Talk:300 (film)

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
8. March 24-March 30 2007
9. March 30-April 9 2007

What was archived

• Intro Paragraph - stating that the Battle of Thermopylae be incuded in the Lead.
• On the Same POV, again - discussion reagarding fantasy elements of 300, and the application of historical fantasy.
• Trimming Controversy Sections - discussion addressing trimming sections Persian Reaction, Political Aspects and historical inaccuracies
• External Links (Farrokh, Part 1) - discussion regarding the inclusion of Farrokh statements.
• Not semi-historical, fictional per producers of the movie - discussion of the semi-historical vs fictional descriptors of the movie in the Lead statement.
• Accurate historical images - continued discussion carried over from prior archiveTalk:300 (film)/Archive_8#Accurate_historical_images, discussing Farrokh article illustrations denoting apparent Persian period dress.
• External Links - summarization from prior archive: should we create a subsection in external links section for reviews?
• Lead - discussion regarding the Lead carried over from prior archive: Some argue that the lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article and describing its notable controversies. The question is whether the sections "Critical reaction", "Historical accuracy", "Political aspects" and "Depiction of Persians" need to be summarized and added to the intro, and if so in what way this should be accomplished.
• Semi-historical or Highly Stylized? - further discussion as to the film's descriptor in the Lead (semi-historical v. semi-fictional v. highly stylized)
• Critical reaction section - summary from prior archive: Renaming the Critical reaction section to "Reviews"
• WP:GA/R Good article Review - a review of the article's GA status, resulting in de-listing due to to edit-warring
• Farrokh (Farrokh Part 3) - further discussion regarding the inclusion of Farrokh statements.
• Response to Javits2000 - discussion between Azerbaijani and Javits2000 regarding Farrokh statements for and against inclusion
• A Note - requesting the merging of three separate discussions on the Farrokh statements, and continuing discussions under new headers at the bottom of the page
• Farrokh, summary - further discussion of Farrokh statements
• POV-check - further discussion of Farrokh statments, possibility of "POV projection"
• Proposed Lead Statement - a discussion of various proposed lead statements
• POV template - discussion regarding the POV check tag on the talk section
• Semiprotect - discussion requesting the renewal of article's semi-protect status, removed along with full protection
• Foreign language refs - discussion as to the inclusion or removal of references in languages other than English
• Article on why the Spartans were made heterosexual for the movie - discussion of a CoI link into the article
• Proposed Lead, Take II - continuation of Proposed Lead Statement, an earlier section discussion
• "fictional account" - further discussion regarding historical v fiction descriptor of the film
• Article protected - announcement by admin User:Tariqabjotu of full protection on article (expiring 04.08.07) to create a cool-down period and allow for settlement of consensus issues
• Edit - request of a citation tag that was explained as uneccesary
• Fact and fiction - a user comment regarding the nature of the historical v fictional (descriptor of the film) argument
• Pick a Numbah, Any Numbah - discussion specifying a number of proposed lead statements, with dissent noting the failure to include the article's pre-existing statement in the choices, accusations of cherry-picking or mf'g of statement choices.
• Young Leonidas reminder - discussing the inclusion of the age change in Cast of Leonidas age protrayal by Tyler Neitzel.
• Inspired by BoT? - further discussion of POV editing in regards to historical v fictional descriptions
• Casting - discussing the removal of Cast section info as to when various actors were cast for the film
• Robert Maillet's character - discussion concluding that giant was listed as Über Immortal in film credits, and article needed to reflect that.

Appearance of the Persians

In the 'Depiction of Persians' section of the article no mention is made of the appearance of the Persians in the movie. They appear quite dark and swarthy, with consistantly brown hair and brown eyes, yet the ancient Persians, prior to the Arab conquest, were an Aryan tribe and would have had quite fair features - probably more so than their Greek opponents. Take for example the inscription of Darius, Xerxes' father: "I am Darius the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage." Yet Xerxes in the film appears quite dark. Perhaps the article might remark on this inaccurate depiction of the physical appearance of the Persians. Also, though of little bearing to the article itself as it is pure speculation on my part, could it be that the Persians were depicted in a dark and swarthy manner so that people would more readily think of them as the bad-guys (that is to say, perhaps the producers thought a fair-skinned, blue-eyed enemy wouldn't seem to have that nefarious, foreign quality desired of the Asiatic enemy?). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.212.151.153 (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

since this is an adaptation of Frank Miller's comic book, this matters how? dab (𒁳) 21:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Because it gives people the wrong impression of iranian/persian people. I saw the movie, and having met persian people, I laughed at there ridiculous portrayal, many even have colored eyes! They way the persians were portrayed was racist to me. Manic Hispanic 02:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you need to give people more credit. If you picked up on the laughableness, why can't you presume that other people are capable of doing so as well. We are not in the business of spoon-feeding. Arcayne 02:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be an OR request anyway, so I guess this discussion doesn't really serve a purpose anyway. The Behnam 02:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

How wrong you are. Many people have noticed and discussed this repulsive aspect of the movie: article from iranian.com, article from CNN, article from Ghandchi, article from an Iranian archeologist. So much for "OR". The fact is that the movie is overwhelmingly offensive to Persians and Iranians. It would be nice for people to stop dismissing such arguments or lambasting us. It's not civil. Not civil at all. Khorshid 03:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

As it is indeed civil to explore the arguments of people who appear to have opposing viewpoints, I looked at each of the references you provided.

• The first is a comedy skit about a fictional conversation between King Khamenei and Pres. Ahmadinejad. I believe the skit actutally poked more fun at the Iranian government than it does to expose the supposedly "racist sentiment" of the film. It's amusing, but not on point.
• The second is a film review that i believe has been incorporated into the article.
• The third are Dr. Farrokhe's remarks, which I believe we have also discussed repeatedly, and are in the article, as well.
• The fourth seems to be a source of interest, written on 18 March, 2007. I wonder why this was never introduced before. Someone else can evaluate the timbre, verifiability and reliability of that article.

Looking over your statements supoported by the inclusion of joke, two comments already included in the article, and a heretofore unseen review, I have to conclude that at this time (and you are welcome to work up the last citation so we can take a look at your proposed additions to include in the depiction of Persians section), the stance is that this isn't as well supported as it needs to be. It isn't about what we feel, Khorshid. Its about what we can prove. Arcayne 03:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've also known a number of people from Iran, and if you're going to say they all have white skin, then you are mistaken. And while some may have have non-brown eyes, brown eyes are still predominant. Bbagot 15:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since the film is told from the point of view of a Spartan, of course the Persians would look like monsters. When you're fighting an army, you're not going to see them as supermen. 58.178.76.6 08:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the in the film, and in Miller's original work, the Persian empire is refered to being made up of "a thousand nations." An empire made up of so many nations would have many races. In fact, in the film we see that the armies of Xerxes are made up of men with black skin, brown skin and white skin. Xerxes himself could have been of mixed descent. Keep in mind, also that Xerxes is using slaves as soldiers, who are fighitng because they have no choice, which could be interprteed as making Xerxe's tyranny the true enemy of Leonidas and his Spartans. Another important point, the comment made by Manic Hispanic refers to "Persian/Iranian people." The original Persians are not Iranians, they where Aryans. Refering to those of Iranian descent as Persian is innacurate and is also offensive to many Iranians. User:SkullyD

I'd like to point out that in the original graphic novel, there are no monster-persian soldiers. you never see a one of those vampire-like maskless Immortals, much less the ogre-like soldiers or the scarred lesbian dancers as in the movie. Hell, there's not even rhinos, which, AFAIK, were never used as warbeasts.--Gonzalo84 21:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Another important point, the comment made by Manic Hispanic refers to "Persian/Iranian people." The original Persians are not Iranians, they where Aryans. Refering to those of Iranian descent as Persian is innacurate and is also offensive to many Iranians.

SkullyD wow you are an idiot, saying Persians aren't Iranian is like saying Saxons aren't Germanic, your comments amaze me as to how stupid they sound, I can only hope you speak of ignorance. I have no other way to put it. Iran means land of the Aryans. The word Persian is just a Greek word to refer to the pars people of the pars province that subdued the medes and other Iranian tribes and went on to create there various massive empires throughout antiquity. Persians are Iranians, as Iran is simply a cognate of Aryan. Persians fall under the broad umbrella of the Iranian peoples i.e tajiks, kurds, pashtuns, baloch, persians laks and lurs. And I quote the wikipedia article on the Persians. "The Persians are descendants of the Aryan (Indo-Iranian) tribes that began migrating from Central Asia into what is now Iran in the second millennium BC.[6][7][8] The Persian language and other Iranian tongues emerged as these Aryan tribes split up into two major groups, the Persians and the Medes, and intermarried with peoples indigenous to the Iranian plateau such as the Elamites.[9][10]" Manic Hispanic 08:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"SkullyD wow you are an idiot". WP:NPA anyone? 58.178.9.58 09:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The user has already been warned on their talk page, but yes, I agree. María (habla conmigo) 12:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

General Editorial Problems

So far, I have only noted one, and it is a single sentence, but it is significant. As written, the first paragraph of the plot reads:

Leonidas then visits the Oracle, explaining his plan of war with the Persians and offers a customary payment in gold.

This makes it seem that Leonidas is, oddly, conferring with the Persians about going to war with the Persians, which he is obviously not doing. I think this is more a matter of poor sentence structure, rather than misunderstanding what is happening in the movie. The sentence should read something like:

Leonidas then visits the Oracle, explaining his plan of war with the diseased, priestly Ephors and offers them a customary payment of gold.

Links should probably be made to 'Oracle' (referring to the generic 'oracle' article, as there is no documented Spartan oracle in history); and 'Ephors,' since that article covers both the historical office and the fictionalized portrayal in 300. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.61.13.4 (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

A few points: first of all, I agree with you about the faulty sentence structure. However, your suggestion is just as faulty: "explaining his plan of war with the diseased, priestly Ephors" makes it sound as if Leonidas wants to war with the Ephors. I would much rather suggest something along the lines of

Leonidas then visits the Oracle to explain his war plan with the priests, offering a customary payment in gold.

We can pretty much omit the "Persian" reference since it's clear from the previous sentence that he's resolved "to face the Persians." Perhaps we should tack "in battle" to the end of that bit. Any thoughts on that? Second of all, the article in the past has both linked to the Ephors and the Oracle, but editors have discussed this and decided to omit both of them due to the source material, and not the historical accuracy. In the graphic novel as well as the film, the priests are not referred to as Ephors (just had a look, and they are referred to as Ephors in the graphic novel, but it is still the film that matters here); to name them so in plot summary would be to rewrite the circumstances of the story. I hope this clears things up for you. María: (habla conmigo) 22:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I was reading over it and I thought a third option that doesn't use the word explains might be another option. I also tried to punch up the sentence that follows.

Leonidas then visits the Oracle and presents his war plan to her priests along with a customary offering of gold. Having already been bribed by Xerxes, the priests interpret her message to mean that Sparta should not go to war and deny the request, citing that anyone interrupting the upcoming Carneian festival would be committing a sacrilege.

Any good? Hewinsj 23:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the use of "her" regarding the Oracle (though, yes, it's a woman), but perhaps I'm merely being picky. I do like changing "exchange" to "present," however. Not bad! María: (habla conmigo) 00:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The identifier appears in the film as well, through Dilios' narration. Something trimmed down:

Having been already been bribed by the Persians, the priests of the Oracle reject Leonidas' plans, citing the upcoming Carneian festival as a reason to not go to war.

Thoughts? -Arcayne 02:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't like using the word oricle twice in two sentences because it's like we're restating who the preists work for. Maybe something in between what we have?

Having already been bribed by the Persians, the priests interprit her message to mean that Sparta should not go to war because it would interrupting the upcoming Carneian festival.

Maybe after that add a third sentence with something like the following to lead into the next paragraph:

This attempt to block Leonidas puts the king at odds with Spartan tradition, and any act on his part could be considered treasonous by his people.

I also didn't like the usage of her in first sentence, it was just the best adjective I could fit in there at the time. Hewinsj 16:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Plenty of these phrasings sound fine (if a bit lengthy), but I have to point out that the priests are referred to as 'Ephors' in the movie, once. Right when they are introduced, Dilios calls them by their proper name in the voiceover, so it is not inappropriate to refer to them as such in the article, and thus a link to the explanation would be in order.

I stand corrected, thank you. The reference may have only been removed for issues of space, but there has been so much debate, I honestly cannot remember. If that is the case, I have no qualms with adding it back in. María (habla conmigo) 13:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

Since Warner Bros. themselves (you know, the people who actually made the film) have stated quite emphatically that the movie is a "pure fiction", consensus has already been reached. The current title is fine. If people still oppose what Warner Bros. themselves (you know, the people who actually made the film) have stated, then I suggest an RFC because there is no jusitification to change it. I am sure any legitimate and credible person would agree that we should accept what the studio says about its own movie. That it is a pure fiction as the current leader states. I will continue to strongly oppose any change of the leader, which is not only sourced, but comes from the top, i.e. Warner Bros. (you know, the people who actually made the movie). Cheers, Khorshid 03:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Using your same reasoning, we could also state that "any legitimate and credible person would agree" that we should accept what the director says about the film (you know, the guy who actually made the film), being 90% accurate. Now, we have these two apparent polar opposites, neither of which are students of history. If only we could find some of those...

Well, hey - we have four of those, right there in the article! How lucky is that?! Both argue as to the historical accuracies and inaccuracies of the film. But darn, none of them come out and say that the film is a "pure fiction." So I guess this means that concensus is going to have to rely upon us, deciding what the film actually is, based on all the info, and not just the one bit by a marketing department trying to ensure that they aren't characterized as racists. Arcayne 03:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well 'pure fiction' and '90% accurate' (aka 10% fiction) both still mean 'fiction', so while the two may not agree on 'pure fiction' it can certainly be said that the sources admit to the film's 'fictional' nature. The Behnam 03:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

So Khorshid, should we infer from this statement that you abstain from voting on the choices for the replacement lead statement above? -Arcayne 03:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You can't force people to vote on options you've written yourself. That's now how you get consensus. --Mardavich 04:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Mardavich. You did not include the current version ("fictional account") as a choice. Agha Nader 04:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Actually, I just did include the current version, as per Mardavich's remarks. No one is forcing anyone to vote. However, if you don't vote, you don't get a say. That's the way it works here. And I appreciate you removing the accusation that I fabricated all the choices. That would not have been civil. -Arcayne 04:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Including a new option now, after several people have already voted on the options you had cherry-picked, makes little or no difference. The whole process is flawed, that's not how you achieve consensus. --Mardavich 04:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If there has been cherry picking going on, which options are missing? Also, I think we've all proven that we don't mind sitting around and talking about this subject so I doubt anyone would be opposed to users changing their votes if they feel it's necessary in light of this addition. No one here seems that uptight from the conversations that I've read. Hewinsj 04:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

To comment on the quote from the producers used here, the full quote states that the story is fictional (I won't dispute that) but also based on a historic battle. If that's the case, the film could be classified as "historic fiction". This term is considered a subdivision of fiction that classifies a story as having taken place during a notable time period or event in the past (in this case the battle). I don't mind calling the film fictitious, I just want to see the right literary term is used in doing so and that quotes aren't taken out of context. Hewinsj 05:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the current wording ("fictional account") is that it ignores the fact that the narrative of the battle itself follows the ancient sources. This is presumably what Snyder means when he describes it as "90% accurate ... it's just in the visuals that it's crazy," or words to that effect. And as the "visuals" are precisely the source of the controversy (everything about the depiction of the Persians), this strikes me as a fairly accurate assessment. Thankfully, there's a word for narratives which base themselves on historical events but take artistic license in their elaboration; and that's "historical fiction." --Javits2000 11:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the word fiction used in the abstract label "fictional account" is a red herring. What WB stated does by no means put a label on the genre of the film or its content. If we were to follow Behnam's logic ("if a film is even only 10% historically inaccurate, then it is "fiction") then we should label _all_ non-documentaries as "fictional accounts" rather than historical films. We should also thank the Iranian editors for opening wikipedia's eyes on the real meaning of the Anglo-american genres of cinematography, and for showing the correct use of english terminology. Then wikipedia should contact all film critics and warn them about their use of erroroneous terminology such as "historical epic" [1]. Miskin 17:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is not necessary. This movie has big differences from actual historical-based films that just change a few things. Consider Lawrence of Arabia (film). 300, however, adds a very, uh, 'fantastic' element that takes away from the 'historicity of the fiction.' Usually historical fiction tries to emulate the actual history feeling as much as possible, but having a fantasy army of deformed people doesn't quite achieve that here. Anyway, it seems you have deluded yourself into thinking that this film is non-fiction, but regardless, both sources support the 'fictional' description. While it may be possible to use more specific terms, there is no agreement here as to which term to use, so for now it should simply say fictional. The Behnam 17:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains that this movie belongs to the category called "historical" or "historical epic", any further categorisation is a POV. Have a look on the tv critics and reviews on the internet, the vast majority calls it a "historical epic". Not only we have neglected this, but we have additionally introduced a "Science Fiction" genre. And you are in favour of this. Have a look at Gladiator (film), a purely fictional storyline based on an actual historical era, labelled simply as a "historical film" right in the lead. You are not in position to redefine english terminology on cinema and your argumentation falls under original research. Miskin 12:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If we are going to avoid making judgments as much as possible, then we must call this film "pure fiction" in the article. The Behnam 11:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The film is an accurate portrayal of much of the history we know from that time period including Spartan training regime for male youths, the strength of the council over the king(s), the ability of women to speak their mind, the saying of "come back with your shield or on it" the asking for "earth and water" by the Persian emissaries and the killing of those emissaries, etc. It's a historical film with fantastical elements that makes for a more exciting story. To in any way label it as complete historical truth or pure fiction would be to greatly miss the mark of reality and would do an injustice to truth. Bbagot 15:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Bdagot, my point exactly all this time. Miskin 18:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Pick a Numbah, Any Numbah, Take 2

Here are the current choices brought up in various sections over the past week or so. One of these could replace the current phrase in contention. Note that the authors are not listed, as each choice has been worked out by consensus of one group or another. These are the only choices that have been suggested thus far to either replace or maintian the statemetn currently in the article. For those of you who had chosen before, perhaps you can be imposed upon to select the choice you prefer afterward.

1. 300 is a 2007 film adaptation of the graphic novel 300 by Frank Miller, a work of historical fiction about the Battle of Thermopylae.

2. 300 is a 2007 film adaptation of the graphic novel 300 by Frank Miller (comics)|Frank Miller and is a fictional retelling of the history of the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC.

3. 300 is a 2007 film adaptation of the graphic novel 300 by Frank Miller, itself partly inspired by another film, The 300 Spartans, and is based on the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC

4. 300 is a 2007 film adaptation of the graphic novel 300 by Frank Miller, based upon the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC

5. 300 is a 2007 film adaptation of the graphic novel 300 by Frank Miller, itself partly inspired by another film, The 300 Spartans.

6. 300 is a 2007 film adaptation of the graphic novel 300 by Frank Miller.

7. 300 is a 2007 film adaptation of the graphic novel 300 by Frank Miller, itself partly inspired by another film, The 300 Spartans and is a fictional account of the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC.

8. 300 is a 2007 film adaptation of the graphic novel 300 by Frank Miller, a fictional account of the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hewinsj (talk • contribs) 16:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Arcayne 07:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, you don't have to cherry pick options for people to choose from. Asking everyone to propose their own wording is sufficient. I'd support the current wording. (#7) --Mardavich 07:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

As I have said at least twice before, these are the only Lead statement choices that have evolved over the past week or two. The only way in which they were "cherry-picked" to coin your non-AGF term is that they were the only cherries to be found amidst all the back-and-forth from the past two weeks. However, if other editors wish to search through - not just the current bloated talk page but the past three archives (as I did), you have my best wishes to do so. However, everything that the three of you - Mardavich, Khorshid and Agha Nader - have demanded, I have taken the time to provide, despite the lack of civility and the accusations of dishonesty. Perhaps we can all now choose one of the choices above (none of which I had a hand in writing save for one), and pointedly stop the bickering. It is the quintessential defininition of WP:LAME.

-Arcayne 11:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The advantage of a list is that it keeps all options present before the eyes, and provides an easy convention for referring to them (instead of the impossible confusing "what so-and-so said the time before last"). And nothing is preventing anyone from adding to the list.

My choice remains 1, with 4 and 6 also acceptable. I have strong doubts about 2 on stylistic grounds (wordiness) and 7 on factual grounds. --Javits2000 11:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I happen to agree with Javits2000; this process is orderly and applicable. We've already been through the messy, lengthy discussion to go through the possible wordings and rewordings, and this is the result of it. By seeing all of the choices in one place, it is much easier to choose what seems the most acceptable and therefore reach a consensus. "Cherry picking" is insinuating that Arcayne is only listing the options that he approves of, which is untrue since it is open to additions by anyone. I still believe that #1 is the best, mostly because it correctly gives the genre, and I like labels. María: (habla conmigo) 12:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This is what I like about the process. It's flexible enough that we can go back and correct errors, and allow users to change their choice before concensus is acheived. We also get to see all of the suggestions lined up to save us from having to slog back through all of that conversation to find them, and add new ones as they come up. That said I will still go with #1, as I feel it is well written, indicates that the film is an adaptation of the book, and cites the correct genre. It also doesn't mention the earlier film, which should go in the book's article. Hewinsj 12:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

1,2,4, or 6 - I am pleased that folks are liking the format, although Javits and Agha Nader gave me the initial idea to pool all the ideas together for us to look at. They should get the credit for it; I just cobbled them all together (through 3 archives - gah!). Hopefully, we can take care of this and move on, archiving a lot of the conversations this resolution will resolve. Arcayne 14:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC) (closet neat freak)

As a watcher from the "stands", I'll speak up and say that I vote for #1Calviin 17:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

My preference order is 3 ~ 4 ~ 5 ~ 6 > 1 (with a veto on 2 and 7) for the repeatedly explained reasons. Arcayne you don't have to reply to Mardavich's provokations; everyone can tell who is really concerned about the neutrality of the article. Miskin 17:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Mine is: 7, 2, 1, 6, 5, (with a veto on 3 and 4) --Rayis 17:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

As I've stated, there is no basis for this vote. The studio and most importantly scholars/historians (people with education! remember kids, education is important, stay in school, otherwise we'll have more Frank Millers in this world!) all agree that the film is pure fiction, so given the weight of evidence, the current leader is fine. Nevertheless, noticing #7, this would be my second choice as it clearly states that the film is an adapation of the fictional Frank Miller novel. Thats it for me. If you guys have any more objections, I strongly urge we go to RFC and ArbCom (since your behaviour regarding this matter is out of line given the weight of evidence supportive of the current wording). FYI, Snyder is not a scholar, historian, what have you. He has no academic credentials or education in the area of history, let alone Classical history. Get back to me when he gets such an education. Khorshid 18:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

In addition to Maria's remarks, it has been pointed out to you in your own Talk Page, your main argument that Snyder's comments do not count because he doesn't have a Classical History degree. I am wondering why you have not offered a verifiable reference that anyone in the Warner Bros. Marketing Department has such a degree either. Since both fail this test, we should look for people who do have such degrees weigh in - wait! Yup! We've had this conversation before!

In fact, we've had it repeatedly. We are not ignoring what Warner Bros said. We are simply affording more weight to matters of historocity to those who are noteworthy historians. They seem to agree that the BoT actually occurred, and that there was a great deal of fantasy and fiction tied to it. As you have been told at least 5 different times by myselkf and different editors, just because just because something has fictional elemetns does not make it "pure fiction". I have no idea what the prevailing consensus will find, but if you feel that you cannot agree to working within a group setting, you may need to do what you feel you need to. If you are finding it difficult to work in this article specifically, you should seek out those articles which bring you the greater amount of joy. After all, Wikipedia is supposed to be fun. None of us are getting paid for this, so why be unhappy for free? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Who said that Snyder is a scholar? His credentials stem from the fact that he's the director and therefore knows something about the film he made and its subject. Your last sentence has no bearing on the discussion at hand and is completely off topic. María (habla conmigo) 18:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• 7 Alborz Fallah 19:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• 7 for me also. Azerbaijani 19:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll go with '1' and 7 should I be limited to these options. I prefer '7' but reference to the old movie is totally unnecessary for reasons also mentioned by Javits in the beginning of the forum. So some version of '7' that would really prefer to vote for would be:

• 8. 300 is a 2007 film adaptation of the graphic novel 300 by Frank Miller, a fictional account of the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC.

the name of the battle and the year already take into account the historical aspect, not to mention the link (saving space too). --siavash siavash

The people that organized this dialog stated that they don't mind new candidates being added. Hewinsj 22:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

7 bodes well for me. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 11:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Present state of the poll, if I've understood everyone correctly: First choice: Option 1 (5 votes); 3 (1); 7 (5); 8 (1). Also acceptable: 1 (3); 2 (2); 4 (3); 5 (2); 6 (4); 7 (1). Strong feelings against: 2 (2); 3 (1); 4 (1); 7 (2). --Javits2000 09:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you hadn't count my vote. As of now, first choice option is 7 with six votes. --Mardavich 17:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

7 Due to evidence provided by Khorshid. Agha Nader 17:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Actually, it was due to more people voting for one choice than another. Khorshid's comments (at least, comments here) had very little to do with it. We call it consensus. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, 7 > 2 > 1 > 6 > 5, (with strong objections to 3 and 4). I can't understand the desire to emphasise the disputable historicity of this film given that the same people keep on saying "what's the big deal, it's just an action movie." Hornplease 20:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, when is this vote closed? One user has already acted upon what the likely result is, and I've reverted it once. However, he does have a point. We appear to have a clear consensus. Could someone without a vested interest either way weigh in with their opinion? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd still prefer #8 to #7, as it's the same sentence minus the 300 Spartans reference. It just clutters things up. Hewinsj 02:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Same here. I don't think anyone who coted for number 7 here, would have any objections to 8. Just go ahead and execute the consensus please. --Mardavich 03:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It already sort of is. This just sets precedent if anyone else chooses to argue over it again. If anyone makes drastic changes to the item in question refer them back here.

Over time this item may be changed and if no one objects it will stay. Also, it can be brought into question again and revised (as opinions change over time), but for now it's either #7 or #8 (if no one objects to that too). Hewinsj 03:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. The current wording is not the same as #7 or #8. --Mardavich 03:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I missed the omission of the " and is a fictional account of the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC" in the main article. Lately I haven't been checking the main article as thoroughly as I should because most of the action is taking place here. Having followed the discussion I just assumed #7 was the existing sentence. Hewinsj 04:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to prove a point, I'm changing my voting preference to 1. Now option '1' goes back at the top by relative majority. Miskin 04:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Btw does User:Alborz Fallah have a sufficient number of edits? Miskin 04:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Vote for #7. I've been keeping away from this article, the level of nationalistic jingoism here precludes any real long term improvement to the page, but the lede at least should stay encyclopedic. ThuranX 06:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

#1 gets my vote, though #7 isn't bad either. --Xiaphias 15:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Javits2000 did a prior tally, and it wouldbe nifty is omeone could perform a similar tally. I am hesitant to suggest we conclude the vote, as someone will think I cherry-picked the termination of the vote according to some vast, conspiratorial plan. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, remain WP:CIVIL; the sarcasm and tone of your response are inappropriate.

It appears new voters keep coming all the time, I say we keep the vote for a little bit longer. Miskin 14:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

7 is the current consensus. Thus it should be enacted. Remember, a change in votes is needed to change the status quo, not enact it. Agha Nader 16:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

#1 - historical fiction seems to best describe it.--Domitius 16:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should wait, and add the final result to the article. Doing such maintains the article's stability, until which time we reach a lasting consensus. I don't want anyone feeling that thye aren't being heard, so I am willing to wait. Let's leave the statements in question be until then. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer #4, but since only 1 and 7 seem to be in the running, #1 appears to be best. The history present is quite extensive and while the story may be interlayed with fantasy, any solution that ignores mention of the historical aspect would be deficient. Bbagot 00:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

(I've overlayed the previous IP with my user since it had logged me out for inactivity before I posted a response, and therefore reverted to an IP. I apologize for the inconveniance.) Bbagot 00:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

::This user may be a sockpuppet or the subject of canvassing; this is his one and only edit. [2]. Agha Nader 18:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader User forgot to login, as says the above. María (habla conmigo) 16:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anyone apart from siavash voting for 8. Neither anons, nor new/red users should be counted. Miskin 18:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I see your concern, Agha. How do you think we should approach the subject of sock- and meat-puppets? What sort of standard do you think we should set in place to properly evaluate the votes?

This whole thing is getting silly time to invoke WP:DUST.LilDice 19:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Weighing in late in the game once again, I would vote for 8, as I think the reference to 300 Spartans is a bit superfluous for the first sentence. Cuffeparade 05:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd go for #1. Clear, concise and comprehensive. It mentions all relevant info, and tells us why we are about to see monsters, androgynous Persian leaders etc etc. NikoSilver 12:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• I go for 7 or 2 or a mixture of them. I have most objections to #1: historical fiction redirects to historical novel and defines it as "A historical novel is a novel in which the story is set among historical events, or more generally, in which the time of the action predates the lifetime of the author...Historical fiction may center on historical or on fictional characters, but usually represents an honest attempt based on considerable research (or at least serious reading) to tell a story set in the historical past as understood by the author's contemporaries."- I certainly disagree with this definition. --Aminz 20:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would consider that a bad redirect, and the redirect should be removed as inaccurate. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

But it seems that these two terms really refer to the same concept since the page historical novel uses the term "Historical fiction": "Historical fiction may center on historical or on fictional characters, but usually represents an honest attempt based on considerable research (or at least serious reading) to tell a story set in the historical past as understood by the author's contemporaries."--Aminz 20:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A historical novel is an example of historical fiction, and since there seems to be no article for the genre itself, it redirects. I would like to know why you disagree with the definition of the genre and how 300 fits into it. Obviously 300 is not a novel, but the story is "set among historical events" in which the "action predates the lifetime of the" writer and director. The main characters are historical figures, but historical fiction is titled so for a reason; there are fictional elements, including slight differences and even fabrications. I suggest you look at some other examples in film, such as Spartacus or even Julius Cesar (both of which were based off of works of fiction as well as historical events, like 300). María (habla conmigo) 20:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole point of some editors is in usage of the term "fictional" to describe this film. As you said a historical novel is an example of historical fiction; the article further informs us that "Historical fiction may center on historical or on fictional characters, but usually represents an honest attempt based on considerable research (or at least serious reading) to tell a story set in the historical past as understood by the author's contemporaries."

I personally don't think this film represents any honest attempt whatsoever. --Aminz 20:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Personally, to any Iranian, this film is a load of racist garbage. It's unfortunate that many Greeks seem to approve of this film, considering how much they were offended (and rightly so) by Oliver Stone's Alexander, just as many Iranians were by the historical inaccuracies. However, in this case, with a few exceptions here and there, Greeks seem to love this movie and criticize Iranians for being offended. Go figure. Khodavand 20:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Khodavand, it is improper to classify wikipedia editors as Iranians and Greeks and make it seem that there is a war going on here. We are supposed to reason here and vote for what we think the most accurate formulation is. Please comment on the content and not on the editors here. --Aminz 20:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• 7 or 8 - as others have stated, making claims that this is historical fiction is original research. Evidence has been provided by editors clearly showing that scholars, academics, along with the studio itself as well as reviewers, that this is not historical fiction. Quite frankly, I don't understand the massive push to label this as "historical" and honestly, it smacks of WP:POINT, even worse so considering that any labeling as "historical fiction" is not only incorrect, but also in turn antagonizes editors and readers of Iranian background. If you want to discuss the actual battle and the historical issues surrounding it, take it to that article. However, this film is fiction - anyone with a mind can see that a movie with fantastical elements can never, ever be labeled as "historical fiction." That is just plain ridiculous. Wikipedia is not a democracy, so this "survey" is clearly not warranted, as per policy (see WP:RS and WP:V) the film should be labeled as fictional, even if 300 editors were screaming and fighting to have it labeled otherwise. Khodavand 20:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

An interesting opinion, Khodavand. I see from your user page that you count yourself amongst the group of 'antagonized Iranian editors'. Are you suggesting that if the voting doesn't turn out the way you think it should, that you would simply disregard the consensus it implies? I mean, that would imply the same sort of assumption of bad faith as say, pointing out that you have never once posted any criticism here in your entire 5 months in Wikipedia, but have posted on a number of religious and Iranian topics. A lack of bad faith might suggest that you were asked to come to this venue and voice your support for an issue that you feel "antagonizes editors and readers of Iranian background."

However, I won't do that. I will instead suggest that those editors who are allowing their background to be antagonized by an article should likely step away from the article, as the bias being antagonized interferes with a neutral point of view. -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Do not make ill-considered insinuations; they are considered uncivil. Why do you have to be reminded so many times to remain civil, yet you create civility templates? Agha Nader 20:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you might want to revisit the definition of WP:Civil. I haven't made any insinuations. However, you might wish to allow Khodavand to respond, hmmm? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I will comply with WP:DNFT. --Agha Nader 16:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• 7 seems the most accuarte, historcial fictions don't have zombies and monsters in them. --alidoostzadeh 01:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • But there were no Zombies or monsters in the film, just occasional people that were disfigured. They may have been monstrous in appearance, but did not have any supernatural origin. Hewinsj 05:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• 7 As I discussed before[3] I prefer "fictional".--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 07:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• 7 Obviously based on is not correct and historical fiction can not be underestood by ordinary WP users. (Shahingohar 16:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC))
• 7 is my first choice. 1 would be my second choice. - Fedayee 18:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• 8 or 7, I am OK with both of them. --Pejman47 22:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• 7 Also maybe 8 --Arad 01:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• 7 first choice, 1 second. Bufflo 01:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• 7 I've read Herodotus; this is fiction. We should say so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• 7 Farhoudk 07:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• 7 I just saw this film, it is obviously fiction --Ari 10:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Voting will end

In the interest of fairness, this is how I think matters should occur.

• Voting will end on Thursday, April 13th, one week after the choices were posted.
• Voting is being tabulated by date of the editor's vote (via Diff). Only those votes of editors who have edited the article prior to the vote section being created - April 6, 2007 - will be tabulated.
• The votes of editors visiting the article afterwards (ie, simply for the purposes of voting) should not be included in the results. This is to avoid accusations of meat- and sock-puppetry or votestacking from any party.
• Voting will close at 02:15 (UTC-5), April 13, 2007. No votes cast after that time will be counted.

-Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you don't set the rules AFTER the survey has already started and is almost over. ALL votes cast by ALL the registered users will be counted, and there will be no expectations whatsoever. --Mardavich 22:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you are about to set some rules as well Mardavich. Miskin 22:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not. We do not change the rules in the middle of the game. --Mardavich 23:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way, Mardavich. This is not "changing the rules". This is making sure the rules are followed. You might want to rethink your oppostion, as this assists you in making sure that meat puppets don't come in and skew the vote one way or the other. I know how concerned you are that there might be a bias going on. This prevents new folk form coming in only to vote on this topic.

This was not actually considered when we started voting because there was an assumption of good faith that only people who had edited here would vote. However, we are not seeing that. We are seeing people come in who have either never edited here before or just started new accounts. I am not making accusations. This step makes that unnecessary, serving to prevent anyone from claiming that meat-puppets came into play. If you wish to have an admin weigh in on this, please feel free to do so. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we should have thought of all this at the beginning. We will not exclude or dismiss anyone's vote or opinion at this stage, that's the bottom line. Otherwise, it would look like we're setting up "new rules" late in the game to get a result that's favorable to our own position. Now, we don't want anyone to think that, do we? --Mardavich 00:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to discuss this with someone else, Mardavich. While it may have been a bit too trusting to expect no one to possibly votestack, now that we are likley seeing it, it is not unreasonable to act on it. We are going to make sure that votestacking doesn't happen, and that means not counting the votes from people who just "happen" to show up. This helps both the folks who feel there is pro-nationalist editing and those who feel there is bias occurring by ensuring that no one gets to call in reinforcements to 'carry the banner', so to speak. -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, you are stepping over the line again. Consider your new "rules" rejected, with thanks. From your response to User:Khodavand on your talk page it is clear that you have a POV against letting Iranians vote or discuss here. Basically you are saying that Iranians should not edit this article, yes? I want you to state very nice and short your idea, so that there is no misunderstanding. You are you saying that Iranians should not be involved with this article, is that correct? Khorshid 01:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No, that is not what I am saying, I am saying that people who have never contributed so much as a comma to the article or the discussion should not get to vote. It is not about Iranians, and never has been - I don't have any idea what ethnicity you are, and for the umpteenth time, I don't care (you might be confusing me with another editor). It's about POV versus NPOV, and NPOV is going to win out in WP.

Every. Single. Time.

I have already explained twice, and quite clearly what the vote was constructed to do. I have also explained why, after noting some very peculiar votes coming in that in the interest of fairness, only those editors who have contributed to the article, be they Iranian, American or Pago-Pagoan, be allowed to vote.

Apparently, you seem to think that all of the rejected votes are coming from Iranians. The leaves on to wonder how you apparently know that these are Iranians that are casting their votes. Since you asked mea question, allow me to pose one to you - and forgive me for my seeming lack of grace. Did you suggest that other editors come here to vote on this matter?

I eagerly await your reply.Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne has no authority or mandate to set up rules and regulations for this page or any other page on Wikipedia. So don’t get hung up on what some users may unilaterally declare as "rules", "deadlines" etc. We'll count all the votes, and execute the consensus, once there is a clear consensus, do not worry. --Mardavich 03:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This is true, Mardavich, but you gave me that authority and mandate yourself. You voted, thereby submitting yourself to the authority of the rules and implication of fair dealing that went with it. This leaves me with a question for you, as well. What do you plan to do if the vote chooses something other than what you or Khorshid wanted? Are you saying that you will accept the will of the vote, even if the votes that take your choice away from you are not from editors who have contributed to the article, and who just arrived for the vote?

As well, I eagerly await your reply as well. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but we gave you no such authority and mandate, you just proposed that we take a survey, that doesn't mean that you own the survey. You're just an editor here like me or anyone else. I will accept the will of the vote, but that does not necessarily mean that I have to blindly submit to your will or how you wish to interpret the results. All the votes from registered/legit users should and will be counted, and we will execute the consensus, once there is a clear consensus. --Mardavich 06:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where I stand on this. On the one hand, I don't necessarily think that voting should be limited to people who have contributed to the article before a particular date. On the other hand, I have noticed a number of votes coming from users who have not been actively involved in the article or this discussion. Whether they have been diligent lurkers or not, I cannot say, and frankly I don't know what should be done about it, but it is interesting to note. Part of me thinks that we should consider another round of voting, with explicit terms from the outset, with the two or three most popular choices. Cuffeparade 07:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is high time that you cite the guideline or policy that supports disenfranchising users based on them being a new users--to this discussion or to WP. --Agha Nader 21:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The 100 edit rule can be used in cases when sock puppetry and meat puppetry are suspected and voting looks suspicious. It's a blanket solution that doesn't target anyone based on demographics, just the length of time they have been editing to avoid users creating several names on the spot or calling friends over just to help them out. I found this one a while back when researching the subject for something else. The only other solution is block out puppet accounts to look at the IPs that user names are logged at, but that requires very high admin clearance which wouldn't be given for this discussion.

There is no rule about blocking out people that didn't take part in the discussion that I know of. At that point it becomes a gentleman's agreement on whether to allow or disallow people unrelated to the discussion to join. Hewinsj 02:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

What is Historical Fiction?

There seems to be substantial debate over whether or not to classify this film as 'historical fiction', but the term has not yet been defined. Though the phrase doesn't have a dicionary.com entry, I did locate some definitions:

• Encyclopaedia Britannica: [historical novel] "a novel that has as its setting a period of history and that attempts to convey the spirit, manners, and social conditions of a past age with realistic detail and fidelity."[4]
• The Historical Novel Society: "To be deemed historical (in our sense), a story must have been written at least fifty years after the events described, or have been written by someone who was not alive at the time of those events (who therefore approaches them only by research)."[5]
• ALA RUSA: "Historical fiction is defined as a story that is set at least a generation (25 years) prior to when it was written. In the best historical fiction setting, character and historical details combine to bring a historical period to life. These stories may center on real historical figures and real events or on fictional characters living in a particular time and setting. By reading historical fiction, one can gain insight into lives and times of the past. The best authors writing in this genre have conducted extensive research to authenticate their novels’ settings and details."[6]
• Easttown Library: "Historical fiction is defined as fictional works (mainly novels) set before the middle of the last century, and ones in which theauthor is writing from research rather than from personal experience.”[7]
• Teacher Materials: "Historical fiction is defined as “a bit of make believe” based on a factual historical event."[8]
• "Historical fiction is defined by keeping in with true history and creating a fictional, but fully plausible story in a historical time period."[9]
• "Historical fiction is defined as fiction that is set in a past time."[10]

Note: these results are not censored nor hand-selected, I searched for "historical fiction is" and "historical fiction is defined" using Google.com, and these were the relevent hits from the first few pages.

It seems to me like the common point is that historical fiction is, pretty simply, fiction in a historical setting. The Historical Novel Society even counts alternate history or time-travel books as historical fiction, though I'm not sure if this is the norm. --Xiaphias 07:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the quotes. Wikipedia on the historical fiction article says: "Historical fiction may center on historical or on fictional characters, but usually represents an honest attempt based on considerable research (or at least serious reading) to tell a story set in the historical past as understood by the author's contemporaries."- This was the reason I didn't approve its usage. I don't think the film-makers have made any honest attempt to be historical. --Aminz 07:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, one of the sources I found alludes to that as well: "The best authors writing in this genre have conducted extensive research to authenticate their novels’ settings and details." However, in neither instance is 'historical accuracy' listed as a requisite of categorization. It may well be that this is the case -- that historial fiction in neccesarily, to a degree, veracious -- but I haven't found any source that says so (which may indicate little, as those which I did find are not particularly canonical). It seems to me that this is the subject of the true debate, as most people can probably agree that the film in question is not concernedly accurate. --Xiaphias 08:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Aminz. There is no room for WP:OR here. Reliable sources clearly demonstrate that this film is not historical, but a fictional story concocted by a bigoted graphic artist named Frank Miller who, in his own words, despises the "barbaric" Eastern civilizations, and namely Islam. Please refrain from continuing your POV that the film is "historical fiction." The facts and sources are clear in this case, as so many others have stated. I urge you to cease and desist, as this is a encyclopedia. Consider your POV position carefully. Khodavand 11:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, have you read the article? We have two reputable historians on record praising the film for its historical accuracy, and two ripping it to shreds. This is clearly not a cut-and-dry case. Frank Miller's opinions on Islam have come up here before, but I fail to see their direct relevance, given that the Achaemenids were presumably Jahiliyyah. In any case, we could probably find racist or inaccurate passages in Ivanhoe, which wouldn't make it any less a work of historical fiction.

BTW, the incessant citing of WP:this and WP:that in preference to engaging in rational discourse, although it does make me misty for my Trotskyite youth, doesn't contribute to the discussion. The interpretation of any of these policies depends naturally upon the facts of the case, which are precisely what are in dispute. --Javits2000 18:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we need not be too hasty. This is clearly a difficult question to answer in the context of this article, as there is a blend of historic facts and fictional elements in the film. Myself, I think that the fictional departures of 300 are significant enough (in other words, not just imagining dialogue between historic figures) to disqualify the film from being described as historical fiction, especially considering a few of the definitions offered above which refer to writing aided by research, which result in conveying "realistic detail and fidelity". That said, there is still room for reasonable editors to discuss whether or not the film qualifies as a piece of historical fiction. And as has been pointed out numerous times before, Khodavand, the graphic novel that serves as the basis for the film was published in 1998, well before any of Miller's statements that you quote had been uttered, not to mention the fact that Islam plays no role in either the novel or the film. I can appreciate that people may disagree with the author's political position, but I do not think that that alone is sufficient basis to end the discussion. Cuffeparade 11:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Xiaphias. Aminz I think you've misunderstood. Frank Miller based much of his storyline and dialogues on actual historical accounts, notably the works of Herodotus. An "army of slaves" versus "free men", barbarians led to battle by the whip, Spartan request for "glory", etc, all of those concepts and more were directly taken from the Histories. I think the non-partisan editors who voted for '7' are not aware of those facts. The article mentions only the historically inaccurate side of the story, the historical accuracies are ignored. This is a violation of NPOV already, passing POV judgement on the lead can only make it worse. As you can probably see for yourself, many editors' judgement is blinded by personal agendas and anachronistic parallels. This should not affect wikipedia's neutrality. Miskin 12:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

We've gone over this several times, but as I understand it your claim that the Spartans were free men fighting against an army of Persian barbarian slaves (to paraphrase) is an example of one of the historical inaccuracies in the film, right? It may be that you are saying that this is how the battle is presented in the Histories of Herodotus, which, not having read them, I cannot say. Nevertheless, given that this is a film that is based upon historic events, aren't the ways in which it deviates from the accepted history of the battle to be considered more significant than the ways that it adheres to it? Cuffeparade 13:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Herodotus attests dialogues in which King Xerxes questions the efficiency of the Greek soldiers due to the fact that they were "free men" as opposed to a "unified army" such as his own. This is interpreted in modern terminology as "men abiding by laws and cultural bonds" against "men subjected to the will of a sole ruler"[11]. Also it is common knowledge that the Greeks (and later also the Romans) called the non-Greeks "barbarians". So the terms "free men", "army of slaves" and "barbarians", are the actual terms that were used at the time. If we made a movie about the crusades the Christians would be calling the muslims "infidels" (and the other way around), and that would be the accurate thing to do. Many people here suggest that the movie is inaccurate because it's not anachronistic (i.e. misuses the modern definitions of "slave" and "barbarian"), and therefore find it "politically incorrect" or "offensive". This is not a documentary so people shouldn't be expecting a historian to pop up at every scene and say "warning: 'barbarians' was a term used by Greeks to refer to non-Greek-speaker, it doesn't necessarily mean that those people are uncivilised" or anything similar. I see the faith on Herodotus as a historically accurate element rather than the opposite. Regarding the sequence of historical events, as far as I know Herodotus' account is sole version of the story, and it is commonly accepted in modern scholarship. However Frank Miller doesn't take Herodotus for granted, for example Leonidas said "the Persians claim their armies numbering in the millions", he doesn't use Herodotus' account of 2 millions, so there has been an effort to retain accuracy vis-à-vis modern historiography at a basic level. On the other hand a wide number of events have been depicted extremely accurately, let me just name a few:

• Persians envoys getting thrown into a pit
• the Ephors forbidding Leonidas to use the Spartan army because of the Carnea (albeit not because they were bribed)
• the Spartan warrior-citizen lifestyle (agoge at age 7 etc)
• the privileged position of Spartan women
• 300 soldiers with male sons to carry on their names
• a Spartan-led Greek alliance against a massive Persian army
• a storm wrecking a part of the Persian navy,
• description of the phalanx
• existence of Ephialtes and his part on Persian victory
• the existence of the Immortals
• the Laconic sayings of the type "with the shield or on it", "come and get them", "then we will fight in the shade", "tonight we dine in Hades" etc.
• Persian offers to Leonidas of ruling the entirety of Greece
• Spartan ideal of "glory" (=death in the battlefield)
• death by an "arrow shower"
• Battle of Marathon and Battle of Plataea
• "go tell the Spartans passer by..."
• and more which I'm probably forgetting.

As you can see the storyline is based on historical facts, the dialogues inbetween have to be fictional, this is inevitable. The only fictional elements are the Persian physicality and the story of Queen Gorgo in Sparta. After all this is a film not a documentary. I found this film very accurate compared to Braveheart, Troy or even pure historical fantasy such as Gladiator and Patriot, yet it receives very harsh treatment due to personal agendas and modern political conditions. This should not affect wikipedia's NPOV policy. A massive undue weigh has already been given to the alleged "inaccuracies" of this film, and I think it's about to go over the top. The biggest problem is that a minority of non-western historians do not accept the Herodotian version of the story, and alas those views are popular in certain nations today. If we label this movie a "fictional account" we will instantly give those views the status of a scholarly consensus. In my opinion the comment in question should be left out, but since people are eager to coin a name, then we might as well do it the right way. Miskin 14:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is about right. It clearly shows, at least, that some (quite a bit of?) effort was made to hew to a particular historical narrative, and the film-makers can hardly be faulted for not taking ("revisionist"?) scholarship into account; after all, their primary goal was entertainment, so they can't be held to the standards of academic peer review. That certain elements might be racist or offensive to some viewers is really beside the point. Not to sound callous, but it has nothing to do with the proper genre designation. --Javits2000 18:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well put together. You've done your homework. The only additions I can think of are the Persian envoys asking for "earth and water" and the use of spears in the phalanx to stop an initial charge, both documented and used in the movie. Of course I'm not saying that no liberties were taken. For instance there were instances where the Spartans continued to fight with spears in regular combat where swords would most likely have been used instead. Nevertheless, there is certainly a lot of material that matches history as it has been recorded. Bbagot 02:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I appreciate your effort in enumerating some of the historic accuracies of the film. My position is certainly not that the film lacks any semblance of accuracy. Nevertheless, I do reiterate my point: if the film is based on historic events, then should we be surprised that it adheres to that history for much or most of the film? To me, given that the film is presented as being seated in history, it is more surprising, and more notable, in the ways that it deviates from history. I don't think that anybody is arguing that the article should include a section on "historical accuracies" as a counter-balance to the section on historical inaccuracies (unless I am wrong?), but given that we are beginning from an acceptance that the film is based on historic records then I think that it is appropriate to enumerate the ways that the film does not reflect history as we know it. I would response to a few of the points you presented:

• I accept the Persian envoy being thrown into the pit as that appears to be a part of the historic record
• As you yourself note, the film inaccurately depicts the decision of the Ephors, who are bribed by the Persians in 300
• The film does depict the agoge period, but as some have noted, the kings were not submitted to this process as Leonidas was in the film (I'll excuse the battle with the wolf as dramatic license)
• The film does depict the privileged position of Spartan women, but only through the entirely fictional storyline of the queen
• I don't dispute the 300 Spartans with heirs to carry on the name
• The film does depict a Spartan-led Greek alliance, but it is grossly misrepresented - reduced to a paltry group of 20 Arcadians whose fighting ability is mocked in the film, and entirely ignoring the Thespians who stood by the Spartans side to the end
• I don't dispute the destruction of some of the Persian fleet, and will accept the avoidance of discussing the Athenian navy's role in the war as being out of the scope of the film, even as it takes shots at the 'boy lovers' in Athens
• The depiction of the Phalanx was probably my favorite part of the movie, so I don't dispute that either
• Ephialtes is indeed depicted in the film, but I hardly need to mention the way that he is (inaccurately) presented as a physical specimen
• Again, the Immortals are indeed present, but not depicted in any kind of accurate way

The rest of the list I either don't dispute or can't refute. I hope this doesn't appear to be nitpicking, but I think that these various inaccuracies and misrepresentations all add up to provide a pretty strong case for categorizing this as a fictional film, albeit one inspired by historic events. As to your comment that this article is the victim of harsh judgment by those who have personal agendas or are affected by modern political conditions, I can assure you that I am in neither of those camps. I am simply interested in making this as strong a WP article as it can be. Finally, I would say that I don't think that any article on WP can be considered as granting 'a scholarly consensus' on any subject - I certainly don't pretend to call myself a scholar. Cuffeparade 06:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well most of what you said had already been taken into consideration from my part. The graphic novel by the way does explicitely state a Greek force of 7,000 but the film does not mention a specific number, probably in order to keep the focus on the 300. However, most of the above concerns the degree of historical accuracy, and not the existence of accuracy. In other words this criticism is done at a completely different level than what has already been claimed in this talk page (e.g. pure fiction, a lie, bigotry, racist, eurocentric etc). In any case it would be silly to claim that the film has no fictional element involved, the way I see it this is something taken for granted, hence why I've always been in favour of a mid-way solution (something that '7' is not). By 'fictional elements' I'm referring to the physicality of the "bad guys" (Ephors, Persians, Ephialtes etc) and the stories of Queen Gorgo and the wolf. I think that the "degree of accuracy" regarding the historical elements is compensated by the relatively low "degree of fiction", in other words I find that the fictional element is not so much affecting the historical accuracy per se. As you elegantly put it, they can be from my part excused as dramatic or artistic license. I advocate that this film needs to be judged in respect to other "historical" films and not at an individual level. For example 300 is much more "historical" than Gladiator, which may not contain deformed and monster-like individuals, yet it is based on a purely fictional storyline. In that respect, 300 is a historical account enriched with fictional elements. Regardless, to someone who knows nothing of ancient Greek or Roman history, Gladiator will ironically appear as a much more realistic account. To make the long story short: option '7' and all similar one-sided labels are violating NPOV by presenting only one side of the story, and by impying that the movie is pure fiction. This has been my initial point. Miskin 13:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Miskin, your comparison to Gladiator indicates that you have no clear understanding what historical fiction is about. Historical fiction typically tells stories that fit in the lacunae of our knowledge of a particular era. The Three Musketeers, for example, features real people - D'Artagnan, Richelieu, Buckingham - but puts their relationship, the details of which are not part of the historical record, together in such a way that it is both a compelling story and in keeping with what is in the historical record. That is what historical fiction has traditionally been about. 300 chooses to flout what we know about the historical record, and ignore the nature of Spartan society etc etc in order to tell a (disputably) better story. The superficial similarities to the story of Thermopylae - which you painstakingly enumerate above - is precisely why we need to state up front that this movie's pretensions to historicity are precisely that - pretensions.

The movie is pure fiction. It based on Miller's GN, which has elements similar to a 1960s movie, which was inspired by the battle. A sufficient number of steps ago, someone - that well-known historian, the 1950s screenwriter, also responsible for turning Cole Porter straight - read the Idiots Guide to Herodotus, wrote a screenplay, and, some decades later, you're arguing in favour of his scholarship. Incredible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hornplease (talk • contribs) 20:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Not to interrupt, but you stated that the 3 Musketeers was real, when in fact it was not; it was simply a dramatization of events using characterizations of people (often renamed). Events were greatly distorted to fit historical events, sometimes bizarrely so by Dumas. One need only recall the books The Vicomte de Bragelonne and The Three Musketeers to reaize to see that events were tailored to fit an audience. Richelieu was not considered as vile as he was written, nor was Buckingham that pleasant of an individual, as evidenced by the historical record. No one the novels anything but historical fiction. This film is very much the same thing. The historical elements are in fact in place. No one has sucecessfully argued that the Battle of Thermopylae did not occur, or occurred in a manner different from Herodotus' account. The sole reason we are debating this issue at all is how it depicted the ancient Persians.

Using that hypothesis, we should explore the idea of whether this much hubbub would be missing if ancient Persians had been portrayed accurately in dress and weapons.How much of this angry villification would there be if King Xerxes had been portrayed as noble and, well kingly? I think the fair answer is not very much at all. Other examples of this sort reaction would be Braveheart, or Troy, wherein folk were more upset at Edward II being portrayed as a homosexual, or Achilles as a blond caucasian.

Working from that conclusion, it becomes apparent that the sole reason we are dealing with this level of animosity is that some editors are reacting emotionally to this movie when they are editing. They are acting emotionally while editing (evidenced just in the immediately preceding post by the editor who thought that attacking Miller was an effective tool of editing, when it is not). This appears - to me, at least - to be the absolute worst time to be attempting to edit neutrally. The assumption of good faith goes out the window, and people start getting angry with those editors who seem to add insult to the perceived injury that the film represents to the affected editor. How is that any fun at all for anyone?

Does this movie portray historical events, in the order in which they occurred? Yes. Does it fill in the blanks with dramatic license, often at the expense of the ancient Persians? I think so. Does this depiction render the entire film is completely fiction, and devoid of any historical note? Clearly, it doesn't. -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the discussion at this point is limited to the depiction of the Persian army, I still hold that there are significant omissions of the historic record in the film. While I agree that it is wrong to describe the film at 'completely fiction', given that it features historic figures who took place in a historic battle, I would likewise insist that it is irresponsible to ignore the numerous, patently ahistorical elements of the film. I don't agree with the suggestion that some have proposed of simply not addressing the historic veracity of the film as an adequate solution. I don't want to give a reader who knows nothing of the BoT the impression that this film has invented a battle between Greek states (or really, as the film depicts it, just Sparta), but neither do I want to give a reader the idea that this is an accurate depiction of the battle. Cuffeparade 06:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

A few additional sources

• 1
• 2

New approach

As the only neutral options were rejected, it is more than evident by now that a consensus in this Talk page will always be determined by an oligarchy, notably a group of partisan editors supporting a partisan view. Since the question at hand has proved itself controversial, I'm suggesting to adapt a new approach on the dispute: Use the most popular terminology as it is appears in credible anglophone sources (critics, reviews etc), regarding the genre of the film. Since the majority of editors insist that a label should be coined, it might as well be done the right way. Miskin 12:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Should such an appropriate label be found, (and good luck finding that as there is already dispute between the critics), it still has to be with the consensus of others (whether "you" believe there is oligarchy or not.) Alternatively, you can ignore the ostensible oligarchy and propose a new option as you suggest. I'll certainly vote for it if it appears neutral to me. (Neutral here I take to mean: not selected from a specific variety of critics) --siavash siavash

How long have you been editing wikipedia siavash? As far as I know, a certain amount of editing experience is required before participating in voting procedures. Miskin 01:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This 'new approach' just suggests that Miskin is unhappy that the voting didn't turn out the way he wanted. Are we going to keep having 'new approaches' until the result is what you want? The Behnam 22:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

See my comment above to see how the vote was biased. Miskin 01:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you think it was biased because some users are Iranian? Agha Nader 02:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Yes I do, for the following reasons: (a)Iranian/partisan voters form an absolute majority over the non-Iranians (b)many of those partisan editors had never participated in this discussion and showed up out of the blue for the vote and (c)new editors with very few edits such as asiavash should not be counted in. Miskin 12:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I’m sorry but I've been watching this forum for long time, and have tried on different occasions (when I have the knowledge & background to intervene) to contribute as I see fit. I beg you to at least check out the archives, before declaring my vote invisible. Considering my always polite attitude toward other wikipedian editors your ignorance is uncalled for. I do think that you make sound argument at times, but alas you have an ostensible authoritarian bias in your thoughts (and manners as it appears), I suggest studying some philosophy (as I did) to rid this disease. Then maybe we shall be able to conduct a healthier (and more profitable) discourse. --siavash siavash

This isn't a forum. Miskin 04:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Farrokh Commentary

Now that that's done, what's the consensus on the statements by Farrokh? Include? Please (briefy) explain why or why not. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Obviously I don't think it should be added, for all of the same reasons as before. The coverage of the criticism is fine as-is. The Behnam 16:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Not necessary unless we decide we need a line about military gear (the importance of which is not obvious to me), and in that case only if no better source can be found. --Javits2000 16:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• I also am against its inclusion. It's importance is questionable, and the article already has a fairly extensive criticism section which does not, and should not, delve specifically into each and every historical inaccuracy. Obviously there are many to pick and choose from, but do we need to name each of them? Of course not. María (habla conmigo) 16:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• I am against inclusion. Except for the military gear, each of his talking points area already hit on by other critics but lack his harsh tone. Hewinsj 18:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Farrokh's article is very different from Daryaee's and should be included. I have not understood the undue weight argument though. Futhermore, if it cannot be included in the article, it should be linked in the external links. Agha Nader 19:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
• Should be included and expanded upon. Its very informative and touches on several topics not discussed by the other historians listed, including the causes of the war, military gear and military units, appearance of both sides, culture of both sides, etc...Azerbaijani 22:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Who is Farrokh and why should his commentary be removed? When you make a proposal, you should explain what it is all about since many people are not going to be aware of what is going on. Khorshid 03:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You might wish to revisit the two sections entitled, conveniently enough, Farrokh. They are, also conveniently located by way of the TOC above. Cheers. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I performed an archive in the intervening time, so you may find the links for the material here, or the actual sections here, here andhere. I hope that helps. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversy: Another view

Dimitris 04:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC) I think that another paragraph with a link to http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Apr07/Kashani05.htm should be included in the Political Aspects section as many people, including me, believe that nothing is <<too darned silly to withstand any ideological theorizing>>. Hence there is a need for another HOWEVER depicting the view that movies are a pedagogical tool and maybe not as simple and apolitical as the industry people want to present them. The above link also contains a part of Miller's radio interview. By reading it, one can understand that he is heavily political and that he makes the ideological conection and therefore what Seymour and Snyder think or say is almost irrelevant. They cannot know better than the author...

I wouldn't be opposed to adding a short graph to the Political Aspects section outlining Kashani's views, it may dovetail nicely with the existing references to Sontag's concept of 'fascist art'. I would only suggest that it is important to convey Kishani's views dispassionately, remembering WP:NOT#SOAP. That said, if 'proto-fascist cinema' is an emerging term in a critical tradition, perhaps it could be expanded into an article of its own, given that sufficient sources can be provided. I can imagine that some may object to the source as being a self-published source, but given that the author is identified as an academic lecturer at several colleges in the US and has thoroughly documented his sources, I wouldn't object. As to your point that nobody can know better than the author (Miller), I'd only mention that the film contains several departures from the graphic novel and, as I understand it, some of the more controversial aspects (notably the depiction of monstrous members of the Persian army) are among those departures. Miller cannot be expected to know the ideological connotation of aspects of the film that he did not contribute better than Snyder. Cuffeparade 06:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Archival Notice

26 Different sections were archived in Archive 9. Due to the possibility that folk might wish to utilize info from those srchvied sections, I've taken the liberty of inclusing a very brief synopsis of each sections contents and provided a link to that section int he archive. I have not archived ongoing discussions. I would like to also include the Pick a Numbah, Any Numbah, Take 2 soon, but only after someone has done a Javits2000-like tallying of the results and we have concluded that the voting is done. I will also archive those sections in between ongoing section conversation that are no longer being discussed. -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Tally so far

I've only counted the prioritized votes (for example, if someone listed their vote as "3, 4, and then 6," I only counted #3 for this vote. Since it seems to be a horse race between 1 and 7, I've discounted the other choices for now. Regarding preference, the count is #1: nine votes and #7: seven votes. Please correct me if I'm wrong; I'm an English major for a reason. María (habla conmigo) 17:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I counted at least eight votes for 7. I did not count those who voted for 8, but they said they would votes for 7 if necessary. If we added those for 8, the total would be higher. Agha Nader 18:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

If we accept the terms put forth by Miskin, new user and anon IP are to be ommited to protect from sockpuppetry and other ill-doings. The vote would be 8/7 -- Agha was correct and I missed Mardavich's vote, and one vote was discounted on each side. María (habla conmigo) 19:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, the vote is in favor of option #7 with a 8/7 vote. Agha Nader 15:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

#1 now has ten votes to #7's eight. María (habla conmigo) 16:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

#7 has ten votes. Agha Nader 18:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

#7 has ten votes. Let the vote run its course, there is no clear consensus yet. --Mardavich 18:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You said it had eight. No one had added a new vote for #7 since you last commented above, so I took your word for it, Agha. María (habla conmigo) 19:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what we are doing, ladies and gentlemen. No one is assuming that consensus has been reached. We are going to wait, and are not going to make any assumptions. Let's just wait for the dust to settle. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record I am voting 7 (for the nth time). Please note I also oppose removing Farrokh's commentary. I didn't realise Arcayne was referring to Kaveh Farrokh, the archaeologist. The man is a scholar and an academic, his views are very notable. Also note the analysis by Ephraim Lytle, assistant professor of hellenistic history at the University of Toronto [12]. I don't know if his view is included in the article because my browser has trouble loading very long articles, but if its not, it should be included for sure. Khorshid 22:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Your vote has already been previously counted, Khorshid. Worry not. :)

Could I impose upon you to put your comments about Farrokh in the section titled for that purpose? It might be easier to keep track of it that way. I know you probably put it here for the purposes of economy, but I think your opinion might be put in the proper frame in the aforementioned section. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

New/red users or users with a minimum number of edits cannot be counted in the vote. Those are not my terms, they are the standard terms as far as I'm concerned. Also nobody agreed that 8 and 7 is the same thing, this was just an assumption made by Mardavich. Miskin 23:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC) As previously, my vote is 7, or 8. Thanks. --siavash siavash

Please everyone, if you have voted before, do not register your vote again here. Let's not confuse matters. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean to say that these were your terms, Miskin, only that you proposed them. I do agree that anon IP users and users with few edits and wiki experience should not be included in the vote. As of now, however, we have only had one IP vote, which was later changed when the user signed in, and one editor whose name was a redlink, but they have contributed a fair amount since February. [13]. It seems unfair to discount them simply because they haven't created a userpage. María (habla conmigo) 23:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, this [14] edit history certainly does not surpass the minimum number of edits. This user should be removed from the lot (if he's been already counted in). Miskin 23:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia guideline about minimum amount of edits. No one will be disenfranchised based on your opinions of their edit history.... or race. --Agha Nader 00:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Miskin, Agha - please stop right there. Let's not drop the race card, because no one will win that particularly loathsome little argument. The user in question has posted comments in 300 before, and should be included. That should be the real criteria here, that they have posted here before on the article, as it indicates a prior interest in the article before this vote came up. New visitors weighing in all of the sudden bring concerns of vote-stacking and meat-puppetry we would be better off avoiding. -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

My comment has basis. Miskin said "Judging by the number of Iranian editors involved here, I wouldn't be in favour of a vote, as the result would be determined by an oligarchy." Also he said there is a "a coalition of Iranian editors", while no such coalition exists. To clarify I asked him, "Do you think it was biased because some users are Iranian?", he replie: "Yes". This is blatant racial disenfranchisement. --Agha Nader 02:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that both parties withdraw from this particular argument, letting it go.

In the absence of precedent (for which I am sure there is), the voting criteria should be that they have posted substantially here in either the article or discussion before this vote came to pass (excluding of course, vandals), as it indicates a prior interest in the article before now. New visitors (not to be confused with new editors) weighing in all of the sudden bring concerns of vote-stacking and meat-puppetry we would be better off avoiding. Votes from people who do not fit the prior criteria should likely be discounted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 10:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

I suggest that both parties withdraw from this particular argument, letting it go.

In the absence of precedent (for which I am sure there is), the voting criteria should be that they have posted substantially here in either the article or discussion before this vote came to pass (excluding of course, vandals), as it indicates a prior interest in the article before now. New visitors (not to be confused with new editors) weighing in all of the sudden bring concerns of vote-stacking and meat-puppetry we would be better off avoiding. Votes from people who do not fit the prior criteria should likely be discounted.Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I will say one thing, which in my opinion needs to be acknowledged by every participant of this talk page, and then I'll let go. You forgot to mention that Agha reported this "incident" on my alleged "racism" to the administration noticeboard, where he received some detailed explanations from uninvolved parties [15]. Alas the admin who explained to him that this is not racism nor an incident, was also indirectly accused to be a "racist". Frankly, throwing around such strong terms as "racist" or "prejudiced" is just laughable, in fact this is borderline violation of NPA, and it reveals a poor understanding of freedom of speech. Just because you don't like another editor's opinion, it doesn't mean that he doesn't have the right to say it. By calling me "racist" and "prejudiced" you bring an irony upon yourself: You are judging my whole socio-political persona by my argumentation on a wikipedia film article. So please, Agha, Behnam and anyone who's prone to using such terminology, just drop it and concentrate on the question at hand. It can only make you look bad, as it has done once already. Now I consider the matter closed. Miskin 11:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Now that it is a question of 1 or 7 I suggest we run a separate vote: "pick a numbah 1 or 7". Behaafarid 22:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That's probably what we'll do, after the week is up. Another choice might make itself apparent. and we shouldn't jump the gun. Nice to see you thinking ahead, though.. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

7 is currently winning by a landslide.--Agha Nader 21:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Fundamentally flawed process

I have been observing this 'vote' for awhile now and I cannot help but comment that this sort of thing is exactly what we should not do on Wikipedia. The reason that things are often stressed as 'not a vote' is because voting doesn't necessarily determine what is best for the article by itself. This purpose of creating good articles is why Wikipedia is not an experiment with democracy. Y'all should be actually trying to sort out points rather than making tallies. Points were brought up previously, but now the conversation has digressed into petty arguments about how to count, when the vote ends, who is a sockpuppet or should be discounted, etc. This conflict should be resolved by further discussion, and if it comes to an apparent stalemate again, perhaps an authoritative uninvolved party can come in to make the final decision, much like an AFD. In any case this is what I think should be done. The Behnam 07:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite right, I understood this explicitly not to be a vote, but rather an attempt to generate consensus, that is to find a version that would be acceptable to all concerned. In fact I've emphasized this (e.g. here and on numerous other talk pages) from the start, although it should probably have been stated more clearly here. As it stands, the discussion has degenerated into some kind of a horse-race, and has led straight back to a "two-camp" situation ("1" and "7"). I personally consider one of those options (namely 7) to be fundamentally inaccurate, and am furthermore not alone in this, so the attempt to generate consensus has apparently failed, and another approach needs to be tried. Arbitration is not out of the question. --Javits2000 12:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The survey/vote was intended to point out a clearer consensus from those editors working on the article. What it has turned into is precisely what Benham and Havits have noted, a horse-race and a rallying call for those who feel their culture has been unfairly treated. Frankly, I am of the opinion that if you have strong feelings/emotions about a subject, you shouldn't be editing it, as you cannot be objective, and you are going to react defensively to any attempt to make the edits more neutral.

Clearly, the voting has not functioned in the intended manner; it is not generating consensus, is yet another failed attempt to find a middle ground betweeen the pro-neutral group, and the pro-nationalism group. Anyone contesting that statement need only look over the edit history of both the article and the Discussion.

While I will continue to tally the results because I said I would, we should likely consider MedCom, as it has been suggested to me that this issue appears to be more complex than Third Opinion (which would encompass Benham's first suggestion) or MedCab. As there seems to be no consensus on the issue of the descriptor statements, we need to try something else to resolve both that as well as the underlying issue of the partisanship.

Having said that, all parties involved need to agree to MedCom arbitration for it to work. Please read over the link for medCom and consider this option. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think arbitration is really for irresolvable conduct-related issues so it may not be the best way to resolve this content dispute. However, the other steps of DR may help, or simply seeking some authoritative outside opinions to help close the problem. The Behnam 13:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Just as a note, 'third opinion' is not appropriate unless there are only two editors involved. The Behnam 13:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

From my part I cannot help but comment that Behnam's opinions, preferences and remarks, are all variables depending on the circumstances. Last time I made the same remark, Behnam accused me for trying to avoid the result of the vote [16]. Now that the tide has turned against him, he advocates the same idea, except for different 'abstract' reasons. My reasons had been very specific: people showed up out of the blue, probably after being notified by email. Behnam's reasons are simply motivated by the fact that his preference is about to lose. Miskin 14:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please AGF sir. I shouldn't have to keep telling you this. I commented on the apparent 'rule adjustment' you were making because it seemed you were trying to change rules whenever it wasn't looking the way you wanted. Lacking solid proof of canvassing this could have very well been the case. So please stop assigning motivations to me haphazardly. The Behnam 14:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, aren't you about to do the same thing? At least my reasons were motivated by a fair amount of "coincidences" combined with past experience on wikipedia which made me suspicious. Maybe this is not solid proof but it was still a valid reason. You're abstractly advocating that the vote is not a good solution. I've been the first person who generally thinks that voting in WP is a ridiculous way to reach a "consensus", and the bias of this vote serves as a proof. By definition we cannot have a true voting result if we don't define a fixed set of voters and a fixed set of candidates - both of which are missing in wikipedia's voting procedures. For that very reason I've been trying to ellaborate above (section 'historical fiction'), as to why it is against NPOV to label this film a "fictional account". Feel free to participate. For the time being the vote shows that despite the possible bias, a relative majority is in favour of a certain proposal. Miskin 14:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it seems we agree that voting isn't the best way to solve these issues, so I don't see why we should argue further. The Behnam 14:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Because I think that if the vote had been favouring your preference, you would have never questioned its reliability. When I made the same proposal you attacked me, so apparently, you were in favour of the vote's reliability at the time. It seems you've had a sudden change of heart since then. Miskin 14:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Also the vote's vulnerabilities were exploited in favour of your view (albeit not by yourself), yet the result still ended up leaning towards the opposite view. The way I see it this is what happened: we start an exploitable vote, you weigh in, a questionable input gives weigh to your view, I propose that the vote is biased, you turn me down, I weigh in, the result leans against your view, you suddenly attempt to cancel the vote by claiming that it's not a good solution. In respect to this sequence of events, you can't expect me to AGF on your motives. Miskin 14:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you are being paranoid at this point and imagining all sorts of strangeness behind my motivations. It is akin to thinking a movie is part of psychological warfare. Welcome to the family Miskin. The Behnam 15:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You (and some other editors here) have already accused me and other people (such as a random admin in AnI) who have dared to oppose your view, for being "anti-Iranian" and "racist". So let's not speak about paranoid behaviour. Miskin 15:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Paranoid? What are we afraid of? It is just an observation based on your automatic designation of Iranian editors as partisan, as if Iranians are incapable of objectivity. That is definitely prejudiced, or in informal usage ,'racism'. Yes I know we aren't a 'race' (though some beg to differ [17]), but the term was used in equivalence to general prejudice in this situation. You did this with me previously, and then gave some silly explanation about how you just can't AGF at all. I suggest that you drop this attitude. The Behnam 15:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The Benham and Miskin both: this discussion has ceased being about the improvement of the article and has delved into the realm of the personal. If you wish to continue this heated discussion, please take it to either one of your talk pages where it belongs. The rest of us do not need to bear witness to this. María (habla conmigo) 16:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. This digression occurred once Miskin entered the conversation, but anyway, do you have anything to say about the original ideas before Miskin came back with his conspiracy theories? The Behnam 18:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Depictions in Popular Culture

I think a section with this heading should be created as I've seen the film used for humor purposes on a vareity of Comedy Central shows, such as Colbert and Daily Show, and as a major stylistic element of last night's episode of South Park, complete with the narrative, the battles against Persians, a 9 foot Xerxes, the slow motion, etc. --164.107.223.217 14:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We should wait on that option until sources about those features evolve. The Behnam 14:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I am for that, there is all ready a 300 section on the south park page heres the link (D-Yikes)

am sure you can get some stuff there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peavey5150 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

What's the Hubbub, bub?

Not to interrupt, but you stated that the 3 Musketeers was real, when in fact it was not; it was simply a dramatization of events using characterizations of people (often renamed). Events were greatly distorted to fit historical events, sometimes bizarrely so by Dumas. One need only recall the books The Vicomte de Bragelonne and The Three Musketeers to reaize to see that events were tailored to fit an audience. Richelieu was not considered as vile as he was written, nor was Buckingham that pleasant of an individual, as evidenced by the historical record. No one the novels anything but historical fiction. This film is very much the same thing. The historical elements are in fact in place. No one has sucecessfully argued that the Battle of Thermopylae did not occur, or occurred in a manner different from Herodotus' account. The sole reason we are debating this issue at all is how it depicted the ancient Persians.

Using that hypothesis, we should explore the idea of whether this much hubbub would be missing if ancient Persians had been portrayed accurately in dress and weapons.How much of this angry villification would there be if King Xerxes had been portrayed as noble and, well kingly? I think the fair answer is not very much at all. Other examples of this sort reaction would be Braveheart, or Troy, wherein folk were more upset at Edward II being portrayed as a homosexual, or Achilles as a blond caucasian.

Working from that conclusion, it becomes apparent that the sole reason we are dealing with this level of animosity is that some editors are reacting emotionally to this movie when they are editing. They are acting emotionally while editing (evidenced just in the immediately preceding post by the editor who thought that attacking Miller was an effective tool of editing, when it is not). This appears - to me, at least - to be the absolute worst time to be attempting to edit neutrally. The assumption of good faith goes out the window, and people start getting angry with those editors who seem to add insult to the perceived injury that the film represents to the affected editor. How is that any fun at all for anyone?

Does this movie portray historical events, in the order in which they occurred? Yes. Does it fill in the blanks with dramatic license, often at the expense of the ancient Persians? I think so. Does this depiction render the entire film is completely fiction, and devoid of any historical note? Clearly, it doesn't. -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the majority here agrees that it does not. Maybe we should move some edits from the "historical fiction" section in this one, in order to keep the discussion alive. Miskin 10:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

300 means racist

As a persian I think Hollywood can not make a thing like this movie about African! Why? Because most of the people will SAY: Hollywood is racist. I am so sorry for some people who want to protect and help RACIST. I think this film is the return of racist, the return of fashism. It is fashism in a nice face. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iranzulqarnain (talk • contribs) 09:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

• Wikipedia is not a soapbox. In other words, this is not the place to profess your opinions. The article already has a section that covers the response from persians to the film. Remember, the Spartans were also portrayed as a bunch of murderers, but no one complained about that. And above all: it's a piece of fiction. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)