Talk:300 (film)/Archive 8

message: This is Rumor Control. Here are the facts: 
An archiving of inactive topics will be perfromed within 36 hours from the time of this posting. Please consider Beginning new headers for those topics which have grown too long under their current header. As was performed last time, I will be creating a summary of the headers at the top with a brief description and link to the previous header. For dessert, we will be offering a nicely tartened sorbet of responses, a chocolate cake (hold the depiction) and a glass of water, either half-empty or half-full, depending on your preference. Gratuities are excepted. :D  -Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not archive the vote, before the consensus is first applied. --Mardavich 23:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. Please take a moment to re-read the above posting, Mardavich. I am sure you read the part about how only those sections that are inactive will be archived. Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no consensus Mardavich, the topic proved itself controversial, therefore NPOV applies. Miskin 00:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, the voting section may appear "inactive" to you, but it's not concluded. So I wanted to make sure that you are not archiving it. And there is a consensus emerging (70% or more from the votes) , so if the few who don't like the outcome try to disrupt it, we will take higher measures.--Mardavich 00:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, yes. We all heard the threat before from you. You might consider that issuing such a threat - even a redacted one is considered both a bad faith action as well as a personal threat. I would encourage you to abide by the rules of our community, or face the difficulties encountered when one cannot play well with others.   -Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not a threat, it's a promise. If you don't abide by the rules of Wikipedia such as Wikipedia:Consensus, WP:AGF, WP:Civility, there will be consequences, I am willing to take this issue all the way to the ArbCom. --Mardavich 00:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Calm down, my post was not addressed at you in particular, but anyone who tries to disrupt due process, which is why I edited a few times  to make it clear who I was speaking to. --Mardavich 00:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I said there is a consensus emerging, we'll know the exact numbers once the voting has concluded. --Mardavich 00:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the proof on outside canvassing provided by Behnam earlier? I know you have already rationalised it as a hoax, and it may truly be the case, however until such a hypothesis is proved the vote must remain officially cancelled. Miskin 00:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  LOL, nice try. That was no conclusive proof of anything. The burden of proof is on the people making the accustions of canvassing. Regardeless, that message was posted AFTER everyone had alerady voted here, so it's irrelevant, and no the vote doesn't "remains officially cancelled". No one can disrupt the due process, just because they don't like the result. --Mardavich 01:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If everyone is done voting, er, why are we waiting around for "consensus" that will never come?  I think this dead horse has been beaten into an ugly, smelly, bloody pulp and it's time it was hosed out of the barn before the paint begins to peel.  (Yeesh!)  In other words, can't we just stop?  I honestly see no problem with the lead as it presently stands.  María (habla conmigo) 01:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The consensus will be clear once all the votes are counted. I think we should count the votes on April 20, that means two weeks after the vote started. --Mardavich 01:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Whatever, this isn't getting anywhere (as predicted). To me this is a simple question of NPOV, to you it is a matter of consensus. To you a "consensus" of 49%-51% is as good as anything, to me such a result is not a consensus at all. To you the fact that Iranian editors form an absolute majority over the total number of voters means nothing, to me it does. To you the vote was never biased in any way, to me it was. To you things like pseudo-consensus, edit-warring and numerical superiority counts over NPOV, to me it does not. I'm willing to ellaborate about all this within context. From my part you're free to take any measures you want, it's your head at stake. Just hope that ArbCom will share your reasoning over mine. Miskin 01:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Miskin, please don't make assumptions about what different things mean to me or "what is what" to me. Thank you.--Mardavich 02:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not forget that it was Arcayne that initiated the vote. Did not he know that "Iranian editors form an absolute majority"? If he did not know, what has changed that has made you so sure that "Iranian editors form an absolute majority"? --Agha Nader 02:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) Agha Nader, I fail to see what your implications of Arcayne's actions have anything to do with this conversation.  You agreed to the voting when you, yourself placed a vote.  Please remain topical as well as civil and keep snide remarks to yourself.  María (habla conmigo) 02:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see []. My comment was not snide at all. It was very civil. I will ask it again: Did not Arcayne know that "Iranian editors form an absolute majority"? If he did not know, what has changed that has made him so sure that "Iranian editors form an absolute majority"? Should he not have brought this up before the vote? What is the evidence that shows that "Iranian editors form an absolute majority"? Please refrain from calling my comments snide, as that can be an ill-considered accusation. --Agha Nader 03:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Besides, even if we act discriminatory (which we won't) and exclude all "Iranian editors"  and "Greek editors", the result would remain the same, number 7 would still be in the lead. --Mardavich 02:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Ha!  The discussion page, it would seem.  God speed.  María (habla conmigo) 02:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll definitely put this on after it resolves... assuming that happens.  The Behnam 02:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving Soon

message: This is Rumor Control. Here are the facts:
As previously advised, an archiving of inactive topics was performed after notice of the previous posting. As was performed last time, a summary of the archived section headers is at the top of this page with a brief description and link to the previous header. The voting portion was partially archived, retaining the choices still remaining to be voted upon, and links to where prior votes have been noted and/or tallied. Please do not remove those links, or alter the voting choices. 
Your in-flight movie will be 300, playing in endless loop. For dessert, we will be offering a nicely tartened sorbet of responses, a chocolate cake (hold the depiction) and a glass of water, either half-empty or half-full, depending on your preference. Gratuities are acccepted, but a simple 'thank you' will also be appreciated :D -Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had politely asked you not to archive the vote section, but you still did it. You were previously warned by an admin about such archiving, so DO NOT archive the vote, all votes should be visible until the voting has concluded. --Mardavich 21:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the votes are both recorded and viewable in two different ways, why should you be bothered by the presence of the same voting choices, links to the vote in the archive, and two separate folks' accounting of the voting (yours is one of them)? I presume you asked me not to archive it bc you thought, not really AGF, that i was somehow concealing them. They are not concealed at all. However, the Talk Page doesn't need to be cluttered up with a vote/survey that you say is likely going to go to ArbCom anyway. We have other matters to discuss. And while I had archived too early last time - for which i have accepted responsibility and apoloigized at least twice - I have learned from that lesson. Perhaps you might want to take a longer look at what was done instead of just becoming frustrated because another editor considered your advice and went a different way. Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: To clarify, as at least one user appears to have missed it, here is the part that shows the links to all the votes and their place in the archive as well:
Note: (Prior votes can be found here and in the form of Diffs (here and here. The prior record of the votes that was archived can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:300_%28film%29/Archive_10#Pick_a_Numbah.2C_Any_Numbah.2C_Take_2 here). If you have not voted on this topic before, please feel free to add your vote below.
I guess I am unclear as to why anyone would think that votes already cast would interfere with new voters that might arrive. Please feel free to illuminate us all. And no, the arguments presented 'are what matters' is not a valid argument. Folks coming here are to vote on their opwn opinions, and not just parroting what someone else said. If they cannot make an informed vote of the presented choices, then perhaps voting is not something they should be doing. Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving Performed

message: I changed the wikilink of Persian from Achaemenid Empire to Persian Empire. It is strange if Persian (which referes to the nationality) be linked to the name of the dynasty. (Shahingohar 02:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Under that logic you should link to the nationality, not an 'empire,' as that is really no different.  And if we are going to keep empires, then we ought to specify the link to the empire that the king was part of.  The Behnam 02:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Persian here means someone who comes from country of Persia not someone from Achaemenid Empire.  (Shahingohar 02:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then change it to the nationality, not the empire.  The Behnam 02:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  you mean Persian people? There is a problem. To me that article does not make clear if it is talking about Persian as an ethnicity(like kurds, lurs ...) or Iranians in general. If Persian people is about the ethnicity; linking Persian to it is not appropriate. (Shahingohar 03:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what is not clear.  The king is generally considered ethnic Persian, but I'm not sure if that is even a useful wikilink.  I'm going to make a change; tell me what you think.  The Behnam 03:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't worry Mardavich already changed it, but he also suggested that the link go to Achaemenid Empire, as it did before you made a change.  I think it is best as well, so please say why Persian Empire should replace Achaemenid Empire in this situation, as your reasoning completely eludes me.  The Behnam 03:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't understand why when I tried to explain that King Xerxes was the Emperor of Persia, it was so controversial because it wasn't mentioned in the film but now lets see, in the film it never said anything about the Achaemenid empire did it?! lets remember that it was a fantasy not historical!! --Rayis 10:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't open the same argument under a different banner, Rayis. The largest argument is in regards to the fictional versus historical depth of the film. It may certainly constitute the lamest agumetn I have seen recently, but until one side or the other decides to focus on the article instead of an unrelated agenda, another alternative should be proffered. Having the link for the Persian Empire correctly link to the Achaemenid empire seems fair to me, even thought the current link to the Persian Empire provides a fairly comprehensive listing of the different stages of said empire. anyone reading the article (and yes, historians read it too; we aren't playing to the lowest common denominator here but to the majority) will know to seek out the appropriate era. Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Persian Wikilink

message: I think we should add a Effect on Pop Culture section about the phrases like This is madness and the image macro of Leonidas.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.50.195.83 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 19 Apr 2007  (UTC)
:Must we? I dont support it. In any case Madness redirects to Sparta half the time. Hornplease 10:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop Culture effect 

message: I think the "political aspects" section needs serious cleanup. Currently there is too many unbalanced and unsubstantiated quotations from various all but serious sources. For example, there is number of rude and doubtful quotes from not well known or respected journalists and critics (Dana Stevens, Gene Seymour, etc), who I don't think need to be quoted at all in an encyclopedic article. I think to make this section look good, we need to remove most of the critics quotes, leaving only few example of both positive and negative critique. I would at least remove the ridiculous quotation regarding "incitement to total war", but most of the others as well. In fact, most of the quotation are rather silly and twaddle, hardly worth quoting. Maybe we should even leave only a general dissuasion about political occasions and studio/director response, removing the quotes all together. Beside, there is a need to make an explicit notice in some way (maybe start the section with) that all the political aspects are not necessary intended by movie/comics creators. I.e. something like "Some attribute the movie with numerous political aspects..." or "Despite the WB studio claims, many find number of political themes in the film...". --Zigmar 14:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political aspects clean-up 

message: I've noticed that the 'Historical Accuarcy' section of the article has left out some clear facts:
Firstly, it has not discussed the fact that Herodotus' estimation of the total number in Xerxes' army is disputed by all but the most ignorant historians on the face of the planet!  The film suggests a million men fought the Spartans.  Yes, the Spartans were outnumbered, but certainly by that great extent.  Most historians believe that the figure that should be attributed is 100,000 men.  Even then, it does not take into account the fact that Xerxes would have left behind men to garrison the occupied territories in Greece that had been conquered beforehand, including Macedonia.  And, there's also the fact that a large number of men with sailors onboard Persian ships; and that many soldiers and sailors were killed when a Persian fleet was caught up in a storm and destroyed (which I'm glad the film did depict).
Also, the cloting and equipment of the soldiers was all wrong.  Granted, they did get the Spartans right to a great extent, but there are so many woeful areas lacking in regards to the Persians, including armour and the use of horses.
Thirdly, which really annoys me, is that the film claims that the war started with the Spartans going to confront the Persians at Thermopylai.  It didn't!  The Greeks, including the Athenians et al, had decided to confront the Persians much earlier.  Just before the battle at Thermopylai, the Greeks fought a battle at Artemision.  There was never any doubt that the Spartans would go to war after it had been decided by the majority of Greek states.  The film claims that the Spartan amry couldn't go because of a major religious event.  That did stop the Spartans from going to the Athenian's aid at the Battle of Marathon, but that didn't apply in the suituation that had now been presented.
Fourthly, as I've just said, ALL Greeks participated in some way during the war.  In fact, it was the Athenian navy who turned the tide at the Battle of Salamis.
Anyway, there are a lot more facts that I had in my mind, but I've forgotton them for the moment.  Give me a few minutes and the anger will swell up again :).
Basically, there are a lot of things which have been ommised, and I hope that the ok is given for me to update the article in the section I've specified.
EasyPeasy21 15:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For commentary by others regarding reception, which can be sourced. It is quite enough for Wikipedia to provide a sourced, verifiable and reliable statement that says something to the effect of "The costumes and weapons and events were historically innacurrate." Also,repeatedly throughout the article it is mentioned how the visualization is exaggerated. Further mention would be redundant. If you can provide sourced and non-redundant information regarding historical inaccuracy that won't bloat the article, that would be perfect. Peptuck 19:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm . .. 1869, 1908, 1908, 1887 . . . got anything less than 100 years old? Jackmitchell 20:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems pretty clear to me that there is no consensus on the actual number of soldiers on the Persian side (although I might argue that the exact number is not so important - the point is the Spartan-led Greeks were greatly outnumbered), but I must say that it is rather amusing to see late 19th and early 20th century scholars being discredited as "outdated" when the most significant account is more than 2,000 years old! Cuffeparade 09:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: And even more amusing that people are arguing about this in a film article, instead of the actual article for the BoT! The film says millions, and all the fuss of last month (and the month before that) was about how this movie is a fictional re-telling of the event. In the film, it says millions, and arguing the point when not event he experts themselves are in disagreement seems like soapboxing. Might we move on? Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information missing regarding 'Historical accuracy' 

message: Um....Does anyone think this article should have qoutes?
:Do you mean quotes from the film itself?  If so, they're listed at Wikiquote, which is linked to at the bottom of the page.  Therefore, it's not necessary to add them to this article.  Please see http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/300.  María (habla conmigo) 21:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes

message: Did someone call for an conclusion/end to the Vote of No Consensus? I don't recall seeing any such post, except for mine, which was immediately rejected. So, if we have not had an end to voting, why are these edits popping up:
*1
:::reverted 2
*3
*4
:::reverted yet again 5
Excuse me, but isn't this precisely the sort of edit-warring, clownish nonsense that using Discussion was supposed to avoid? Leave the lead alone until a consensus is arrived at. The voting isn't completed, and cartainly, consensus has not been reached.
 I proposed an alternative that essentially sidesteps the entire argument. Of course, it was reverted by...well, saying partisans would be AGF, wouldn't it? Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although you may feel consensus has not been reached, the majority of people voted for the current version (#7/8). Thus it was implemented. If another consensus is reached we will implement it. But currently the lead will reflect the discussion we have had. --Agha Nader 15:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry, but was a call for an end to voting posted somewhere? I thought not. Please read consensus a lot more carefully, please. The vote is nine for #1 and twelve for #7. That isn't even a majority according to Wiki standards. And yes, I am not not counting those votes from people who have less than 100 edits in the english language WP, and consider those votes from folk who came here out of the blue to vote before disappearing back into that blue suspect and invalid as well. Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User Arcayne says "Voting will end on Thursday, April 13th, one week after the choices were posted." Then Arcayne asks "was a call for an end to voting posted somewhere?" and answers his own question: "I thought not". This user should think again.--Agha Nader 23:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, Agha, you have presented only part of the conversation, and the wrong part of it, as well. Yes indeedy, I did in fact suggest that the vote end after a certain date, and it was rejected immediately by Mardavich. Khorshid and - curiously enough - yourself, You rejected everything about it. So, the discussion of the closing of the vote never recurred, especially in the face of the accusations of meat-puppetry and vote-canvassing. Of course, if you happen to find such a conversation occurring here in the Discussion area before it ended quite suddenly, I'd be surprised to see it. This is not the first time you have chosen to be uncivil and fail to AGF through a somewhat deceptive interpretation of another's edits. This appears to be an observational, repetitive issue with you. Perhaps your time would be better spent editing and less time planning out how to burn your fellow editors. Cheers.Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not make ill-considered accusations. If you are going to assert that I did not AGF, elaborate and provide evidence. More importantly, you proposed a vote, we voted, and now the result of the vote is represented in the article. If a new consensus is reached, surely it will be represented in the article.--Agha Nader 18:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I never make ill-considered accusations, sir. This isn't really the place to provide the copious diffs of your behavior. However, you rather made my point for me: I had proposed an ending to the vote, which you and others rejected outright, and only now want to follow it. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. However, I am willing to concede the point for now, despite the fact that you don't really have a consensus according to Wikipedia. That said, the moment the consensus changes, so too will the lead,a nd I am glad you agree with that, and are agreeing to not belabor the point more.Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow I go away for a while and come back to find out that some things never change. I've been waiting for someone to start an official WP:DR before changing the status quo. Apparently the people who favour the "fictional" label do not seem to be too confident about the neutrality of their views. Miskin 15:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It more like my bless. Observe how often pseudo-consensus collides with by NPOV, and how easily it is resolved. Per NPOV all significant views need to be mentioned, i.e. we either mention all or nothing. Since you have reverted the "nothing" twice, I assume you'd like to go with the "all". Miskin 15:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Excuse me

message: Does anyone know if the early life of Leonida is presented accurately in this film?
:We don't know, as neither he nor Herodotus are granting any interviews at the present time. :) Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Allthough the film itself was very accurate, the part about Leonidas's young life couldn't have been. The right of passage to manhood was the key thing that was changed (actual Spartan's had to strangle a man with their bare hands, not be left alone in the wild). Other than that though, it was a very accurate film. DurotarLord 03:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  historical accuracy 

message: Can someone fix the link for reference #57? It has an extra "http://" in it. Starcraftmazter 09:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it. Sbn1984 18:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference Mistake 

message: i think the trailer has been used a few times to be used as different shows, movies (i.e. sandlot) and appeard on the internet sites such as YouTube. should we add this? this is like the brokeback parodies too. Nocarsgo 02:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet Phenomenon 

message: Has the article's prior issues been resolved so that the article will be stable enough to renominate for GA? I don't want the article to be renominated and then delisted later again down the road if there are still issues that need to be addressed. I'm impressed with the large amount of work that was put in the article, and believe that it would be great to get it back up to GA. What do you guys think? --Nehrams2020 08:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in the middle of seeking mediation about the violation of NPOV per WP:UNDUE in the lead. So we should wait a little bit longer. Miskin 12:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just let me know when you guys think the article is alright and I'll nominate it. Or you guys can do it yourselves when you think it's ready. --Nehrams2020 17:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Being the editor who delisted 300 from GA status based on this classification dispute that is still ongoing, I think it's clear that there are still issues among editors regarding the wording in the lead paragraph.  The DVD release of this film in the coming year may still revive similar sentiments even after this situation may die down, so I'm not sure if the article will be stabilized for a while yet. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article stability

message: Under the plot section, it says, "The Spartans use the phalanx formation and hand to hand combat to fight off numerous waves of attackers," Is use of hand to hand here really appropriate? Judging by what the article itself actually says and from common sense, it doesn't really seem to be the correct words to use. Homan2006 12:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, Homan2006. What would you recommend? Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would go for something like, "The Spartans use the Phalanx formation and their Xystons," but just something that sounds better. I actually think that whole sentence doesn't sound very good. Homan2006 00:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Spartans alternated between using the phalanx formation against waves of attackers, and close quarters combat using both Spear and sword."  Any better? Hewinsj 05:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me Homan2006 12:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Might I suggest another alternative? "The Spartans fight off waves of attackers using the phalanx formation and weapons." (remember that Leonidas told the Athenians that they wouldn't run out of spears, as they would take them from the dead Persians). -Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, that's done. :) Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I saw the edit in the article (you should really bring those here first, you know) and liked it. Do you think there might be a leaner way to say the same thing? Is there a way to condense the text? Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hand to Hand

message: The last sentence under "reviews" says "... Spartan Queen serving no major narrative purpose except to be serviced by Leonidas and raped by Theron."
The Spartan Queen "agreed" to have sex with Theron. She slipped off her clothing "strap" after he told her what he wanted in exchange for his cooperation.  I think it amounts more to prostitution than rape.
(Sorry if I made any mistakes, I don't often contribute, but I just wanted to point that out.)
69.179.52.155 02:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, she most definately was raped. see the article over at rape "The lack of valid consent does not necessarily mean that the victim explicitly refused to give consent. Generally, consent is considered invalid if it is obtained from someone who is:" and a list of things which includes as the first item "Under any kind of duress (force, violence, blackmail, etc.)" Theron threatened to scandalize her by starting rumors that would ruin her and hinted that he might even like to kill her. Now, as far as I'm concerned, that counts as a valid cause of duress. Furthermore, much like the encounter between Theron and Gorgo "the primary cause of rape is an aggressive desire to dominate the victim rather than an attempt to achieve sexual fulfillment." Just because she submitted doesn't mean she consented. Cheesechimp 06:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...yeah, let's stay away from this particular argument, shall we, gents? The 21st century pan-dimensional definition of rape is probably not equivalent to what it was in the 'Way Back. People have choices now that they didn't necessarily have back then. Political correctness has no place here in this article. Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I maintain that she was raped but User:217.40.26.169 has a point, the article that is being adressed in the context never mentions the rape, so I removed it as it's putting words into the reviewer's mouth. Cheesechimp 14:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It isn't so much as that the reviewer was wrong or right regarding the issue, it's more that the reviewer didn't even mention the issue. by removing the mention of the rape ("...with the Spartan Queen serving no major narrative purpose except to be serviced by Leonidas and raped by Theron." became "...with the Spartan Queen serving no major narrative purpose except to be serviced by Leonidas.") I feel I adjusted the wording of the article to better fit the views expressed by the reviewer. Cheesechimp 09:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Spartan Queen was not "raped." 

message: "Derek Malcolm, writing in the London Evening Standard found beneath the "perfunctory" acting a subtext of homophobia, with the effete, "boy-loving" Persians inevitably succumbing to the "macho posturing" of the Spartans ... " .  
Unfortunately, Derek Malcolm mistakes the object of the phrase "boy-loving".  Leonidas tells the Persian emissary: "See, rumor has it the Athenians have already turned you down. And if those philosophers and boy-lovers have found that kind of nerve then--" - implying that Sparta would not submit to Xerxes, especially if Athens did not, and that some Athenians are boy-lovers.
So Persians are not a target of any homophobia. Only the reviewer's phrasing implies that Persian body-piercings suggest boy-love or weakness. The only "effete" Persian depicted in he film is the heavily pierced Xerxes himself; this stylization of enemy leaders as effeminate is both part of the subjective narrative, and typical of propaganda.  That the film includes an instance of "homophobic" speech, one "effeminate" depiction and no "heterophobia" is the only "homophobic" bias which can be inferred based on the film itself.
The fragmented quote of the Malcolm review lends voice-of-WP authority to the errors themselves.
So, what to do? The review is inaccurate, but only viewers would know this.
*Should it be trimmed in the article to include only opinion based on the actual story?
*Should it be expanded with comment to indicate the inaccuracy, or
*Should it be removed and replaced with another review which gets the story right?
Thanks.
--Lexein 12:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lexein, I think you should find a better review that discusses the same topic, but is more accurate. nce found, then we should purge the existing, inaccurate review. As well, give us your take on the actual merits of the Malcolm review. Does it introduce some actually notable, or is it just filler? If the former, we need to find something to replace it. If the latter, it should be consigned to the Land of Misfit Toys of whatever (aka, removed). Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with Derek Malcolm review: provocative misrepresentation of film