Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:10, 29 November 2007

	300 (film) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 25, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed March 26, 2007 Good article nominee Listed March 30, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted May 19, 2007 Good article nominee Listed August 3, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted Current status: Featured article

Template:RFMF

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: War films This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  War films task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Film: War This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the War films task force. This article has an archived peer review. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Iran Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Greece Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives
1. January 2006 to February 2007
2. February 22-March 13 2007
3. March 13-March 15 2007
4. March 15-March 16 2007
5. March 15-March 19 2007
6. March 19-March 20 2007
7. March 20-March 24 2007
8. March 24-March 30 2007
9. March 30-April 9 2007
10. April 9-April 16 2007
11. April 16-May 8 2007
12. May 8-May 28 2007
13. May 28 2007-July 11 2007
14. September 24-October 24 2007
13. October 24 2007-November 14 2007

RFC Historical Accuracy (partial section)

(The earlier part of this section has been archived in Archive 15)

...While we wait for NTMBTC why don’t we change the direction of the debate then and see if we can agree on some other solution. The RFC was supposed to add weight to a side whereas the mediation will try as I understand to bridge the gaps. We are supposed to state one or more issues on which we can agree or the request will not be accepted. At this moment I could agree with D being added to another section. Could we agree on that? Can we do sth else maybe? Mediations take time apparently and if there is a solution we should be able to find it sooner ourselves. Talsal78.86.11.191 23:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's another section in which the comment of a historian would make sense. "Controversy" would I suppose be the main alternative, but at present that's all film critics & politicans; I feel that Daryaee would be somewhat out of place.

Something that was discussed earlier, that we might reconsider: If the major objection to Daryaee is his description of Sparta as a "militaristic monarchy," it might be possible to add a parenthetical to the effect that modern scholarship on Spartan political organization in the period in question tends to emphasize its proto-democratic aspects at the expense of the monarchic institutions (which nevertheless persisted). This would ideally cite a review article on contemporary issues in Spartan scholarship, not simply the opinion of one scholar or another. I presume it would be possible to find somethting of the sort in one of the major journals of classical studies, and will poke around a bit myself. --Javits2000 15:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don’t think it would be the best solution. Do not lose any of your time to improve the ‘militaristic monarchy’ reference if the rest above that reference remains, since the main problem as I see it stems from D’s initial thesis; the Spartans were free and the ‘slave’ in the movie refers to the Persian army not workers. On top the movie never hid the ‘monarchy’ bit or claimed that Sparta was a democracy. However if what precedes that claim was removed, I could agree to a revised version of that last statement. But could I still try and convince you that maybe D's comment could be used in the controversy section? I could be mistaken but I think at some point we all accepted –although never explicitly stated it- that D offers an alternative understanding of the movie. As such it could be of value in the controversy section and maybe especially since it is the view of a historian who provides a different reading not only of the movie but more importantly of the accepted history on the issue. That would also offer the advantage of presenting his article under a more appropriate heading since the article is at best selectively accurate but surely extremely controversial. Furthermore in that section the reader can truly decide for himself where to place D whereas in the accuracy section the less informed reader reading the already branded ‘accurate’ view of D will get the a grossly distorted history lesson about so many topics. Could we maybe agree on that? That D’s article is not an example of the esteemed work of an esteemed historian and therefore not in its rightful place under the accuracy section references? Talsal 17:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

As I understand your proposal, Daryaee would be placed in the controversy section because you understand his opinion to be controversial. This would in my opinion disrupt the natural logic of the article, and lead to a misunderstanding of the headers; that is, the judgments placed in the "historical accuracy" section would be understood to be necessarily "accurate," those under "controversy" "controversial." This is not the sense of the headers as I understand them, namely: "historical accuracy" as representing the conversation in the academic community, and presenting divergent -- and indeed in some cases mutually exclusive, therefore not necessarily "accurate" -- points of view; "controversy" as documenting a particular interrelated set of responses in the media and in the political sphere.

But if the sense of the "historical accuracy" section is indeed being misunderstood, perhaps I could propose a third option. The opinions of all four historians could be introduced with a text to the effect that a wide variety of opinions have been aired by professional historians on the subject of 300, and that no attempt is made in this article to present any single one of them as authoritative. Or a fourth option: the section could be retitled. It's not clear to me when "historical accuracy" escaped from the "reception" section, where I believe it previously was placed, and to which I believe it belongs. If placed under "Reception," the subheader could simply read "Historians," and thus be analogous to e.g. "Reviews" -- both sections clearly defined by the professions of the commentators.

In any case, I do sense that we are successfully generating a range of possible compromise solutions, and this would ideally be the point at which some other editors would break in and broaden the dialogue a bit. --Javits2000 20:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The ‘accuracy’ section was added I ‘ve seen very early in the article because users were requesting expert views on the accuracy of the film. I don’t think there was any confusion regarding its purpose at any point from any user. My understanding of the section doesn’t much differ from yours although I see it as ‘one representing accurately the conversation in the academic community regarding the specific historical references’, one that doesn’t exclude divergent aproaches but one that does exclude inaccurate, irrelevant and minority views on the subject because if the latter are presented with the same weight as the prevalent ones, the purpose of the section is subotaged. We totally agree on the understanding of the controversy section. I think that D’s comment should be placed in the controversy section if at any, because it is inaccurate, not relevant to references made in the film and because his very article was in effect a way to participate in the controversy not speak as a historian. In fact his article provided the arguments for some participants in the controversy.

We have tried in the past to follow a version of the ‘third option’ when NTBTC made some changes to D’s commentary that were necessary for the comment to be fully apreciated by the unsuspected reader but the changes were reverted and declined. I had supported NTBTC’s edit but at the same time had expressed my concerns that it did undermine D as an academic as the corrections although necessary were too many. It was an attempt to introduce the opinions of all four historians properly. Since we all decided to include historians’ views on historical accuracy we are by definition presenting authoritative views. All we can do is make a collage that faithfully depicts the consensus of the field. NTBTC’s version of the ‘third option’ tried according to wiki guidelines to give each view its due weight as that is decided by historians everywhere. In the context of the ‘third option’ I focus on D because he would be the one constituting the problem.

We could of course place several sections under a major ‘Reception’ headline but I don’t think that would alter the character of the ‘accuracy’ section. I also don’t think, regarding the ‘fourth option’ that changing the title of the ‘accuracy’ paragraph would be a good idea as it is the most vital section of the article along with the controversy one. ‘Historical accuracy’ gives a sober commentary to all the extreme views presented in ‘controversy’ helping to frame the whole dispute in a rational non-partizan manner. I think it elevates the substance of the article making it encyclopedic rather than one found in any newspaper. Even under a heading of ‘reviews’ the views of historians would still be those of authorities on the issue serving the same goal of the ‘historical accuracy’ section and so I don’t see how that would help.

Returning to the option of placing D in ‘controversy’, I hope Arcayne and NTBTC wont mind if I bring in to the discussion their views made some months back when we were debating the same issue, according to which they were both in favour of such a move. To address your concern that D would be out of place because the section accomodates the views of critics and politicians; since there is no prerequisite of what professions to include, a historian would enrich the section. Some days back we were debating the addition of a philosopher in a discussion that lags behind a bit at the moment. On top D himself admits that he doesn’t speak as a historian, but assumes the role of a critic. I think the action would be an ideal compromise for both sides, it would seal the good –or ‘better’- will of the present phase of the discussion and fairly address all concerns. It is not ideal for any of us but seems to me that it is the least troublesome for both since the concerns expressed by both sides about it are objectively not serious. Talsal 17:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It is of course on the understanding of Daryaee as "inaccurate and irrelevant" that we diverge; it is that which I feel was never demonstrated, only asserted. But as I said, I would much prefer it if some other editors -- if any are still paying attention -- would weigh in at this point, particularly those who have not regularly engaged in this conversation. We have generated four clearly stated options, and are therefore in a better position than ever to generate a genuine consensus. --Javits2000 15:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this has been going on for well over two months. We haven't heard anything from Nottheman. While I appreciate that he has a real life and responsibilities, consensus is formed whether someone shows up or not. Could summarize where we are at? I am eager to archive this and put the matter to bed. - Arcayne () 07:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Four possibilities. First: move Daryaee to "Controversy." I have serious reservations about this which I have outlined in my two posts above. Second: diffuse the "military monarchy" statement of Daryaee's with a line noting the proto-democratic tendencies of Spartan government (addendum: this can be taken from P. Cartledge, "Spartan kingship: doubly odd?," Spartan reflections (London, 2001), which in no way places D's statement beyond the pale of legitimate scholarly opinions and reinforces my conviction that there is nothing innately wrong or misleading about his entry.) Third: move "Historical Accuracy" back under "Reception," where it previously lived, and where I believe it belongs; this is the option I prefer, with the possible addition of the fourth: rename it simply "Historians." Talsal has outlined his reservations about the final three options in his two posts above. --Javits2000 14:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I believe this section could be archived up to, but not including, Talsal's post beginning "While we wait for NTMBTC." --Javits2000 14:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Archiving complete. - Arcayne () 15:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Javits I think it’s down to us. I wont agree with the third and fourth option as these imo would negatively impact the article and needlessly, since I think we have better options. I can agree with the first and with the ‘initial’ second proposed some months back, i.e. if we correct his comment; if we say that although D comments on the slaves being paid, the characterisation ‘slaves’ in the film was about the army, if we say that although he objects to a portrayal of Sparta as ‘democratic loving’ no such mention is made in the film and that the reference was to the Apella, etc, etc. Arcayne is eager to archive the discussion. Nobody seems to care, so I think it is time we decided. We can use NTMBTC’s revision of D’s comment. The disadvantages of the option are: a) that someone needs to find citations. You ll have to forgive me but it is not going to be me as I don’t see any value in D’s comment. I ‘d only agree to the option so that we don’t go to arbitration. Of course I accept that the task would be unfair to you too. b) The resulting comment would make D look ridiculous. Its value would not be greatly improved.

I truly think that the first option is the most fair. What do you say? Talsal (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're right - no one else seems to be taking an interest. I have deeply rooted reservations regarding the first option, which I have repeatedly expressed: in brief, it is based on the assumption that Daryaee's comments are "inaccurate and irrelevant," or "extreme," which I believe has never been demonstrated. (As it happens, I watched the movie on PPV again last night, and consider them as "relevant" to the film as ever.) Had a significant consensus gathered around this point, I would have been willing to reconsider, but as that is clearly not happening (and indeed the only opinion gleaned from the RFC was a hearty "keep"), I don't see any reason to agree to it. Likewise, I still feel that only one modification might be useful, in the interest of avoiding misunderstanding, namely, an allusion to the healthy variance of academic opinions surrounding the state form of Sparta in the classical era, which could be provided by citing Cartledge's article mentioned above.

So take that as you will. I understand our disagreement to consist in the following conflict: I believe the "historical accuracy" section should accurately reflect the response of professional historians to the film, so long as their opinions are notable and their statements verifiable (D. passes both). It is also for that reason that I believe it belongs under "reception"; its current position before "Promotion and Release" makes no sense to me, as it disrupts the chronological order of the article (production -> promotion -> reception -> status as pop culture icon). I do not believe it should pretend to present a unified judgment regarding the "accuracy" of a film, as if there were some objective standard against which that might be judged. If that were its purpose, we would have to put up with a lot of tedious discussions of costume, ethnography, topography, meteorology (have you ever seen that sky in Greece?), etc., which I think would miss the point. A significant film was made; a number of people responded in various ways, among them a number of prominent academics. End of story. --Javits2000 (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. That poorly justified ‘keep’ was regarding D being removed from the article or not; not regarding the first option. I have no problem with the ‘accuracy section being placed under ‘reception’. My view on the rest is known. My problem is that I find the prospect of calling an arbitrator/minder for something as straightforward as that, somewhat funny. Wiki suggests that users can ‘try out’ edits when they find themselves in a similar dead-end. Since NTMBTC, Arcayne and I have agreed to the ‘first option’ in the past, I have placed D under ‘controversy’ hoping he will stay there. I wont be available for a few days so in case someone reverts the edit, give me some time and we will resume the procedure. Talsal (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it back. We seem to be at another impasse & I would suggest arbitration. --Javits2000 (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I have read about arbitration and realised that it is not a process that deals with content issues as I thought - and I suspect you thought the same thing Javits- but with user misconduct instead. However annoying we might have been to each other I imagine that our conduct hasn’t matched the usual standards of cases dealt by the committee. In case I might be misunderstood; I do think that someone should ideally speak to both you and Arcayne about certain behaviour patterns but complaining or pursuing a ban for either of you for being rude by being provocatively intransigent and provocatively inconsistent respectively, tiring other users, was not my goal when I talked about arbitration. And if we do proceed to arbitration my case will be against you Javits. My aim was to make you agree with the obvious; that D is out of topic and that deliberately. Did you know all that regarding arbitration? Should we continue with it? A question to all experienced users: is there a wiki-framework within which we could discuss whether D is in violation of a wiki rule/guideline? In the mid time since the compromise is not accepted I have removed D from the article. Giving yet another reason in the long list of reasons why he is not fit for inclusion, I reminding you all that there is no consensus for his inclusion. Talsal (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

With respect, I would ask that you extend a bit more good faith to your fellow editors. Assuming that Javits "knew" that ArbCom didn't deal with content issues, thereby delaying the process of content resolution, is a snipe below you, Talsal. ArbCom is the nuclear answer to any issue that cannot be resolved with inappropriately unacceptable behavior, and I would dare say that none of that has occurred here in this discussion. On both sides, we have heard reasoned and polite discussion, disagreeing significantly with one another and yet somehow managing to avoid calling the other editor a "fuckwad" or whatnot. If you somehow feel that Javits, mine or anyone else's behavior has descended thusly, then by all means file a complaint with ArbCom. My instinct, having followed a number of ArbCom disputes, is that they will pass this up, no definable violation having occurred. Your experience might differ, however, so do what thou will.

Your next best choice of moving up the ladder of dispute resultion would be seeking a Request for Comment. This allows you to obtain some fairly neutral points of view and insight regarding the issue. Seeing that you and Javits and the anonymous user (whose name utterly escapes me) are at loggerheads on the issue, it would seem prudent to pursue this course of action.

{Arcayne seems not to have signed the comment above.} Sorry, lapsus clavis, I meant "mediation." We did file an RFC, (now in Archive 15), which resulted in exactly one response (a "keep," as it happens). Talsal suggests that I am guilty of a "certain behaviour pattern," that is, "being rude by being provocatively intransigent"; this because he has not been able to "make me agree with the obvious." Well, sorry, I think I'm right. I understand that Talsal is similarly convinced of the correctness of his own opinion, but would not label his conviction "rude"; I rather believe that we are arguing from a different, and potentially irreconcilable, set of assumptions regarding the purpose of the "historical accuracy" section, which assumptions I have attempted to analyze above. Either that or, to paraphrase New York, "I'm just one of those bitches who don't listen to reason." Our best course would be to ask a mediator to sort it out. --Javits2000 (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne I am sure you too will appreciate the irony here :). You ask me to extend good faith to fellow users but do not follow your advice. I haven’t accused Javits of delaying the process by concealing info regarding arbitration. I clearly said that I thought he too, seemed unaware that arbcom doesn’t decide on content. And I also made adequately clear that I don’t think arbcom would accept our case such as it is. You obviously then didn’t read my comment and yet you reached a conclusion that can only be explained by lack of good faith. It is part of the behaviour pattern I mentioned. A previous example was when you allowed an edit by Orzetto in good faith but reversed mine on the same subject without reading Zizek’s article. That is partly why I see inconsistency from your part; you do not extend the same good faith to all users. And at times you only selectively stand by your view. Had I been arguing Javits’s point and he, mine, you would have followed on your views expressed at various points that D should not be in ‘accuracy’. With respect then Arcayne -and do accept these points in good faith as you have made in the past various suggestions to users and indeed rightly so at times- that is why I blame you; because if you, the more experienced user, trusted more by Javits, had been more vocal, Javits would have seen the debate in a different light. Instead thinking from the beginning that I had ‘suspicious’ motives, he followed a rather inflexible course and the more we were building up the debate, the more personal it seemed to become. I didn’t accuse him of intransigence hastily; just refer to the comments above to see the reasons why he denied the compromise. As I said it wasn’t my goal to complain or pursue a ban against either of you. In any case arbitration is not an option apparently and we can proceed to mediation as the only alternative left even though a similar process between us failed. I will ready the proposal eating hearty some time soon. Btw that ‘keep’ from the RFC was as much an argument for keeping D as it is for introducing his criticism on Alexander. Talsal (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I've filed the request for mediation, which may be found here: Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/300 (film). I have named only myself and Talsal as parties. In the meantime I would ask that Talsal refrain from edit warring and let Daryaee stand while the process works itself out. --Javits2000 (talk) 05:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone else suggested the same as well and I won’t for the time being remove D. However note that I was doing exactly what Javits was. I understand that the mediation can take quite some time. If we see that the process will last long we will have to find another solution because D has imo remained in the article for too long now without merit. Talsal (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Slavoj Zizek

No one disagreed with his addition so I added Zizek to ‘Controversy’. Talsal (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no ideological discussion at the top of the page. The truth is that the introductory phrase of the paragraph hosting Smith, Stevens etc and the extracts used do not quite reflect their reviews. The extracts are accepted as representative of the complaints made about the film but there is no uniformity of approach towards the film by these reviewers and certainly not one that could be juxtaposed with the totally different approach Zizek offers. ‘Controversy’ can’t possibly facilitate a discussion or an exchange of conflicting views when numerous criticisms on one side are coupled only by a single defence. That is why I placed Zizek at the end dividing the section in two, not counting official responses of course. Talsal (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Helots, helots, who's got the helots?

One glaring and obvious omission from the movie that I hope to mention is the 900 "armor-bearers" which accompanied the Spartans to their last stand if there are no objections. They are referenced as "helots" in a Misplaced Pages article about Leonidas. However, I'd like to add this without much dispute since the mention of the 900 armor bearers can be cited as far back as Herodotus' own account which is one of the earliest and widely held. -- Taospark 06:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a reference that speaks about the film and the armor-bearers, then by all means, include it. However, any historical accuracy or inaccuracy has to be from a reliable, citable source speaking in context of the film. If you cannot cite it that way, we cannot include it. simply including historical references inserts us as researchers into the article and we are not allowed to do that, as it is Original Research based upon synthesis. - Arcayne () 07:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Article flow

I'ld like to draw one point out of the "historical accuracy" discussion which has nothing to do with any particular scholar, but with the structure of the article. After the lead, infobox, plot & cast, which are standard film article elements, the article mostly follows a chronological sequence: production and soundtrack, promotion and release, reception, status as pop culture icon. This is logical to me. What I don't understand is why "historical accuracy" is placed between production / soundtrack and promotion / release. This would only make sense if it dealt with efforts during production to ensure "accuracy"; but as the section has been written, it consists of a set of reactions to the finished product. It would make more sense to me as a subsection under "reception" or perhaps as a separate section after "reception." Thoughts? --Javits2000 (talk) 14:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I am in agreement. Let's make that happen. :) - Arcayne () 16:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Done! --Javits2000 (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Iranians or Persians?

An editor keeps (1, 2, 3) altering the text to read:

1. Pre-existing version:Since its opening, 300 also attracted controversy over its portrayal of people of the Persian Empire

2. Altered version: Since its opening, 300 also attracted controversy over its portrayal of Iranians.

As the word 'Iran' or 'Iranian' never appeared in either the film or the credits. the revert mentioning Iran/Iranians is OR, and we cannot allow it. I've recommended (in both edit summary as well as the editor's User Talk page) that the editor come here to discuss the matter. So far, there has been no response except for some fairly uncivil edit summarizing. Could someone take a look? - Arcayne () 16:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Iranians are mentioned in the cited Variety article, so perhaps instead the wording should take the best of both worlds. It may be a little clunkier, but I suggest something along the lines of: "Since its opening, 300 also attracted controversy over its portrayal of people of the former Persian Empire, from which modern-day Iran arose." - Best regards, Liquidfinale 16:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I can appreciate that, but that's what we have two different sections for in the article. And it wasn't just the modern-day iranians who got all het up. We aren't going to cater to iranians. - Arcayne () 16:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the first version is just fine. Talsal (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Liquidfinale. They were certainly Iranians. There is no doubt about that. Plus, El Greceo proposed a compromise. I think it is best to go with it. --Agha Nader (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

With due (and overwhelming) respect to El Greco, the compromise would be inaccurate and OR by synthesis.

I'll tell you what, Agha - point out a single instance in the film or the credits wherein any of the cast were described as Iranians (and not Persians) - just one - and you will have a leg to stand on (and no, the argument that the Persians became Iranians after thousands of years is utterly OR; since it wasn't discussed in the film). The notation in Variety was about someone speaking to the national temper tantrum from Iran (and bizarrely, their own President) about the film, and not the characters within the film themselves.

We aren't talking about history here - you might recall this from earlier conversations - this is a movie - a movie where the word "Iran" or "Iranians" didn't pass the lips of any character in the film (not even the Persians) and never once appeared while the credits rolled. We aren't here to coddle any special interest group, and that is not neutral. But, my offer stands, Agha - find a reference within the film where Iranians or Iran pops up, and we'll talk. Until then, I apologize. We cannot accede to your wishes. Perhaps you might wish to file an RfC on the matter? - Arcayne () 06:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Persians and Medes are Iranian. This is not OR, because it is inherent. Iranian peoples, are people who speak Persian. If you dispute this fact, I can provide a plethora of evidence for it. --Agha Nader (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There are two problems here. The first is outlined here: Iran naming dispute. The choice between "Persia" and "Iran" is a highly fraught ideological one. If we follow Arcayne's suggestion, and simply reproduce the terminology used in the film, then we avoid "taking sides" or claiming to be able to judge the issue for ourselves. The second problem is that the peoples represented in the film are the "thousand nations of the Persian Empire" -- who were certainly not all Persian, or Iranian, or what you like. That this was clearly recognized already in the imperial era is witnessed by any number of Achaemenid inscriptions, e.g. this inscription of Darius I from Persepolis: "By the favor of Ahuramazda these are the countries which I got into my possession along with this Persian people, which felt fear of me and bore me tribute : Elam, Media, Babylonia, Arabia, Assyria, Egypt, Armenia, Cappadocia, Lydia, the Greeks who are of the mainland and those who are by the sea, and countries which are across the sea, Sagartia, Parthia, Drangiana, Aria, Bactria, Sogdia, Chorasmia, Sattagydia, Arachosia, Hinduš, Gandara, Sacae, Maka." (Text, transcription, translation online here.) The phrase "people of the Persian Empire" captures this far more accurately than any single ethnic designation; the phrase "peoples of the Persian Empire" would be more accurate still. --Javits2000 (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The section is not about the controversy over the depiction of people of "Babylonia, Arabia, Assyria, Egypt, Armenia, Cappadocia, Lydia" etc. It is about the depictions of Iranians. You are right, there is somewhat of a dispute about using Persian instead of Iranian and vice versa. However, we can avoid this (as El Greco proposed in his edit) by using parentheses. For instance, "Since its opening, 300 also attracted controversy over its portrayal of Iranians (Persians)." would be fine. This would not be wrong either "Since its opening, 300 also attracted controversy over its portrayal of Persians (Iranians)."--Agha Nader (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

And yet, the problem would still be the same. The film does not portray Iranians, but rather, Persians. Where in the film does it say that Persians became Iranians? Your connecting of the dots between Iranians and Persians is OR by synthesis. We don't use that here. the reaction from Iran seems fairly well documented, categorizing the "outrage"; it seems enough. I have offered you three opportunities to present even a single instance of when the film uses the word Iranians, which is the absolutely vital step needed to be able to connect the two. You have failed to respond to this challenge. I think we are done here, unless you wish to file an RfC about the matter. I would of course be willing to participate in such a discussion. - Arcayne () 03:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Alas, you did not heed my advice. You really ought to look up Iranian history. It is a fact that Persians are Iranian. More to the point, there are many sources that verify my claim. For instance, "Zack Snyder and Frank Miller... made a film in which Iranians are indeed generically depicted in the worst possible light." There is absolutely no doubt that the Persians were Iranian.--Agha Nader (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Agha, everyone here (myself included) are fully aware that Iranians consider themselves to have descended from the Persians as a historical and cultural fact. I myself am pretty well-versed on the ancient history of the Fertile Crescent and the Iranian Plateau. This is not a question of history, since this is not an article on the Battle of Thermopylae, or an article about Persian wars and culture. It is an article about a film. A film which doesn't mention any word beginning with Iran (unless it a typo of I-Ran-Away) to describe the Persians. Because it does not, it cannot be included. You connecting the two without notation from the film itself that connects the two renders your connection to be original research.

As I said, file an RfC (you've seemed keen on filing them in the past), and it can be sorted out there. - Arcayne () 14:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. You say that, but your last two edits to the article were to put "Iranians" back in. A mistake, or am I missing your point entirely? Liquidfinale 14:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if you were asking me or Agha Nader, but I was in favor of #1 (Nader was in favor of #2 or anything that mentioned 'Iranians' in the wording):

1. Pre-existing version:Since its opening, 300 also attracted controversy over its portrayal of people of the Persian Empire

2. Altered version: Since its opening, 300 also attracted controversy over its portrayal of Iranians.

- Arcayne () 15:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for pointing it out. That's what I get for editing under the influence of tryptophan. It has since been fixed. - Arcayne () 15:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I provided source that proves that people depicted in the film were Iranian. You disregarded that citation and claimed that I am connected the dots. How convenient! It is not necessary for the film to mention they were Iranian. This is because several sources have mentioned it. There are some more sources for my claim. --Agha Nader (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

For example, 300 portrays "Iranians as monsters rising from the heart of darkness to destroy the Greek civilization."

and

This source mentions that Xerxes, as you must know by now, was Iranian: "Directed by Zach Snyder, '300' is based on a Frank Miller novel which tells the story of 300 Spartans who fight the Iranian king Xerxes and his massive Persian army."

and

Another source: "In the Hollywood movie "300 Spartans", based on a book by Frank Miller Valerie, 300 Greek soldiers fight against the one million strong imperial Iranian army of King Xeroxes in 480 BC, and against all historic facts." --Agha Nader (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Agh, I keep wondering why you run out and find everything but what I asked you to provide. Allow me to be perhaps your succinct:

• Find in the film that any of the characters, or in the credits, anyone mentions Iran or Iranian.

If you can find that, then we can consider the idea that the Battle of Thermopylae was actually between Iranians and A Really Buff Greek Sports Club With Rage Issues. Without it, it doesn't matter how many sources you provide as to what other people thought after the fact. the movie did not depict a movie about a fight with Iranians. Did the Persians eventually become Iranians? Yep, but the battle this movie depicted wasn't when Persians up and decided to start calling themselves Iranians.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your intent, but it seems like you are trying to change it so the fight was between the ancient Spartans and the Iranians, or even more wackily, Americans and the Iranians. Neither is allowable under the current policies and guidelines that Misplaced Pages provides as structure. If you seek to change that policy, you can visit WP:OR or the Village Pump. I appreciate the fact that you took the time to cull sources from the article to help prove your point, but all of them are more appropriate for inclusion in the controversy or historical accuracy sections. - Arcayne () 19:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the use of Eranshahr to refer to the land in question first crops up in Middle (that is Sassanian) Persian. (See e.g. here.) The Achaemenid inscription that I quoted above, for example, uses "Pârsâ" to refer to the "Persian" people (Eng. Persia from Gk. Persis from Old Persian Pars or Parsa). So these are the arguments for using "Persian" instead of "Iranian": 1) it's the terminology used in the film; 2) it's the closest English equivalent to the self-descriptor used by the Achaemenids themselves; 3) it avoids taking sides in the "naming dispute." The only actual argument I've seen for using "Iranian" is the following: "It is a fact that Persians are Iranian." But it is even more self-evident that Persians are Persians, so why change? --Javits2000 (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Which policy requires material about a film to be sourced by the film? It is perfectly acceptable, nay preferable, to have third party sources. Here is another source from the Guardian: "Iranians have complained that the film represents them as savage, murderous and warmongering." Arcayne, you have failed to AGF; I am not "trying to change it so the fight was between the ancient Spartans and the Iranians, or even more wackily, Americans and the Iranians." But it is odd that you thought that. It seems that you are trying to separate Persians from Iranians. I will AGF, and hope your intent is inocent.--Agha Nader (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line: there is no compelling reason to use a term that it is at best anachronistic, at worst inaccurate, when a perfectly adequate term already exists. Just because some journalists have been sloppy about this doesn't mean we need to follow them. What I have not seen, as I said above, is any compelling reason why we should prefer the term "Iranian." --Javits2000 (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You have absolutely no evidence of sloppy journalism. Five sources use the term Iranian! There are several reasons to use the term Iranian. First and for most, the people depicted in the film are Iranian. This is irrefutable. I have provided insurmountable evidence for it. Secondly, I do not mind, in fact I prefer, that both Iranian and Persian be included. This is because, Persians are Iranian. I propose using this wording:

"Since its opening, 300 also attracted controversy over its portrayal of Iranians (Persians)."

or

"Since its opening, 300 also attracted controversy over its portrayal of Persians (Iranians)."

Thirdly, it is important, for issues regarding clearity, to use Iranian in addition, but not necessarily in lieu of, Persian. Last but not least, the controversy was not just about the portrayal of Persians. It was also about the portrayal of Medes and other Iranians.--Agha Nader (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

1) You have provided no evidence that "the people depicted in the film are Iranian." They are described as "Persian," and as a) this is a fictional universe and b) ethnonyms are in any case conventional, not natural, they is what they is.

2) "Persian" is already there. What has not been established is why "Iranian" should be added.

3) Who are the "Medes" in this film? If we are going to assume the presence of all the "thousand nations" (Assyrians, Egyptians, Armenians, etc.) we should revert to "peoples of the Persian Empire" phrasing I proposed above.

As to your "incontrovertible proof," you have one reference from the Guardian which refers to modern-day Iranians, and is therefore not relevant; three references to statements by members of the Iranian government; and one reference to CounterPunch. This only reinforces my reservations regarding the ideological nature of the dispute. --Javits2000 (talk) 06:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I am convinced you did not read my post. How could have read my post and have stated "What has not been established is why 'Iranian' should be added." I outlined the reasons why Iranian should be added.--Agha Nader (talk) 06:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I disagree with Arcayne when he says that the film itself is the only source allowed to inform on this issue. However, while you have provided sources describing the Persians in the film as Iranian, to be blunt (a) the majority of these do not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, especially considering they (or the people they represent) are a party in the argument. And (b) even if we were happy with their use, WP:UNDUE applies; for every source describing the Persians in the film as Iranians, there are countless others which get it right. Best regards, Liquidfinale 07:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your input. The problem is, you are making an assertion when you say "the majority of these do not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Since you are making the affirmative statement, you have the burden of proof. In addtion, The Guardian is usually considered to be a reliable source. The Guardian wrote "Iranians have complained that the film represents them as savage, murderous and warmongering." I am absolutely not convinced by your WP:UNDUE argument. The idea that the people depicted in the film were Iranian is not a fringe view. Even if it is the minority view (which I do not believe it is), it is the view of a large minority (as shown by the many sources). Furthermore, you have provided no evidence of it being a fringe view. --Agha Nader (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The Guardian quote, as I noted above, clearly refers to modern-day Iranians. I did read your post, Agha, and indeed replied to your three reasons in order. I agree with Liquidfinale that the film is not the only source we should call on, although I do think it is one of several factors we should take into consideration. In particular, its usage ("Persian") coincides with actual, historical, Achaemenid usage. The situation is therefore different from, for example, a film that refers to Arabs as "Saracens," in which case we would be justified in ignoring the film and using the proper (i.e. self-identifying) term. The introdution of the anachronisitc ethnonym "Iranian," on the other hand, which only gained wide currecy seven hundred years after the events depicted in the film, would be the equivalent of using, for example, "Italians" to describe the characters in a film about Julius Caesar. The argument can be made, as Agha has implicitly done, that the "Persians" depicted in the film are not just people from Fars (i.e. "Persians" in the strict geographic sense), but if we follow this line of argument, then neither are they all "Aryans" (i.e. "Iranians" as speakers of a certain family of languages) but rather represent the many peoples of a highly multi-ethnic empire. Now frankly, that's about as much attention as I'm willing to give to this subject, unless some new arguments for the use of "Iranian" are introduced. --Javits2000 (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The Guardian quote refers to modern-day Iranians' complaining about the depiction of ancient Iranians: "Iranians have complained that the film represents them as savage, murderous and warmongering." Plus, Iranians have always referred to themselves as Iranian (It is only in the 20th century that the rest of the world started to refer to them as Iranians). The Romans did not refer to themselves as Italians. So your Italian example is bogus (but still a cute attempt).--Agha Nader (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Though you may not be happy with the process or the results of that process, Agha, it is still very much in your best interest to remain civil. Comments like "but still a cute attempt" are demeaning, and weigh heavily against you. You talked about AGF before. Don't just write it; act it. - Arcayne () 20:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of my last few posts has been that the Achaemenids did not primarily refer to themselves as "Iranians," rather as "Parsa," and I've provided a couple of sources. The Romans did of course use the word "Italia," just as the Achaemenids may occasionally have used "Iran," as a geographic descriptor (what we would today call "east Iran"), but it was not their primary self-descriptor. Its use as a word for a nation (as in "Iranshahr") dates to the Sassanian period. So the analogy is legitimate (although I hope just a bit "cute" as well!). --Javits2000 (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Agha Nader I think that insisting on the inclusion of an explanation of ‘Persian’ is needless since immediately after it, follows a clear indication of who exactly Persians were if anyone was in doubt. I understand, although I could be wrong that you are anxious to make clear to the reader that the Persians were the ancestors of Iranians but that is obvious as the article stands. On the other hand if, by an explanation of the ‘persians’ we implied in some way that the movie depicted Iranians i.e. modern Persians, in a negative way we would immediately take a side in the controversy and that is beyond the function of the article. Since you have achieved the change of a general ‘persian empire’ to a specific ‘persians’, which I guess reflected your main aim, and all other users offer you valid arguments for their actions we can all agree to end the disagreement reasonably content. Talsal (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but to use only Persian would be to exclude other Iranians, such as Medes. As the sources prove, other Iranians were depicted. We should provide the clearer and more correct term, which five sources that I have cited use. That term is Iranian.--Agha Nader (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok I have read the whole discussion now and got a better picture of the problem. The film attracted controversy over its depiction of the Persian empire, including all portrayed aspects of it. This is what the paragraph aims to outline and the sentence communicate. What follows the introduction is a series of examples. The paragraph cannot limit its scope to the Iranians alone as it deals with the greater issue. So ‘Iranians’ should not be used. ‘Persians’ imo can be accepted to accommodate concerns only because it does not have the limiting qualities of ‘Iranians’. (btw I would prefer ‘THE Persians’). In the following paragraph, which focuses on the Iranian reaction, ‘Iranians’ should not be used because the reactions did not focus on the depiction of the ancient Iranians/Persians alone -if indeed someone could separate Persians, from Medes, etc- but of the whole Persian empire. In fact an example given includes the term ‘Achaemenid Empire’, not Iranians. Contrary to what you suggest I think ‘Iranians’ is limiting whereas ‘Persians’ can and was always used to refer to all the subjects of the empire in such a context; Medes included. About the sources you mention; they should not be of any interest to us regarding this issue. The controversy arose after the depiction of the Persian Empire not after Guardian identified the Persians as Iranians. Talsal62.30.182.51 (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I must very respectfully disagree on a few points. First, "The film attracted controversy over its depiction of the Persian empire, including all portrayed aspects of it" is not accurate. The controversy is around the portrayal of Iranians, not Egyptians, Syrians, or any other levy. So to use the term Iranian would not be limiting qualities. So this is incorrect "‘Iranians’ should not be used because the reactions did not focus on the depiction of the ancient Iranians/Persians alone". Furthermore, I must disagree on this point "‘Persians’ imo can be accepted to accommodate concerns only because it does not have the limiting qualities of ‘Iranians’." An Egyptian who fought in the Persian empire, were not considered Persian. They were considered Egyptian.--Agha Nader (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this consideration was lost upon the Spartans in the film, who considered everyone fighting against them at Thermopylae as Persians. In the film, they were all Persians. And as such, they weren't portrayed accurately. ArbCom naming conventions aside, Iranians weren't in the film, Persians were. - Arcayne () 01:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You sound so ill-informed when you say "Iranians weren't in the film, Persians were." Persians and Medes were Iranian. To say "Since its opening, 300 also attracted controversy over its portrayal of Persians" is to exclude Medes and other Iranians. It's a pity that you will not accept what is accepted by five sources that I cited. --Agha Nader (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you might want to throw a bucket of AGF and civility onto that statement, Nader; the next time you respond uncivilly, you will be held to account for it. Focus very carefully on what three different people are telling you, for it is not us who are not acting ill-informed. The notability of allof your sources has been addressed repeatedly, and yet you seem unable to accept that.

I have suggested that you craft an RfC for this particular question, and I renew that suggestion here for the Nth time. You clearly think that the three editors who disagree with you are either POV-pushing or ""ill-informed, and - speaking only for myself - cannot see why you continue to push somethin that was not in the film, not intended by the dialogue or plot of the film and is not supported by anything in the film. You are not changing my mind, and clearly, three rather seasoned editors are unable to change yours. I will wait to hear about your filing of the RfC, and we can go from there. - Arcayne () 10:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

How did I violate AGF? You accuse me of WP:POINT, I have not accused you of anything. You are not a seasoned editor by any means. You are an edit warrior and have been blocked SEVEN times for it. Like I said, if you don't want to accept what five sources have accepted, than that's a pity.--Agha Nader (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class military history articles
• FA-Class war films articles
• War films task force articles
• FA-Class film articles
• Film articles with archived peer reviews
• WikiProject Film articles
• FA-Class Iran articles
• Low-importance Iran articles
• WikiProject Iran articles
• FA-Class Greek articles
• Low-importance Greek articles
• WikiProject Greece general articles
• All WikiProject Greece pages
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics