of Greek states. The film claims that the Spartan amry couldn't go because of a major religious event. That did stop the Spartans from going to the Athenian's aid at the Battle of Marathon, but that didn't apply in the suituation that had now been presented.

Fourthly, as I've just said, ALL Greeks participated in some way during the war. In fact, it was the Athenian navy who turned the tide at the Battle of Salamis.

Anyway, there are a lot more facts that I had in my mind, but I've forgotton them for the moment. Give me a few minutes and the anger will swell up again :).

Basically, there are a lot of things which have been ommised, and I hope that the ok is given for me to update the article in the section I've specified.

EasyPeasy21 15:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The key word is fictionalized. We're not going to turn the article into a laundry list when the film is intentionally inaccurate. Alientraveller 15:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Then why bother putting in a 'Historical Accuarcy' section in the first place? EasyPeasy21 15:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For commentary by others regarding reception, which can be sourced. It is quite enough for Wikipedia to provide a sourced, verifiable and reliable statement that says something to the effect of "The costumes and weapons and events were historically innacurrate." Also,repeatedly throughout the article it is mentioned how the visualization is exaggerated. Further mention would be redundant. If you can provide sourced and non-redundant information regarding historical inaccuracy that won't bloat the article, that would be perfect. Peptuck 19:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

To reply to EasyPeasy, there is no accredited historian who believes, and commands any modern support, that Xerxes army numbered 100,000. The lowest estimate available is 175,000, standard agreement being at 200-300,000 excluding naval personnel and retainers; Persian sources suggest 800,000. Again, 100,000 commands no support in the historical community. Apologies for lack of User profile. 6:38 GMT April 24th 2007.

Scholar Citation and Year Estimate of Xerxes’ troops:

Eduard Meyer As cited in W. K. Prentice, “Thermopylae and Artemisium,” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association,Vol. 51, 1920 pp.5-18:

100,000 plus an equal number of non-combat support personnel

Ernst Obst “Der Feldzug des Xerxes,” in Klio, Beiheft 12, Leipzig, 1914, p.88:

90,000

Comte de Gobineau Histoire des Perses, Volume II, 1869 p.191:

90,000

Reginald Walter Macan Herodotus, The Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Books, London, 1908, Vol. II, p.164:

90,000 William Woodthorpe Tarn “The Fleet of Xerxes,” The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 28, 1908, p.208:

60,000 Hans Delbrueck Die Perserkriege und die Burgunderkriege, Berlin, 1887, p. 164:

55,000

Robert von Fischer “Das Zahlenproblem in Perserkriege 480-479,” Klio, N. F., vol. VII, p.289:

40,000

Need I quote any more references of 'accredited' historians? :D (EasyPeasy21 23:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC))


 * Hmm . .. 1869, 1908, 1908, 1887 . . . got anything less than 100 years old? Jackmitchell 20:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, as long as its good quality, I don't care when it was written! The information complied then still has as much relevence today as it did when it was published. (EasyPeasy21 17:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC))

Regardless of what the previous commentors here want to believe, the fact of the matter is there has never been scholarly consensus on the number of Persians and allies (and frankly the movie doesn't even try to get right the number of Greeks). So to pick one wildly differing number over another-all of which have been plausibly argued- seems pointless.

Perhaps I should have been less virtiolic in regard to who is 'accredited,' but you will still notice that, as the previous user commented, all such articles cited are out of date by several decades. The writers that you mentioned are of the school of thought that followed the perspective of the 'malice of Herodotus' and are thought to almost certainly to have swung too far the other way in their estimation. By your logic of including these authors, I could make a case for resurrecting Bishop Stubbs theories on kingship and constitutionalism simply by citing other famous 19th century historians who followed the same logic. Nor, for that matter, is Herodotus alone in his thinking, Diodorus reports a combined, including the collaborating Greeks, total of 1,000,000 and, while Diodrous is hardly a reliable source in such matters. Wikipedia, as an unfortuane rule I have noticed, tends to adopt his figures over other (contemporary) historians. If you would like examples, Herodotus and Xenophon are the main individuals challenged. While not to get into a debate over the numbers themselve, we have little reason to suppose that these numbers are any more than educated, and indeed prejudiced, guesses. No one can deny that Herodotus extremes are ludicrous, but to say that 'most' historians believe 100,000 is equally so. Unsigned User.
 * It seems pretty clear to me that there is no consensus on the actual number of soldiers on the Persian side (although I might argue that the exact number is not so important - the point is the Spartan-led Greeks were greatly outnumbered), but I must say that it is rather amusing to see late 19th and early 20th century scholars being discredited as "outdated" when the most significant account is more than 2,000 years old! Cuffeparade 09:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

19th century scholars have made estimates which used "outdated" or "false" criteria for today's standards. Ancient scholars may have been wrong but they did not make any "estimates", they had a source behind their claims. There really isn't a consensus figure but consensus range would be between 100,000 and 300,000. So 100K is the lowest. As far as I remember the film does not mention any numbers, Leonidas goes to the ephors "Persians claim their armies numbering in the millions". It was the commercial which claimed 1M, not the film itself. Miskin 10:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And even more amusing that people are arguing about this in a film article, instead of the actual article for the BoT! The film says millions, and all the fuss of last month (and the month before that) was about how this movie is a fictional re-telling of the event. In the film, it says millions, and arguing the point when not event he experts themselves are in disagreement seems like soapboxing. Might we move on? Arcayne   (cast a spell)  09:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears that there is already a debate of this type established in 'revert' section of the Battle of Thermopylae wiki; everyone should view this and maybe transfer the debate there.

I agree. I'm quite pleased that my original post has got such an obviously heated debate going. To one of the comments suggesting that the film does say that it is a fictional re-telling. I totally agree; yet everyone else has made such a fuss about the historical background, that I thought I might put my 2 cents worth in. :) And to another who said that we shouldn't be necessairly criticising historians from a 100 years ago; when Herdotus wrote his account nearly 2000 years ago; that was an excellent point :D  I agree that the sources I have cited are rather 'out-of-date', and that they do reflect a different style of thinking in relation to the estimation of Xerxes' army.  Yet, although I cannot list them accurately, several modern sources from the past have agreed that Xerxes' army numbered in the hundreds of thousands, as opposed to the millions that was suggested by Herdotus.

However, I think we can conclude this debate on this particular talk page by agreeing with Cuffeparade's comment; that it doesn't matter to how great a degree the Spartans were outnumbered. The point is, they were! All I wanted to do is to educate the ignorant that there are other interpretations as to the true number in Xerxes' army. That's all.

I just want to say that, no matter what, the film does accurately illustrate the message that it was meant to convey: about standing up against the odds! (EasyPeasy21 21:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC))

Quotes
Um....Does anyone think this article should have qoutes?
 * Do you mean quotes from the film itself? If so, they're listed at Wikiquote, which is linked to at the bottom of the page.  Therefore, it's not necessary to add them to this article.  Please see http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/300.  María ( habla  con migo ) 21:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me
Did someone call for an conclusion/end to the Vote of No Consensus? I don't recall seeing any such post, except for mine, which was immediately rejected. So, if we have not had an end to voting, why are these edits popping up:


 * 1
 * reverted 2


 * 3
 * 4
 * reverted yet again 5

Excuse me, but isn't this precisely the sort of edit-warring, clownish nonsense that using Discussion was supposed to avoid? Leave the lead alone until a consensus is arrived at. The voting isn't completed, and cartainly, consensus has not been reached. I proposed an alternative that essentially sidesteps the entire argument. Of course, it was reverted by...well, saying partisans would be AGF, wouldn't it? Arcayne  (cast a spell)  04:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Although you may feel consensus has not been reached, the majority of people voted for the current version (#7/8). Thus it was implemented. If another consensus is reached we will implement it. But currently the lead will reflect the discussion we have had. --Agha Nader 15:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but was a call for an end to voting posted somewhere? I thought not. Please read consensus a lot more carefully, please. The vote is nine for #1 and twelve for #7. That isn't even a majority according to Wiki standards. And yes, I am not not counting those votes from people who have less than 100 edits in the english language WP, and consider those votes from folk who came here out of the blue to vote before disappearing back into that blue suspect and invalid as well. Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * User Arcayne says "Voting will end on Thursday, April 13th, one week after the choices were posted." Then Arcayne asks "was a call for an end to voting posted somewhere?" and answers his own question: "I thought not". This user should think again.--Agha Nader 23:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Once again, Agha, you have presented only part of the conversation, and the wrong part of it, as well. Yes indeedy, I did in fact suggest that the vote end after a certain date, and it was rejected immediately by Mardavich. Khorshid and - curiously enough - yourself, You rejected everything about it. So, the discussion of the closing of the vote never recurred, especially in the face of the accusations of meat-puppetry and vote-canvassing. Of course, if you happen to find such a conversation occurring here in the Discussion area before it ended quite suddenly, I'd be surprised to see it. This is not the first time you have chosen to be uncivil and fail to AGF through a somewhat deceptive interpretation of another's edits. This appears to be an observational, repetitive issue with you. Perhaps your time would be better spent editing and less time planning out how to burn your fellow editors. Cheers. Arcayne  (cast a spell)  01:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Do not make ill-considered accusations. If you are going to assert that I did not AGF, elaborate and provide evidence. More importantly, you proposed a vote, we voted, and now the result of the vote is represented in the article. If a new consensus is reached, surely it will be represented in the article.--Agha Nader 18:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I never make ill-considered accusations, sir. This isn't really the place to provide the copious diffs of your behavior. However, you rather made my point for me: I had proposed an ending to the vote, which you and others rejected outright, and only now want to follow it. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. However, I am willing to concede the point for now, despite the fact that you don't really have a consensus according to Wikipedia. That said, the moment the consensus changes, so too will the lead,a nd I am glad you agree with that, and are agreeing to not belabor the point more. Arcayne  (cast a spell)  21:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

2 things. The opening sentence is gramatically incorrect. The mention of The 300 Spartans in the middle makes it a run on sentence. I'm not arguing with the poeple that want it put in, I would just like to see it written properly. If anything it should be split into two. "300 is a 2007 film adaptation of the graphic novel 300 by Frank Miller, and is a fictional account of the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC. Miller's novel is itself partly inspired by another film, The 300 Spartans." That said, since the statement about the 300 spartans came from the letter section of 300 during it's initial release and refers to the development of the book, wouldn't it be better placed there? The 300 Spartans isn't referenced anywhere else in this article, and the only citation relating to it came from the graphic novel, so what is it doing in the lead sentence?

Also, the citation currently in the lead for the 300 Spartans doesn't mention the film at all, but is commentary on film critics that didn't like 300 and regular movie goers that did.Hewinsj 20:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC) Consider it gone. Arcayne  (cast a spell)  21:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow I go away for a while and come back to find out that some things never change. I've been waiting for someone to start an official WP:DR before changing the status quo. Apparently the people who favour the "fictional" label do not seem to be too confident about the neutrality of their views. Miskin 15:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There's been an official discussion, and if you missed out, that's your loss. Alientraveller 15:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It more like my bless. Observe how often pseudo-consensus collides with by NPOV, and how easily it is resolved. Per NPOV all significant views need to be mentioned, i.e. we either mention all or nothing. Since you have reverted the "nothing" twice, I assume you'd like to go with the "all". Miskin 15:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

historical accuracy
Does anyone know if the early life of Leonida is presented accurately in this film?
 * We don't know, as neither he nor Herodotus are granting any interviews at the present time. :) Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Allthough the film itself was very accurate, the part about Leonidas's young life couldn't have been. The right of passage to manhood was the key thing that was changed (actual Spartan's had to strangle a man with their bare hands, not be left alone in the wild). Other than that though, it was a very accurate film. DurotarLord 03:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Reference Mistake
Can someone fix the link for reference #57? It has an extra "http://" in it. Starcraftmazter 09:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I fixed it. Sbn1984 18:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Internet Phenomenon
i think the trailer has been used a few times to be used as different shows, movies (i.e. sandlot) and appeard on the internet sites such as YouTube. should we add this? this is like the brokeback parodies too. Nocarsgo 02:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Stroking?
This in "Depiction of Persians": "are stroking racist instincts in Europe and America." Shouldn't that be stoking? Totnesmartin 11:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Stroking" is correct, it's the literal translation of the Greek idiom used by Danikas in his "Ta Nea" article: "θα χαϊδέψουν τα ρατσιστικά αντανακλαστικά..." (Cached google version) --Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And that would be fine, were that the proper use of the word. As the reviewer used the wrong word (stroking instead of stoking, as in stoking reddening coals into a fire), we cannot change it, but we have made note of the incorrect word use with the placement of '(sic)' after the word. Arcayne  (cast a spell)  13:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it "incorrect"? It's a metaphor, probably less of a conventional metaphor in English than in Greek, but then metaphorical language doesn't necessarily have to be fully conventional in order to work. I thought it was perfectly understandable. By the way, "stoking" wouldn't actually be the same as what the Greek author was expressing - to "stroke" somebody's feelings would mean to "appeal to" feelings that are already there, not necessarily to "incite" feelings, i.e. provoke them to become stronger. - By the way, if this is a bone of contention, you can always leave out the literal quote and just summarise what the guy is saying. The English quote is translated pretty freely in some other respects anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Stoke is a verb meaning to "stir up or feed" when referring to a fire of furnace. It is also used as a metaphor meaning to incite or stir up someone's emotions. The usage of stroke here puts me in mind of a calming action.  Could the translator have been in error or there was just a typo? Hewinsj 19:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You stroke a kitty cat. You stoke a fire (and if you do the reverse, you are likely going to end up with a burn or a scratch). I am not sure of the translator's skill, but we can only go by what was presented in the reference. People make mistakes - that's why they put erasers on virtually every pencil made. That addition of 'sic' simply notes the improper application of the wrong word. The reason you understand it is that the words are quite similar in pronunciation and usage, much like the intermixing of the terms terms "buck-naked" (correct) and "butt-naked" (incorrect), but are still markedly different in application and intent. Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is too trivial for me to keep arguing over. I just note that "stroke" is not an error but an intentional literal rendering from the Greek, the similarity to "stoke" is likely a mere coincidence, and its intended meaning is subtly different from "stoke". I find the "sic" ugly - if the unusual phrasing is a problem for readers, just leave the indirect quote out. Go back to the original Greek and quote that if you need it. The Greek means, translated non-figuratively: "it appeals to racist reflexes" or maybe "it plays with racist reflexes". Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Stroking is correct. Stroking, webster.com ' 2 : to flatter or pay attention to in a manner designed to reassure or persuade ' (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=stroking) as in 'stroking one's ego'. it was used properly. I'm taking that sic down again. Cheesechimp 22:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are saying here; is it your contention that the article incorrectly translated the reviewer's statements? Arcayne  (cast a spell)  21:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No. The translation is partly quite free (translating a word that literally means "reflex" as "instinct", changing the overall grammatical context of the clause), and partly just very literal - as in the literal rendering of the metaphorical expression "stroking". Which, as I'd have thought, was clear and understandable enough, and hence "correct", but apparently to some readers it is not. Neither the original nor the translation (properly understood) speak of "stoking" in the sense of "provoking, inciting, kindling" racist feelings. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, that isn't really what I asked. Is the translation accurate, or is it imperfectly translated? It appears that you speak Greek and have access to the original review in the language of origin. Would that an accurate assessment? Arcayne  (cast a spell)  22:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought I would provide the proper definitions of the word here, so as to allay any concerns about the usage of the terms:

stoke /stk; NAmE stok/ verb [vn] 1 ~ sth (up) (with sth) to add fuel to a fire, etc.: to stoke up a fire with more coal to stoke a furnace 2 ~ sth (up) to make people feel sth more strongly: to stoke up envy The publicity was intended to stoke up interest in her music. stoke up (on / with sth) (informal) to eat or drink a lot of sth, especially so that you do not feel hungry later: Stoke up for the day on a good breakfast.

stroke /strk; NAmE strok/ noun, verb (the first three def.s are related to hitting, rowing and gentle touch) 4 (informal, especially NAmE) to be very nice to sb, especially to get them to do what you want

As well, the usage of the term 'sic' (from the OED, and in line with the MOS):

sic /sk; sik/ adv., verb adv. (from Latin) written after a word that you have copied from somewhere, to show that you know that the word is wrongly spelled or wrong in some other way: In the letter to parents it said: ‘The school is proud of it’s [sic] record of excellence’.

Also, see here

So, ipso facto, when a word is used incorrectly in a quoted source, we do not paraphrase, but instead note the improper usage of that word. Arcayne  (cast a spell)  23:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's definitely meant to be "stoking". The word "stroking" does not fit at all in the context that's used, and "stoking" fits perfectly.  Really, have 300 discussions been this insipid? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am afraid so. I am simply waiting for the angy folk to get bored and fnd somewhere else to argue, so that some of the good editors will return. :) Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Erik, did you even read what I said? No, "stoking" does not fit perfectly, because that's not what the Greek text means. It means something subtly different, and the English translator was consciously trying to render that correct, different meaning. If the translation is inapt because it's easy to misunderstand then leave it out, but don't replace it with something wrong and don't add that editorialising "sic" to it, which suggests that the text really "ought" to say something it doesn't want to say. But yes, this is getting inane. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you could simply leave it be. Paraphrasing a source isn't always the best way to deal with imperfections in a translation. You never answered my earlier question though, regarding your knowledge of both Greek and the original, untranslated document. You are using these two stated quantities as the reasoning behind your objections to leaving the statements as they have been for weeks. Do you speak Greek? Do you have access to the original review? According to your user page, you describe yourself as a non-native speaker of the language, and gauge your own knowledge of Greek at 3 (a native speaker is at 5, and near fluency is 4).
 * Clearly, we cannot use primary knowledge as a basis for statements to be included in Wikipedia, and your claims of understanding of both Greek and the source review amounts to precisely that. We only use secondary sources and the rules provided to us by Wikipedia. If the source says one thing, there is no reason to alter that specifically-cited quote - even if the quotation uses the improper word as defined by the English-language Wiki.
 * You have asked for and have been presented with 3rd party sources clarifying the usage of both words as well as the standard usage of 'sic'. I am sorry if you feel the word is "ugly," but that isn't a basis for altering a direct quote from a source that was presented to us, translated (presumably by someone with more than a level 3 knowledge of both English and Greek). If you feel the topic is inane, perhaps this is one of those arguments you should take a pass on.  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  08:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is getting ridiculous. Yes, I've given the link to the original Greek, and yes, I understand it. And I don't have a problem with the translation, you have. I said it is essentially correct, in not saying "stoking". But well, whatever, do with it as you please. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, 'stoke' works to convey the same message as 'stroke' in this context, but 'stroke' is still correct. the movie is stroking racism in the same way that flattery is stroking an ego. I'm not denying that 'stoke' would work in this situation, but since it isn't the wording that is used the point is moot. 'Stroke' is correct, and I have already cited Webster as such. Here's dictionary.com includes ' Informal. to promote feelings of self-approval in '. No, this is not the most common use of the verb 'stroke' but it is a valid one. It makes no sense that we should incicate that a word was quoted properly when it was correct just because some people don't understand the English language as well as others. The idea of having an [sic] is completely and utterly ridiculous and I will not stand for it. I am removing it again, because it is the right thing to do. I don't see anyone other than you, Arcayne, who feels otherwise (though Totnesmartin expressed confusion, he did not respond to the proof offered that the wording 'stroking' is both acurately quoted and appropriately worded in both English and Greek), and I see two others who agree with me that the wording is correct. I think the point has been proven and the majority in the admitedly small vocal group have expressed belief in the fact that the wording is correct. Cheesechimp 10:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess the quote has been removed. Maybe someone has said that they planned on doing it earlier, and I didn't read it as I merely scanned the debate without reading every detail. Whatever, it was fairly inane I guess, I just don't like being told I'm wrong even after I prove I'm right... Nevermind, I'll drop it. 10:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strangely enough it looks like it's right. I just plugged the article into Babel Fish and it translated that sentence as:
 * "Him they know but how differently they will caress the racist reflexives of white masses, Europeans and American women?"
 * It's by no means a good translation, but caress points towards stroke rather than stoke. I'll chalk it up to cultural differences being expressed though a turn of phrase. If this has been settled that's fine, just thought I'd mention. Hewinsj 13:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV
To quote this policy directly: The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. The section 'historical accuracy' has long abided by NPOV by presenting all views fairly. Recent POV-pushing however has led to the violation of WP:UNDUE in the lead, by favouring one view over the others. In order to remedy the problem I had to add both conflicting views. Miskin 16:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Alientraveller 16:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This issue has nothing to do with NPOV, fringe views are not covered by NPOV. We already had a vote to find a consesus (also listed on RFC), in which you participated. The lead will be worded in accordance to that vote, until there is a new consensus. --Mardavich 17:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that fringe views are not covered by NPOV, and your contention that the film is a "pure fiction" is a fringe view. That is the second time I have heard about theis supposed RfC; could you please provide the link for that, Mardavich? No one bothered to let the rest of us know it was being filed. As well, you might wish to re-read WP:CONSENSUS more carefully. A vote, when it is not WP-defined majority, is not concensus. As well, a vote contrary to fact is not a valid consensus. Were that the case, a bunch of pro-necrophiliac editors could band together and overwhelmingly out-vote the competition, allowing the inclusion of the statement 'sex with dead people is morally acceptable.' Such would be a majority, but it would also be incorrect. Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that a consensus is not an option when views collide with WP:NPOV and WP:ATT. Miskin 00:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What consensus is Mardavich talking about? The one where a large number of previously uninvolved Iranian editors showed up in the vote out of nowhere? Was it the same consensus where anons and red users were counted in as if they were all different editors? Didn't that alleged consensus establish itself only by a small difference in the votes (where WP:CONSENSUS is defined by an abolute majority)? Mardavich you're wasting your time this way, I'm not going debate with you on a personal level anymore. You can even go as far as violating fundamental wp:policies in order to establish your pov. What would you say about seeking mediation? Miskin 00:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Saying the movie is "historically accurate" is a personal opinion and a fringe view, and it goes against NPOV. But saying the movie is a fictional depiction of a historic event, is neither fringe nor inaccurate, it's a statement supported by Warner Brothers, most of the reviews of the movie, and pretty much the consensus among most of the editors here (even among most of the non-Greek/non-Iranian editors) as indicated by the survey. I even filled a RFC about this issue, and nothing new came out of it. --Mardavich 01:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, then what about the two sources that you removed? What about Snyder calling it 90% historically accurate? What about two of the most specialised historians on the topic making positive remarks on its historical accuracy? Is that a fringe view? Please show me the part of WP:NPOV which justifies your criticism on those views. If you fail to do so then I think we have a consensus to include both views, or none if you prefer. There's no way one of them will be ignored because some editors decided that it's "anti-Iranian" (already stated previously). Read WP:UNDUE. If you don't like it then go on with your other measures. Miskin 01:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to ask a serious, uninvolved editor whether he thinks that the defensive declaration of an anonymous person from WB is more reliable than the view of Snyder and Paul Cartledge, to the point of ignoring the latter's view completely (which is what Mardavich implies). If you think that their view is a "fringe view" then it has to be established. Your personal opinion is not a source nor a policy, please keep that in mind for all edits (or rather reverts) that you make in wikipedia. Miskin 01:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps we should try 3rd Opinion or begin mediation. Or maybe even that ArbCom that someone threatened everyone with last week. Arcayne  (cast a spell)  08:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And until that happens the lead must remain neutral by mentioning both views (or none). Miskin 10:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As much as I feel that would be the right thing to do, I think that doing such might further inspire yet another dung-storm, and sidetrack the mediation. I am not willing to prolong the nonsense by doing so. Perhaps you should list this under Third Opinion, and begin the process. It's simply a matter of seeing who is willing to accept an objective opinion. I am betting that some editors will remain silent, thinking either it isn't worth the effort, or won't be inclined to as they think they may have won an argument. I guess we shall see. Arcayne   (cast a spell)  12:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, what "two views"? There are two aspects: There can be no question that the Miller strip clearly qualifies as a fictionalisation of Herodotus. It can still be added that it accurately follows the events as recounted there. This is not about "controversy", it is just about turning a blind eye to one or the other of these two points. dab (𒁳) 15:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * the depiction (visualization, optics etc.) is completely fictitious: the Iranians insist that Xerxes had a beard, the immortals were wearing colourful dresses etc.
 * the plot is closely following Herodotus: the Greeks insist that "this is how it happened", meaning the sequence of events.


 * My apologies; the intervening white noise hasn't really served to keep the matter all that clear. The two aspects of the ensuing argument (stripped of any ulterior motives) is whether the film is an utter fiction (and not in the way that all films are fiction) or somewhat historical. In defense of the former aspect, some aspects of the film are fictional. In defense of the latter, the film does portray a historical event, and maintains the historical integrity as to the progression of these events. Attempts to seek a middle ground of 'semi-historical' or 'semi-fictional' were rejected by each of the polarized sides.
 * The two views referred to before were the two substitutions receiving the most votes (here and here), wherein choices #1 and #7 were the most popular of the eight options. As noted earlier, many editors have seen fit not to continue arguing about the fact but are seeking mediation to find a better middle ground than one or the other. Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand the problem, and my point is that this is a false dichotomy. 'semi-historical' or 'semi-fictional' are not useful terms here, when it is perfectly simple to say which part is fictional (the visualization) and which is historical (the basic plot). The visualization isn't "somewhat historical", it is 100% fantasy. The plot isn't "somewhat historical", it is a largely faithful adaptation of Hdt. (with notable additions)  [and this is not the place to argue on the historical accuracy of Hdt. himself]. Nobody can claim the plot is "utter fiction", and nobody can argue that operatic visuals are anything but "utter fiction". I really see no reason to edit war over this instead of taking a sentence and a half to detail how it really stands. dab (𒁳) 22:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with your assessment. However, I am fairly sure that if you implement changes that reflect that assessment, you will encounter significant resistance. Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Lol. It appears my words were a bit prophetic, as seen here. Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Arcane, there has been significant discussion about this issue. Consensus was reached (partly through a vote that proposed having) and it was enacted. Surely edits that are in conflict with consensus "will encounter significant resistance". --Agha Nader 00:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * correct me if I am wrong: I am not here to overturn "consensus". I came here because there is an edit-war going on, with mediation pending. You did a straw-poll, but that hardly amounts to "establishing consensus". I have no stake in this, and my comment is intended to point out that there is not really a controversy, and that the entrenched "Greek vs. Iranian position" should just be dismissed as the silly on-wiki patriotic flame-fest it is. The facts are perfectly simple, and can be summarized neutrally by any intelligent editor whose mind is unclouded by patriotic fumes. The movie is a faithful adaptation of Miller (except for the addition of the Gorgo scenes). Miller's graphic novel is a fictionalized visualization of Herodotus' account, and Herodotus' account itself is obviously already partisan and has to be taken with a grain of salt. There is really nothing controversial about this: nobody even claims the visualization is historically accurate. All the "Greek side" wants pointed out is that the plot faithfully follows Hdt., which I agree is rather unusual for an action movie. dab (𒁳) 09:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Jumping in to say that I agree, Dbachmann, incredibly so. However, it's incorrect to say this is a dispute between Iranians and Greeks; it looks to me it's Iranian vs. everyone else, especially Americans.  This can be seen in the many, many instances of vandalism to this page, all of which are along the lines of "AMERICA HATES ON IRAN WITH RACIST MOVIE."  I'm not saying that the users who are supporting the "entirely fiction" angle are vandals, by the way.  But the sentiment to completely discredit this movie is there, and a majority of those protesting this are Americans, myself included.  María ( habla  con migo ) 13:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's simply not true, half of the users who are supported "fictional account" in the straw-poll are not Iranian. --Mardavich 03:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would add to Dbachmann's excellent point that there is a third aspect besides visualisation and plot, namely characterisation. Half of what the Iranians object to would, I suppose, be the depiction of Xerxes not just as the Metrosexual of Metrosexuals but as an unsympathetic guy.  In Herodotus, by contrast, Xerxes is one of the stars of the show, and you really feel sorry for him.  So in all I think the POV question comes down to:
 * Faithful elements
 * faithfulness of the 300 plot to the plot in Herodotus (including army sizes etc.)
 * faithfulness of the 300 visualisation in terms of history for the Greeks (Spartans look pretty Spartan)
 * faithfulness of the 300 visualisation vis-a-vis the graphic novel
 * faithfulness of the 300 characterisation in terms of the Spartans (half the dialogue is from Herodotus, Plutarch, etc.)
 * Inaccurate Elements
 * inaccuracy of the 300 visualisation in terms of Herodotus (his desc. of the Immortals is quite different etc.)
 * inaccuracy of the 300 visualisation in terms of other archaeological evidence (Persians had beards etc.)
 * inaccuracy of the 300 characterisation in terms of the Persians (they weren't Satanic, Xerxes was a nice guy, etc.) Jackmitchell 17:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on Dbachmann's comment, what do you all think of "a fictionalized account of the Battle of Thermopylae" or "a fictionalized retelling of Herodotus' account of the Battle of Thermopylae". --Mardavich 03:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I could live with ""a fictionalized retelling of the Battle of Thermopylae"" (a meld of the two). Arcayne  (cast a spell)  01:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I must admit I missed the evolution of this section. So far there seems to be a general agreement that: We have to await for new suggestions. I just hope that some editors can finally understand the second point, i.e. that their view is a violation of NPOV. Dbachmann and Jackmitchell what do you think of simply not saying anything about the "nature" of the film in the lead? The "historical acurracy" sections provides alread sufficient on the topic. Miskin 20:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * the vote reflected no consensus
 * the Mardavich et al position is against NPOV

Article stability
Has the article's prior issues been resolved so that the article will be stable enough to renominate for GA? I don't want the article to be renominated and then delisted later again down the road if there are still issues that need to be addressed. I'm impressed with the large amount of work that was put in the article, and believe that it would be great to get it back up to GA. What do you guys think? --Nehrams2020 08:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm in the middle of seeking mediation about the violation of NPOV per WP:UNDUE in the lead. So we should wait a little bit longer. Miskin 12:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just let me know when you guys think the article is alright and I'll nominate it. Or you guys can do it yourselves when you think it's ready. --Nehrams2020 17:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Being the editor who delisted 300 from GA status based on this classification dispute that is still ongoing, I think it's clear that there are still issues among editors regarding the wording in the lead paragraph. The DVD release of this film in the coming year may still revive similar sentiments even after this situation may die down, so I'm not sure if the article will be stabilized for a while yet. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hand to Hand
Under the plot section, it says, "The Spartans use the phalanx formation and hand to hand combat to fight off numerous waves of attackers," Is use of hand to hand here really appropriate? Judging by what the article itself actually says and from common sense, it doesn't really seem to be the correct words to use. Homan2006 12:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, Homan2006. What would you recommend? Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would go for something like, "The Spartans use the Phalanx formation and their Xystons," but just something that sounds better. I actually think that whole sentence doesn't sound very good. Homan2006 00:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "The Spartans alternated between using the phalanx formation against waves of attackers, and close quarters combat using both Spear and sword." Any better? Hewinsj 05:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Works for me Homan2006 12:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest another alternative? "The Spartans fight off waves of attackers using the phalanx formation and weapons." (remember that Leonidas told the Athenians that they wouldn't run out of spears, as they would take them from the dead Persians). - Arcayne  (cast a spell)  01:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that's done. :) Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, since the purpose of that sentence is to describe how the Spartans hold off the Persians, how about "the Spartans use the phalanx formation, the narrow terrain, and thier fighting skill to hold of the Persian attackers" or somesuch? I mean, its fairly obvious that they're using weapons to fight the Persians, so that seems rather silly to mention in the article itself. Peptuck 07:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw the edit in the article (you should really bring those here first, you know) and liked it. Do you think there might be a leaner way to say the same thing? Is there a way to condense the text? Arcayne   (cast a spell)  07:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The Spartan Queen was not "raped."
The last sentence under "reviews" says "... Spartan Queen serving no major narrative purpose except to be serviced by Leonidas and raped by Theron."

The Spartan Queen "agreed" to have sex with Theron. She slipped off her clothing "strap" after he told her what he wanted in exchange for his cooperation. I think it amounts more to prostitution than rape.

(Sorry if I made any mistakes, I don't often contribute, but I just wanted to point that out.) 69.179.52.155 02:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In any case, the actual quote is wrong; the article says only that Gorgo is 'serviced' by Leonidas, nothing more. User:217.40.26.169 13:02 GMT 03 May 3007


 * No, she most definately was raped. see the article over at rape "The lack of valid consent does not necessarily mean that the victim explicitly refused to give consent. Generally, consent is considered invalid if it is obtained from someone who is:" and a list of things which includes as the first item "Under any kind of duress (force, violence, blackmail, etc.)" Theron threatened to scandalize her by starting rumors that would ruin her and hinted that he might even like to kill her. Now, as far as I'm concerned, that counts as a valid cause of duress. Furthermore, much like the encounter between Theron and Gorgo "the primary cause of rape is an aggressive desire to dominate the victim rather than an attempt to achieve sexual fulfillment." Just because she submitted doesn't mean she consented. Cheesechimp 06:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ...yeah, let's stay away from this particular argument, shall we, gents? The 21st century pan-dimensional definition of rape is probably not equivalent to what it was in the 'Way Back. People have choices now that they didn't necessarily have back then. Political correctness has no place here in this article. Arcayne   (cast a spell)  07:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I maintain that she was raped but User:217.40.26.169 has a point, the article that is being adressed in the context never mentions the rape, so I removed it as it's putting words into the reviewer's mouth. Cheesechimp 14:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, if the reviewer is wrong, then it might serve as a starting point to find a new review that discusses the same subject matter accurately. Who amongst you vital young sould wished to volunteer for such a tepid mission? Arcayne  (cast a spell)  17:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't so much as that the reviewer was wrong or right regarding the issue, it's more that the reviewer didn't even mention the issue. by removing the mention of the rape ("...with the Spartan Queen serving no major narrative purpose except to be serviced by Leonidas and raped by Theron." became "...with the Spartan Queen serving no major narrative purpose except to be serviced by Leonidas.") I feel I adjusted the wording of the article to better fit the views expressed by the reviewer. Cheesechimp 09:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of soundtrack image
I've removed the soundtrack image again. In fact, it was purely decorative. Contrary to a widespread myth, there is no blanket fair use justification to have one cover image for every book/CD/film etc. As per WP:NONFREE, such images should be used only where there is critical discussion and analysis of the cover art itself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oddly, I am unable to find your specific citation or origin of your specific quote. Looking at the guideline you linked, "Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free/libre images are not suitable for Wikipedia." I have noticed that you removed the image; are you suggesting that there is a free image that can replace the removed item? However, I don't think there is such an image.
 * However, if you feel that the image serves no use, please feel free to cite more specific reasoning here that argues for its removal. Until the conclusion of that discussion, let's leave the image be, shall we? Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Alientraveller 18:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

With this argument about "decorative" purpose, then film posters should be removed as well, even though I've rarely seen film articles critique poster design. Like a poster, the soundtrack cover establishes a visual key for the content. The image is of ridiculously low quality, and the fair use rationale applies to it just fine. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is doubtless a lot of similar abuse elsewhere, but that's beside the point. The policy is crystal clear on this. Among the conditions that an image has to meet is that it "contributes significantly to an article (e.g., it identifies the subject of an article, or illustrates specific, relevant points or sections in the text); it does not serve a purely decorative purpose." The accompanying guideline specifically exemplifies this by saying that cover art may be used "for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary)". Now, you guys can go and find a reason why this image is needed to understand the accompanying text. -- Anyway, I'll delete the image tomorrow, so there's no use revert-warring over it now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait, am I understanding your statements correctly? You've just had three editors tell you why you are wrong, and you state that you intend to revert-war over it anyway later? Allow me to counsel you strongly against engaging in that particular course of action. Agreeing to edit-war in the face of reasoned explanation is something we take a particularly dim view of here. Of course, if you feel you have the makings of a proper content dispute, you are free to pursue that course of action. Arcayne  (cast a spell)  21:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to edit-war. I'm going to do my job as an admin and delete the thing. Don't believe this is the first time an admin has deleted an alleged fair use image against the opposition of the uploaders. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that that's better, FutPerf. You're an admin, and yet you are going to remove an image despite the image meeting fair use criteria simply because you can? I am sure other admins have removed images as well, but I would suspect that they have slightly better reasons than arguing that the image is "decorative." You might want to ask for a bit of a sanity check from your fellow admins before doing this. Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You can always go to deletion review afterwards. By the way, you got the burden of proof the wrong way round. (Shrugs...) Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your intentions. Why this witch hunt, why now? The policy has been around long enough, and there have been a great deal of articles (definitely including Featured) that have had image covers of miscellaneous media in all kinds of articles. The images serve as visual keys to establish a relationship with the content outside of mere text. It doesn't necessarily have to do with, "Oh, we chose this design because it makes a stance against this current political issue." It's a matter of having the image being available for the reader to have recognized the item from the past or to recognize it in the future. Is there a specific location in which you are all congregating to discuss this raid on non-free images? I'm aware of a similar situation occurring with episode lists... —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Images help people to understand what a filmmaker is aiming for, because film is a visual thing. Words can't help just show everything even in a Free Encyclopedia. Oh, and are people posting everything on a forum necessarily illegal too? Alientraveller 16:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, from what I see, there is critical commentary on the soundtrack. There isn't a lot (which doesn't mean it couldn't be expanded a bit more) but there is clearly some, which means that a real discussion should take place for its inclusion. Definitely should there not be an edit war by and Admin and editors. I'm sorry Fut.Perf. but being an admin, you should also already know the stand against purposefully removing anything once a day, every day, just to avoid a 3RR violation. That is still edit warring. If by "delete" you mean deleting the actual image from Wikipedia, that would be an abuse of your powers. Wiki isn't a democracy, that's true, but it also isn't a dictatorship where you can simply avoid discussions by deleting the information that is being called into question, in this case an image. With Admin abilities, I would think that you would be the first person to suggest a nice sit-down discussion about the image and the problems that it creates in that section. But from your actions, and your comments here, it appears that all you care about is getting your way. I've seen little children break toys when someone asked them to share, and that is why you are going about this. Before you start, i'm not personally attacking you and calling you a child, but your comments are reflective of similar events. I don't think it helps anyone to avoid discussion and proclaim that you'll simply delete the image, under the guise that Admins have deleted things against discussion before. That's like saying "we should have trivia sections, because other articles have trivia sections". We shouldn't perpetuate the cycle of problems on Wikipedia. You started a discussion here on the talk page, instead of one-uping each other each day, we should be discussing the problems with the image in the section.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:CSD I7 says that any image that fails "any part of the non-free content criteria" should be deleted 48 hours after notifying the uploader, to give interested parties an opportunity to clarify a fair use claim if it is in doubt. The notification was given 24 hours ago. It's a "speedy" criterion, which means any admin can individually make the judgement call without a formal XfD discussion. I will make that judgement call in another 24 hours, after having given due consideration to whatever you guys are going to tell me. I've already been discussing with you quite a bit here, haven't I? Arcayne also took it over to WP:ANI, where other admins supported my interpretation. I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how that image does not fail criterion 1 of the fair-use rules. Yes, there is critical discussion of the soundtrack, but it's about the music, it has no relation to the cover. What exactly in that paragraph of text is there that needs to be supported by this particular image in order to be understood? -- To Erik: No, there is no cabal, or if there is I haven't been invited yet. There is only a growing sense among many admins that the disparity between long-standing policy and practice has become so great that it can no longer be tolerated, so yes, there is in a sense a sudden "crackdown". The good thing about this article here is that you can't really complain: It's well enough written to support a lot of fair use images that are actually genuine. All the stuff used to discuss the visual style, correspondence with the comic, portrayals of the characters, etc. That's what fair use is really for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * First, let me clarify that I am neither for, or against the images inclusion. I can see it both ways. Which things are you claiming it fails, to justify a speedy deletion? Criteria 1 states that there is no free equivalent. You cannot replace a soundtrack cover with another soundtrack cover, whether you took the image yourself, it's still copyrighted. So, technically it fulfills the requirement that there are no free alternatives (which is generally the case with entertainment articles). Definitely passes the resolution criteria. And 4 and 5. There only real criteria I think needs debating is #3 and 8. #3 is really thin, because Wiki isn't a marketing website, and I don't know that last time that any image on Wikipedia made we want to go out and buy, or not buy something. So, really #8 is the only criteria that is subjective enough that a good discussion is necessary. For those that don't want to click the link:"Significance. Non-free content contributes significantly to an article (e.g., it identifies the subject of an article, or illustrates specific, relevant points or sections in the text); it does not serve a purely decorative purpose. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational or user interface elements are normally regarded as decorative.". So, it seems that really the editors that wish to keep the image need to establish its significance. This is why I think it doesn't fit the speedy delete principle, and that an XfD.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I got the numbers mixed up. Yes, I meant number 8, "significance". That's the one it fails. And you're right that there is a certain grey area here in the policy - judging criterion 8 is sometimes not quite as straightforward black-and-white as other "speedy" criteria are supposed to be; but still, it's a speedy criterion all the same. In the present case it seems pretty clear to me, because the only argument I've heard here so far boils down to "identification" - but then the associated guideline very explicitly states that with cover art "identification" alone is not enough. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not doubting the weakness behind its inclusion, but Per #8: it identifies the subject of an article, or illustrates specific, relevant points or sections in the text — it's clear it identifies the subject of the article, and that's an or in the other part of that clarification of #8. What I'm saying is that the "relevant points" are what need to be discussed, as I think that is what you are saying that it fails and thus needs to be deleted. This is where I think an XfD would be more appropriate. It's already given that most, if not all of the regular editors of this page are going to say it fits the criteria. That's an obvious conflict of interest in the discussion. But, it doesn't help the matter if an Admin simply says - "I think it fits the bill for speedy delete, so it's going to be deleted". There's obvious discern over "fitting the criteria" here, and I think it would be best served for all parties involved to go through an AfD so that more unbiased eyes can look at the image, and look at the section of the article and help decide the images fate. An XfD could also help in the aspect that another editor, who would have otherwise not have visited the article, might have some knowledge in the aspect of knowing what the section is missing that would help fulfill #8 sufficiently....or if the case may be, provide enough outside views to say - "sorry, but there isn't anything that can added to this section that would be relevant to the article as a whole that would warrant this images inclusion".   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if anybody wants to go to the trouble of putting it up at WP:IFD, I'll hold off for as long as it's there. But I doubt it will change much; the admins who hang around at that page are likely to be pretty strict in their interpretation too. And images typically don't get this much debate anyway, we haven't got the time for it given the sheer numbers. This one has already taken up far too much of everybody's time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And by the way, to set that misunderstanding straight: No, the image does not "identify" the subject. The subject is sufficiently identified by the descriptive phrase "the soundtrack to the movie '300'". There is no ambiguity about what that phrase refers to, so the image isn't needed for its "identification". That's what identification means. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Being necessary for identification, and identifying aren't the same. It's semantics. It identifies the subject clearly, whether it's necessary since there is already a sentence that identifies the section is another story. As for the the IfD, that's just my opinion of the situation, if they are more strict then it isn't going to change the outcome. You already believe the image should be deleted, and are planning on doing so when the 48 hours is up, so even though a nomination will only draw it out longer, at least the other editors might (i use that litely) find solice in the fact that it went into view in front of more eyes....maybe not though. Since I have no stake in the image, I think some of the regular editors that have voiced their opinions to keep the image should quickly (if they feel that it would help) add it to the page for review.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Because another user wasn't sure how to list the image, i've gone ahead and listed the image on Ifd here.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't virtually all wikipedia articles on an individual album contain an image of its cover, regardless of whether (quite rarely) the cover art is analyzed, discussed or even mentioned? Does that mean they all violate the non-free content criteria? If not, then why not? Perhaps the policy is not so crystal clear on this after all. 206.248.133.122 01:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)206.248.133.122
 * The policy is clear, but the practice has diverged from the policy. This has been tolerated for a while. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you using "tolerated" in the sense that admins everywhere have been suffering silently under this burden, or are you simply using the royal 'We' to denote your personal opinion on the subject? Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem with Derek Malcolm review: provocative misrepresentation of film
"Derek Malcolm, writing in the London Evening Standard found beneath the "perfunctory" acting a subtext of homophobia, with the effete, "boy-loving" Persians inevitably succumbing to the "macho posturing" of the Spartans ... ".

Unfortunately, Derek Malcolm mistakes the object of the phrase "boy-loving". Leonidas tells the Persian emissary: "See, rumor has it the Athenians have already turned you down. And if those philosophers and boy-lovers have found that kind of nerve then--" - implying that Sparta would not submit to Xerxes, especially if Athens did not, and that some Athenians are boy-lovers.

So Persians are not a target of any homophobia. Only the reviewer's phrasing implies that Persian body-piercings suggest boy-love or weakness. The only "effete" Persian depicted in he film is the heavily pierced Xerxes himself; this stylization of enemy leaders as effeminate is both part of the subjective narrative, and typical of propaganda. That the film includes an instance of "homophobic" speech, one "effeminate" depiction and no "heterophobia" is the only "homophobic" bias which can be inferred based on the film itself.

The fragmented quote of the Malcolm review lends voice-of-WP authority to the errors themselves. So, what to do? The review is inaccurate, but only viewers would know this.
 * Should it be trimmed in the article to include only opinion based on the actual story?
 * Should it be expanded with comment to indicate the inaccuracy, or
 * Should it be removed and replaced with another review which gets the story right?

Thanks. --Lexein 12:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Lexein, I think you should find a better review that discusses the same topic, but is more accurate. nce found, then we should purge the existing, inaccurate review. As well, give us your take on the actual merits of the Malcolm review. Does it introduce some actually notable, or is it just filler? If the former, we need to find something to replace it. If the latter, it should be consigned to the Land of Misfit Toys of whatever (aka, removed). Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)