Talk:300 (film)/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

What was archived

specific criticism regarding Orientalism

(Hello all, a sentence like this might help to capture the essence of the controversy, as well as lead readers to other related areas of inquire:)

300 has been cited as one of several major Hollywood blockbuster films which, through its portrayal of those of Middle Eastern origin, exaggerates negative and stereotypical visions of the 'orient'—commonly referred to as Orientalism.

Internet Memes

It seems that 300 is very popular on the internet due to two famous lines "THIS IS SPARTA!" and "TONIGHT, WE DINE IN HELL!". Shouldn't it be listed under the Internet memes category and mention it's internet fame?--Hundred-Man 22:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Training

I was thinking we should put a small section in here on their (the actors, not the spartans) training for this film. After all, they went through 2 months of pre-production training and did some intense things at the gym they worked out in; and it was a huge part of the movie. DurotarLord 16:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Good job

Since the beginning of this article (which was obviously written by 300 fan boys) the article has improved. Good job on making it neutral. --Arad 02:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's nice to have folk appreciate the hard work by lots of people. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, man... I don't recall this article ever being in terrible shape. It was a stub to begin with, and Alientraveller and I came in and expanded the Production and Marketing sections. Alien also started off the general Critical reaction section for us as well, I believe. Credit is due to multiple other editors for the historical criticism, though, having long, long discussions about working out the content and sources' attributions. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 14:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, it wasn't so much in terrible shape as it was a pretty nasty fight over the wording (some would even call it lame) of the various parts of the film. I actually learned quite a bit from the process. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed bits

Recently, I removed some statements that needed some citation by a source speaking about the film (to avoid OR and synthesis). The statements are below. Honestly, I don't think it or a reference to the Gerousia is really necessary, as the article is about the film (and not a historical overview of the topic of the Achaemenid empire), but in the interest of Mergism and inclusion, I am listing it below so as to be discussed, if necessary.

  • However, by 480 BC, the monarchy possessed almost no political power and the organs of state that did were elected by a majority vote amongst the enfranchised citizen body. This is in contrast to the concentration of political power solely in the hands of the Persian kings.

- Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Nothemanbehindthecurtain tried to bridge the two sides. What he added was a necessary explanation to the comment by Daryaee since D. is all over the place, but in vain. Quite right, the article is about the film and not a historical overview of the Achaemenid Empire so once again Daryaee should be out. It is clear that his view is unfit to be included according to wiki rules. I request that Arcayne or Javits take him out since I can’t take him out myself. If not, then a third party should weigh in.Talsal 22:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think either Daryaee's comments should be removed or Nothemanbehindthecurtain's edit should be put back in (properly sourced, of course) to properly balance the paragraph. Nothemanbehindthecurtain's edit made some good points. --Ted87 06:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

One of the continuing themes concerning Daryaee's removal has been the need only to verify his assertions, with the defence that readers will make up their own minds. Since Daryaee's removal appears to be out, it seemed fair to include the wikilink to the Gerousia so that people could have direct access to a more neutral perspective than that offered by Daryaee. Alternatively, a wikilink to Sparta:Constitution would be just as useful to recognise the debate over Daryaee's inclusion. The above statement was added with similar intent; to highlight that Daryaee's quotes, alone, are controversial and that, as has been shown by this vast debate, profoundly different readings are possible. Notthemanbehindthecurtain 07:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

(The above unsigned comment isn’t mine). Silence has been tried, hasn’t helped much and we still haven’t resolved this. I understand that the debate may have become more personal than it should – albeit only slightly so- but I think we can still comment on the specifics. Arcayne and Alientraveller have shown the will to participate by editing additions or removals respectively, but could I ask that they also weigh in the discussion? I agree that I have said it many times but grant me that I haven’t had an answer yet and allow me to say it again. Daryaee’s view is in contrast to wiki rules regarding original research, soapboax and indiscriminate collection of information. Considering both the specifics of these rules and the spirit of them as suggested in 'wikipedia is not bureaucracy', Daryaee should not be in the article. Many users have agreed on that and only one has been vocal to contradict them and that doesn’t seem to be the case anymore. What should we do?Talsal 16:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If you've brought up a point on the discussion page and after a reasonable amount of time no one has brought up substantial objection, then you are pretty much in the clear. --Ted87 17:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was out of town. What point of the discussion still needed comment in your reckoning? Talsal, the wiki rules regarding soapboxing, OR and indisciminate info is for us; Daryaee isn't the one contributing. As a consensus, we have to determine whether the inclusion of those comments are useful or not. If they detract from the article, they should be removed. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless the purpose of the article is to reject balance, there seems to be little reason to omit the remarks. Citations abound in various works on Sparta and I see no need to trawl through them over such an established, within the community of lacedaimonian histoians, not just this group. As has been constantly reiterated, Daryaee's unqualified remarks are rather controversial and continuing removals of valid points seem baffling. 172.215.89.93 16:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC) (Notthemanbehind...)

Let's look at his comments:

Touraj Daryaee, associate professor of Ancient History at California State University, Fullerton, criticizes the central theme of the movie, that of "free" and "democracy loving" Spartans against "slave" Persians. Daryaee states that the Achaemenid (Persian) empire hired and paid people regardless of their sex or ethnicity, whereas in fifth-century Athens "less than 14%" of the population participated in democratic government, and "nearly 37%" of the population were slaves. He further states that Sparta "was a militaristic monarchy with a council of elders which decided political matters, but it was not a democracy." [76]

  1. Why is Athens relevant in this discussion?
  2. Slaves don't determine whether you're a democracy or not
  3. The Persian Empire hired soldiers, but what info is there about the slaves they had compared to the Greeks.

Aside from that the only problem I have is that this movie was never meant to be historically accurate, so to add all this criticism is just excessive. --Ted87 05:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

For me, the question is a lot easier. Is it needed? Like a block of stone from which we are to create a statue, we need to remove every unessential bit, so that all remaining pertains to the subject of the article. Not the subject matter (ie, the Achaemenid empire or whether Spartans had slaves, or literally walked around in red speedos or whatever), but the subject itself. Were Daryaee's comments on point in regards to the film itself, or was he speaking to some geopolitical/cultural gap he perceived? I think it was the latter, and is less notable because of it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne true; OR, soapbox and indiscriminate info are all directed to us as guidelines of what is acceptable in wiki. Daryaee’s view is not acceptable according to all three even if he isn’t the one editing the article. And I mean not in such a section. He is not addressing the ‘historical accuracy’ of 300 but promotes a rhetoric concerning modern geopolitical/cultural issues if you like, as he perceives them (OR, Indiscriminate info). Daryaee’s view is too controversial and distinctly irrelevant to what he is supposed to comment on (soapbox). I agree with the other users too. And since there is a discussion regarding FA nomination, my view is that the article needs to become more formal and more focused. Regarding the ‘accuracy’ section, however much one feels he would like to expand on the Persian empire and address all issues that could possibly arise from the film, he shouldn’t. The topic is the movie and nothing else. The purpose of the article is not to enlighten the reader on the relative importance of the cultures involved. Daryaee’s view would not be included in any encyclopaedia at such a place.Talsal 16:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Is not a statue more beautiful if its detail is more precise? If the subject matter itself is not under inclusion and we rely on generalised statements about the films accuracy alone, as I believe is Arcayne's point; if so, then both the end of Daryaee's paragraph and Cartledge's comments on institutional pederasty should be removed. Either one can keep such useful additions and allow notice to be made as to their somewhat controversial nature (note the quick consensus to add 'his views' to Cartledge's note on pederasty) or they should be removed along with everything else which is not such a 'general' statement. It almost smacks of the alleged calls of single mindedness, which were levelled at those who tried to have Daryaee removed, this practise of demanding that Daryaee be kept totally inviolate, however much he may mislead. Notthemanbehind... 172.188.83.82 12:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Shall we put it to a vote then, either to remove Daryaee or to return (when sourced) statement? Notthemanbehind... 172.212.25.209 17:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I am not in favor of any more voting when it comes to the article - the previous one was a cock-up from the get-go, and served as a platform for a ton of nationalistic sentiment that was (and is) pointedly useless to the article. I quick look over the yays and nays in comment form show a bit of equal pressure on both sides. In that case, while I do not agree with it, Daryaee should remain. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I should tell you guys that throughout this debate I have questioned my sanity more times than I would have liked to. Personally I think that mock voting helps but I think we approximated a version of something similar a couple of times and the consensus showed Daryaee the way out. I disagree that the comments’ form shows equal pressure; at least not from an equal number of users. Essentially only Javits has opposed Daryaee’s exclusion valuing D’s comment as a balancing factor. However the problem with Daryaee is not that a measured view from him would not help towards a NPOV. He is in disagreement with wiki rules. If one reads his article one can immediately see that he presents ‘a synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position’. His extracted from that article view, presents the same problem and therefore cannot be included according to wiki. If his article is not an ‘advocacy of some kind’ then what article is? And if it is then again he is out. Wiki rules promote the inclusion of ‘sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within an article in their proper context for the general reader’. Nothemanbehindthecurtain provided that, but his -necessary- additions were not accepted for lack of citations. Personally as much as I dislike D. for his outburst in that article I think that the additions by Nothemanbehindthecurtain would ultimately serve to strip D. from his professional credibility as everyone then would see that the man is all over the place and that would be a bit too cruel. Ok maybe it would be just right, not sure yet. The relevant wiki rules do not address just the editors. I can always pass the task of editing an article to my friend so he can include my original research and even publish my original research to a friend’s newspaper or website. That doesn’t mean that the ‘no OR’ rule doesn’t apply to my views, along with the secondary wiki rules that are included under that title. We are forgetting the main wiki guideline. ‘Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines’. Why should we ignore all that which calls for D.’s exclusion? I honestly think that we‘ve been flattering D. way too much. Talsal62.30.182.11 01:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the various Wiki guidelines cited by 62.30... (although uncited) clearly apply to editors, and not to secondary sources. The scenario s/he imagines, in which an editor "passes" material to a friend for publication, is slightly paranoiac, and in any case has not happened here. Daryaee is not someone's mouthpiece, but rather a historian of a certain professional standing, likewise for the other three. This is what determines their significance: "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each" (WP:NPOV). If I published something in my buddy's blog or 'zine, on the other hand, I guarantee it would not count as significant.
As to the proposed Zwischenbemerkungen on Daryaee, which 62.30..., attributing a suprising amount of power to Wikipedia, feels would "strip D. from [sic] his professional credibility," another line from NPOV: "It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions."
Finally, as to voting, polling, and similar proposals, one last quote from the same policy: "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, is one of Wikipedia's three content policies.... The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." Thus, if I understand Arcayne's remark correctly, equal pressure applies not to "number of users" but to force of arguments, which is as it should be. I hope this also goes some way toward explaining my own intransigence on this issue. This is simply a matter of NPOV: all other concerns and amateur speculations are beside the point, and, if they are indeed leading editors to question their sanity, perhaps insalubrious as well. --Javits2000 11:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If indeed it is force of arguments, would somebody actually respond to those I have presented? I recall an agreement on third-party arbitration, which was never actually achieved. I also recall having my arguments turned down not because of their force, which as I recall, was never answered either, but because they utilised 'rhetoric,' which was considered invalid for this discussion. Intransigence may be justified in keeping Daryaee, but to claim neutrality and balance, never very convincingly, and then to exclude any additions which would cast doubt on Daryaee is somewhat hypocritical. Nottheman... 172.214.141.161 15:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't hear about any arbitration, and would have involved myself had such been announced. We have two strong viewpoints as to the inclusion or removal of Daryaee's statements, and no real way to resolve them. I suggest that we invite an admin to weigh in on the rules question, as that seems (to me) to be the hinge upon which the arguments seem to to turn. Comments? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of:

"As things stand then, we have a difference in opinion that cannot be settled due to intransigence. As such, we need an arbitrator to decide. The topic should be left as it is and someone who has the time to read the above, plus the archived details, must be found. Still, I cannot help but feel a degree of annoyance that the issue, despite its lengthy course, has returned to the point which I made clear at the beginning could not be definitively answered. 137.73.88.101 19:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

...If a second opinion is needed, then we could always invite an arbitrator. But to me it remains clear that Daryaee offers a unique, notable, and, once more, verifiable perspective on the film's relation to history. The rest is just talking to hear oneself speak. --Javits2000 19:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

...Lastly, if this content issue cannot be resolved here, go to 3rd opinion and have someone neutral weigh in on this. That should put the issue to bed. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)"

Clearly, I was wrong to assume that this was enough, but I still notice that my arguments have not been responded to; all I have seen are efforts to codify my arguments as to matters of historiography, which I again note I said very clearly at the very beggining to be impossible to solve, and then to call my efforts as being; "finer points of historical method and rhetoric, which, while enjoyable and occasionally illuminating, are for Wiki too clever by half." What this strongly suggests is that all of my above points were wasted and have not been answered, that the opposition has fallen back to something which could have been resolved at the very beginning, thus implying that they have no true reasons. Is this not so? Notthemanbehind... 172.214.141.161 16:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that you have been asked a few times to be more succint in your arguments in the past, and if you chose to sidestep that particular piece of advice, then you might consider that you might have wasted ten words were one or two might have sufficed. I apologize for the implied harshness of that statement, but brevity and 'cutting to the chase' go a long way in Wikipedia. As for the past requests to have an admin/3rd Opinion/arbiter weigh in, I guess it bears asking if you pursued having one of those folks come to the article. You were the one thinking that the issue required mediation, so it would be natural for you to pursue that avenue. It is not up to us to do that for you. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, this recurring charge of "not answering arguments." I've been more than patient in replying to every single argument that might have had an actual bearing on the issue, and was not simply amateur speculation re: ancient history or historical method. This discussion is already filling up way too many kilobytes, so I will offer only a selection: I've cited passages from the screenplay to demonstrate the accuracy of D.'s characterization; addressed the suggestion that he is not "speaking as historian"; provided citations to demonstrate the reliability of D.'s stats; agreed with a more general suggestion that the article as it stood was slanted towards the critics, and edited accordingly (an edit, by the way, which is now drawing some fire at the FAR); have detailed, in response to a query, which "inaccuracies" D. purports to reveal; been tempted into an off-topic discussion on historical method; presented D. as speaking, not for the Greek literary view of Thermopylae, but for a more archaeological, social-historical view; offered my own understanding of WP policy cited both by myself and by others; and that brings us to my post of earlier today, on a similar topic. This should also serve as a reply to 172.214...: "all of my above points were wasted and have not been answered, the opposition has fallen back to something which could have been resolved at the very beginning, thus implying that they have no true reasons. Is this not so?" This is not so.
172.214... also now suggests that my claims to neutrality and balance (which I would indeed claim to possess in this argument) are not very convincing, perhaps "hypocritical." I will only point out that in previous discussions (1; 2 and multiple other posts on the same author) I have worked hard (and with success!) to keep genuinely fringe / nationalist points of view out of "historical accuracy."
What is apparent is a tendency for the anti-Daryaee camp to repeat themselves, or perhaps to not read each other's posts, and then complain that their arguments have not been answered. Thus in a post of 20. Jul. the question of the relevance of Athens was raised once again, a point which was already raised on 25. May, 8. Jun., and to which I attempted to reply on 10. Jun. My argument there, incidentally, "has not been answered," although the same objection was raised on 19. Jun. and 21. Jun. without apparent knowledge of my previous response, and by one of the anonymous IPs who has been pretty touchy about my perceived failure to engage with my interlocutors.
All of which is to say that I pity the arbitrator who would have to read through all of this. --Javits2000 18:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

In response to Arcayne, I will set out a list of my premises and argument, either to remove Daryaee or to return the removed statement into the article, clearly and we can all discuss individual points. To Javits, I do not dount his commitment to removing fringe/nationalist citations, but if so unfortunate an arbitator was to read through this article, he will discover that Javits claims to NPOV reside in the 'complementary' nature of Daryaee to Hanson, which is yet another point which has been left unanswered (right before the 'continuation' of this article).

As to my claims to have been left unanswered, I offer the following summary of the debate and would ask where the repsonses are: After I had established that Daryaee was a 'fringe' opinion, Javits constructed an up-to-date version of the paragraph based on the results of said discussion, however, this then led us into a question as to the relevance of 'freedom' and 'democracy' in relation to Daryaee. It was my contention that Hanson, speaking in line with the sources, was not being 'balanced' by Daryaee, as he was utilising ideas of freedom which are fundamentally alien(/modern) to those of the Greek sources used by Hanson. By contrast, I asserted, Daryaee was primarily focused on the 'modern' controversy of the film, in that, only by modern standards, can Sparta be given Daryaee's labels and could not be placed in a section on 'historical' accuracy to balance an authority addressing the history itself, as Hanson is quoted on how the Greeks themselves viewed the conflict, not how we might view it today. Alas, I went unanswered (where the 'continuation' section was begun). Javits then accused me of having NOT responded to these points, to which I then quoted J Reames, who is a fairly powerful source, I am led to believe, and his focus that historical accuracy is fundamentally connected to 'worldview' of contemporaries and how they saw it. I again received no answer other than that I should set up a profile as it was 'impossible to keep up' with anonymous IP's.

Nor, might I add, does it seem particularly neutral to exclude a remark, admittedly one without secondary authority, which would calrfiy the issue and balance Daryaee. 172.201.167.234 22:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I do indeed hold D. to be complementary to Hanson; but this is secondary to the fundemental NPOV claim I would advance, which is that Daryaee is a respected scholar advancing considered and verifiable claims, and therefore cannot be excluded simply because some editors hold opposing viewpoints.
The question, whether the use of modern conceptual categories to analyze pre-modern societies is justifiable, is the "off-topic discussion on historical method" to which I alluded above. I was, however, tempted into a discussion of this earlier, and in response to the view that such a method leads into anachronism, cited the views of a highly respected Marxian historian of Byzantium (Haldon). Any number of other examples could be cited, e.g. any pretty much any historian who uses Weber, Hayden White, what you like.
Exclusion of uncited text is neither neutral nor biased; it's simply good policy in any article, especially one that's up for FAR. --Javits2000 17:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Do I need to dig out my copy of Carr, who takes the extreme position that history is by definition imperfect as one can never be objective; philosophical perhaps, but that does not obscure the fact that objectivity is something clearly sought, particularly in the realm of NPOV? Or alternatively, might one recall the take of a modern historian (the famous Quentin Skinner, who you can read in wiki) who suggested that any selection of political/social theory needed to be qualified in regard to the viewpoint of contemporaries? As I have commented/rhetoricised that almost any 'period' production would not pass muster by this logic; that the social mores of today always devalue 'historical accuracy.' Taking the most obvious line of historical thought, anyone who has ever studied history in Britain or America will undoubtedly be familiar with the Whig theory of history (that all history proceeds towards 'liberal democracies), which, to the very, very best of my knowledge, no historian condones today. The same might be said to apply of Marxist historians (excluding Carr, of course), such as you have cited; they view the world with tinted lenses as much as those of the 'whig' tradition- to the progression of the world to socialism, then to pure communism. I cannot stress this enough. Notthe.... 172.215.184.53 19:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if this point is something that Javits considers 'irrelevant,' please say so.

I first acknowledged that I repeat myself and requested leniency because I had good reasons for doing so. ‘wiki guidelines…clearly apply to editors, and not to secondary sources’. For the fourth or fifth time, no. Not according to wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Original_research. ‘The term –Original Research- also applies to…synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." I think that D saying that the persians effectively won the war qualifies his assertion and therefore his article as a novel narrative or historical interpretation. The scenario I offered is not that paranoiac once we are all on the same page. It was not an accusation but an example to demonstrate how easily one could bypass the OR the way Javits interpets it. OR is a rule that above all describes the characteristics of acceptable material for inclusion in an article. ‘Follow the spirit, not the letter’! D. is D.’s mouthpiece. Is anyone that paranoiac not to see that he is trying to advance a position by his article? Surely not and therefore soapbox applies to him. The article does fairly represent all views on the historical accuracy of ‘300’ without D and in proportion to the prominence of each. A note on NPOV. Both Cartledge and Lytle offer the essence of D’s view without the nonsence and therefore that should be enough if NPOV was the goal here. However it seems some see the 2 vs 2 as the means to achieve that NPOV. But I have some objections. Why are Cartledge and Hanson considered by implication biased? That 2 vs 2 that has been puzzlingly proposed as fair in such a section could also be read -given the views expressed of course- as 2 iranians vs 2 neutrals vs 0 greeks. That 2 vs 2 should strike one different now.

Sure ‘readers should be allowed to form their own opinions’ but more importantly in this case ‘articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader.’ This is what Nothemanbehindthecurtain did. And by placing D’s farraginous info in their proper context he exposed the falsity of D’s conclusions. Granted not to the whole planet but to all who would read the article. I ommitted the last part of that sentence, trying to appease Arcayne’s calls for brevity although I consistently fail to do so.

Personally I do not see equal pressure or indeed equal force in the arguments of the two sides. Regarding the 'consensus' references however I will repeat again, what no one seems to have read in the first place. In this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy you ll find that ‘Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion’ and here that ‘insisting on insertion of an insignificant factoid into an article in opposition to many other editors has been judged a violation of consensus’. I still see only Javits insisting on the insertion of D.

Agreeing with NTMBTC, I too think that several points have not been dealt with. D himself has a view of whether he speaks as a historian or not. D’s stats are verifiable, not that reliable but more importantly irrelevant to 300. There was no answer that properly addressed the relevance of them. No one answered my questions satisfactorily; an example would be the topic ‘what specific inacuracies D addresses in the film’. No one answered NTMBTC’s questions and no one answered Ted87’s questions. An example of the prevalent pattern would be the question of the relevance of Athens, to which the answer Javits gave was ‘The figures for Athens have been verified; that Athens, instead of Sparta, is cited presumably because a) comparable demographic data for Sparta is not available; and b) fifth-century Athens has traditionally been perceived as the peak of Greek democracy.’ Once more; if D was commenting on specific inaccuracies regarding Greek democracy compared to the Persian that would suffice. But that answer is not enough to prove D right when what got him exited was the reference to the Apella. Apella existed and citing the limitations of Athenian democracies to prove Apella a historical inaccuracy, is irrelevant I am afraid. D is supposed to comment on the accuracy of 300, not deliver a history lesson on the topics of his choice. It is not the anti-D camp that is not reading the comments.

Since I and indeed others, have been willing at times to accept that D could be moved to another section or that he stays in the ‘historical accuracy’ section with necessary additions that would place his comment in a proper context, I wont accept intransigence from my part. D’s core objection to the film is addressed by both Cartledge and Lytle and the insistence that D stays seems to me a caprice. Without doubting his contribution to the article I think that Javits alone is being intransigent and since he is the only one arguing his point against several users isnt he in violation of the consensus?Talsal 05:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Bolding "published material" will not obscure the fact that the OR guideline cited applies to syntheses of published material ... by editors.
Daryaee's remarks do not constitute "an insignificant factoid" -- an example of this type might be the various "memes" that have been proposed for inclusion -- but rather a reasoned opinion. And in any case I have never inserted Daryaee's account (that happened here, initial discussion here), only argued that it should be retained. In this latter, incidentally, I have hardly been alone, even if I have been the only advocate for retention who has attempted to keep up with the avalanche of text.
Daryaee neither denies the existence of the Apella nor describes it as a historical inaccuracy. It is not clear to me that it even "got him excited."
To suggest that someone might be in "violation of consensus" by consistently disagreeing with an opinion advocated by a slight majority indicates a poor understanding of the concept of consensus. --Javits2000 16:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
In addition, 'slight' minority, is unfair; one might apply it to Daryaee, but not to the camp which wishes him removed.Notthe...

Alternatively, why do we not include an explanatory piece, which would reflect Daryaee as being of this camp, such as the link 'progressionist' or something similar into the paragpah to echo the views of both sides? Also, could I suggest that we have one of those nice little boxes informing readers that 'the following is debated' or whatever.


Bolding ‘published material’ only served to attract attention to the fact that OR applies to secondary sources as well; something that went unnoticed several times. Indeed OR applies to the ‘synthesis of published material to advance a position’, that ‘novel historical narrative’ issue Wales was referring to. Such a synthesis was made by D to advance his point. OR certainly applies to the editors but I disagree with those who think that OR allows for the publication of such material as long as the editor of the wiki article is not the person who made the synthesis. To provide another paranoiac scenario as an example only, of how one could publish his original material if we read OR as some propose: no one among you knows whether I am Daryaee trying to further my point in wiki or not. Wiki can’t know it either, hence the call to apply ‘the spirit not the letter’ of rules. Apart from Javits everyone thinks that D offers insignificant factoids like ‘militaristic monarchy’. D obviously wouldn’t deny the existence of Apella and would opt for a more underhand approach, but surely it was that reference which made him see a ‘democracy-loving’ Sparta -since there isn’t any other with similar connotations- and finally claim that Sparta was not a democracy while nothing of the sort is supported in the film. His whole comment is insignificant unless what is significant in the ‘historical accuracy’ section of ‘300’ is to make the Persian Empire look more modern than the Greek city-states by carefully picking the information that would support such a position. I wouldn’t characterize the majority aiming to exclude D as 'slight' and I would add that the 'violation of consensus by a lone editor' implies the ‘unanimity minus one’ benchmark and in our case I think that both the ‘unanimity’ and the ‘minus one’ clauses are satisfied adequately. Talsal 23:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I have erased Daryaee’s comment because after the extensive discussion only one user wanted the comment to remain, without having changed the opinion of all the other users on the matter. FA status of an article doesn’t imply ceasing to improve it. Talsal 01:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Hardly an appropriate action. It has been suggested a number of times now that the users who wish to remove Daryaee should take the matter to arbitration; this would indeed be the logical next step. I assume I am the "one user" referred to above, but I am of course not the only one who has spoken in his favor, merely the only one who has attempted to keep up with the avalanche of text. (See now also below.) Now returned from abroad, will restore previous text once I can dig it out of the edit history, recommend initiation of arbitration proceedings as opposed to an unproductive revert war. --Javits2000 14:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)



This is totally bias, you guys are removing facts that defend Persians while adding things that defend the Greeks- even though watching the movie, clearly the Persians should be in defense. 3 paragraphs defending the Greeks vs 1 defending the Iranians!!!!

Second if you’re going to remove Darayee comments you better have legit reasons. The 3 reasons you gave were ridiculously bogus. The mention of slaves clearly shows that if anything the Hellenized civilizations were the ones who had slaves in 5th c not the Persians. You contradict yourself when you say that the Persian hired soldiers and then you ask about the slaves.

The Hellenized Bias in this article is oozing faster then the Blood in these movies; you clearly have no business editing this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.211.138 (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

For slaves, you have misunderstood/ignored the difference between economic and political slavery. The greeks, particularly the Spartans, considered themselves equal before the laws. This was in contrast to the Persian king who, while he certainly paid and protected (and probably to a better standard than greek slaves) his subjects, they had no legal recourse- they were his slaves in taht he could act arbitrarily towards them in all manner of actions. Contrast this to the ephorate's popularly elected position and it's ability to impose fines, advisors on the king's and even to depose them if they saw fit.

No-one is intending to bias the article one way or the other; as Javits has been most adamant about, the article currently maintains a 2:2 position, which some editors have, including myself, have challenged, not to exalt the greeks, but because (at least I do) it is believed that much of Daryaee's statements are anachronistic, simplified or just plain wrong.

If you would like to contribute, please wait as there is a request in as to mediation over the issue. However, if future contributions are along the lines of 'PEOPLE FROM the REPUBLIC OF AZERBAIJAN SHOULD NOT COMMENT they only have an agenda that is aimed at increasing their land!!', I think that I speak for all of us when I suggest that Hellenic sentiment is not the true reason that you are here. Notthemanbehindthecurtain —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.188.55.112 (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have erased Daryaee once more (I was under the impression I did it yesterday but the changes weren’t here today). Javits before you reinstate him consider that there is no excuse to insist that you and your only argument (that D offers valuable info in your opinion) can outweigh all other users and argumentation. Mediation having failed (it would even if Arcayne had signed the request since ‘various anonymous IPs’ couldn’t do the same) you could opt for a request for comments or arbitration. Mediation won’t help much if none of us is willing to back down. Talsal 15:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

300 spoof award

I removed this mention of an award for a spoof. Maybe it could find a place elswhere in the article.

United 300, a combined spoof of 300 and United 93, won the first MTV Movie Spoof Award.[1]

Mytwocents 23:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Just a note that there is vandalism in the article (end of HAcc). Could someone remove it?-Formerly Notthemanbehind...172.202.7.242 14:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Greenscreen or bluescreen?

Article currently says film was shot using bluescreen- I thought that was phased out years ago in favor of greenscreening? Anyone know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tymothy (talkcontribs)

Look at the picture. Alientraveller 19:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Film Makers use both blue and green screen, it depends on the colors used in the shots. the matrix made greenscreen popular, but bluescreen is still used in lots of movies. They can use any color except red, there's too much red in human skin.

FA again

This has been raised multiple times -- everything is in working order & everyone is chilled out; time to apply for FA? --Javits2000 08:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see why not. Alientraveller 11:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine that the fair use rationales of the screenshots in the Plot sections may be criticized by fair-use wikihounds. The rationales for the comparison shots in the Production section may need to be expanded to cover the ten-point criteria found at WP:FU. The prose in the Production section may be considered clunky for FA standards and require a copy-edit. Some of the content in Marketing may be seen as too trivial, such as detail about the official website. The Awards/Nominations sections seems rather sparse, considering that the MTV Movie Awards aren't too acclaimed. The fair use rationale for the Uber-Immortal poster may need to be strengthened as well. All these are possible arguments offered up in the FAC process. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 13:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the fair use images in Plot, we've discussed how they contribute to the article a lot. One shows the style of ass-kickery in the film (though it'd be better if we had one with the comic-booky blood) and the exotic depiction of Xerxes. Alientraveller 13:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I know, but outside editors don't have familiarity with these long discussions. That's what happened with Ed g2s -- he didn't bother looking in the archives to see the discussions over why we picked the images that we did. I'm just saying that it's a point that may be raised by a wikihound or two when the article gets nominated for FA status. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 13:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, but we have our reasons to type out once more if such issues are raised. Alientraveller 13:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

DVD Release

Due to its recent DVD release in the US, keep track of DVD sales, although once obtained in the future, how should such information be listed? As its own section? Reception? Brainstorm! Stabby Joe 22:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Just got my copy today (after midnight so technically yesterday, July 31). At first I'd just keep it under Promotion and release until enough attention is brought to where it warrants its on section. --Ted87 08:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

300 Breaks High Definition RecordErik (talkcontrib) - 13:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Congrats guys. This article is now FA

Congratulations guys for all the hard work. This article is now FA. Mercenary2k 20:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't: maybe in your eyes and mine, but not quite yet. Alientraveller 20:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Well it got promoted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log Mercenary2k 20:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh. "Arru, arru!" Or however you write it. Alientraveller 20:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Arru? whats that? Mercenary2k 21:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, either, but Tim Taylor came to mind. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 21:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Perhaps our Alientraveler was referring to the mating call of the 3/4 nekkid Spartan. Run away! - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

When will the Bot update this? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 04:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Spoke too soon. (check history. comment made within one minute of bot updating.) --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 04:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The FA Star has also been added. Mercenary2k 05:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Good job y'all. It is good to see that you, despite being few in number, defeated the mighty anonymous Persian horde who were distracting the article from achieving FA status, though be ready for their return during the main page rotation (whenever that is). I wonder if this will end up being one of the few semi-protected main page articles. What is the process for going on the rotation anyway? The Behnam 15:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Historical accuracy

I added two sentences to lessen the impact of two criticisms which were not fully founded. 1. In the letters page of 300, there had already been a debate over the irony of Spartans calling Athenians "boy lovers". In it Miller made a point that Spartans were not dfferent and were disingenuous. It is clear from the outset that the Spartans' comment does not reflect the author's viewpoint. 2. In the movie itself a spartan soldier get reprimanded for submittig an opinion "This si not a democracy" So the criticism that Spartans are "democracy lovers" is off the rail. Either we don't include a statement from a person who obviously need to watch the film again or we balance it with the film's actual content, which is what I did. --Leocomix 17:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it, Leo. Your edit seemed like an editorial aside to the reader, and it didn't provide citations. At this point, nothing should be added to the article without going through the Discussion page's approval first. I know that seems harsh, but in order to preserve the FA stability that has been won through very diligent efforts by a lot of people, I think it needs to be that way. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I provided a citation for my first sentence: 300, Dark Horse Comics, 1998 as this is in the letters page of the original serialization. This is verifiable. The second sentence describes the film itself. What can I do? Refer to the published script if it exists? Refer to the relevant section of the film if it's available somewhere on the net?
I'm glad the article got an FA status and this is what attracted me there, but I have no other intent than to make that status fully warranted by correcting the false impression given by these two criticisms. This is the second message I write in the discussion (and the third on that subject if we include the one I left in your Talk section). --Leocomix 20:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
The first proposed edit seems slightly irrelevant to me, as it has to do with the response to the comic book, not the film. Whether or not the irony of the statement had already been noted by readers of the comic book, it was retained in the film, and is therefore open to comment by a scholar of Spartan society. In terms of the second point, I think the soldier's remark (which I don't recall, but don't doubt is there) is probably being read out of context. Any general could tell a soldier that the army "is not a democracy" -- including in all modern democracies. To me it's clear that Sparta is depicted as a defender of freedom, and the various council scenes could easily be read as democratic. Indeed there's been a long discussion in the past few months driven by editors upset with Daryaee's statement that Sparta was not a democracy. --Javits2000 21:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
One thing that should be noted, is that it isn't quite the democracy as we recognize, but for the time it WAS a democracy. Democracy was a grand experiment that worked at the time, but only barely. The article accurately states that this is a fictionalized version of a true event. You have to take into context this movie and actual history. While both have the same endings, its the paths on the way to the endings that are different. --Hourick 22:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
1. The first point is that the scholar of Spartan society makes a mistake in assuming Leonidas in entirely sincere in his "boylover" statement. Since the author of the graphic novel and therefore the film, commented on it, this is relevant since, in that regard there are no differences between the two. My edit doesn't have to do with the response to the comic as you state but with the intent of the author, which deserves as must say than a Spartan scholar. 2. Freedom does not equate democracy, this a modern and Western, especially American viewpoint. Some people will even argue there is less freedom in democracies than in other regimes (not that I believe it). I don't see the point of stating some editors were upset that Sparta was not a democracy. It was not. Hourick, aren't you confusing the Spartans with the Athenians? In Sparta, the king ruled, there were no elected representatives. It was not in any way, shape or form a democracy. I'm not splitting hairs, the criticisms that the film is manichean, that it presents Spartans as representatives of freedom (while they had a large population of slaves and gave less equal opportunities than Sparta), that it presents a false west-east dichotomy are fully correct. I'm not advocating either to remove the statements which I think come from a misreading but to balance them. For sure any work can be rightfully criticised for the way it is perceived no matter what the makers meant. --Leocomix 12:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Miller is no more the author of the film (neither screenwriter nor director) than Henry Fielding was of Tom Jones (1963 film). --Javits2000 15:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
"In Sparta, the king ruled, there were no elected representatives." Well, how about that: "Aristotle describes the kingship at Sparta as "a kind of unlimited and perpetual generalship" (Pol. iii. I285a), while Isocrates refers to the Spartans as "subject to an oligarchy at home, to a kingship on campaign" (iii. 24). Here also, however, the royal prerogatives were curtailed over time. Dating from the period of the Persian wars, the king lost the right to declare war, and was accompanied in the field by two ephors. He was supplanted also by the ephors in the control of foreign policy. Over time, the kings became mere figure-heads except in their capacity as generals. Real power was transferred to the ephors and to the gerousia. Causes for this change lay partly in the fact that the ephors, chosen by popular election from the whole body of citizens, represented a democratic element in the constitution without violating those oligarchical methods which seemed necessary for the state's administration. They also lay partly in the weakness of the kingship, the dual character of which inevitably gave rise to jealousy and discord between the two holders of the office, often resulting in a practical deadlock. Another cause lay in the loss of prestige suffered by the kingship, especially during the 5th century, owing to these aforementioned quarrels, to the frequency with which kings ascended the throne as minors making the creation of regencies necessary. The dual kingship's prestige also suffered due to the fact that the kings were, rightly or wrongly, suspected of having taken bribes from the enemies of the state at one time or another.
State organization
After the ephors were introduced, they, together with the two kings, were the executive branch of the state. Ephors themselves had more power than anyone in Sparta, although the fact that they only stayed in power for a single year reduced their ability to conflict with already established powers in the state. Since reelection was not possible, an ephor who abused his power, or confronted an established power center, would have to suffer retaliation."-Wikipedia: Sparta. Nottheman... 172.141.70.118 14:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be noted that Sparta itself was heavily involved in slavery, through-out it's history, and not just that the whole of Greece was partially democratic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.233.74 (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Pls read the archives, which pondered that particular subject ad nauseum. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Many quotes from leonardoes was not in the film. Spartans took of their scarlet cape while they were in battle. They had also combed their hair in tradition before a battle. Lythorax was worn by Spartans and they also wore no sandals. There was 300 hippeis, 2800 pelopennesians, but herodotus mentions 4000. This might also include the helots who fought with Spartans. 700 Thespians and 400 Thebans joined with the Spartans. 1000 Phocians and a complete army of locrians(mabe 6 morae). The army should also include slaves and light infantry. In the movie none of this is barely mentioned. Immortals was medium calvary, and saw phocians first but ignored them. Hydarnes was the traiter who told the persians unprotected routes and information. Leonardus fell in battle, so Spartans had to fight over his body and retreave it 4 times atleast. The main fleet never arrived at Thermoylae. They were in cape Artemision where Athenian ships kept them busy as well as storms. Xerxes wasn't gay neither. The persians was more organised and didn't fight in free for all, based on heroism. The phalanx drill was incorrect. The first two front men drawn their spears under arm when marching and overarm when ready to fight. The hoplites or hippeis in this situation, in the back dranw spears in air. After the enemy retreat the hoplites reach the second phase and attack with swords. Spears was never thrown in battle, very rare. Phalanx don't fight in free for all, based on heroism. They sustain formation. Eventually all the hoplites had to form a circle including phocians. Most hippeis had cresent on. Greaves looked odd in movie, as well as helmet. The phalanx formation was wrong, leonardoes should be on right side of formation. There is also no ouragoi, in rear. new recruits like the guys son should be in left. Other fantasy based themes are accceptable, as it makes the movies interesting. I learnt more about the naval battle for thermoylae rather than land. I don't learn much about this battle, but already ive witnesed many inaccuracies. To be continues with the list of inaccuracies...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.45.233 (talk) 07:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh and immortals came from anopaea path too surrounding spartans. Numerous routs in southern mountains used to reach spartans. Xerxes arrived at thermoylae late, after spratans reached there. He also took time assembling his army. He waited for fleet as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.45.233 (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
o and almost forgot lol. The person who revealed xerxes the spartans and greeks posstion and lay abouts of the environment was not the hunchback. It was a farmer in the area. I also doubt that xerxes was gay in real life.
why does everyone think that immortals were land? Immortals were calvary jeez.

Okay, apparently just suggesting that you folks check out the archives was too much to ask; I mean, the rest of us have already been through this at least a dozen times, so why should I make you read through all the hard work we went throuygh to arrive at the consensus we have, right? Yes, that was me a bit snippy. If you aren't prepared to do the background work, why should we endeavor to repeat ourselves? However, I will do it, because someone did it for me when I was first starting out in WP.
We don't include historical differences unless we can cite them, and here is the tricky part: those historical inaccuracies have to refer to the historical inaccuracies in the film, and not historical inaccuracies that you (or a fan forum or a blogger) have noticed. You may very well have a degree in History in Classics (Greek) - it appears you are quite knowledgeable on the subject, but you noting them it cannot be included, as you are a primary source, and Wikipedia uses secondary sources inthe form of cited works almost exclusively.
Facts that you find from the hstorical record are not includable either, as they do not refer to them in the context of the historical inaccuracies of the film, and this constitutes Original Resarch by synthesis. Lastly, the film is based upon the comic book/graphic novel/whatever 300 by Frank Miller. To Miller's work, the movie is rather notably faithful. Your problem with the film is better directed towards the graphic novel than here. However, I can guarantee that another editor is going to find issue with these uncitable statements there as well.
Your best bet it sot roll up the sleeves and go to work finding some academic articles, film reviews and so forth that speak to the issues which you note. Without them, we cannot include any of it.
I hoe that explains matters better. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

yes?/no?

i just saw the movie and i liked it a lot. ignoring the criticism ? of course.king xerxes ? was the bomb. heres a link i thought might be useful. http://www.exile.ru/2007-March-23/war_nerd.html

Plot

Should we add a spoiler warning in the plot section? Or at least we could add a {{current fiction}} tag to show that the plot is going to be described in detail. Thoughts? Dariuspomaha 21:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the section is titled as the Plot, so it's obviously going to have details about the plot. What else could it be? Heavy discussion about this already took place at WP:SPOILER about this, and spoiler tags have been mass-removed as being redundant to such obvious section headings. Also, the current fiction template really only applies to released items (books, films, etc.) in their first week, but not after that. I personally disagree with the current fiction template myself; it's a pseudo-circumvention of WP:SPOILER. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 01:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Alright, that's fine. I've just seen other articles where they put a spoiler warning halfway through the plot section, and just figured that a featured article like this might be better off not revealing important plot points too early. But you're right, this section doesn't really do that. So, is it commonplace for editors to remove unnecessary warnings like that when we see them? I have even seen too many current templates used in articles, but it makes sense to only use it when it's relevant, in their first week, haha. Thanks. Dariuspomaha 01:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, discussion at WP:SPOILER resulted in the removal of the spoiler templates from sections that obviously titled what kind of detail would be included. Since the result of the discussion is still fairly recent, there are still editors that are unfamiliar with the result and attempt to restore the spoiler templates in what they believe to be a looked-over vacancy. It happens, and I usually try to inform frequent editors (as in not just someone who just edited that one instance) about the WP:SPOILER result. As for the current fiction template, I'm not too big of a fan of its presence at all because I would imagine most readers go to articles about newly-released subjects because it's been newly released. Furthermore, the template seems to imply that readers would not be expecting an article that covers the film well. I mean, God forbid that an article on the newly released subject matter actually provides comprehensive detail about the subject! —Erik (talkcontrib) - 02:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, it only makes sense that we write these articles to the best of our abilities, doesn't it? And people don't need warnings for that. Dariuspomaha 02:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Slavoj Zizek on 300

It crossed my mind that noone here seem to have read what Slavoj Zizek said about 300, therefore I'm providing a link to his article on lacan.com: http://www.lacan.com/zizhollywood.htm. It's been widely accapted that 300 is pro-american and anti-iranian, but Zizek says something bit different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by V.Milanko (talkcontribs) 12:40, August 10, 2007

No opinion on the piece, but the article on the writer can be seen at Slavoj Žižek, if anyone wants to know his background. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 17:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the guy is on Quaaludes (the guy gave an equally rambling piece on Children of Men's DVD release), but tell us what he said here before putting it in the article. His inclusion might opt out another commentator or not be needed. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's an interesting piece, provocative as always, but also the first non-"historical accuracy" type of response we've seen by an established academic, in particular by someone with a lot of clout in the pomo film-studies crowd. (Recall that in the FA review the question of the representation of scholarly / film-studies critique was raised; to me this might represent the beginning of that type of conversation.) I'ld be in favor of inclusion, especially as the political aspect of his reading is completely different from any other represented in the article. The question becomes then twofold; what section (new section?) & how to summarize. --Javits2000 14:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have changed Orzetto's entry with a more accurate summary of Zizek's views. We havent discussed Zizek's inclusion extensively but we can always erase the entry and start the discussion. I would be in favour of his inclusion since his view is diametrically opposed to that of the '300' 'haters'. Talsal 02:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


The problem with Orzetto’s entry is that it doesn’t exactly stick to what Zizek wrote. The ‘true left wing of hollywood’ is not what Zizek calls the movie. There is also a problem where Z supposedly suggests that the movie uses the Spartans as an allegory for the taliban. In the English translation in the link Milanko gives above, there is no mention of any allegory. In the Norwegian translation of le monde however the word allegory is used but possibly cause of a flawed translation. In any case Zizek also mentions the Sandinistas and the Iranian revolutionary guard substituting the spartans. He simply points out that if a comparison is to be made within the context of today’s reality then the Spartans can’t possible fit the role of the superpower not that it was an intention of the movie to make the Spartans look like the Taliban. In fact after mentioning the Taliban and the rest he continues to say that even in that parallelism ‘even this fundamentalist identity of the Spartans is ambiguous’. I think that if Zizek is to be used for his different view of the film – and I think that he could be used- we should be careful not to alter that view. And I would suggest that if any edit is made then it should be made in the penultimate paragraph leaving the WB spokesman’s reply to the criticisms in the last paragraph. Arcayne you said I paraphrased too much. Mind you I used the link in English. What did I paraphrase? Talsal 04:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If it was indeed paraphrased incorrectly, you were right to pull the statements. Why not write something that more aptly references the source and replace it? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

New Critical Article

Academic Hamid Dabashi has written a critical review of the film, contextualizing it historically and politically. Available here:

The '300' stroke, August, Al-Ahram Weekly (English)

--71.227.191.140 09:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Touraj Daryaee

Touraj Daryaee is a respectable academic and a reliable source. As a historian of Persia, his perspective is very much needed in the article, and according to Wikipedia rules, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "I don't like it" is not a good enough reason to remove sourced material form an article, and it's not up to the editors to "correct" and "evaluate" established academics, and academics sources, that's a violation of WP:NOR. So please stop removing Touraj Daryaee's criticism from the article, there is no consensus for this. --Mardavich 05:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, it would appear that you didn't bother to take the time to read the discussion that took place, Mardavich. You are wrong in assuming that verifiability is the most important threshold for inclusion. Notability also plays into inclusion, and his statements - and those of others who defend the same points he does, and better - are not strong enough for inclusion.
Before you respond, read the archived material on this discussion over the past month. If you had cared, you would have contributed.
As well, perhaps you have forgotten that Discussion doesn't mean you throw out your opinion and just change it back. I believe your edit puts you at the threshold for 3RR. Do not alter the article until discussion is concluded to everyone's satisfaction. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Please mind WP:Civility, and don't lecture me. I did read the discussion, and I see no consensus to remove Touraj Daryaee from the article. I am restoring him until there is a consensus about this. Meanwhile, make sure to read WP:RS and WP:NOR and familiarize yourself with it. --Mardavich 06:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, but we aren't going to play that duck-duck-goose game again where you get huffy over some perceived slight. Discussion is meant for discussion, not for you to state your intention (when you know it is a point of contention) and just revert. I would strongly advise you to not revert again until other editors have had the opportunity to weigh in on the decision made - which you must have observed, as I am sure this page is watchlisted by yourself. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
You have included in your most recent edit summary for your fourth revert the argument that a consensus wasn't reached. Perhaps you feel that your personal involvement was required to reach this consensus. I can assure you, it was not. A number of editors who actually stuck around after the earlier nonsense, continuing to improve the article, and we arrived at a consensus, getting the article to FA status. A consensus was reached. I am very sorry you don't personally approve of it. However, that isn't really my concern. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of issues of civility, etc., there was clearly no consensus to remove Daryaee, merely an unusually intense campaign by a small group of single-issue editors (instructive to check edit histories of those in the removal camp). Indeed, most of the more experienced editors of this article have not weighed in on this subject, or have expressed various conflicting opinions at various times. I restate my position of earlier that those who wish to remove Daryaee should bring the case to arbitration if they wish to proceed. Have restored text removed by Talsal on 19. Aug. --Javits2000 14:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

So, despite the above sourced text from wikipedia, you still don't think that there is an academic consensus against Daryaee when he says the monarchy and council of elders were supreme, rather than the 'democratic' (however loosely the term is applied) ephorate? Notthe...172.188.254.60 10:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The passage cited above (heading: Historical accuracy, comment dated 6 Aug, citing Sparta) appears to describe a decline in the power of the monarchy beginning "in the period of the Persian wars" or transpiring "during the 5th century"; e.g. a process that begins roughly at the same time as Thermopylae. This hardly constitutes a crushing blow to the credibility of Daryaee's own analysis; never mind that the Wiki article is at this point in fact completely unsourced. Which brings me to a second point; despite the length of this argument, and the various claims to expertise, pontifications on historical method, and amateur analyses of primary sources, not a single passage from a modern secondary source has been cited to support the claim that Sparta ca. 480 B.C. was indeed a democracy, much less to demonstrate that this interpretation represents the "academic consensus." Or have I missed something? --Javits2000 15:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
BTW, for those interested in pursuing this conversation further, the normal dispute resolution process is described here; the formal mediation process (that to which it would probably be most appropriate to turn) here. I reiterate that I personally consider it the responsibility of those who would change the (FA) status quo to initiate mediation, or arbitration, or whatever appears to them necessary (cf. the discussion of 30 July under heading "Removed bits" above -- nearly a month ago!), but if they should feel themselves for some reason unable or unwilling to do so, they may leave a message on my talk page and I will consider filing a request myself. --Javits2000 15:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This has gone on long enough and I believe that it is time to bring it to a close. I would like to suggest that those who believe Sparta is a state in which the monarchy is supreme reads a book on Sparta (dated after 1900). ANY book on Sparta. If anyone should find a single example of an academic source claiming as Daryaee does, please include the name of the work, the name of the author and the authors sources. If anyone can offer a conclusive statement to this end, I will withdraw any complaint against including Daryaee, so supremely confident do I remain concerning the innaccuracy of his statements. Please do not just do 'quick searches' though, Javits has already been made aware of the folly of such practises with Mommsen; read the context. This is a list of those eminent academics who I would suggest, but ANY others will do: Cartledge, Forrest, Lazendy, Fitzharding, Olivia, Van Wees, Hooker, Andrewes, Hornblower, Hodkinson, Shipley, Finlay, Michell. Please, read any book and I promise that you will see Daryaee is wrong; the reason that I have not offered secondary statements a lot of the time is because most facts are self-evident after reading ANY such book. Secondly, 'democracy' is, I will grant, a very loose term through history, however, it remains my position that any state which elects officials wielding executive power through popular election by the enfranchised citizen body is a democracy; in Sparta this definition is applicable. Is this debate concerned with whether Sparta satisifes these conditions or is it over the nature of these conditions? Please, take your time, read every book available, and you will draw the same conclusions. The facts allow no other conclusion. Noththeman...172.200.246.118 22:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that you fail to understand the issue at hand. We are not in the tiniest bit interested in whether Daryaee is correct or not anon user 172.... We are only concerned as to whether his statements are as strong as others which say the same thing. ASking us to provide proof that contradicts them is tantamount to asking us to violate the OR policy by introducing synthesis. We don't do that. If you think Daryaee is weak, find someone who says the same thing - someone who is speaking in direction relation to history and the film - and we can replace Daryaee with someone else. It was my understanding that Daryaee was removed after a consensus agreed that his statements weren't noteworthy. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


I am not claiming that I have any source in direct answer to Daryaee's particular comments, my point is that his comments are so out of touch with the accepted historical consensus as to make his inclusion appear almost as an attempt to misinform those who read this article. This is, to my mind, something which wikipedia should not allow. 172.141.91.181 12:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There is of course nothing so obvious that it cannot be proven; a citation for the existence of gravity, for example, would not be difficult to find. But again, enough. This dispute should have gone to mediation long, long ago; I would now ask the opponents of Daryaee's inclusion if they would be willing to invite a mediator to hear the various arguments, according to the process described here. --Javits2000 14:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
And nor have I ever said that it cannot be proven; citations could be absolutely any of those mentioned above, any of which will describe the ephorate as the supreme body (I recall there being a larger list of direct citations above somewhere). For some reason though, every time that they are advanced I hear the words; 'well, I still think...' rather than an effort to find even a single shred of proof to support Daryaee's statements. Notthe....172.206.49.23 16:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Daryaee: mediation?

I have raised this question before, but perhaps it will attract a response if I set in under a new heading. My opinion is that the only way to proceed with the Daryaee discussion, which has long since ceased to be even vaguely productive, is to move to another stage of the dispute resolution process, rather than continuing to clog up the talk page. To me the most appropriate step seems to be to submit a request for mediation. What are the opinions of the other participants? --Javits2000 19:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Though I was simply implementing (and reinforcing) what I thought was the consensus, mediation sounds like a good idea. Let's see if the main 'combatants' agree o it. If they don't, then we know they aren't sure of their arguments, and can decide appropriately. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What is inappropriate is for a single user to entertain the good faith of so many others. Since D was inserted in the article, apart from Javits only two or three Iranians supported the addition claiming that verifiability is enough. Obviously some think that any lie or mistake can be added in an article as long as we can trace its publication. Javits's view that D should remain because his comment adds something to the article, means nothing since what D adds is irrelevant to the historical accuracy of 300. If Javits insists that D should have an opinion on 300 then he should try and find another citation since this one is not fit for purpose. D is in violation of wiki rules regarding OR, soapbox, and indiscriminate collection of information and anyone willing to read his article and the rules should recognize that fact. The word ‘consensus’ has a meaning outside wikipedia. A consensus was reached that D was unfit. Javits who also denied a compromise should read here and find that 'the individual dissenter cannot block a decision'. Somehow he thinks he can. It is not the side that wants D’s comment omitted that needs support and if someone wanted to put the question to a larger wiki-audience then that someone should have been Javits. By all means guys do call for a third party. Javits I noticed you requested a modern secondary source where Sparta is viewed as a democracy but I can’t see why that would be necessary. You and D seem to forget that the film makes references to the Apella not Democracy. Anyway, you mentioned several times my ‘single-purpose’ account and I find that ironic since you never answered properly my arguments while you had none yourself. I am not going to erase D again at this stage since I may not be able to follow the page for a few days but my reasoning is in the discussion pages for the mediator to see. Talsal 62.30.182.11 00:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to support mediation. I suggest that we insert this section as a preamble and then run the archived material chronologically. I am aware that there are perhaps few enough Users/editors who would prefer the dubious 'privlege' of reading through all of this, but would ask for one with familiarity with Spartan history and someone suggested by Arcayne- he is the only regular editor to hold neutrality on the subject. Until then, I concur that Daryaee should be left in, but I suggest that someone adds a 'The neutrality of this section is debated' piece to 'Historical Accuracy.' Notthemanbehind...172.143.138.223 12:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If I understand the request for mediation process correctly, it is not possible to handpick a mediator according to certain criteria, nor for an editor to select or suggest a mediator; rather, if the case is accepted for mediation, then a member of the mediation committee will agree to hear the case. If the other parties, having read the RFM page and understood the nature of the process, find this acceptable, then I will go ahead and file a request; alternatively, it would be possible to select another option from the dispute resolution process (e.g. informal mediation). --Javits2000 15:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sounds great. Notthemanbehibd....172.189.137.116 10:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Very good, my apologies, I've been out of town for a week or so & will be for another. Please feel free to go ahead & initiate proceedings without me, otherwise I'll deal with it when I'm back. --Javits2000 22:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Aren't you supposed to be making the request? 172.188.95.126 16:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps everyone could stop expecting someone else to do the heavy lifting and just file the darn request themselves? Yeesh. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Since I don't have a profile, I don't think that I can file a request, can I?172.189.198.124 07:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Have filed request & listed myself, Arcayne, Notthemanbehindthecurtain, and Talsal as "involved parties," along with "various anonymous IPs"; my apologies if I've missed anyone, but these four seem to have been the most consistently involved in the discussion. I believe that the listed parties will now receive notification & be asked to consent to or decline mediation. (Note: it will almost certainly be necessary to log-on in order to do this). --Javits2000 15:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, but I (notthemanbehind...) no longer possess a profile; sorry if this causes problems.172.201.188.40 11:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You do still have a username; your talk page is here: User talk:Notthemanbehindthecurtain, where a message has been left by the mediation committee. If for some reason you're not able to log-in, best to leave an explanation at the RFM page, where indeed all discussion on this subject should now be directed. --Javits2000 11:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Citations

I leanrned from a very accomplished editor that Wikipedia requires ciations for every blanket statement. For instance, "broke box office records" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotcop2 (talkcontribs) 12:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, to begin with, Lead statements are an overview of the article, and citations are quite infrequently added to them, as the information they give an overview to provide citations as they occur within the body of the article. 300 is fairly well cited - a lot of people have seen to that - and is a good article for that ery reason. As the accomplished editor you are currently engaged in a dispute with in a BLP article, it would seem that you are either trying to assess how citations actually work, or are attempting to disrupt those FA articles I have worked on to make a point. As you have misapplied the usage of cn tags here, I am guessing its the latter reason. Hopefully, this matter of your cn tag usage has been explained both in the edit summaries of this article as well as on your User Talk page sufficiently. You might wish to consult with an admin if you feel you still have a grievance, but I would caution you about stalking other users edits. The higher-ups tend to take a rather dim view of POINT-based attacks. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hotcop2, please review WP:POINT. You have been informed of your inappropriate conduct on your user talk page. There is no need to add tags to the lead section, which is already a concise overview of what is referenced in the article. If you have any issue with any information in the article being uncited, feel free to mark that as the case. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 16:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

adding omitted name of screenwriter Michael B. Gordon to the sidebar of the article

How do I add the name of screenwriter Michael B. Gordon to the sidebar of the article. It currently lists Zack Snyder and Kurt Johnstad as the only writers of the screenplay, when they in fact shared credit with Michael B. Gordon. Also it should be noted that Zack Snyder and Kurt Johnstad are a writing team and not two individual writing entities. The Writers Guild uses an ampersand to denote a team and the word "and" to denote a separate writing entity... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelgordon99 (talkcontribs) 02:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I just added it. If you are interested in how it works, click the edit tab at the top of the page, and if you read the code that is used to produce that section it's not terribly difficult to reproduce. You can also go to the sandbox to make some test edits that won't hurt anything before you try adding information to an article. Hewinsj 20:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Does the movie try to paint the Spartans as monotheistic?

Just watched the movie. It occurs to me that the director of the movie tries to create the impression that the Spartans were monotheists. They never assert this directly, of course, but by omission, I think they do. The Spartans would certainly have been imprecating their pantheon of gods before a battle, yet this is entirely absent in the movie. As the Athenians are leaving the battle, their leader says "Godspeed you, Leonidas" or somesuch thing that a polytheist would not say. Given the other willful distortions to the end of "West good, East bad," I believe this was intentional. Anyway... does anyone know of any sources that address this twisting of fact?--Hraefen Talk 04:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps your questions might be answered by visiting the archives for this Discussion page. This is a topic that has been discussed with all the vociferousness of a Talmudic soirée. Check it out, and if you have any questions, please feel free to either ask a specific question here or ask in my User talk page. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Simply put, no the movie never implies they are monothestic. While the solider (who is Arcadian, not Athenian) does say "Godspeed" about 2 mintues earlier Dilios says the that the Captain "curses the Gods) and that "the Gods saw fit to grace me with a spare." (reffering to his eye) After they see the city burned someone says "have the Gods no mercy". Wow, I damn near memorized this movie. :p --Ted87 22:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes the creators of the movie ignored a lot of historical aspects to make the movie more appealing to modern American audiences —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.158.81 (talk) 05:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, its a big conspiracy to appeal only to the American audience. They only released it overseas so as to convert all other countries over to Americanism (or do you prefer The Great Satan?), the gigantic plot that America's Founding Fathers hatched over 200 years ago. You're onto us. lol - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Production notes

I think the article glosses over the actual post-production notes too much. I would recommend that more indepth analysis be done to find out how the film was indeed made, using exactly what software, what studios, how long it took for them, what shots were ascribed to each studio. If people think this is "too much detail" be advised this is SUPPOSED to be an encyclopedia... ;-) Anyway, wouldn't be more than 2 paragraphs, I think. Besides, you can't go wrong with having a few sentences devoted to a studio called "Screaming Death Monkey" 148.4.33.116 21:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed Bits 2 (arbitrary break)

I have erased D again. Javits before you reinstate him – and sincerely without attempting to lecture anyone- you should consider that objectively there is no excuse to insist that your view and your only argument (which states that D provides valuable information from your viewpoint) outweighs all other opposing views and argumentation. Since mediation failed; and it would even if Arcayne had signed the request, since ‘Various anonymous IPs’ couldn’t possibly do the same as required, I propose that maybe you could ask for requests for comment from the wiki public or even arbitration. I think we should avoid formal mediation as we have been doing the mediating fine ourselves and the process couldn’t really lead to a solution unless someone would retreat from his positions; something I see as unlikely. Talsal 23:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

And I reinstated it, Talsal. You know the edit was going to be controversial, so it gets discussed beforehand and action is taken upon consensus. It's an FA article, which means this sort of group-work is critical. If you want to seek higher-level input, please do so, but do not take unilateral action that you know is going to be boh controversial and contested. It isn't a pissing match. Don't make it one. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
There seem to have been two fundamental problems with the mediation request; one, indeed, that Arcayne did not sign; perhaps I shouldn't have included him as an involved party, as he has in fact been quite non-partisan, but on the other hand he has been regularly involved in the discussion. We could discuss that further. In any case it also seems that NTMB... attempted to sign without being logged in, was thus registered as an anonymous IP, and the signature was presumably not regarded as valid. "Various anonymous IPs" would not have been expected to sign; it's just standard practice to note that a number of users have weighed in whose contributions cannot easily be tracked.
The suggestion that I am the only user who has argued for inclusion of Daryaee is of course incorrect and easily belied by a cursory overview of the conversation; it does not gain plausibility through repetition.
There are indeed alternatives to formal mediation, all outlined on the dispute resolution page to which I have several times linked (Wikipedia:Resolving disputes). Before submitting the request I asked for input as to whether another step might be more suitable, and remain happy to consider other proposals. I would also be in favor of resubmitting the request for mediation. --Javits2000 13:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I erased him again without reading your comment Arcayne. Indeed the action would be controversial but I cant see why you think I am making this a 'pissing contest' and not Javits. A consensus was reached before I erased D for the first time. Javits was the one who decided to reinstate him without discussing it first. When I say that Javits is the only in favour of D’s inclusion I mean that he is the only one with an argument that’s worth discussing. Sure there many users who think that D should remain because they think that the article is in favour of the Greeks but surely that isn’t a valid argument, is it? I wasn’t the one who took unilateral action. Could any of you tell me why one user who is unwilling to see the point of the opposing to his arguments, should be allowed to dictate what goes in an article? I would appreciate any effort you make that would prove such a right. Talsal 15:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually didn't respond to the mediation request because it would require a bit more attention than I had to spare at the time. As well, I had no real opinion of it either way. To me, the issue of Dayaee's inclusion or exclusion seems to wander a fairly fine line. Daryaee was speaking on the film and the historical accuracy of that film. His comments were not at all sublime, and more than bordered on the biased. However the questions that bugs me is this: if we begin evaluating the purposes of the citations (beyond the basic noteworthiness) we are including, then we begin a slippery slope that sites like Conservapedia gleefully and blindly hurl themselves down. I realize I am not perfectly neutral, but I really want Wikipedia to be. This doesn't feel neutral to me. However, if sent another request for mediation, i will participate. It doesn't seem like this matter is going to be resolved otherwise. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and 300

Since Variety indicated that Ahmadinejad did not mention the film by name back in March 2007, the Iranian president recently elaborated to TIME his thoughts of 300: "[Ahmadinejad] notes that Americans don't understand Iranian history, saying that the movie 300 — with which he seems intimately familiar — was a 'complete distortion of Iranian history.' Iran, he says, has never invaded anyone in its history." Thought that might be worth a mention from a prominent public figure, despite lack of historical credentials. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 03:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, its soooo easy when the little clowns make with All the Funny. I'm glad America isn't the only country with a moron for a President. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Just about Everyone has made a comment about this movie. El Greco(talk) 13:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but not that many of them have made such comments in the course of conducting press conferences and politics using them, wouldn't you agree? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Resource about film's accuracy

10 things the makers of '300' got right by Mary Beard, a professor in classics at Cambridge and classics editor of the TLS. Not sure if the article needs any more exploration of historical accuracies, but there's a new resource for reading. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 19:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a very readable article (if also a bit flip) by a highly respected scholar. External link? --Javits2000 17:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"This is Sparta!" Internet meme

There has been some debate on whether the "This is Sparta!" meme should be included. Things like Internet memes are usually noted in trivia sections, but Wikipedia guidelines recommend against having trivia sections in articles. I briefly mentioned the meme in the plot section, but another editor reverted my edit, saying that Internet memes didn't belong in plot sections (either).

Does anyone have a solution? --Ixfd64 00:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Co-incidence! I came to suggest the same thing, not forgetting the "Tonight we dine in Hell" meme as well. I don't see why it shouldn't be in the Reception section, since it is a part of how the public reacted to the film. Meowy 01:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reliable source that addresses the Internet memes for 300? It's usually notoriously difficult to verify the usage of such memes in an overall capacity, rather than linking to multiple examples of the memes in action. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 01:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Reflisting

I just noticed an edit that turned the reflist into a scroll box, but it was reverted. Is there some rule that states that this is an unacceptable choice? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, a refscroll template got deleted for the reason of difficulty in perceiving the references in a quick and overall manner -- you can't get an idea of the size of an article's references with a limited scrollbox. I can dig up the TfD if you want... I've cited it a couple of times when someone tries to attach a scrollbox format to it. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 20:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
If I could trouble you to do so, that would be appreciated. I have come across its uncontested presence elsewhere, and knowing the precedent is always helpful. Thanks Erik. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 11#Template:Scrollref. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 05:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
So it would appear that the problem was with slower computers not being able to use the scrolling feature, that the items int he scroll box were not quick-linked? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
There's also the argument that there's not a need to hide the long list of references since they appear at the end of the article. In a scrollbox, the scale of the article's references can't be realized, nor navigated as easily (like if you were looking at the references and wanted to know which item the reference covered). Something that could be explored instead is a template where people could have the option to have the references collapsed or not when they visit an article. Don't know if that's been implemented anywhere. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 22:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ "MTV Movie Awards: Best Fight". MTV. 2007-06-03. Retrieved 2007-06-08.  Check date values in: |date= (help)