Talk:300 (film)/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

What was archived



RFC Historical Accuracy

A particularly extensive discussion regarding the suitability for inclusion of Toyraj Daryaee’s specific comment that addresses the historical accuracy of the movie ‘300’ has reached a dead-end. Talsal 16:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I will take this chance to reiterate my objections; firstly, that we cannot judge the term 'democracy' by modern standards for historical accuracy (historical democracies are still called democracies regardless of the proportion of voters), second, the definition of slavery is applied in the economic sense, rather than the correct political rights sense, and, lastly, Sparta in this period was not a 'military monarchy' (if you cast your eyes endlessly upwards, you will see why the term is inapplicable outside Archaic and Classical tyrannies) and that there is a consensus by historians that Sparta was, by 480, a state in which 'sovereignty' was held by the (popularly elected by enfranchised citizenry) 'ephorate alone.' I am aware that the citations that I have made are not specifically in regard to the film, but that seems, at least to myself, irrelevant. As, so I am informed, exclusion should occur if it is shown that 'it is insignificant or represents a "tiny minority" (i.e. fringe).' As I have demonstrated, the position of all published works is that the (essentially democratic) ephorate is sovereign at this stage, and I am yet to see any actual evidence to the contrary (other than Daryaee of course). Even if it is concluded that his remaining criticisms are valid, it is utterly irresponsible to include his statements on Spartan sovereign rule. I know that other users do not like to respond to 'all points' but would love to see a modern perspective supporting of Daryaee, which can be the only reason for keeping him in without edit. Notthemanbehindthecurtain 12:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I refrain from commenting in this section, as the best that can come out of the RFC would be the introduction of new voices to the discussion. --Javits2000 13:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course, there would be no need for new voices if you would offer up the requested proof mentioned; just one example of a modern historian other than Daryaee asserting Sparta, in 480, is a 'military monarchy' with no democratic apparatus. [User:Notthemanbehindthecurtain|Notthemanbehindthecurtain]] 15:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
That was a cheap shot, Nottheman. He's made his points countless times, as have you. If he chooses to await fresh voices, be a bit graceful, pipe down and let him. Allow for the Comment to occur without jockeying to have the last word. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

My full apologies, such a remark was unnecessary, it just seemed to me that the decent thing to do would either to have replied or stayed silent rather than commenting that 'I refrain from commenting.' What I mean to address is the fact that throughout this discussion Javits has claimed that the 'characterisation of Sparta is in dispute' which, while undeniably true, ignores the fact that this particular area has never been disputed and I was simply asking for evidence that would prove Daryaee to be more than 'fringe' and would demonstrate him to actually be a 'significant...opinion' regarding the topic. I have heard arguments for his inclusion, but, to take an extreme, there were probably idiots who denied features of Schindler's List. That we don't include their remarks is obvious; why then do we include the similarly unfounded ideas of Daryaee? Clear support would largely end this debate, I imagine, if it could be obtained- barring the original and demonstrably out-of-context statements of Mommsen of course. Notthemanbehindthecurtain 15:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.128.195 (talk)

Okay, I can understand how you could possibly interpret his post incorrectly. I think he was speaking up, letting people know he was still interested in resolving the matter, whereas staying silent could have been interpreted that he was absent.
Now it is clear that the RfC isn't going to happen - at least for you - until you sign up for an account. Dude, you can even use your IP number, if you are desperately concerned over privacy issues or whatnot. The point is, if you don't sign up, chances are you are going to be handled with kid gloves and shooed out of the room when the Big Kids (the registered and established users) sit down to the table. I have advised you on at least three prior occasions to consider this (including on your User Talk page). I am unclear as to why this is an issue for you. It is clear that the RfC will not alow you to participate without registering. If you are operating as a doppleganger, then you need to let someone know about that. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven’t witnessed the ‘RfC’ procedure before but I doubt wiki users will show increased interest in the future. I think we should move on with a mediation request. If we all agree maybe Javits could prepare a new one. Talsal 02:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me; it's not terribly complicated & I trust one of y'all to be able to submit a request. Please note that NTMBTC will have to figure out how to log in to his account if we are to proceed. --Javits2000 17:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Include - I can't believe people are considering omitting criticism from a respected historian. 1of3 02:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don’t think the RFC process helped much. I understand that the Mediation process is accepted only if there is a willingness of the involved parties to settle to a mutually accepted solution. I don’t think either of the parties will settle for the opposite to their views inclusion or exclusion of D. If the pro D side is willing to settle for the placement of D in another section the process would make sense although we could do that ourselves without proceeding to formal mediation. If not however, then we should proceed to arbitration. It seems NTMBTC is not available for a while now and I would suggest the rest of us continue with what needs to be done. I suppose Javits would accept to participate in the arbitration but would Arcayne or any other care to take part? Talsal 10:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I will participate in the process. however, I think that if the anon user doesn't put together an ID, it won;t go anywhere. Not to be all harsh, but if the anon user wants to pursue this, (s)he is going to have to put togehter an ID to contribute. Otherwise, I am in favor of arriving at a decision that excludes the anon's comments. If they aren't willing to work through a process they recommended, then they don't get to contribute to the solution. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 10:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Talsal might have a point about mediation / arbitration; the major difference is that the former is not binding, the latter is. But I still think there might be some good to resubmitting the case for mediation; if nothing else it gains us a more considered third-party opinion -- exactly what we were hoping to find in the RFC. If the resulting opinion does not lead to a mutually acceptable compromise, then we can go to arbitration afterwards. But I imagine that there are possible compromise solutions that we have not seen, as the entire conversation (with a few exceptions) has been structured around "include" or "exclude."
It would be a shame if NTMBTC could not participate, since he is largely responsible for initiating this conversation so many months ago, and has posed a number of arguments that deserve a full hearing. I suggest that we wait a few days and see if he writes in here. His account does still exist, and if it is simply a matter of a forgotten password or something, there are of course ways to resolve such issues. --Javits2000 13:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

(partial section remaining in Discussion)


Pop Culture

Did anyone see the 1776 spoofing of 300 done appearing in Robot Chicken? It was a pretty accurate parody, as far as RC tends to go... - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to propose this addition to the reception section, following Controversy:
Popular Culture (subsection)
Since its release, 300 has been spoofed in various media, the internet pnenomenon of the meme of "this is Sparta!",[1] it has also spread into films and television. 20th Century Fox is planning a 2008 release of Meet the Spartans, a spoof comedy of among others, 300 and Stomp the Yard.[2] Universal Studios is planning a similar parody entitled National Lampoon's 301: The Legend of Awesomest Maximus Wallace Leonidas.[3]
300 spoofs began appearing shortly after the film's release, starting with United_300, a short film by Andy Signore that won the MTV Movie Spoof Award at the 2007 MTV movie awards. Other parodies have appeared in comedy skits from American programs such as Saturday Night Live and Robot Chicken.[4] In Robot Chicken episode #50 "Moesha Poppins", theoft-copied styles utilized in 300 were mimicked in a parody of the American Revolutionary War,[5] entitled "`1776". As in many other instances, the meme of "This is Sparta" was replaced by another phrase; in this case, by a muscular, broad-chested George Washington shouting to his British Army adversary, "this is America!"[6]
- Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://howtosplitanatom.com/news/how-to-explore-internet-memes/
  2. ^ http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/meet_the_spartans/news/1681122/
  3. ^ http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ national_lampoons_christmas_vacation_2_cousin_eddies_big_island_adventure/news/1676825/
  4. ^ http://backwardfive.com/2007/03/24/saturday-night-live-march-24-2007/
  5. ^ http://www.weshow.com/us/p/20903/1776_robot_chicken_300_spoof
  6. ^ http://www.tv.com/robot-chicken/moesha-poppins/episode/1129271/summary.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=episodessh&tag=episodes;title;1

Okay, since no one seems to care one way or the other, I'll add it in. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

And since it was rightly pulled for lack of citation (rightly so, in retrospect), it will sit here until someone noteworthy writes sth of value about it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Except for the reference for the Internet meme, the other references seem sufficient. (I'd suggest moving the last one to the very end to encompass it all.) I find the Internet meme to be the most tricky part -- the current reference does not seem to be a reliable source, being a blog of sorts possessing Youtube content, which seems like a rights issue. (Not sure if it would apply, but what if a certain clip originated on another person's site and was not meant to be shared elsewhere so credit could be preserved, but it was taken for this collection of clips anyway?) Such a link is akin to linking to a gallery of superhero fan art and saying in the Wikipedia article about superheroes, "Some fans like to draw superheroes." It's not verifiable content in the truest sense, and I think that we can do better finding reliable sources covering the Internet meme. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I see your point about the internet meme thing.I spend t a good long time finding the one I did, and it seemed pretty much the best of the lot, and i only addressed the text of the reference, and not the linked video. Considering that it is a review site, and not simply "this is funny", I think it will do until someone puts together their doctoral thesis on the cultural impact of Robot Chicken. thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've readded the section, after putting in a number of requested citations and an image that I uploaded after receiving permission from the artist to use in Wikipedia. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Since when are Persians black?

Something should be included in this article about how the Persians/Iranians are inaccurately depicted as being black, as in from Sub-Saharan Africa. In real life, most have almost a Mediterranean appearance not much different than the Greeks themselves and many southern Italians and southern Spaniards. Some even are almost indistinguishable from Anglo-Saxons. 168.103.81.188 15:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This topic is addressed in many of the archives, chiefly because folk don't check the archives before asking. the film was an interpretation - a fairly close interpretation, I think everyone will agree - to Frank Miller's graphic novel, 300. You might want to address your comments there, instead. Have a good day. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:300_(film)/Archive_12&oldid=512669498"