Talk:Spartacus (TV series)

Crassus

I noticed this article does not once mention Crassus. Will he make an appearance in season two, and who will play him? - Mdriver1981 (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing

Netflix is also airing the series. The episodes are released as streaming content within a short time after airing live in the United States.

It says citation needed. I am a netflix subscriber and have watched the show on netflix. I know this is original research, how do I cite the netflix site, when you have to log in to view it? Vettrock (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You'd have to cite a written transcript from a RS. It's also available on iTunes, with two free episodes ;-) I don't think they can be cited either.... -- Brangifer (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Just find some decent news site (hell, call your local newspaper and/or TV station and ask them to mention it) that mentions the episodes on Netflix and that will suffice. —Eekerz ^(t) 11:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

All sources SHOULD (edit that did say must...but that's not true) be written and published to be useful to the reader and any reference to an episode or the show itself can (that did say cannot, but that's not true. Weused to have a strike out line but i don't see it now) use video presentations designed as entertainment as a reference, but should be so only when the specific reference is needed to illustrate the what the episode is. It SHOULD NEVER be used to varify a claim, even if you are only claiming a quote. As stated above you should reference a written text, the script(it is a puplished document) a transcript or mention of the line. New editors, please take a moment to review the MOS guidlines here Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

Another good way to better understand how to contribute to this article may be by reading the articles on similar subjects, such as Rome (TV series).--Amadscientist (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Be aware that while you may be able to format a television episode as a reference, many editors will not accept these as references ON the article about the show itsef as MOS states;

1.the material is not unduly self-serving; 2.it does not involve claims about third parties; 3.it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5.the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Try not to use the episode IF it can be avoided as this is not a fan page and the reliablility of such sourcing may be tinted by OR, or POV.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Synopsis Section

Is this going to continue to get additions throughout the season while the short summaries on individual episodes are also updated? Because it's getting pretty unwieldy and I'm wondering if there isn't a better way. I'm pretty good at pairing down wordy text and would be happy to do it but I'm not entirely certain what needs to be there so I thought I'd ask before I went poking around in there. Millahnna (mouse)talk 22:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably best to par down the synopsis section gradually, as the series progresses and the importance of various plot lines becomes clearer. Thus for example the bits about Crixus and Naevia and the necklace can probably go eventually, unless the issue suddenly becomes really important.Catiline63 (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess my point is that it seems like the bulk of that material could be worked into the episode summaries instead. So far, it is literally a paragraph-per-episode recap of each installment so I'm a little confused why it's there like that. Am I making any sense? It are my birthday so I has a dumb today. Millahnna (mouse)talk 00:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

True, most of it could be deleted, over-detailing, part of it could be moved to the episode list, to make the summaries more like summaries than teasers, what they are now. Part of it could also be replaced to the Cast and characters, for example the part about Barca's death etc. (Happy Birthday Millahnna!) _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 07:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. If no one has any objections then, I'll start poking at it sometime this weekend. So far, plots are really my thing so I'm not sure what to move around to the cast sections and the like. So with my uncertainty in mind, I think what I'll do is copy the synopsis section and the episode table to my sandbox somewhere. Then I can do it in fits and starts without disrupting the info on the page currently (which will likely get updated this weekend after the new episode). I'll keep a copy of the original text over there in case I delete something that should have been put in another section. I figure I'll get started on Friday, so I'll post a link here the the sandbox page in case anyone wants to offer suggestions or assistance. Millahnna (mouse)talk 15:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

My goodness, I just noticed how long it is. Episode recaps should not be more than two or three sentences, and the synopsis should cover the whole season in a few paragraphs. Grsz¹¹ 16:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I've seen some shows where the episode recaps in the table are a bit longer than 2 or 3 sentences; maybe a longish paragraph. So I think I'm going with that in my mental panning stages. Basically everything in that synopsis can be paired down to be less wordy, and then moved to the appropriate episode table. Or at least that's what I'm thinking. In any case, I'll pop back in here when I have some updates to report to my test page. Then y'all can tell me what you think and poke at it some. Millahnna (mouse)talk 17:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the approach, something needs to be done. It is entirely too long. - Mizery Made (talk · contribs) 05:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added the latest episode summary to the "synopsis" and agree it's becoming too unwieldy. Viewers don't yet know which plot points will prove pivotal, so it's hard not to have a synopsis that does not read like a blow-by-blow account of each episode. It would be easier to edit this article when the series has ended. Jamils1175 (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel it best to start over entirely. This section should be a few paragraphs at the most. It's incredibly ridiculous in its present state. Grsz¹¹ 11:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
What is the point of deleting all of that text? I found it useful, and now there is no good way to find out what's been happening. The episode summaries are much too short to be of use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markpimentel (talk • contribs) 12:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The point of the section isn't to detail every single action or scene, that's absurd. Rather, it should summarize key points. The original first two (the remaining ones) are a good example, and it would be best to adopt that type of style when dealing with the remaining episodes. Grsz¹¹ 12:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Also remember Wikipedia isn't a fan guide. If one came here to look for every little detail about the show or characters, etc., they would be best going elsewhere. Grsz¹¹ 12:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Since you and I seem to be of a similar mind, maybe you can help with what I've been planning (and obviously failing) to do with it. I was going to take the synopsis, move it to the episodes as appropriate, and also whittled down the text to something more reasonable. So for example the first paragraph (which is essentially just the first episode) would get reworked to be more readable (and probably much shorter) and then moved to the episode table. I keep trying to get to it but I've had very limited time for doing it. I have a copy of the originial text (most of it) to use for reworking but just can't seem to find the time to do it. Millahnna (mouse)talk 22:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Moving most of it to the episode list is indeed the best option, keep in mind that the guidelines say to keep an episode summary around 100–200 words, with a cap of 350 words for complicated stories. The plot section should ideally be updated every time a new episode is released to include new series-important info and remove minor episode-arks which have become just minor nuances in the overall story, but it's hard to ask such level of devotion. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 22:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly what I was thinking of Xewo (can I call you Xewo?). All right I think I finally have the time to do it today. If we can just get it done once it will be easier to maintain. So I'm going to do a temporary revert back to the full synopsis so I can grab everything that was there. I will put it back how it is now immediately after. Sometime in about 10-12 hours I should have it done (working around real life here, sorry for delay). I'm sure it will need massive copy editing after because it's going to be kind of a rough plow through job for me. Millahnna (mouse)talk 15:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) If I can give my two cents, AFAIK the main points thus far: Spartacus is enslaved and wants wife back, is convinced to fight to get her back, she is killed so he becomes loyal, he later discovers the cause of wifes death. That's the main plot. We've also got sub-plots (Bat wants more power, later revenge; Crixus wants to be famous again; Ilythia wants revenge on Spartacus). Grsz¹¹ 19:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

That sounds about right. Don't suppose you'd want to write the actual synopsis while I'm taking the wrong synopsis and altering it for use in the episode tables? I'll get to it eventually if you don't have the time. Seriously, thanks for all the work. This page was a nightmare. Millahnna (mouse)talk 20:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm hard-pressed for time currently, but would have no problem reviewing once you've got something. Episode descriptions are notorious here, I don't think we would want any longer than how episodes 8 and 9 currently look (and maybe a bit less). Grsz¹¹ 20:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads up; I (finally) got some job interviews, oddly, in part due to my wiki efforts (long story). Nifty. In any event it means I'm working on this in fits and starts throughout the week. So I'm obviously delayed from my original timeline. I will have some sort of changes in place for the episode table and synopsis section before the new episode airs in my time zone on Friday (I'm west coast U.S.). They probably won't be as polished as I'd like but at this point even just copy and pasting the material to where it should be would be an improvement. At least then the copy and tone editors could go to town. So yeah, I'm still on it I just have limited time this week for big wiki projects for the next few days. Millahnna (mouse)talk 18:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries, we have no deadline. Your real life is by far, much, much, more important. Good luck! Grsz¹¹ 19:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Tomorrow sometime. Just saw the edits on the page were related and figured y'all could use an update. Not sure I'll have tonight's episode in there; depends on if I get to watch it tomorrow. Millahnna (mouse)talk 11:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Something just crossed my mind. The second season is supposed to be called "Spartacus: Vengeance", with a new title entirely. Probably best having it as a separate article. That would be this article would be able to have the kind of detail that one would find on a drama series broken into season articles. Ultimately, we could have a Spartacus (series) article that covers the broader perspective. Now, while the synopsis that was here would still be too long, we could probably elaborate to the length/detail of other season articles. Grsz¹¹ 12:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Episode List/Synopsis

Someone should make a synopsis page for EACH episode. That way, users have detailed information about the storyline while the main page remains uncluttered. Historical inaccuracies (and there are many) should be addressed on the episode synopsis page. Please see Rome's plot overview for a proper example of what I'm talking about. --Origen01 (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.140.33.255 (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Problem with that is that an episode page should contain more than just the plot, it should also contain reception, production, etc. with reliable sources. Otherwise the article fails notability and guidelines for television episodes and will be (and are on a frequent basis) deleted or merged back to the main page. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 13:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

So I know you can't tell but I actually did this last weekend. Thing is that I closed the tab before the page saved the updated episode table (I hadn't done much with the synopsis). Then, because I'm super smart, I deleted the docs from my hard drive I was using to work. I just now figured it out since I hadn't looked at the page in a few days. So I have to start all over (it will go faster now that I've done it once). I'm going to wait for the finale and then do it. I will probably be able to talk myself into it sometime this coming week. Gah, I'm such a moron. Millahnna (mouse)talk 15:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Synopsis Bloat: the Sequel

I ditched my above plans to move the synopsis stuff into the episode tables when the episodes got split off into their own article. Didn't really seem as pressing. And of course now the synopsis bloat is back and none of us caught it before more edits hit. I started to try and trim it last night, but because of numerous good edits between that and the current version, couldn't easily "revert and restore." The other problem I ran into was that the current text only covers about half-way through the season. So I got done trimming the episode plot points that didn't need to be there only to discover that the thing was simultaneously incomplete AND overly wordy (neat trick that). Which brings me to here. I was hoping to get some consensus on what he major points are that need to be covered in the synopsis, other than the obvious (i.e. Spartacus's captured-rebel-champion-rebel again arc). Batty and Lucretia's social climbing (including their friendship with Illythia) likewise seems obvious to me. Personally, I don't feel that the subplot with Varro's wife or the Crixus romantic relationship are all that critical for a season synopsis (obviously they should get noted over in the episode article) but I wanted to make sure others felt the same. I do feel that Batty's various schemes deserve some mention (nothing too detailed, but the murders and Glaber's patronage seem deserving of short sentences) as that ties to the social climbing aspect. Is there anything I've not mentioned that you guys feel definitely should or should not be included in the season synopsis? I'm currently thinking about three paragraphs approximately like so (but not necessarily in this order):

1. Intro, setting and Spart's capture and initial training at the ludus. Current first paragraph is mostly OK, if I recall correctly.

2. Batty and Lucretia's schemes; brief explanations of the Illythia friendship (does her cousins' murder need to be mentioned here?) and Batty's various murders. Again, nothing too detailed.

3. Spartacus's arc at the ludus; initial rebellion (and contentious relationship with Crixus?), then Champion, wife's death and discovery of Batty's hand in it, plans for escape (leading to finale).

Thoughts, suggestions? Millahnna (mouse)talk 01:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Production

Anybody know where this is produced? I'm guessing from the amount of Aussie and Kiwi accents it is either Australia or New Zealand. 114.137.25.93 (talk) 10:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It's produced in New Zealand, I've added it to the main infobox. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 10:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

User box

How about a user box for fans of the show? :) —Eekerz ^(t) 11:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Varro's wife

It's listed here that her name is Caecilia. I just finished watching the 10 available episodes on Netflix and I'm pretty sure her name is Aurelia (or some variation of that spelling). Also, I'm not so sure I like the idea of all the spoilers in the cast list. Isn't that what the plot summary is for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.21.219 (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Having just watched several of the Spartacus Episodes in a row I can testify that Varro's wife is named Aurelia repeatedly. --Majushi 13:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.142.144 (talk)

Historical Inaccuracies

I am unable to locate anywhere in the available episodes a quote by any of the characters that make the claim that woman were required to remarry after their husbands die. The closest I could find was (S01E01) Iliythia asking her husband, "What's a respectful period of morning before I could remarry?" Is this the quote that caused the author of the Historical Inaccuracies section to claim: Women are depicted as required to remarry as soon as their husbands die. There was no such law at any point in Ancient Rome, even the marriage legislation of Augustus fell short of that absolute. ??? If so that very quote made by Iliythia actually confirms the fact that historical inaccuracy claim is trying to make. Obviously if women WERE required to remarry as soon as their husbands die there would be no point in her asking how long he would want her to mourn him for. What if he had answered ten years? If she had to remarry immediately the question would be completely redundant.

Also, about the Historical Inaccuracy claim: Women are depicted as not allowed in military camps. Historically, while some generals banned camp followers from their camps, at times they would not have been uncommon. All that (S01E01)Glaber says about women being allowed in the camp is, "Women are forbidden within the encampment." Nowhere in the show does anyone go on to make the claim that women are not allowed in all military camps. All that can be assumed from what is said is that women were not allowed in that particular encampment. It's possible there could have been a good reason for that particular camp to forbid women but the matter is not elaborated on any further so even that cannot be surmised.

Unless these points can be disputed, I believe, those two claims in the Historical Inaccuracies section should be deleted. Please correct me if I am wrong. -Jsday187 (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right, and I have removed those two. Frankly, the whole section is not appropriate. Wikipedia reports what reliable, third-party sources say. What the author of that section is doing is synthesis, taking a source that says one thing, and the show which says another, and putting them together to make up this section. I have tried removing it because of this issue. Grsz¹¹ 09:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, while I think this article needs a historical inaccuracy section since the show starts with the message "The show is a historical portrayal of ancient Roman society and the intensity of the content is to suggest an authentic representation of that period.", what is currently on the page is original research and violates WP:SYNTH. As long as no-one else from a reliable source makes those same conclusions and reasoning it doesn't belong on the page, and Grsz11 was correct in removing the entire section. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 10:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree but because I'm less experienced I left it for you guys to fight out. Millahnna (mouse)talk 12:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

To quote from WP:SYNTH "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. 'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article".

Using this definition the Inaccuracies section does not employ synthesis, it just points out discrepancies between reliable source A (the show) and reliable source B (historical fact, cited correctly). Nowhere is the creation of a new paradigm (C, synthesis) offered.

For example, take Batiatus' first name. The show gives it as Quintus. Histically it was Cnaeus. Synthesis (adding A to B to get C) would be to call the character "Quintus Cnaeus" or "Cnaeus Quintus". The page, however, merely points out the discrepancy without adding anything new. Thus by definition it is not synthesis. Catiline63 (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually that's exactly what happening here. Source A, the show, which claims to be historically accurate, contradicts source B, which claims to be historical fact, and conclusion C is made.

For example "Barca is described as being the last prisoner left alive from the fall of Carthage. However, as Carthage was destroyed by Rome in 146 BC (at the end of the Third Punic War), this would mean that Barca must be nearly 100 years old in the show (the first season being set in the 70s BC)." historical "fact" says Carthrage was destroyed in 146 BC, the show plays in 70 BC. Conclusion Barca was nearly 100 years. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 09:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that Wikipedia is an outlet that presents what third-party, reliable sources say about something. The sources presented in that section do not say anything about this show. I have removed it, again, and could find many others to support this side. Grsz¹¹ 16:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, then what you do is delete the synthesis (C, Barca being 100), not the observation of the discrepancy between the sources A and B. If you have a problem with this, then go for a third party opinion at the appropriate page, not delete the section wholesale and claim that actions are agreed to "as per talk page" (as has been claimed).

As you can see, reliable sources do not need to be third party, as has been claimed. Catiline63 (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

And now another issue. It's one thing to listen to the dialouge and hear things and use that as a source. But it's completely different to state that the show uses lorica segmentata with no source. It requires the assumption that every reader knows what the hell lorica segmentata are and would be able to say so when watching the show. Grsz¹¹ 12:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If the soldiers were shown wearing German WWII helmets or were dressed in Samurai armour, you'd consider these as historical inaccuracies irrespective of any assumptions about the viewers' level of knowledge/ignorance, yes? Of course, because - as I have said - in filmed media, as per wiki policy, what is depicted onscreen is as much 'source' as what is spoken. The programme shows the soldiers in the wrong uniforms. Whether or not a viewer knows the name of this type of uniform is immaterial; it's shown.

Source A shows one thing, Source B says another. The discrepancy is noted. Catiline63 (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You may know what it is called, the normal viewer probably will not. And that is what is the issue here. Grsz¹¹ 15:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

OK that does touch on stuff I've learned since I've been here. WP:NOTHOWTO covers that on point seven. I'm assuming from reading around the site that providing either a wikilink or a source to explain would be fine. But yeah, the whole site is based on the idea of being for the average reader. Millahnna (mouse)talk 15:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There are still a bunch of issues with the section. For starters, the section should be renamed to "Historical accuracy" as it's more neutral than saying of the bat that the show is inaccurate. A television show is a piece of fiction, although based on reality, it is entitled to a level of creative freedom. While the show starts with a declaimer saying the intensity of the content is done to accurately portray that period, that might just be just about the violence and language and not about the rest of the show. Almost all movies and television shows that are not considered a documentary don't have such section or see them removed.

• Barca's supposed age – trivia and irrelevant
• Quintus' name — trivia and irrelevant
• What actors are wearing — trivia and irrelevant
• Ilythia's allowence, it self contradictory, first it says it's not allowed, then it says it would have been her fathers. + It would be irrelevant to whom it belonged to.
• Ilythia buying a slave was off the books, unofficial and in secret, that he would have been her fathers wouldn't have mattered and is irrelevant trivia
• Husband kill there wives? Don't remember that from the show
• Women have to remay? Don't remember that from the show either

The last two, I don't remember happening in the show, would be nice if it was pointed out with {{Cite episode}} when that happened or at least the episode in particular. The last one, I'm not sure how the fact that no such law existed ended up in a dictionary about antiquities. And most of the people in this show don't really follow the law, I'm sure killing a senator wasn't allowed either. Almost all is irrelevant to the show. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 16:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, the women force to remarry thing was implied in an early episode by Lucy Lawless's character (sorry no specific episode, my memory isn't that good). She said something in passing to Batiatus about it in connection to, I believe, his plot to kill the first guy we saw him kill (it definitely happened before Barca's death). That said, it was in passing and the WHY of it was not specified; it could be law, it could be HER perception of what she'd have to do. Which just goes back to your point. I can see leaving in the things we can confirm (Barca's age IS trivia but the timeline discrepancy might be of interest to some). But most of what's in that section makes me think, "lolwhut." If you'll pardon the vernacular. Millahnna (mouse)talk 16:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too sure what Lawless' character says. If it's something along the lines of, "if you die, I'll have to remarry", then obviously there's no issue in it being 'inaccurate' because we can take it as just a turn of phrase. My guess is that this bit can go - unless her character explicity stated that it was law that she should remarry. Catiline63 (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

And is this a bad place to point out that when any character addresses Batiatus as "dominus" they should instead be using the vocative case - "domine"? 8o) Catiline63 (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

In defense of the historically innacurate section.

1. Carthage fell in 146 BC, a 0 year old baby would be in his 70s during the show, and Barca was depicted being forced to fight a gigantic and strong chieftan when Carthage fell. That is a blatant innacuracy, and because Starz not only claims it is an accurate portrayal but indicates it is more accurate then other series with it's opening it shouldn't get to hide behind a useless term like "Trivia". Especially considering no historian considers the Third Punic War unimportant, and neither did the Romans (men involved in taking Carthage like Aemelianus went on to very successful careers).

2. Getting a name wrong isn't so important, but claiming to be an authentic representation indicates you will get them right.

3. What type of armor is used is actually relevant, if it isn't why not dress them all up as knights, or better yet put some United States Marines Uniforms on them? Because it isn't accurate of course. Lorica Hamata was the type of armor available during the Roman Republic, and Lorica Segmentata has been proven not to have immediatly replaced it during the empire.

4. The allowance isn't contradictory. It was originally two different points for a reason, and it isn't trivia when related to a show claiming to accurately represent Roman Society. A woman (or man) was subject to Patria Potestas his or her father's lifetime, which meant they could own or possess nothing, and could only use property with his consent, according to our sources even if he was Consul. The Law also prevented any exchange of property between husband and wife. I could remove the extra note that anything a woman possessed would belong to her Pater Familias, but the fact does stand, Ilythia clearly has a living father, so clearly her property exchanges are a legal impossibility. The amount of money required for a slave was not pocket change, a slave was actually Res Mancipii, one of the most valuable types of goods in Roman times.

5. Ilythia and her friends mention Glaber's right to kill her more then once, I don't have the episodes memorized, but very few husbands had any rights at all over their wives at this point in Roman history, and the few who did lacked power of life and death.

6. Lucretia says "you know the law", the fact that there was no such law at any point in Roman history therefore is relevant.

7. Camp Followers were very common, better generals banned them, but they would usually be a part of a Legion's encampment, although I could have misheard what Glaber said about women not being allowed if he was stating they aren't allowed in any encampment it's an innacuracy, prostitution was part of the Roman Soldiers(and most other ancient armies) diversions. There is very little that could be confirmed or denied in Blood and Sand because so little of it is outside of the Arena, we don't know the conditions in Gladiator Schools, we don't know the exact death rate, and our sources like Cicero say nothing at all about Spartacus' relations to other Gladiators and information on Batiatus is almost non existant but the most blatant innacuracies like Barca the Carthaginian, Ilythia having the type of money to buy a slave with a living father, the law requiring remmariage instantly, rights of a husband to kill his wife, Lorica Segmentata and the few other things mentioned need the section. --ScriptusSecundus (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the remarry issue, I'm pretty sure the others are right, in that it was her personal feeling, and not inspired by law. No time now, but I'll try and remember to look at it tomorrow. As for the rest, albeit it's really difficult to read a huge block of text, there is no issue with certain points. It should not be a long list of everything you personally take issue with. This isn't suppose to be Scriptus' view of what's wrong with Spartacus, it should be third-parties views of what is wrong. That seems to be the main issue that isn't getting through. Grsz¹¹ 21:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Everything I mentioned is supported, and the innacuracy list has very good sources. Note that I did not put in any points that historians disagree on, like the thumbs up meaning life, or rate of death in the Arena, the only things there are things that clearly aren't acurate, and the sources used are all highly reliable. No show could be accurate all the time, what makes Spartacus Blood and Sand need the innacuracy section is the fact that every episode has a note at the start claiming it's accurate. --ScriptusSecundus (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• The entire section, regardless of how it's called, should be removed per WP:OR. As far as I can see in the article, there are no reliable sources that discuss the show's accuracy or lack-thereof. The investigations of editors, whether valid or invalid, are excluded from the article per WP:OR.--PinkBull 04:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Pink Bull - The section does not (now) have any OR in it. As discussed above, it presents no syntheses, just observations of conflicts between source A (the show) and source B (historical sources, properly cited). Merely pointing out conflicts in sources is not OR. Catiline63 (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of Wikipedia:No original research does not allow this type or material into articles. The wording in the first paragraph of the policy page, that Original Research is where "the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by any of the sources", seems directly on point to this situation. The Historical Accuracy section is just that, an analysis not advanced by any source.--PinkBull 14:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I quote again from the same page: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research." (my bold) According to this definition, merely observing that source A (the show) depicts one thing while source B (historical sources) say another is thus not OR, as long as no novel syntheses are offered (C). As far as I'm aware, there are no such syntheses. But if you could point one out, then I'll ge grateful! Cheers. Catiline63 (talk) 05:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point. But my view is that the show is not a source whose content is worthy of being compared to other sources. Thus, the section is not observing two different sources regarding the underlying truth of the matter, but analyzing the mistakes in the show. Hence the Original Research.--PinkBull 16:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

But the show is a source - for what's on the show. Which is the whole point of the section. Again, can you give an example of synthesis? Observing a discrepancy is not an "analysis", and wikipedia's definition of OR (quoted above) does not appear to be the same as yours.Catiline63 (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it as much as a synthesis problem, but as a regular Original Research problem. The section is not intended to compare the different facts. but to point to mistakes in the show. No reliable sources point to any mistakes in the show, but we point to mistakes in the show. Thus its our analysis and Original Research. It's really how the description of the section is being framed. If it's just a comparison of the conflicting facts, its fine. But it's not, it's passing judgement on the show's mistakes. The very name of the section gives it away. "Historical Inaccuracies" is not intending to compare different facts, but to teach the reader that there are mistakes in the show. Telling the reader that there are mistakes in the show is Original Research because no reliable source has stated that these are mistakes.--PinkBull 04:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Your reading doesn't seem to chime with the WP:OR page's definition, which says that's it's only OR when a synthesis (a statement not made by any quoted source) is produced. While last week there was such an example of synthesis on the page ("Barca must be 100"), there isn't now. Nor, according to WP:OR, do we need a third-party to comment before we can note such discordancies. We could, by all means, change the name of the section if it offends. 'Historical Discrepancies' instead? Catiline63 (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The section was already renamed from "Historical Inaccuracies" to "Historical accuracy" as advised by WP:FILMHIST, since WP:MOSTV has nothing about it (unles I missed it. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 12:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Changing it to 'Historical Discrepancies' would be a step in the right direction. But it's the actual content of the section that is troubling. The section is set up in which the show's "fact" is stated and then it says "However", and goes on to state the "actual truth". Meaning it's not comparing the different facts, but pointing to mistakes in the show.

However, as I think about the issue, I realize that perhaps it's Original Research regardless of any editing corrections. If me and you watch a show and then use the show as a source for what it says it is no different from me and you standing in Yushu and writing first-hand reports for the 2010 Yushu earthquake Wikipedia article. Just like reporting on an earthquake is Original Research because me and you are not reliable sources and can be perhaps be misled and mistaken by what we are seeing, viewing a show and then writing a Wikipedia article on what we just saw is Original Research. If the show produces actual transcripts stating clearly certain "facts" that are different then the accepted "facts", then we can compare the two in this article. But we can't watch a show and then write about what we saw in the show's Wikipedia article. --PinkBull 13:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The analogy is flawed. What is depicted (shown or said) on a show/film is it's own source, just as what's written in a book is also it's own source. Thus you don't need to cite a third-party in order to claim "Ashur has a beard" (the show shows it) or "Moby-Dick is a whale" (the book says it). The occurrence of an earthquake, however, is not its own source. Instead, reliable sources must report it.

Thefreedictionary gives "in spite of that", "nevertheless", "yet...", "on the other hand", and "by contrast" as synonyms for "however". I don't see the use of "however" as being pov, but feel free to substitute it for one of the above if you object. Catiline63 (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

To make the analogy clearer, it's like watching CNN coverage of an earthquake and then writing that one of the victims has a beard. If the beard fact is not stated explicitly by CNN, but someone watching CNN sees that one of the victims has a beard, then writes the beard fact into the Wikipedia article, I submit it's Original Research. If this point is agreed to, writing that Asher has a beard because he clearly has a beard on the show, is the same Original Research.--PinkBull 16:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

These analogies are getting more and more confusing. The section compares source A (show) to source B ("A Casebook on Roman Family Law") without a third party making these same comparisons. Catiline63 doesn't call it OR, everybody else does. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 17:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR doesn't call presenting A and B together as OR. It's only OR when C (synthesis, the advancement of a position claimed by neither A or B) is produced: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research."

Nor does WP:OR state that third-party citations are needed (see also WP:NOR and WP:NOTOR).

Once again, I ask for an example of synthesis in this section. And just stating "putting them together" is a form of synthesis (OR) doesn't cut it, going as it does against the above definitions.

Counter-cites of WP policy would go a long way to backing up your claims/protests, but so far their have been none. Catiline63 (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If Starz didn't want it's lack of research and innacuracies revealed it shouldn't have claimed the show is accurate. No other show or movie has ever claimed accuracy, Rome, Kirk Douglas' Spartacus, Troy etc, you name it and they are a lot more modest. However there is a historical innacuracy section treating those shows the same, and honestly wikipedia is being very generous by not having a lot more of the Blood and Sand innacuracies on display. Legionaries in Capua stationed for the sole purpose of imprisoning Ilythia? Is there really a more laughable idea? Perhaps you would have a point if the director had not decided to try and pass of his show as history, but as it stands now Blood and Sand needs at least it's most blatant innacurate portrayals revealed. --ScriptusSecundus (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

They aren't blatant to the average viewer, they're blatant to you and a handful of others. And that's what brings up some other issues. Just because you know and say something is such, doesn't mean a source isn't need (like the uniform one, for example). The show doesn't claim every detail is accurate, that would be absurd. They do claim that the sexuality and violence is in order to accurately portray the history. Do they claim that they have every style uniform, weapon, or coin right? No, it's a television series; you have to accept some deviations. The goal of Wikipedia isn't to exploit every small item that you take issue with. Grsz¹¹ 23:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Grsz. I agree with your response to the above, and as you'll see from my recent edit history have tried to tone down the inaccuracies section as best I can, and delete some of the more outre charges levelled against the show. After all, the creators need some artistic license (and some of their so-called inaccuracies are not inaccurate at all!). Anyway, I'm sure a happy medium will prevail eventually....Catiline63 (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

However, this is getting incredibly too particular. He says no, but he doesn't say it the right way to imply that it's not legal, so it's inaccurate? Makes no sense. Grsz¹¹ 00:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The historical Batiatus could never have been a magistrate or senator. Members of certain "dirty" professions - including lanistae, gladiators, actors, pimps, and undertakers - were prohibited by law from holding political office. In the show, no such legal prohibition is mentioned. True, Solonius refuses to go along with Batiatus desire to be a magistrate/senator, but this is because he considers Batiatus as "the wrong sort of person" not on the point of law. Glaber cooperates, albeit reluctantly and after being blackmailed. (In this regard, if the show was accurate Glaber could have easily scuppered Batiatus' scheme by saying "we can't support your candidacy because it's against the law; no matter how much you try to twist our arms there's nothing we can do about that". But that wouldn't have been good drama.) Catiline63 (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Specific points

Just wanted to address each "inaccuracy" that appears in the 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC) version, to see if we can trim it down some. We can argue about original research in circles, but we would probably be more productive addressing specific issues. When a point is addressing the show, it needs to use {{cite episode}}.Grsz¹¹ 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Barca's age

Resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Barca: currently has no source. Grsz11 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Which bit? The date of the destruction of Carthage, or that Barca is stated to the last Carthaginian prisoner left alive from that fall? The date of Carthage's destruction by the Romans is well-known (146 BC), and a link to the Third Punic War page is provided. That he is the last Carthaginian is stated in "Legends", although it might also be mentioned in other episodes. Catiline63 (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC) ✓ Keep – although it should have a source on this page as well. Xeworlebi (t•c) 19:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC) ✓ Keep Millahnna (mouse)talk 14:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Quintus' name

Resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Quintus vs. Gnaeus: seems okay. Grsz11 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC) ✓ Keep. Xeworlebi (t•c) 19:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC) ✓ Keep Millahnna (mouse)talk 14:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Armor

Roman uniforms: the issue with this is, it takes an expert (or one with atleast substantial knowledge) in the subject to notice what type of uniform they are wearing, and compared to what they should be. This is different than simply watching the show and hearing they call Batiatus Quintus and not Gnaeue. Therefore, I'm of the mind that this fact needs . Grsz¹¹ 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the reference provided is quite an authoritative one. My gut feeling is that this should stay as an inaccuracy. Catiline63 (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

✓ Keep. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 19:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

✓ Keep Millahnna (mouse)talk 14:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

But to keep this, the reader just has to trust that you are right. I trust your eye for it, but that doesn't make it an appropriate source for Wikipedia. Grsz¹¹ 00:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ilithyia's slave

Ilithyia's slave: This requires the assumption that the characters are law-abiding citizens, which clearly, is not true. Grsz¹¹ 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy for this to go. Clearly there's been much law-breaking seen, and we don't regard murder as a historical inaccuracy ("in Roman times, murder was illegal..."). Ilithyia's purchase might have been technically illegal, but we might also say that Batiatus just doesn't care. Catiline63 (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

✗ Remove – no-one follows the law in this show. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 19:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It is still worth mentioning, especially in light of one of the other points. A slave was a major investment,not something you could buy with pocket change. You could own no property while your father was alive, this was true from the start to end of the Roman Republic, and continued in the Empire, that is contradicted by Illythia being able to get a slave. --ScriptusSecundus (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Since the show portrays slaves as being only 17 denarri each, which is covered in another point, this isn't portrayed as a big investment in the show. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 22:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Illythia promises to free her slave (according to the wikipedia plot article) clearly showing her ownership, a historical impossibility when her father was still alive. In a movie like Gladiator that type of thing wouldn't matter, but because (according to their own press) this series is about Roman Society Patria Potestas does become relevant.--ScriptusSecundus (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not about her owning or not it's about the fact that it clearly wasn't done lawfully and therefore falls under the same category as "Killing wasn't historically allowed by roman law", they clearly don't follow the law in this show. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 07:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

✗ Remove for now I feel like the only way to keep this one in is if a reliable source discusses this issue on the show specifically, since it was barely a plot point for five minutes and seems to be contentious. Millahnna (mouse)talk 14:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This just shows bias, there is a very reliable source up about ownership in Ancient Rome, especially in light of slaves. --ScriptusSecundus (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I meant a source that specifically discusses the show on this one. As others noted, all of these characters were breaking all kinds of laws all over the place. And to my interpretation, Illythia's owning of the gladiator was kept pretty much on the down low (other than her bragging to her girlfriends of course). So it's not clear what the intention of the show runners was. It may be an actual inaccuracy or it may be that the writers and characters were very much aware of this, though it was not flat out stated. So it feels too debatable to leave it in unless we have a source that says "television show has this but reality was this so..." Do you see what I mean? Millahnna (mouse)talk 17:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Wife killing

Resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Husbands killing wives: I don't recall when this is mentioned. If somebody can point it out, that would help. Grsz11 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC) I've my doubts about this too. I can't recall it being said or, if it was, whether it was said in seriousness or as a more colloqial "your husband will kill you when he finds out!!" If the former, it should stay. If the latter (which I suspect), then it should go. Catiline63 (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC) ✗ Remove – context, re-add when someone can give the timestamp when this was said and if indeed it was said as such. Xeworlebi (t•c) 19:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC) It is said a lot of times, and whenever someone does mention it Illythia becomes very highly defensive and very threatening to whoever says it. The only time it is mentioned without Illythia going berserk is when Illythia says it in whore. I'm sorry if it shatters your concept of what the characters are like, but when Illythia herself states Glaber would kill her if she leaves. The show gives husbands a power of life and death they didn't have in the Rome of the late republic, for more see Marriage Cum Manu and Sine Manu.--ScriptusSecundus (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC) So if I say "my wife would kill me when I leave" this would make it law? Xeworlebi (t•c) 22:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC) No it is clearly law when a. Her husband is clearly allowed to brutalize her (when he hits her in front of many witnesses), b. She responds to he will kill you by being extremely frightened and threatening the woman who said that, c. When she is clearly convinced he will kill her if she returns, that one makes it very clear. For whatever reason the directors felt that depicting women not having any rights but still being able to lead horrible lives killing slaves would make great drama, maybe it does but that is not accurate so should be mentioned since if I had no other source on Ancient Rome I would have concluded that a husband held the right of life over death to his wife.--ScriptusSecundus (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC) So when I hit my wife in public, when someone is threatened and scared it becomes law? And women are never scared of there husbands about killing them... This is all interpretation, point to a specific point were they say it is law, not vague references of a scared woman. Xeworlebi (t•c) 07:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC) They can't, it didn't happen. It was along the lines of "My husband will kill me" not "My husband can kill me." It's original research on Scriptus' part assuming that this is referring to some law, which is not true. Grsz11 13:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC) ✗ Remove I just rewatched all of the episodes over this week and at no point is it stated it is a law. At no point is it even stated in such a way that it even IMPLIES it is a law. When the idea is mentioned at all it is given as either hyperbole or a statement of what a character believes will happen. No legality is ever broached. Millahnna (mouse)talk 14:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Scriptus, could you provide episode titles so we can see the scenes to which you are referring? Specifically so that we can judge whether a judiciary point is being made... I seriously doubt whether this is anything worse than, say Cy Tolliver beating Joanie Stubbs in Deadwood or Tony Soprano threatening any of his mob. But are we to assume that assault and murder and depicted as legal in these shows?Catiline63 (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Well it is done in front of soldiers, who had a double job being cops as well as soldiers. Doing something in front of the cops implies legality. It isn't just that Illythia's friends say he will kill her, it is that Illythia acts like he is going to kill her, and consistently acts that way over multiple episodes. --ScriptusSecundus (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC) That only proves that his personal guards don't care if he hits his wife, not that it is legal to kill her. Illythia might think he will kill her, but that by no means makes it legal. If every-time that someone thought they would get killed a country made murder legal, we would have ran out of people to kill by now. Xeworlebi (t•c) 15:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC) I will remove the point, and perhaps merge the price of slaves with the comment on Illythia's freedom to buy slaves with a living father if that would help? --ScriptusSecundus (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC) ✓ Resolved was removed.17:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Batiatus as a politician

Resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Batiatus as a politician: In the final episode, Glaber is said (I believe) to be petitioning for his appointment, so this one seems alright to me. Grsz11 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC) ✓ Keep. Xeworlebi (t•c) 19:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC) ✓ Keep One of the high society types who is attending Batty's party in the finale makes mention of this as well. Millahnna (mouse)talk 14:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Slave prices

Resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Slave prices: Only one issue I have - that the "average" is given as 960-4000. Can we narrow this down a little bit? Grsz11 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC) I'm afraid it's what the source gives, so amending the figure will be OR. Clearly, though 6 slaves for 100 denarii (about 17 denarii each) is well below the lower end of this range. Catiline63 (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC) ✓ Keep. Xeworlebi (t•c) 19:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC) ✓ Keep It would be nice to find a source that gives more specifics on that range if we can though (i.e. house slaves were thought to be this much and laborers this much). Millahnna (mouse)talk 14:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Cotta

Resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Cotta: Seems so trivial, and has no source. Grsz11 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC) I don't recall this either. Catiline63 (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC) ✗ Remove – highly trivial, has no impact on the story whatsoever, don't recall it either. Xeworlebi (t•c) 19:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Third Mithradatic War trivial? That really isn't true, trivial information is well trivial, the Third Mithradatic War was possibly the biggest event of the Spartacus time frame, remember Sulla? It is in the first episode.--ScriptusSecundus (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC) It is trivial towards this show. Just like something along the lines of "Historically Spartacus had a beard", while that might be inaccurate it has no relevance, ergo trivia. Xeworlebi (t•c) 22:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC) It is an extremely well known fact and would have taken at most three minutes to find out.--ScriptusSecundus (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Still irrelevant trivia of a half-assed mention in passing. And I think we have established that what you believe to be "extremely well known fact" clearly isn't for most people. Xeworlebi (t•c) 07:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC) It is entirely irrelevant to the story as depicted in the show. The historical fact is trivial here. Grsz11 13:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC) ✗ Remove What they said. Although I would amend my vote to keep if a reliable source were to discuss this issue as it pertains to the show, specifically. Millahnna (mouse)talk 14:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC) If The Poison King isn't a reliable source please come up with a better one considering the Poison King is written by a historian who researches these things for a living. There is a reliable source, and Lucullus was the leader of the Romans during the Third Mithradatic War. Towards history it isn't trivia. --ScriptusSecundus (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC) The reliability of the source isn't questioned just the notability of a random non-important-to-the-show-in-any-way-whatsoever statement. Xeworlebi (t•c) 15:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Then it is agreed it isn't original research? I also added in a last we saw comment to the Glaber bullet point to resolve that one. --ScriptusSecundus (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC) I can work with that addition; it takes a "just the facts" approach and doesn't assume either way what his status is at that point. Millahnna (mouse)talk 15:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Which would make it irrelevant to the accuracy part of the section. Xeworlebi (t•c) 15:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Who said this was OR? It is trivial at best towards the show. It's about someone who isn't in the show and about something that has no impact on it. It might be historically a big thing, but to the show it isn't. Xeworlebi (t•c) 15:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Start revolt

Resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Kitchen objects: Is alright, because this clearly wasn't the case in "Kill Them All". Grsz11 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC) ✓ Keep. Xeworlebi (t•c) 19:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC) ✓ Neutral It seems really trivial to me, but since it's so brief and it's documented I don't really care either way. Millahnna (mouse)talk 14:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Glaber as praetor

Glaber: Glaber is away at the time of the revolt, therefore we cannot know if he has been appointed praetor or not. Grsz¹¹ 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the last we heard Glaber's political plans (Ep. 11? 12?) he was considering running for the praetorship. For us to suggest what might have happened to him in the interim is OR. Anyway, in Roman praetorian and consular elections there would have been about 3/4 months between election to office (usually in late summer) and taking up office (on 1 January) - just as there's a 2 month gap between the election for US president (Novemeber) and his taking up office (January). Episodes 11-13 don't seem to be spread over a long enough stretch of time for Glaber to go from considering running to being elected to taking up office. Catiline63 (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

✗ Remove – the speed of the timeline is unknown, assuming either way if it already passed or not is original research. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 19:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

He clearly isn't Praetor yet when the rebellion starts.--ScriptusSecundus (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no conformation either way, this is original research. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 22:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not an OR issue. By the time Spartacus revolts, in ep.13, the most up-to-date information we have on Glaber (from eps. 11 and 12) is that he is considering the praetorship. To assume a change of status in the interim (i.e. that he wins election the praetorship by ep.13) is OR: the creators haven't told us anything of the sort. Conversely, to stick with the latest information the creators have provided is not OR. Catiline63 (talk) 00:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

As Catiline said, he isn't Praetor when the revolt starts, that isn't original research either.--ScriptusSecundus (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

He is shown to be considering to run, since the speed of the timeline is unknown it is OR to assume he isn't yet when the revolt happened. You can twist and turn all you want, there is no conformation he is not yet praetor. For all we know a year has passed since then, but we don't either way. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 07:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It is original research either way: assuming he is or assuming he isn't. Therefore, it's best to leave it out. Grsz¹¹ 13:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(←) As stated, adhering to the last piece of information provided by the programme producers is not OR. Glaber is considering running until we are informed otherwise by the producers. If you think this is an OR issue, then put it up for third-party assessment. By all means he'll probably return in season 2 as praetor, but until he does the current presentation is inaccurate. Catiline63 (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not if he is considering to run. You're assuming that he isn't praetor yet. We just don't know, we also don't know how much time has passed, therefor we can not say if he was or wasn't praetor at that time. You can not say something is or isn't that based on an assumption, that's kind of the definition of OR. You assume he isn't praetor yet because no-one said so. That would be like me saying that Obama isn't president because nobody told me. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 14:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

✗ Remove What Grsz said. Millahnna (mouse)talk 14:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm just following the last piece of information provided by the producers. Until they inform us otherwise, Glaber is still thinking of running for praetor sometime in the future, Spartacus is still a rebel, Crixus still loves Naevia, and Crassus is still worried about whatever happened to his missing cousin. Similarly, I'm gonna consider Obama president until I'm informed otherwise: or would that assumption be OR? Catiline63 (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Lets say I have a coin in my left hand, I put them behind my back and some, undisclosed, time later I have both hands in front of me, now for you to say the coin is in either hand is a guess, you can assume it is in my left hand, but you don't know. Assumptions or original research, same thing different wording. But this is again turning into a cirklejerk about what is considered OR. The fact is that we don't know, therefore stating one or the other is wrong, so best leave it out. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 15:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

He would have to leave his army, and go through the usual procedures to run for an elected office. Latest information isn't original research, you could put the or tag on the plot summary to if it stays here. --ScriptusSecundus (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

What? the plot doesn't even talk about this. You assume this, the last we saw of Spartacus he slaughtered everyone in sight, do you assume he is still doing that as well? We just don't know. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 15:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If that is so shouldn't there be an original research tag for the plot summary? Glaber has not even decided to run for Praetor yet last we saw him, which does not suggest he is a Praetor now, however I will resolve this. --ScriptusSecundus (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(←) No, why? The plot doesn't even mention Glaber as praetor. And now the point can be thrown out because we don't know. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 15:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought the modified wording to try and make it more in line with what you said. --ScriptusSecundus (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I think to equate Glaber's status as a variation of Schroedinger's cat is interesting. But still the point remains: in the absence of positive evidence contrary to what we have been shown by the series producers, Glaber's status - considering (i.e. not definitely) running for office at some unspecified point in the future - remains thus until the producers allow us to update his status. Now we have moved to Occam's razor.Catiline63 (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

So is Glaber resolved? --ScriptusSecundus (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with it how you changed it; it's short and blunt enough to seem a reasonable compromise to me. Consider me neutral at this point. It will be easy to either update or remove, as appropriate, when more information is available. Millahnna (mouse)talk 17:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It basically says nothing anymore, in fact I find that it makes it out like the show said he was considering running at the time that Spartacus revolted, which is unconfirmed. The issue at hand remains, we don't know, time has passed, things have happened, we just don't know what or how long. Putting this in makes it seem like this is inaccurately portrayed in the show while it is in fact not mentioned in the show either way. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 17:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the change made it any better. Perhaps worse. How is this such an important issue that it is still needed? Of all the little things to hang on to... It's unimportant, you can't prove it either way, so just remove it. Grsz¹¹ 17:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Tracians

Thracians: Can anybody point out where he calls himself this "with obvious nationalistic pride"? It probably happened, I just don't remember. Even still, could tone down the tone a bit. Grsz¹¹ 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Catiline63 (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

✗ Remove – I have no recollection of him calling himself Tracian with "obvious nationalistic pride". _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 19:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Watch some of the episodes again, and write down each time he proudly calls himself a Thracian, you will quickly run out of space on whatever you write it down on.--ScriptusSecundus (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that there is no proof if they called themselves that makes no difference to the point, people name themselves different when talking to people outside their environment. Besides if there is no proof they didn't there is no reason to have it in here. That's like saying, "there is no proof that Obama isn't an alien" so it is inaccurate to say he isn't. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 22:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

A better modern equivalent would be if Native Americans called themselves Indians, Thrace and Thracian was a Greek term.--ScriptusSecundus (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever seen an Indian casino? Some actually do. If there is no proof either way it can not be considered inaccurate. Again, saying "there is no proof" actually makes this little OR, since you're assuming, because there is no proof it was that is actually wasn't. It's like saying because there is no proof that that because there is no proof of alien life that there are no aliens. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 07:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

✗ Remove It's POV (says the Cherokee who prefers Indian). Millahnna (mouse)talk 14:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

For more on Thracians an Athenian club for out of controll young men named themselves after a Thracian tribe, the term was not neutral and there is no evidence Thracians used it on themselves. The evidence points to a more localized sense of identity because Thracians went to war with each other very often, there was no hesitation by Thracian Auxilia to slaughter their own people, but that isn't nearly enough evidence to say for sure. Spartacus responds to the idea that he is to be a slave or gladiator yelling out "I'm a Thracian", he is offended by the idea of pretending to fight "Thracians" in Macedonia, and goes back to that attitude when he decides he doesn't want to be a slave anymore. We don't even know if the Thracians had a term to describe all Thracian tribes. May I ask what exactly offends you about showing that Thracian was a Greek term? --ScriptusSecundus (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. We don't know if they called themselves that, you claim they didn't and call it inaccurate. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 15:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I never said they didn't call themselves Thracians, I said there is no proof of what they called themselves. --ScriptusSecundus (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Which would make the point of this exactly what? We can probably add a million things about things in the show that we don't know. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 15:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't find it offensive, but to say that he proudly says it unless he literally says "I'm proud to call myself Thracian" is POV. I share the POV that he is proud of it but it's never actually stated. Put another way, it's the descriptor I take issue with. Millahnna (mouse)talk 15:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I will reword the point to specify in that case. --ScriptusSecundus (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

That completely works for me and in hindsight I should have stated my original vote differently. Apologies for my lack of clarity. Millahnna (mouse)talk 17:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It's ok, I am often unclear to. --ScriptusSecundus (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This says nothing anymore, we don't know what they called themselves or what they didn't call themselves. Putting it in the section means that the show portrays this differently and thus inaccurately. Therefor we can not say this is inaccurate since we don't know what accurate would be. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 18:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point. Something cannot be inaccurate if it is unknown what accurate is. Thats part of the whole issue. This whole Spartacus storyline could be wrong, but since history doesn't known what was going on, we can't be certain either way. Grsz¹¹ 19:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Gatae

Gatae: They are shown as enemies of Spartacus' tribe or village, but that doesn't mean they are a completely separate people. Additionally, we use an ancient source written by Herodotus, which was written atleast 350 years before Spartacus. Can we get a better source? And also, perhaps the situation changed between that time? Grsz¹¹' 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Catiline63 (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

✗ Remove – outdated source, re-add when an updated source is found. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 19:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

That source is not outdated, Herodotus is still the main source on these things. Modern sources don't even use the term Getae, they just call them Thracian, see Mayor who describes Lucullus Minor crushing Getic Tribes as a victory over remaining independent Thracians. Getae is an ancient term for some people who Herodotus called "the noblest Thracians of them all". If your going to challenge an ancient source you need evidence for it, because those are the sources, especially in this case considering Herodotus may have been the person who coined both terms.--ScriptusSecundus (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You can't use a source older than the matter you're talking about when proving something, that's like using a source from before 1820 and say black people still can't vote. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 22:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a fair comparison: we're talking about a people's homeland (usually permanent, excepting nomads), not their judicial rights (always in flux). Herodotus is saying only that the Getae tribe belong to the geographic region known as Thrace ("the most manly and law-abiding of the Thracian tribes"). Anyway, a reference to Mommsen (1885) The Provinces of the Roman Empire I.208 can be added. Catiline63 (talk) 00:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"...of the Thracian tribes" is what it says? Then this implies there are multiple tribes in the region, and they don't all have to be a common people or friends. Therefore, there is no issue with how the show portrays it. Grsz¹¹ 01:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem I think is in presenting "the Thracians" as a distinct tribe/ethnic group. They weren't, they were a collection of tribes, including the Getae. Having "the Thracians" as enemies of the Getae is analogous to having a show set in the old US where a tribe called "the Native Americans" fight the Apache.Catiline63 (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(←) Thank you for explaining the Getae so I wouldn't have to Catiline 63, I will only add that many modern historians have stopped using that term entirely and now just reffer to them as Thracians. Catiline did as well as I could in defending that point.--ScriptusSecundus (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

In 350 years nothing changes? There is nothing wrong with using an old source, but using a source from before the time you're talking about is not really done, the world has changed a lot in 350 years. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 07:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, 350 years and nothing changed. The Getae tribe lived in "Thrace" in Herodotus' time and were still there under the Roman Empire. Anyway, this point is closed now, with the addition of the reference from Mommsen.Catiline63 (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

✓ Resolved – the new source is good, as it talks about the past and not an assumption that it was still the same in the future. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 14:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

actually you may both be wrong. and the herodotus source material is wrong the gatae were not a thracian tribe in fact they were a dacian tribe. the dacians were a collection of tribes just north of thrace. unless you can come up with a way of proving that the gatae were ethnically thracians that had migrated north to live in the dacian region before the time of spartacus. 76.211.5.120 (talk) 13:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

acording this this map titled herodotus world map , gatae were not thracian but could be considered proto-dacian which means that even if you are claiming that herodotus said that gatae were once thracians in a time before this map then i would say that to call gatae a thracian tribe at the time of spartacus in 75 BC is a null and void arguement as we all know an individual tribe loses its individual ethnic identity after several hundred years unless it comes from a very large population base as to continue its pure blooded hertage of the said tribe in question so that means if the gatae were around in 450 BC and they were still on the map as a separate people in 75 bc that means that there must have been thousands of gatae people in the time of herodutus so they could have enough genetic integrity to maintain this nation of people. as you can see in the map of the known world at the time of herodotus gatae were not living in thrace but the dacian region . so finding proof is now going to be very hard that gatae were thracians even by herodotus own map were located not in thrace http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Herodotus_world_map-en.svg69.208.10.149 (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't actually recall the show saying the Getae were enemies of Thrace. Weren't they just portrayed as enemies of the Maedi (Spartacus's tribe)? In any event, this strikes me as hair-splitting. 134.173.15.58 (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Oenomaus

Oenomaus was a gaul, not an african, wasnt he? Has political correctness gone so mad in Western society, that nobody even notices "black vikings" now?--109.86.57.225 (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Viking? Anyway, the historical sources say only that Oenomaus was from Gaul, not his skin colour. The show hasn't said where the character is from. We don't know the racial make up of Gaul in the early 1st Century BC, so it is not wholly unreasonable to suggest that there were some people in the country - especially in the south, near Italy and Spain - who had African heritage.Catiline63 (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Gauls of african descent?! Seriously? Gaul was inhabited by gauls, celtic people, which were white. Are you seriously suggesting that some substantial number of africans decided they dont like never-ending summer and migrated to far north beyond the sea? If you are capable of imagining settlement of black people in the middle of snowy winter forest... Anyway, "historical sources" clearly say that he was a gaul. Here, Orosius's histories, read the beginning of last 24th paragraph. Care to clarify what "historical sources" you are talking about? Or are you going to accuse me of racism or vandalism or whatever and delete it again? Black vikings.--109.86.57.225 (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Global

That's half of the points. I'm feeling that this entire section is turning into a history-buff fan-fest. Also when addressing specific sentences, timestamp them and add them with {{Cite episode}}, a bunch of these would be no issue if done so correctly. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 19:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The show having these innacuracies doesn't make it bad, it just makes it innacurate. Your issues seem to be with the fact that Starz has chosen a subject that isn't well known (Roman Society). As for original research that is absurd at best, NONE of those things are original research and each one has an extremely reliable source. The tags should be removed, especially the original research one. Starz chose to made an extrodinary claim (historically accurate portrayal of ancient Rome) that no other series including Rome has ever made, it should have more instead of less scrutiny, (especially when you remember that most of it's portrayal is not confirmable one way or another, so it didn't have very much it would have to get right).--ScriptusSecundus (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Point 10 is WP:OR, unless you can say where they say he isn't. Which I doubt since the long time request for timestamps on half of these point, which are never provided. What's next?

13. Killing people was not allowed by ancient Roman laws.

14. Modern day English was not spoken, historically they spoke Latin or Greek (or whatever they spoke).

15. When cutting someone with a sword blood doesn't actually behave like that.

There's probably someone walking in the background with a watch somewhere sometime, shall we put those in as well? For the claim of being accurate, you can just as well read that as just the level of the content, "The show is a historical portrayal of ancient Roman society". and (different part) "the intensity of the content is to suggest an authentic representation of that period" the first part does not claim the show as historically accurate, just a portrayal, the level of graphic display does, which none of these point cover. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 22:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Throw out Roman Law and you have extremely limited amounts of texts, most of which are missing large amounts (even the Satyricon is not complete), and our non legal sources tend to back up what the Law says. Sarcasm is only funny when there is a good point behind it. Perhaps the sarcasm about the innacuracy section would be more convincing if Starz wasn't trying to pass Blood and Sand off as history? Please note I have not said anything about the quality of the show, because it is irrelevant to wether or not it is accurate. Furthermore with points very well defended and very defensible I will try to remove the original research tag again, I strongly suspect it is only there to imply accurate criticism is inaccurate. --ScriptusSecundus (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Really? That went right over your head. I was showing the level of irrelevant trivia that could be added and is currently already on the page. Besides all three points could probably be well sourced. If the information is irrelevant to the show it is trivia and should be removed. I honestly have had enough. Some here are actually trying to reach some consensus, addressing specific points, it seems like ScriptusSecundus' only interest is in harassing the show as much as possible. And stop removing tags that others clearly see as accurate because your precious section looks bad because of it. These are maintenance tags, not your opinion tags. Try to reach some consensus before edit warring. Things like "Historically, the revolt of Spartacus began with the rebels seizing kitchen utensils and using these as weapons." is actually informative to readers, most of this is just historical mumbo jumbo not relevant towards the story whatsoever. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 07:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

There are references on them, unless your willing to say those references are not reliable sources the points related to them are not original research. I think you just resent that a show you like isn't up to it's claimed standard (accuracy). I also would like to know if you know more about Roman Society than historians who spend their lives researching it? If so the references are unreliable, if not they are. I have been very civil so far, but again I must ask are you against the innacuracies because you don't consider the The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume 3, Part 2:, reliable, or The Poison King biography of Mithradates reliable or something else? Sarcasm is often funny, but your sarcasm was not because it has no point backing it up. I have never nor will I pass judgement on the quality of Spartacus Blood and Sand, but I will show where the show differs from history, or makes unsupportable conclusions. --ScriptusSecundus (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No-one is questioning the reliability of the sources, unless that one which would have had to be talking about the future. I like the show, and I don't care if it is accurate or not, it's a damn awesome television show. Half of the points currently being discussed are about things that you and only you see that way, to take killing of wives as a prime example. Which is just made up, the show does not in any way portray it in such way. From looking at you contributions the only thing I can see as a reason for this is you blind love of Roman history and need to discredit this show because it is, well, a television show. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 15:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(←) To be honest you did persuade me on the wife killing point, but not through sarcasm. You also seem to care a lot. --ScriptusSecundus (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I like the show, I don't care if it is accurate, I do care about blatantly wrong and libelous information on this page. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 16:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

There is none of that, historical information is accurate (which you just agreed), and they are there to show things in the show. The fact is it claims to be an accurate portrayal of Roman Society in a tag on every episode, so having what point that exists now would you say is libel? The point about Thracians? Getae? Glaber? --ScriptusSecundus (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Because I think I'm not explaining well, in the instances where I have said I'd rather have a source that talked about the issue as it pertains to the show specifically, I mean it very literally. A hypothetical pertaining to one of the specific points above; an article in the New York Times (or a scholarly article at a college, a notable reviewer, whatever) comes out that talks about, say, Illythia's slave on the show and how it is contrary to Roman law would warrant keeping that entry in. It's not that I think your sources are inaccurate at all, it's that for some of these issues, I feel like we need a source that doesn't just detail the situation as it actually was in Rome but also discusses the show itself. My reasons for feeling this way are different for each specific, and I will try to clarify on the individual points above if you'd like. And please do note that I only feel one or two are contentious enough to need that. Am I making any more sense yet? Millahnna (mouse)talk 17:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

A lot more thank you --ScriptusSecundus (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

i'm too lazy to search for sources at the moment: -at the time statues were painted in bright colors, not left 'au naturel'. -putting you thumb up meant 'kill him of' (with no specific sign for sparing someones life instead) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.218.241 (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I cannot really see the point of a historical inaccuracies section, since this is a work of fiction, and a very poor representation of Roman society. It is too full of errors to even start, in my opinion.124.197.15.138 (talk) 05:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You're definitely correct. Roman citizens did not speak English with British accents. - Mdriver1981 (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Batiatus politician

Removed the section that stated: * Batiatus is depicted having an ambition to become a magistrate or a senator. Historically this would have been impossible, as lanistae (and ex-lanistae), being infames, were not permitted to serve either as magistrates or as senators. The lanistae were regarded as both a butcher (lanius) and a pimp (leno) as I'm unsure how the definitions cited provide proof that someone could ever have an ambition outside their station. I think it's well known that historically many people have sought to leave their station. Had the show ended with Batiatus as Senator, I might perhaps agree. The show does, indeed, stress that Batiatus does not have the proper blood or breeding to join in politics (episode 10). Kaylus (talk) 03:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

See above discussion. It's not so much a matter of Batiatus' social status, but his profession. In Rome, members of certain professions were prohibited by law from politics. This includes lanistas, pimps, actors, and undertakers. All considered "unclean" professions. This does not mean that Batiatus couldn't have had social ambitions (becoming rich, marrying well, etc.), just that he couldn't have had political ambitions.Catiline63 (talk) 07:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I Disagree. The citations still fail to cite how one can not have an ambition. Ambition is merely the desire for an achievement, not the actual achievement itself. Throughout the course of the show Batiatus is rebuffed constantly and consistently for his political ambitions. He is told that he does not have the breeding for it, and indeed referred to as a base animal, little better than his gladiators. An ambition is not an action. Nowhere in Spartacus Blood and Sand does Batiatus achieve a political position, just because they display a character in Roman times having an ambition beyond station doesn't mean it is historically inaccurate. Kaylus (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That Batiatus' ambition is dashed is immaterial. In merely depicting him as seriously attempting to embark on a political career the show is innaccurate. A historical drama depicting a 19th century Afro-American slave seriously trying to raise political support for his run at the US presidency would be just as inaccurate. Yes, you could say that the producers are just showing that the slave is ambitious; but for the show's producers to depict his ambition as serious would be wrong.

(As I say above, the producers should just have had Glaber or Calavius (or Solonius, I forget) say to Batiatus "you can't, it's illegal". But they don't.)Catiline63 (talk) 07:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

A prime example of this would be Quintus Roscius Gallus (ca. 126-62 B.C.) who was an actor which also was a reviled class at the time (Dill, Roman Society) composed primarily of slaves, captives, and foreigners was given, by Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix (then Dictator), a ring denoting him a member of the Equestrian order. Which was a HEREDITARY Aristocratic class that dominated political power. (quote from our very own Wikipedia: a remarkable distinction for an actor in Rome, where the profession was held in contempt.)

This historically occurred before the times in Spartacus the show, though if you need a cite occurring during the times look up Gaius Cornelius Gallus (ca. 70 BC–26 BC) who was born of Humble parents and was a poet and orator and became prefect of Egypt. I believe your assertion that Political Ambition could not be held by anyone without blood does not hold up to historical fact.

Given those examples, I don't see how you can assume that Batiatus could *not* have an ambition of loftier (political) goals, especially when he has bargaining capabilities (read Blackmail) against both a Legatus (a senatorial military position) and the daughter of a Senator.

They do tell him that he cannot. History is filled with those attempting to rise above their station, seriously, sometimes failing and sometimes succeeding. Unless you can cite that a Lanista would have been punished or prevented heavily for having such ambitions, or that it was indeed illegal for someone to profess ambitions for this during Roman times you cannot say it is an inaccuracy. Citing Cicero's thoughts that they were no more than butcher and pimp does indeed specify a contempt, but does not specify illegality for ambition. --- To add to that though, this same Cicero actually defended Quintus Gallus during a lawsuit, and again -- Actors were reviled in ancient Rome as well. Kaylus (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That Roscius Gallus was made an eques by Sulla has no bearing on this, as merely being an eques did not mean that you automatically had a political career. You could be an eques and be completely divorced from political life. In fact many Roman equites specifically avoided entering politics because to do so would have meant that they would have been prohibited from certain trades.

Gaius Cornelius Gallus was an eques with a politcal career. But he wasn't a magistrate or a senator (senators were prohibited from holding the prefecture of Egypt, it was a job for equestrians only directly appointed by the emperor, not the popular vote).

Nor indeed was there any prohibition on "humble" people becoming magistrates or senators (e.g. scribes, centurions, even freedmen (ex-slaves) at times: Cn. Flavius, C. Cicereius, Sex. Cloelius, and Fufidius being examples - and Lucius Vorenus in "Rome"(!)). Just those whose professions were considered disreputable.

Glaber and Solonius only tell Batiatus that he can be in politics because of his social status, not because of his profession. In this, the producers are wrong: they should have had Glaber respond to Batiastus' blackmail attempt by saying "Sorry, but no matter how much you threaten us, there's absolutely nothing we can do. For you to try to enter politics is illegal". But then such a simple scuppering of Batiatus' scheme wouldn't have provided the drama.

I suggest you read Lintott (1999) The Constitution of the Roman Republic pp.71-72 (or something similar) for an overview of the prohibitions against certain professions. Catiline63 (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Caitline, despite the fact that it was closed I still heavily disagree because your stance is simply not historically sound. I noted an instance where an infames (historically) was given a "social promotion" to the Equestrian Order, which was supposedly a hereditary order. You say this is not relevant, but I still disagree. In my example an infames succeeded in becoming an equite which goes against Roman law itself as an equite by nature would be allowed the right to vote; completely contradicting law that infames were not allowed to vote. That is not the only right that equites had that infames could not, and that would have been wiped by such an action.

This shows that the stigma Infamia under the Praetor's Edict could indeed be removed. Not only that (and while maybe not be the norm) it is a historical fact that equites have taken senatorial membership. I will use your citations as source: "Sulla, is said to have added three hundred men of equestrian standing to the senate" (The Constitution of the Roman Republic, p70)

Regardless, stating that it is historically inaccurate that someone have a "desire" for achievement is completely illogical but I will leave it as is. Kaylus (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue's not about equites. There was no prohibition against infames becoming equestrians or equestrians being infames, (so your example of Roscius Gallus simply doesn't apply here). But there was a prohibition against infames being magistrates or senators. One cannot have a serious ambition to become something it is illegal for one to become. I might have a woolly ambition to become US president, but as I'm not American the law prevents me from going any further.

Not quite sure what your point is about equestrians becoming senators. Most senators were drawn from the ordo equester, and Sulla did nothing unusual. Catiline63 (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Tags

There is clearly a consensus that there are issues with this section, and so the tags should remain until these issues are resolved. Grsz¹¹ 13:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Cast and Characters

Should plot elements, specifically spoilers be included in the cast lists?! One looks at a cast list to see just that, the cast and identifiers, not what they have done or not in the course of the show. Perhaps these were included as a sense of completeness but these elements should be relegated to episode synopses and not cast character lists64.231.68.194 (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)technoccult

Cast list is too long. It should only show the main characters and not the supporting cast as this becomes unencyclopedic. It might also be better to do away with the distinction as OR because I am not sure that some of these character qualify as supporting. Simply list the cast with the main characters.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Prequel

Another source talking about the prequel, in case one is needed at some point. I didn't see anything in there we don't already have in the article (maybe some plot specifics) but other eyeballs might notice something I didn't. Millahnna (mouse)talk 18:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

External Links

Wikipedia:External links Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia, but they should not normally be used in the body of an article. All external links must conform to certain formatting restrictions. Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to open this again, but...

"Guards are shown dressed as Roman legionaries wearing lorica segmentata. The first attested use of this type of armour by legionaries dates to around 9 BC,[29] six decades after Spartacus' revolt."

Surely most of the guards are private security, not soldiers, and there's nothing to prevent you outfitting your own staff with something the army doesn't wear (yet).

Apologies if this point has been considered above - I didn't notice it where this sentence was being argued about earlier but I haven't time to read the whole thing. --86.185.250.141 (talk) 08:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

New "historical deviations"

Obviously it isn't a historical portrayal if somebody is fighting demons or big enough to block out the sun, let's not get carried away. Grsz 11 04:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If it is the page's insistence that Barca's story is to be taken as "factual", then the other stories in that episode should be as well. If they are obviously fictionalized, the entry on Barca should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.56.42.237 (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Barca is called "the last Carthaginian" outside the context of the 'fantasy flashbacks' in Legends. Thus it stands as an inconsistency to historical reality.Catiline63 (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Never referred to as the Last Carthaginian outside of "Legends" and stories of episode three. Either the story is fantasy, and does not bear mention, or the obviously fantastical stories deserve mention as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.56.43.152 (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

He actually is referred to as a Carthaginian and the last Carthaginian on many occasions. When the show is supposed to take place there were no Carthaginians. Carthage had been a ruin for 70 years by the time show was set, and its people long since extinct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.220.176 (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Additionally the issue of Barca issue was already resolved. See above on the discussion page.24.34.220.176 (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)