Jump to content

Talk:300 (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.215.154.31 (talk) at 03:08, 28 March 2007 (From an Objective Perspective.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive
Archives
1. January 2006 to February 2007
2. February 22-March 13 2007
3. March 13-March 15 2007
4. March 15-March 16 2007
5. March 15-March 19 2007
6. March 19-March 20 2007
7. March 20-March 24 2007

Please Discuss Major Changes to the Article Here First

This will prevent back and forth arguing or misunderstandings, as well as provide insight from previous conversations as to concensus. As well, please remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advocacy or propaganda (WP:NOT#SOAPBOX). All information within the article needs to be cited from a reliable, verifiable source (WP:ATT). If you have questions, please ask here first. Thanks in Advance.
Also please keep in mind that anything included in the article needs to have a reference from a reliable source. Blogs, petitions and the like are not citable (WP:ATT), Please address new questions or comments at the bottom of the page.

-Arcayne 15:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Public Reception

The public/user scores of Imdb and rotten tomatos keep getting removed, I think what the PEOPLE thought instead of just a handful of critics is required for this article LIE ALL THE OTHER FILM WIKI PAGES! Stabby Joe 00:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with using online polls is that they are not evenly distributed. The data is unreliable. For instance, 300 had 2,000 votes on IMDb.com before the film even came out; it's extremely doubtful that they are all from people who saw the screenings. There's no editorial oversight to ensure that the poll is appropriately randomized. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to IMDB's Weighted Average Ratings they have a methode to reduce attempts at 'vote stuffing'. IMDB rating is also mentioned in many Wiki film articles.(Shahingohar 02:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
It's not just that. The voting process is one where viewers approach to add their vote. I don't know if it's necessarily slanted toward the Net-savvy demographic. The ideal poll would be a random survey of those who have seen 300, not just on the Internet, but among the general populace. I'm more comfortable with the box office performance reflecting what the masses thought of it, especially if it's backed by a measurement in how much the revenue drops by the second weekend and beyond. For instance, films like The Sixth Sense and My Big Fat Greek Wedding (drawing from my own knowledge here, sorry) had very consistent weekends, which reflected the strong word-of-mouth among audiences. Something like the Matrix sequels, though, saw a big drop in the revenue due to audiences not being as satisfied with them as they were with the first film. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First off, it has over 50,000, not 2000 votes and secondly if what you say about polls is true then how come most if not all other film wiki articles state user reviews and polls like Imdb including featured and good class articles!? If so they you're going to have to go through all even the featured articles and remove info thats used alot to state what films are good. I don't want to make anything sound like a conspirisy but this article seems to be dominated by those who DIDN'T like the film 300, like the boards at Imdb even though most people so far did like it. Stabby Joe 12:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally tend to add IMDb and RT polls to add to box office. WikiNew 13:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't tend to add info of that sort to an article, being wary of how polls can be manufactured, manipulated or otherwise distorted. I seem to recall the subject of the reliability of polls coming up in the WP:Village Pump a couple of times. I didn't really follow it, and don't know what, if any results came from it.
StabbyJoe has pointed out that many FA articles do list Imdb poll information in them, but only poll info, as Imdb is far too unreliable in any other WP sense of the word.
When writing articles, most journalists include the most reliable information first and conclude with the least reliable (yet verifiable) information last. I think we should apply this method to the information from Imdb about 300, which happens to coincide with those FA film articles using poll info.
WP info doesn't have to be true; it must be verifiable. Information contesting it can be added, so long as it is verifiable as well. The WP article on Imdb notes the practice of vote stuffing, and claims to have methods to filter skewed results out (without explaining them). I think the imdb information should stay, but in accordance with its dubious nature, be placed at the very end of the section relating to it, to quantify its relative lack of weight. This would seem to be in accordance with WP practice. Arcayne 18:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is a good article?

 (the following is lifted in its entirety from WP:FA?. It is presented here, because I want our contributors to take a good, hard look at the article and see if we are ready to apply for Good Article status. Articles over a certain length are advised to use the criteria for FA instead. Please post your comments after this area, under the temporarily blank section headers below.)


-Arcayne 02:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


A good article and featured article have the following attributes.

  1. It is "well written", "comprehensive", "factually accurate", "neutral" and "stable".
    • (a) "Well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant.
    • (b) "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.
    • (c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are attributable to reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. See the attribution policy for information on when and how extensively references are provided, and citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.
    • (d) "Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias (see neutral point of view); however, articles need not give minority views equal coverage (see undue weight).
    • (e) "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day; vandalism reverts and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.
  2. It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects, including:
    • (a) a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections;
    • (b) a proper system of hierarchical headings; and
    • (c) a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help).
  3. It should have images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. If fair use images are used, they must meet the criteria for fair use images and be labeled accordingly.
  4. It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Well-Written, Comprehensive, Factually Accurate, Neutral & Stable?
So far as I can tell, all statements are thoroughly referenced, and all references employ appropriate templates. Some very minor remarks: some authors are cited in "last, first" form, others simply with the "author" field. Should this be standardized? There's also some ambiguity regarding which citations employ the "news" template and which employ the "web" template. --Javits2000 14:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Complies w/the WP:MOS?
Complies with WikiProjects?
Are the images appropriate, with succinct captions and tags?
Is the article of appropriate length and on target?

Lead

Per WP:Lead, the lead should touch all main points of the article and it alone should be self-independent. --Aminz 05:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind, it has accomplished that. Arcayne 05:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The 'portrayal' criticism is summarized by "As well, some controversy arose over its depiction of the ancient Persian and Greek civilizations." We don't need more details, especially for something that has a life outside of its criticism. The Behnam 05:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article has a section on historical accuracy. So, it should mention its summary in the intro. 2. This film has been very controversial(more than many other films); there were a lot of objections to it; the intro doesn't reflect that. --Aminz 05:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can't really the change the 'some' of "some controversy" without being POV. Perhaps if we eliminate "some" it will give it more of a 'general' sense. Will that appease you? The Behnam 05:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, controversy over its "depiction of ancient Greek and Persian civilizations" is just about the same thing as "historical accuracy", though I may experiment to clarify this. The Behnam 05:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my suggestion: One paragraph should be given to critics and one paragraph to those who praise. That would be fair given the huge controversies over this article. In the critical paragraph, I'll summerize historical inaccuracy criticisms and other points in details instead of saying there is some criticisms here and there. I'll leave the praise paragraph for other editors to write. --Aminz 05:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this assessment. I think that your assertion that the controversy generated by this movie is "huge." It simply isn't. It's upsetting a ethnic segment, and that is addressed int he Lead. Please do not change parts of the article without concensus or after discussion has concluded on the subject. Arcayne 05:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to change it right now but I can add neutrality tag to the intro. And yes, it produced a lot of controversy. The very fact that many iranians including differnet parts of Iranian government reacted shows that. --Aminz 05:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A little bit more on this; while I feel you do have a point that the historical accuracy and deptiction of ancient Persians sections are essentially the same thing, the controversy is not such that people are holding protest marches, sit-ins and burning effigies of WB execs. That would warant specific mention in the Lead. We are enjoined by the MOS to include criticism if there has been significant, notable criticism. This we have done, paying note of the controversy regarding the depictions of ancient Persians, but without going into detail. If anything, we have missed pointing out the rather noteworthy reaction of the Iranian government. However, I do not feel this requires the major reworking of the lead that you suggest, and in fact would go into more detail than this article allows it, while no attention has been paid to production and the like.
Tags are not meant to express dissent, but to point our a valid concern. If you are claiming bias, then come out and say it. And regardng the level of controversy this movie has generated, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. Yes, the movie has offended Iranians, causing the Iranian government to react. Yes, its noteworthy. Does this constitute 10 kilos of controversy in a 5 kilo bag? I think that's is an enormous exaggeration. Please cite the riots in the streets of Japan, China, Russia, Brazil and other places where folk are running about seeting things on fire. Since I am almost positive that isn't forthcoming, its probably better to not make a mountain out of a molehill.Arcayne 06:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a change to the Lead that I am hoping addresses some of these concerns. Arcayne 06:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've reverted it. Not all of this controversy was from Iranians, and Iranians are still known as Persians. The Behnam 06:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries; the convoluted psyche issues in play were pointed out to me. Arcayne 18:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading this debate, and though I agree and disagree with some of the arguments on both sides, I don't see how a definition of controversy over movie should have rise people in the streets. Did people in Japan walk the streets for the controversial Borat movie? I think not, what I am sure is that the movie wikipedia page does include Controversy heading, and it is rate GA Class. I think the movie may not be as controversial as claimed but certainly enough controversial to have its own heading in the article. I've made this point clear before, while discussing something else, and though my point was appreciated (at least not disapproved by anyone) it dissolved through the responses that I got. I still think we should have separate heading for controversy and not under Reception.--siavash 18:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Borat is I think a different case; glancing over that page I see that the controversy was multifold, including objections from the (involuntary) "actors"; lawsuits; the Kazakh response; objections by Roma and Jewish groups; and numerous outright bans. We haven't reached that degree of complexity with 300. I think it makes sense to split off "controversy" from "reception" only if the latter, so to speak, exceeds the bounds of or threatens to overwhelm the former. In fact I would in general feel that to give the "controversy" its own section is to marginalize / trivialize it; it's like saying "here are the normal responses, and here are the crazy ones."

By the way, it's considered polite to sign your entries in the normal fashion, with four tildes (~). Best, --Javits2000 19:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preview

Arcayne, can you please prove your claim that the "when critics/reviewers see a movie ahead of the public, this is called a preview showing"(Sorry. it is not clear to me). The article says: "USA TODAY asked Paul Cartledge, author of Thermopylae: The Battle that Changed the World, who has seen a preview of the movie," --Aminz 05:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could, but I cannot cite myself.I used to review movies for a college university newspaper. When there were reviewer screenings, called previews or preview screenings, it meant that they were not open to the general public. For example, there was a preview screening for 300 at Chicago's Navy Pier on February 27th. I know, because I won tickets to go and see it. It was called by the media in atendance (and the PR people, sometimes called 'media wranglers' - lol), who asked us to "tell our friends after this preview screening that you thought it rocked!" I didn't necessarily thought it rocked, but I do think it rolled somewhat. :) Arcayne 05:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may be possible to find a real ref for that somewhere on the internet. Worth a look. The Behnam 05:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is this query referring to? The word "preview" appears nowhere in the article. Cartledge might have attended one, or the producers might have sent him a DVD; in either case I can't see how it matters. --Javits2000 10:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think he was defining preview as being an excerpt, and was concerned that Cartledge had seen only a small bit of the film, ie. in the way that people (with far too much time on their hands) can see a preview of an upcoming tv show on their cellphone. Of course, that term is applied differently in media circles, in much the same way that the word 'boom' or 'tear sheet' mean different things in- and outside of this circle. -Arcayne 18:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

90% accuracy

Does anybody have a clue how the director came up with this number? I am saying this because the very accounts we have from ancient times have certain degrees of uncertainty ignoring how this film is presenting them. --Aminz 05:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed in many of the archives, Aminz. Snyder was wrong. It was inserted because someone wanted to use it as a springboard for the historical accuracy section. Warner Bros. clearly said that it wasn't meant to be accurate. And since the article is about a film that is only semi-historical, we aren';t really relying on sources from ancient times. The source of the film was a comic book, not a textbook or the original Herodotean manuscripts. Arcayne 06:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"90 percent" is probably best understood as a figure of speech here, meaning "for the most part." Compare the Yogiism, "Baseball is 90 percent mental. The other half is physical." I doubt it's based on any calculations. --Javits2000 10:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the way the historical accuracy section is done doesn't add anything to the article. It's all, author X thinks it's accurate, but author Y doesn't. That doesn't tell you anything. IMO, the section should give specific items from the movie and note that are based, or not based, on history. For example, we can list the quotes from the movie that are historical: "Come and get them", "Then we will fight in the shade," "Because only Spartan women give birth to real men," and so forth. Kauffner 13:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, the section as presently consituted gives readers access to a range of opinions from professional historians, and allows them to form their own judgments. Of course we can't "tell" readers whether it's "accurate" or not. A laundry-list of minutiae would be, in my opinion, far less useful, and would in essence constitute an open invitation to OR. --Javits2000 13:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, it's a literature review which focuses on the subjective impressions of various authors. The article should be about the film. Kauffner 14:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Reception" is by definition an account of subjective impressions. I would be very pessimistic about our ability to produce some "objective" evaluation of the film's historical accuracy. The possibility of such an account would depend upon the availability of an incontovertible account of the events and customs in question, which is hardly ever at hand when it comes to ancient history. And I see no way of attempting to produce such an account without descending into a blow-by-blow: the agoge is presented as x, but was actually y; the Persians are shown wearing x, but actually wore y; this statement is drawn from Herodotus, this from Plutarch; this one is cited in context, that one out of context, et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum. This would a) open the door to endless debates over the history and customs of ancient Greece and Persia, which are not the subjects of this article; and b) make for exceptionally tedious reading. IMO. --Javits2000 15:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could compare the account of the movie with Herodotus, who is almost the sole source for Thermopylae itself (whether he is a credible source belongs in the article on the battle, and anyway I gether the movie is worse on those things on which he is doubted,) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would submit that those who find the subject of historical accuracy to be "exceptionally tedious" need not read this section, or, more bizarrely, contribute to it. Daryaee's article is about how great the Persians were and Hanson's article is about great the Greeks were. After reading them, I wonder if either one has even watched the movie. Kauffner 04:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect to your wit, good sir, your suppositions regarding the two historians and your musings thereof would appear to be OR. Perhaps you could simply make a point, please. Arcayne 04:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, more precisely stated, I would find the cataloguing of minutiae "extremely tedious"; the more interesting question, which also happens to be the major question that was posed of the film by the professional historians whom we've cited, is whether the film has succeded in capturing a certain worldview, or in representing the social and political structures of Sparta and Persia.

But in any case, that was only point "b." Point "a" remains: namely, that so much regarding the specific customs, apparel, etc., remains open to dispute, that to attempt a comparison is essentially to invite debate over those subjects (the realia) which are massively off-topic, esp. for a film that is characterized by its director as an "opera".

The suggestion that we compare the film with Herodotus is interesting. Earlier (archived) I expressed reluctance about comparing Daryaee's statements with Herodotus, since he explicitly cites other sources (e.g. cuneiform documents and modern studies of demography) in his account. But Herodotus is certainly our only source for the narrative of the battle itself. There are a number of public-domain texts of Herodotus online, and this one conveniently gives only those sections that relate to Thermopylae. I would suggest that, if this were of interest to people, we could incorporate a link to the text, thus facilitating access and allowing readers to make the comparison themselves. --Javits2000 09:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For example, at this point under "historical accuracy" -- "Military historian Victor Davis Hanson, who wrote the foreword to a 2007 re-issue of the graphic novel, states that the film demonstrates a specific affinity with the original material of Herodotus..." -- we could provide a link to said material. --Javits2000 10:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly wouldn't have a problem with linking the link to the Herodotean (is that even a word? - lol) text, as I do think there are errors with the factual account.
That said, I think it is worth emphasizing a simple argument against dwelling overmuch in the inaccuracies - it was a construct of the film that Dilios be the source of the tale of the 300. We are seeing the movie through his descriptions. Of course, we are going to see the Spartans as masterful, elegant and economical in their ruthlessness. Of course, we are going to see the Persians portrayed as fops, monsters and of unwholesome aspect? Of course, the actions of the other non-Spartan Greeks portrayed as not nearly as important as the Spartans. The tale is being told by a Spartan, and while Dilios is quite the Chatty Cathy, he is also a just a soldier, with a soldier's need to inspire the troops. That Dilios is the narrator from start to finish is not concealed; in fact, in cutaway scenese, we see him describing around the campfire all the lurid details of the story. This is why I think the historical accuracy section, while noteworthy, doesn't deserve all the juice some feel it deserves. This movie continually reminds me of Braveheart in how it twists historical events, and is essentially a tall tale. It's like trying to point out costuming, portrayal and historical issues in Black Knight or Time After Time; they are secondary to the story being told. Arcayne 15:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I too oppose a nitpicking approach. Most of the movie is fiction, so a comprehensive list of inaccuracies would be both long and patronizing. The positive should be emphasized, highlight the things in the movie that are historical or almost historical. Kauffner 18:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that doing that would be interpreted as preferential treatment. The article contains wikilinks to the BoT and other pertinent historical subjects, which I think allows for the exploration of the histoircal underpinnings of the subject without interfering with the article. We have to remain neutral, and simply focusing on the movie seems the best course of action here, avoiding all the Crazytown stuff about costumes, buggery and blobby ax-for-hand freaks (which begs the question - how did the guy play the violin??) Arcayne 18:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failed GA

1. The article is too long. Nominate for peer review. 2. It is semi protected. Criteria requires no edit wars. 3. This film is too new. Wait 60 days and re-nominate. GreenJoe 16:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I agree regarding the stability, it's hardly overlong and is already being reviewed, and being new is not a reason to object. WikiNew 16:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That, and it was nominated ahead of schedule -- from what I gather, at least. Did the guy who put it up for nom even alert anybody, aside from putting the template at the top? María: (habla conmigo) 16:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Length should not be an issue, especially considering the extra content that has resulted from the film's controversy. The article has already undergone a peer review, and your inability to notice that makes me concerned that you even reviewed this article closely. The semi-protection can be removed, as it was added due to IP vandalism prior to the film's release. In addition, "too new" is not a criteria for a Good Article. If you want to deny this film article a GA status, at least specify just exactly what kind of stability issues do exist. As a whole, the article is extremely intact, with periodic discussion about expanding on the historical and political matters of the film. I highly suggest that you re-evaluate your decision. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've renominated it. WikiNew 17:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Length is a major part of the criteria. Trim it down if you please. GreenJoe 17:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've cut down the plot quite a bit, and most film articles near 50 KB. WikiNew 17:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's double what the criteria states. Criteria says 25 KB. Nominate it for feature article if you like it so much, but it doesn't meet GA criteria. GreenJoe 17:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do not know how to evaluate articles. The GA criteria clearly states that it's acceptable to nominate long articles for candidates with the LONG tag if it is over 32 kb. Film articles are not supposed to have the cut-off of 25 kb. Considering that the film has reverberated more strongly in public with its box office performance and its controversy, the extra length should be acceptable. We've also done our best to keep this content succinct. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<shrugs shoulders> Sorry to sound rude, but so what? GA is GA nonetheless. WikiNew 17:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GreenJoe, you've only just joined the WikiProject for GA today, and until today it seems you have had little experience with passing/failing GA candidates (according to your history, correct me if I'm wrong). I highly suggest you re-check the criteria before doing any more pass/fails. María: (habla conmigo) 18:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I would submit that you are interpreting the size criterion incorrectly, GreenJoe. I discovered, while porting the GA requirements over to this Discussion page that articles under 25Kb uses the GA criteria for evaluation, whilst longer articles needed to apply for GA status utilizing the FA requirement criteria (which is listed above). Presumably, this is to allow for the greater depth of the article due to size, Perhaps a revisiting of the article and the listed requirements page might be helpful. Arcayne 17:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll consider that I could be wrong. I tell you what, I have a few errands to do, I'll be happy to look over the FA requirements when I get back in an hour or two. Is that an acceptable compromise? GreenJoe 18:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NO! No, a million point three times, NO!... lol, of course it's okay, GreenJoe. I am sure we all appreciate you acting on the nomination as quickly as you have, and in accordance with WP:BELLY, we hope that this errand-running helps matters. As Maria suggested, you might want to consult with another admin regarding the relative qualifications for other GA articles. Arcayne 18:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, why is the article still semi-protected? It should be noted that we have not been experiencing edit wars -- if by "edit wars" one understands ongoing disputes regarding major issues of content or organization, and not simple oversight and vigilance against vandalism. --Javits2000 18:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin. You don't have to be an admin to run through GA criteria and pass articles. You just can't have contributed to the article significantly. Anyway, let me get the FA stuff, and go through it. Keep in mind though the stability of the article is still a concern. GreenJoe 18:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsideration based on FA criteria

  1. It is well written.
  2. It is comprehensive.
  3. It is factually accurate.
  4. It is neutral.
  5. It is not stable. In the last 2 days alone it has been edited a significant number of times.
  6. Introduction meets the manual of style.
  7. Has proper headings.
  8. The table of contents, IMHO, is overwhelming.
I could overlook this since it's not that big of an issue. GreenJoe 19:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is appropriate length.
  2. Images meet appropriately with criteria, though we would like to see images that can be used under the GFDL vs fair use.

GreenJoe 19:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not possible being a copyrighted film, unless someone was there on set and took photos of Butler on a blue stage, which is highly unlikely. WikiNew 19:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a major issue, and not something to fail it on. It's just something to strive to. GreenJoe 19:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, 8 or 9 out of 10 seems pretty good. As most of the edits occurring seem to be from people wanting to add material already mentioned, I'd say we have a weiner here. Commence the streamers and dancing girls - and make us a GA article. :) Arcayne 19:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that you don't have a winner. You do. But I can't pass it until it's more stable. GreenJoe 19:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable. Of course, as long as the article is (as was noted by the nominator) the 3rd most visited on the English site, it is to be expected that it will receive a number of edits. May I ask if stability here is to be understood simply as number of edits (many of which are minor, or simple vandalism, quickly reverted), or overall stability of content and form? --Javits2000 19:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The GA criteria says this about stability:
5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content.
GreenJoe 19:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Semi-protection normally implies vandalism. This article attracts both fanboys and Iranian (and I suppose Greek) nationalist anons. This should not be a GA disqualification.
  • The length criterion is a statement that short articles are eligible for GA; not a statement that long articles aren't. (The assimilation to FA standards is a non-consensus folly by the people who are making GA a broken process, but that's another topic.)
  • GA has never required consensus; it requires two editors, and no consensus against. If it did require consensus, it would be identical with FA, and deprecable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No edit wars for ages. WikiNew 19:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today alone there have been approx 26 edits, none of them minor. To me that isn't stability. If you have new material to add, add it, then renominate the article. It says right at the top of the section to nominate films that new films shouldn't be nominated as they will automatically fail. GreenJoe 19:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't edit wars. Merely copyedits. The article has stayed in a consistent manner for a long while. WikiNew 19:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, here's a 48-hour diff. --Javits2000 19:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Make darned sure it remains stable. It can always be revoked. GreenJoe 19:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, mate! --Javits2000 19:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary detail

Is this addition really necessary? It's clear that the king goes against the Oracles; it shouldn't be important to get in the details. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going against the law is very different from going against some advice.--Patrick 00:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was my impression that Leonidas' reasoning to the council members was not supposed to be convincing. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is about the second part of my addition. You can add some clarification.--Patrick 01:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can appreciate your point, Patrick, but in the interests of brevity, we need to keep it to the point. :) We do appreciate your attention to detail, though. Arcayne 02:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack: Message For The Queen - independent source

Ok, I found an independent confirmation of my claim. The music director of the Macedonian Radio Vancho Dimitrov, and the macedonian composer and producer Vladimir Petrovski-Karter both agree that the music of the soundtrack is a complete copy of the macedonian folk song Zajdi Zajdi. A link to the article in Spic, macedonian daily newspaper. Here is a translation of the key sentence from the article:

"The instrumental introduction of the soundtrack is identical to the second portion of the song "Zajdi zajdi", where the lirics "my youth, of ye forest, will not return" start. - Vancho Dimitrov, composer and music director of the First Program of the Macedonian Radio.

Further in the article the journalist will contact Ivan Sarievski, the grandson of Aleksandar Sarievski, the composer of the song, and ask for his reaction/interview.

So I suggest we publish the following text:

The melody of the soundtrack "Message For The Queen" is exactly the samesource with the melody of the Macedonian folk song "Zajdi Zajdi Jasno Sonce". Although regarded as old folk song, "Zajdi Zajdi Jasno Sonce" is actually composed by Aleksandar Sarievski, a famous singer and composer of Macedonian folk songs.

The melody of the soundtrack "Message For The Queen" is exactly the same1 with the melody of the Macedonian folk song "Zajdi Zajdi Jasno Sonce". Although regarded as old folk song, "Zajdi Zajdi Jasno Sonce" is actually composed by Aleksandar Sarievski, a famous singer and composer of Macedonian folk songs. --GoranStojanov 12:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, that's exactly what we needed, and I can vouch for the article. I would suggest a slightly different text, at the close of the current "soundtrack" section, without the extraneous links and with proper citation format, as follows:
Commentators have also noted that the melody of "Message for the Queen" is identical to the song "Zajdi, zajdi" by the [[Republic of Macedonia|Macedonian]] composer Aleksandar Sarievski.<ref>{{cite news |author=Valentina Gorgievska |title=Plagijat na "Zajdi, zajdi" vo film za Spartancita |url=http://www.spic.com.mk/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=2&tabid=1&EditionID=235&ArticleID=11013 |publisher=Špic |date=2007-03-27 |accessdate=2007-03-27 |language=Macedonian}}</ref>
Goran, would you mind checking if the transliteration is correct? It would be for Serbian, but I don't know if there are any phonetic differences btw. the two languages. --Javits2000 13:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I agree with the modified text. Transliteration needs few minor corrections. It should be "film za SpartancitE". Do you want me to post it, or will you post it? --GoranStojanov 13:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great, sorry, I got lazy there at the end. Why don't you go ahead and post it -- you've certainly fought hard enough for it! Best, --Javits2000 13:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Excellent work, Goran. Cheers! Arcayne 14:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thank you for your help. --GoranStojanov 15:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Miller's opinion

There doesn't seem to be much in the article about what Frank Miller thought of the film, or whether he thought it followed his own ideas or themes. Can we add something? Magic Pickle 15:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if we had a source. On the other hand he was a producer, so I'm guessing he had a fair amount of input. --Javits2000 15:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spartans were notorious Boy-lovers

In his column of March 23, 2007, advice columnist Dan Savage points out the irony of Leonidas sneering at the Athenians as "Boy lovers" while in historical reality the Spartans were the most notorious boy-lovers of the ancient world.

Dan Savage is of course right, and it is preposterous to deny his point.

Furthermore, it is important to note this, as the movie relentlessly makes the propaganda point that the super-macho heterosexual Spartans are superior to the effete and efeminate Iranians, even going as far as taking off the King of King's beard. Erudil 16:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed the point the film isn't intended to be historically accurate, being a Spartan's camp fire tale. WikiNew 16:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second this notion. Paragraphs and paragraphs could be written on what was accurate or not in 300. The mention of boy-loving is hardly at the top of the list. Like Wiki-newbie said, it's a graphic novel that took creative licensing in adapting the battle. It's not the gospel truth about what has gone before. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that aside from our personal opinions on the criticism, it shouldn't be added simply because we are trying to be concise and do not need to report every single criticism out there. The Behnam 16:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that Dan Savage, while undoubtedly a smart guy, is hardly a professional historian. --Javits2000 16:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, he's a gay sex advice columnist; he's not even a film critic. If we include this guy, what's next? María: (habla conmigo) 16:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the article Spartan pederasty right here in Wikipedia, and its 25 scholarly footnotes. The movie should not be allowed to get away with this major inaccuracy without even any discussion. Erudil 16:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read the article. It is already mentioned (numerous times) that the film is not meant to be historically accurate. There are a plethora of differences that we could find between this artistically created film and its historical counterpart, I'm sure, but this is not the most notable or contributive difference to mention. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet alert! WikiNew 17:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, Das Baz is just signing his comments with "Erudil" for some reason. Like you with WikiNew/Wiki-newbie and me with Erik/Erikster, but this is a big difference, obviously. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked him to sign correctly on his talk page before his latest comment, but obviously the guy is not in a listening mood. María: (habla conmigo) 17:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's odd. But I'll try to state the point against as clearly as possible. No one's denying there was institutionalized pederasty in Sparta. The point is rather, as we've often discussed here, that "historical accuracy" can't turn into a catalogue of minutiae, pro or con; instead we've made the decision, by consensus if I'm not mistaken, to limit it to evaluations of the film by profesional historians. Note that these address the broad themes of the film, like freedom vs. tyranny, and not finer points, such as (as have been raised here before): military apparel, famous quotes, Xerxes's hairstyle, etc. Something that comes up once in the film, in a toss-off line, is clearly too trivial. In any case, Leonidas just calls the Athenians "boy-lovers," which is as accurate as calling the Spartans "boy-lovers"; to turn it into an instance of "inaccuracy" you have to infer that he's claiming that the Spartans are not. Too fancy. --Javits2000 17:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I thought it was the Thebans that were paired lovers-warriors. Boy love? In ancient Greece? Shocking. Arcayne 17:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this article gets too long, feel free to start the article Historical accuracy of the film 300.--Patrick 00:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem, though. The film does not purposely pride itself on being 100% historically accurate, it prides itself on being close to a comic book. It would be unencyclopedic to draw at length the undoubtedly countless differences between the film and its actual historical event. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it'd be one thing if there was anything in the movie about 'boy-loving', the film doesn't have to show every part of the culture. It'd be silly to add this, like others have said -- where do you stop? LilDice 00:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On to FA Consideration

How long do we remain at GA status before applying for FA status? Of course, we should resolve any issues that remain. After GreenJoe's comment abou the edits and the like int he article, I placed notices (thanks for catching the misspelling) in the edit page for each section askingthe contributors to bring their potential edits here first, so as to make sure the topics haven't been dealth with before by concensus. This should cut down on informed addtions, as people not pushing a point will see the notice and bring proposed change suggestions here (like Goran did - again, awesome job!).
What else needs doing? Arcayne 18:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A DVD section, Awards and the full box office run. WikiNew 18:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. So, just time, then?
ps-found this, which might be helpful. Arcayne 18:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no length of time involved. We just need to ensure that the article meets FA standards. Personally, I think the overall prose could be improved to have stronger flow. There are also one/two-sentence paragraphs, which are usually frowned upon. FA-class articles usually have fuller paragraphs, so this means we need to tie the points together in a way that will transit smoothly. There's probably other things we can do to continue improving the article. Well, stability is an issue, i think it's even more likely that people would want to wait until the film is done with its theatrical run before even considering this article's nomination. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wording change in Persion Reaction section

I would like to propose changing: "As in the graphic novel, the Persians are depicted as a barbaric and demonic horde, and King Xerxes is portrayed as androgynous. This is designed to stand in stark contrast to the masculinity of the Spartan army." to "As in the graphic novel, the Persians are depicted as a barbaric and demonic horde, and King Xerxes is portrayed as androgynous.Which critics suggest is designed to stand in stark contrast to the masculinity of the Spartan army." It might seem trivial, but unless the film maker or Miller is commenting on why the Persians were drawn that way we should make it clear it's a critic's opinion on it. LilDice 19:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that something needs to be done about these sentences; at present we're making a claim about authorial intent, as LilDice suggests. The exact edit proposed wouldn't work, as the second sentence is incomplete, but I've stared at those sentences a couple times and haven't come up with anything better. --Javits2000 20:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. WikiNew 20:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit concerned that the cited reference doesn't actually sugest that, and connecting the two (although apparent) might itself be OR. Arcayne 20:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read it, it does contrast the two, though it calls the Spartans gay as well....LilDice 23:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to edit the first sentence for excessive comma use:

Since its opening, 300 has attracted controversy over its portrayal of ancient Persians. Various critics, journalists, and officials of the Iranian government including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad[1] have denounced the film.

Any opinion one way or the other?Hewinsj 01:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I am always too generous with my comma use, such as here, and here, and here. I don't mind if you edit out inappropriate comma usage; could you perhaps show what the edit would look like after? Arcayne 02:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is the after. I can take a look at the whole section though and see if anything else has been missed. Hewinsj 02:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only saw 2 things I would change in the first two paragraphs. Revisions listed here to be compared to what's currently up:

Since its opening, 300 has attracted controversy over its portrayal of ancient Persians. Various critics, journalists, and officials of the Iranian government including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad[1] have denounced the film. As in the graphic novel, the Persians are depicted as a barbaric and demonic horde, and King Xerxes is portrayed as androgynous.[92][93] Critics have suggested that this is meant to stand in stark contrast to the masculinity of the Spartan army.[94]

Film critic Dimitris Danikas has suggested that the film portrays Persians as "bloodthirsty, underdeveloped zombies," writing that the filmmakers "are stroking [sic] racist instincts in Europe and America."[72] American critics, including Steven Rea, have argued that the Persians are a vehicle for an anachronistic cross-section of Western stereotypes of Asian and African cultures.[95] Dana Stevens of Slate points out that as the "bad guys" the Persians are depicted as black people, brown people, homosexual, handicapped and/or deformed in some way.[83]

Hewinsj 02:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir/Madam, I would like to suggest adding the following link to the bottom of your page "300 (film)" on your website wikipedia:

      • "The 300 Savages at Thermopylae: A Response to the Hollywood Film '300'

By Dr. Samar Abbas. *** http://www.payvand.com/news/07/mar/1324.html

This article provides scientific refutation of the various historical misconceptions of the film, and I feel your readers would benefit by reading the above said article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.251.140.35 (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I would be fine with it as an external link. Actually, I'm surprised that there aren't many supplementary links besides the generally linked stuff. I'd like some backing of the writer's credentials, though -- the fact that his e-mail is Hotmail isn't very convincing. Is this published anywhere more official, like at an .edu extension? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As would I. It's an interesting article, though I didn't miss the inherent bias (Alexander the Accursed? Guess I went to a different university). We would need to establish the provenance of the good doctor's title and institution. That way, we know why his opinion was sought out, and of what weight we should afford it. Arcayne 22:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think it's completely nuts, and more an attack on Greek culture than a critique of the film. So, we get the vague statement that "the film portrays the Iranians as paying no respect for human life." Then we get a bunch of irrelevant (and misleading) remarks about human sacrifice in ancient Greece. He quotes discredited genetic scholarship (Arnaiz-Villens), to demonstrate that the Greeks were "Negroid"; goes on a completely irrelevant tear about the Byzantines (citing, yes, Carl Sagan), and concludes that the Greeks were "barbarians" and "savages." I know we're not considering it for use in the article, but I feel it's without merit.
Alexander the Accursed is a Sassanian cognomen; later he becomes Iskandar, via Dhul-Qarnayn, and ends up in Nezami. But that's another story. --Javits2000 22:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't link tripe like that to the page. It is completely ridiculous and barely about the movie. It even associates it with antisemitism, which is just really stupid. What is with this crap about the "Irano-Semitic" world? "Hellenomaniac historians"? This thing is just low quality Greek-bashing and I don't see it at all having more merit than Daryaee or even Farrokh's works. It doesn't even deserve a link in the external links section. Sorry. The Behnam 00:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a lack of response regarding the author's credibility and the other editors' stances, I've stricken out my statement of acceptance. I only skimmed it initially, but re-focusing my attention, the language does not seem to make an objective analysis. I do want, though, for there to be supplementary links to be provided for analyzing the film and how it relates to its historical background. It could be a "content fork" explanation to use for new editors, since we want to keep the content about the film's controversy succinct. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added an article by HowStuffWorks (originally posted it on the talk page a while ago, but no one made use of it). Is there any issue with the supplementary content that it provides? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(feeling pretty dumb for not noticing all the problems with the good doctor's article-sorry, all). The HWS article is noteworthy in that it speaks directly to the interpretation of Xerxes, which could be placed in either Production, Historical accuracy or Depiction of Persians sections. I'll recreate it below for the ADD folks:

Rodrigo Santoro, a Brazilian actor, was chosen to play the imposing, Persian ruler Xerxes. Historical depictions of Xerxes with a wavy beard and tall hat went out the window in favor of the scary shaven, pierced and chain-covered creature in Miller’s graphic novel, with an otherworldly voice to match.
“Zack told me he wanted the movie theater shaking, so he asked me to speak in as low a register as possible, and he would enhance my voice in the computer to make it echo,” says Santoro. “I tried to portray him as not human. He’s a creature. He’s an entity. So that voice fits, filling the room, together with 7 feet tall and all that.” (He’s actually 6’3”.)

-Arcayne 01:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or internet culture. It's a film that already has over 9,000 memes. It's huge on the web. There's an article with more detail on it on Encyclopedia Dramatica. I do believe that the 300 (film) article needs to at least mention this phenomenon.Ealgian 01:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From an Objective Perspective.

This film was nothing more than a symbol of West v.s. East: more specificaly "Freedom" v.s. Iran. And what more appropriate a time to release such an American film as now?

(The country of Persia was renamed "Iran" after 1935.)

Let's be candid. The Spartans were portrayed as handsome heroes, strong and bold, fighting for freedom. The Persians were portrayed as nothing less than gastly monsters, with evil motives.

Are the Americans the glorious Spartans? And the Iranians the wicked Persians?

I wouldn't have had such a qualm about this movie had they not just made the Persians out to be a savage lot of acromegalic giants. And how come there were no deformed men among the Spartan ranks? Because only the Persians were the deformed ones?

This movie is nothing more than western propoganda, and unhistorical at it's foundation (Xerxes I being portrayed as a 7-foot drag queen, among other fruitful absurdities).

  1. ^ Ali Jaafar (2007-03-21). "Iran president irked by '300'". Variety. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:300_(film)&oldid=118432229"