Talk:300 (film)/Archive 7

message: Now that that's done, what's the consensus on the statements by Farrokh? Include? Please (briefy) explain why or why not.  Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might wish to revisit the two sections entitled, conveniently enough, Farrokh. They are, also conveniently located by way of the TOC above.  Cheers. Arcayne (cast a spell) 12:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I performed an archive in the intervening time, so you may find the links for the material here, or the actual sections here, here andhere. I hope that helps. Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Farrokh Commentary

message: Dimitris 04:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't be opposed to adding a short graph to the Political Aspects section outlining Kashani's views, it may dovetail nicely with the existing references to Sontag's concept of 'fascist art'. I would only suggest that it is important to convey Kishani's views dispassionately, remembering WP:NOT#SOAP. That said, if 'proto-fascist cinema' is an emerging term in a critical tradition, perhaps it could be expanded into an article of its own, given that sufficient sources can be provided. I can imagine that some may object to the source as being a self-published source, but given that the author is identified as an academic lecturer at several colleges in the US and has thoroughly documented his sources, I wouldn't object. As to your point that nobody can know better than the author (Miller), I'd only mention that the film contains several departures from the graphic novel and, as I understand it, some of the more controversial aspects (notably the depiction of monstrous members of the Persian army) are among those departures. Miller cannot be expected to know the ideological connotation of aspects of the film that he did not contribute better than Snyder. Cuffeparade 06:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy: Another view 

message: 26 Different sections were archived in Archive 9. Due to the possibility that folk might wish to utilize info from those srchvied sections, I've taken the liberty of inclusing a very brief synopsis of each sections contents and provided a link to that section int he archive. I have not archived ongoing discussions. I would like to also include the Pick a Numbah, Any Numbah, Take 2 soon, but only after someone has done a Javits2000-like tallying of the results and we have concluded that the voting is done. I will also archive those sections in between ongoing section conversation that are no longer being discussed. -Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archival Notice

message: I think a section with this heading should be created as I've seen the film used for humor purposes on a vareity of Comedy Central shows, such as Colbert and Daily Show, and as a major stylistic element of last night's episode of South Park, complete with the narrative, the battles against Persians, a 9 foot Xerxes, the slow motion, etc. --164.107.223.217 14:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should wait on that option until sources about those features evolve.  The Behnam 14:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am for that, there is all ready a 300 section on the south park page heres the link (D-Yikes)
am sure you can get some stuff there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peavey5150 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Depictions in Popular Culture

message: ::Not to interrupt, but you stated that the 3 Musketeers was real, when in fact it was not; it was simply a dramatization of events using characterizations of people (often renamed). Events were greatly distorted to fit historical events, sometimes bizarrely so by Dumas. One need only recall the books The Vicomte de Bragelonne and The Three Musketeers to reaize to see that events were tailored to fit an audience. Richelieu was not considered as vile as he was written, nor was Buckingham that pleasant of an individual, as evidenced by the historical record. No one the novels anything but historical fiction. This film is very much the same thing. The historical elements are in fact in place. No one has sucecessfully argued that the Battle of Thermopylae did not occur, or occurred in a manner different from Herodotus' account. The sole reason we are debating this issue at all is how it depicted the ancient Persians. 
::Using that hypothesis, we should explore the idea of whether this much hubbub would be missing if ancient Persians had been portrayed accurately in dress and weapons.How much of this angry villification would there be if King Xerxes had been portrayed as noble and, well kingly? I think the fair answer is not very much at all. Other examples of this sort reaction would be Braveheart, or Troy, wherein folk were more upset  at Edward II being portrayed as a homosexual, or Achilles as a blond caucasian.
::Working from that conclusion, it becomes apparent that the sole reason we are dealing with this level of animosity is that some editors are reacting emotionally to this movie when they are editing. They are acting emotionally while editing (evidenced just in the immediately preceding post by the editor who thought that attacking Miller was an effective tool of editing, when it is not). This appears - to me, at least - to be the absolute worst time to be attempting to edit neutrally. The assumption of good faith goes out the window, and people start getting angry with those editors who seem to add insult to the perceived injury that the film represents to the affected editor. How is that any fun at all for anyone?
::Does this movie portray historical events, in the order in which they occurred? Yes. Does it fill in the blanks with dramatic license, often at the expense of the ancient Persians? I think so. Does this depiction render the entire film is completely fiction, and devoid of any historical note? Clearly, it doesn't.  -Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this is becoming far too headache-inducing.  If no one can agree on a genre/label/whatever, it should stay out for now, fiction, historical, whatever.  Is it odd that I'm growing to like the lead as it currently is?  All it says is that it's a film adaptation of the graphic novel, which was inspired by a movie based on the BoT.  It implies that the film is both historical and fictional.  That's good enough for me.  María (habla conmigo) 12:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: So let me get this straight. What you are saying is that you have such strong POV that you would rather discourage other editors from discussing the matter so yours would win?! wow, that's one helpful philosophy for a voluntary NPOV encyclopedia! --Rayis 13:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I am sure he can comment for himself --Rayis 14:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you misread what I said, Ray. I wasn't saying that i had POV at all. If anything, I am the centrist of this little play, trying to pull folk back to the center and NPOV. If I think that editors solicitng others from outside the discussion is meat-puppetry, that is a view shared by Wikipedia policy. If I think that editors coordinating their efforts to shut down opposing viewpoint is Not Good, that is also supported by WP policy. An NPOV encyclopedia requires that people with an agenda leave those agendas at the door. Those who cannot leave partisan views have no place here. I certainly hope that answers your question. Ray. Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Arc. NPOV is still a POV as it is described in WP:NPOV. I am sure a lot of us are here for the same reason, as much as sometimes it might not feel like it (WP:AGF). Arc. --Rayis 18:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arcayne, please see my comment below. You certainly have a POV about the header. Hornplease 09:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What's the Hubbub, bub?

message: I that Xerxes should be referred to as the correct title of Emperor (Shahanshah) of Persia, at least when referring to the reality off the movie, which inaccurately did refer to him as King --Rayis 14:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia follows anglophone terminology. Miskin 14:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Emperor is not an English word? --Rayis 14:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an article about the movie, and not about Xerxes. As has been noted many, many times before, this film doesn't pretend to be 100% historically accurate. It's a movie, after all. Moreover, he is referred to as King Xerxes by various historical sources. Lastly, you voted for the idea that the film was a complete fiction, so what reality of the film might you be referring to?Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Calm down, I was referring to the parts and sentences in the article that are referring to the historical character, there is no need for us to follow the movie as the correct history, and any sources you are referring to are obviously inaccurate, as the movie is. --Rayis 14:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the article Shahanshah translates the term to "King". It's a question of terminology not of linguistics. Compare to basileus which is translated in English to "Emperor", though it literally means "monarch". Miskin 14:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Erm no, Shāhanshāh (Persian: شاهنشاه ) is a Persian monarchial title, literally meaning King of Kings. It is often confused with Shah, a similar title used by Persian rulers, which is translated as king.. Please pay a little attention --Rayis 14:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No comments. Miskin 14:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He was an Emperor, ruling an Empire. You don't have to post comments if you don't have any --Rayis 14:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see. You are arguing that the term emperor should have been applied instead of king? Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Boss, you just admitted that it means "King of Kings" and then you said its base word means "King" and then you claimed that he should be called "Emperor". Your whole claim is oxymoronic. Miskin 14:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: King of Kings is a Persian term that means Emperor, boss. Furthermore it (Emperor) is the accurate term for ruler of an empire. You don't have to disagree with every statement outside your two man group, you know. --Rayis 14:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's King Xerxes in the film, and is therefore mentioned as such in the article about the film.  To refer to him otherwise in any sections, no matter the correct translation/historical implications, would be confusing and misleading.  People are still forgetting that this article is about a film.  María (habla conmigo) 14:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I've got nothing to reply to someone who thinks that 'King' somehow translates to 'Emperor'. Please mind WP:NPA while you're at it. Miskin 14:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're referring to King of Kings (a similar title was held by Genghis Khan (he was referred to as the Khan of Khans)), then, yes, it translates to Emperor.  A King who holds other Kings as vassals... what possible confusion could there be?  That's what an Emperor is.  He is, however, referred to in the movie as 'King.'  Which is technically not incorrect, a King may be an Emperor and vice versa.  The King of Britain didn't stop being one when he took over India and became an Emperor. Jachra 10:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  This is a fictional movie, so what matters is what term the movie uses. Do they use King or Emperor? I can't remember. --Mardavich 15:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The film uses the terms "God King", "King of kings" and "God of gods" when Xerxes talks about himself or when his subbordinates refer to him. Characters may have also said king when rushed, but these were the standards that I remember. Hewinsj 15:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Miskin, you removed both my discussion argument AND warning for your uncivil remark. So please keep your warnings for yourself and while you are at it, chill out --Rayis 15:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: (multiple edit conflicts, jeez) You're both uncivil.  And it's king in the movie, Mardavich.  Can we move on, now?  María (habla conmigo) 15:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: How was I uncivil? I have crossed our your uncivil remark Miskin, please don't do that again, that is a personal attack. Thanks, --Rayis 15:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Fine, if you insist on keeping your uncivil comment, that's fine. Let it shine :) --Rayis 15:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Haha well I am willing to let others judge who is acting provokative and\or uncivil here. I don't have time to deal with someone who doesn't understand a simple sentence like "The term King of Kings in Persian refers to the Emperor". Have fun. --Rayis 18:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't yet seen anything that indicates that Xshayathiya Xshayathinam or however the Old Persian is transliterated that actually equates it to "Emperor," as it is generally translated "King of Kings."  That meant Emperor for the Shah but as far as I have seen not for Darius and friends.  I will continue to look around; I'm trying to check Iranica but it is hard to use and some letters don't have any entries :(  The Behnam 18:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Is the exact translation even important? Emperor means ruler of an Empire in English and I thought that would be the correct term to use here, but serious hostility from some people prevents them to understand this simple point I tried to make. Furthermore it looks like everyone is opposed to it so nevermind --Rayis 18:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said on your talk page, Rayis, implication is not enough to include this in the article.  When characters call King Xerxes the "King of Kings," it means precisely what is says.  That he is referred to as an emperor in antiquity does not pertain to this film article, nor does the correct or incorrect etymology of the phrase in Persian or English.  In the context of this film article, your "simple phrase" doesn't belong.  María (habla conmigo) 18:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, thanks for letting me know of your opinion. I don't really care anymore as I said above. --Rayis 18:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  King of Kings and Emperor mean the same thing; ruler of an empire. --Mardavich 02:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: King of Kings was equal to Emperor under the Shah but nothing yet indicates the Achaemenian form of "King of Kings" should be translated as "Emperor", and most conventions call them Kings.  The Behnam 02:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Now I am not arguing with you here, but I just wanted to point out that bible is not usually a reliable source for checking facts when it comes to history or English terms.  --Rayis 21:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not get derailed into an argument over the historical reliability of biblical accounts, I was merely stating that in addition  to Xerxe's mention as king in translations of Greek accounts into English and English rules of honorifics, there is also an identification of Xerxes as King Xerxes dating back to 1611.  Whether this is an accurate translation of the Persian title is irrelevant to the matter at hand, it merely supports that within the English languages and histories that would need to be referenced for an English language encyclopedia article, King Xerxes the Persian Emperor reigns and Emperor Xerxes is an unknown.  If this is a matter that needs to be addressed, it is within an article about translation of historical accounts, not an article about a movie of already dubious historical accuracy.68.63.220.114 06:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  King or Emperor? 

message: 216.201.194.106 22:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting, historically speaking, but I'm not sure if these assertions would fit into the article.  We really should stick to what is in the movie and not dwell on the small differences between that and history.  I cannot remember the context of Leonidas making the offering in the movie, but I can tell you that in the graphic novel from which the film is almost obsessively copied, Leonidas pours what looks like gold discs out of a bag; they are certainly gold colored, and small enough to fit several of them in the palm of his hand.  There is also the quote in the narration, directly after Leonidas hands over his offering, that "there's never been a holy man who lacked the love for gold" (emphasis in the text).  Can anyone who has seen the movie more recent than I clarify if it was gold that was offered by our man Leo?  María (habla conmigo) 00:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly looked like it to me. That's an interesting fact about the Spartan lifestyle; unfortunately, I don't think we can use it in the article, since if we start pointing out the movie's inaccuracies we'll be here all week. --Kizor 00:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning the scene with the oracle 

message: I am sure we could find sources in the south park article.
There is already a comparison on that page could help out some to. I think there should also be some kind of vote on if this should be added or not.     
Here is the link to south park article D-Yikes! 5150 01:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I love Southpark but I honestly don't see why the last episode should be mentioned in this article. Countless of hollywood movies have been parodied in southpark one way or another, that doesn't mean that the respective wp-articles should have a section about it. Why not a section about Family Guy's parodies? Let's keep seriousness at a basic level. Miskin 01:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  True but it could still be mentioned in a Popular Culture section. And you know more will come as soon as merchandising rights are released. They all ready have made a video game off of the movie.5150 01:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and the video game is already mentioned in the Marketing section.  María (habla conmigo) 01:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A popular culture section is a different story, I was objecting to a "southpark episode" section that was attempted earlier. Miskin 11:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: there is no need to give "full details" of the south park episode. Just with a sentence give a link to it, everybody who is interested will followed it up. blocking the mentioning of it, is a blatant POV pushing. And by the way that parody is also mentioned even in Xerxes article! --Pejman47 23:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Park Parody 

message: Image:RT Comic Ep102 Dine.jpg|right|  thumb|300px|300 in Red Vs Blue I added this image and someo0ne removed it why?
We should at least put this somewhere?
Pece Kocovski 05:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was removed here
as "funny but clearly out of the scope of the article)", which is correct. Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But then I reverted myself  so the pic was removed again by a different user. I still think that it's kindof irrelevant to the article, so I agree with its removal. Miskin 11:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Touché Eric. Miskin 15:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we not use the souces on the south park article? Like I said before there is already a comparison section on that page. Links in the above section. (under south park) :–) 5150 16:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think a non-spam external link to a discussion of the parody would be a problem, but I don't really think we should add the section since it is somewhat trivial and part of the '___ in popular culture' pattern that, IMO, detracts from articles.  Call me serious but I'm recommending the 'serious' approach here.  The Behnam 16:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There are no sources on the South Park episode article, and the entire thing is unreferenced.  We cannot reference another article because it is not considerd a RS.  María (habla conmigo) 16:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine.  I don't keep track of South Park so I just put the idea out.  The Behnam 16:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was replying to the user who posed the question of citing the SP ep, actually; there was an edit conflict at first, so I just added my comment after yours, so sorry for the confusion.  I completely agree with you, though, about the popular culture sections seriously detracting from articles -- they're merely glorified trivia sections.  Nothing wrong with being serious. :) María (habla conmigo) 16:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If your not going to put up the south park or popular culture section just because there is no sources, then there is also a source problem with the "Plot" section on this page. Please correct me if I am wrong on that. (This comment is not suppose to a fend anyone) :-)
5150 23:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No one is offended by your inquiry, buddy. However, I am not sure i understand what you are referring to, Peavey5150. Could you be a bit more specific? Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go look at the Plot section on the page and see if you can find any sources in there. Thats what this whole debate is over right?  (User 76. was me sorry forgot to log in it fixed now) 5150 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture