Talk:300 (film)/Archive 6

message: I didn't want to change it myself because I saw that there'd been some controversy, but the intro paragraph should mention the Battle of Thermopylae somehow.  It would be sufficient to attach with a phrase like "loosely based upon" or "inspired by" or "an exaggerated interpretation of".  Does anyone agree?  Surely there is a neutral way to link the film to the historical event which it purports to recant. --Xiaphias 03:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just about to do the same. I whole heartedly agree. -- Fropuff 03:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro Paragraph

message: Javits2000 recommends trimming some of the extraneous controversy sections down. Here's what I think could be done
* Persian reaction - trim to one government source, currently it cites this and that minister, the president, etc.
* Political aspects - this seems to be a history of how Snyder has reacted, why not simply have one statement with Snyder's intentions, then another with the critics.
* Historical inaccuracies - remove last paragraph, since it overlaps with Persian reaction.
LilDice 20:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first two suggestions look solid to me. I'ld be against removing the last paragraph (Daryaee) from the history section; he's not really addressing the way Persians are depicted (what I've been calling the "orientalist" aspects), more the general historical framework of the film. I think Daryaee and Hanson are the two strongest voices in that section, representing very different points of view, and both should be retained. Lytle, on the other hand, could probably go, and Cartledge could be cut down to a sentence on his advisory role. --Javits2000 21:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds pretty good to me. The point of the trim is to include those parts that create the strongest, more comprehensive view of the subject. Keep in mind that one or two editors have been pushing for the inclusion of Farrokh's statemens. I want to make sure that the essence of Daryaee is retained. Including F would open the door to a ton of unsourced, pov-based nonsense that the article simply doesn't need. Arcayne 22:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trimming Controversy sections 

message: Unfortunately this discussion was prematurely archived. The Farrokh article should be included in the external links. There is no guideline or policy that sets a limit on the amount of external links provided. If you believe undue weight is given to a particular view, we can provide a link to the opposing view. So far you have assumed that Farrokh is some how biased and lesser than Daryaee. Although this may be your view, you must prove before enacting it. We cannot chose one author over the other for personal reasons. Even if you believe they are so different in quality, should not both of the critical views be given? After all, not all people who are critical of the film's historic accuracy share the same complaints. For these reasons, Farrokh's article should be included in the External links. Agha Nader 20:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, all sections without posting for 4 hours, or seem concluded were archived.Arcayne 20:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, this topic seemed concluded. The Farrokh article was rife with personal anecdotes, and the substance of the article, when weighted against that of the Daryaee statemetns already in the piece, doesn't contribute anything new. It covers no new ground, which would be the sole reason for its inclusion. We aren't here to provide a balanced review; we are herr to provide a neutral one - there is a difference. While the criticism of the film was still significant while the film was in early release, it has since reached a far wider audience through general release, and the criticism appears to be in the specific minority. The article should reflect this resultant importance. Arcayne 21:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please do not archive ongoing discussions with unresolved issues. Allow discussion to achieve consensus on all issues. --Mardavich 21:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (sigh) fine, Mardy. Talk it alllll out. lol. Arcayne 22:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, just because you do not like the Farrokh article it does not mean it should not be included. You say the "article was rife with personal anecdotes"; it does not matter if you agree with his mode of discourse. I completely reject this statement you made: "It covers no new ground, which would be the sole reason for its inclusion". This is your opinion, not a fact. Farrokh's article has plenty of material not in the Daryaee article. You think the sole reason for it's inclusion would be if it had new material, eh? Which guideline says an external link must cover "new ground". So tell me, how do you know that Farrokh's article was not written first? I am not sure what to say about your claim "We aren't here to provide a balanced review". Please cite a Wikipedia guideline or policy for your claim, otherwise I will consider it your opinion. Removing Farrokh's article as a link is basically an "I DON'T LIKE IT" edit. Agha Nader 22:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not about me "liking" or "disliking" the article. Had you done the slightest amount of research,m you would have seen that I was initially in favor of their inclusion, but was presented with convincing arguments as to why they were not as satisfactory as Daryaee's. I am not the only person that agrees that the Farrokhe statements cover no new, reliably sourced, germane material. The Daryaee is a better sourced, more on-point article, Period. if you disagree, move the focus away from attacking me and tell us all - specifically - how the Farokhe article is better than the Daryaee statements. If you want them in, tell us all why they should be in, citing specific examples, please. Arcayne 23:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links (Farrokh, Part 1) 

message: :Please see Talk:300_%28film%29/Archive_8#Not_semi-historical.2C_fictional_per_producers_of_the_movie and continue discussion there. 
Summary: Should the lead says: the move is  a "semi-historical",  a "semi-fictional", "according to X it is 90% historical and according to Y it is fictional" or that the subject is essentially moot.
:Highly stylized seems a POV step, in that it makes the film sound like a hairstyle rather than the semi-historical romp it is. Why are we getting folks completely disregarding the requests to seek concensus prior to deciding to make changes based on the "I don't like it" bias? Leave the Lead alone until we all find a clear consensus on the subject. Arcayne 03:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-historical or Highly Stylized? 

message: Due to the lack of stability for this film article, I've brought it to the attention of WP:GA/R.  Perhaps its recognition was too soon, as there continues to be frequent debate and revert-warring over the article's content. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, I am going to have to agree; the subsequent edits to the article, ignoring the requests to discuss changes here first seems to have been offered by those desperate to make sure their POV is brought across, has served to destabilize the article. Arcayne 23:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to the film still being in theaters and certain global affairs currently afoot, it may be best to wait until a later date to seek a GA or FA nomination.  I'd like to remind all editors to assume good faith of others and practice civility.  Wikipedia does not profess to be the gospel truth, so don't get too heated over preferential differences.  From my perspective, the article seems to have a fairly balanced amount of information regarding the purpose of the film and how others have received it.  It seems to be a matter of addressing loose ends, so I encourage civil debate.  Save the drama for your mama. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. I did warn them about stability. GreenJoe 04:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:GA/R|Good Article Review]] 

message: Since the archiving was undone, we currently have three conversations occurring regarding a single reference. As much as I am going to kick myself for mentioning it, is it all possible that a new header could be created so as to converge these topics, and perhaps archive the items which are not really being discussed? I say 'kick myself', because last time I archived, I was accused of trying to "hide conversations". Just let me know when everyone takes a breather so we can create new headers, carrying on the topics. Allow me to reiterate for the conspiracy-minded: I am suggesting that you can resume your conversations or begin them anew in a new area. Find some sort of resolution or summary - temporary-like - and use that to begin a new section header. Arcayne 08:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A note

message: I notice that User:Sa.vakilian has placed a Wikipedia:POV check template at the head of the article, without offering any reasons here on talk. I personally feel it's inappropriate, and I encourage other editors to read the WP page on its use. I would note in particular the following passages: "the POV check template is not for disputes" and "the POV check template cannot be used to brand articles as non-neutral without a justification." --Javits2000 11:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pull it until/unless we get some feedback on why it was thought imperative to have it?  Arcayne 12:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My dear friend, if you notice to this talk page you'll find a debate about this issue just few lines above. (POV check)--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 12:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which debate? Miskin's remark about the last sentence of the lead, or your proposed lead? I'm guessing the answer might lie in your comment above, "There is completely 2 POV. I'd put POV tag on the article if you removed just one them. This is another reason to pot POV check until we achieve consensus" -- but as that's not intelligible English, I have no idea what the issue is. In either case, I'm agreeing with the Behnam, definitely WP:LAME. --Javits2000 19:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV template

message: BTW, when that admin protected and then unprotected the article a few days ago, he didn't restore the semi-protect we'd had before, and now were getting socked with a lot of nonsense from anonymous IPs. Would anyone be opposed to requesting semi-protect again? --Javits2000 09:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Christ, no.  The admin's reasoning for the unprotect (in the edit summary) was "unprotecting in the hope editors will take the runaway truck ramp before things go too far downhill," so it wasn't an oversight.  I think it was a premature move, and we definitely need some help, especially since we don't have to worry about maintaining GA status anymore.  María: (habla conmigo) 12:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've requested it before from the editor who removed it after being requested to visit the article by Mardavich - they both have interests in the same sorts of articles. Apparenlty, I'm not the only one who asked for the semi-protect. When I didn't hear back, I asked another editor, but still no response. For the 3rd most visited article in WP, we seem to be getting ignored, as requests go. Arcayne 14:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've placed a request at WP:RFP.--Javits2000 19:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now semi-protected.  Rock.  María: (habla conmigo) 20:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semiprotect

message: We now have three references that are in languages other than English: one Turkish, one Uzbek, and one Russian, all of which are from the Depiction of Persians section to clarify which Iranian Iranian embassies (France, Thailand, Turkey and Uzbekistan) protested screening of the movie.  Because this is the English Wikipedia, English references and links are strongly preferred.  I've asked the individual who added Turkey (with a Turkish ref) to provide an English link if possible, and I've received no response so far.  So the question is, can we find English sources, as per Wikipedia:Attribution#Language?  María: (habla conmigo) 12:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More to the point is whether it matters that the Iranian Ambassador to Uzbekistan is unhappy with this film. Short answer: no.--Javits2000 19:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I agree.  I didn't want to revert two separate users, although it's obvious they just wanted to have their respective countries included in a long list of countries who hate this movie like whoa.  I think it's akin to listing the dates of release in the infobox; people wonder, why not include Fiji?  So, why include Thailand in this section and not Turkey, Russia, Guam, the Faulkland Islands, etc?  If we name two, do we have to name the rest?  Must we have any mention of it whatsoever?  Gah.  María: (habla conmigo) 20:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreign language refs

message: Hi, I would like to link to an article about this film that discusses the economic reasons the historically homosexual Spartans were made heterosexual for the graphic novel and movie [but focusing on the movie]. 
The article argues that since the primary audience for the film is males 14-25, the makers have to find a way to make the film NOT GAY, or risk losing their audience. It then discusses some of the methods the movie uses to do that [comment on homosexual Athenians, heterosexual sex scenes, copious breast shots...]. 
Here it is: 
See what you think.
Scott / Cinema de Merde
204.95.152.66 19:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, thank you for not inserting the link into the article.  This would have constituted a conflict of interest, since you profess to be part of the site.  Also, I'm not sure if the source is considered reliable.  Per WP:ATT, "A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process or with a poor reputation for fact-checking."  Also, if you published this yourself, WP:ATT also says, "A self-published source is material that has been published by the author, or whose publisher is a vanity press, a web-hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight... With self-published sources, no one stands between the author and publication; the material may not be subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review."  It's my stance that the link shouldn't be included, but other editors are welcome to share their opinion. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to say precisely the same thing, but you beat me to it, Erik.lol. Seriously though, I was going to address the COI thing as well. While the website is interesting, the reviews are very much like blog entries, as they aren't published reviews (leading to the problems that the editor described above). Arcayne 19:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, from a quick skim it seems well-written and interesting, but I would decline to include a link for the same reasons stated above. But thanks for coming to talk & not posting direct to the page --Javits2000 19:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, it's Scott. I see what you are saying about the COI issue and the fact checking... I consider the piece to be more interpretation than information, and I don't see anything else on the page addressing the aspects of sexuality of the film: that while the Ancient Greeks were known to live in a society that valued homosexuality, the Spartans in this film are all very devoted heterosexuals. This is an aspect of the film that seems to just slide by without any discussion at all. I thought it was worth considering for those interested in the film, but perhaps Wiki is not the place for it. Thanks. 
204.95.152.66 20:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article on why the Spartans were made heterosexual for the movie 

message: I have protected the article again. The edit warring is has not been non-stop, but it's become enough of a problem here to warrant a cool-down period. Please try to settle the issues at hand here as soon as possible. When the protection expires, it will return to no protection. If you feel semi-protection is still needed then, go to WP:RPP to make the appropriate request. -- tariqabjotu 02:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article protected 

message: Can an admin add a citation tag to the end of the first paragraph? It doesn't reference anywhere that the film has been criticized for its depiction of the ancient world. Talk User:Fissionfox 12:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please wait until the protection is lifted, and then you will be able to add the fact tag yourself. CMummert · talk 12:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already in the lead section.  That's the last sentence of the third paragraph, which discusses how the film was received.  It doesn't belong in the first paragraph because it wouldn't fit with what is being discussed there.  Hewinsj 13:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit 

message: How confused the Greeks would have been about this whole argument... (not to mention the absurd idea of democracy being applied to knowledge gathering, but I digress) If anything this film tells the story in the closest possible modern generic style in the spirit of ancient story-telling. Why does it matter? Let them call it fiction, wholly fiction, mostly fiction, semi-fictional fiction... If it helps people with their lives, sure: let them go tell the Spartans... Jgda 07:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who are you referring to when you say 'them', Jgda?  Arcayne 08:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact and fiction 

message: 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
:::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 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.
 Arcayne 11:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this; I've removed one exact duplicate from the list above and fixed the numbers. My personal preference is for No. 1; I'm not terribly happy with 3 or 4, simply because I would rather remove the reference to the 300 Spartans. (If I understand correctly, the story is that Miller saw the film as a kid and that was the origin of his interest in the battle; but that's more psychobiography than a crucial bit of information). So either 1 or 2 would be fine with me.--Javits2000 10:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you want, I've added the last two w/out the 60's movie reference, fixing the grammar with the removal (indicated by ital.) Arcayne 11:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I find 1, 2, 4, and 6 all to be perfectly acceptable; 1 is my personal preference. But I frankly haven't cared much one way or the other throughout this whole discussion, so I'ld like to hear from the editors who have strong opinions on the subject, which of these options would be acceptable. --Javits2000 12:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Tough choice. I wouldn't argue if either of the first two were picked, but I'll go with #1.  I'd also move the 300 spartans reference to the graphic novel's article if that was the case. Hewinsj 12:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd be fine with either #1 or #2, but #1 bothers me in the sense that the film is being tied specifically into that category.  Doesn't seem inappropriate, but I've no idea on the emphasis on the historical or fictional natures of that genre. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 12:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I also prefer #1, since its context seems to emphasize that the graphic novel is a work of historical fiction, and not just the film that was adapted from it.  I also don't miss the 300 Spartans ref.  However, I would prefer to keep the year of the battle somewhere in the article, whether it be in the lead or whatever.  It's not mentioned anywhere else, which may be confusing as for the setting.  María: (habla conmigo) 13:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: #1 ftw. LilDice 17:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry I couldn't reply earlier. I'm in favour of 3, 4, 5 and 6, and strongly against 1 and 2. A "fictional account" of the Battle of Thermopylae could even imply that Leonidas or even the battle itself were a work of fiction. I feel that the "fictional" claim remains unsourced and that the Warner Bros "statement" is a red herring. Despite what the relative majority may decide, options 3, 4, 5  are unarguably the most neutral of all. Miskin 23:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase "fictional account" appears in none of the proposals above; in any case, all are linked to the historical entry on Thermopylae, in which the historical Leonidas figures prominently. I honestly don't think there's any danger of confusion. --Javits2000 00:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The current wording is beter than any of the options here. --Mardavich 04:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the user is correct in that we should also have as a choice the statments already in place, despite that they have been unreasonable enough to foment weeks of arguing. It might be why there hasn't been enough response thus far. It is included at the end of the choices.  -Arcayne 04:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And this vote is not a legitimate survey since User:Arcayne is a party to the dispute and he's cherry picked the options himself. --Mardavich 04:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sort of remark is the Wikipedia equivalent of the opposition party who refuses to back the elections, preferring to go on fighting in the country-side. Not to mention that there's no possibility of corruption here, since changing the options would have been as simple as hitting the edit button. --Javits2000 11:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  The options weren't "cherry-picked", my fine young gentleman. They were the only ones there, as little of the weeks-long bickering actually led to alternative statments. If I've missed some, it was certainly not intentional. As well, I certainly don't have to remind you to maintain civility when talking to or about other editors., AGF, please. Arcayne 04:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You should watch for civility Arcayne. I don't like your tone or how you address me as "my fine young gentleman". This is not how consensus is reached, by forcing people to vote options that are favorable to your position, and you have cherry picked. --Mardavich 04:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies for the assumption that you were either fine, young or a man. I will endeavor to keep that in mind with future edits. It wasn't meant uncivilly; what might be seenas uncivil is your accusation that a fellow editor fabricated or manipulated the available choices. Is that what you are suggesting? I think it would be important to phrase your response carefully, as you wnt to remember AGF. My position is NPOV. -Arcayne 04:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You made yet another personal attack by saying "My apologies for the assumption that you were either fine, young or a man". I am now seriously considering opening a RFC on your uncivil behavior and disruptive editing pattern on this page. And stop your harassment with putting baseless warnings on my talk page trying to intimidate me. Let me repeat it again, this survey has no legitimacy, for reasons I have already stated. If you want a real consensus survey, you have to start it all over again, in a neutral fashion, allowing users to propose their own wording instead of cherry-picking it for them.  --Mardavich 04:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  And as I stated below, including a new option just now (#7), after several people have already voted on options you had cherry-picked, makes little or no difference. The whole process is flawed, that's not how you achieve consensus. --Mardavich 04:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can see your point in that you think that, because in an oversight of not including the existing statement which had been the source of weks of contention, people are locked into their prior votes. I can assure you that they are not. I do accept the responsibility for putting all the avilable alternatives and yet forgetting to include the one already in place. It was not some grand conspiracy, Mardavich. Please, AGF, okay? Treat people as you would like to be treated. Arcayne 04:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What is this racist rant. Just because some users are Iranian it does not mean they form a coalition to make the article bias. This sort of accusations of "a coalition of Iranian editors" has no basis. Please do not make prejudiced and ill-considered accusations; it will not be tolerated. Agha Nader 17:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pick a Numbah, Any Numbah

message: Could someone remember to change "Tyler Neitzel as Young Leonidas" to "Tyler Neitzel as Leonidas (at 15 years)" and to add "Eli Snyder as Leonidas (at 7 years)". 
(I'm afraid I'll forget to. Thanks. =^.^=)
24.124.29.130 08:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the bit was in there before, and was removed - likely to trim the Cast section. That said, do you have a source for your information?   -Arcayne 11:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are listed at the IMDb page for 300.  I'm usually wary of IMDb, but it should be fine post-release because I believe they copy the credits from the end of the film to their pages.  I also checked the official website, but they're not major enough to be listed with the actual stars of the film. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Young Leonidas reminder

message: I know I am a bit late to the table here, but after having read through the discussion (on this page at least) regarding the question of whether the film is fictional, semi-fiction, 'stylized', etc., I decided to look for another example on WP to compare the way a film with a historical setting is described. Bobby (2006 film), a film released in 2006, is described as "a fictional account of the lives of several people present during the final hours in the life of the late Senator Robert F. Kennedy, a former candidate for President of the United States, on June 6, 1968." Now, responding to one of the persistent complaints that I noticed in the earlier discussion, I don't think that a person reading the Bobby article would conclude from the sentence that the assassination of Robert F Kennedy was a fictional event. Continuing with the case of Bobby, I don't think that it would be appropriate to call the film 'semi-fictional' as it is instead a fictional story set within a historical setting (in this case, the night of the RFK assassination). Does this characterization hold true for 300 as well? As has already been established, 300 (following from the graphic novel, but also as a result of independent decisions of the filmmakers) embellishes, neglects and invents facts and events to tell the story, which to me suggests that it is a fictional story that takes place within, and is inspired by (is that language that has been considered for the opening sentence?) the BoT. 
Alternatively, we could consider following the route that The Patriot (2000 film) takes and simply describe 300 as 'a film' (in this case, 'based on the graphic novel'). Just my thoughts. Cuffeparade 20:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not quite the case with 300. The film describes very accurately the series of historical events, from the Spartan warrior-citizen lifestyle, the departure of Leonidas and the 300, the attested Laconian sayings, to the "arrow shower" that killed the 300 etc. It introduces some fictional storyline such as Queen Gorgo's struggle at home, but this is something inevitable in historically-inspired films (comare to Alexander, Braveheart etc). It also introduces a fictional physical appearence of the Asian hordes the Spartans came against, a physicality which appears offensive to a certain group of viewers. Labelling the movie a "fictional account" simply gives undue weigh to the fictional element over the historical one, and it therefore reflects only one side of the story. Another problem lies on the fact that Frank Miller based much of the storyline in the histories of Herodotus, a work which is largely resented in non-western scholarship - albeit acceptable by the English WP:CITE policy. That's pretty much all there is to it. Some guy from WB called the movie "fictional" in order to defend it from various attacks, while Snyder declared that it is 90% accurate. It is unarguably a controversial topic, and this is why I suggested to remain agnostic on the subject. Nobody proposes to label it as a "historical" account, it is only "fictional" versus blank. I proposed the same thing as you did, which is clearly the most neutral approach, but a group of partisan editors have vetoed this proposal. All the inaccuracies concerning the physicality of the Persians etc are already described in detail within the article. Some irrelevant information concerning the criticism the movie received by the Iranian government and scholarship is also provided. Yet the same group of partisan editors insists on labelling the film as a plain fictional account right in the lead. I find this behaviour unorthodox and a violation of the NPOV policy. Miskin 01:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow.  This is definitely what kills my mood when it comes to editing Wikipedia. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Right backatcha.  I'm going to go curl up with Knut's article.  María (habla conmigo) 02:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The film is strongly fictional in a few areas, most notably that in reality, Spartan society was very dependant on slaves. Also, Sparta had a dual king system that isn't mentioned at all, nor that an exiled Spartan king was helping the Persians. 220.253.54.244 13:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we done with this topic? As consensus was finally reached on the subject, I will be archiving at days' end. Please address the Farokh section before, as that appears to be the only remaining debate. Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am tempted to remove the post above, as it is simply not on point, and only serves to revisit the incendiary atmosphere that has permeated this discussion from the get-go, As it has inspired an AN/I complaint, I think it doesn't belong. Of course, its existence would be preserved in the edit history. I just think it is uncessarily caustic, and some new person is bound to come, see it and take up space sommenting about it. Thoughts?  -Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Best nuked, and get down to useful editing.  Tomertalk 21:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds like a real blessing waiting to happen.  Tomertalk 23:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inspired by BoT? 

message: Completely unrelated to any of the other discussions going on right now.  We have a list of actors cast in the film.  Do we need a paragraph describing the order that they were brought on in addition to that? Hewinsj 16:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, we don't.  The encyclopedic value is pretty minimal.  I'd say to go ahead and remove them.  Watch out for destroying multiple references, though -- a citation in that passage might be tied somewhere else in the article. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a look; reference #3 is cited in both Cast and Production, with the primary citation in Cast.  When the film article is un-protected, just move the primary citation to the multi-ref tag in Production before you delete the passage. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem. Hewinsj 16:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Casting

message: In the film, Robert Maillet's character is credited as Über Immortal (Giant), not as the giant. That's the way he should be credited in this article. For the same reason, the caption of the poster image showing the character should describe him as an Immortal, not as "a 'monster' of the Persian army", a very un-encyclopedic description, as the filmmakers created him as part of their depiction of the Achaemenid Immortals in the film. Also, notice that he wears the lower half of the Immortal's armor. --Chatzaras 18:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, you're right, and Benham and I were wrong. It's been confirmed as such. I offer my apologies for the revert. :) Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's okay. --Chatzaras 18:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I admit I have never seen this film.  The Behnam 19:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rober Maillet's character