Talk:Spartacus (TV series)/Archive 2

Sorry to open this again, but...
"Guards are shown dressed as Roman legionaries wearing lorica segmentata. The first attested use of this type of armour by legionaries dates to around 9 BC,[29] six decades after Spartacus' revolt."

Surely most of the guards are private security, not soldiers, and there's nothing to prevent you outfitting your own staff with something the army doesn't wear (yet).

Apologies if this point has been considered above - I didn't notice it where this sentence was being argued about earlier but I haven't time to read the whole thing. --86.185.250.141 (talk) 08:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

New "historical deviations"
Obviously it isn't a historical portrayal if somebody is fighting demons or big enough to block out the sun, let's not get carried away.  Grsz 11 04:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If it is the page's insistence that Barca's story is to be taken as "factual", then the other stories in that episode should be as well. If they are obviously fictionalized, the entry on Barca should be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.56.42.237 (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Barca is called "the last Carthaginian" outside the context of the 'fantasy flashbacks' in Legends. Thus it stands as an inconsistency to historical reality.Catiline63 (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Never referred to as the Last Carthaginian outside of "Legends" and stories of episode three. Either the story is fantasy, and does not bear mention, or the obviously fantastical stories deserve mention as well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.56.43.152 (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He actually is referred to as a Carthaginian and the last Carthaginian on many occasions. When the show is supposed to take place there were no Carthaginians. Carthage had been a ruin for 70 years by the time show was set, and its people long since extinct.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.220.176 (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Additionally the issue of Barca issue was already resolved. See above on the discussion page.24.34.220.176 (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracies section
I see this has been broached before but nothing came of it. What appears to be a well-sourced section is upon closer inspection comprised mostly of a synthesis of ideas not supported by the sources attached to them. Plutarch did not write about this program. Neither did the 1953 printing of Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law. This is often a problem in articles about historical fiction on television. Whether the observations of the users who added this material to the article are accurate is not the issue. The fact that they are their own observations means this section, or at least any part of it that is not supported by a source that mentions this program must be removed. We can use such references as sources that address the greater context of the times in which these stories are based, but we can't use our own judgement to compare the show with the historical record and see for ourselves what flaws it may have in matters like wardrobe, the exact cost of a particular item, Batiatus family nickname, etc. To recap, the most relevant policies are WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, this has been broached before, and your observations are nothing new. Saying, however, that "nothing came of" the previous large discussion that we had on this page is disingenuous: the consensus reached was that section should stay, with some 'inaccuracies' being deleted. If you can cite the relevant sections of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR that you say support your position, please provide them. Catiline63 (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see that alleged consensus reflected in the discussion above. The whole point of both the synthesis and original research policies is that our own observations are not worth anything here. So, observing that a television show contradicts what is in a book would be original research. For example, what is the source that verifies that the guards are wearing lorica segmentata? There is no such source, it is based on someone having watched the show and observed what they believe to be lorica segmentata being worn by some guards. I'm not saying that conclusion is wrong, just that it is not supported by any sopurces and in all likelihood never will be. Incidentally, the reason there are no sources is that this show is obviously heavily fictionalized. Every last moment of it is historically inaccurate. The majority of the supporting characters, the various plots of Batiatus, his wife's affair with Crixus, and so on and so forth, are all made up for the purposes of this show. Nitpicking about the tiny details when the big picture is inaccurate does a disservice to our readers by implying that other than these tiny details the program is accurate. Did Spartacus and Ilithyia unknowingly have sex? Did she kill Licinia afterward? Did Batiatus arrange the murder of Titus Calavius in order to frame Solonius? Did Ashur and Varro and Segovax even exist? Aren't these rather glaring inaccuracies? Yet implying that these are errors would still be a synthesis not supported by a source. Unless and until there is published criticism of the historical details of the show it is most certainly original research to make our own criticisms and list them in the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about this, it reminds me of one of the first edits I ever made here:. There is no doubt in my mind that Bashki intended for the Simple Savior character to be a parody of Al Sharpton. He looks like him, talks like him, and acts like him, and the real-life Sharpton led protests of this movie because he knew it too. Somehow this rather obvious point never seems to have been mentioned despite the fact that this film did get substantial press coverage at the time and now has a strong cult following. So my edit was reverted and I got this message on my talk page. Notice that, like my own comments here, he's not telling me I'm wrong because he knows I'm probably not, the edit just couldn't stand because no reliable sources had ever made the same observation. Just like no reliable sources have ever made the observations reflected in this article. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Historical deviations and original research Request for Comment

 * Does the inclusion of "historical deviations" consist of original research?


 * Is there even an expectation of such rigid accuracy to historical fact from a program that, although based on real events, is obviously heavily fictionalized?


 * Is the reader's understanding of this program improved by the inclusion of such minutiae?
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * These issues have been discussed at length here already. At the moment the section is on the page. In my opinion it consists of cherry-picked deviations of a relatively minor nature. Because the main characters in the show are based on real people but the plots of the individual episodes are for the most part purely fictional it is my opinion that we are doing a grave disservice to our readers by implying that other than tiny, unimportant details like what the guards are wearing or what a character's family nickname was the rest of what they are seeing is accurate. Every moment of this program is fiction, it is all a "historical deviation." Details on the numerous other, far more important deviations are in the section directly above the RFC. I look forward to hearing some fresh input on this subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The section seems like clear synthesis to me. The sources for each claim are historical and indicate how things were. The fact that the series differs, however, is not addressed by the sources, which means that the claims are a synthesis of information from two sources - the series itself (A) and the historical sources (B) to produce a list of differences (C). This is plainly not allowed. To be included, a third party site must cover the historical inaccuracies directly, Wikipedia cannot do it itself. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Due to the low level of participation here I have left a neutrally worded message asking for more input at WP:ORN. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * (stumbling in from WP:ORN). In the interest of disclosure, I've see all of the series. I would add that I've read Fast's book and done some amateur poking into Spartacus as an historical figure. As talk:TechnoSymbiosis, my thought is that use of any source that does not reference the series directly (and in the deviation section there are a number of these) would be classic OR, as it involves taking a fact about the series (A) and an historical fact (B), and relates them to form a conclusion (C). Also, I would note that ancient historical texts are generally considered primary sources by WP, and thus generally not suitable for use as sources here--only trained historians can effectively evaluate the accuracy of statements made in ancient texts. I concur with Beeblebrox that as the show is a fictional representation, and very loose one at that, documenting historical inaccuracies is not really beneficial, although if some academic journal article treats such inaccuracies directly, inclusion of that as a source might make sense, so long as it does not violate WP:UNDUE or other policies/guidelines. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone object to simply deleting the section altogether? --Nuujinn (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't as that was exactly what I tried to do before and I was reverted, hence the RFC to gauge consensus. Neither the person who reverted me nor any of the previous defenders of this content appear to be watching this. However, in the interest of not having to do this again over procedural issues I suggest we wait a bit longer. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Another week on and nobody has commented. I don't see any further impediment to removing the entire section. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am still in support of removing the section. Way back when this conversation was addressed the first time my main concern was that we didn't have sources discussing the show specifically in regards to inaccuracies.  I would still not have a problem with inaccuracies being mentioned if we had such a source (say if an article were published on the topic of inaccuracies or a reviewer mentioned a specific instance of such) down the line.  But even then, it seems unlikely a whole section would be needed when a notation could be made under reception or production.  Millahnna (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)