Talk:Avatar

Gaia Online

The inclusion of Gaia Online seems to be irrelevant to the subject of avatars. I've decided to remove it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.48.222.168 (talk • contribs).

• Adding dated signature so this will eventually archive --MegaSloth (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Spurious Carl Sagan comment

The comment...

"This dating in the Puranas was noted by Carl Sagan to be surprisingly accurate in comparison to estimates of the Sun imploding and thus ending life on earth."

...is clearly spurious. Carl Sagan has talked about the end of the life of the sun coming in several billions of years, not just over 400,000 years from now. The only Hindu time scale comments I could find from him are from an interview at http://www.rediff.com/news/jan/29sagan.htm where he finds it interesting that some Hindu epics use a time frame of billions of years while Western creation epics talk in thousands of years. His comments are directed at multi billion year cycles, not half million year cycles.

I am going to remove the comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aecarol (talk • contribs)

• Adding dated signature so this will eventually archive --MegaSloth (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Srimad Bhagavatam List

Maybe some of the original verses from the Bhagavata-Purana can be incorporated?

Srimad Bhagavatam, Canto 1, Chapter 3:

Suta said: In the beginning of the creation, the Lord first expanded Himself in the universal form of the purusha incarnation and manifested all the ingredients for the material creation. And thus at first there was the creation of the sixteen principles of material action. This was for the purpose of creating the material universe.

A part of the purusha lies down within the water of the universe, from the navel lake of His body sprouts a lotus stem, and from the lotus flower atop this stem, Brahma, the master of all engineers in the universe, becomes manifest.

It is believed that all the universal planetary systems are situated on the extensive body of the purusha, but He has nothing to do with the created material ingredients. His body is eternally in spiritual existence par excellence.

The devotees, with their perfect eyes, see the transcendental form of the purusha who has thousands of legs, thighs, arms and faces -- all extraordinary. In that body there are thousands of heads, ears, eyes and noses. They are decorated with thousands of helmets and glowing earrings and are adorned with garlands.

This form (the second manifestation of the purusha) is the source and indestructible seed of multifarious incarnations within the universe. From the particles and portions of this form, different living entities, like demigods, men and others, are created.

First of all, in the beginning of creation, there were the four unmarried sons of Brahma (the Kumaras), who, being situated in a vow of celibacy, underwent severe austerities for realization of the Absolute Truth.

The supreme enjoyer of all sacrifices accepted the incarnation of a boar (the second incarnation), and for the welfare of the earth He lifted the earth from the nether regions of the universe.Varaha

In the millennium of the rishis, the Personality of Godhead accepted the third empowered incarnation in the form of Devarshi Narada, who is a great sage among the demigods. He collected expositions of the Vedas which deal with devotional service and which inspire nonfruitive action.

In the fourth incarnation, the Lord became Nara and Narayana, the twin sons of the wife of King Dharma. Thus He undertook severe and exemplary penances to control the senses.

The fifth incarnation, named Lord Kapila, is foremost among perfected beings. He gave an exposition of the creative elements and metaphysics to Asuri Brahmana, for in course of time this knowledge had been lost.

The sixth incarnation of the purusha was the son of the sage Atri. He was born from the womb of Anasuya, who prayed for an incarnation. He spoke on the subject of transcendence to Alarka, Prahlada and others [Yadu, Haihaya, etc.].

The seventh incarnation was Yajna, the son of Prajapati Ruci and his wife Akuti. He controlled the period during the change of the Svayambhuva Manu and was assisted by demigods such as His son Yama.

The eighth incarnation was King Rishabha, son of King Nabhi and his wife Merudevi. In this incarnation the Lord showed the path of perfection, which is followed by those who have fully controlled their senses and who are honored by all orders of life.

O brahmanas, in the ninth incarnation, the Lord, prayed for by sages, accepted the body of a king [Prithu] who cultivated the land to yield various produces, and for that reason the earth was beautiful and attractive.

When there was a complete inundation after the period of the Cakshusha Manu and the whole world was deep within water, the Lord accepted the form of a fish and protected Vaivasvata Manu, keeping him up on a boat.

The eleventh incarnation of the Lord took the form of a tortoise whose shell served as a pivot for the Mandaracala Hill, which was being used as a churning rod by the theists and atheists of the universe.

In the twelfth incarnation, the Lord appeared as Dhanvantari, and in the thirteenth He allured the atheists by the charming beauty of a woman and gave nectar to the demigods to drink.

In the fourteenth incarnation, the Lord appeared as Nrisimha and bifurcated the strong body of the atheist Hiranyakasipu with His nails, just as a carpenter pierces cane.

In the fifteenth incarnation, the Lord assumed the form of a dwarf-brahmana Vamana and visited the arena of sacrifice arranged by Maharaja Bali. Although at heart He was willing to regain the kingdom of the three planetary systems, He simply asked for a donation of three steps of land.

In the sixteenth incarnation of the Godhead, the Lord as Bhrigupati annihilated the administrative class kshatriyas twenty-one times, being angry with them because of their rebellion against the brahmanas the intelligent class.

Thereafter, in the seventeenth incarnation of Godhead, Sri Vyasadeva appeared in the womb of Satyavati through Parasara Muni, and he divided the one Veda into several branches and subbranches, seeing that the people in general were less intelligent.

In the eighteenth incarnation, the Lord appeared as King Rama. In order to perform some pleasing work for the demigods, He exhibited superhuman powers by controlling the Indian Ocean and then killing the atheist King Ravana, who was on the other side of the sea.

In the nineteenth and twentieth incarnations, the Lord advented Himself as Lord Balarama and Lord Krishna in the family of Vrishni [the Yadu dynasty], and by so doing He removed the burden of the world.

Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Anjana, in the province of Gaya, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist.

Thereafter, at the conjunction of two yugas, the Lord of the creation will take His birth as the Kalki incarnation and become the son of Vishnu Yasa. At this time the rulers of the earth will have degenerated into plunderers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.32.210 (talk • contribs)

---

I have deleted the image of vishnu with its 10 avataras as one of them is that of the Buddha. The thought that Buddha is a vishnu avatara is repugnant to all buddhists. Buddha can never be an avatara of vishnu. Buddha was an ardent critic of Rigvedic religion ( now called as Hindu religion). The obstinate attempt to appropriate the name of Buddha by Bhramins (the priestly class of Hindus)is malicious. Gravely threatened by the onslaught of Buddhism which had almost destroyed the stranglehold of Bhramins over the society, they started usurping the Buddhas religion by calling him an Avatar of Visnu, in order to destroy buddhism,(Buddhism is highly critical of Bhramin supremacy and the foundation of hinduism, The Caste System). This started when the Bhramin commander, Piyushmitra shunga, of the last Mauryan Emperor,assasinated the king and took over the throne. He systematically started the persecution of Buddhist monks leading to partial annhilation of buddhism in India. Read Babasaheb Ambedkars Thoughts on the same subject on http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/19A.Revolution%20and%20Counter%20Rev.in%20Ancient%20India%20PART%20I.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.170.10.119 (talk • contribs)

• Adding dated signature so this will eventually archive --MegaSloth (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Current Yuga

"satya yuga, the time period in which we currently exist, which will end in the year 428899 CE" This is a misapprehension. Which was corrected by the jnanavatar Sri Yukteswar Giri, in his book "The Holy Science", he points out that a kali yuga lasts only 1200 years, and not.. some ridiculous number as is stated here. This is obvious of course.. we no longer live in a dark age, but an atomic age, or dwapara yuga. According to this "incarnation of wisdom" who indeed has displayed more knowledge of vedic astrology than anyone else as far as I know, kali yuga ended in 1700. I just felt that this should be pointed out.

Btw, what the eff happened to the article? As I was posting this comment it suddenly vanished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.49.37.154 (talk • contribs)

• Adding dated signature so this will eventually archive --MegaSloth (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move: Avatar → Avatar (Hinduism)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was No consensus for move. KelleyCook (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Avatar → Avatar (Hinduism) — It's doubtful that the original meaning of "Avatar" is still the main use of the word "Avatar" in English. Neal Stephenson co-opt of it, Avatar (computing) is probably already the most prevalent form. And mistaken hits to the original definition will only get worse with the new big budget Hollywood "Avatar (2009 film)" movie coming out in a few weeks. So I propose that generic links of Avatar go to the disambiguation page. -- KelleyCook (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Avatar (disambiguation) → Avatar

• Neutral. Similar move was done here Talk:Xenos. Amazon also shows p residence for this move. Oldag07 (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

For the purposes of discussion, a Google search of the word "Avatar", other than the Wikipedia entry has nothing on the first page to deal with the Hinduism. Similar results can be seen with bing. Oldag07 (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

That can be a case of WP:Recentism as the film gets more hits recently. While the meaning of the Greek Xenos may be less known as Greek religion is dead, the Hindu avatar is frequently used in Hinduism. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Changed to neutral. I do support putting up the Avatar (2009 film) hatnote, but I am not going to fight it.Oldag07 (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose While Avatar has several derivative uses in popular culture, its primary meaning is still connected with Hinduism, especially in sources that discuss the subject rather than just casually use it as a buzzword. This is the only meaning of the term that Britannica even has an article on, and is the primary definition provided by OED ("Hindu Myth. The descent of a deity to the earth in an incarnate form"). Compare with Guru, which again has entered popular culture and has 5 similarly titled movies; or resurrection with dozens of similarly named comics and movies. Abecedare (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: the word has been coopted for popular reasons before and will no doubt be coopted again...probably right after the James Cameron movie. The original meaning of the word is unchanged, and just as important as ever for about 750 million to 1 billion people, not to mention billions that preceded them. It would be unfortunate to make this change based on the current usage of the word by a fraction of persons so small it is statistically a blackhead on the back of an elephant. Let's be sensible.. --Nemonoman (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: Hindu deity meaning is the only meaning in Oxford Dictionary. It is also the primary meaning in other encyclopedias [1][2]EncartaMerriam Webster. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Avoidance of WP:Recentism may also explain why OED and Britannica stick with a meaning that's been used for perhaps two millennia, compared to two decades. We should do the same. Priyanath ^talk 07:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support As a term that's been in use for over 20 years I don't think [[WP:Recentism] applies. It's precisely because most people know it as Avatar (computing) that James Cameron and others have been able to use it. And Wikipedia by it's nature going to reflect changes in language and word usage before other dictionaries and encyclopaedias, which are anyway not good secondary sources. JohnBlackburne (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note The very first sentence at WP:Recentism begins "Recentism is the practice of some Wikipedians to edit articles without regard to long-term historical perspective,..." Because of the historical meaning of Avatar, "most people" would therefore include the billion in India and countless others throughout the world who have, and continue to, use the historical meaning. Priyanath ^talk 20:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment:

• As a term that's been in use for over 20 years (by a very few persons, comparatively -- with the other couple of billion persons, the term has been in use for about 5000 years).
• And Wikipedia by it's nature going to reflect changes in language and word usage before other dictionaries and encyclopaedias, which are anyway not good secondary sources. -- But this is not a question of article content, but of primary meaning, so a dictionary would be an entirely reasonable source.
• The Wikipedia article Avatar (computing) begins:

  An avatar (अवतार, from the Sanskrit word for "a form of self", commonly used in many Indian languages)

  -- in other words, explaining its origins by describing this article. Let's not put the cart in front of the horse. Let's not have the tail wag the dog. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per the above arguments. I fail to see how it is primarily a Hindu concept. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't this explanation imply you support the move? -- KelleyCook (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
    • My bad. I wanted to convey how it is not primarily a Hindu concept when it is clearly is. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above arguments of Abecedare and Nemonomon--Sodabottle (talk) 04:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per explanations from Abecedare, Nemonomon and Redtigerxyz. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 04:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per the persuasive rationale presented by Nemonoman, Abecedare, Redtigerxyz et al. -SpacemanSpiff 04:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support per traffic stats: the disambiguation gets more than half the hits of the base-name page, so more people are looking for something else than are looking for this meaning. No primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• It's worth looking at long term statistics to prevent spikes caused by short-term Hollywood PR campaigns dictating our judgment about encyclopedicity. Compare, for example the page view stats from a year back: Avatar = 89000; Avatar (disambiguation) = 26000; Avatar (2009 film)=2 Abecedare (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support per JHunterJ and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support this will make disambiguation so much easier Josh Parris 21:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• Rhetorical Questions: How long do you think Avatar (2009 film) will be a topic of significant interest? 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) currently outranks 2001 in popularity, yet 2001 remains the primary topic? Why? Is it because the movie takes its name from the year? And not vice versa?--Nemonoman (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Another example: both RMS Titanic and Titanic (1997 film) (the biggest of all James Cameron films) get around 200-300K/month hits ([3] and [4]), bu Titanic still correctly redirects to the passenger ship. The case for Avatar is by far more clearcut. Abecedare (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Also compare:

• Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (72000 views) vs Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film) (183000 views)
• The Lord of the Rings (162000 views) vs The Lord of the Rings film trilogy (114000 views)

As expected, in none of these cases do we let popularity trump sources or our goal of building an encyclopedia. Abecedare (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • Multiple answers to really poorly constructed strawman: 2001 had to be since it was a year link and you really don't get into the WP:MOSDAB fight. Titanic is obvious, since Titanic (the movie) was a movie about Titanic (the ship). Ditto the movies that came directly from books. However a Computer (Avatar) is not directly Hindu religion. Count the Google hits on Avatar the vast, vast majority of the uses are not referring to religion. Fortunately English is a language that is allowed to evolve and it really doesn't matter where the name came from (see "assassin", "barbarian", "salary".
    • The Computer alter-ego definition is, by far, the most widely used in today's English language and gaining greater acceptance ( http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_user_ldate=1990&as_user_hdate=2008&q=avatar&scoring=a&hl=en&ned=us&q=avatar&lnav=od&btnG=Go ). Here is a nice link (from a writer with a PhD in religion) from April about the word's journey into common usage. Meanwhile why would you two revert obvious changes like putting a HAT at the top, unless you knew you were being wrongheaded except to be obstinate? Personally, the stats say Avatar (computing) should be the main link. But when reasonable people disagree on what is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC moving to a disambiguation page is the answer. It is the reason they exist. -- KelleyCook (talk) 01:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
      • If I might, the Avatar of Vishnu isn't going to be in the news, it's reasonable to assume that the news only includes current topics, and Google news archives go to documenting current topics from the past few decades at best. -SpacemanSpiff 02:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Were in full agreement that the old definition is not going to be in the news. But this wasn't a GoogleWar arguement, it was deeper than that. The point is look at the graph, use of the word "Avatar" in news items has been steadily growing each and every year. Thus showing the new meaning has been coming into common usage and is not "merely recentism". (Also there is a reason I did not include 2009 as thats bound to get skewed by the movie) -- KelleyCook (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment WP:PRIMARYTOPIC can change as the readership's needs (and passing fancies) change. WP:RECENTISM covers article coverage (the content of the articles); it does not say that a topic that is not the most likely destination gets to be primary as long as it's not recent. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose As per the arguments of Abecedare and Nemonomon. All the other meanings of Avatar example as in computing are derived from the Sanskrit root word Avatar. The Hindu usage carries a greater significant meaning and long standing history. Avatar (computing) should be considered a word of recent usage. The recent usage of Avatar (computing) may disappear because of cultural changes. However the significance of Avatar (Sanskrit usage) would not change. Saravana Kumar K (talk) 08:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

  Being the source of derived terms is not a criterion for "primary-topicness" on Wikipedia. Primary topic on Wikipedia is determined by usage, not history. Earliest, most recent, most important, biggest, etc., are only useful in as much as they influence usage of that meaning. If the current division of usage (i.e., lack of primary topic) later changes so that once again only one meaning has significant usage, then that article could then be moved to the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

  The sanskrit usage (original term) may not carry significance for non-indians. Contrary to your understanding, the real meaning of Avatar in India still has not lost its importance. When it makes importance to more than 1 billion people around the world, this cannot be ignored as non primary usage of the word. The computing concept I'd still consider as WP:RECENTISM when compared to the usage of Avatar in the Indian sense.Saravana Kumar K (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

  To examine why Avatar_(2009 film) is a case of WP:RECENTISM and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies to Avatar Hindu usage. Go back to page stats 2009/05: disambig: 35886 [5], Avatar_(computing): 44934 [6], Avatar_(2009 film): 7 [7], Avatar (this page): 91490 [8] - let us assume that all who visited disambig - visited this page: that leaves 55 604 visitors who only viewed this page. 2009/06: computing: 37979, disambig: 69595, this page: 111723 (42k - worst case for this page alone), the film: 150697 (Since there are more hits to film than this page, not all people took the Avatar -> disambig -> film path). The page views stats of film increase as the release date nears. Til 2009/05, this page has had more hits than computing, 2009 film, disambig articles. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

  Right, 55604 who reach this page and intended to (back in May) is comparable to the 44934 who reached Avatar (computing) and intended to (back in May). Neither is "much more used than any other", so there was no primary topic then, and less so now, so the disambiguation page should be at the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

  I do not think you understand my understanding. The importance of the "real" (or rather, original) meaning of "avatar" in India is important in determining the primary topic of "avatar" on Wikipedia only in as much as it affects the usage. Which is what I said. WP:RECENTISM is a guideline/policy on article content. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is a guideline/policy on article naming. They are not in conflict. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

  55604 is a worst case number. We may never know how many more visited this page alone. It is not necessary that all people take the (Avatar -> disambig -> computing) path as reasoned in the film case, as reasoned. Also, WP:RECENTISM is linked as it documents reasons why some articles may get more hits in recent history. Moreover, notable dictionaries and encyclopedias use this page's meaning as the primary meaning (sometimes, only meaning as in case of Britannica and Oxford). --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

  We also may never know how many more visited this page when intending one of the others and left without going to the dab page. 55604 is the number we get to work with, and it's not worst case. I know why recentism was linked; I simply pointed out that it was not at odds with primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 05:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Avatar the dab page sitting at primary isn't placing the computer avatar in place of the Hindu one, it's placing the neutral dab page there, which does not conflict with RECENTISM, while also allowing PRIMARYTOPIC easy access. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• support would make disambiguation much useful. --CarTick 02:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia:Recentism, respecting the "historical perspectives", the original usage in Hinduism, subsequent usages can always be accessed through dab page. Thanks! --Ekabhishek^talk 02:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Again the essay (not policy) about recentism doesn't apply to a definition 17 years old (read about the ten year test in that essay). There might be a news spike from the movie, but not the definition that use of the word that the movie's title comes from. -- KelleyCook (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes it absolutely does - the essay asks what will be the most common use "In ten years". Considering how recently the pop use of "Avatar" has become 'pop', compared to the thousands-of-years old usage, it's a legitimate question, with an answer that we legitimately (AGF) disagree upon. Priyanath ^talk 18:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
      • "... we legitimately disagree upon" is the exact reason it the Main Article should go to a disambiguation page, to (imagine that!) disambiguate the word. -- KelleyCook (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
        • A page move requires consensus. Two Wikipedia editors legitimately disagreeing (and assuming good faith on my part, which was my point) is not enough. Priyanath ^talk 21:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Per above. Its usage in Hinduism is the original meaning and more well-known outside of a group of specialists, even if there are less links to it. There may for example (not sure if its true or not but that isn't relevant) be more links to Apple Inc. than to Apple the fruit. The software company might be more extensively covered than the fruit on Wikipedia because a high percentage of the Wikipedian demographic are fans of technology and that there is simply more to write about the company than a type of fruit. But that does not make the company more notable than the fruit. Nor does it rebut the common sense presumption that the original meaning of the word, unless it has completely fallen out of usage in the modern era, should be the main article with that name. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 21:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • For the sake of discussion, Apple Inc, is Apple Inc, not Apple (corporation). Oldag07 (talk) 04:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Which also happens to render that argument moot. -- KelleyCook (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
      • How does it? It simply means that the Apple example isn't quite the same as Avatar. But the reasoning still applies. To use a better example, Guru still refers to the religious sense of the word, even though there are many famous pop-culture references (see Guru (disambiguation)) and it now has an adapted meaning in English (spiritual teacher has become master or expert).
      • Suggestion Because both sides are fairly polar on this issue, I suppose a compromise would be to move Avatar to the alternative spelling/pronunciation of Avatara. This is similar to how Pundit is a disambiguation page but the Indian meaning is at the uncommon spelling of Pandit (though in terms of literal transliteration more accurate). "Avatar" can then be a disambig. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 00:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

        I think a compromise is a great idea, and from a disambiguation point of view, your proposal works fine. From that POV, finding another unambiguous name is the same whether the new name is disambiguated with a parenthetical phrase or with an alternate spelling. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

        • I am neutral on the top of the page, but I could definitely support this suggestion. Oldag07 (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Still OpposeAs per the discussion and various examples cited, Avarar should point to the original sanskrit meaning. This is also as per the policies of Wikipedia. Just because one part of the world is familiar with only one meaning of Avarar, a historical meaning that is still in heavy usage in India and from which all other words have been derived can't be ignored.Saravana Kumar K (talk) 07:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Another example of the Wikipedia plain-name page being not the original meaning and not a disambig, is page Tank, which is about the army vehicle, although the word "tank" at first meant "artificial lake in India", and nowadays most commonly means some types of container. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment re: Tank: Just because some pages get it mixed up doesn't mean that THIS page needs to follow suit. --Nemonoman (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The Tank example isn't really a valid comparison because of the lack of significance or importance of the word "tank" or "tanki" in the Indian context. A comparison to Avatar would be Messiah, which rightly takes one to the Biblical concept and not to Messiah (Handel) or a disambiguation. The Biblical concept is of course more familiar to most of our western editors, while certain Hindu concepts are obviously not, but that doesn't make them any less significant. Quite obviously, one isn't going to say that all religious terms have equal importance, but in this case, there are enough well-minded editors who have weighed in with the subject matter knowledge. The argument for moving that has significant merit is presented by JHunterJ, but I disagree with it in this situation based on this explanation. -SpacemanSpiff 04:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• It isn't the film that is why this page should be moved. The use of the word Messiah for Handel's music piece is not nearly as big as Avatar (computing). A term that I believe is the linchpin in the argument in moving this page. As mentioned earlier Amazon might be a more appropriate page for comparison. I quote Yamara from that page "Since the myth, the river and the company all seem equally notable, surely making Amazon a disambiguation page is self-explanatory. . . . Amazon River was named for the legendary tribe, and Amazon.com was, in turn, named for the River."
• I personally heard of the word, "avatar" first in relationship to computing, not hinduism. I would guess that the western non-hindu world, sees the term by its computing definition, not the hindu definition. However this is a global encyclopedia. Hinduism is a large religion. And only a minority the world's population has access to a computer that can render avatar is. Hence, why i have my initial vote on the subject as neutral. Oldag07 (talk) 06:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move to Avatara

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no move. Consensus at this time does not support a page move as proposed. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Avatar → Avatara — Using an alternate English spelling of the Sanskrit word will allow for the disambiguation of the other form of the English word that has multiple meanings. This was suggested by Gizza [9] --KelleyCook (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Avatar (disambiguation) → Avatar

• Support: as above, the disambiguation page should be at the base name, since there is currently no primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: a significant number of wikipedia pages already link to Avatara already. Oldag07 (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Most people call it an avatar. Move Avatar to Avatar (Hinduism). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You might want to look above since a request for moving Avatar to Avatar (Hindusism) was just closed hours ago.--76.69.166.88 (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Closed by the nominator in order to list this here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: The closing was after nine days of discussion, when seven is the recommended timeframe. I could have relisted it, but instead I opened this modified request in hopes for gaining more consensus. -- KelleyCook (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose As was discussed above, the concept of Avatar in Hinduism is the primary topic for the term; being the only/primary ^{correction appended} term that is even covered by Britannica, Encarta, Oxford English dictionary, Merriam-Webster etc. Secondly, Avatar/Avatara are just two transliterations of the same term, and no source suggests any difference in meanings; as such Avatar and Avatara should point to the same article. Finally, avatar seems to be more popular in English (that is the only spelling mentioned in OED), and has 10x hits on JSTOR compared to avatara - so I prefer the current arrangement. Abecedare (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

  As was discussed above, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC isn't about the oldest or original topic; it's about the one that is more widely used by the readership than any other. Since no one of the "avatar" topic are more widely used than the others, there is no primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

  I know we have a good faith difference about this, but I want to clarify one point about my view: I am not arguing (and never had) that oldest/original use makes something a primary topic. My argument is based on what other reliable sources consider to be the primary use of the term, which in my opinion, is what wikipedia content should always be based on. Abecedare (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: You should check your "reliable sources". The are certainly do not use the Hinduism definition as the "only term that is even covered" Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster, Encarta all give multiple definitions for the word "Avatar". Moreover Cambridge advanced learners dictionary, and the Google dictionary and dictionary.net EXCLUSIVELY use the computing definition of the word not the Hindu version. It would only seem that the Oxford dictionary exclusively defines the word by its Hindu version. Oldag07 (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the corrections; while Britannica and OED do not talk about the use of the term in computing, M-W does provide that as a secondary definitions (Encarta unfortunately is now extinct, so I cannot link to the original article on Avatar). I have corrected my post above. Abecedare (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, for being aggressive. . . Oldag07 (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose as before. Copy-paste: "Hindu deity meaning is the only meaning in Oxford Dictionary. It is also the primary [first] meaning in other encyclopedias [10][11]EncartaMerriam Webster." --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: This is quickly becoming a nuisance topic. I suggest move-proposers give the matter a rest. --Nemonoman (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

  This is another good indication that there is no primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait just a darn minute: WHAT exactly is "another good indication that there is no primary topic"? My comment notes that you couldn't win a consensus, so you're back again with an even LESS useful suggestion. Why don't we change the name of Avatar (computing) to Avatara (digital computational) while we're at it? For pete sake. --Nemonoman (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)"." Correction: I'm not back again; User:KelleyCook proposed one move, closed it (possibly prematurely), and proposed the alternative move as suggested by User:DaGizza. I'm just casting my !vote in each, and explaining the primary topic guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The current usage is the primary one per consensus (above), OED, and Britannica. The current spelling is also the predominant one by a wide margin — as Abecedare points out and real life also bears out. While a compromise would be nice, in this case it would be neither accurate or elegant. Priyanath ^talk 00:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

  There was no consensus above on the current usage being primary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

  If that's true, then that discussion was closed prematurely — though Britannica's and OED's primary usage of "Avatar" is quite convincing. This discussion is almost moot, since "avatara" clearly isn't the commonly used spelling in English. Priyanath ^talk 03:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

  The above discussion may have been closed prematurely, but it was closed as "no consensus for move", not "consensus is the current usage is primary". Britannica and OED may have different ways to determine their namings; as far as I know, they don't have a disambiguation project. Since there is no primary topic, the disambiguation page should be moved to the base name. This article would then need to be disambiguated, either by a parenthetical phrase (as suggested above) or by using a different name. If common name dictates "avatar" here (and I suspect it would), then a parenthetical phrase is needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks — I understand the discussion. I just think, like several others, that the reliable sources with the most weight support the current Primary usage of Avatar for this article — and thus the current hatnote is perfectly sufficient for directing readers to the other uses. Priyanath ^talk 03:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

  WP:PRIMARYTOPIC isn't about article content (while WP:RS is). Primary topic is currently determined by Wikipedia readership use for the ambiguous article title. Incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere, Wikipedia article traffic statistics, and Google web, news, scholar, or book searches may help to determine it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

  The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline isn't as definitive as you make it out to be. The guideline doesn't come close to saying that that "Primary topic is currently determined by Wikipedia readership use". The guideline only says, somewhat vaguely, "Tools that may help determine a primary topic, but are not determining factors, include...." (first italics are in the original, second are mine). In the end, it is determined by the editors on the talk page, just as we are doing here, using WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as a guideline, "though it is best treated with common sense", which would clearly include using reliable sources to help determine a primary topic. Britannica and OED are easily the most reliable sources for primary word usage and in fact the only clearly non-arbitrary 'opinions' in this entire discussion. Priyanath ^talk 18:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

  I would argue that Merriam-Webster and the [Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary] are of equal authority to the Britannica and OED, latter of which doesn't use the Hindu definition at all. Oldag07 (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

  I would disagree. Britannica for encyclopedias and OED for dictionaries are the Crème de la Crème. Even Merriam-Webster gives this page's meaning as definitions number 1. and 2. The "Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary" is a bit of a joke if it doesn't even mention the main usage, source, or origin of Avatar. Priyanath ^talk 20:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

  The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary is a basic dictionary directed towards high-schoolers learning English as a secondary/foreign language, and intending to take English competency exams, such as IELTS. The "advanced" in its name is to distinguish it from more basic dictionaries in the series that are intended for primary, and middle-schoolers. Abecedare (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

  Still, the fact that the word's computing definition is prominent enough to be put in a children's dictionary, does suggest the term's importance. Oldag07 (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

  The guideline is definitive; the measures are not (and I have not made them out to be any more definitive than they are). Britannica and OED are not Wikipedia; Because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover -- and because Britannica and OED have chosen to limit their coverage, they do not have to deal with this question of disambiguation or primary topic. So their coverage of one of the topics is not a reliable source for what the primary topic on Wikipedia should be. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

  The guideline describes "the process of resolving conflicts in Wikipedia article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic" in language that is anything but definitive — using ambiguous (couldn't help it) phrasing such as "that may be a sign...", "Tools that may help determine a primary topic", "In some cases, the primary topic may be...", "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense...", etc. If the guideline were definitive, we wouldn't still be having this discussion. Britannica and OED are not Wikipedia, but the aforementioned common sense says they are a very good reality check on all of the opinions being presented here — and they may have professionals at their helm who know a thing or two about word usage, primary and otherwise. Priyanath ^talk 21:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

  The aforementioned common sense does not say that Wikipedia must follow Britannica and OED. Because Wikipedia is not one of those paper products, common sense (and not just following their example) must be used. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

  The aforementioned guideline also does not say that Wikipedia must follow any specific factor, whether it be blindly following traffic stats and g-hits or seeing what the (typically maligned) experts say, in this case in the field of word usage. Getting away from wikilawyering, so arguably off-topic: I think the underlying issue is the clash between pop culture aficionados and those looking at this from the broader perspective of humanities and world culture. See this article[12] which alludes to the "uneven coverage of topics in science and humanities" compared to coverage of pop culture. Priyanath ^talk 16:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

  It's not a pop-culture thing. The computer-interface usage is not pop culture. But it's irrelevant: pop culture, religious culture, information age culture, they all are allowed to contribute to the primary topic decision. We've got an ambiguous term "avatar" and no clear primary topic based on usage. If our readership slants pop or tech, then there's no need to try to edify them by putting an extra article that they won't read in front of them. (And my "side" in the clash is none of the sides you list -- I have no background with any of the "avatar" articles, only with the disambiguation project.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks for (I think) reading the article. Whether its the readership of Wikipedia that leans toward pop culture, or its editors, or both, it's an issue that will continue to be brought up by the more educated media. And no, I wasn't alluding to you personally having a dog in the 'avatar' clash - I'm aware that your interest is in disambiguation in general. It was only a musing based on seeing this directly relevant (imo) issue yet again covered by the (non-pop culture) media. Priyanath ^talk 17:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

  The way I understand it, Avatar's computing usage is a very recent, and until recently limited to the computer literate. Certainly Cameron's new movie will help push the new definition into the standard lexicon. While it might not be appropriate to make the dab the primary page yet, there is definitely reason to believe sometime in the future that the term's new definition will be seen in future revisions of Britannica (if it doesn't go broke) and OED. Evidence can definitely be seen in the less, but STILL authoritative sources mentioned above. Does the computing definition AT THIS MOMENT have enough sway to push the Hindu definition out of the primary topic spot? I have made my opinion clear, but I certainly understand people who disagree with me. Oldag07 (talk) 02:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

  Based on the article traffic, yes, at this moment there is no primary topic. The disambiguation gets more than half the hits of the base-name page, so more people are looking for something else than are looking for this meaning. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral on changing avatar to avatara. but per my recent references mentioned above. support now closed discussion. Oldag07 (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose/ Support Avatar is the primary spelling of world. However, as my research suggested, the discussion of the primary topic is far from done. We should reopen the discussion above. It clearly was not finished. Oldag07 (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per the reasons stated in the above discussion, and in addition, this not even being the common name/translation. -SpacemanSpiff 01:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support there is no primary usage, the dab page should be at the primary name. 76.66.194.154 (talk) 05:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment -- and note to JHunterJ: Please get on topic: This discussion is about moving Avatar to Avatara. The discussion about whether Avatar should be a landing disambiguation page was held and closed. And there is virtually no reason at all to change the title of this article - a term used by millions - to a title used by nobody. It certainly doesn't improve disambiguation, and in fact would make disambiguation to this topic a nightmare. That one editor (you, primarily) still forcefully tries to beat this dead horse is NOT a true indication of the vitality of the topic. Your Primary Topic arguments are not relevant to this this discussion--unless you are arguing that everybody commonly uses the word Avatara when Avatar is meant. --Nemonoman (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

  Please examine the proposal (and the earlier one) again. Each discussion is about two things: moving Avatar to another name (first Avatar (Hinduism) and now Avatara) and moving the disambiguation page to the base name. Since there is no primary topic on Wikipedia for "avatar", the disambiguation page should be at the base name. Since the disambiguation page should be at the base name, the article at the base name needs a new name. I have no opinion on what that new name should be. And I'm not the only editor to observe that there's no primary topic here -- I've just been the most active in trying to recap the Wikipedia policy on primary topic where it appears to be unclear. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks-I actually have read this proposal and the one made previous which was closed as no consensus. And I see no consensus arising in this discussion either. And so, may we expect another proposal after this one fails? To move Avatar to Avatar (Incarnated Hindu Diety)? And following that to Mahavatara? Etc? Etc? When does this crusade end? --Nemonoman (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

  The crusade to improve Wikipedia? I hope it never ends. We could simply hold a RM to move the dab page to the base name, and if that has consensus, then the determination of the new name for this page could be made as a separate decision, since there is discord as to what the new name should be if this isn't primary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: The Britannica and OED arguements are false. Also Encarta is online and the computer usage is mentioned there: http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?lextype=3&search=avatar. I disagree with the assertion about Enc. Britannica. See http://www.britannica.com/bps/search?query=avatar Yes, their esteemed editor haven't blessed this new usage worthy of an encyclopedia article yet. But please note that list also shows "Playstation Home", "Second Life", "Nintendo Wii", "online gaming (computer science)", "World of Warcraft", "The Virtual World of Online Gaming", and other entries. So the writers at The Encylopædia clearly have recognized the new usage. Next up AskOxford.com which was sited before is not the actual Oxford English Dictionary. It is the Compact Oxford English Dictionary and it happens to be the 2005 edition. The fact that it is not in the print edition of the OED should also not be a definitive argurement as it was last published in 1989 with final supplements added in 1993 and 1997. This new usage is, in fact, in their subscription-only online Oxford English Dictionary http://oed.com which is considered the most up-to-date reference. It is also mentioned Entymology online http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=avatar&searchmode=none It mentions new usage dating back to 1992. For that matter check out One Look which links to a lot of online resources -- http://www.onelook.com/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/bware/dofind.cgi?word=avatar Unsurprisingly, newer ones use the new definition, older ones don't. The point is this usage of the word is 17 years old and has been steadily growing, to the point the old definition can no longer be considered a definitive WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- KelleyCook (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

  If multiple usages at an Encarta dictionary word article were an argument for a dab page here, then our Tank article should be a dab page (which would be absurd, imo). In fact, Encarta has the 'armored vehicle' dicdef all the way down at #6.[13] Britannica is not only an encyclopedia, but arguably the most vetted, reviewed, and authoritative one — "It is widely regarded as the most scholarly of encyclopaedias" if you believe Wikipedia :-). Priyanath ^talk 23:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Move Avatar (disambiguation) to Avatar (and Avatar to an appropriately disambiguated term yet to be agreed) per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and JHunterJ's comments. The current page is clearly an important use of the term, however I am not persuaded by the evidence suggested to support it being primary topic per the provisions of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline. Avatara appears to be a suitable location for this article per WP:NCDAB as this alternate transliteration is highly likely to refer to this meaning alone, although I would support parenthetical disambiguation equally happily. I suggest a redirect to this page from Avatar (Hinduism) or similar in addition, as this will aid searching using autocomplete. Arguments based on its use by billions of people for thousands of years forget this is English Wikipedia; it is current usage in English, primarily by readers of English Wikipedia that is in question here; WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is part of the disambiguation guidelines and as such is a measure introduced for convenience rather than to establish a hierarchy of importance, which Wikipedia does not do. WP:RECENTISM could arguably be applied to Avatar (2009 film), in as far as it applies to disambiguation, but not to Avatar (computing), which according to http://stats.grok.se/ had half the hits of Avatar before the recent blip, presumably attributable to the film. Even assuming all the visitors to Avatar wanted the meaning in Hinduism (which seems unlikely to me), a ratio of around 2:1 is sufficiently small to indicate no primary topic. --MegaSloth (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• IMPORTANT:PLEASE, Please stop this madness. This request to move Avatar to Avatara is being used to reargue the Primary topic dispute. I understand the desire to rehash the dispute -- but the ACTUAL REQUEST, to move Avatar to Avatara is simply unacceptable. Avatara is not standard English spelling (I'll bet that 99% of the links to Avatara were made in articles whose editors had English as a second language). Avatara is clearly not what most english-speakers people will enter if looking for the incarnation article. The results of THIS move request would very bad - the originally proposed Avatar (Hinduism) is much more sane. If they want to rehash the original results, I implore the Move crowd to relist their ORIGINAL MOVE REQUEST for Avatar (Hinduism) -- that request was rational and reasonable compared to this request, which is a bizarre travesty. For the good of Wikipedia, please close this move request, and if you must rehash, PLEASE use Avatar (Hinduism) as the basis. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • There is no need to open a separate debate - if it is proposed within a debate and gains consensus, the result of the move proposal can be (and often is) a move to a page name other than the one originally proposed. Really it's pointless closing and opening debates when there is no consensus on whether there is a need for a move. If people should come to a consensus that this page is not the primary topic, I would expect it to be relatively simple to pick the appropriate alternative. Discussing the primary topic here is neither "rearguing" nor "rehashing" - the closer of the previous, unresolved debate is the opener of this one, by his own admission as a continuation of that debate. Perhaps it would have been better simply to propose the new target within the old debate, but it has been done this way now. I have edited my !vote declaration to show what part of the proposal I support (already mentioned in the justification). --MegaSloth (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: So let me get this straight: The original discussion lasted 2 days longer than it should have, but it was closed prematurely. The original discussion had no consensus, but this discussion -- which has virtually the same players -- will not be closed until consensus is reached (which means, apparently, it stays open until the "movers" are good and ready") -- the seven day limit is a quaint nicety that doesn't obtain in this Important Case. The proposal is to move Avatar to Avatara -- except it's not. When the movers decide a consensus for a move has been reached, however long from now that happens to be, then the losers will have a chance to call this article something else, so there's no need to worry. And it the proposal fails, for some reason -- like persons opposing shouldn't have say as after all no person with an opposing opinion has any credibility -- then it will be relisted, because there is no end to the effort that must be made to 'improve Wikipedia' in the way the movers prefer. This is some set of proposals. --Nemonoman (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Additional Comment: On my talk page here an editor has reminded me to assume good faith, avoid personal attacks, etc. I believe I have done this, and I apologize for any impressions to the contrary. That same editor, however, describes these move requests as a little messy, which is an understatement. I feel entirely within bounds to point out the mess. --Nemonoman (talk) 12:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Seven days is a minimum, not a time limit. It's perfectly normal for move discussions which have not reached consensus to last longer and/or be relisted, sometimes more than once (see Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions). Closing and reopening is unusual and probably unhelpful, certainly I wouldn't have done it. Nothing I wrote in any way assumed a particular outcome for the debate. No move, or closing after "relisting" as no consensus are both possible outcomes. I would regard simply closing after seven – or even nine – days as no consensus as unusual. --MegaSloth (talk) 09:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• 'Comment: from the template: The discussion should be closed after 7 days. --Nemonoman (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Nevertheless, I have described common practice and the content of the instructions linked from the template, which I referred to above. Perhaps the template's text should be changed. If you object to the procedures followed here, I suggest you query it at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves, where I'm sure the admins will ensure things are brought into order from a procedural standpoint. --MegaSloth (talk) 13:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Response: You clearly have more experience with move requests than I do. I just take the words at face value, while you know that they don't mean what they say. Stupid Me. Perhaps there's a Secret Decoder Ring I never got. As to running to Mommy for help, I don't think that's necessary, but if you feel the need to do so, I'll certainly understand. --Nemonoman (talk) 13:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

And you believe you've assumed good faith, avoided personal attacks, etc., while mocking other editors like that? In addition to working on those areas, please also avoid marking your addition of comments to a talk page as minor. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Notice Since discussion of the procedures followed is becoming heated and disruptive, I have requested input on that issue from an uninvolved, respected and experienced editor at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Procedures_at_Talk:Avatar, in the hope that we can get back to discussing the issue of the move itself (unless of course the result is closure of all move requests). --MegaSloth (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Since I've been accused of bad faith, personal attacks, hijacking the debate (and now of failing to understand that my comments -- which I regard as minor -- are in fact major edits), I'm taking myself out of this discussion. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Apologies Nemonoman, I did not mean to accuse you of hijacking the debate, not personally and certainly not deliberately. What I meant to indicate was that the debate on procedure was becoming a distraction from the request itself, and I hoped to resolve the procedural issues swiftly and amicably. I have edited the offending comment. I'm sure your opinions, appropriately presented, would be appreciated by all involved editors. I would certainly appreciate them. --MegaSloth (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Megasloth. I accept your apologies as a courtesy, as it would be impolite to leave your good wishes hanging, but I don't feel you should feel the need to apologize at all. I know you meant no offense, and I did not take offense. I pointed out your wording only to show that I was not alone in inching toward the Dark Side -- although I don't think, personally, that any part of this has anywhere near approached Personal Attacks. But it is clear to me that I am a bull in this particular china shop, and the merchandise is much more fragile than I am used to. To step to the sidelines while some of the teacups are still in one piece seems a good idea to me.

My opinion should be pretty clear. But I want to make it clear that I acknowledge 100% the validity of the requested move -- it's a reasonable request I just oppose it. I am pleased that the matter is being discussed, and not just done without any notice at all (note: I've seen serious undiscussed moves before, and they suck, so thanks for the discussion).

Nobody needs to get hurt by this request or by my opposition. But I am clumsy and oversized, and I will stomp on sensitive toes. Better I sit out during the rest of this dance.

I will, however, make one more

Observation: Lack of consensus is actually a form of consensus. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No need to sit out the discussion or explain yourself, Nemonoman. For a discussion that began 12 days ago, with approx. 2/1 editors opposed to the move(s), this is going on rather long. Your impatience is more than understandable. Allowing the discussion to continue as long as people still have something to say (actually repeat) seems counterproductive to me also. Priyanath ^talk 16:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Priyanath, as I'm sure you're aware, requested moves are not a vote, so neither party should be overconfident or dismayed by a simple count. Rather the objective is to persuade others and to reach a compromise. Also, I find it interesting that a lack of consensus over whether Avatar has a primary topic should be regarded as an argument for no move, when WP:PRIMARYTOPIC lists it as a potential indication that there may be no primary topic. --MegaSloth (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Avatara should be a redirect to the WP:COMMONNAME for the concept in Hinduism. Said concept is far and away more broadly used across the spectrum of our users, and should be at the unqualified title. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That Avatar is the common name is not in dispute. The problem here is that the common name for the term in Hinduism is also the common name for a type of user representation in computing, and other concepts. Thus we must be more precise to disambiguate, following guidelines at WP:Disambiguation. Critically, can the term in Hinduism be considered the primary topic for this title? I submit that it cannot, per my argument above, and thus the disambiguation page should be at avatar, and the concept in Hinduism moved to a suitable different title, such as either of those recently proposed. --MegaSloth (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I read the above discussion. That coupled with my own investigation of the supporting sources is why I oppose moving the Hindu concept off the unqualified title. As I stated. The concept in computing is significantly less widely used and less likely to be a reader's intended target. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The traffic stats contradict your claim of "far and away more broadly used across the spectrum of our users". What are the supporting sources you're basing that claim on? -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Since we seem to have discussed ourselves into a standstill, I say, we give the matter a rest for a month, and try discussing the issue next month. Oldag07 (talk) 07:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Avatar (2009 film) link in other uses

The film link is repeated added to the article. IMO, singly out the film is unfair to all other links in Avatar (disambiguation), though Page statistics of Avatar_(2009_film) suggest that it is heavily trafficked. Should we put the link using {{two other uses}} temporarily? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I just changed to the double about note. Meant to do that when I reverted earlier, but I forgot and didn't realize until this popped on my watchlist! -SpacemanSpiff 06:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't know what the disambiguation guidelines say about this, but IMO we can use common sense and save a bunch of users an extra click by linking to the film directly, without sacrificing encyclopedicity. Can reevaluate in a few months to see if the link is still needed. Abecedare (talk) 06:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, say after a month after its release. Traffic stats should be checked to take a decision on the issue.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried a similar idea on the Star Trek page when the new film Star Trek (film) came out. But I was shot down. see Talk:Star_Trek/Archive_7#Disambiguation_link. However, for the sake of discussion. see WP:NAMB. Oldag07 (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NAMB says you don't put Hats on articles that you can't get to by accident. For example, Avatar (computing) which you can't get to directly by typing Avatar in the search box. So this guideline, is not be applicable to the page without the parenthetical clarifiers like this one. Now, if the proposed move goes through then the hats on this page would no longer be necessary. -- KelleyCook (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

we can keep the separate mention of the film during the film's launch, as there will be much traffic related to that. This will pass in a month or so, and we can remove it again after Christmas. --dab (𒁳) 18:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggest automatic archival of this page

This talk page is now 117 kilobytes long. I propose automatic archival of this talk page using User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo (or other similar tool if other editors prefer). Please indicate your support or otherwise. Many thanks, --MegaSloth (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I think you can go ahead and do this kind of thing w/out discussion. Priyanath ^talk 03:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive settings of >60days with minimum of 5-7 threads left on the page. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 04:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Abecedare (talk) 04:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Well normally I would just go ahead, but given the recent heated debate and the instructions at MiszaBot suggesting to ask, I thought it would be prudent and harmless to do so first. Cheers, --MegaSloth (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hinduism template

I think u didnt get wat i just wrote u r putting the pic of dasavatar on top of the article wheras their is a special section for it plus it is a hindu related article, so let the template be on top, that 3RR rule also applies on you115.252.34.64 (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The stable version of this article, for the last year or more, has had the Hinduism template in the lower half of the article. 115.252.34.64 has been editwarring to move it to the top of the article. Before this happens, there should be consensus on where and if the Hinduism template belongs on the article. Since this article is not part of the Hinduism template, which says at the top "Part of a Series on Hinduism", it's arguable whether the template should be here at all. If you look at most of the history or subject articles (as opposed to philosophy) that are in that template, the Hinduism template is lower in the article so a more relevant and encyclopedic photo can be in the article lede. Options are to Keep in the lower part of the article, Remove from the article, or Move it to the lede. Priyanath ^talk 21:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep in the lower part of the article. Priyanath ^talk 21:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Replace the {{Hinduism}} template with the more specific {{Hindu scriptures}} template, which should then be Place somewhere lower in the article. Images that are directly related to the subject should always get preference over navigational aids that guide the readers to other articles that may interest them; this is similar to the placement of the See also section prescribed in WP:Layout. The templates are not meant to mark the article as a "Hindu related article", which is anyways obvious from the lede sentence. Abecedare (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC) Corrected. Abecedare (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

"Avatar" is a Hindu PHILOSOPHY, if u look at the template it covers all Hindu philosophies, hence Hinduism template is well placed on top,Priyanath keeps on putting the "Dasavatar" pic on top, as if it is Dasavatar article.

Their is a seperate section of the article about Dasavatar of Lord Vishnu, that is the place where that pic should be placed and has been done so by me, try to be open minded about the whole article rather than sticking to the point that it has been like that since one year.115.252.47.209 (talk) 09:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep the images at the top and add the template lower down. Three editors have now opined, so stop edit warring. -SpacemanSpiff 09:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I have put a strong point, i was never involved in the discussion115.252.47.209 (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

IP-hopping isn't going to get you anywhere, so stop this now. -SpacemanSpiff 09:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

What hopping u dont even want to discuss the article now??115.252.47.209 (talk) 09:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You are repeatedly reverting without discussion or listening to others. I have counted six reverts in less than 24 hours. -SpacemanSpiff 09:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Avatar doesnt only mean "Avatars of Vishnu" but Avatars of all other gods like Shiva and Brahma. When u place a pic on top it means it represents the whole article but in this case it doesn't, its a hindu philosophy and so the template should be placed on top.115.252.47.209 (talk) 09:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay this edit war is getting really old. IP editor, we have a policy here on Wikipedia called Don't-give-a-fuckism. It means that there is no logical reason for you to be so adamant about an article being one way. It is clear that the consensus here is against your opinion. As we go by consensus here on the Wiki, please stop reverting a change that really does not matter a whole bunch. from hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 09:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Dude i m giving a point here not counting votes, if u want to edit, edit with ur head and heart in right place rather than driven by ur ego115.252.47.209 (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I never tried to dissuade you from "giving a point." My "point" was about your edit warring, not this discussion. By all means, argue for your point, but do it on this talk page, not by repeatedly reverting the same edit. from hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 09:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

U need to check the history i have been understanding and creative all along but some guys are not even willing to discuss it with me, infact i am the one who started this discussion.115.252.47.209 (talk) 09:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reported the user at AN3. Should be blocked once an admin sees the report. Best not to extend the edit-war any further till then. Abecedare (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course I have checked the history. Again, the process as we do it on Wikipedia is that you can make the edit you want at first. If it gets reverted, you then go to the talk page and wait for a consensus. From there, NOTHING can be placed on the actual article that has to do with your original edit without there being a consensus. This is because any topic for which there is contention cannot be decided by one person who has one opinion when there are others who also are providing points in their case. They have not continued their discussion with you because you have not provided any new argument that they have not already rebutted. Why should they continue talking to someone who keeps on saying the same thing?

Thank you for reporting it. from hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 10:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Well now I am putting a point and one can see how valid it is.115.252.47.209 (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the {{Hinduism}} template back down, as is the consensus in the above discussion (ignoremy above suggestion to replace it with {{Hindu scriptures}} - I don't know what I was thinking!) Abecedare (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Template use is so arbitrary - it might be reasonable to put several others here: {{VishnuAvatars}}, {{Hinduism (compact)}}, {{Hindu deities and texts}}, or even {{Krishna}} which actually has this article linked in the template. I think the horizontal templates are best, since they organize related articles at the bottom, near See Also and Categories. That approach also stymies attempts to use templates as a form of Territorial marking. There should really be a horizontal Hinduism template (not the compact one) for articles that are related to Hinduism but not in the template.</off topic rant> Priyanath ^talk 17:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I just finally noticed that {{VishnuAvatars}} and {{Hinduism (compact)}} are already at the bottom of the article. So much for noticing them when they are placed there! Priyanath ^talk 17:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources for other Avatars besides Vishnu?

Can anyone recommend reliable sources for lists or definitive descriptions of Avatars of Devi, Shiva, etc.? The article is weighted heavily toward Vishnu avatars. The long lists of Vishnu avatars, imo, should probably be merged or just linked to Vishnu and Dasavatar articles. Priyanath ^talk 00:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

While the avatars of Vishnu are the most famous, avatars of Ganesha do exist, see Mudgala Purana. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If there is a secondary source available, that would be better. Thanks, Priyanath ^talk 18:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, avatars of Murugan are covered in Kandha Puranam (Tamil equivalent -- don't think it's a translation -- of Skanda Purana). I can't say much about sourcing, but you might be able to get some info out of books related to any of the above three. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 18:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

References are available in the article Mudgala Purana (John A. Grimes, Ganapati: Song of the Self, pp. 105-110) --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed section about other avatars

• Ganesha (12 avatars list)
• Shiva : Hanuman etc.
• Rulers as avatar of Vishnu like Nepal king
• Saints: alleged avatars of Dattatreya, Shiva, Devi etc. [14], see also to List of avatar claimants --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources, and I think most of those topics would be good additions - except for the avatar claimants, which is linked in See Also and has been bizarrely fringey at times. By the way, the reason I condensed the long sentence referenced to Matchett is that some of it wasn't confirmed by checking the reference itself. Her book doesn't even contain the word 'Ganesha', based on searching it in Google Books. Here is the page in Matchett that it seems to be originally sourced to.[15] The sentence in the article should be edited accordingly. Priyanath ^talk 21:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Page Views

The page view statistics from the last few days (since Avatar (2009 film) came out) are interesting. It seems quite a lot of people are suddenly interested in learning more about the original meaning of the term. This article is averaging approx. 104,000 views each day for the last three days,[16] up from a long-term average closer to 10,000. The related pages show that people really are interested in this article. The dab page, Avatar (disambiguation), for example is up to 13,000 each day.[17] And the movie's page, Avatar (2009 film), is up to fewer than 5,000 per day.[18] It's a good excuse to keep improving this article so that it gives so many readers the best information possible. Priyanath ^talk 02:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Correct link to Avatar (2009 film) stats [19], the ones stated by Priyanath are to Avatar (film).--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

d'oh. Thanks. But still a good reason to keep improving this article. Priyanath ^talk 03:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Devi's avatars ??? WP:OR???

The references do not use the term "avatar" or "avatara" (incarnation, or descent in English), they say forms (which is closest to the Sanskrit "rupa"). The rupa and avatar are 2 different concepts. The forms are NOT avatars. Is avatar terminology used in Shaktism needs to be examined by references? Removing the section till then. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

McDaniel uses the term 'avatar' for Durga here[20], "As Vishnu incarnates in avatar form, so will Durga....". So Durga qualifies as an avatar by the source, but not the others? Does McDaniel's frequent use of "manifestation" mean 'rupa', or 'avatar'? Certainly there must be other sources that use the specific term 'avatar', since Matchett seems to go to great lengths to state that "The avatars of Vishnu carry greater theological weight than those of Shiva or Devi." What avatars of Devi could she be talking about, if not the 'manifestations' she mentions in the previous sentence? Priyanath ^talk 04:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are reliable sources that refer to "incarnations of Devi", "the Goddess, Devi, can manifest herself in various incarnations, in the same way as the god Vishnu..." [21] [22] [23] While none of them names these incarnations, there must be sources that do. So apparently we just need better sources, or am I missing something? Priyanath ^talk 04:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Both of you are right in your own ways, and the situation is more complicated/subtle than we would have perhaps preferred. Here are some relevant quotes from Hindu Avatāra and Christian Incarnation: A Comparison, Noel Sheth Philosophy East and West, Vol. 52, No. 1 (Jan., 2002), pp. 98-125.

Although we do find avataras in Saivism and Saktism, they are not universally accepted in these two tradition. (pg. 98)

Visnu's personified power (sakti), Laksmi, also descends as avataras, for ex- ample as Sita and Radha. (pg 117)

Note that the second quote may well represent a Vaishnava view of Shakti, rather than how she is viewed in Skaktism. And here is a footnote in the paper talking about rupa, avatar etc (unfortunately the original source in German)

Paul Hacker traces the terminological history of the doctrine of avatara in his article "Zur Entwicklung der Avataralehre" (Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde Sud- undOstasiens4 [1960]: 47-70), reprinted in Paul Hacker, Kleine Schriften, ed. Lambert Schmithausen, Glasenapp-Stifftung vol. 15 (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1978). He informs us that the earlier words for Visnu's manifestations were rupa, vapus, tanu, and akrti (form); these were followed by the expression pradurbhava (manifestation) (pp. 405-407). The term avatarana first referred to the action of descending, not to the person who descended (p. 417). Simi- larly, even when the word avatara first replaces avatarana, it refers to the action alone and not to the person (pp. 421-422). Avatarana is employed not only for the descent of deities but also in a very peculiar sense, namely the removal of the burden of the earth or, more literally, "making the burden [of the earth] descend" (bharavatarana) (p. 415). Initially, the word avatara was applied to other deities as well, and was not used in reference to every man- ifestation of Visnu. It is only around the sixth century C.E. that the term was reserved primarily for all the descents of Visnu (pp. 409, 424).

The Sheth paper has some interesting material for this article. I may not have time this week to add from it, but if either of you are interested, I can forward it to you. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I had a feeling it was a matter of nuances in different terminology. Below I'm adding a subsection to collect specific mentions of 'avatar' or 'incarnation' of Devi or Shakti. Priyanath ^talk 05:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to add, since I was in a hurry before, the origin and the evolution of the term would be very interesting to put here. Yes, I would be interested in the Sheth paper, and might be able to do something later in the week with it here. I'll also look for more comprehensive sources for the different avatars/incarnations/not-manifestations, rather than resorting to piecemeal sourcing of each one, as I'm collecting below. If anyone knows how to get the missing book I mention below, that would help. Thanks, Priyanath ^talk 17:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Found "Studies in Saktism", but will perhaps be able to get it only next year (!). Will look for other sources too, once I get a bit more time. Will be good to expand this article to be more descriptive and less listy. Nice work so far! Abecedare (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - no hurry... I'm all for less listy also, which I think I mentioned earlier, before I added several lists :-). But I figured that removing the only lists at the time (Vishnu's) would be seen as anti-Vishnu rather than anti-list. The lists should all be merged to their various avatar pages, imo, once the article is expanded. Priyanath ^talk 03:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Specific mentions of 'avatars' or 'incarnations' of Devi

So that they are all in one place for discussion.

• "her manifestation of Mahakali...." "...her avatar of Mahalakshmi...." "her incarnation of Mahasarasvati...." [24]
• "As Vishnu incarnates in avatar form, so will Durga...."[25]
• "the DM only briefly alludes to the incarnation of Devi as Brahmari...."[26]
• "Furthermore, in the Devi Gita, Devi describes her avataras as Sati, daughter of Daksha, and Parvati, daughter of Himavin...." [27]
• "Emphasizing that she is no longer just one of the ten Mahavidyas, the Devi Bhagavata regards her as Mahavidya herself, whose avatars include many earlier members of the standard ten, along with other renowned incarnations of the Goddess."[28]
• "Among these forms are names several of the usual Mahavidyas, plus other incarnations such as Sakhambari and Radkadantika..."(same as previous)
• Possibly the best source, which I can't locate (anyone?), would be "The Incarnations of Devi, as Described in the Devi Bhagavata Purana", which is in the book Studies in Saktism by K. C. Mishra, T. Mishra, and R. K. Mishra.

Priyanath ^talk 05:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Are Mahavidyas avatars or forms (rupa), needs to be checked. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed reorganization

Following up on Abecedare's suggestion to make the article more descriptive and less listy, I would like to suggest the removal/merging of all the lists into their respective Avatar articles (Vishnu, Ganesha, etc.), where they are not already in those articles. If we keep the list approach, we will rightfully have to add a list of the 28 avatars of Shiva from the Linga Purana, and the numerous Devi avatars from the Devi Bhagavatam.

Instead of all these lists, there should be sections simply titled "Vishnu", "Ganesha", etc., with a description of the main origin/story of their avatars, and naming and describing a few of the most prominent, such as Krishna and Rama in the Vishnu section. Each section should look much like the "Avatars of Devi" section is starting to look, though with more development. In addition, there should be an "Etymology and usage" section right after the lede, with material taken from the Sheth article excerpted above, and other sources. Priyanath ^talk 06:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with your proposed additions and final goal. However, in terms of process, I think at this point we can simply add sourced material to this article; once we have all the raw material in, it would be easy to spin the lists out to more specialized article(s). That way we don't need to worry about the structure and balance of the article, while it is being expanded (for example, due weight would require that the final article have much greater coverage of Vishnu avatars relative to avatars of Shiva, Devi, Ganesha etc, but that need not be the case for the intermediate revisions while the article is being shaped). Abecedare (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly how I was thinking. Priyanath ^talk 15:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

"Other kinds of avatars..." section

I've added the {{refimprove|section}} tag to the section because there are no reliable sources provided. Earlier, I had deleted the section after a long search could find not a single reliable, third-party, neutral source per WP:RS, but it's now been added back. I invite others to search for reliable sources also, otherwise that section should be removed or narrowed down to what can legitimately be verified. Priyanath ^talk 05:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The section as it stands is a hodgepodge and needs a cleanup, but I think it aims to address the topic of categories of avatars, which is a notable topic for this article. The Sheth paper has a brief discussion of such categories (pg 99-100), and attributes the basic classification to Pañcaratra - books on that text may be a ripe source for further information. Abecedare (talk) 05:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Add: Sheth cites Introduction to the Pāñcarātra and the Ahirbudhnya saṃhitā, which is fully viewable on google books! Abecedare (talk) 05:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Will look at that book. I noticed that Sheth also classifies different types, but quite differently and more succinctly than the hodge podge that's in the article now. It would likely mean starting over with that section. Priyanath ^talk 06:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Reference to Christain Docetism

In my view this comment is not correctly situated in the opening paragraph. The comment about the manifestation more closely resembling docetism in christian theology as distinct from incarnation in mainstream Christology -- is not the most relevant point , while there may be many other theological interpretations of 'manifestation' or 'incarnation' however i think it needs to be placed in a different section to highlight other religious interpretations of the Hindu idea of avatāra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-singularity (talk • contribs) 16:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think several editors disagree with you, based on several reverts of the IP editor that keeps trying to remove that altogether. I've moved it back into the lede and provided more references, and also qualified it based on one of the references (Sheth). It's important to the lede, imo, because the conflation with the common western usage of "incarnation" needs to be addressed right from the beginning. Please discuss before reverting again. Priyanath ^talk 16:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean 'some schools' -- some christian schools? Again, i don't see why become some esoteric christian schools misinterpret 'incarnation' as being heretic to mainstream christian beliefs that it is a reason to qualify this in the opening paragraph. Furthermore avatāra is not strictly correct as 'incarnation' a better word is 'manifestation'. Thus the rebuttal on docetism on the word 'incarnation' is even weaker considering its not the correct definition of avatāra! I suggest placing this in a new section on other Theological interpretations -- NOT in the opening paragraph. '

Wiki-singularity (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)