Talk:Avatar (2009 film)

Article clearly needs semi-protection again or at least that "accept this revision" lock

I don't doubt that most of my fellow editors agree. Flyer22 (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Should we make a request here? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This page is now semi-protected until mid-2012. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well and went ahead and put in the request for it. It was approved for 18 months instead of the usual 3. DrNegative (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No objection from me. Betty Logan (talk) 05:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Semi-protection beats the reviewers system being trialled (in my opinion).--Forward Unto Dawn 05:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It most certainly does. Flyer22 (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Reference to Frank Herbert

Restored this [[1]], as it makes an important reference to the work of Frank Herbert. The names of the planets in both Avatar and The Jesus Incident are the same. There is no more adequate reference for this statement of fact, and its omission from this article should be amended.Glycoform (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

While I understand the point you are trying to convey, you are using a blog as a reference, which is unreliable. See Wikipedia:Verifiability for further details. If you can find a more reliable source to support this statement, such as an official review from a newspaper, then it'll be kept. In the meantime, I'll temporarily revert your edit. Thanks-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC))

First, there are two points in the original edit: (1) the planet of Pandora featured in The Jesus Incident, both the name and the global-intelligent-plant-organism, have clear association to the subject of this article; (2) many other people have raised the point that the story draws on other work by Herbert. The first point can have no better reference than the book itself, which has its own article. This point should be retained, and does not need a separate article to support the statement. The second point is completely un-controversial - and should not require a higher standard than other information found in this article. For example, this article includes references to blog/aggregation sites like i09 - with strictly opinion pieces (esp. #230[[2]]), personal blogs (#278), and happymeal.com (#146). I think you are applying different standards here - if a statement about Pohl Anderson's work based on that i09 article (#230) can be included, than the same can be said for Herbert's Dune as it is mentioned in the same article.

"In both Avatar and District 9, humans are the cause of alien oppression and distress. Then, a white man who was one of the oppressors switches sides at the last minute, assimilating into the alien culture and becoming its savior. This is also the basic story of Dune, where a member of the white royalty flees his posh palace on the planet Dune to become leader of the worm-riding native Fremen (the worm-riding rite of passage has an analog in Avatar, where Jake proves his manhood by riding a giant bird)."[[3]]

I've replaced the statement, using ref 230 to support it. However, I think the standard in this article should allow reference to numerous other posts that have made similar points. As a side note, verifiability is intended more for "any material challenged or likely to be challenged", something that I would argue does not apply here, considering that the major plot features of a published novel are already verifiable.Glycoform (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course, in classic wikipedia style, an editor has again deleted this revision without bothering to look into the verifiability of the statements. The reference is to a BOOK described in a full article on wiki (including a full ISBN, publisher name, date, etc.), these BOOKS are items that can be verified at your local library. That the editors here feel that the only way something is real is to read it on an un-verified blog entry is entirely typical. Find a library, look at the book - if you do so you will find these statements are true. If you don't have access to the book (or the willingness to do some reference checking on your own) do not delete information. You could instead edit the article to suggest a more appropriate reference (though no better one could exist for statements regarding what characters and settings are found in a work of fiction). Your critique of the reference, therefore, seems to run contrary to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Verifiability is not based on your ability to get there with a mouse click. The book by Herbert exists, it was published in 1979. That you haven't read it doesn't alter its verifiability or reliability (go to the library). Published sources are reliable sources of what is stated in those sources. If you've read the book and find the claim in error, correct it. Deleting it out of hand is counter-productive. In the context of this article (a description of a fictional setting/film), published works of fiction are entirely relevant and appropriate. Since we seem to keep moving the goal-posts, I've added a reference to a publication from Tim O'Reilly discussing the book. The discussion includes verification of the name Pandora and some of the themes that bear on this article.Glycoform (talk) 02:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

By drawing comparisons between Frank Herbert's work and Avatar just using the original works is WP:SYNTHESIS, which is prohibited. The Jesus Incident is an adequate source for saying it has a planet called "Pandora", as is Avatar, but they are not adequate sources for making comparative analysis because neither source mentions the other work. In the context of that section (Themes and inspirations), drawing comparisons between the work implies that they have influenced each other in some way, and a reliable source that makes the same inference is required if the article is to imply such a thing. To avoid synthesis of sources, a reliable source must be found that actually compares the two works, which also has the added benefit of making a case for the notability of mentioning the similarities as well. Without a reliable source that compares the two works, picking out common features is just original research where the importance of mentioning the similarities has not been established beyond the editor's point of view. Please don't add this information back in without including a reliable source that actually compares the two works. Betty Logan (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

If you had read the last edit, you would have seen that the sentence strictly pointed out only the names being the same. I'll add this statement back, as before, with no comparison included. I would have included references that made these comparisons (in fact I did several edits back), however these were criticized as not adequate. Though, frankly, I don't see that references to well written blog posts are any less useful than many of the references already on this page to other blog posts - but as I've pointed out before, y'all seem to have very flexible standards here. Glycoform (talk) 08:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

With respect to the edit that mentions similarities with Dune through this source, again the edit misrepresents the context of the comparison within the article. The author doesn't mention "similarities" with Herbert's work, she actually identifies a common theme of the main protagonist changing sides to fight oppression in the context of her thesis on white guilt. If you want to include that I have no problem provided the context of the statement is clear. Betty Logan (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine, in a separate edit the wording has been changed to only point out the similar theme as stated in that article. Though, with regard to both of these edits - it would be far more productive if people act as editors rather than deleters - e.g. if you have a constructive change to make, do so - don't just delete an edit completely. Improve it. That's part of the process here. Glycoform (talk) 08:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

As a newcomer to this discussion, am I correct in my understanding that you wish to include a note that a Frank Herbert work also includes a planet named Pandora? If so, then without clear sourcing indicating that Cameron was referencing that work, it strikes me as being significantly more likely that both works are referencing the Pandora of myth. As for the Avatar storyline being similar to a Frank Herbert story, I have to admit that at this point unless multiple reliable sources are making the same comparison I'm not sure that it's significantly notable unless someone involved in the making of the film is also on record as making the comparison. If we added a note every time Avatar was compared to an earlier work...well, we'd probably have fodder for a separate article that would, IMO, have little substantial content. Just my two cents. Doniago (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Its an excellent point that there was no ref to greek mythology; now updated. There is no mention of the storyline similarities - while there are dozens of discussions and blog posts discussing this point, the editors here feel that only certain blogs are worthy of inclusion (i.e. i09, happymeal.com, and the LA Times are on equal footing here.) That many comparisons are made to Avatar is true, but this article is already rife with such statements (referenced and otherwise), so singling-out this comparison over others is unwarranted. See for example those made to Pohl, Strugatsky, Dean, and even Ferngully within the article - which are not based strictly on a statement by the filmmakers, but are certainly relevant to the article.Glycoform (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Certain blogs are allowed as sources on Wikipedia. See WP:Verifiability#Newspaper and magazine blogs. And in this case, WP:BLOGS. i09 is a reliable source in this case, especially in the case of the exclusive interview -- meaning the interview was given to this site.

We have kept this film's similarities to other films out of the Themes and inspirations section because there have been various comparisons to other films or books, and having all that in the Themes and inspirations section implies that these stories inspired Cameron to write/create Avatar. He has not stated this at all, and has spoken out against certain "borrowing" or "theft" accusations (his camp rather). Because of all this, we have put the similarities in the Critical reception section and in the Themes in Avatar article. Why don't you consider putting this information in either or both of those two spots? Flyer22 (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Pandora

This addition to the Themes an inspirations section is under dispute. A decision is needed by editors as to whether to accept it into the article or not.

The name of the planet, Pandora, in Avatar is found in greek mythology and is the same as that found in the 1979 book, The Jesus Incident by Frank Herbert.

• REJECT – The editor argues that the idnetification of the simlarity is sourced through Herbert's novel The Jesus Incident and Avatar. However I believe this to be WP:SYNTHESIS which states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.". The identification of this "similarity" is original research by the editor. Both sources identify the name of the planet, but neither identify a similarity with the other work. This is synthesis because the editor is using two independent sources to reach a conclusion about the nature of the discussed work. What's more, since this similarity is identified by himself, and not by a reliable source, no case has been made that such an observation is a notable element of the work that warrants inclusion in the article. Since the section is specifically about the inspirations of Avatar, such a comparison with other work should include an explicit comparison by a reliable source. In the current form and without a reliable source that explicitly identifies the similar names of the planets, I vote to reject the inclusion of this content. Betty Logan (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• REJECT – Since no reliable source seems to support the claim that Herbert's Pandora was an inspiration for the film, and since the section in question, Themes and inspiration, is specifically dedicated to Cameron's own explanations of what his themes and inspirations were in the making of the film, I vote to reject the proposed edits. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• REJECT - as Betty has made very valid and convincing arguments against this inclusion. Flyer22 (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• REJECT - Based on Betty's and Cinosaur's logic. If their points could be addressed, I wouldn't be against it. (A + B =/= C) as it stands now. DrNegative (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Dune

This addition to the Themes an inspirations section is under dispute. A decision is needed by editors as to whether to accept it into the article or not.

Themes in Avatar have been noted to have parallels with Frank Herbert's well known novel, Dune.

• REJECT – The editor advances a vague observation that the themes of Avatar have parallels with those of Dune. While I have no fundamental objection to such a claim, I don't feel the content reflect with accuracy what the sources are saying. I don't have access to the second source, but in the first one the only thematic similarity with Dune the author identifies is that the main protagonist goes native to help an oppressed alien race. I don't feel that the vague mention of "parallels" is an adequate reflection of what the sources are saying, and if comparisons are going to be made then the claims should be specific. The editor is advancing a loaded argument, in that the vagueness of his edit implies plagiarism. I vote to reject this content, unless the editor accurately presents the nature an context of these parallels with Dune. Betty Logan (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• REJECT – My main gripe with this proposed addition to Themes and inspirations section is that, IMHO, the section ought to deal primarily with Cameron's own statements on what his themes and inspirations were in the film, rather than what sources might ascribe to him. As Flyer22 has rightly pointed out, most notable samples of such guesswork are already accommodated in Critical reception and in Themes in Avatar, and the editor may want to include the content there provided the second source passes the notability test. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• PARTIAL REJECT - I reject its inclusion in the Themes and inspirations section, for the same reasons Cinosaur and I have stated. But I have no problem with it being in the Critical reception section or the Themes in Avatar article. Flyer22 (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

"Post Avatar Depression" needs to be mentioned and analyzed

The "Post-Avatar Depression" phenomenon was widespread enough to be seen as notable and important. I was surprised to not see it mentioned in this article at all. It's quite interesting to see the effects of immersive life-like fantasy worlds on the audience, especially as technology film continues to perfect itself. The fact that this movie's experience caused (in extreme cases), suicidal thoughts in some people needs to be preserved as much as any other information regarding this film. If there is an article on the psychological impact from 3D films specifically I'd like to be pointed in that direction, but regardless I'm pretty sure this would be pertinent to such sections as "Reception" or "Criticisms" and on a side note, is more valid than Wikipedia's separate article on the "themes" of this movie... so why has this issue been neglected? (added by User:Akhundofsquat).

It was covered in the article at one stage from what I recall, but I guess somebody must have removed it. If credible medical opinion on it can be reliably sourced I agree it's an aspect that should be covered. Betty Logan (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is a source: [4] and the video that brought it mainstream for awhile[5]. There was also a therapist interviewed in the video. Notable? DrNegative (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I recall a discussion about it and the CNN reference was in use at the time. Some editors felt that it didn't belong in the article because the observed condition wasn't the result of medical diagnosis; apparently reliable source criteria for medical content is a lot stricter than regular RS (see WP:MEDRS). IF CNN covered it and a therapist commented on it, it's probably notable but the source may not be deemed reliable for putting forward a medical diagnosis. If the editor wants to cover it he should probably get any sources he uses checked out at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard in their capacity for clinical reporting. Betty Logan (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It was originally included but removed almost a year ago: [6] Betty Logan (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the CNN reference is included in Themes in Avatar. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

A good quality article here, which actually bothers to interview a psychology professor about the phenomenon: [7]. It's an interesting read, he compares the Avatar experience to virtual reality treatments used in treating paranoid disorders which goes some way to putting the phenomenon in a clinical context. Betty Logan (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Good find. That really was an interesting read. It would actually be a good source too in my opinion. DrNegative (talk) 08:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this was discussed before. See Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 13#"Too real?" and Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 21#Avatar blues. I've never been against its inclusion, and was actually for it being included, but it seemed more of a trivial mention to others (especially since we we were always trying to keep the size of this article down, which has gotten out of hand now due other trivial mentions and all the extra things that needed to be addressed). Flyer22 (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I was one of those strongly opposed at the time it seems, but it's been mentioned by a few reliable sources since those discussions so the balance of notability has changed a bit. I think if you stay away from clinical terms such as "depression" which is an actual diagnosable condition and center it on the phenomenon and what the psychologist and therapist say then we could stick in a few sentences about it. Betty Logan (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

DVD area

Please add this to the DVD-area:

Avatar is the best-selling DVD of 2010 in Germany. On the Blu-Ray annual charts, the film was even present three times: The normal version reached the pole position, the Limited Edition reached No. 5 and the Extended Collector's Edition was No. 7 on it source--79.216.215.56 (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Date linking

There is nothing intuitive at all about "2154" linking to "22nd century", so I have removed the piped link again. It clearly is a case of WP:EGG linking, and it's unhelpful. Note, by the way, that it makes absolutely no sense for "2154" to link to "2154" in the lead but to "22nd century" in the plot summary; linking the same date to different articles is silly and contrary to how links are supposed to work. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Concur with this de-linking. There are very rare instances where such a general timeframe (even a single year) is worth linking to. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was more concerned with unlinking "highest grossing film".--Forward Unto Dawn 04:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I should point out though that the linking of "2154" to the "22nd century" article still doesn't qualify as a case of WP:EGG because "2154" is not substantially different from the target article.--Forward Unto Dawn 04:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

What about a "See also" link to 22nd century, specifically, the "Science fiction set in the 22nd century" section? Kind of like what Fight Club (film)#See also has. Erik (talk | contribs) 04:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No objections. Though I can't really see the point. Unless you want to argue that having "2154" linked is a case of WP:OVERLINK.--Forward Unto Dawn 05:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"2154" is substantially different from "22nd century", and it's silly to suggest otherwise. It's a perfectly clear example of egg linking. Linking "highest grossing film" to a list of the highest grossing films is also questionable in principle because no one would necessarily expect that connection, but I leave that issue to the judgment of other editors. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"Silly to suggest otherwise"? Care to clarify that remark?--Forward Unto Dawn 12:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think what he means is that you would expect a 2154 wikilink to be about 2154 (you wouldn't expect 2011 to link to the 21st century). On that basis I think he is interpreting the guidelines correctly. As for the "highest grossing film", I think the article reasonably covers what you would expect to find by clicking on a "highest grossing film" link — you would expect to find some sort of financial record/account showing Avatar to be the highest grossing film, which is what you get. If he disagrees, perhaps he should take it up at the Film Project because the "highest grossing films" article is extensively linked in the same way on lots of film articles, so there isn't much point just delinking it on one article. Betty Logan (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

True, but unlike "2011" there is no "2154" article. We should at least add "22nd century" to the "See also" list, as Erik suggested.--Forward Unto Dawn 12:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

In fact, "2154" redirects to the "22nd century" article.--Forward Unto Dawn 12:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

So in that case, we could simply replace [[22nd century|2154]] with [[2154]] in order to utilise the redirect as per WP:MOSLINK#Redirect.--Forward Unto Dawn 12:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(linking)#Redirects indicates that we should not bypass the redirect if it is likely an article will be created for the direct link at some point. Once the article is created then it will link to the more specific article. As for putting "22nd century" in the "see also" section, I don't have any views on that either way. If that is what you want to do I suggest trying it and see if anyone objects. Betty Logan (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was advocating a "See also" section because a link to 22nd century, even piped, does not increase a reader's understanding of the topic. For example, if a film happened to be explicitly set in 1966, linking to that year is not useful because there are all these events that happen in a year that are not related to the film. With a "See also" section, we can point to other examples of science fiction in the same setting (the 22nd century) as this film. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Forward Unto Dawn 12:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it seem this matter is resolved. I have to agree with Polisher of Cobwebs's reasoning. I also don't see why a See also section is necessary in this case, just for that one lone link. But if Erik and Forward Unto Dawn feel that it's useful for this article, I don't object. Flyer22 (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't either (I'd rather just use [[2154]] instead of [[22nd century|2154]], per the Manual of Style). But I'd like to see this issue resolved.--Forward Unto Dawn 00:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, WP:EGG only applies to piped links, so [[2154]] can't be an EGG. I'm not sure what policy/guideline [[2154]] is violating—it could be that we've invented a problem that wasn't part of the original concern. Personally I'd put in [[2154]] and see if that's a problem for anyone. We use the [[2154]] link in the lede, and Polisher doesn't express a concern over that, just the possible EGG violation due to the piping. Betty Logan (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I see what Erik is getting at, if an article is set up for 2154 in the future, then it might still be better to link to the 22nd century because that article will be more relevant to Avatar than a 2154 article. Once the 2154 article is written there won't be any links to "22nd century" in the article. An alternative would be to change "2154" in the lede to "the [[22nd century]]" so the 22nd century link is integrated into the text and won't be necessary in the "see also" section. We can still keep the actual date in the plot summary. Betty Logan (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, since 2154 is already in the plot summary, how about adding this to the article introduction: "The film is set in the mid-22nd century..."? We could then get rid of the new "See also" section.--Forward Unto Dawn 06:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that's the best solution. Betty Logan (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Forward Unto Dawn 12:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Worth including?

There is a book Spiritual Teaching of the Avatar, (WorldCat.org listing) by Jeffrey Armstrong, "the founder of the Vedic Academy for Science and Art", recently published by Atria Books, a division of Simon & Schuster. The publishers have sent me a review copy. It's an interesting read as it analyzes a great deal of parallels between Avatar and the teachings of the Vedas, so I wonder if references to the book deserve inclusion in the main article on Avatar and/or in Themes in Avatar? Will be grateful for any thoughts on this. To my knowledge, it's the first real book of this kind written on the movie. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Themes in Avatar (if you feel it's worthy of inclusion). Let's see what others think.--Forward Unto Dawn 14:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Interest notwithstanding, I am somewhat doubtful about the notability of the author and his views on the film. On the other hand, the fact of the book's being published by a division of Simon & Schuster makes me consider the book more seriously than I would otherwise have. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

In what capacity is the book to be used in the article? I have no objections to it going in the "external links" section, since it certainly qualifies as a unique resource. If you are suggesting that we just mention that a book has been written about Avatar, I would be against that since we don't generally mention film literature in the articles about the films. If it is going to be used to cite stuff in the article, then it may be better to take it on a case by case basis. It is published by a reputable publisher so I think it can be used to source facts; to source the author's opinion would depend on his notability; to source analysis would depend on the author's qualifications. It all depends how it is to be used as a source really. Betty Logan (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Betty, for these good points, sober as ever. I will keep them in mind while going through the book to see if and where it best belongs as a source. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cinosaur, maybe you will like the James Cameron's Avatar Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.178.89 (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Some cleaning

Ok for some reason Box Office, Accolade and critical success or merged into the Release section, yet Home media is separate. it should be the opposite. the home media is part of release. the Box Office, Accolade, and critical success should be part of a different section. possibly called "reception".Bread Ninja (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Avatar usage under discussion again

See Talk:Avatar_(Hinduism)#Requested_move_2 where it is requested that the move done by 2010 move request be undone, moving the Hindu concept to primary in place of the disambiguation page. 64.229.101.183 (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)