Talk:Gladiator (2000 film)

message: I'm reverting changes made a couple months ago by (possible sockpuppet) EAldroyd.
The broad consensus of sources indicates this film is an American production (see American Film Institute, LUMIERE database, Swedish Film Database, Danish Film Institute, Allmovie, Turner Classic Movies Database, etc.). It's also described as an American film in the Encyclopædia Britannica. Although much of it was filmed at Shepperton Studios, it was financed by American studios, and was noted in the British press at the time as the most expensive American production ever brought over to Britain. After the BAFTA awards ceremony in 2001, it was again cited in the British press as an American picture. The film has not been included in the British Council's British Film Directory, which archives British films extending back to 1998.
There was significant British involvement in making the film that should be highlighted in the body of the article, but the changes made by EAldroyd are misleading and possibly inaccurate. As per the parameters for country information outlined in Template:Infobox film, if there is a conflict of information in various reliable sources, then only the common published nations should be listed, so I'm reverting on that basis. Feuertrinker (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: When different sources disagree, we don't go with the sources we agree with, we make a special note of that disagreement.  And once you were reverted by another editor, it was bad form to simply revert to your preferred version.  The claim that EAldroyd is a possible sockpuppet is irrelevant. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a case of reverting to a preferred version, I've included evidence here to support the changes. In this case, there are about eight or nine reliable sources indicating this film was a US production. There is currently one conflicting source that suggests it was a US/UK co-production, which is the BFI - yet elsewhere the BFI has cited the film as a US-only production. The only nation common to all of these sources is the US, so my recommendation here would be to follow the guidelines described in Template:Infobox film. Would you agree? --Feuertrinker (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Country info 

message: The blue link to lanistae links to a cricket.  To link to Roman trainers of gladiators or owners of training schools, a wiktionary article ( https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lanista#Latin )
that simply defines  the term or a link to the Wikipedia article on Gladiators, with nine uses of the word, would serve the article better. Kdammers (talk) 07:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just re-linked the two instances of "lanista" that I found; pointed to "Gladiator#Schools_and_training", per redirect at Lanista article. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate link 

message: Fictionalization section says "Lucilla was implicated in a plot to assassinate her brother in 182 AD, along with her husband Pompeianus and several others." The next bullet point says "Pompeianus had no part in any of the many plots against Commodus." I can't access the book referenced in the first bullet point to verify, nor the link in the second bullet. Was Pompeianus plotting or not?
Fuzchia (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the article on Commodus, Lucilla plotted, was exiled, and, later, killed; but Tiberius Claudius Pompeianus, her second husband, was not involved. That section is unreferenced. My copy of Cary's A History of Rome Down to the Reign of Constantine says that Lucilla plotted to assassinate Commodus, and that her stepson, Pompeianus's son, was involved, presumably so that he himself would become emperor. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claudius Pompeianus conflicting info 

message: Hi all, this page is the first hit on search engines for "gladiator". Is it possible to add a disambiguation statement to say, "this article is about the 2000 film, for other uses please see -> disambiguation"?
Sebhaque (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation revisited 

message: There's a statement which says "Roman field artillery used in open battle was far more compact and transportable than shown by the film", but there's no citation for that. In fact, I would argue that it is wrong, since in the film, they depict ballista, which were indeed quite large, and they also depict Onager's, which I would argue is the "real" anachronism, since they were not mentioned by Roman historians until the 4th century. I think that section should be re-written to reflect this, and change the picture from a Roman scorpion, to an onager.Belregard (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Field Artillery 

message: This whole section screams 'original research', not a single citation present and quotes dropped in randomly 51.52.43.171 (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I've tagged the entire section. Neocorelight (Talk) 01:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, even with the tags for warning, this seems like a major flaw with the article.  Abstractplayer (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag for original research says that sections consisting entirely of original research should be removed, so I removed the entire section. Please advise if there is a better approach. Wafflewombat (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post Release Section 

message: *  – unsourced. Removed unsourced material
*  – unsourced. They're in the film, sure, but this makes a statement about when they joined the cast. Removed unsourced material
*  – referring to the drinking as excessive in WP:WikiVoice is extremely dubious. Reed's alcohol use caused a fatal heart attack, as mentioned in the cited source. That qualifies as excessive to me, but if it's still too non-neutral, we can change it. Comments welcome.
*:I'll clarify a bit. It might be okay to call Reed's drinking "heavy" (assuming the sources do likewise), but "excessive" doesn't just mean "much" but "too much", which is a value judgment. TompaDompa (talk) 12:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production 

message: Hello, fellow editors! I've spent the last several weeks working on this page, but I've reached the limit of what I can do. I did a lot of copyediting, removed a lot of uncited material, and added a few new segments. Overall, the page is more readable and fact-based. However, some of the sections need to be filled out more. The lead, Plot, and Cast sections are fine, and the Development section is not bad, but the rest of the sub-headings under Production need more information. The Release section needs more content, especially regarding territories outside North America. The Reception section is okay, but the Sequel portion will need more information as the release of Gladiator 2 draws near. Perhaps the most important thing needed is a new Historical Accuracy section. Gladiator takes many liberties with history, but the section as it existed previously was completely unsourced. 
Unfortunately, I don't have the time or energy to do the research needed to create the Historical Accuracy section and fill out the other sections. I'm hoping that someone else will take on this task at some point. It may require consulting book-length sources, as I'm not sure there is much additional information on the Internet that I haven't already put into the article. The Landau book is a good place to start, as it is available for free online (there's a link to it). You may also want to get your hands on the Winkler and Schwartz books. When creating the Historical Accuracy section, you may want to consult Michael Grant's book The Roman Emperors. I suggest you avoid the website ScreenRant when looking for historical information; they have three articles on the film's historical accuracy, but I don't trust them because each of their three articles makes a different claim about the circumstances of Marcus Aurelius's death.
This is a very old version of the Historical Accuracy section (much older than the version I removed), which has a lot of information and a bunch of sources.
If you decide to work on the page and have questions, feel free to ask me. I've read through every web source cited in the article.
Thanks! Wafflewombat (talk) 11:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for improvement