Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical accuracy of Gladiator (2000 film)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   merge to Gladiator (2000 film). By and large, consensus seems to be that this shouldn't exist as an independent article, but that portions of it may be valuable if included in the main article. As it stands, however, the primary concern seems to be that it likely violates our policy on avoiding original research. Consensus at the target of the eventual redirect is obviously free to determine how much, if any, of the content should be merged. slakr \ talk / 21:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Historical accuracy of Gladiator (2000 film)
AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Historical deviations in Gladiator (2000 film)


 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This "article" is in violation of NPOV policies, as the obvious intent is to attack the accuracy of a work of fiction -- why not list things the film got right? (See WP:COATRACK.) An actual article highlighting aspects the film maker portrayed accurately and those aspects that aren't accurate could be appropriate, but this page is problematic. The article also contains no prose, and comes off as original research -- it looks like someone opened a history textbook and merely pointed out what's "wrong" in the film.  Calidum Talk To Me 21:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)  Calidum  Talk To Me 21:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nerdcruft. Not a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article: Gladiator is a work of fiction. The [scolarly article cited certainly does not take the inaccuracies particularly seriously.[[User:TheLongTone|TheLongTone]] (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  |  23:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  |  23:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  |  23:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  |  23:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete If the film was criticized by critics and/or historians for its faults, a summary of those highlighted by that criticism is appropriate, as we would do in the case of when film and books they are based off of differ, or in a more pertinent example, Armageddon (1998 film) being a 2 para summary of everything wrong with the film. But have to agree that this is an incredible level of OR, particular when the film does not present itself as an historically accurate presentation like one would expect from a documentary. --M ASEM (t) 23:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep or redirect because it can be appropriate to have sub-articles split off from the film article if the amount of real-world coverage is significant. For example, this is an entire book comparing film to history. This has a full chapter comparing film to history. This also has a full chapter. I do agree that the article currently has too much original research, and it should be purged. Following that, it should not be deleted. Depending on the valid content remaining, it can be kept or redirected to the "Historical accuracy" section at the film article. It's highly likely that much more than two paragraphs can be written about the film's historical accuracy. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 00:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject of the article is notable as reliable sources have discussed it. Unsourced sections and original research can be removed but that's no excuse to delete the article. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm replying to you, but this is more of a general comment. I'm not disputing that sources have covered the topic, or that it doesn't deserve mention at all. My argument is that there is no reason to have this information in a separate, coatrack article. As to fixing the issues with the article, they existed at the time of the last AFD -- in 2009. In the 5+ years since that closed, no one has attempted to fix anything in regards to sourcing or original research.   Calidum  Talk To Me 02:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * How does WP:COATRACK apply? In a nutshell, "Articles about one thing shouldn't mostly focus on another thing." If it has to do with the article title, "Historical accuracy" is just used here as neutral terminology, as it is done in section headings within film articles. It's a roof under which one can report on accurate and/or inaccurate elements of the film. The presentation is messy, to be sure, but I'm opposed to outright deletion because the page history is worth keeping around (and mentioning on the film article's talk page if we redirect this sub-article). While we have a lot of unsourced material here, it would be easy enough to search relevant terms and find out if a particular element (such as military organization) had been discussed by historians. For example, the S.P.Q.R. tattoo passage is unreferenced, but searching for the keywords, I found this. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 02:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Coatrack is applicable because facts were cherry picked to present a one-sided view of things. (If you still think that it is not applicable, WP:POVFORK would apply, as a wise editor once noted.) And again, the concerns about original research date back at least five years, so forgive me for not believing a well-written, well-sourced article can be written. And even if it could be, I see no reason why a separate article is needed.  Calidum Talk To Me 04:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that a separate article is not necessarily needed. Cleanup is definitely needed after so many years. What I am suggesting is to preserve the page history so if an editor were to ever work on Gladiator, it would be available for possible reincorporation, following the guidelines. I would say that a sub-article is appropriate if a section in a film article overwhelms the rest of the article. The list of accolades is one such example. Here, I think if the film got a Featured Article treatment, I think a "Historical accuracy" sub-article would be needed, based on the sources I highlighted above, and probably more out there. Would you endorse redirecting as opposed to deleting? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be okay with what you're suggesting as it essentially accomplishes the same thing I want.  Calidum  Talk To Me 16:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * and, would redirecting be an acceptable outcome? We would link to the page history at the film article's talk page for any editors who decide to take on this endeavor. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy with a partial merge & redirect, it seems an entirely proper topic within the article on the film.TheLongTone (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This article title is not searchable so while the redirect makes sense, it's not the best solution. But a history merge might be, as to keep the contributions from here. --M ASEM (t) 16:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep -- The alternative would be to merge back to the article on the film, to which this is properly linked by a "main" template, but to add all this detail to the film article would unbalance it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Peter, most of this detail has to be purged anyway. It is synthesis in the sense that history books stating detail about the period have nothing to do with the film. There are some sources that make the comparison, and these can be used. However, most of the article is not based on these sources, and the "Historical accuracy" section at the film article is considered sufficient. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Selective merge, no redirect to Gladiator (2000 film). This is worth a paragraph in the main article, despite the detail in the sources.  Just like with battles where there are often numerous books, but we boil it down to the encyclopedic.  --Bejnar (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep what you can A lot is said about the pillars of Wikipedia but if there was a wider goal then that goal would probably have something to do with the promotion of accurate information. Furthermore, if there were a wider interpretation to ignore all rules then that interpretation would probably aim for the promotion of information in any context where it can be achieved.  The film industry is a joke and, in my opinion, there is value in any influence that can encourage it to deliver its fantasies from a perspective a little closer to reality.  In any borderline decision keep what you can.  Gregkaye (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is a bit of a coatrack, full of original research. Having a couple of sources that also talk about the inaccuracies doesn't fix the other policy violations present.  It would be perfectly fine to have a paragraph talking about the inaccuracies in the film's article (that would be neutral), but the sole purpose of this article is to criticize the film, it is a singular POV.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  17:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". While films will never imitate history precisely, their prominence may lead to greater scrutiny. If sources show that most historians find Gladiator historically inaccurate, then it is not POV to cover their scrutiny under this specific topic. (As I mentioned earlier, "Historical accuracy" is being used as neutral terminology.) This particular space can be used for a well-written article. If the current text is too messy but the topic itself valid, we don't have to eradicate the space from memory. We can just redirect to the shorter "Historical accuracy" section at the film article. If someone wants to make the effort to have a sub-article using all the reliable sources commenting on the film, there is material in the page history that can be investigated for that purpose. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So is the article also covering the points where the film was historically accurate? No? The current article should be named Historical inaccuracy of Gladiator (2000 film), as it is not examining the accuracy as a whole, only the inaccuracies.  Except we can't do that. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  15:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Like I said, "Historical accuracy" is being applied as neutral terminology, per WP:FILMHIST. It's like having a "Critical reception" sub-article that doesn't say in its article title what people thought of the film. (And such a sub-article can have mainly positive or negative reviews, depending on if the film was acclaimed or panned.) It's like saying "Comparison to history" when "comparison" implicitly means "comparing and contrasting" to history. Maybe a different article title could be used here, but the assumption shouldn't be that the film will be historically accurate or inaccurate, but that the film will be held up against history. If most historians find it historically inaccurate, then of course the content will be highly critical. There is two groupings of content here -- content that comes from reliable sources that assess the film, and content that comes from editors playing armchair historians in personally comparing film and history. We have too much of the latter, but I think that we have enough sources for the former that a credible sub-article could be had. As I mentioned above, a seemingly original-research bit (no reference) about a tattoo can be researched, and a source found to write about the tattoo in such a credible sub-article. I'm not arguing so much to keep, I feel that redirecting is the better solution here. I just oppose deletion because it amounts to saying, no, you can't have a sub-article like this ever because it "contradicts" the title because it looks at inaccurate items too much more than accurate items. I think it is a plausible outcome if an editor ever makes effort for this sub-topic. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge The article relies heavily on original research, as many of the claims do not have any citation. Overall, this strikes me as way too trivial to justify keeping as a standalone article. That being stated, there are several legitimate sources so a selective merge of sourced content into Gladiator (2000 film) is appropriate. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I see people misusing the OR rule all the time, but this time it is particularly egregious, when everything in this article is so clearly capable of being checked for accuracy. It is a historical accuracy article, for freak's sake.
 * "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." Able to be attributed. Not "attributed". Please learn the difference. Anarchangel (talk) 03:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not being misused. WP:SYN is what applies here: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." This means if sources do not mention the film, they cannot be used in this article about the film. The sources that can be used are the ones that explicitly compare the film to history. Wikipedia reports; it does not perform original research. In addition, such sources unrelated to the film can be indiscriminate per WP:IINFO: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Standard historical sources that are unconnected to the film cannot be contextual and thus have no encyclopedic value. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 04:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to main article as above. I see a lot of primary-sourced material, not a lot of indication that the historicity was that controversial. Mangoe (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge selectively to the Historical accuracy section of Gladiator (2000 film). NorthAmerica1000 21:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete It's fanboy crap like this that makes Wikipedia a laughing stock. Wefihe (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.