Talk:300 (film)

Historical Accuracy

It should probably be pointed out that the movie is presented from start to finish as a narrative offered by Dilios, a Spartan serving directly under Leonidas. In this context, historical accuracy must be viewed and judged through the lens of his opinions and biases. He is portrayed as telling this narrative to move his audience to a patriotic defense of Sparta and to remember the bold and brave who fought next to his King. He's not necessarily trying to accurately and objectively record history. Rather, he is trying to remember his king and his comrades in the most favorable and most honorable light possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.12.199 (talk) 04:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Good insight, anon. You should start an account, as your insight will work in your favor in Wikipedia. :)

Also consider that this is a screenplay of white American's interpretation of a legendary telling of a historical event. Anyone expecting actual history from a film deserves the miseducation they receive. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to have this this section of the article altered, highlighting how the the 700 Thespians, 900 Helots and 400 Thebians participating at the last stand were completely ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueballer1 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Blueballer1, it's very hard to ignore that 300 was a remake of a Cold War propaganda film. Never mind that the "freed slaves" fighting with the Spartans were the regular kind of slaves, enslaved by the Spartans. Or that the rest of Greece contributed to the defense of, well, Greece when the Persians attacked. (For example at the Battle of Salamis, at which the bookish, boy-buggering Athenian navy played a crucial role.) Or that the Spartans worshipped the same "ancient Gods" that the Ephors did, because Greece was pagan in 480 BC, and had not become "enlightened." Or that freedom is an entirely anachronistic value for an oppressive oligarchy in which four fifths of the population could be legally killed by a military elite. Or that the Spartans wouldn't have thought anything of Athenian pederasty, or the adultery that Gorgo is accused of, because of their own customs. Cripes, Miller must have gotten his understanding of Greece and Persia off the back of a cereal box during clown college. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.39.83 (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There is also the matter that, unless you're the sort of ignorant conservative who thinks Western civilization is wholly derived from Christianity, you view our social norms and political values as largely derived from Greco-Roman sources. In this context, Greece's wars with Persia, et al, preserved (or one might even say established) Western civilization as we know it. The comic book and film are paeans to that point of view, and it's nice to see Frank Miller bluntly admitting it. This point needs further discussion. (But, of course, 300 is Just Plain Silly, especially the homoerotic costuming -- another point that could stand some discussion.) WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

NAVID: I JUST ONE TO ADD ONE IMPORTANT FORGOTTEN THING ABOUT THE MOVIE AND THAT IS THE CUSTOMS AND FACES WHICH STRONGLY REVEALS THE LIE BEHIND THIS MOVIE,I WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT IMPRESSION PEOPLE MIGHT GET WHEN SEEING SOMETHING WE PICTURE FOR THEM?IRANIAN EMPERORS ALL HAVE BEARD AND THEY WEAR CUSTOMS;THEY DID NOT LOOK AND THEY DID NOT ACT LIKE BARBARIANS; THE ACHAEMENENS KINGS HAD ESTABLISHED THE FIRST HUMAN RIGHTS REGULATIONS WHEN THEY CONQUERED BABYLON, YOU CAN CHECK THIS AT THE FOLLOWING LINK IN THIS SITE:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_cylinder THE MOVIE MAKER IS USING IRANIAN ANCIENT LOOKS AND CUSTOMS FOR THE OTHERS;THE FACE OF XERXES IS WITHOUT ANY BEARD AND SOME CHAIN AROUND HIS NECK!!! WHERE THESE PROFESSORS BACKING THE FILM GET THEIR PhDs!!!!!!!!PERHAPS THEY HAVN'T SEEN THE ACHAEMENENS KINGS AND WARRIORS PICTURES MADE ON THE WALLS OF PERSPOLIS YET!!!!!!! I BELEIVE WHEN WE ARE MAKING MOVIES, WHAT IS GOING TO BE SHOWN TO THE PEOPLE IS IMPORTANT,I DO NOT CRITICIZE THE FANTASY MOVIES BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE BIASED.NO NEED TO TRY SO HARD; YOU CAN CHECK WHAT I SAY BY SEARCHING IRANIAN EMPIRES IN THIS SITE!

Sheesh, take off the caps lock. It's blatantly clear here that the movie was meant as a sword & sorcery entertainment vehicle, not a documentary. Spartan198 (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Remake?

The opening para says that the film is a remake of The 300 Spartans, but as far as I am aware it is an adaption of the Miller comic. The 'remake' sentence should be removed. 213.201.175.114 (talk) 11:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

'Controversy' reference to graphic novel

In the section headed 'Controversy,' there is a sentence: "As in the graphic novel, the Persians were depicted as a monstrous, barbaric and demonic horde, and King Xerxes was portrayed as androgynous." I've got the graphic novel here beside me, and I can't see one monstrous-looking Persian. They all look quite normal. The Immortals, of course, look quite menacing in their armour, but no part of the person beneath the armour can actually be seen (and thus no part can be seen to be a 'monster').

because this movie was built to show that poor Persians are monstrous, barbaric and demonic horde.when i say this to them they almost cry... ,i think Persians are the best people i have ever seen except mullahs... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.82.64.13 (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

---

If Sparta fought for freedoom, then the South fought for Freedom in 1861. The Spartans were the worst slaveholders of ancient Greece, the proto-typical a Herrenvolk-Demokratie.

____ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.114.93 (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

300 workout

This section doesn't seem relevant. It read like a how-to guide ("you don't stop between workouts") and the sources were questionable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 12:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree. That said, the workout appears to be a recreation of the one used to get the actors in shape for the film. However, that would need a pretty good citation noting that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Second film poster

I don't see a need for the second film poster in this article. There is no discussion about this poster anywhere. Was it a controversial poster? If so, please add that in. Was the berserker's physical appearance a source of controversy such that we need to display it here? If so, please add that in as well (and even then, a screenshot would better than the poster). Because currently, it's just decoration, and WP:NFCC explicitly prohibits that. howcheng {chat} 17:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the assessment that the image is simply decoration; it was specifically noted in the text of the article, alongside the outcry of the portrayal of Xerxes as androgynous:

"Since its opening, 300 also attracted controversy over its portrayal of Persians. Various critics, historians, journalists, and officials of the Iranian government including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad[98] denounced the film. As in the graphic novel, the Persians were depicted as a monstrous, barbaric and demonic horde, and King Xerxes was portrayed as androgynous"

As the poster is the only one of the released posters for the film that portrays a monstrous-looking individual, I feel the image is appropriate and intrinsic to understanding the outcry by the Iranians. Leaving it out marginalizes their anger, which created quite a bit of notable press. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, but can we use a screenshot from the film of the berserker then? I ask because one frame of a copyrighted film far less infringing (a very small percentage used), whereas having the poster is using 100% of a non-free item. Also, the caption should be extended then to link the image to the text, so it's clear that we're not just including this for decoration. Something like "The Persian Berserker, played by Robert Maillet, was singled out as an especially barbaric portrayal of Persians" (assuming that this can be cited). howcheng {chat} 19:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The presumption that Maillet was specifically cited, of course. I imagein some enterprising sould could find something like that. The point is, most of the uproar over the film came from folk who didn't even see the film (fully half of the criticism being offered came from Iranians from Iran, where the film was banned); therefore, a more likely presumption was that the Maillet poster is a ignition point, serving as it was seen by the film's marketing as a memorable enough character from the film - that they thought it an important character speaks to more than just the outcry, i think. A poster would appear to infringe less upon the film's copyright than a screen capture of the film itself. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of the poster infringes on the poster's copyright, not the film's (the poster itself is copyrighted as well). Regardless, you can't presume that the poster was the flash point without a source. You need a source that points to a specific scene or example, and then you can use an image of that example. Right now, you've got nothing. That's why the image can't be used until you can justify its use in the text itself. And that's why I'm taking it out again. I don't think I'm being unreasonable here. When you or someone else can edit the article in the manner I've outlined, then it can be re-added. howcheng {chat} 20:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

All images from films infringe on copyright somewhat; the balancing act is to infringe as little as possible. I get that you think that the image is "decorative"; I've pointed out (rather clearly, to my reckoning). I think you are incorrect; the text specifically discusses the monstrous portrayals of Persians in the film. there are no posters of any other monstrous appearances of Persians (however, if you should find some, that would be an appropriate counterweight to the presented argument); therefore, we use the one that we know that at least the film company considered monstrous enough to be eye-catching.

I've reinserted the image again, and I'd prefer it stay in until we are done talking about this. I believe that to be a reasonable request, considering it has been in the article for over a year without issue. If you feel we are at loggerheads at this point, you should feel free to seek a Third Opinion on the matter. In case I've been too wordy here, allow me to be clear: I think that using the image is entirely reasonable and rather specifically referred to in the text. It is the only poster image released that depicts a "monstrous" Persian, and its further reasonable to presume that it may have been the only image to represent the film to those for whom the film was banned. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Right now, the image fails WP:NFCC based on 10c. A week fair use rationale, which I quote states used for informational purposes only. If you are saying the image is used to show the depiction of Persians in the film, then explain that in the fair use rationale. Furthermore, if the only purpose is to show what Persians looked like in the film, a screenshot could accomplish that in a much more simpler (and less infringing way), as Howcheng pointed out. Please rework the fair use rationale to explain the purpose (keeping in mind NFCC 8 and 10c). It isn't clear to me that the poster increases the readers understanding any more than a screenshot would, but maybe you can work that out in your fair use rationale (or if not, we'll need to delete the poster image, but perhaps replace it with a screenshot). -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Andrew and Howcheng; a screenshot would serve the same purpose and be less infringing. This image isn't necessary. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, while I sure we are splitting hairs, the easiest way around this problem is to adjust the rationale appropriately. I do not feel that a screen cap addresses the weight of the image (explained previously); its more than just a picture of an ugly person; its that someone used that image to promote the image of Persians in the film. Someone take a gander at the addition I've made to the image rationale, and let me know if it's enough. Please feel free to propose different language if necessary. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

And there's no screen cap from the movie that shows a Persian soldier? The section the image illustrates does not discuss the poster. It's association with the section is only loose; any screencap could do to serve the same purpose. Unless there's secondary sources pointing to the notability of this poster as being directly relevant to the subject of the appearance of Persian soldiers, it really needs to go. A screencap can and will serve the same purpose and be less infringing. No, the change to the rationale is not sufficient to fix all the problems associated with this image. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Then offer a change to the rationale to fix the problem; I find the arguments to use a screen capture to be unconvincing, Additionally, we have a citation regrding the movie's intentions to make Maillet look like a Persian monster(¹) tied to the Iranians pissed about the portrayals of Persians. Done and done. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I've been clear. There is no fix to the rationale sufficient to vacate the other problems that have nothing to do with the rationale. The image needs to go for other reasons, and I'm not alone in that opinion. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you were clear, 'soft. I get that you don't think that the image belongs under any circumstances. I disagree with your interpretation on 10c, as the image just isn't about the image but the context also. Maybe you aren't clear on that. You haven't pointed out a substantial reason as to why the copy infringement of a screen cap is somehow better than that presented by the poster. I offered an adjustment to the rationale, as suggested by Andrew. Maybe instead of throwing in the towel, try to suggest ways to make it work within the scope of the conversation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

See, this is where you are wrong. Hammersoft understands the problem like I do: You need to prove that the poster itself is the subject of discussion, not the image of a deranged Persian which happens to be on the poster, because that depiction of a deranged Persian could come from any other source. As to why a screencap is less infringing, it's a very tiny percentage of the copyrighted work (the film), but the poster is a copyrighted work in and of itself, and you are using 100% of it. I thought I was pretty clear about it before: You can keep the poster in the article if and only if you show that there was controversy about that specific poster. howcheng {chat} 06:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, we both know that that isn't going to be possible; the controversies were about the posters themselves; most people saw them and not the film (as mentioned in the article). I still think the poster has more value to the article, as they (the posters) served to outrage a group of people that had no way of seeing a movie that was banned within their own country.

As I said before, I seel rather strongly about this; if you wish to submit the matter to 3O, I am willing to submit to their decision. As I see it now, there are two people in favor of using a screen cap and two having no issue with the poster, so long as the rationale fits the usage. 3O seems our bet course of action. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

If the controversies were about the posters themselves, then why is it not a single source in that section makes any reference to the movie posters? I searched all of them (several of which were bad links by the way) and not one mentioned "poster" or showed this particular image. You may say it as 2 vs 2. Frankly, it doesn't really matter if there were 100 on your side and 1 saying "this is wrong". The fact is that no so far produced references have shown this poster to be the source of the controversy. The fact is that a screen cap is considerably less infringing than the poster. If I'm wrong, then show me where there's a reference in the article that indicates any significance of the poster with regards to this controversy. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You say the poster is the source of controversy? Then prove it. Find a source that states that -- once you do that you will have no argument from either myself or Hammersoft (if I may speak for him). howcheng {chat} 16:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Howcheng. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, I am saying that here, not in the article. I am saying it here because - and I cannot believe i have to repeat this - the poster was the only scrap that the Iranian people had to base their viewpoint on, as the film was (and, to my knowledge, still is) banned there. Pretty much basic logic that when noting the outrage of that group of people, we point out the source of that outrage. And again, it isn't specifically this poster (though I think it works best) but all posters. Since this is the only one (including the promotional/teaser posters) that ostensibly features a monstrous-looking humanoid, I think it serves the article far better thana screen cap. Therefore, it doesn't fail NFCC 10c. If you disagree, please recall that I suggested that you initiate a discussion at 3O or the appropriate noticeboard for this particular NFC-related topic. Just post a link to that discussion here after you do so, so we can all monitor/contribute to that discussion, please. I think that is going to be the best option at this point, as there doesn't appear to be a consensus for a change. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess I failed basic logic then, because I can't find any reference to the poster in any secondary sources, as being the source of the controversy. Also, we don't need to go further up the dispute resolution chain just yet. Note the second to last line of WP:NFCC where it says "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof." You've not achieved consensus that this is a valid application (rationale) of this image. When consensus on the use of a non-free image is not achieved, the default solution is removal. I strongly suspect that if we were to upload a screen cap showing a similar depiction of a Persian solider, and replaced the poster with it, we wouldn't be having this discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Arcayne, your argument is all synthesis: Iranian people were angered (fact); poster features a barbaric Persian (fact); conclusion: Posters stirred up the anger (conjecture). If you can't believe that you have to repeat yourself, think about how I must feel: Prove your point in the article with sources and the poster becomes perfectly acceptable. This is what I've been saying all along. The use of non-free images is perfectly fine when it backs up points that are made specifically in the text. Hammersoft: For that reason, simply switching out the poster with a screenshot is still not enough. As for a noticeboard, I've already put in the review request at WP:NFCR, which is how Andrew c and Hammersoft got involved. howcheng {chat} 16:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, that is how I got involved. I saw this when I posted that. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

(←dent) First point: Hammer, if you had replaced the poster with an uploaded a screen cap of a random Persian soldier and presume now that no discussion might have taken place, you don't know me. At all. Not only was I the uploader, but I could very well have used a screen cap myself. I preferred the poster image (for the reasons described above).

And I appreciate you providing the link to the NFC discussion, Hammersoft. Odd how that had never made an appearance before now. Considering the text of the query there, it seems like one thing was asked there by Howcheng (how to fix the rationale) and another sought here (complete removal and replacement). I prefer folk who play it straight to a bug hunt every time. I'm going to assume good faith that this was simply an oversight and a misunderstanding, but in the future, I will expect links when other opinion is sought, and the query to be made less disingenuinely. Nuff said on that; let's hope the topic doesn't need revisiting.

Howcheng, your conclusion of synthesis would be more valid were you not missing the same piece of the relationship every time. I have repeatedly stated that the film was not available to those people raising the ruckus. the film was banned in Iran (fact), so the only imagery that was available to Iranians were the posters. Period. This is not synthesis; this is simply logical, chronological fact.

Since we are no longer arguing that the image isn't necessary, we are left with where to obtain the image from. Since the sole remaining problem arises from whether to use a screen cap from the film or the poster specifically created to highlight the monstrousness, we should likely focus on that. I will be posting a comment on the NFC discussion link to reflect the more appropriate input we are seeking guidance on, since neither side appears to have consensus here and the default choice when no consensus is to keep, not remove the item contested. And again, the text of the article explicitly states that the outcry was the depiction of the Persians as "a monstrous, barbaric and demonic horde", so an image demonstrating that is prudent. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Claiming you're assuming good faith on one hand and continuing to accuse bad faith on the other. Ok. Well, you don't need me in the discussion anymore. Goodbye. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I was specifically not going down the path of assuming bad faith, merely illustrating how it could have easily appeared to someone not prepared to assume the best. It was a passing odd set of coincidences. And even if I had been presuming bad faith, it would not have been on your part. But I am presuming it was an "oversight and misunderstanding" (my exact words, actually). So put down the righteous indignation and relax, pls. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really interested. Devolving into attempting to attack the bearer of opposing opinions rather than debating the opinions themselves is, to me, a catastrophic failure of trust in your fellow Wikipedian. Whether it's against me or not is irrelevant in this case. You're attacking someone else. You can choose to strike your comments and apologize for it if you like. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way, Hammersoft. You will be missed. Considering that I explicitly noted that I wasn't going to assume the worst here but noting how the matter could easily be perceived as sneaky, an apology isn't necessary, and I will not be striking my comments, as I've done nothing inappropriate. I consider the matter closed, and won't be commenting on this particular topic any longer on this page. If you feel the pressing need to continue this discussion with me, you may do so on my usertalk page. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

In regards to I have repeatedly stated that the film was not available to those people raising the ruckus. the film was banned in Iran (fact), so the only imagery that was available to Iranians were the posters. Period. This is not synthesis; this is simply logical, chronological fact. I was thinking this is OR myself. It would help if you had citations. How do you know they didn't have access to the trailer which contained such offending images, and it was the trailer, not the posters, that caused all the uproar. You are making bold assertions, but not backing them up with reliable sources. While it may seem logical, it still reeks of OR to me :) -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I totally get that, Andrew - and normally, I am the one using the cn template like ninja shuriken. However, the two trailers released on the net prior to the film's opening (which can be seen here) showed the "monstrous characteristics" of the Persians (specifically, Maillet and the tubby fellow) for about a quarter of a second in the first trailer and about a half second int he second one - hardly enough time to build up the hefty outrage levied against the film; remember, the president of Iran himself made a point of lambasting the film. the posters, static as they are, allow for anyone to see how the Persians were being presented.

Since the film was banned in Iran, and the film trailers do not show anything that would inspire true outrage, that leaves either the posters themselves or word of mouth (and i am not discounting the possibility of monkey see - monkey do behavior at all here). Since providing an image for word of mouth would be like trying to grasp a pound of smoke, it seems more logical to provide the most reasonable source of the outcry. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe more logical, but at the expense of using more non-free content than necessary? Fact of the matter is, we don't know exactly what was the source of the outrage, and given that we are just illustrating the depiction of Persians in the film, we can accomplish that easily enough with a one frame still. Without citations establishing the notability of that particular poster, I don't see why it is necessary. But that is just my opinion. I'd say we should always try to get free content. And when we can't use free content, use partial non-free content if available in lieu of using an entire non-free work, if possible. Point being, this clearly is a case where it is possible to illustrate the desired concept with a partial (as opposed to entire) non-free work. Maybe we are going in circles, but the prominence you are giving the movie poster is based on your personal belief and synthesis, not on any given notability established in sources. To me, at least, if we had a number of sources saying "a specific poster was vandalized repetitively in Iran" or something else that established the prominence of this one poster, then we'd have more to go on that your personal theories. -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

A valid point, Andrew. While I think it isn't really broken and doesn't need fixing, I concede that my reasoning (humbly brilliant that it is) isn't notable in and of itself to predicate a particular use of an image in an article. However, it seems that we are changing things simply to change them - itself a part of the larger, long-running NFC debate between inclusionists and exclusionists.

I mean, this is an FA article - it is one of our better articles, which says to me that calls to alter the article should consist of more than splitting hairs. To me, that's what a large part of this argument is. There are likely several other FA articles which use film posters as well (Halloween 3 and November are two examples that spring to mind). If it is likely that the poster created some of the outrage, then it seems smarter to keep it in place; a source might well turn up citing it. It seems a cheap throwaway to grab a sloppy screen cap instead. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

FA or not, the rule is still simple: make the citation first, then you get to have the image. It doesn't work the other way around. If it was missing during the FA candidacy, then that doesn't preclude us from fixing it now. If there are other FAs on films that are inappropriately using posters, then you're arguing on the basis of other stuff exists. If the poster was a free image, then we wouldn't be having this discussion; you could keep it in there no matter how tangential the relationship might be. But because it's non-free, its usage is strictly regulated. I think we've reached the point where I can safely remove the poster image now. Yes? howcheng {chat} 21:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No, we haven't quite reached that point as of yet, Howcheng. Frankly, I was pointing out examples of this precise treatment in other FAs. It isn't an example of Other Stuff exists, but rather that precedent does. You have yet to to indicate how the image is disastrously wrong for the article, and that replacing it with a blurry screen cap is going to make it better. It's an FA, Howcheng; you have to prove that your alteration is going to constitute an improvement to the article. It is pointless to argue the what if of a free poster - we both know that no such poster exists. For any film. Such is the problem with media articles; there is no free content related to either the item or the marketing for said item.

Since it doesn't violate NFC in any way, but your sole argument that it is infringing on the copyright of the poster. Using that argument, we should purge every film poster in the wiki - descriptive or not, it infringes on the copyright of the film itself. Following your reasoning, we now need to remove every poster from the wiki, as we have established that no poster is free content. You should begin that purge elsewhere; I imagine you will encounter a wee bit of resistance doing such.

I've suggested we widen the circle on this discussion; not sure what the resistance to this suggestion is, but I am renewing it. I am unconvinced by your arguments, and find your proposal of an alternate image quite possibly lessens the impact of the article. The image is eminently suitable for the article as is. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I've ever been in such a long discussion with someone where the other party has completely misunderstood what I've been talking about. My argument has not been about the infringement of copyright at all. I myself have written a number of articles (and sections of articles) that include non-free images. In fact, Hammersoft pointed it out earlier: In order to include non-free content, you need to prove that it's required. That's all I've been asking for: Proof that this poster was the source of controversy. howcheng {chat} 00:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

As I have said at least four times before, its perfectly reasonable to assume that a group of people who cannot see a particular film because its against the law probably have not seen that film. However, they felt outrage at the depiction of their ancestors. Therefore, their outrage must be coming from somewhere. The images from the posters were all over the internet - and no other media was (save for the comic book, also not available for viewing in that country) depicted the Persians as (and I quote from sources here) "as a monstrous, barbaric and demonic horde". Indeed, no other poster depicted the Persians as such (and yeah, you can see all the posters at the film's website.

Because we have a a citation noting that Iranians were outraged at Persians being depicted as monsters, we are able to include one of those Persians depicted. I feel a screen cap is inappropriate, as it almost certainly could not have caused the outrage - remember, Iranians cannot see this film, and the largest source of outrage came from Iran (where the film has been cited as being officially banned). We have one image that depicts, clearly, one of the "monstrous, barbaric and demonic horde". It seems a no-brainer to me. There is no need to cite the poster as being the source of the outrage; the image is supported by the text. As the film isn't viewable by those getting all upset by it, it seems prudent to note the only media related to the film that they were likely to have seen. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It's reasonable to assume that, sure, and if this were a thesis or term paper or something, you could make that argument, but not here. Here, you need the citation. Without the citation, it's synthesis (not "logical, chronological fact"). Perhaps you need to read WP:SYN again: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." You want to include the poster in order to imply that it is the cause of controversy -- that's synthesis, right there. You seem to have experience with FAs, so I don't get how you're not getting that. Maybe because you're too closely involved with this article or something. You also stated earlier that because this is an FA, that I better have a good reason to remove content. Let me give you the flip side of that argument: Because this is an FA, then it should be held to a higher standard, that we should make sure that every i is dotted and every t is crossed, so that no one can point to us and say, "If Wikipedia bends the rules for its best articles, then why should those rules apply to any other article?" howcheng {chat} 05:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I get what you are aiming at, but you are mistaken. Three different arguments are being presented. One editor is arguing that we should use less infringing screen caps to demonstrate the text (note I sad demonstrate the text, not decorate the article). You are arguing that we don;t need the image at all. Unfortunately, you are of the impression that I am arguing that we tout the poster in the article as being the ignition point for the controversy and outrage. I am not. Allow me to restate that in the clearest possible terms: We cannot currently cite that the poster caused the outrage. The poster is being used only to clearly demonstrate the description of Persians in the film as a "monstrous, barbaric horde". At some point, someone is going to write a book or article that singles out the posters as the flashpoint (since we have citable proof that people couldn't have seen the film), but until then, no one is suggesting that we say that in the article. Please feel free to point out where I have ever suggested such. We need an image to put into perspective the description of Persians that fueled the outrage; otherwise, its just a bunch of people getting all upset, and the reader has no context as to why.

Part of having the best articles is that the dotted 'i's' and crossed 't's' don't get in the way of delivering functional content that helps the reader learn about something. I think the image is necessary, and I additionally believe that there isn't the slightest bit of harm in retaining the same image that has been in place for over three years. We have other exemplars that do the same thing - we tend to call that precedent. I do have a bit of experience with FA's (and I know you do as well), so I am having just as much trouble understanding why you fail to grasp why the image is helpful in understanding the outrage. It ain't broke, so fixing it via whittling seems a rather large-type waste of time. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, I renew the suggestion to widen the circle on this discussion to include other viewpoints, as we clearly are on opposite sides of this particular argument. I make the offer, because I don't want the matter growing contentious; Hammersoft already split over a perceived slight. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I get what you are trying to do in the article, and I agree that the poster provides context, but you can't make the implied connection between the posters and the outrage without the citation. Because you don't have the citation, you can't have the poster either. Just curious, if I'd brought this up at FAC, would you have spent so much time fighting it, or would you have worked to find the citation? howcheng {chat} 16:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

← I would rather see the image removed in light of this discussion. It is not related enough to the neighboring content; the image is only supporting this fragment of a sentence: "As in the graphic novel, the Persians were depicted as a monstrous, barbaric and demonic horde..." Compare this to Changeling (film) – Closing sequence, where there is a very dedicated rationale for the non-free image. Unless we see more directed critical commentary, either related to the protests or the costume design (the latter more likely), it should be excluded. As I recall, this was an image that was kind of added decoratively, and there was a struggle to rationalize it afterward. We should instead add non-free images where we know beforehand that they will be effective. Erik (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, i disagree, Erik. There is no other image content elsewhere in the article that supports the quoted statement. I don't need to cite the relationship between the posters existence and the outrage by Iranians; someone else will likely do that who is better at net research than I. All I need to do is provide an image that shows an example of what caused the notable, cited outrage. As for the question as to whether I'd be as resistant to lessening the article at FAC - which is frankly what we are talking about by removing a descriptive image related to the text. Of course I would resist such a change, Howcheng; I'd like to believe you would, too.

The comparison to Changeling isn't valid here; the image there is being explained in the context of how it was shot; in other words, production techniques. This is simply descriptive: putting a face to the image. Without the image, there isn't context for the outrage, which was significant enough to make actual news (as opposed to entertainment news). Removing the image lessens the correlation between description and visual that has served the article for over three years.

Lastly, the image you recall that there was significant struggle about revolved around a bas relief bust of the historical Xerxes, not this image. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Btw, are we planning on widening the loop on this discussion, or are some thinking that the same viewpoints are going to magically change? I don't see a solution otherwise. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the image does not have sufficient critical commentary. We do not know what media in particular enraged the Iranians; there is no evidence that they saw the poster, so it should not be representative. Because of this, the contextual significance of the poster image is weak. The problem is that we do not have references about the response to the Uber-Immortal, only Xerxes. We should not be arguing for the inclusion of the image if we do not have references to back the response to the poster and/or the displayed entity. The Changeling example is absolutely valid because readers' understanding of that entire section is significantly improved by the presence of that image. Here, we are discussing a non-free image for part of a sentence when we have no indication from any references that the particular entity in question is involved. Erik (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Erik, howcheng, Andrew c, and Hammersoft. This image does not meet WP:NONFREE, and is not supported by any real critical commentary in the prose. The single sentence does not speak to that specific poster, only to the image (which they could just as easily have "heard about" which is often more than enough to get people in an uproar when they have never seen it themselves). I'm sorry Arcayne, but I also must agree that your arguments for keeping it are based on your presumption that they had to have seen this poster to have such an response. Unless this claim can be supported by reliable sources, and the section expanded to provide critical commentary on this poster, it should be removed as its use does not enhance the readers understanding nor would it be a detriment to the article to remove it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No, we do not know what precisely outrages the Iranians (read: no citations have been yet found). We do know it could not have been the film, as it was banned. What's left, aside from blogs or internet pictures? But, as others have said, we cannot cite the flashpoint of their ire at this time. Eventually someone will, and I'm pretty sure I'll be proven right. Until then, let's stop talking about citing the image to the outrage. It's a distractive argument, and not on point.

I'm talking about retaining an image that has stood the test of time (3 years, which is, like, an epoch in Wiki years). the image points to a depiction of Persians as monsters. Sans the aforementioned citable connection to Iranian ire, it is descriptive of the statement of Persians as monsters. Period.

Without an example of what the Iranians called being described as "a monstrous barbaric horde", we are left to wonder what they are upset about. without an example, their outrage - and the underlying citable significance of that - is at best marginalized and at worst utterly lost. It does in fact enhance the reader's understanding of that outrage, and it would of course be a detriment to the article to remove it. three years of inclusion have pretty much proved that.

Again, we are talking not about the poster (at least not until someone with net research experience seeks out the citation); we are talking about an example of a monstrous Persian as presented in the film. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You asked for more opinions and you've gotten them. At what point do you concede that maybe you're incorrect? howcheng {chat} 23:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Really? Where precisely did you widen the circle as I asked, Howcheng? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The question is irrelevant. Do you dispute that you have five editors disagreeing with you? Erik (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I certainly didn't direct these other users here. They came on their own. howcheng {chat} 03:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

So they magically showed up, all by themselves to share your viewpoint? Wow, how fortunate that they just somehow knew to come here to comment in your favor. How nifty. In answer to your question, no - I do not concede the point. The image should be in the article; it shouldn't be the latest battleground for the exclusionist vs inclusionist battle. Precisely what part of 'widen the circle' were you have trouble grasping? Open it up to the appropriate noticeboard or policy talk page - just make sure - as I've suggested before - to put a link here, so we can all follow the discussion. Surely, you wouldn't have a problem with having more eyes on this, would you? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I came here because I check for ongoing discussions through recent changes pages I have on my user page; this was what I used. I also notified WT:FILM of the discussion, and I am sure that is how Collectonian came here. You have made it clear that we five editors cannot convince you, so I have gone ahead and removed the image because five of us agree that this is the right course of action. I hope you will not engage in edit warring, for which you have been blocked four times here at this article. Erik (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I was just commenting on Collectonian's talk page that it's amazing I'd never seen her around before this, considering how active she is and how active I used to be. It's probably because I don't normally edit film articles that often except for minor cleanup. The same could be said for Erik. This is the first I've ever interacted with either of these users. You can believe me or not; it doesn't matter much to me either way. howcheng {chat} 17:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was actually going to concede that current consensus doesn't want the image in. So be it. When a cite turns up, I will replace the image. No big loss. And Erik, the next time you misrepresent my block-log, I will trout-slap you so hard, your grandkids will get whiplash. I was not blocked in this article four times; it was once. Granted, being blocked once is bad enough, but using it in an argument to win points as a de facto threat when I haven't been blocked in almost two years is pretty fucking low. It was a pretty stupid move, sport. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I redacted my statement; it was inappropriate. Conceding does not mean that you agree with the action taken; it means that you acknowledge that your viewpoint is not shared by others. Your resistance on the talk page, believing that there was collusion and not conceding five editors' shared viewpoint, had me concerned that we would see it in the article as well. Erik (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No, my use of the word meant that i was not convinced by the arguments being presented. It's the sloppiest application of NFC I've seen in over a year (and that's saying something). Your comments about collusion are, frankly, uninformed. I asked at least three times for Howcheng to widen the circle on the discussion, and due to an earlier issue with how that had been done before, i wanted a link to see if the question had been framed correctly. When folk started showing up, I wondered what had brought several people here all at once, as Howcheng had apparently ignored my request for outside input. I wasn't concerned about collusion; I was concerned that what had brought them here was a distinctly one-sided argument.

And thank you for admitting you mucked up colossally with your ill-researched accusation. Guess its too much to expect an actual apology. Sort of a post-escaping horse barn door closure, but better late than never. As well, you belief that I would edit-war after almost two years of not doing so was rather ill-informed as well. There was room to edit-war during this discussion, and yet none of that happened, either by myself or others. It came across precisely as a threat, when coupled with your action of reverting anyway. You handled this really, really badly, Erik. Work on that particular skill-set, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth: Screenshot or poster, doesn't matter to me. However, I'm mystified by the idea that a piece of free advertising (a poster) is more of a copyright violation than an unauthorized reproduction of a portion of a copyrighted work (a screenshot). I can't imagine someone suing to prevent free advertising, but I can imagine someone suing for the unauthorized reproduction. If the poster illustrates the point under discussion, so much the better. I realize that I have no knowledge nor interest in copyright law, but then I have extremely strong doubts about the expertise in these matters of most of my fellow editors. I suspect that these decisions usually come about not through any basis in reality, but in various self-promoting Wiki-ideologies which, even if based in reality, spin further and further into absurdity. Dekkappai (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NFCC lists the rationale for the criteria on non-free content. My take is that it boils down to, if you use non-free content, you need to have a good reason for using it. I did not find the reason for using the poster image (or any Uber-Immortal image) to be good enough. I think that this article could be improved, and that may open the door to other images. I was actually Googling for costume design information, especially for the Persian characters. This may be a way to show the atypical appearances with the right significant context. Erik (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It did not violate a single facet of NFCC, as I've pointed out a number of times. There was a good reason for using it. The people who wanted it removed have been the sorts who dislike any non-free content in the Wiki-en. It happened a year ago with some tv articles. You've actually made it easier for them to come after film articles. Good job. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It is your opinion that there was a good reason to use it. It is other editors' opinion that it is not. Non-free content needs to be contextually significant, and the significance of this image was under debate. I've argued to both include and exclude images. If the so-called "sorts who dislike any non-free content" dispute the Changeling screenshot, I would argue to defend that. Erik (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Not actually my point, Erik, but whatever. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

What is your point? Are you concerned that the removal of the image empowers a certain group of editors? You said this of "the people who wanted it removed". Which persons are they? Erik (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought you said you wanted to discuss this on your talk page, Erik. I willing to do it either place, but pick one. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Makeup and costume design

We may be able to add information about makeup and costume design to the article. With such a detailed section, we could include an image. Below are some possible references to use:

• 300: The Shoot, or How to Become Reel Spartans (duplicate here)

• 300: The Set Visit!
• Creature Effects Interview

Involved in these efforts were costume designer Michael Wilkinson, visual effects supervisor Chris Watts, and make-up and creature effects supervisors Shaun Smith and Mark Rappaport. It may be possible to Google their names in relation to 300 to find other references. There are probably some periodicals about makeup and costume design in 300 that would not be easily found online. Any takers? Erik (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)