Talk:300 (film)

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

What was archived

• What was archived - linked references from the prior archive for easy recall
• Revisiting GA status - Waiting for all the Crazy to die down before renomination for Good Article status
• Screenshots - A brand new controversy regarding the decorative vs. informative nature of screenshots. A roving gang of activist admins started reinterpreting policy and caused a tizzy
• Break - Continuation of the above discussion after a short break.
• Removing Daryaee from this article - Multiple arguments to remvoe Daryaee statements from article, and one opposed to removal. This is an ongoing Discussion
• This is SPARTA!!! - Various memes offered as noteworthy
• Moronic Edit - A fairly uncivil comment about a bad edit
• GA Review:Pass - ...and here we are, back at GA status. :)

Removing Daryaee from this article

Parts of this section were removed to archive 12 for the sake of space. These archived parts can be found here

...To be able to verify is to be able to seek verity, truth. We shouldn’t however forget relevance as a threshold. Hoping I am not stretching your tolerance on the subject I still have doubts regarding Lytle. He seems to be famous only for the article provided in the link. But more importantly he offers arbitrary assumptions to prove ulterior motives on the part of the movie makers instead of commenting on accuracy mistakes. In the link he is not convincing at all as an authority on the subject and further puzzles me by presenting his view as fact instead of only a possibility on many issues. But I fear that not many will agree with me. The article is much better now I think. However I’d like to draw your attention to the fact that from all the eponymous views which are quite a few in the ‘Controversy’ section only Seymour and Kahane disagree with the main line followed by all others. The first because he thinks the movie is silly and the second because he thinks the movie promotes all-American values which funnily validates the opinion of the rest who see a propaganda of some sort or other. Essentially there is no view that offers a counter weight to those who dislike the film. I have found Richard Roeper’s review and I think you should consider adding it since he sees in ‘300’ just a film as I think we should all do. I understand he is influential and respected in his field and his view could serve to balance somehow the negative ones. I propose the following addition or a similar one with the particular extract as I think it is better suited for the purpose he will be included in the entry if at all of course.

(However Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-Times wrote about the film “You want realism and devotion to the hard facts, watch the History Channel. You want to experience the Battle of Thermopylae as a nonstop thrill ride, here's your ticket”).

The following is the link to the article http://www.suntimes.com/news/roeper/289178,WKP-News-hundred09.article and this an this his view regarding the controversy http://www.brightcove.com/title.jsp?title=626875232&channel=296474766.

Given the sheer volume of the negative comments if his view is to have some opposing impact for the sake of maintaining the balance of the entry I think that it should be placed just before the final paragraph about the Warner Bros response. 62.30.182.52 03:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Somebody has restored Daryaee and attempts to edit it do nothing as it restores itself. Could one of the admins please prevent this and remove the reference as has been decided on? Will contributors cease to cry 'NPOV,' at an article which adds nothing of the sort. Please, if you disagree with the removal, offer your views as to why this is NPOV, but don't just undo edits that were debated for several weeks.

I further propose that we archive this section, up until the most recent comment by Arcayne, and anyone who wants to disagree with the reasons for the removal, or wants to press the case for other edits, can do so in a new section. --217.40.26.169 03:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)/1706 29th May 2007

I will archive everything up until my most recent remarks in this section, allowing the discussion to continue. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

My thanks to the admin who protected this article, but I must ask why Daryaee, despite an agreement reached by many, is still present. He was removed AFTER a consensus was established and should only be returned if a new consensus is reaches. Therefore, anyone who would like him restored, please explain why, in the meantime, will someone just get rid of it. Unsigned. (actually, it was left by User:217.40.26.169)

Insted of complaining, you coudl set up an account and remove them yourself. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Daryaee appears in three different places in the article, which is rather unacceptable. Each critic was able to contribute a statement concerning the controversy. Darayee doesn't get more than anyone else has. As his contributions have been contested ratherly pointedly, I think that its a miracle someone hasn't purged his comments altogether, seeing as how they seem to orginate from the point of view of an immigrant, and not necessarily a historical pov. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In that case, why not return the article to the previous edit with Daryaee removed from the Historical Accuracy section and return this to my original edit (I am now coexistant with 217.40 etc).Notthemanbehindthecurtain 10:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Link should we restore it I don't see why we purge his opinion all together. It's been in the article for the longest time. Alientraveller 13:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologise about violating the rule, I was unaware that such a rule existed and, as a result, I was simply attempting to restore the decision which was reached after weeks of debate and, to date, have seen no argument (excluding unexplained cries of 'NPOV' without any backing) to challenge my actions. I was merely attempting to follow Arcayne's previous advice about removing it myself. Again, I apologise for breaking any rules, but I remain unrepentant about editing this section- the debate can still be reopened after all, rather than other user's violating previously agreed on removals. Notthemanbehindthecurtain 14:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, stand by for a bit, and thanks for coming here for a heads-up. Sorry for the confusing signals; things will square themselves out shortly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Arcayne. 217.40.26.169 18:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay; RL sidetracked me for a bit. Alientraveler throgutht he repeated references to Daryaee should be removed. He wasn't about removing all traces of Daryaee without consensus. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick remark on the bits of the conversation that were archived. It has been repeatedly asserted that Daryaee is "speaking as an immigrant, not as a historian," and this point seems to have been regarded at decisive by Arcayne. This statement from the article is being read out of context. In the first paragraph he details certain inaccuracies; the second then begins as follows "It is these insinuations in the film that are more troublesome to me as a Persian immigrant to the U.S., than as a historian of antiquity. After all, Hollywood tries to sell movies and does not care if they are historically accurate, but movies also carry a subtle message which has very effective and current consequences." In other words, Daryaee is not surprised or disturbed by historical inaccuracy in a Hollywood film in general; this sort of thing is only to be expected. However, as an immigrant he feels compelled to attempt to address this particular case. Nevertheless, that he does perceive inaccuracy is obvious, and I can't really see the difference between addressing inaccuracy "as a historian" or "as an immigrant historian"; the value of the claims is the same. When I edit articles on German culture I do so "as an American living in Germany"; all that explains is why I'm interested, and doesn't say anything about the objective value of the edits.
Arcayne had also asked for brief statements re: why Daryaee should be included or not. Here's mine: inclusion of Daryaee maintains WP:NPOV, as he represents a "significant view" that is not otherwise represented in the article. If you'll think back to the dispute over Farrokh, for example, we decided not to include him because that would consititue "undue weight"; his point of view was already represented, and in more eloquent & professional fashion, by Daryaee. This alone should serve to demonstrate the important role that Daryaee plays in the article. --Javits2000 15:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, Javits, and I apologize for not specifying before. If Daryaee's comments are fromt he point of view as a historian, they are noteworthy. If they are coming from the point of view as an immigrant (or a foreign national living abroad), they are less noteworthy from an encyclopedic point of view. The reason we selected Daryaee instead of Farrokhe was that Farrokhe was not as strong in comparison.

I am interested in maintaining NPOV as well, but I am hoping that someone can either find a better commentary than Daryaee (and this is said by someone who has read the historian's works), or at least trim the comments to make them less of a target and more on point. If you and others feel the commentary is fine as it is, I will simmer down. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough: briefly distilled, I see the reference to Daryaee's "immigrant" status as describing his motivation for writing, and does not compromise his criticisms of the film's historical content. Actually writing "as an immigrant" would mean to me, e.g. a memoir (Alfred Kazin, for example). The bulk of the content of the article, and all that we've cited, is directly engaged with the historical content of the film, and therefore "on point". This material is all, furthermore, verifiable (although you have to follow through the links in his article): the stats, for example, are drawn from A.W. Gomme, The Population of Athens in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C., Chicago, 1967, Table 1. If his remarks are "a target" it's probably because he's the most harshly critical of the various people cited. But that in itself is no reason to remove him. To me it's telling that the "remove Daryaee" party has also gone on to attack Lytle (see first entry above); that is, they would remove both critical voices from this section. --Javits2000 08:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I am that party you refer to. I honestly cannot see why Daryaee presents such a problem. It should be obvious that he has no place in the historical accuracy section of this film. And I thought the case had been more than adequately made by 217. and me.

The section should discuss inaccuracies that exist in the film. Not possible inaccurate impressions regarding the Persian empire formed by those who watch it. That much should be straightforward.

Break down his view. ‘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’. Nothing inaccurate about that. It was how the spartans saw the persians. The film never implies that it is anyone other than a spartan retelling the battle.

‘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 military monarchy, not a democracy’.

The film doesn’t make any reference as to whether the subjects in the Persian empire were on a pay roll or not. The film doesn’t discuss the percentages of the Athenian population that voted. Athens is hardly mentioned! Daryaee states Sparta was a monarchy as if Leonidas was presented as a prime minister and not a king. The film never implies that Sparta was a democracy. What confused him was the reference to the Apella. His view simply does not address the film! Are we supposed to include the view of a historian who didn’t like the film even when he talks about different things?! His view simply does not address what is mentioned in the film. There should be no discussion beyond that. Continuing with that topic doesn’t make sense anymore! I don’t think this article should serve as the podium at the disposal of any Iranian who would like to inform the world about how great he thinks the Persian Empire was irrespective of the relevancy of his comments.

It is obvious that Daryaee speaks as a Persian that didn’t like the movie simply because the Persians look bad according to him. His degree should not be an excuse for the inclusion of his views in an article that tries to inform objectively. It is not the status of an immigrant that compromises his fitness to express an opinion but his bias. That is what was meant before I think. In his article the man claims that the Persians won the war! He further says that the westerners do not mention the fact that Athens was burnt by the Persians, which is simply preposterous! That is not a historian speaking and the fact that he has a degree means nothing if he isn’t using it.

I do understand that many Iranians have a problem with the film and that should indeed be addressed. But this article does not belong to the Iranian press. It is independent and should remain so.

Regarding Lytle. Again views should address inaccuracies in the film. Which inaccuracy is he addressing exactly?

He says that the film idealizes the Spartan society. Is that inaccurate? Aren’t movie makers free to idealize anything they want? He may find that problematic and disturbing but that is not relevant to any inaccuracy so far.

He says that ‘the hundred nations of the Persians’ are portrayed as monsters and non-Spartan Greeks as weak. It is a comic! Do we need to know from a historian in the historical section that there were no gigantic rhinoceri and ninjas?

He suggests that the film’s moral uiniverse would have seemed bizarre to the ancient Greeks as it does to modern historians. What moral universe is he talking about? Bizarre to which historians exactly? I can understand that he tries to invoke a consensus of a supposed fraternity of historians to validate his attack on the movie but it is not clear what inaccuracy he spotted by doing so. And that because he spotted none in that passage. My apologies but I don’t see why his personal view on the film is supposed to address historical inaccuracies even when it doesn’t simply by virtue of his studies.

I never tried to promote an article devoid of criticism towards the movie. I just say that as it stands, the article simply is not balanced. Just count the negative references in the Controversy section. You will only find views that attack the film and almost all of them on the same grounds. Dana is included twice! As the article is, there is simply no controversy. It seems that everyone agrees that the film was a blatant attack on the Persian culture and a propaganda against the Iranians or in favour of the extreme right the world over! Since obviously that is not the whole story, for the article to become balanced some changes must take place.

I apologize if my answer was delayed.

87.194.82.174 19:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I took the opportunity to read through the article again -- it had been a while -- and I have to agree that there is a disproportionate emphasis on criticisms of the film. The box office numbers tell their own story, but a certain imbalance is noticeable in the "reviews" section; there is a particular dearth of "notable" reviewers giving positive opinions, and that that doesn't necessarily reflect the real situation is underlined by the Roeper review, the link to which has been posted somewhere here on talk. If it's necessary to correct the Malcolm review on a point of fact, maybe it's better to get rid of it altogether.

Historical accuracy strikes me as well-balanced (two for, two against, plus ample space for the opinions of the director), and I will not reiterate my support for retaining Daryaee, as I've spilled enough ink on the subject.

The controversy section will by definition concentrate on criticism of the film; compare, for example, Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan (which is in my opinion out of control, but that's another story). But that doesn't mean it can't be trimmed. Quite right; Stevens should not be cited twice. And there is probably no reason to name every Iranian official who made a statement (if it is felt necessary to preserve the information, citations can be stacked) nor every embassy protest (likewise).

On the one hand the film did provoke an unusually vehement negative reaction, and that needs to be documented. On the other hand, a lot of people think it rocks, and perhaps a bit more effort needs to be put into documenting that side of the story. --Javits2000 20:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, give it a whirl, Javits. Work your magic. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Very good, have whirled. Quick summary: "Reviews": added Roeper, removed Malcolm. "Historical accuracy": added second statement from Cartledge. "Controversy": removed second Stevens citation, trimmed embassies & Iranian officials.--Javits2000 09:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I will refer Javits to my archived statements about the contrast between the trinity of Cartledge, Hanson and Lytle as focusing on truly historical perspectives, in contrast to Daryaee commenting on how 'the film uses history to mount a defense of “Western Civilization” against the invading “Other.”'

Daryaee is, very broadly, utilising the historical background of the film to affirm his attack on the black and white characterisation in the film and how freedom and democracy become part of this (modern) message in the film. I am not going to reiterate my points about his drastically over-simplified conclusions on the Spartan political system, those that are referenced, but please refer to the archives for a list of historians who have argued opposing theories.

His commentary does not, in any way, 'balance' Hanson, indeed, if anyone does, it is Lytle. Whereas Hanson utilises Greek writers' opinions, Daryaee does not discuss the 'moral universe of the Greeks,' as Lytle does, but discusses modern reactions. Nor are his remarks about 'the central theme,' particularly 'balancing;' such comments are made by both Cartledge and Lytle in the section. To claim that 'two for and two against' is balance is debateable. The points adressed by Cartledge suffice for the more 'historical' vs 'fantastical' points, and the points about ancient opinions is made by both Lytle and Hanson. What other purpose does Daryaee serve? 217.40.26.169 12:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

"Referring" me to opinions that I've already read and to which I've already replied is just an artificial way of keeping this (conversation?) going. That Daryaee's statements about are verifiable through published sources has been made clear; and a list of names of historians who (supposedly) disagree, without references no less, does nothing to counteract this. I'm all for avoiding an inordinate emphasis on criticism of the film, and have indeed recently made an effort in this direction; likewise earlier when we were under significant pressure from nationalist POV-pushers. But Daryaee's remarks represent an important body of opinion, and make a greater attempt to grapple with social/historical realities than Hanson or Lytle, who remain on a somewhat abstract plain ("moral universe"; "clash of civilizations"). Alientraveller has aptly described this recent campaign as an attempted "purge," and its singleness of purpose indicates less a desire to improve the article as a whole, than to silence a particular voice, whether because of genuine scholarly disagreement or because of political inclination. That it continues to be conducted via anyonymous IP is likewise food for thought. --Javits2000 12:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, forgot to log in before entering a new point, hope that allows you to finish the meal. The 'singleness of purpose,' as you entitle it, is simply a wish to give the article appropriate balance, combined with, I must admit, almost a sense of horror that any academic of the period can assert opinions so opposed to the standard consensus and be included solely because of an essentially defunct qualification. I do not, in preparedness of this attempt to deconstruct his views, wish to claim any particular opposition to Daryaee himself, no-one gets to such a high position without being the best at what they do. Daryaee's 'best' is Persian, and particularly Sassanid, history and the degree of historical specialisation at his level makes inter-disciplinary remarks, in this case Sparta, hazardous at best.

However, I do feel as if I should clarify my objetions, as Javits has noted; the verifiable point mentioned, which I am surmising is that drawn from Gomme, is an admirable addition, and is, to my knowledge, accurate. However, one reference does not make Daryaee's comments viable in their entirety. Particularly, the 'references' that I am thinking of are in Cartledge's 'Sparta and Lakonia- A regional history' and Jones' 'Sparta' (Both chapters focusing on the ephors and their powers). I do not have these immediately to hand, but perhaps you will accept Michell; 'the great questions concerning them all...were settled by the muster of all warriors...who shouted "Yes" or "No."' Or perhaps a more succint retort to 'military monarchy;' 'the powers of the kings were so severely limited as to be non-exsitant.' He further asserts that there are two schools of thought, one of which comments sovereignty is possessed of 'the ephors alone,' while the other claims it to be fully mixed, rather than as a 'monarchy.' No school of thought exists claiming for a 'military monarchy,' save of course Daryaee. Others include; Huxley ('Early Sparta'), Forrest ('A History of Sparta') and almost every academic writing on the subject. Indeed, even wikipedia's section on Sparta challenges this (perhaps we should place Daryaee's new-found discovery there in the interests of NPOV?). It remains that there is no historian who would take Daryaee's claims of Sparta as a 'military monarchy' seriously and, as such, his remarks are defunct.

Since Daryaee's other (historical) points are mere echoes of the others, his remarks add nothing, except imbalance and inexactness, and therefore should be removed; not purged, one could remark that he shares Cartledge's views, but little beyond that. Notthemanbehindthecurtain 13:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A quick search of Google books suggests that the characterization of Sparta as a "military monarchy" can be traced back to Theodor Mommsen; antiquated, to be sure, although eminently "serious." I'm assuming that if the offensive word "monarchy" were to be replaced by "oligarchy" then all would be forgiven? But I do wonder if we're not pressing this word to hard. Leonidas was after all a ... king; one still calls the United Kingdom a "constitutional monarchy," even if the powers of the queen are "so severely limited as to be non-existent." --Javits2000 09:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on his antiquarian nature, Mommsen was part of the pre-Oliver period of Spartan historians (the infamous 'Spartan mirage'), which would be enough for most historians (CG Starr for one) to discount . However, even if this were not so, this is not actually an accurate citation as it concerns Hellenistic/Roman Sparta, perhaps a less 'quick' search might have uncovered this, notably the tyranny of Nabis, nearly three hundred years AFTER the 'events' of 300. If one applies the same logic of continuity to the British monarchy, one could (almost) claim that British politics is that of the Civil War era. Regardless, 'military monarchy' is still being read quite out of context; an appropriate reading would be of Nabis use of military force to secure his monarchy, a situation which archaic/classical Sparta famously avoids (Andrewes'-'The Greek Tyrants;' The Spartan Alternative to Tyranny) in contrast to the Hellenistic kings. For a correct contextual reading, one might 'quickly' search google for 'military monarchy' and uncover the EBrittanica example of the (nearly) contemporary Dyonisius I of Syracuse; 'his was essentially a military monarchy based on loyal mercenary power(emphasis added).' Ironically enough, as a sidepoint, Nabis' tyranny is the only point at which 'mon-'archy could be strictly applied; aside from other short breaks in the third century, the specific term would be a dyarchy (due to Sparta's famed dual kingship).

Regarding the British monarchy, the term constitutional monarchy is certainly still bandied about, but if the choices for defining the British political system were 'democracy' or 'monarchy,' I hardly think that there would be doubt as to where sovereignty lies. Oligarchy would indeed be a more applicable term, for Sparta, but would still suffer the inherent flaws which you commented on through Gomme and my original attack. As with the British monarchy, in deciding between 'monarchy' and 'democracy,' as to where sovereign power lies in Sparta, neither term is even approaching perfect, but most modern historians would choose the latter (citations will be forcoming, but still, please don't wait) if pressed. Besides, it is enough to challenge Daryaee's polemicism through negating his own mirage of a tyrannical Spartan monarchy- undoubtedly, Sparta was hardly a utopia of democracy and freedom by modern standards, but the charges of a supreme monarchy laid by Daryaee are witout basis and are, as such, a nuisance to be discarded as ancillary to Cartledge's reservations. It is this point which seems to be continually missed; Daryaee is discussing modern interpretations and how modern thought seeps into definitions of earlier political societies; an area for historiography perhaps, but not historical accuracy. 217.40.26.169 10:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

So where do we stand: "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." That this is indeed a central theme of the movie has not been disputed, and can be verified by a quick glance at the quote-collection at IMDB, cited in the archived secton of the discussion.

"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." This characterization of the Achaemenid administration has not been disputed, and I have little doubt that it could be verified; I believe the evidence is primarily epigraphic & sigillographic. 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.

"He further states that Sparta "was a military monarchy, not a democracy."" This statement used to go on to add something like "that owned an entire slave population the Helots"; when this was removed, I'm not sure. One should never leave the country.

It now emerges that the characterization of Sparta as a "military monarchy" is the most offensive portion of this characterization; it has also been shown that this is an out-of-date, although not strictly inaccurate, characterization of the Spartan political system. (Incidentally, I don't know if it makes any difference, but it appears that this passage has been misquoted. The essay itself gives the following: "And Sparta was not a democracy. It was a militaristic monarchy with a council of elders which decided political matters, but it was not a democracy.") "Military oligarchy" is preferred.

Whether Sparta can be characterized as a democracy seems to me -- correct me if I'm wrong -- to be a contentious issue. There has been some reference to soldiers out-shouting each other. But if I'm not mistaken, to deny that Sparta was a democracy is still an acceptable historical opinion. Finally, that the Helots did exist has not been disputed, nor that their existence is ommitted from the film's portrayal of Spartan society.

Therefore if one edits the entry as follows one is left with a verifiable statement that makes a number of points regarding both Spartan and Persian society that are not addressed by the other historians cited: "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 "not a democracy," and owned an entire enslaved population (the Helots)." --Javits2000 16:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The ‘free’ Spartans is indeed a central theme. But were the Spartans slaves? I doubt the word ‘Democracy’ is used but it is true that the Spartan political system was based on democratic principles. In any case is there any mention in the film about ‘democracy loving’ Spartans? Would the film be more accurate regarding the Spartan political system if there was no reference to the Apella?

I am afraid the Persians didn’t hire workers as much as they paid slaves. The difference in kind is huge. The same however was the case in Sparta and Athens. The helots were responsible for the running of the spartan economy. The fact that the figures Daryaee gives are verifiable is irrelevant in my view. They don’t address any inaccuracy in the film.

He disagrees that Sparta was a democracy. But the film never says it was. The term ‘militaristic monarchy’ is an invention of his and rather flawed. For the Spartan political system to qualify as such, Spartan military would need to have had political powers but it didn’t. A note on Michell. Maybe he is trying to romanticize the accounts but it wasn’t the warriors who would vote by shouting but the Spartan citizens.

If one reads the articles by Lytle and Daryaee he cannot miss their tone. They write to defend the ancient Persian culture and not to address inaccuracies. And although the film does have plenty of them, I think exactly because of their motives they fail to address them. Instead they try to attack the Spartan or the Greek culture. Both Hanson and Daryaee address the clash of ‘free’ vs ‘slave’. From the two however only Hanson comments on the respective references in the movie. The greeks did see in that war a clash between free citizens and subservient subjects. Darius in the Behistun inscription comes to their aid when he addresses his generals as ‘servants’. What Daryaee is trying to do effectively is contest the view of the ancient greeks but the ‘Historical Accuracy’ section of the 300 is not the place to do it. I can only see in his readiness to give the percentages of the Athenians who actually voted, an attempt to reduce Athenian democracy but whatever the verifiability status of his view may be why is Athenian democracy relevant to 300?

The same motives and mistakes I see in Lytle. In light of the addition of Carltledge’s reference to pederasty, I feel I should say that the film clearly takes the view of all the ancient writers and indeed of those among them who actually lived in Sparta and wrote that ‘pederasty’ was chaste. While it is true that there is an ongoing debate among historians on whether it was chaste or not if Cartledge's view is used as that of the historian who spotted an inaccuracy, the article clearly presents a winner of the debate; something the article is not supposed to do and which results in misinformation in my view even though there is a link for further research on the topic. Given that certain passages in the ‘Historical Accuracy’ section point towards several sensitive aspects of the general debate that arose after the film regarding the two civilisations and since they are presented as facts while they are only opinions I must ask why were they chosen to be included when there exist in the film inaccuracies accepted by all sides and that aren’t addressed at all.

I think I am right to say that relevance should be the primary criterion if a view is to be presented. Verifiability of views aside, maybe we should first see what inaccuracy each view addresses. If there is no inaccuracy in the context of the movie I don’t see why a view should be included in that section.

While the article itself avoids weasel words, these exist via the words of Lytle for example when he professes he knows the view of all ancient greeks and modern historians. Attribution in this instance doesnt correct the effect since he speaks as an authority and is to be believed. And part of the problem may be due to this. The existing views are not the best one could find maybe because as the film became loaded with bias few historians kept an objective point of view. I wonder if users themselves can write about the inaccuracies more carefully than some historians while of course giving proof of the truth of what they say and not only about the verifiability of what is being written. (i found my password) Talsal 19:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, a thoughtful opinion, but tending in a dangerous direction; Lytle and Daryaee to be removed, along with the one section of Cartledge's appraisal which is critical. I still believe that relying on the opinions of professional historians, and reporting them as such (opinions, introduced with "states," & similarly neutral verbs) is the only way to construct this section. Attempting to judge the film's accuracy independently would apparently require that we, e.g. open up this discussion page to the question of whether Spartan pederasty involved "touching." --Javits2000 19:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Two brief, although for me that should perhaps be read as overly verbose, points; first, it appears that this debate is gradually becoming bogged down. The fundamental disagreement should be over the emphasis of Daryaee's argument, which is, in my opinion, not to engage Hanson's argument as to Greek views of the period, as Hanson illustrates through Aeschylus and Herodotus, but is to ignore contemporary opinion and claim that we are retrojecting our own value structures back onto the Persian wars in the interests of ideology. This can be seen through his continuous emphasis on the 'legitimation' of 300 for, what he belives will be, war against Iran, and notably through his assertion that Persians, in the film, represent all that is abhorrent to the modern, Western psyche. This is, quite obviously, not a truly historical perspective that he is taking; he is establishing relative cultural merits for each society rather than establishing the historical accuracy of either. As has been often asserted, the film never makes claims contrary to the existence, in Spartan society, of its negative elements; this cannot be claimed as 'historical accuracy' per se unless we delete the whole section and replace it with a wiki link to Sparta. Historical mention must then come from those who discuss 'historical' matters, Cartledge, Hanson and Lytle, not how history is utilised for modern interests; I, for one, cannot see how this belongs anywhere other than in Controversy, if anywhere.

Second, I would like to support Javits in maintaining the reference to pederasty; this is certainly a matter under serious debate, and, it must be said, runs against the specific opinions of Xenophon (the only writer to have experienced Sparta 'first-hand.') Nevertheless, there is a link to Spartan pederasty and, perhaps with the addition of 'believed' or 'apparent' (or some other qualifier) prior to Cartledge's comments, such a comment may be said to be fair. After all, pederasty, or the supposed lack of, is directly referenced by the film and debate should therefore be perfectly viable. If doubts are raised, as are perfectly justifiable, then these should be included in the section on Spartan pederasty, which is linked. 217.40.26.169 09:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

My view was that the article should steer clear of the views that present serious and obvious problems and instead use those that are commonly accepted and if necessary, with the intervention of the users. The reference to pederasty in my view is such a case where an ‘alleged’ or sth to that effect as 217 said would make the reference a valid point instead of an unfair one. I didn’t ask for the removal of that particular view. I tried to find less loaded passages in the articles of the historians at hand. Cartledge makes important points regarding the mention of just 300 soldiers instead of the 4000 or 7000 greeks. He also comments on what he calls ‘the most controversial aspect’, the portrayal of the Persians. Very little in Lytle’s piece is said regarding any inaccuracy of the film. He offers however a comment on the scarcity of historical information about the life of Leonidas but nothing else that could be included in the section in my opinion. There is simply nothing else that doesn’t include an unnecessary attack on the movie by anyone let alone a historian. Daryaee offers nothing. Add to the previously mentioned passage that reveals the nature of his article the following: ‘However, my response is not so much to the inaccuracies of the film, but rather to its ultimate motive and its possible use in the current issue of war on terrorism….But let us address the historicity of the film and the way in which the film uses history to mount a defense of “Western Civilization” against the invading “Other”’. The man is a fanatic. He has no place in ‘Historical Accuracy’. Along with the other problematic views in the section a pattern emerges and I thought I should mention it.Talsal 18:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Has just occurred to me, although indirectly related, as to whether we should accord VDH to be a former professor at CSU; the term 'military' historian, while a perfectly eminent area of academia, seems to be selling him somewhat short. I am aware that this may be thought to compromise NPOV in some people's minds, but it seems more 'balanced' to my mind to demonstrate that his expertise is truly in Classics, rather than solely as a military historian. Any thoughts from anyone? 217.40.26.169 21:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Since I have received no feedback, I have edited the sections on Cartledge and Hanson in line with my previous suggestions. I do not doubt that the language could be better phrased and would be grateful if anyone can improve on it. The additions/changes which I have made consist of recognising VDH's previous role as 'formerly professor of Classical History at CSU,' while removing his title of 'military' historian; it seems to me that, as his subject is ideology seen through sources, it is more appropriate to cite him in regard to the qualifications which make him an expert in this field. Second, I have amended Cartledge's remarks by adding 'given his views on the' in his remark about Institutional Pederasty; as has been suggested, there remains a debate and readers with less awareness should not take the statement as concrete, as the former text implied.

Of course, if anyone can improve, or dissaproves entirely, of this edit, please offer a suggestion for change and we can discuss it. Notthemanbehindthecurtain 22:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the changes are definitely an improvement. But I would still like someone to tell me what specifically are the inaccuracies of the film Daryaee and Lytle address.87.194.82.174 03:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I cannot specify the reasons for keeping Daryaee in, but, I believe, Lytle's inclusion is based on the fact that he addresses the perspectives of the Greeks themselves on the film; just as Hanson argues that the picture is accurate, Lytle challenges this notion. He also, like Daryaee, seeks to oppose the 'selective' interpretations of Sparta, but his point is that references to Spartan institutions ignore negative aspects of the system. As has been pointed out several times, there are grounds for simply ignoring such assertions because the film is not obligated to mention them, however, that 300 mentions particular aspects of Spartan society (the agoge, ephorate, gerousia and certain other social characteristics), one could argue that this does indeed obligate it to a greater degree. Most important though, is his comment concerning the 'moral universe;' even if no other points of his were included, this point does provide an academic counterpoint to Hanson. However, if you believe that there are convincing reasons, please, continue to espouse them. Notthemanbehindthecurtain 22:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

If Lytle is included to address the views of the greeks themselves he should be in another section. He is not addressing inaccuracies in the film. By characterizing the choices made by the film makers as an idealization of the Spartan culture he implies disturbing –according to him- motives. He is not refuting the historical accuracy of the depiction. His comments on the supposed portrayal of all the Persians as monsters and on that of the non-Spartan greeks as weaklings are not made to inform us that rhinos didn’t exist but to promote his own portrayal of the Persians and make his view appear objective. His comment on the moral universe can only have an object if it addresses the clash of the civilizations. Hanson gives proof as to why that clash is accurate. Even if someone prefers to ignore the fact that the battle was one between two different cultures meeting in the battlefield with the baggage of their respective values, one must remember that the story of the film is based on the historical sources that make clear that for both the Greeks and the Persians, cultures was what clashed. Hanson addresses that issue by giving proof of that. The academic counterpoint is provided by Cartledge when he expresses reservations about the film’s west vs east polarization. Hanson speaks with proof to back his claims. Cartledge is an expert of sort on the movie subject. Lytle is known for nothing else apart from his attacks on the movie all over the web. His proof is an appeal to imaginary authorities; those of all the modern historians and of all the ancient greeks who agree with him! That is not an argument and that is not a historian expressing a view. The ‘clash of the cultures’ can either be true or false. It is not up to a biased modern historian to decide that. It was up to the combatants who viewed their war as such. If then that is the case how is a refutation of a fact relevant to the section that tries to separate fact from fiction? And of course something must be decided about Daryaee.Talsal 18:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I must admit, I am beginning to come around to the idea of removing some of Lytle's comments, specifically about the 'moral universe' of the greeks, yet I do think that his opinions should be kept, although perhaps with a change of quotes drawn from his article. For instance, if his remarks were edited to specify the fact that the film is very 'laconocentric' in its ideal and included brief comments about the inaccuracies described in the Spartan social structure, notably those concerning the ephorate. In particular, I, although others may differ, would rather the article incorporated the relative absence of other Greek contributions in the film. As to the 'war between cultures,' I can fully understand that Lytle is not exactly citing the sources that Hanson does, but I think that his views would have to be demonstrated to be of a minority in the historical community. Unfortunately, I am unfamiliar with his work, but I am sure that it must exist.

As for Daryaee, I concur that the issue is still undecided, but, with the absence of a reply from Javits, it would be a mistake to interpret his absence as an acceptance of the arguments. It would perhaps be better for suggested edits to be presented so that agreements can be made. 137.73.88.101 20:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've posted my own proposed edit to the Daryaee section (above, approximately one week ago); it essentially consists of removing the reference to "military monarchy." It is of course wise not to interpret silence as assent; I don't see that any new points in relation to Daryaee have been raised, and would consider it tedious to reiterate my own position every couple of days. The edits re: Hanson's prior post and Cartledge's opinion strike me as improvements. --Javits2000 00:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Some people might think that refusing to respond to new points just because you do not deem them important makes debate essentially futile.137.73.88.101/Notthemanbehindthecurtain 19:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC) 08:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Visual effects

• Thomas J. McLean (2007-05-24). "The Impact of 300: More Stylized VFX?". VFXWorld. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Information about the film's effects; may require registration. Check out http://www.bugmenot.com/ to bypass. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

FA nomination

Given all the irate people have calmed down, the article is a stable GA, and I would love to nominate this for FA. All in favour, cry "This IS SPAAARTTTTAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!" Alientraveller 10:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(as Woody Allen) Um, what I really want to say, kind of, and the thing is, you know - despite the fact that this looks conspicuously like the Lower East Side, it might in fact closely resemble Sparta in a drug-induced sort of way. Especially if you really squint your eyes and have been awake for close to 37 hours. -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is SPARTTTTTTAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!! BTW, i am actually wanting to nominate this article as an FA. So please, dont undo my comment.(Cablebfg 19:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

David Kahane review on National Review

I'm sorry, but does anyone else find that quote by him in the controversy section as ridiculous? The Spartans were neither monotheistic or American like in their politics. Is a quote that stupid really important to have on this page?DeviantCharles 00:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether you disagree, it's his opinion and we are adhering to WP:NPOV. Alientraveller 10:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The Traveler is right: the standard is verifiability, not truth. We do not weed out people who are too stupid to keep their ill-formed opinions to themselves. We just shine a nice, bright light ont hat stupidity. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. While the fact that it is an absurd rant may not necessarily be the reason to remove it, it may qualify as WP:FRINGE (like the Farrokh article). Also, we quote him like he is some academic or reputable source, when the face is that this guy, "David Kahane," is not a real person in the National Review. His qualifications are completely unknown to us. If you read his article, at the bottom it says, "David Kahane is a nom de cyber for a writer in Hollywood. “David Kahane” is borrowed from a screenwriter character in The Player." [1] In any case the article seems more bloggish than serious. Any ideas on what is best to do? The Behnam 18:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well if that be the case, I am going to cut it unless anyone objects. Alientraveller 18:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Put in that light, I offer the scalpel, Doctor Traveler. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong guys, I'm all for having a different opinion to the people saying 300 is evil, but to have that comment be so...idiotic...seems unfair as well to the people who might glimmer some positive messages out of this movie like loyalty and friendship. The quote saying that the film is too silly to have a serious point is a far better counter argument to the people hating on it than "The Spartans were standing up for the American way. They are against gay marriage, illegal immigrants, and abortion. You won't find that in a book though. They're all up here *points to head* and not enough here *points to gut*." I'm glad it's going away.DeviantCharles 09:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Further remarks from Cartledge

BTW, there are some further remarks by Paul Cartledge on the film that have yet to be incorporated. He's also been giving a fair number of talks on university campuses about 300 (announcements, but no text, at www.clare.cam.ac.uk/alumni/documents/MODBookingForm2007.pdf, www.fsu.edu/~classics/news06.html, www.yale.edu/classics/lectures.html, www.fak12.uni-muenchen.de/ka/Kolloquiumss07.htm), so I wouldn't be surprised if there's something more detailed forthcoming. --Javits2000 08:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You should add the review written by Eugene Borza for the Archaeological Institute of America http://www.archaeology.org/online/reviews/300.html. I think it's very interesting. He is also a historian like Ephraim Lytle. Also you should remove Slate's Dana Stevens comment and add Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-Times (there is a link above). He is a well known film critic. (unsigned comment by User:85.75.206.124)

President of Iran

How is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's opinion of this movie relevant? Has he even seen it? Someone who wants to wipe Israel off the map and has set a timeline for it, probably doesn't know a damn thing about the Persian Empire. Would you include the opinion of another countries leader for a movie? unsigned post by User: 207.69.139.137

I think it is notable because he commented on the movie. Not too many world leaders comment on popular films. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Arcayne. It's the reputation of the person who is commenting on the film; it doesn't even matter if he never saw it or if he sucks at Persian history. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Order of events

I watched the scene just before editing it (I downloaded the movie, don't tell anyone) and am 100% certain that Xerxes ordered the the attack before Leonidas threw his spear.

Order of events:

1. Xerxes' messenger tells him to kneel
2. Leonidas kneels (scene of Sparta, wolf, queen Gorgo or whatever.)
3. Leonidas tells Spartans to attack while still on his knees
4. Xerxes orders men to kill Spartans
5. Leonidas throws spear

If you remember, their was fighting going all around when Leonidas threw his spear. --Ted87 20:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I won't tell anyone. It will just be a secret between you, me and the 500,000 or so folk who might read this particular Wikipedia. No worries; some of them might not even be cops. :D

Secondly, your order of events doesn't work with what I remember of the movie (I saw it a few times in the theate). I am not doubting your order of events, but the pre-existing edit works better, as it was Leonidas' intent to throw the spear no matter what Xerxes said. Xerxes wasn't planning on killing the Spartans, whichis why he had his messenger offer them one last chance. It was only after the Spartans attacked again that the Persian arrows began to fly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, it is usually a little bit better to suggest an edit to the plot here first, so as to avoid a back-and-forth that this edit has concerned. As well, when you bring hte edit to the Discussion page, you wait a bit to get some feedback before making the edit. I reverted it not because of this (although I feel the pre-existing edit is better) but because the new edit had some grammar and spelling errors, and had flow and logical problems. I would be happy to discuss the matter if you would like to. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Damn cops. Anyways, I see what your saying. I'll watch the scene one more time when I get home to make sure. --Ted87 22:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Lol, they are only damned until you are getting mugged; then you are praying for them to show up. When you are looking over your potential edits, might I suggest you consider bringing them here. It might seem tedious, but the article tends to benefit when considerate folk are working together. Cheers. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Watched scene again. At the order of event are the same: Leonidas kneels, screams something I can't understand (mentions Stelios' name), Stelios jumps out from protection, uses Leondias body to jump and stab Xerxes' messager, Xerxes yells "Slaughter them", arrows and spears fly, Delios narrates about how Leonidas' sheild was heavy and his target was far and whatnot, Leonidas throws spear, the barrage of arrows becomes too much, and the rest is history.

Anyways I finally found verifiable proof. Look at the trailer on 300's offical myspace and you'll see it. --Ted87 07:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't need to; if you say that's the way it went down after making a point of checking on it, that's good enough for me. Can you show us here what edit you would replace it with? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Box office

The article says Studio executives are predicting the film will make over $210,000,000 in North America before its theatrical run concludes. Box Office Mojo says that the movie already made that amount. link Should be updated. --Ted87 17:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

South Park parody

It should be noted that a recent episode of South Park parodied this movie. It was the one where Ms. Garrison(sp?) defends a lesbian bar from Persians with the help of 30 lesbians.

I believe this matter was decided a long time ago. The over-utilization of pop culture will eventually turn the article stale as the article ages. For example, when Casablanca came out, there were print ads that used the film to sell trenchcoats and cigars. Radio shows made satires and copycats of it, and every other Bogart film. You will note that these are not in the film article because they are stale, and have little value beyond the faddish, flavor of the moment appeal. As well, for the most part, they are largely unencyclopedic. This SP episode in particular was not notable enough to include. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)