Talk:Avatar (2009 film)

Origins of the name Eywa

I was just thinking that Eywa sounds a lot like Yahweh (YHWH) backwards. Does anyone know if James Cameron did this on purpose? Perhaps it could be relevant to include in the article if so. Drewry (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Is Avatar an original story?

Is Avatar an original story or is it based on another work? Livingston 10:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want contemporary stuff a bit like Fern Gully and Independence Day, only here the humans are the ones who have basically exhausted the resources of their own homeworld(s), and are now unpleasantly seeking amends. Koyae (talk) 11:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It does seem very similar to Fallen Dragon by Peter F. Hamilton. Haven't seen any mention of that as an inspiration ... but it's hard to ignore. Kmmontandon (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It also has many similarities with Strugatsky brothers' works, especially Disquiet (which actually features planet Pandora that is very similar to the film's one).

It also seems to have a character called Nava in it.

I am sure that the plot is very similar to another I read about in the last few months, but I cannot remember what it was, or who wrote it. This is doing my head in, as I am sure that it is derived from it. Jason404 (talk) 06:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a short story featuring similar exploring method. "Call me Joe".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_me_Joe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.124.54 (talk) 03:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The movie premise does include almost _every_ Furry [Fandom] fiction Trope in existence... --203.14.156.193 (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a a definite resemblance to "Call me Joe" - I noticed it as soon as I heard the plot of this film (I first encountered "Call me Joe" in the Starstream comicbook adaptation!). In Development, I have added mention of apparent connection to writings by Anne McCaffrey (dragon bonding) and Ursula Le Guin (tree-hugging aliens invaded by militaristic humans). Considering Cameron openly stated that his film is a compendium of all the science fiction he's read, maybe a separate section on infuences is called for? - 152.76.1.244 (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The original items in the story were the tree, Eywa, the biolinks between creatures and the "unobtanium" that made the Hallelujah Mountains fly. As soon as the movie got 5 minutes in I thought of "Call me Joe." I kept expecting the avatars to strengthen and the people to die in their pods, but the equivalent was handled well through the tree. There are three other sci-fi stories I read before 1975 that this movie used for the plot, but I can't think of two of their names. The first was a story with a lush world that had a plant intelligence exactly like the one described by Sigourney Weaver with a female botanist-scientist who figured it out. There were these harmless and pretty floating creatures that the botanist called "phytos" that acted quite like the "seeds of the tree" that landed on the lead character in Avatar. The later part of that book is about the planet's total biosphere "waking up" and becoming conscious. The second story is less exact, but had a world I remember being named Pandora. And that world had incredibly dangerous animal life in it like the Pandora world in Avatar. The third story was even less exact, "The Integral Trees" and didn't have floating mountains, it had trees growing in space in a disk of dense gas surrounding a star. 69.230.116.219 (talk)SciFiKid —Preceding undated comment added 00:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC).

Not to mention everything from Pocahontas to Ferngully to Dances with Wolves...

Exactly what I thought: Dances with Wolves - IN SPACE! AND 3D! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.137.11.76 (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Fern Gully was the first thing I found myself thinking of when I watched the movie, same with my mum apparently. But as far as I know it wasn't directed based on anything, it just seems to include a lot of very common storylines. Danikat (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

From the description given so far in the article it sounds a helluva lot like Ursula K. Le Guin's The Word for World is Forest. Metamagician3000 (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Also very similiar to Alan Dean Foster's book 'Midworld' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midworld —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.47.44 (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I also was struck by the many, many similarities to Foster's works (midworld, sentenced to prism, and mid-flinx). I could go on for paragraphs on the similarities. And these are *not* simple plot elements -- these are major components of the world. It has me thinking "rip-off". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeshoff (talk • contribs) 19:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am suprised that nobody mentioned 1995 Blue Byte's software game 'Albion' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albion_(game) which is strikingly simillar not only with story but also with character desing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.179.14.78 (talk) 11:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Meh. Avatar appears familiar because many of the story elements are very simple ideas. Even the idea of humans controlling other lifeforms with their minds is as old as stories themselves. Witchcraft, psychic powers, and now science. Heck, Lovecraft wrote about aliens transferring their minds into alien bodies. Some people are always trying to take the wind out of other people's sails for no good reason. 92.9.60.71 (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Pandora, the lush jungle planet with incredible lifeforms and non-technological native population, is featured prominently in several of the Strugatsky brothers works, especially the late 1960's Snail on the Slope, specifically featuring a downed human helicopter pilot whose severed head was fastened on a native's body, immersed into their society - having his conscience in effect implanted into an alien body - who becomes a warrior on their behalf in the end. And, at the "base", there's an episod when a seed takes root in a human's body very rapidly. Coincidence? Not very likely.

There are many "coincidences" between this book & a film. For example, Forest in Stugatskys' book is reasonable being. Also book has such a fragment: "Hет, — сказал Алик, — просто они чувствуют друг друга на расстоя— нии. Фитотелепатия. Слыхали?" Translation: No - said Alex. But they (trees) sense each other from grate distance. Herbal telepathy. Have you heard about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.100.117.32 (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

How's that not a set of *many* *amazing* similarities? Name of planet, name of a character, type of civilization, type of life, the cituation of a human implanted into the native body and society, the natives able to control their incredibly vital environment by sheer thought, humans trying to exploit the natives (well that's one is a virtual given in any story but all the rest..... c'mon!). WillNess (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless you have a reliable source to back that claim, it can't be included in the article. The IP above you said it best, "Avatar appears familiar because many of the story elements are very simple ideas." Erik (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I am a reliable source. I've read the book. Also, the book itself is a reliable source. Do you want year of print and page number for every one of the facts I mention? WillNess (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You are probably reliable, but how general are we allowed to get? Can we include similarities between Romeo and Juliet because they fell in love and they're from two warring groups, any romance book with a love triangle, or The Hero with a Thousand Faces (what I first thought of for some reason)? I feel like this is our interpretation; perhaps accurate and knowledgeable interpretation, but our interpretation nonetheless. CM (talk) 07:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you are not a reliable source. You are basically doing synthesis, which is original research and not appropriate for inclusion. Unless actual reliable sources make such comparisions, it doesn't belong in the article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Avatar is another remake of Heart of Darkness User: nova9047 —Preceding undated comment added 21:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC).

Avatar is closely based on the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs and other authors of the pulp fiction era of literature, of course it should be mentioned. Neurolanis (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I had a post explaining the resemblance to an episode of "Avatar: The Last Aribender" entitled "The Swamp", though some person probably deleted it for some reason. Anyway, in this episode, the characters venture to a great swamp/forest that is similar to the flora of Pandora. At the center of this swamp is a giant tree, larger than all others, much like Hometree and the Tree of Souls in Cameron's Avatar. What strikes me as most odd is that in this swamp, every organism is 'connected' to one another just like the "global organism" on Pandora. The giant Hometree-like-tree in the center of this swamp is also the center for all of the connected organisms in the swamp. One character in this episode explains that the swamp can make death and time only an illusion. This is like the Na'vi's belief that when they die, they simply go back to Eywa. Also, this character is the defender of the swamp, like the Na'vi, who prevents it from outside destruction. Surprising similarities, no? Infoadder2010 (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That is just original research. Feel free to post it on a blog! BOVINEBOY2008 :) 15:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Re "I had a post explaining the resemblance to an episode of "Avatar: The Last Aribender" entitled "The Swamp", though some person probably deleted it for some reason." - It was archived as is done routinely with older sections. At the top of this page there's info on archives. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Reception

Proposed addition to Release:Critical reception

I've taken care of the above suggestions by Betty Logan, Trusilver and DrNegative. Nobody seems to have got any further comments since January 1. Can these two paragraphs now be included in the Release: Critical reception section? Or do they fit in better under a separate Release subheading 'Reception by religious groups' (or something like that)?

Prior to the release, a US-based Hindu statesman Rajan Zed expressed concern with the use of the term 'Avatar', which he called "one of the central themes of Hinduism", as the film's title and asked J.Cameron for a disclaimer. [1], [2] His concern was supported by Nevada Clergy Association, [3] Rabbi Jonathan B.Freirich, a Jewish leader in Nevada and California [4] and Satnarayan Maharaj, a Hindu leader in Trinidad and Tobago. [5] However, some other Hindu followers in US considered the film as elucidating on the actual meaning of 'Avatar' rather than sacrilegious. [6] Hindustan Times wrote that “Avatar is a downright misnomer” for the film, but concluded that its message is consistent with the Bhagavad Gita, a sacred book of Hinduism. [7]

Ross Douthat of New York Times called the film “the Gospel According to James” of “Cameron’s long apologia for pantheism” incompatible with Christianity. [8] Other Christian critics wrote that "[t]he danger to moviegoers is that Avatar presents the Na'vi culture on Pandora as morally superior to life on earth. If you love the philosophy and culture of the Na'vi too much, you will be led into evil rather than away from it", [9] emphasized the film's thematic elements deemed objectionable by Christians, [10] and suggested that Christian viewers interpret the film as a reminder of Jesus Christ as "the True Avatar". [11]

Cinosaur (talk) 08:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Please keep in mind the lead sentence from WP:UNDUE, "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."

It appears that you've done a good job hunting down articles on religious issues related to Avatar. However, compared to the discussion by reliable sources on other aspects of the film, I think the amount of discussion on religious issues is very small. The amount of space that you are proposing to use in the article is too much in my opinion. I would suggest condensing it down to one sentence and adding it to the 3rd paragraph of the section Critical reception that contains sociopolitical comments, just before the sentence that discusses the Newitz article, which segues to the next paragraph that starts with Dances With Wolves. I was going to recommend a sentence from your work to use, but on second thought, I feel you could do a better job in selecting one or composing one. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob K31416, thanks for feedback. Could it be two sentences -- one for Hindus and one for Christians? After all, theirs, albeit religious, are entirely different areas of concern. Cinosaur (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bob, I think this falls pretty firmly under WP:UNDUE. Just because someone is notable in one area, does not make him notable in other areas. IF Roger Ebert has something to say about this movie, it's notable because of his status as a film critic. If say... James Hetfield had something to say about this movie, the correct response is (and should be) "Who cares?" Almost every movie with any kind of religious connotation is blasted by some religious group, somewhere, we need not give them all equal representation. The critical reception section is already starting to run a little long as it is. Trusilver 18:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you show here what you would like to put in re Hindus and Christians? Please keep in mind the need to limit the length appropriately. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Trusilver, I appreciate your point about "blasts by religious groups". If necessary, we can forsake responses by Christian critics altogether as only tangential to the movie's plot -- even though I personally find them as relevant as, say, concerns about racism and abuse of indigenous people already included in the Critical reception. But, since on J.Cameron's own admission, he deliberately borrowed the title and idea from Hinduism, reaction by Hindus to both the title and the contents of the movie seems to be of far greater relevance for the article than that of other religious groups. Or am I wrong? Cinosaur (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Every movie that represents any kind of "alternative theology" is always blasted by the usual suspects in the Christian mainstream. I wouldn't even consider their opinion relevant in any circumstance except where there is a well documented discussion on the conflict (The Golden Compass (film) for instance). The Hinduism reference is something else altogether. I really hate to see this section of the article get any more bloated than it already is, but I wouldn't be terribly opposed to an inclusion of this provided it's by someone who actually knows what they are talking about. It's better than the alternative, which is to create Influences of Hinduism on James Cameron's Avatar. (please say no... that's a horrible idea.) Trusilver 20:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob K31416: How about this one. Sorry for two sentences instead of one, but they are needed for balancing the story:

Before and after the release, some Hindu leaders expressed concern, shared by other clergy, [12] with the use of 'Avatar', "one of the central themes of Hinduism", as the film's title and asked J.Cameron for a disclaimer. [13], [14], [15] However, while opining that “’Avatar’ is a downright misnomer” for the film, Hindustan Times wrote that its message is consistent with Bhagavad Gita, a sacred text of Hinduism. [16]

Also, I thought that, if you think them acceptable, they would be better placed as a mini-paragraph just before the last one about abuse of indigenous people. In this way the Critical reception section will retain its consistency and will nicely taper out with decreasingly prominent issues.

As for Christian views -- I must admit to be at a loss on how to condense them into one sentence -- unless, of course, you do not mind mammoth and convoluted sentences. I would personally prefer to keep just the first sentence:

Ross Douthat, a conservative columnist of New York Times, called the film “the Gospel According to James” of “Cameron’s long apologia for pantheism” incompatible with Christianity [17] — a view shared by some other Christian critics. [18], [19]

...as the most articulate and the most quoted Christian review of the movie to date. Or may I rather leave this one up to your and other editors' expertise? As Trusilver wrote -- and I (reluctantly) agree -- this inclusion may not be even necessary here. Cinosaur (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Trusilver, point well taken. See if you like the above on Hindu views. Cinosaur (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with those two sentences as you have written them. The sources look good, too. Trusilver 03:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Cinosaur, Thanks for your efforts. While looking at the sources for your two sentences about concerns of some Hindus regarding the film Avatar, I came across the following excerpt from the article by Sat Maharaj.

"Avatar is a 2009 epic 3-D science fiction film which premiered in London on December 10 and is now on local screens. The term Avatar is a Hindu concept that is being used loosely in the West and especially Hollywood. Indeed, many computer users and gamers use the term Avatar regularly. In computing, Avatar is the graphical representation of a user. There was an Avatar (2004 film) starring Genevieve O’Reilly. Avatar is a main character in the Ralph Bakshi film Wizards. Avatar, a 1983 film directed by Mohan Kumar, and Avatar, the original title of The Last Airbender, is an upcoming 2010 film based on the Avatar.  
There are many television characters, games, Web sites, records, and even racehorses with the Hindu name Avatar. In 1998, India even named a rocket Avatar!"

Would you care to comment on this, especially the sentence about India naming a rocket "Avatar". The concern of some Hindus seems inappropriate in light of this and so much use of the word avatar already. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob K31416, this is exactly the point which you have spelled out for me. Wiki is giving facts, not judging them. Concerns by some Hindu activists with the Avatar-title went all over the net. However, on a close inspection these concerns are, mildly speaking, inconsistent. That's why I picked that link to Sat Maharaj's column from hundreds of otherwise pretty identical sources, as it was the one giving Wiki readers more information on the usage of Avatar on a Hindu's own admission, and letting them judge for themselves.

However, given the prominence the issue seems to have gained on the net, especially among the large Indian diaspora in the West, I thought the Wiki article on Avatar the movie has to acknowledge it and to balance it with a coolheaded and rational review from Hindustan Times (India's second largest and very influential English-language newspaper), which addressed the Avatar-title concern but sealed the issue by showing how the movie is well in tune with Hindu's own theology.

I believe that by reading these two sentences and their references an impartial reader will get as full and objective a picture of the issue as you can get, well, from two short sentences. And sorry, Bob K31416, I cannot shrink them any further. :) Thanks for your patience. Cinosaur (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

...and what were your thoughts regarding the use of the name Avatar by India for its rocket? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob K31416, what do you want me to think about it? I am not a Hindu leader, in case you are wondering. :) I think that it is appropriate as an acronym for "Aerobic Vehicle for Hypersonic Aerospace Transportation" and frankly I don't see any problem with using the name Avatar for any other thing unless in a deliberately offensive way. Avatar, BTW, is not a name -- it's a role, so it is hard to misuse it anyway. What is more important, however, is that in India (or elsewhere) there are ultraconservative adherents of any religion who are readily searching the world around them for sacrileges, and maybe some of them did take issue with the Indian government on Avatar the rocket. Fortunately, such people do not usually run governments, or if they do, then not for too long. Probably, that's why India also has a surface-to-surface ballistic missile called Prithvi, which is the name of the Hindu deity of Earth. But, again, my personal preferences have no bearing on discussing facts on the issue, and the key facts are stated in the above two sentences. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

<outdent>Re "Concerns by some Hindu activists with the Avatar-title went all over the net. - I looked at the items on that 1st page and it looks like they ultimately refer to the same source, Rajan Zed, although that was because Rajan Zed was one of your keywords for the search. The concern was that Avatar might be offensive to Hindus. 1) Was there any article that said that Hindus considered the film offensive after seeing it? 2) Was there any article that said the title was offensive? (It seems that there was concern that the title might be offensive but there didn't seem to be any instances where it was offensive, or maybe I missed it?) --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob -- Yes, I did have Rajan Zed as a keyword, even though I shouldn't have. Again, not to inflate the size of this issue, but to get a more realistic picture of its scope on the net, you may want to check out "hindu avatar cameron concern" and "hindu avatar disclaimer". These hits might well originate from the same person or his immediate group, but this does not invalidate the scope. Again -- I do not share their concern, to say the least, but it is an objective fact directly linked to the movie and therefore may have to be reflected in the article.

Answering your questions - (1) I found no negative reviews by Hindus after the release (but quite a few by Christians), and (2) I found no article saying it was actually offensive to Hindus. The Hindustan Times review called the title "a downright misnomer" because it "reverses the very concept avatar...is based on", but not offensive. On the contrary, I found an article in Houston Chronicle where practicing Hindus and Hindu clergy say that "Avatar shines light on the Hindu word". Unfortunately, the primary link is dead now, which is why I had to take it out of the sentence, but you can still read it here and here. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 06:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears that there is no notable critical reception of the film by Hindus. The concern mentioned in the article by Rajan Zed before the film came out, that the use of the word "avatar" might be offensive to Hindus did not happen and Rajan Zed said himself in the article that he didn't expect it to happen! It appears to be a nothing subject. Furthermore, putting it in the article would be misleading and give the impression that Hindus were offended. BTW, that was my impression when I read your first proposed contribution to the article.

Regarding the criticism of the pantheism in Avatar. I would suggest adding the following to the article, which also shows how the film fits into a Hollywood trend that the article's author suggests.

Ross Douthat of The New York Times criticized the pantheism in the film that "has been Hollywood’s religion of choice for a generation now." [20]

Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob K31416: Regarding your suggested addition on pantheism, it appears biased the way it is written now by implying that there is pantheism in the movie, which is debatable. It will be better to write something like this, including the phrase on Hollywood that you like:

Ross Douthat of The New York Times called the movie “Cameron’s long apologia for pantheism” which "has been Hollywood’s religion of choice for a generation now." [21]

What do you think? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The content is fine but the word "apologia" has too obscure a meaning for most people. I had to look it up in a dictionary myself. Perhaps change to phrase without quotation marks:

essentially called the movie Cameron's defense of pantheism which "has been...

--Bob K31416 (talk) 10:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

'defense' is not what Ross means here by 'apologia'. He means "a work written as an explanation or justification of one's motives, convictions, or acts" (Webster's Dictionary). If you want to simplify it, then it is better to say:

Ross Douthat of The New York Times opined that the film is Cameron’s case for pantheism, which "has been Hollywood’s religion of choice for a generation now." [22]

What do you think? Cinosaur (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That's OK. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Cinosaur (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The previously suggested version is much better if one does understand what apologia means and especially of the context it has been historically used:

Ross Douthat of The New York Times called the movie “Cameron’s long apologia for pantheism” which "has been Hollywood’s religion of choice for a generation now." [23]

"apologia for" is harsher criticism than "case for" because of the addition of subtle mocking irony. Changing it comes across like a euphemism of sorts. It's better to use the exact words. Lambanog (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we move ahead with a statement on Hindu reception?

Bob K31416: As for Hindus -- sorry for repeating myself, but let us restate the facts:

1. Cameron admitted to having borrowed the movie title's idea and inspiration from Hinduism. [24]
2. Before the release some Hindu leader(s) and other clergy voiced concerns that the title Avatar may offend Hindus.
3. They publicly asked Cameron for a disclaimer.
4. For what it's worth, their concern and request got widely circulated and publicized on the net, often without mentioning the original sources by their names [25]
5. However, after the movie release, there were no public complaints about or criticism of the movie as being offensive to Hindus -- nor in Indian media neither anywhere else.
6. On the contrary, major Indian newspapers reviewed the movie positively. Among them Hindustan Times indirectly addressed the above concern by saying that Avatar was a misnomer if only in a non-offensive conceptual way, but the movie's message was consistent with Hinduism, effectively sealing the issue.

These are all verifiable facts in public domain, reported by reliable secondary sources. They are as directly related to Avatar the movie and especially to its title as one can get. Although not a very prominent issue (and as such, it should be scaled down), these facts are of relevance for a large Indian/Hindu audience of Wiki. What else should they be to be included in the article, at least in the following form:

Despite concerns by some Hindu activists prior to the film's release that the use of 'Avatar' as its title may offend the followers of Hinduism, [26], reviews in major Indian newspapers did not report any offensive overtone in the film. Times of India wrote that "For Indophiles and Indian philosophy enthusiasts, Avatar is a whole treatise on Indianism, from the very word `Avatar' itself". [27] The Hindu opined that "Cameron uses the loaded Sanskrit word of the movie's title to talk of a possible...next step in our evolution." [28]. Hindustan Times stated that 'Avatar' was "a downright misnomer" for the film, but concluded that its message was consistent with the Bhagavad Gita, Hinduism's sacred text. [29]

What do you and other editors think of this paragraph? Since we have been discussing this topic with various editors on and off since Jan 1, if we do not reach a conclusion within 24 hours or so, should I consider it fit for inclusion? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 06:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The sources in question seem reliable to me but I question their notability to the article. Do you have any sources of Cameron himself acknowledging these claims as an influence for his choosing of the film's title? (With exception to what is already within the article as you pointed out in point #1) DrNegative (talk) 09:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DrNegative re notability, and that is similar to what was in my concluding remarks in our long discussion in the above section. As you mentioned, you are just repeating your points. I have already responded to them. Seems like you're ignoring my response and just repeating your points. Please do not make your proposed edit without consensus. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob -- no, I am not ignoring your points, but am trying to steer the discussion towards a consensus. To aid this end, could you, as a more experienced editor, please spell out how exactly the above facts do not pass the notability threshold here, and what they should be, in your view, to pass.

DrNegative -- I do not have any other source on the title's origin, but (1) the one quoted‚ a Time interview with JC where he answered this question unequivocally, is credible enough, and (2) obviously, his prior acknowledgement of the fact was not even necessary for Hindus to voice concern over a possible abuse of the term 'Avatar' in the movie. I am just speaking about the fact of their net-wide concern over the title, regardless of whether they knew of JC's prior admission to links to Hinduism or not. Why is it not notable?

Thank you both for your patience in walking me through the process. I learn a lot from you guys. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

DrNegative gave you a wikilink to WP:UNDUE for what that editor meant by "notable". By notable, I meant the term as defined in a dictionary.[30] I previously gave you the same link but also an excerpt from WP:UNDUE in the last section here. You wrote, "I am just speaking about the fact of their net-wide concern". I don't agree with that characterization which gives the impression that it is a major subject on the internet. That seems to be the basic problem, that the edit you are proposing is giving a non-issue more attention than it deserves, i.e. it is not notable. I gave my reasons why I didn't think it was notable in the response I made previously that you still haven't responded to. With all this repetition and ignoring of my responses, I don't consider this discussion with you worthwhile. In considering whether or not you have consensus, please consider my remarks as one editor who opposes your edit. So with that in mind, this is my final message to you on that issue. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob K31416, I am sorry that you feel upset, but I have not ignored any of your points in the proposed edit. Rather, I tried my best to incorporate them:

• You questioned notability of the Hindu leaders -- I agreed and removed wiki-links to their names from the text.
• You opined that the prominence of this issue should not be overstated in accord with WP:UNDUE -- I agreed and removed all web-links to outside sources except for the one to American Chronicle, which seemed most mainstream, credible and neutral.
• You said it would give a wrong impression that the Hindus were offended (an impression that one would have to really read hard into the sentence I proposed) -- I agreed, rewrote the description of their concern as clear as I could and shrank it down to not even a sentence but to a dependent clause.
• You said there "It appears that there is no notable critical reception of the film by Hindu" -- I included three such reviews from three top Indian newspapers specifically addressing its Sanskrit title vs.Hinduism, including one from The Hindu, which is considered moderately conservative and Hindu-oriented. I can easily include a few more, should you or other editors only desire -- but the ones included are already the most notable ones.

It seems that the only point of yours that I cannot incorporate is that this issue does not deserve a mention at all. I am sorry for that. You have not given a valid reason why, but I would still be happy to get one.

However, since another editor Trusilver supported the inclusion of such a statement in the article, I am going ahead with the edit shortly. Trusilver, I have rewritten and slightly expanded the proposed edit to include more notable Hindu/Indian sources in order to fairly address Bob K31416's and DrNegative's concerns about notability. Please let me know if you are still ok with it. Cinosaur (talk) 03:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel much the same was as Bob. The paragraph is well sourced, but I'm on the fence about notability. I am looking around at other movie articles right now, looking for similar situations that have set a precedent and I will get back on it. Right now, I'm indifferent... I neither support nor oppose this inclusion. Trusilver 04:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(←) I'll try to explain the best that I can. What I mean when I say "notability" is when you evaluate Wikipedia's policy on "undue weight", you must consider not only the reliability of the sources but also whether or not the views from your sources adhere to a small "minority" or the mainstream majority. This constitutes whether or not it is worthy of inclusion within an article. You must realize your proposed inclusion of this entire paragraph will constitute a lot of weight on whatever section that you place it within the article. You also wrote above, On the contrary, major Indian newspapers reviewed the movie positively. Among them Hindustan Times indirectly addressed the above concern by saying that Avatar was a misnomer if only in a non-offensive conceptual way, but the movie's message was consistent with Hinduism, effectively sealing the issue." That statement seems to come across as saying this was a small minority topic and that majority consensus did not agree. I am neutral to this inclusion, I neither support, nor do I oppose it, but I can assure you, that there will be many editors that will challenge its notability if you choose to do so. DrNegative (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, Trusilver. Is there any rule of thumb to solve this impasse? As Bob pointed out elsewhere, google hits can serve as a standard notability gauge, and that's exactly what I did:

• "Hinduism offensive Avatar Cameron" -- 1,240,000
• "Hinduism offensive Avatar Cameron -Rajan -Zed" -- 117,000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinosaur (talk • contribs) 05:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• "Hinduism controversy Avatar Cameron" -- 216,000
• "Hinduism controversy Avatar Cameron -Rajan -Zed" -- 185,000
• "Hindus offensive Avatar Cameron" -- 167,000
• "Hindus offensive Avatar Cameron -Rajan -Zed" -- 140,000
• "Hindus concerned Avatar Cameron" -- 154,000
• "Hindus concerned Avatar Cameron -Rajan -Zed" -- 128,000
• "Hindus disclaimer Avatar Cameron" -- 62,800
• "Hindus disclaimer Avatar Cameron -Rajan -Zed" -- 57,800
• "Hindus offended Avatar Cameron -- 36,400
• "Hindus offended Avatar Cameron -Rajan -Zed" -- 33,800

What do we conclude then? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

DrNegative, the original two slim lines (which Trusilver supported at that time and which I was happy with too) have grown into a paragraph only because I tried to accommodate both yours and Bob's concerns. I will be glad to go back to them, if you support them. Cinosaur (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments on Avatar as a Hindu term -- last stand?

Trusilver, DrNegative and Bob K31416 -- in order to resolve this impasse, to heed your remarks on notability, and to preserve the overall controversy-free style of the article, I am proposing the following inclusion:

Commenting on Cameron’s choice of a Hindu religious term for the film’s title, Times of India wrote that "For Indophiles and Indian philosophy enthusiasts, Avatar is a whole treatise on Indianism, from the very word `Avatar' itself". [31] The Hindu reasoned that "Cameron uses the loaded Sanskrit word of the movie's title to talk of a possible...next step in our evolution." [32]. A Hindustan Times’review said that while 'Avatar' is "a downright misnomer" for the film, its message is consistent with the Bhagavad Gita. [33]

I think this fairly addresses the "Hindu concern" issue without even mentioning it, while adding a valuable piece of information to the article's section on Critical reception from an entirely different cultural angle. Opinions? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 10:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob K31416 (et al) -- I respect your opinions, but we obviously disagree in some significant ways as to what constitutes a WP:DEADHORSE discussion. At least, as I tried to explain above, I have incorporated every single one of your objections, and therefore in the latest statement walked away from Hindu concerns altogether. Despite your present stance I still hope we can continue discussing this issue further in a constructive way. If you and others agree, we can give it a fresh start which will be final from my side. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Because we already have a statement of Cameron's own rational of the film's title within the article, and the viewpoint you are trying to establish seems to be in a small/limited minority, I must now oppose its inclusion. From WP:UNDUE, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely limited (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." This is just my opinion though and my opinion only. There is no amount of re-wording through careful prose that you could do, that would convince me that it is notable enough to fit in the article because it is a limited minority view that never achieved full or at the very least partial mainstream acknowledgment to make it worthy of inclusion. My role in this discussion is now closed. DrNegative (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

To be fair Cameron's own statement has little bearing in a section called "critical reception". To draw a comparison, Paul Verhoeven denied that Basic Instinct was "anti-gay", but that doesn't mean the controversy shouldn't be noted. This may seem inconsequential to people outside of India - as indeed it does to myself - but if the issue is given significant coverage in the mainstream press in a country with a population over three times that of the United States, then the notability of the controversy is effectively established. I personally feel this aspect of the reception could be allocated a paragraph provided it isn't so large that it skews the critical reception section. Betty Logan (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The "critical reception" section currently has 5 paragraphs Betty, this would make it 6 total. The inclusion of this paragraph, would give it a lot of weight. Demographics or populations of world countries are not guidelines to notability. As an established editor, I would assume you would know that. As far as "critcal reception" goes as a category in general, according to MOS:FILM, "Reviews from the film's country of origin are recommended (i.e., Chinese reviews for a Chinese film, French reviews for a French film)", if you want to get technical about what belongs in the critical response section. DrNegative (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

To put it another way, if the New York Times and LA Times had commented on an attached controversy then I don't think we would be having this discussion, and Times of India and The Hindu are India's equivalent. The critical reception section currently doesn't document the film's reception beyond the United States, so a paragraph devoted to its reception in India documented by its mainstream press would be a legitimate inclusion as far as I can see. I don't see any argument that The Hindu or the Times of India are not reliable sources, and notability is typically established via 2/3 references via the mainstream press. Betty Logan (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

So basically what I understand you are attempting to say; is that even though this issue never obtained notability in mainstream media coverage within the film's country of origin (United States), and that the paragraph proposed for inclusion critiques a minority viewpoint from some of the followers of a religious group, and even though it doesnt critique the nature of the film itself, but yet its title (which was explained by the film's creator elsewhere within the article) - your saying that it belongs in the film's article as a critical response regardless? From your comments I assume you are "support" to this consensus. DrNegative (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

What I am saying is that the article should be consistent with WP:WORLDVIEW. As far as I am aware there are no guidelines for saying that the critical reception should be limited to the film's country of origin. Cinasaur has provided reliable and verifiable sources for what he wants to add. Hinduism is hardly a "minority" religion, it is not unusual to comment on Muslim or Christian controversy that films cause. Indeed, the Jewish controversy courted by "Passion of the Christ" is documented in that article and there are far fewer jews than there are Hindus. Betty Logan (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a minority religion. Carefully read that again - "A minority viewpoint from followers of a religious group." You are completely missing the point here as if you have some sort of personal bias. Your comparing the number of Jews with Hindus as a justification for the a statement of notability. In reality, alot of Jews probably voiced their opinion on the matter of that film, but how many of the Hindu community are voicing there opinion about "this" issue on the worldwide level as did the Jews for that film? DrNegative (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

<outdent>Betty, Re "if the New York Times and LA Times had commented on an attached controversy then I don't think we would be having this discussion " - There is no controversy as was pointed out in the long, long discussion about this subject above. Editors have objected to the addition of this subject as not noteworthy and have left this long, long discussion. In the given sources for the recent version, this subject seems to be given not much space. There's just a few lines to relate their reviews of Avatar to their readers. There is no controversy. Sorry, but I see this as WP:DEADHORSE with no hope of getting consensus for its inclusion. I don't expect to be participating any more here, except possibly in a very limited capacity. -Bob K31416 (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it seems your right. I need to stop coming back to beat the poor thing. ;) DrNegative (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Betty Logan may be a sockpuppet.User_talk:Betty_Logan#WP:AN.2FI There also was a sockpuppet GoonerDP User_talk:GoonerDP#Blocked_again_for_sock_puppetry that tried to add non-noteworthy India-related material recently to the article. It may be that Cinosaur, GoonerDP, and Betty Logan are the same editor. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob K31416, yours is an unfounded guess here about sockpuppetry. Is this the last recourse in discussions? I will get back regarding notablity of the topic a bit later. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob is in violation of WP:AGF. There is a sockpuppet investigation going on so he should take his concerns to the sockpuppet page if he believes Cinosaur and I are the same person where it can be formally investigated. Using is a tactic to slur participants in a discussion is not appropriate. Betty Logan (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

DrNegative - the three sources I quoted: The Times of India, The Hindu and Hindustan Times -- have respective circulation of 3.14, 1.45, and 1.14 million copies (5.73 collectively) with respective readership of 13.3, 5.2 and 6.6 million (25.1 collectively). All three explicitly commented on Cameron's choice of a Hindu term for a title. As you see, this is not at all what WP:UNDUE calls "a viewpoint...held by an extremely limited (or vastly limited) minority". Besides, according to news.google notability gauge criteria, of all news with "Avatar Cameron review" words in them (1,352 at the time stamp) 43 (3%) such news link its title in some or other direct way to the Hindu etymological origin or the concept of incarnation. IMO, 3% is notable enough to warrant a sentence or two in the article of ~7400 words. No? Cinosaur (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Google does not represent an ultimate count of notability as its powerful search engine can pull any copied repost, of any news article for that matter, from a personal blog post, personal journal, etc -- and include that in its final count. DrNegative (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

DrNegative -- I have long agreed with yours and Bob's points about Hindu concerns as not notable and removed them from the suggested insert. That was my mistake, and the discussion here helped me realize it. As I said earlier, it is a learning experience for me, so please bear with it. However, I would still like to request you and other editors to consider supporting a comment from a leading Indian newspaper on the movie's title itself. Cameron admitted to borrowing it from Hinduism, many Western film reviews explicitly explore this connection, and the article still does not have a single source quoted on this topic. I think it will be an interesting and useful addition to the article if this significant cultural aspect of the movie is covered briefly.

That said, what would you say if right after the quote in Themes and Inspirations:

In a 2007 interview with Time magazine, Cameron addressed the meaning of the film's title: answering the question "What is an avatar, anyway?" Cameron stated, "It's an incarnation of one of the Hindu gods taking a flesh form." He said that "[i]n this film what that means is that the human technology in the future is capable of injecting a human's intelligence into a remotely located body, a biological body". Cameron stated, "It's not an avatar in the sense of just existing as ones and zeroes in cyberspace. It's actually a physical body."[6]

we add:

After the film release Hindustan Times remarked that "[t]he movie reverses the very concept [that] the term ‘avatar’...is based on" but noted that its thrust was consistent with the Bhagavad Gita, a sacred text of Hinduism. [34]

Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Editing the "plot" section

"Controversy" over use of word "soul"

During the plot section it mentions twice how the "soul" of the human is "transplanted" into the Na'Vi. This is technically incorrect. The premise of the bio-neurological network is that data can be uploaded and downloaded into a huge mainframe. It would be more correct to say that the "mind" of the human has been "uploaded" into the Na'Vi body, similar to a USB file transfer

Cheers - jdoyle10 Jdoyle10 (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not really incorrect. The "soul" is the mind, unless you view "soul" as being more of a spirit form type of thing. I do not mind either way it is worded, but it is probably better left at "mind" for neutrality (since not everyone believes in "souls, in the physical spirit sense)...even though the Na’Vi seem to believe in spiritual form type of souls. Flyer22 (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus as to whether or not the mind is to be identified with the soul. To make such a claim would be controversial. "Consciousness" or "mind" is much more acceptable, as none of these issues are raised with those terms. JEN9841 (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

How is it controversial to identify the mind with the soul, unless the person is thinking of "soul" in the physical spirit sense? I was essentially saying that the word "soul" can simply mean who the person is. People use the word "soul" differently. You seem to be identifying the word "soul" in the physical spirit sense. But the word "soul" is even used by non-religious people to mean who the person is, that person's personality. In other words, that person's mind. We are identifying the mind with the soul anyway by changing "soul" to "mind" or "consciousness," since, in either case, we would be using a substitute for "soul." I also have more to say in the Soul? section below. Flyer22 (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

To walk away from all controversial terms, why not use 'personhood' or 'personality' instead of 'soul' and 'mind'? Whatever one believes to be the essence of one's person, that's what got transfered, and 'personhood' or 'personality' covers that well. Cinosaur (talk) 07:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Cinosaur, I am not sure "personhood" or "personality" would go over well. "Personhood" is not a word that people use too often, and I can see vandals being obscene with that word (if you know what I mean). "Personality" is okay, but does not sound as strong as "mind"; it comes off a bit bland and detached compared to "mind," and I can see that being changed to "mind" really quick. I would rather keep our options at "mind," "soul," or "consciousness." As I stated in the Soul? section below, though, I prefer "soul"...because that is how the Na'vi see it. As a compromise, however, we could put the word soul in quotation marks. Flyer22 (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Flyer22, agreed on 'personhood' -- too academic for a vandal to pass up on. Even though I too personally prefer 'soul', but I agree that too many readers will deem it too religious. However 'mind' is too weak here, IMHO, as it is not the entire personality yet, but just a psychic part of it. But, without getting carried away by philosophy here -- what about 'inner being' or 'self' as viable options? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinosaur (talk • contribs) 00:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be awkward to use anything other than 'soul' since the process is being carried out by the Tree of Souls which is mentioned as the place where it happens in the previous sentence? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Cinosaur, I am not seeing how the word mind is too weak; that is a person's entire personality, is it not? But as for any other suggestions, I would have to agree with Bob that the word soul is best in this case (the same you prefer). And with it being in quotation marks, I feel that it lessens its religious aspects; it makes it clear that this is from the Na'vi point of view. However, what do you think of the word consciousness being used instead? Flyer22 (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Flyer22: As I said, 'soul' seems most preferable to me. As for consciousness (or mind, for that matter), I like to consider it a product or energy of the soul, because under certain conditions consciousness is either absent entirely (like in coma or deep sleep) or partially (partial paralysis or local anesthesia) while the soul (=personality) remains. I would say that when Jake was operating his Avatar, he was investing it remotely with his consciousness while remaining in his own body. However, when he went for his "birth-again" party, he the 'soul' as the owner of the body got shifted to his Na'vi shell and permanently disowned his human body, which consequently dropped dead. In this paradigm one can compare the soul to fire, and consciousness -- to its light, which illuminates both itself and everything around. Similarly, the soul by means of consciousness illuminates itself ("I") and things around beginning with the body and mind. Sorry for the philosophical digression. Cinosaur (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No, what you have stated makes sense. You would be against consciousness being used because Jake was not conscious when he was being "reborn" into his Avatar body, right? I am still not quite sure why you object to mind being used, however, since it does not matter whether he was conscious or not; he is not brain dead, and his mind (as in personality) was still transplanted into the his Avatar body. Another editor, seen in the Soul? section below, though, has changed the word to consciousness. Flyer22 (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I see now that it was the final mention that was changed to consciousness (I did not look at the Plot section some hours ago, since I already knew "soul" was changed); the first mention is still left as "soul," which I think is a good compromise, since that part is without a doubt from the Na'vi point of view. Flyer22 (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Soul ?

The article states that the Na'vi unsuccessfully attempted to "transfer Grace's soul" into her avatar body and, later, succeeded to do the same procedure on Jake. However, as I understand it, it is not really a "soul transfer", but rather transferring Grace's/Jake's "minds" (memories, personality, etc.) into the avatar body using Pandora's biological neural net. The Na'vi might well interpret that as a "soul transfer" according to their own religious beliefs, but, since the article is being written from a human, rather than a Na'vi perspective, a more suitable scientific explanation of the procedure is warranted. 200.168.20.77 (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, IP. This has also been brought up above, with the #Editing the "plot" section topic, and also in actual editing of this article. Seems we should just go with "consciousness," like before. Flyer22 (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[this section now integrated with "Editing the Plot Section" Jotun26 (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Jotun26]

Now that I think about it more, "soul" should probably stay. That is how the Na'vi perceive the transfer. They even have a Tree of Souls. If we were talking about the Avatar transfer explanation given by the humans at the beginning of the film, that is a different story. Flyer22 (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what they transfer, the human body would not function normally without either of their 'soul's or 'mind's, so for the purposes of easy explanation, they probably meant what you said. Also, being part of the plot, it's just an opinion, but I'd prefer it to be from the Na'vi point of view as it really goes along with the story ;)Prove me (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no widely accpted definition of the word 'soul' and different cultures have come to use it as they find it convinient. I feel the word soul is approporiate here. And since the story is seen mostly in the eyes of the Na'vi I feel its more approprite to give the story from their perspective only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manyfacetsoflife (talk • contribs) 19:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

James Cameron seemed to make a VERY concerted effort to show that the Na'vi concept of a deity was not supernatural but biological. Souls are supernatural and because of that the use of this particular rhetoric seems inconsistent with both the Na'vi culture and the intentions of the creators of the movie. I strongly recommend the use of the compromise term consciousness as it encompasses more than just the mind, but is decidedly less religious in nature than "souls". This shouldn't affect the plot summary very much at all.HawkShark (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"Soul" does not only mean supernatural, as I and Manyfacetsoflife have stated. The Soul article even makes it clear that the word "soul" is sometimes synonymous with mind or consciousness. But like others, I still see the Na'vi as being spiritual beings. I do not see how that is not clear in the film, which even has a Tree of Souls. Flyer22 (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Consciousness is better than soul, and it is also better than using "soul" in quotation marks as it is now, as using the quotes could be read by some as disparaging or sarcastic. This discussion has also been occurring above #Editing the "plot" section. Consciousness or mind is the best term; I will change it to consciousness. JEN9841 (talk) 07:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, while I think both mind and consciousness (at least within the scope of this article) could serve equally well for the general reader, I suppose it is possible one could argue that one is better than the other. For now, though, I have changed it to consciousness. JEN9841 (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that "consciousness" is better than "soul" in this case. I thought about people thinking that we are being disparaging or sarcastic with the word soul in quotation marks, but I figured that most would understand what we mean. I am okay with letting the word stay as consciousness. But in the future, JEN9841, I would prefer the consensus of discussions be clearer before changes are made to things that are being debated on the talk page. The consensus on this matter is not as clear. Flyer22 (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Just some moments ago...I noticed that you only changed the final mention to consciousness (I did not look at the Plot section some hours ago, since I already knew "soul" was changed); the first mention is still left as "soul," which I think is a good compromise, since that part is without a doubt from the Na'vi point of view. Did you do that on purpose, or rather miss the first soul mention? Flyer22 (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I missed the first one. Leaving soul there as a compromise I think would be a good idea, but this is a tricky issue. The thing that I am concerned about is the fact that "soul" is written with the quotation marks. Do you think the quotes make it non-neutral? JEN9841 (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems perfectly fine to me to leave the first mention in quotation marks; it is saying that the Na'vi believe they are transferring the soul (as in the physical spirit sense) into the Avatar, while some humans (fictional characters or viewers) would not use the word soul in this case (at least not in the physical spirit sense). Flyer22 (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That works for me. We'll keep it the way it is with the first mention being "soul" and the second being consciousness, and fix any changes that deviate from it. JEN9841 (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Just my input on this topic, however I will agree to consensus, but I believe the "soul" reference to be the best one to use in all instances. Being a work of fiction, we are bound to that work of fiction and whatever details the film gives us regardless of bias or personal beliefs. "Tree of souls" and the Navi viewpoint of the "soul" is all thats mentioned in the film that I'm aware of. We as editors are using "consciousness" in our own right, even though it is never spoken of in that manner in the entire film. We can only speculate what the humans would call this "transfer", but we do know what the Navi call it, and in my opinion that is what we as the editors should call it. Ok, I'm done. :) DrNegative (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"Neolithic" versus "Paleolithic"

It is said that "Pandora is inhabited by the Na’vi, a paleolithic species of sapient humanoids with feline characteristics.[17] Physically stronger and taller than humans, the indigenes have sparkling blue skin and live in harmony with Nature, worshiping a mother goddess called Eywa."... I feel that "paleolthic" is incorrect and should be modified to "neolithic" or at the very least "proto-neolithic" as these beings made use of wild and domestic crops and domesticated animals; and foremost created tribes and chiefdoms as seen in the movie. Paleolithic beings were much less developed and formed as 'bands' or social groups, and not distinct communities. Dlbarabe (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Dlbarabe, the topic of "Paleolithic or neolithic?" is discussed below, in the Paleolithic or Neolithic ? section Flyer22 (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[revised: now right below Jotun26 (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Jotun26].

Paleolithic or Neolithic ?

The article refers to the Na'vi as Paleolithic humanoids. However, even though there is e.g. no reference in the movie to Na'vi agriculture, the range of Na'vi tools and artifacts, as well as their full domestication of animals, seem to suggest that they are actually more advanced than paleolithic humans, possibly closer to neolithic or, even late neolithic societies on pre-historical Earth.

In fact, from a certain point of view, even though they don't fully understand it, the Na'vi do have full access to a potentially highly sophisticated biotechnology, namely Pandora's biological neural net, which can be tapped into using hubs such as the "Tree of Voices" and the "Tree of Souls". The Na'vi also take advantage of their sophisticated nervous system to establish neural synaptic connections with Pandoran animals and control them. Therefore, despite the seemingly primitive appearance of Na'vi society, they are in a way far more advanced than pre-historical humans. That point, coupled with their superior strength and reflexes, explain why the Na'vi remain a threat to the technologically far more sophisticated 22nd-century humans. 161.24.19.112 (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason for labeling them as a paleolithic society came down to whether or not they made use of organized agriculture, which is not apparent in the movie. In official sources, they are referred to as a neolithic-equivalent species, perhaps that should take precedence. Just because the Omaticaya clan did not use agriculture does not mean any others did not. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia articles are written from sourced information, we do not use original research. If you can find a source that specifically refers to the Na'vi as Neolithic or Paleolithic, then by all means include it. If the only source for the inclusion is your own opinion, it does not belong in the article. I actually wonder if the word "paleolithic" is even in the Entertainment Weekly article that's cited, I'm of half a mind to go by the library and take a look at it tonight. Trusilver 22:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Na'vi society is referred to as "neolithic" in the Pandorapedia [35]. Would that qualify as a source ? 161.24.19.112 (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Paleolithic and neolithic are terms referring to Earth cultural periods and I think they shouldn't be used for the cultural periods of other planets, except for example, by saying they are "like" the neolithic period on Earth. Also, info that is not in the movie but in a companion source should be so noted in a footnote, in my opinion. Perhaps material that has details related to the story but that aren't in the movie should be limited to a section in the article for that purpose and so noted? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe official materials all indicate the Na'vi to be "neolithic". Of course, as you point out Bob, the terms paelo and neolithic apply only to Earth's history; we could compromise by saying "neolithic-like" or something of that sort. Regarding where we should put "in-universe" material... I believe it depends on how much this film's influence expands, if more films are made, etc. more separate articles can be created, such as the one that already exists for characters and wildlife. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there are going to be sequels with this kind of popularity and the way the story ended. The only thing we didn't hear was the head of the mining expedition saying, "I'll be back." They could call it Avatars?

P.S. For my info, by "in-universe" do you mean details or material related to the story that are not in the movie? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not big on the sound of "neolithic-like". That sounds incredibly awkward and cumbersome. In my opinion, it's a lot of hand-wringing about nothing. The sources use the word "neolithic", so that is pretty much the beginning and the end of the story. I don't see any need to use any other word, definitely not for the purpose of signifying that neolithic on earth and elsewhere are different and need to be properly represented. I see it as a complete non-issue, but your mileage may vary. Trusilver 23:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Bob, I am indeed referring to that material by "in-universe". Trusilver, I agree that "neolithic-like" isn't the best choice, and going with just "neolithic" is understandable enough. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Neolithic would be general agriculture capability, which includes sedentary behavior, large scale tool making and trading. No such things are seen in the movie. You can see them drink from tree-leafs, not from pottery. You do not see them grow crop nor cattle. So neolithic is off, except maybe for the early pre-pottery neolithic. The Na'vi house and beds definitely are not handcrafted, so they would not even be mesolithic. Animal taming is the exception and would hint at neolithic behaviour, even though you hardly can call it taming. Sophisticated body jewellery too. So the Omaticaya could be in touch with a neolithic civilization, or maybe used to be part of it, but still retain their paleo general behavior.--Environnement2100 (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

On Earth, the use of Bow and arrow would put it in at least the Mesolithic, as would the absence of agriculture. "Stone age" might be accurate enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.52.71 (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Motive for creation of avatars

The plot section says, "Humans cannot breathe Pandora’s atmosphere for long without passing out and dying. In order to move about Pandora, human scientists have created human-Na’vi hybrids called avatars, which are controlled by genetically matched human operators." I'm not sure that avatars were created just to "move about" Pandora, especially considering we see plenty of humans "moving about" just fine with the use of gas masks (a much more cost-effective solution!). I think there may have been some discussion of the motive for the program in the movie, although it wasn't clear to me whether it was meant to be primarily scientific or militaristic in nature...perhaps it actually represented the confluence of two different objectives (one scientific, one militaristic). Jotun26 (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Jotun26

According to the backstory, the avatars were created to explore the possibility of using them as locally-adapted mine workers, but the benefits were apparently not great enough to benefit their expense, and the program was redirected into science pursuits (probably to see if any other aspect of Pandora could be exploited for profit). AniRaptor2001 (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That clears it up for me; thanks. Nonetheless, I think this sentence should be revised in a way that reflects this complexity without filling up the synopsis with too many details. Jotun26 (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Jotun26

According to the motives mentioned in the film for the recruitment of Jake Sully, unskilled and untrained, for an avatar pilot, his brothers' avatar is 'ridiculously expensive', and it seems logical that would exclude mine working or transportation as a possible motive for a supersophisticated and expensive r&d programme. Also, Dr. Grace Augustine, the creator and leader of the Avatar programme is a botanist. It only seems rational that the purpose for the creation of Avatars is to make use of their neurological networking features and to serve as an interface in the interaction with the locals for the purposes of 'xenology' and 'xenobotanics'. I believe that the sentence as it is now is naive and undermines the credibility of the plot.Tutini (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems I was mistaken, if we look over at pandorapedia, the Avatars were in fact created to facilitate communications with the Na'vi. I can't for the life of me remember where it mentioned that they were originally proposed as mine workers, but it seemed a reliable source at the time. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the direction of this discussion that the part about the purpose of the avatars needs to be fixed. Go for it! --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've made the change, though I'm also going to add a Pandorapedia reference, since the motive for the program's creation is never discussed, only its current objectives ("we're on the brink of war, and you're supposed to be finding a diplomatic solution!") AniRaptor2001 (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sentence editing

The plot section also says, "Jake and Augustine are disconnected from their avatars and detained for treason along with Norm. Trudy Chacón (Michelle Rodriguez), a security force pilot who is disgusted by the violence, breaks them out but Augustine is wounded by Quaritch." This should be at least two sentences, an "and" should be included before "breaks them out," and "Augustine is wounded" should not be preceded by "but." Perhaps instead: "...who is disgusted by the violence, and breaks them out. During their escape, Augustine is wounded by Quaritch's gunfire aimed at their fleeing ship." Jotun26 (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Jotun26

I agree with a rework of the part where the characters are imprisoned, and more detail regarding Trudy's motives. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

For some reason I thought I was locked out of editing the main article. This revision doesn't seem particularly controversial to me, so I went ahead and changed it. I'm still new to this Wiki-editing stuff =) Jotun26 (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Jotun26

Edit: For some reason I thought "Norm." was an abbreviation for a military rank that Trudy has, instead of thinking of the character Norm...hence I thought there was no disconnect between the two sentences, which is why I added the "and." I now realize this was a mistake...Jotun26 (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Jotun26

Trudy's multiple treasons

On that note ("Sentence editing," above), perhaps there should be some mention either here or earlier in the synopsis that Trudy already disobeyed orders earlier in the film when she refused to assist in the bombing of the Hometree. Admittedly, I don't understand how she managed to stay in with her superiors long enough to break the others out following this incident...perhaps she somehow concealed her abandonment of the mission. (Any insight, anyone? Is this a plot hole?) Jotun26 (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Jotun26

You seem to have identified a plot hole; though perhaps, since the mission was successful, her lack of participation went unnoticed? Doubtful, in any case. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. She said she didnt sign on to bomb a town, she signed on to guard and transport RDA personel, which is probably true. That leaves RDA with the choice of looking the other way when an employee made a questionable judgement in extreme circumstances, or sacking a badly needed helicoptor pilot. Its not like she shot anyone down to protect home tree.

Had she not ran before the attempted bombing campaign, she'd probably have been left at the base as part of the skeleton guard. --80.254.146.20 (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Epic film?

Avatar doesn't seem to fit the description of an epic film that is provided by the wikilink. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"They typically entail high production values, a sweeping musical score (often by an acclaimed film composer), and an ensemble cast of bankable stars, placing them among the most expensive of films to produce." Avatar seems to the fit the description pretty good. Theleftorium 18:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"Epic film" will work for me. Just an aside, I couldn't remember any of the music from the movie, so I googled and found this. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Music, budet and stuff are not the definition of the genre. Avatar is not more epic than any Dysney's full-lenght, such as Lion King.Garret Beaumain (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You might be right re animated films. Frankly, in going along with calling it an epic, I may have been wrongly influenced by this section of the article Epic film. I'm not sure. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Analysis section?

For the eventual analysis section this should be included: a Psychological analysis of Avatar by philosopher Stefan Molyneux as "an epic journey of emotional growth... about the development of empathy". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.21.155 (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Great stuff. I'm hoping we can collect enough analysis into the film's themes that we could open a Critical analysis section, such as this one from the Pulp Fiction article. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

For some of the ideas in the video, like the overbearing father interpretations, the person narrating the video seemed like he was taking a Rorschach Test and scenes in the film Avatar were the inkblots. And some of it sounded familiar, like the connection between the World Trade Center attacks and the attack on Hometree, which can be obtained from articles.

BTW, did you notice that Jake is short for Jacob, and Jacob in the bible had a twin too, and we can find more parallels there, the number depending on imagination? Also, there's jake leg. Of course it's OR but it's a sample of how easy it is to come up with all sorts of stuff that may or may not be relevant. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Haha I suppose I should actually watch the clip before declaring it useful material. My comments regarding the creation of a new section still stand, though, Avatar brings together a lot of classic sci-fi themes that deserve good analysis. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Sci-fi themes in general that are used in Avatar are worth mentioning since that is a given for a movie of any genre to use the themes of its genre. Getting back to Jake, in the development of the script he was once named Josh,[36] like Jake/Jacob another name of biblical origin Joshua, which also has parallels to the character in Avatar. Hmmm. Maybe Cameron was choosing the name because of biblical parallels. If I see an RS with this I may put it in somewhere, or maybe not. Depends if it fits in. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Two important points missing from article

There are two significant criticisms of the film that are missing from the article. Before doing so, I will add the links here. They both comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability and thus there really isn't reason not to include them. I'm not sure we need a whole section - probably the critical reception space is fine:

a. Motion sickness - while not an issue for everyone, it has been an issue for some viewers and thus deserves a mention since the technology is still developing:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/nov/26/avatar-james-cameron-3d

b. Issues concerning plot, themes, and representation:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/willheaven/100020488/james-camerons-avatar-is-a-stylish-film-marred-by-its-racist-subtext/

I'll wait a day for response - otherwise I'll add these links to critical reception. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both items a and b. Mostly, b: the entry as it stands now, seems as written by an admirer rather than as an encyclopedic entry. There should be a section devoted to criticism on the film: both on its artistic merits and its political agenda.Tom Peleg (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There may be something to what you say, but keep in mind WP:UNDUE for any tweaking to get to a neutral point of view, and note that a large majority of the reliable sources have positive opinions about the movie, and that is supported by the general public that votes by buying tickets to it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree that there is a large majority of "positive" reviews. There is a lot of negative voices against the movie, both due to what is generally accepted as "its poor plot" and its "lack of artistic sophistication"; and to it's controversial political agenda. The consensus is positive only on its technological merits. Majority of reviews agree the film is not a masterpiece but deserves a special note due to its technological merits only.

Second, the commercial success is irrelevant here, since we are talking about its critical reception per se. The facts about its commercial success are well emphasized (a thing which I think should be deferred not to the first three paragraphs, but later; since it has nothing to do with the movie--as a movie. But for that I do not care).Tom Peleg (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Re "I do not agree that there is a large majority of "positive" reviews. " - Could you give a source that supports your position? My position is based on Rotten Tomatoes. I've seen that you have criticized Rotten Tomatoes elsewhere for being a compilation of only English speaking reviewers, but note that the film was made in English, although it is probably shown with translations in non-english speaking countries. Also, so far you haven't shown any source that tallies non-english language reviews that supports your opinion.

However, 84% positive reviews at Rotten Tomatoes means that there are 16% negative or neutral reviews and you might pursue you point in that regard, i.e. whether those reviews are appropriately represented in the article. Also, you might check the TV show At the Movies. I heard from someone that they rated Avatar at the lower part of the top ten list for 2009. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

a. - I haven't seen any article, including the one you mentioned, that said that anyone got motion sickness from viewing the movie. I think the quote from the end of the article at that link might apply here, "But overall it's a horrible piece of shit."

b. - I think a similar point is already made in the article by the Newitz discussion in the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph of the section Critical reception.

So I don't think they should be added to the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel that the first article's content merits inclusion. I did add a mention from the second one following the Newitz quote in the Reception section, since this author pointed out specific issues with race and ethnicity in the film, while Newitz simply pointed out that the movie is a white fantasy. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The reception of the movie was very positive and race was a small part of the negative criticism and the race aspect is already represented in the section. So I deleted the recently added part about race per WP:UNDUE. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright then, but I'm concerned about the loss of the link to the commentary. How about consolidating the two voices into a single sentence discussing negative criticism of the race aspect? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I considered that but I didn't see a good way to do it without taking up too much space. Also, re the point about black actors that were the voices of the Na'vi, I don't think hardly anyone watching the movie would have realized that, so it seems to be a manufactured issue and not a real issue. Re Newitz, the discussion was specific about what "race fantasy" meant. Also Newitz's point is consistent with the connection of the film with Dances with Wolves. It seems like a good thing to keep alone without abridging. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of positive or negative film reviews but rather what has been reported about the film. "Motion sickness" is a polite term for "nauseous" and whenever a film involves 3-D and/or IMAX this is still a problem for some (but not all viewers). See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/dec/10/james-cameron-avatar-preview

http://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/movies/AP/story/1403060.html

I'm not certain why this is deemed irrelevant since the new technology is so important to the discussions of this film. As for the second, there has been a discussion of noble savage as a theme of the film:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/01/is_blue_the_new_black_why_some.html

this is easily verified through a google search. I'm not certain how WP:UNDUEWEIGHT applies in this case since only one source has been given on the topic. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

One thing to be careful about when writing a Wikipedia article about a film like Avatar, is that it is so popular and is thus given so much attention in the press, that there is a greater likelihood that there will be a small number of articles that raise false issues or issues not specific to the film. This is the case with motion sickness, nausea, etc. I haven't seen any article that reports a single case from viewing Avatar. If one is interested in the issue of motion sickness for 3-D films, one might consider working on the section 3-D_film#Criticisms at the article 3-D film. It's interesting that in even that article, it hasn't been given much attention. Perhaps you can change that situation.

Regarding the race issue, the link that you gave mentions Annalee Newitz's article about Avatar and race, which is already used in the Avatar article in the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph in the Critical reception section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually all three articles mention that some people had this reaction (nausea) when viewing Avatar. As for the second point, I was perplexed by the WP:UNDUEWEIGHT issue since it is hardly addressed - and no mention is made of noble savage which has received quite a bit of coverage. I've worked on film articles for a number of years on the Wikipedia and thus am pretty familiar with how they are written. However, given Wikipedia:Consensus I'll leave it as is. -Classicfilms (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Just as an fyi, here is an article which is very specific on the issue of nausea. So it is out there. But again as I wrote above, I won't push inclusion in the article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1235154/Has-James-Cameron-Hollywoods-scariest-man-blown-200-million-biggest-movie-flop-ever.html

"More worryingly for Cameron, the 3D effects, which are supposed to mean that Avatar is the 'first film of the future', left several viewers feeling nauseous. 'I definitely would not eat before seeing the film,' one told me." -Classicfilms (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts and info. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

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: clear consensus for no move. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Avatar (2009 film) → Avatar (film) — There are only 2 films with this name on WP and with over 4.5 million pageviews, this is the clear primary use. The proposed name is currently a redirect to a dab page with only 2 films listed; the redirect got over 65,000 hits last month and over 4,000 in 2 days this month. Station1 (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support. I don't see any problem as long as a hatnote is provided on the 2004 article. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 00:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NCF. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 02:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I think it's safe to say that 90% of people looking for a film named "Avatar" will most definitely be looking for James Cameron's film, and not some unknown movie released several years ago that most people haven't even heard of. Just put a hatnote on this article stating This article is about the 2009 film. For the film released in 2004, see Avatar (2004 film). 24.189.90.68 (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I just took a look at the guidelines on naming conventions for movies, and we have three of the greatest examples that also relate to James Cameron: Titanic (1943 film), Titanic (1953 film), and Titanic (1997 film). Clearly the 1997 film is far more well-known and successful than the two previous versions, yet the 1997 movie has not been moved to "Titanic (film)" with a hatnote explaining the other two films. Perhaps it is best that we wait at least 6 months to a year from now and see if the current Avatar film is still searched enough to warrant moving to "Avatar (film)".24.189.90.68 (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Personally, I've never even heard of the 2004 film, and after looking at the article, it seems to reference "Avatar Exile" as a name - not purely "Avatar." -- GSK (talk ● evidence) 00:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Against. The film is on current release so obviously this article will be getting most of the hits. I think it's better to wait and see what the hit rate is like once the film finishes its run so the disambiguation isn't affected by recentism. Betty Logan (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't really see any problem with keeping the current name or moving it.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

• Strong Support: Per nom. —Mike Allen 00:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Per Eric's argument and WP:PROMINENCE. —Mike Allen 03:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
• Not yet Of course it got plenty of hits; it's currently in theaters - and people do use us like IMDB. But that's presentism; in five years it may be down to the level of the 2004 film. Wait at least until it's not in current release. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Using the pageviews argument at anytime is flawed, but it especially shouldn't be used here. Of coarse this article will get far more views, the movie just came out less than 3 weeks ago and became the fastest movie to $1 billion worldwide. TJ Spyke 01:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Station1's flawed argument. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies to Avatar versus Avatar (2009 film); surely we are not discussing moving Avatar (2009 film) to Avatar and Avatar to Avatar (Hindu term). The film article is getting more attention than the article about the Hindu term because it is a blockbuster film currently. There is no point in moving Avatar (2009 film) to Avatar (film) -- both articles are disambiguated regardless. WP:NCF#Between films of the same name indicates zero criteria of popularity or importance when comparing the films that already have disambiguated titles because of a preexisting primary topic. People are already finding their way to this film article without issue; removing the release year does nothing helpful. Erik (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• To expand on my argument, very few people actually type "Avatar (film)"; see page views for Dec 2009. Same for typing "Avatar film"; see page views for Dec 2009. This means that less than 0.5% of people who come to the film article actually type either term. Most people obviously come to the film article through the primary topic, Avatar, judging from its inordinately high number of page views. This means that removing the release year from this title has no benefit; it is unnecessary subjection of the film articles to a hierarchy when neither are the primary topic. Another portion probably accesses it directly from search results within Wikipedia, from which we draw the same conclusion of no benefit to removing the release year. Erik (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
• If it did nothing helpful I wouldn't have proposed it. As I explained below, over 65,000 readers hit Avatar (film) last month expecting to view this article and instead were surprised to end up at a dab page. Those people were not already finding their way here without issue. The move would benefit tens of thousands over the next few months. And WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:NCF are not mutually exclusive. When one film article gets millions of views and another gets a few thousand, common sense indicates one can get "(film)" and the other further disambiguated with the year. Station1 (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• You seem concerned about people being "surprised" by where they end up. If they ended up at the 2004 film article, that would be an unnecessary surprise. We can see from the page views for Avatar that people type it in as a way to get to the film article. Maybe they expect the Hindu term, maybe they don't, but we have road signs in place to guide them, either from Avatar or Avatar (film). If anything, typing "Avatar (film)" shows them that it isn't the only film titled Avatar or some variation of it. Is it at least not useful for them to see these topics peripherally? Most people who get to the film article obviously do not get there perfectly, going through Avatar. Why does it matter so much that less than 0.5% of them get there perfectly? Erik (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• I see now from your expansion (1st indent above) that we agree completely on the facts, just interpret them differently. Your 0.5% is my 65,000. A small percentage but a large number (the redirect ranked 6216 in traffic on en.wikipedia). I don't know that it matters "so much" but why not help those 65,000 per mo get here more easily? Especially if a move hurts literally no one. Net benefit. Station1 (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Fair enough, we'll agree to disagree about the benefit. However, WP:NCF does not apply a hierarchy within film articles that are already disambiguated from a primary topic. Just because one film is far more popular than the others does not mean it gets some silly benefit of kicking the release year out of its disambiguated title. People who type "Avatar" or "Avatar (film)" deal with one "hop" to the article that they are looking for. This is hardly an inconvenience. Erik (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Please see Discussion section below. Station1 (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - (film) is okay when there is only one film of that name. However there have been several films called Avatar. naming convention policy is to use the year to differentiate them. Canterbury Tail talk 02:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - According to guideline mentioned above: Wikipedia:NCF#Between_films_of_the_same_name. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per the naming convention for films. If we have two films of the same name, then both get years attached to them. Plain and simple. We don't say "you get to be just 'film', while you have to be 'year film'". That makes no sense. The fact that someone has to put "Avatar (" into the search field will automatically bring up "Avatar (2009 film)" anyway...so it doesn't make it any easier for the average reader to locate the page if it was just "(film)". Page views have nothing to do with the name of the article. If 100 people view a page 10,000 times in a month then the page views would be rather biased anyway. It's like trying to argue that we should use IMDb's Top 100 listing on film articles as a means to show how popular a movie is. This is why every decision should be an objective one, not a subjective one. Objectively, we have two films with the same name - thus, they are distinguished by the year of release.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose while the other film with an article may or may not be notable, it does have an article and it does exist. Therefore, this article's name is fully appropriate per WP:NCF and the general naming conventions. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose — There are two films by this title on Wikipedia already, more are listed on imdb.com, and no doubt in future there will be still more. I think it is inappropriate to move an article to an ambiguous page name merely to "capture" more page views for whatever article is hot at present. Looking at the page views on related articles, I think part of the problem is Avatar: the article at that page name is not what I would expect to find there. It has hatnote links to Avatar (2009 film) and the dab page, and there is a history of edit warring over those hatnotes. Looking at the incoming links, I see more than a few that don't intend the Hindu avatar. I would move the dab page to the base name, then repair the incoming links, ASAP. --Una Smith (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCF ('When disambiguating films of the same name, add the year of its first public release'). Just have the redirect Avatar (film) direct towards Avatar (2009 film). That way if anyone if the future wishes to challenge the primacy of the film, which is doubtful, they can put forward a redirect for discussion.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose but why isn't there a "are you looking for the other one" note at the top of each film giving a redirect? I know the 2004 film is obscure but we can presume everyone is looking for the 2009 film. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Note: This article was at Avatar (film) until June 2009, so this would be a move back to the original title. The main reason to move is that the redirect Avatar (film) is getting so many hits, over 65,000 last month. Based on pageviews of Avatar (2004 film) from Jan-May last year, when it was getting a couple thousand hits per month, approximately 97% of the readers landing on Avatar (film) are looking for the 2009 film. For the other 3%, a hatnote should be added. Station1 (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose a hatnote disambiguation pointing to the 2004 film would be appropriate, along with a move back to Avatar (film). I'm reluctant to favor one or the other, but it seems reasonable. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Naming convention document states to use the year to differentiate films of the same name. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(films)#Between_films_of_the_same_name. Canterbury Tail talk 02:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: What about simply changing Avatar (film) to redirect to Avatar (2009 film) and change the hatnote to Avatar (disambiguation)#Film (where Avatar (film) currently points)? This way naming conventions are followed, yet the obvious redirect is preserved. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 04:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)That isn't a natural redirect, letting the reader choose which article they wish to read from the disambiguation page makes more sense in my mind. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 05:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, that would be fine. Station1 (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with B Fizz on this. Since the vast majorty of readers are looking for this film article anyway, the minority would only be a hatnote away. DrNegative (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the current setup is much more encyclopaedic. This isn't the only film by this name, and isn't the only Avatar in film. There are several more that should actually be added. Better to leave it pointed to the disambiguation page than redirecting to a specific title. Canterbury Tail talk 15:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Re WP:NCF. Much of the opposition cites WP:NCF#Between films of the same name, but WP:NCF recognizes the concept of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in the section immediately above that. WP:NCF#Disambiguation read as a whole suggests a hierarchy of preferred qualifiers: a. none; b. “(film)”; c. “(year film)”; d. “(year, country or genre, film)”. It certainly doesn't say – nor even imply, in my opinion, although it's ambiguous – that every film with the same title must include the year, even if one is the primary topic among films. Even if one disagrees with that interpretation, WP:NCF states at the top of the page that it is a guideline (i.e., suggestion) best treated with common sense and the occasional exception. A major purpose of naming conventions is to help readers easily find the article about the topic they're looking for. If a guideline gets in the way of doing that, as in this case where it is causing numerous readers to land on the wrong page, then ignore all rules. Station1 (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• The "From other topics" section of WP:NCF does not apply to the films titled Avatar at all. For films, primary topics work like this: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is the primary topic, and there are secondary topics related to it and disambiguated appropriately. Valkyrie (film) is not the primary topic because Valkyrie took that place. The "(film)" disambiguation only applies to if there is only one film is titled the same way as the primary topic. That is why the next section, "Between films of the same name", exists -- for finer disambiguation. The primary topic is Avatar; this is indisputable. We do not apply the primary-topic logic to already-disambiguated articles. Like I said, there is no criteria of popularity or importance when the film articles already have to be disambiguated with the proper differentiation in parentheses. Erik (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Re recentism: Just because a topic is new doesn't mean it cannot be a primary topic, only that we should avoid automatically assuming that it is. No doubt this article will get many fewer pageviews over time, but to suggest that Avatar (2004 film) will ever come close to being searched for as much as this article just doesn't seem reasonable. For the next several years this article will be “much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) [“Avatar (film)”] may also refer”. Station1 (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• When I want to read whatever everyone else is reading, I use Google to search Wikipedia; Google shows search results sorted approximately by rate of link-through. When I don't care what everyone else is reading, I use the Wikipedia search tool. Wikipedia is not Google and we should not be moving articles around in order to approximate the behavior of Google. --Una Smith (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I have today created a disambiguation category at Category:Avatar and a category about the 2009 film at Category:Avatar (film). This does not express an opinion in or circumvent this requested article move. Avatar (2004 film) is unlikely to get a category and Cameron's film may get sequels so "Category:Avatar (film)" seemed like a reasonable name for a category (although I wonder whether a category was premature at this point). PrimeHunter (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2010 (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.

Note on organization of talk topics above

If anyone is looking for a topic that they can't find, please note that I made some substantive organizational changes and turned a lot of headings into sub-headings to avoid redundancy and clutter. Jotun26 (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Jotun26

As I stated to AniRaptor2001 when AniRaptor2001 reformatted headings, I am not sure that changing the order of discussions in the way you did is for the best or not. I do not hugely object in this case, but I prefer that talk page sections are presented in the order they appeared on the talk page, unless it is a section that started at the top of the talk as opposed to the bottom.

It's not a policy...but is a guideline if you specifically alter an editor's comment (a registered user's or an IP's) in some significant kind of way. Guidelines on all this are at WP:TALK; it includes mention of the chronological order matter I was talking about. But what you did might be considered appropriate, per "When talk pages get too long" (also seen in the WP:TALK link). I just thought I should bring it up to you. Some editors object quite a great deal to drastic refactoring of talk pages, especially if their comments are altered. You did not significantly alter any comments, other than the subsection headings, of course, but I just wanted to note this to you. One now banned editor, Tyciol, often got into a lot of trouble for refactoring talk pages (as his talk page edit history shows). Flyer22 (talk) 08:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I would also advise you against altering editors' comments to where your comment is within theirs, like you did with one of my comments (though I changed it). That is not needed, and it can lead to people thinking you are a sockpuppet of that editor.

And maybe we should speed up the archive bot of this talk page, so that all this refactoring is not thought of as needed. Flyer22 (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Noted. Yes, I did not edit any of the contents of the sections, aside from a few headings. Mainly, I just aligned a few topics better with the existing organizational structure. I had forgotten about archiving (still new to this). Jotun26 (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Jotun26

Music from the Film

How is it that in the Avatar Trailer the score from "The Island" is played but there is no mention of it anywhere? The specific track name is "My name is Lincoln" by Steve Jablonski...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRdxXPV9GNQ (avatar trailer) http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/store/artist/album/0,,3317779,00.html (sample track) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.99.59 (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen that mentioned in any reliable source, probably because it is not unusual for movie trailers or advertisements in general. You might look for a reliable source that discusses Avatar's soundtrack that might mention that. Please keep in mind WP:NOR too. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Biased statements

The third paragraph of the entry reads: "Opening to critical acclaim and ...". This is biased. The film is regarded by many reviewers around the world as average and below. This entry should not be used as a commercial for the film. Tom Peleg (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

According to Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics, which is an aggregate of the most notable film critics from all forms of media, Avatar has a 94% positive review. What exactly would you consider an appropriate threshold to call something "critically acclaimed?" 94% positive reviews sounds pretty damned critically acclaimed to me. Trusilver 17:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Tomatoes gathers only English speaking reviews, and thus is not universally representative. Moreover, there seems to be a consensus among reviewers that the movie has major faults, that it is an average movie, except to its technological merits. These technological merits are almost the sole aspect for the positive reviews (as stated by reviewers themselves). No reviewers I know of has declared the movie as being an artistic achievement. This should be represented in the entry. As it stands now, the entry feels like a commercial.Tom Peleg (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to be asinine, but isn't this the English wikipedia? ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 22:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

T-meter critics give it: 83% only. Somewhat representative critical claim: "Breaks technological ground with stunning visuals, but disappoints on story and characters - which still do matter". I don't see that the entry represents this major line of criticism. Tom Peleg (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No, RT's top critics index gives it a 94%, that is the most notable film critics. The 83% is the standard aggregate, the one that anyone who is a published film critic can be in, regardless of whether or not they write for something like the "Lower Southeast BFE Kansas Village Herald" or any other such publication that a total of like eight people read. Regardless, even a 75% of those critics still sounds critically acclaimed to me, that's meaning 3/4ths of reviewers are positive about the movie. What part of the words "critical" and "acclaim" are there alternate definitions for that I'm unaware of? As for outside the country, cite a source and we will talk. Trusilver 18:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Tomatoes is local to US. Hence, it is not reliable for that matter. There might be other standards in and outside US.

2. Even if Tomatoes was universal, percentage average is not sufficient to say it is "critically acclaim". One has to go deeper. The term "critically acclaim", is not defined, neither represents, some average. We are not discussing here theories of art, but Tomatoes is not sufficient for the general term "critically accaimmed". The farthest you can go with it is by saying, instead of "critically acclaimed", that "Rotten Tomatoes gives it 94% in its top-critic rating", or something of the sort.

3. You did not answer the problem I mentioned before: there seems to be a consensus among reviewers that the movie has major faults, that it is an average movie, except to its technological merits. These technological merits are almost the sole aspect for the positive reviews (as stated by reviewers themselves). No reviewers I know of has declared the movie as being an artistic achievement. This should be represented in the entry. As it stands now, the entry feels like a commercial.Tom Peleg (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The use of Rotten Tomatoes is universally accepted on Wikipedia as a benchmark for film reviews. If you have a problem with this, I suggest you take your grievance to WP:FILM. But that aside, what you are essentially saying is that a film is not "critically acclaimed" if there is any problem anyone has with the film whatsoever, which is a profoundly ridiculous suggestion. That would make NO movie critically acclaimed. At least two top tier reviews have said something to the tune of "I felt like I did walking out of Star Wars." So... that's not a declaration of artistic achievement? I'd like to hear the opinions of others on this, because you are basically saying we need to recognize your rather questionable definition of what "critically acclaimed" means. So I will wait for others to chime in on this before any further discussion. Trusilver 20:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Comparison to Star Wars is certainly not a declaration of artistic achievement. There is a consensus that Star Wars was an important event in the history of cinema for several reasons; Mainly its being a precursor of the "block-busters" phenomena, and as a phenomena of popular culture. But it is far from consensus to claim it is regarded either as high art, or as even "good" art.Tom Peleg (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with what Trusilver has to say. The film has been acclaimed by Roger Ebert, a veteran film critic, Rotten Tomatoes, a website that consolidates various film critic's scores, Metacritic, the New York Times, and countless other national and international sources. For you to state that Avatar has not been "critically acclaimed" is completely ridiculous. Moreover, your lack of providing sufficient evidence to defend you opinion is what makes me not believe your argument. BalticPat22Patrick 21:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You can simply check the Tomatoes critics: there is a consensus that the movie lacks in important artistic aspects (like plot). The high grades are given almost solely to its technological merits. Claims for "critical acclaim" is thus misleading.Tom Peleg (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Trusilver. With a huge majority of critics giving it a positive review, you cant take away the consensus simply because of the opinions of a very small minority. The film itself is actually doing better worldwide than in the US on the matter of your bias towards a US review site. I would love to see a collection of "notable" sources from foriegn countries that says this move fails artisticly. DrNegative (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing between critical acclaim and the financial success of a film. These are pretty independent issues.Tom Peleg (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Nonetheless, Wikipedia film article policy recommends [37] that a film should receive its consensus from critics of that film's country of origin, in this case, the US - (Rotten Tomatoes, MetaCritic, etc.) With greater than 80% on RT, it becomes self-evident that the film is critically acclaimed because over 8 out of 10 notable critics gave the film a positive review.DrNegative (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Tom Peleg, in the Critical reception section, we clearly note the general consensus among the Rotten Tomatoes reviewers: "It might be more impressive on a technical level than as a piece of storytelling, but Avatar reaffirms James Cameron's singular gift for imaginative, absorbing filmmaking."

We are not hiding anything; it is just that statement does not belong in the lead (intro). Flyer22 (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Tom has a valid point in that Rotten Tomatoes isn't universally representative, but then no source is. Being "universally representative" isn't a criteria for being a reliable source, it just has to be accepted as a valid source for a recognised body of opinion. If Tom can provide us with reliable sources for critique beyond the English language then that is the way to make it more neutral, not removing sources. Betty Logan (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a reliable source for what it is: not of being "critically acclaimed", rather of averaging the grades given to a film by some top critics in the US. Nothing more. Thus, it should be written as what it is, and not as the somewhat speculative term "critically acclaimed". Tom Peleg (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"Critical acclaim" does sound like a biased statement, whatever the extent of such acclaim ; it is not necessary to making a good article, and the overwhelming box office figures probably tell more about what the movie is. If you have a look at Titanic (1997 film), which definitely is in the same league in terms of encyclopedic content, you can see that a) there is no mention of critical acclaim in the lead, and b) the amount grossed is plainly, and shortly, stated. The Critical Reception paragraph is quite enough for the reader who might want to read about it, including the tomatometer ; keeping "acclaim" in the lead does not carry useful info, and essentially fuels criticism towards the article.--Environnement2100 (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"Omega Code", "The Glass Hand" and "Soldier"

James Cameron had at least two other movies that he acknowledged hijacking: "Terminator" and "The Omega Code". The "Terminator" Was derived from two stories by Harlan Ellison: "The Glass Hand" and "Soldier". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.224.162 (talk) 06:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Conservative/Religious Ire?

The Los Angeles Times and the Examiner (for some reason, Examiner is on the blacklist) have interesting articles and links about the widespread negative reaction to the film by conservatives and the religious. I currently see only two lines expressing this belief - perhaps it should be expanded to one paragraph? --haha169 (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's another LA times source and one from Fox news for discussion of the conservative perspective. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If it is decided to include more info on conservative/religious reception, wouldn't it be more logical as well as easier for readers if it is put separately in "Release" section under a subheading "Reception by religious groups" or something? Why clog "Critical reception" with obviously religious responses, which, even when coming from professional movie critics, may have nothing to do with the movie's critical evaluation as a movie? Cinosaur (talk) 06:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is not exclusively religious. And the religious are not exclusively slamming the film. But it has been mostly true that the negative reviews generally come from the politically conservative media who have qualms with the movie's messages. This is part of the movie, yes?--haha169 (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind WP:UNDUE and also that the movie is predominantly a piece of action-adventure entertainment. It's my impression that the political aspects are not nearly as important to most people as the entertainment from the action-adventure, special effects, etc. I think this is supported by a comment that was quoted in the article that was made by a Southern Baptist pastor critical of the film, "If you can get a theater full of people in Kentucky to stand and applaud the defeat of their country in war, then you’ve got some amazing special effects." So, although the criticism on sociopolitical grounds is out there, we should give it the appropriate amount of space in the article, not too much, and not too little. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That was my argument from the beginning. I do not believe two lines is sufficiently enough to address an issue that found its way onto the mainstream media - as well as this being one of only two major factors that lead to a negative review (the other being cliche and predictable plot). In fact, I would use WP:UNDUE to argue the fact that there is a proportionally longer amount of text referring to positive reviews than negative. Noting the presence of these arguments would serve nicely to balance between the positives and the negatives. --haha169 (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

When considering WP:UNDUE and something making it to the mainstream media (LA Times, Fox, etc.) consider how much space that topic is given in the mainstream media compared to other topics about the movie in the mainstream media. Just an aside, in the Fox article I found a view re pro-military that I haven't seen in any other articles, "Director Cameron has thus made another film that is anti-corporate, but pro-military." --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This search was conducted at the time of my timestamp, so the order may have changed, but a Google news search of "Avatar critics" ([38]), the first result is: This week in political civility: Avatar bashed by conservative critics, along with 1,519 related articles, like this one from ABC which nicely sums up conservative arguments with multiple quotes. It seems quite major to me. --haha169 (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the google way is a try at quantifying it for comparison. I noticed that the search you made with keywords Avatar critics got 1701 hits when I just did it. I did a google search with keywords Avatar review and got 48,300,000 hits. Seems like the keyword "critic" may turn up more hits re criticizing comments, whereas the keyword "review" turns up more hits about the movie reviews in general. But it's not clear whether any of this is valid or gets us anywhere in deciding the percentage of negative criticism on sociopolitical grounds. For that, maybe take the Rotten Tomatoes percentages, and consider that the negative reviews on sociopolitical grounds are a subset of all the negative reviews, and this relation might suggest the percentage of negative criticism on sociopolitical grounds in general? Anyhow, so far I haven't seen evidence that percentage-wise the negative sociopolitical comments should get more attention in the article than they already have gotten. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair assessment. But I still think that there should be an addition, because the current way it is written is simply two quotes from places more obscure than LA Times, ABC, and FOX; and the fact that they aren't mentioned as a "conservative" argument, but simply a quote that lacks reasoning behind it that is followed by another quote. --haha169 (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're making a point that has been in my mind for awhile. That the negative criticism should not appear like it is coming from some fringe element. But on the other hand, the quotes are quite good in summarizing and expressing the feelings of the sociopolitical critics, in my opinion. Also, I think the negative comments should not be qualified by "conservative" any more than positive reviews by liberals should be characterized as coming from liberals. It doesn't seem like NPOV to do that because it prejudices the reader. One thing not mentioned yet is the pantheism aspect and I've had a discussion with Cinosaur and I have agreed on a sentence with him in a discussion here. I'm waiting for that editor to add it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. 03:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Article protection

This article was receiving 200,000 views per day last week, and now that it's been unprotected, vandalism is occurring regularly. Should it be re-protected until the hubbub cools down? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what semi-protection is for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - The previous level of protection should be restored. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support: I think the nom is asking for it to get semi-protected like before it expired. I so support this. Energy needs to go into the article so it can reach FA, not reverting annoying vandals. —Mike Allen 05:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support: The hit count remaining high and the fact that the film being as notable as it currently is, becomes a good target of vandals. DrNegative (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I put in the request for semi-protection and it was approved for one month by an admin. DrNegative (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well that's better than a week that I usually get. LOL. —Mike Allen 06:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Do I even have to say I support? One of my recent edit history comments was/is clear on this matter, and this is a much viewed article (which IPs love to add trivia to or vandalize). Glad it has been protected for a month. Just looking at the revision history moments ago, I could not tell how long it had been protected for -- its expiration time stated the same exact time it was just "locked," LOL.

• As for FA status, you all feel that we should just skip nominating it for GA and go right to FA after more perfecting? Flyer22 (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

However you're supposed to do it, I guess. I just thought the ultimate goal was to reach FA, but if you have to go through GA to get there, then that's OK too. —Mike Allen 07:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I will support you whichever direction you choose to go. Its definitely GA material as it stands now in my opinion. DrNegative (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to be watching the article come this time next month and if the level of activity is still abnormally high, I will be extending the semi-protection on a week by week basis. As for GA status... I think that it qualifies for GA status right now, the article is definitely more stable than it was a ten days or so ago when GA was last proposed. I don't know if I would jump headfirst into FA, but I think that FA is definitely in the future. Trusilver 19:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

similar movie Pocahontas (1995 film)

I have added similar movie Pocahontas (1995 film) to see also section. You may like to insert it into article text if you find any good ref comparing the stories. Raise lkblr (talk) 09:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Does not belong in the See also section; it is already mentioned in the Critical reception section. Flyer22 (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Besides...since it is not directly related to this film, it would not belong in the See also section anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Appears like American military

I remember as a viewer of the film in the theater, I thought the soldiers were the American military, literally. I either didn't notice or didn't remember the description of them as mercenaries, which apparently was in the first 10 minutes of the film. I suspect that most people seeing the film had the same experience. Perhaps that should be put in, but I don't see how. As it is, it seems like the article has "sanitized" that aspect of the film. I'm very interested and open minded regarding other editors' thoughts and suggestions regarding this. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The thing that probably made this matter most confusing was what I perceived as the security details' continued use of their military-issued uniforms. I'm not sure if this is common practice among PMCs or not, but I suppose the argument could be made that since there are not other military around, they're free to do as they please, and Quartich would seem the type of personality to want to imagine himself as running his own little army. However the article does mention "mercenary" and "security contractor" quite a few times, while making sure to note that all marines are ex- or retired. I don't think it's far fetched to say that Cameron deliberately wanted the association with the american military to be very obvious, to the point of the viewer subtly forgetting that they were dealing with contractors and not soldiers. I imagine that some conservative voices must have picked up on this. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

To me it was quite clear that the military were civilian-operated, very much a Blackwater-like operation. The many allusions to the real-world Iraq operations (I think I even heard the words "war on terror") definitely are surprising in a normally very mainstream movie. The article does point at it, in a manner which avoids well possible edit wars. As far as the uniforms are concerned, most mercenaries (officers) are former regular military ; they retain their former uniforms and weapons, as their new hire generally does not provide any.--Environnement2100 (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

To be added at the end of the "Critical Reception" section of the article.

{{editsemiprotected}}

Many science fiction fans have noted other close parallels with previous written works. Most notably, the plot point of the dragons bonding permanently with their riders is central in Anne McCaffrey's popular series of books about the dragon-riders of the planet Pern.

The movie's plot, dealing with conflict between colonizers and the natives has reminded a number of readers of Ursula LeGuin's "The Word for World is Forest," and Joan Slonczewski's "A Door Into Ocean." In the first, the conflict between the forest-dwelling natives and the colonizers becomes violent after the colonizers attack and destroy a tree-city (as in Avatar). The natives fight back and drive the earthlings off their planet. In the second, the natives have a scientifically based link to their environment (as in Avatar).

Dionwr (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

 Not done This is unsourced speculation--Jac16888^Talk 01:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistent wording.

One line of the plot says They attempt to transplant her "soul" into her avatar and another line says The film ends with Jake's consciousness being transplanted into his Na'vi avatar. You should use the same word in both lines. 202.74.194.57 (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

How about something like "They attempt to make the Avatar transference permanent" or something?202.74.194.57 (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Use of the word "billion"

The US and the UK uses the short scale i.e. 1 billion = 1,000,000,000 whereas the majority of the world uses longscale i.e. 1 billion = 1,000,000,000,000. When using the term billion in terms of the worldwide gross I'm concerned that using short scale terminology violates WP:WORLDVIEW. The fact that's it's a UK backed US produced film is a valid point for using short scale for its domestic gross, but the majority of the worldwide gross accounts for long scale regions. To prevent potentially violating WP:WORLDVIEW I recommend not using the term "billion" and using its numerical equivalent i.e. 1,000,000,000 or 1000 million. At the moment we are using US and British terminology for information that mostly lies outside of those regions. Betty Logan (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

From WP:ORDINAL, "The named numbers, billion and trillion are understood to be short scale..." Also the numbers definitely should -not- be fully typed out. Doniago (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

In short, we are speaking English - what national variety of English is long-scale now that British English is not? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that English is a second language in most countries so there will be many people from non English speaking countries who will misinterpret the semantics. Even in Britain the phrase causes confusion because while Britain offically uses short scale now, colloquially it still means a million million, especially to older generations. It seems the style guide is clear on this issue but it's unfortunate Wikipedia has opted to put itself in a position where its text can be easily misinterpreted when the ambiguity can easily be removed. Betty Logan (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Small correction

"Pandora, a fictional world in a distant planetary system"

I don't think that Alpha Centauri's, the closest planetary system there is, should be called "distant". Let's change it to "another" or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.181.225.250 (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

4.5 light years qualifies as "distant" in my book. DrNegative (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Then according to your book all planetary systems (other than our own) are distant, and so there is no need for the adjective at all. But I think the anon makes a valid point. In terms of planetary systems, this one would be close compared to all others, so I've adjusted the article. Ben (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think your addition of Alpha Centauri worked well and it wasn't even discussed here. I agree with DrNegative. The planetary system is distant and it didn't say anything about in comparison to others, it's simply distant. If you would like to change it, please get consensus first. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You're not making any sense and you didn't give any rationale against the change. The word distant makes no sense in the previous version, let alone to say something "is simply distant", and I explained that above. If you disagree, explain why. Ben (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

26453814179326.24 Miles away = distant. The other planetary systems that you mentioned, assuming there are any in "this" work of fiction, are not even mentioned to contrast to your relative thinking of the term. DrNegative (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe you just gave me a number and told me that equals distant. What, pray tell, is the point at which something changes from being considered close and then to distant? When you realise that there is no answer to that question, then ask yourself what is the point in describing 'x' as 'y', if all 'x' satisfy 'y'? For example, do we bother to list in our apple article that all apples may be found on Earth? No? Why not? I'm sorry you got hung up on me mentioning other planetary systems, I only mentioned them in order to illustrate that question. Please don't get hung up on me mentioning apples now too. Now, finally, why is the "distant" version better than the version I suggested? You still haven't given a rationale. Ben (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you're thinking in terms of the language of logical rigor instead of the common use of the language. Also, if there were no adjective, "a planetary system" could include the solar system. If the adjective used was "another planetary system" some readers would not understand what the first planetary system was. "Distant planetary system" seems to work the best, in my opinion, and people in general would consider 4 light years distant, in comparison to distances that they are familiar with. And Alpha Centauri introduces a needless complication detail for some readers, which I don't think is appropriate for the lead, and I'm not sure that it was even mentioned in the movie. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As you took the liberty to illustrate your question, I only mentioned the number to illustrate my answer. In the end, it would be the mainstream view of the term that would fit best. Forgive me, I am no longer arguing over something so trivial. DrNegative (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(←) (ec) I am thinking in common use of the language, and the term "distant" is highly dependent on context. For example, I would say an atom is distant from another if one resides in this room and another next door, yet I would say two people are close if one is in this room and another is next door. We can go as "big" as you like: two countries are close if they are next to each other. In terms of planetary systems, a planetary system at AC would be the closest possible planetary system to us (next to us), so I wouldn't use the word distant, instead I would just specify the system and leave it at that. I do think your suggestion of 'another' would also be fine, but if you truly think this would confuse people, then simply mentioning AC is still my preference. Ben (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the ec, note AC added in my last message. Trying to write for a general audience when one is used to discussions with peers in a math/science discipline may sometimes be difficult. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record I do understand your logic Ben, I'm just trying to imply this term for the general reader. Take Star Wars for example, George Lucas says a galaxy "far, far away". But if that galaxy where Andromeda he was talking about for example, by your logic we shouldnt tell the reader that it was far away because it is the closest galaxy to the Milky Way, even though its many light years away. Thats all I was trying to imply. DrNegative (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob, personally I don't think mentioning AC is a needless complication, it's fairly well-known and there is a wikilink. Also, it avoids the issue of distance and it can't be picked on for being ambiguous. DrNegative, The Star Wars example is different since we're not told where the galaxy is. In this movie's case, we're told exactly what system the planet resides in, and it's the closest system not counting our own. Cheers, Ben (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I would also say 'distant' is a subjective word, and one that should be avoided. It could easily be re-written as "the closest planetary system to Earth", which actually makes more sense in the context of establishing a mining operation. Since the exact location is actually given, then the exact location should be used instead of a vague geographic term. Betty Logan (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no problem with 'distant' in this context. This adjective can be used both in describing relative remoteness of objects (A is distant and B is close), or by itself, as "far off or apart in space; not near at hand; remote or removed (often fol. by from): a distant place; a town three miles distant from here", which is incidentally its primary use according to Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. While some here prefer the former comparative reading, others read it as simply qualifying, which is its primary meaning. If you really want to be a perfectionist here, go for 'extrasolar planetary system': "Extrasolar - outside, or originating outside, the sun or the solar system" (WUD) However, IMO 'distant' is just as fine. And make no mistake about it -- 'Alpha Centauri' will get many more readers stuck than 'distant' Cinosaur (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well there isn't any problem with 'distant' but by the same token there isn't any problem with 'close' either, and there lies the problem. The scale you apply is entirely subjective, which I believe is the point Ben is making, and Wikipedia should endeavour not to use subjective terminology. Personally I can live with either but the objectors here are using subjective bias to over-rule someone who wants to make the location explicit which I don't agree with because it's not our place to re-interpret plot elements in the synopsis, just to relay them as accurately as possible. Betty Logan (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There does not appear to be a consensus for the change from "distant", so I have restored it. Please do not revert without consensus. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

And just out of curiosity, where did the notion that it was around Alpha Centauri come from? I don't remember that being mentioned in the film. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

And BTW, Proxima Centauri is the closest star to the earth (other than the sun of course), and Alpha Centauri is two stars. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

http://news.discovery.com/space/avatars-pandora-could-be-a-reality.html ! Anyway, check out the video here: http://www.pandorapedia.com/doku.php I feel like this is something that was in the press releases, because I've been hearing that Polyphemus orbits aCen from the very beginning. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That link gives us a reliable third party source that Pandora is 5 light years away. This dispute should be wrapped up now, the exact distance should be incorporated into the text and the source included to validate the claim. That's how things are done on Wikipedia - through verifiable sourcing! Betty Logan (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Betty, Was Alpha Centauri mentioned in the film? There's all sorts of details that can be put in the lead, e.g. Alpha Centauri, but so far there isn't a consensus that it is a detail that should be there. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that neither Polyphemus nor aCen are mentioned in the film; Polyphemus is in the script, but its name is never stated by a character. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Pandora's specific location in the Alpha Centauri system is stated (among possibly other sources) in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBGDmin_38E from the official Avatar YouTube account (and was released a week before the film was). In addition, the significant reason for choosing Alpha Centauri is the very fact that it isn't "distant" when it comes to star systems. Its status as the most "nearby" star system serves to help suspend disbelief that travel there could occur in less than 150 years, as well as the fact that it's such a well known system among the public (specifically for the fact that it is near Earth). Removing the name of the specific system (of which the name takes up nearly identical screen space) and calling it "distant" is confusing and misleading. How is this supposed to make the article easier to read or understand? SlimX (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Re "the fact that it's such a well known system among the public" - Perhaps you think that the general public knows it because you have become familiar with it? I suspect that when Alpha Centauri appears in a news article it is usually explained what it is because the general public is not familiar it. Maybe Cameron didn't put Alpha Centauri in the script because he thought it is not a familiar name to most people. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I went looking for news articles in prominent newspapers, starting with The NY Times,[39] LA Times, [40] and found that when Alpha Centauri was mentioned it was explained. But then I found in the Boston Globe in an article about Avatar, "Set in the year 2154 on Pandora, a moon in the Alpha Centauri star system."[41] Looks a lot like the sentence in the article, if Alpha Centauri was there. So perhaps Alpha Centauri is OK. I think "distant" is OK too, but I'll be flexible on this if people strongly want Alpha Centauri. Also note that the Globe article didn't find a need to use "fictional Earth-like". --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I put the Globe sentence in the article with citation. Feel free to revert if you don't like it. Cheers, --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

References to New Zealand

Has anyone else noticed quite a few references to New Zealand within the film, no doubt due to the involvement of Weta Workshop? The forest in some parts resemble those found in New Zealand, although not quite so extreme obviously. Ferns and also the Home Tree bears a remarkable resemblence to NZ's Kauri Treet.

Also the two main characters share what looks like to me to be a Hongi, a traditional Maori greeting whereby noses are pressed together and a breath shared. In Maori folklore this shared breath changes the person from a visitor to a person of the land, and they become part of the land and responsible for its upkeep and protection. See Hongi on wiki for clairification, but this seems to fit very well with the overall themes of the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.203.233.80 (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless you can find reliable sources, any such edits would be original research. Woogee (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't those "reliable sources" be someone else's original research too?202.74.194.57 (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR and WP:RS. Woogee (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I lknow all about references and hence my thoughts appear in the discussion section and not the main article, i thought someone else may have heard it referenced? The things i'm talking about are present, i'm positive of that, but very subtle. unless you are a Kiwi you would miss them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.215.227 (talk) 10:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Then surely some NZ-based reliable source will have reported it? Woogee (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Home media section

I was reading Wikipedia guidelines here[42] and it seems they prefer to put info about deleted scenes in the Production section along with rationale as to why the scenes were deleted if I understand it correctly. Anyone else think we should move the info to Production and delete the Home media section? DrNegative (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I was reading the article earlier today and thinking roughly the same thing. To me, the inclusion of the "Home Media" section seems a little awkward. Trusilver 02:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead with it since no objections. DrNegative (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Only #3-5 in per-screen average

It might be notable that Avatar is only third in domestic gross when it comes to per-screen average. As soon as The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus was released on December 25th, it totally hit Avatar out of the ballpark when it comes to per-screen average, grossing roughly 150% of Avatar's average (source: [43]), and in its second week Parnassus has been able to expand its grosses even further, staying at the top of per-screen average when Avatar has already dropped to #5.[44] I guess it goes to show Terry Gilliam's films only need proper promotion and release, and they'll easily be in the $100-160 million revenue range as were 12 Monkeys and The Brothers Grimm (provided their original budget is any bigger than Tideland, of course). --79.193.27.76 (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Your links show Avatar in 3461 theaters and The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus in only 4 theaters. The 4 are in New York City and Los Angeles with millions of inhabitants per theater so it's a meaningless comparison for this article. The second in per theater gross is in 2 theaters, and the last two to "beat" Avatar in one of the weeks were both in 3 theaters. I don't think these extremely limited releases of unrelated films should be mentioned in an article about Avatar. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It's exactly why I've been mentioning "proper release". Billions of people have access to Avatar, and yet it's dropping further and further, while Parnassus keeps rising even though access to it is so limited. Seems like the novelty of animated 3D is wearing off quite fast in spite of the millions burnt on hyping a 3D projection and polarized glasses technique that was around 15 years ago at places such as Universal Studios and other theme parks. --79.193.43.154 (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Avatar had the biggest 2nd weekend and biggest 3rd weekend ever according to http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/#weekends so it's a weird way to describe it. Every studio executive in the world would be thrilled to have a film with "the novelty wearing off quite fast" like that. I'll bet it also sets a 4th weekend record this weekend. With a tiny 4 theater opening there are many factors playing in and it may not mean much whether you increase by 2% in the second weekend like Parnassus. Let's see how it does in wide release. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Pandorapedia

(I thought I would copy a message of another editor and move my message from another section so as not to take the other section off topic. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC) )

http://news.discovery.com/space/avatars-pandora-could-be-a-reality.html ! Anyway, check out the video here: http://www.pandorapedia.com/doku.php I feel like this is something that was in the press releases, because I've been hearing that Polyphemus orbits aCen from the very beginning. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Good links! In the first one there was another link to an interview of Cameron which I thought was interesting. There were other videos on Avatar there too. Might be worth adding to External links if it isn't already there. Also, note that Pandorapedia is a wiki with this on its first page,

"Pandorapedia keeps on growing and we need your contributions to the site to help us out. Updated information of life on Pandora and other things related to Avatar. Please don't add any junk, spam, unrelated topics, etc."

But there was also this message there,

"ATTENTION PLEASE DO NOT ADD LINKS TO THIS PAGE BECAUSE THE PAGES CANNOT BE EDITED"

So I'm not sure what's going on over there. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The domain appears to be owned by fox, and the wiki looks to be official, but the source of the content is a mystery (I assume someone's transcribing info from the Activist's Guide book) AniRaptor2001 (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Cameron mentioned the site favorably and seemed to be associated with it, in the video interview mentioned above. Maybe the film company tried to start a wiki but it got out of hand with vandalism etc. [never heard of that ever happening : ) ...] so they cut off public access to editing it. Just a guess. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

GA nomination?

In my opinion, this article is GA status and is worthy of a GA nomination at its current state. Is there any reason why we shouldn't go ahead and move forward with it? Consensus? DrNegative (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support here. Trusilver 22:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Wait. It is of GA status, but there is still new information being added and is not yet completely stable. Box Office results are still coming in, new sections are added to this talk page everyday, and the Golden Globes/Oscars are generating more interest as the weeks wear on. Stability at this moment seems to be the only issue. --haha169 (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Box office results will be coming in for five more months still, and if we wait on the award nominations, then logic stands to wait for the rewards as well. I see no reason to do either if the article is capable of holding its own as GA as it is currently written. It is FAR more stable than it was the last time it was suggested that it go for GA. Trusilver 03:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see how its stability is any different than when I suggested it for GA, but I am for it (as you know, LOL). Flyer22 (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's seeing an average of 50 edits a day now, instead of 200 a day like it was when you last suggested it. Also, the changes now tend to be minor tweaks rather than the major substantive changes it was seeing two weeks ago, when the plot section would be completely rewritten every day. Trusilver 06:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• For: Per nom. Also, this article IS stable. I don't see much, if any, vandalism or reverts going on. All I see is editors adding new information and improving the article. No it's not "unstable". —Mike Allen 06:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead with the nomination. They have a huge backlog so it could be several weeks before its reviewed, but its on the list nonetheless. DrNegative (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

By the time it gets a GA review, the article will be at FA status. LOL. :P —Mike Allen 07:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Archive this page

I don't believe MiszaBot is doing her job very well. She needs to be fired. I think this page needs to be archived somehow, it's so loooooooooooooong (currently at 287kB, technically). I feel for anyone on dial-up. —Mike Allen 07:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. It would be nice if someone would do a manual archive on the current idle discussions. DrNegative (talk) 07:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a way to speed up MiszaBot for specific talk pages. Flyer22 (talk) 08:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I trimmed it down to make it a little more manageable. Trusilver 08:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

God bless you. —Mike Allen 22:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I sped up MiszaBot so it will archive discussions with no comments after 4 days instead of 7. I was also looking at Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive index and wondering why Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 4 exists when archives 2 and 3 do not. Apparently it applied to another article, perhaps the 2004 film? I didn't look too closely at what was on the page. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 07:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Avatar (film)

Comments on a proper redirect are needed here. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 21:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have changed that redirect to point to this article, explaining my reasons at Talk:Avatar (film). I invite you to discuss the change on that talk page. See also the above requested move discussion. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 21:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The Na'vi article should be redirected to Fictional universe in Avatar or not?

I feel that the Na'vi article should be redirected to the Fictional universe in Avatar article, to its Na'vi section. The Na'vi article is nothing but the same information found in the Fictional universe in Avatar article. If information about the Na'vi becomes too long, then it can have its own article. I would go ahead and redirect this myself, but it is currently being watched by an editor who might object. Flyer22 (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You probably want to follow the merge process, if you suspect opposition. See WP:MERGE for help with that. Talk:Na'vi and Talk:Fictional universe in Avatar are probably better places for such discussion. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 22:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought about taking this to the Talk:Fictional universe in Avatar page, but I felt that I would get more responses here. And Talk:Na'vi currently has no discussions, and I most certainly felt that I would not get many replies there...if any. Flyer22 (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I was about to ask if you were proposing a full out merge or a simple redirect. It looked like it was simply copy and pasted from the (Fictional universe in Avatar) article to me and this new one was created as a daughter of the daughter article. DrNegative (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I was speaking of a simple redirect; that is all it needs, in my view, for the same reasons stated by the both of us. Flyer22 (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

What BFizz just said. I don't think you are going to see any meaningful opposition to the move, but it's not a bad idea just to cover all the bases anyway. Trusilver 23:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I am thinking of just redirecting it. I do not see what valid argument can be given for this article existing. Flyer22 (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I did invite the main editor currently looking after that article to weigh in here, though. Flyer22 (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirect?

Shouldn't this be at avatar while that hindu thing is redirected to off a disambiguation page? I think more people have seen Avatar than are Hindu now, and it's probably more influential on modern culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.183.26 (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Update the total worldwide gross numbers in side panel and Reception subsection

I have noticed that the worldwide gross totals for Avatar have need been regularly updated; this is occurring in the tab at the side, and in the reception subsection. I am requesting a

, so the totals can be edited to the correct amount.

Specifically:

Gross revenue $1,331,140,000[3][4]

Should be changed to: $1,335,040,297 (according to "The Numbers", although BoxOfficeMojo has the above numbers.

Secondly:

After only 22 days of being released, Avatar has grossed $380 million in the United States and Canada and $782 million in other territories with a worldwide total of $1.162 billion.[3][4

change to:

After only 22 days of being released, Avatar has grossed $380 million in the United States and Canada and $782 million in other territories with a worldwide total of $1.331 or 1.335 billion.[3][4]

Avatar has been on release a different number of days domestically and internationally since its worldwide release was 2 days earlier than its US release. There is no point updating to The Numbers gross because it means changing the reference and Box Office Mojo will be updated soon and the gross in teh article will be updated when it does. Betty Logan (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I'm personally going to wait until Monday to update it, that's when Box Office Mojo will update. Like Betty said, there's no point (right now) to switch the refs from one site to another. Wait and see what BOM says. With that said, BOM sometimes is slow about releasing foreign figures, but with Avatar, they've been updating really fast. —Mike Allen 19:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Controversy Section Proposal

Not that I wish to give credence to such claims as I find them ludicrous but in order to respect and observe a lack of bias in the article, should it not make mention of some of the controversies that have cropped up lately with regards to the film and James Cameron, such as the claims of White Guilt and direct assertions of racism towards James Cameron? ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 22:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)