Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 14

Relationship to Last Airbender?
When I say the first preview I immediately assumed that this film would have something to do with The Last Airbender because of the font alone. Is this similarity in font/typography a coincidence just because there are only so many ways to present the word "Avatar" in a visually pleasing manner? Does anyone know anything about that aspect in-particular, and in addition, are there other similarities to the Nickelodeon-series worth mentioning? (Other than saving the world, because name a fantasy-story that doesn't atleast touch on the theme.) Koyae (talk) 11:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I myself have wondered the same thing about this movie. Over the past couple of days, I have found a distinct relation from this movie to the show "Avatar: The Last Airbender". The most obvious connection is the title. In fact, I read that M. Night Shyamalan's (spelling?) movie adaption of "Avatar: The Last Airbender" entered lawsuits against Cameron's Avatar, and eventually was forced to have its name changed to just "The Last Airbender". Furthermore, I found an astonishing resemblance between the themes and plots of Cameron's Avatar and one particular episode of "Avatar: The Last Airbender" entitled "The Swamp". In this episode, the main characters venture into a mysterious swamp that has a rain-forest-like nature to it. This swamp is full of taller-than-life trees and many vines and vegetation--similar to Cameron's Pandora. Also, at the middle of the swamp, there is a huge massive tree, larger than all others, towering over the rest of the forest. This tree serves as the center for the forest, spreading its roots for miles around. This is just like the Hometree in Cameron's Avatar. But, the absolute most astonishing resemblance is that fact that in this episode of the show, this forest is 'alive' in a manner of speaking. A character in the episode, an inhabitant of the forest, explains that everything in the swamp is somehow 'connected' to each other, and that the large tree at the center is the heart of the forest, connecting everything together. This tree is also strikingly similar to the Tree of Souls in Cameron's Avatar, that is, because it is a hub of all of the communication in the forest. This 'connection' between all living things in this forest is exactly the same as the so-called 'global organism' in Cameron's Avatar. This inhabitant of the swamp also explains to the main characters that the swamp makes death and time only an illusion, and that it can show them their dead ancestors. This is like how the Na'vi believe that dying is really just going back to Eywa, or the network of all organisms on Pandora. The talking-to-ancestors thing is also present in Cameron's Avatar as it is in this TV episode. The inhabitant of the swamp (called Huu)also defends the forest-swamp from foreign invaders who may destroy the land, just like the Na'vi do in Cameron's Avatar. Although the plots are different in these two stories, there are HUGE similarities between the episode "The Swamp" in the show "Avatar: The Last Airbender" and James Cameron's "Avatar". Are these ideas stolen? I'd rather doubt it because Cameron wrote his script for the movie in 1994, and this TV episode didn't air until about 2006 (plus or minus 1 year). It is impossible for the writers of these two works to have met (unless they did), so I must assume that they were independently created. :) Infoadder2010 (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

What's this about Pocahontas?
In the article it currently reads: Cameron saw his story as being about how advanced civilizations supplant indigenous cultures, in either actively genocidal or more unpremeditated ways, and was influenced by the story of Pocahontas[citation needed]. I Googled around to try to find an interview where he mentions Pocahontas, and I don't see it. Found an amusing Youtube video comparing Avatar and Disney's Pocahontas, but that's it. People compare it with other movies, which makes no sense whatsoever, since it isn't out yet. Many stories have someone going native, falling in love with a girl, and turning against his own side.  D r e a m Focus  04:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Has been removed, clearly just speculation. Gamaur (talk) 04:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothing "pocahontas" about this one. It's just a high tech remake of the old 50's tv series named "Cochise". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleriver1 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding me? It's Pocahontas in space, with giant robots and explosions.
 * Maybe, but without reliable sources it's just speculation and inappropriate for inclusion in the article. Doniago (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, no source equals speculation. One could say the mating scene closely resembles scenes from the animated film Fern Tree Gully, during the song A Dream Worth Keeping. You'll find it shockingly similar. But this is just speculation. James Cameron will need to say this himself for it qualify as a source. --Messenger777 (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The Strugatsky Brothers' original 1960-s novel
Pandora, the lush jungle planet with incredible life-forms and non-technological native population, is featuring prominently in several of the Strugatsky brothers works, with one of them, 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, who becomes integrated into their society - totally prototypical of the film's story. WillNess (talk) 09:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Boris Strugatsky says about this film: "Но не судиться же с ними!?" ("I wouldn't sue them, would I now?" (i. e. americans)). Look here: http://www.rusf.ru/abs/int0135.htm#17 --Luch4 (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

And of course he has no claim as the USSR wan't a party to international copyright protection treaty, so everything from the Soviet era is free for taking. But of course a mention would be nice, and only proper. They could at least put a little "inspired by" in there. WillNess (talk) 11:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As I stated in one of my edit summaries, one of the reasons this stuff about the Strugatsky brothers keeps getting removed is likely due to the fact that James Cameron does not say he drew on this work or even knows of it. Sourcing that this story exists is not the problem; it is clear that it exists, from the Wikilinks or Googling it. Associating it with Cameron as if he stated he drew on this work is the problem. Flyer22 (talk) 12:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not about whether the fact of borrowing ideas. In the end, it may be just a coincidence - title "Pandora" is suited to a planet covered with jungle very well, and could have invented a completely irrespective of Strugatsky. The point is that such a coincidence is, and some sources note it. In addition, there is not only the same name, there are a number of items that make the situation even more interesting.
 * (Суть не в том, был ли факт заимствования идей. В конце концов, это может быть просто совпадением - название "Пандора" весьма неплохо подходит к планете, покрытой джунглями, и могло быть придумано совершенно безотносительно к Стругацким. Суть в том, что такое совпадение есть, и некоторые источники это отмечают. К тому же совпадают там не только названия, есть ещё ряд пунктов, что делает ситуацию еще интереснее.) --Luch4 (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This paragraph is still included in the themes section, and has now been sourced to here, a russian-language blog. I don't believe this constitutes a reliable source; in fact, the only material that I would judge as appropriate to include is the offhand comment made by Strugatsky acknowledging the film's similarities to his works, mentioned above by Luch4. And even that would be a stretch. Is there any precedent here on Wiki for a separate section discussing similar works? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We had a Similarities to other works section in this article, but it was merged into the Reception section. Yes, sections about similarities are in some film articles (or at least were in other cases). If reliable sources directly note the similarities between Avatar and some of the Strugatsky brothers' works, it is better presented in the Critical reception section (where other works are noted to be similar to Avatar). Or at least state something in the Themes and inspirations section from one of these people noting the Strugatsky brothers' similarities, so that it is clear that Cameron has not stated that he drew on these works.


 * Leaving it as it is now, some editors might still proceed to remove it every time it is added back. Flyer22 (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In RuNet (Russian-speaking parts of the Internet), the question of the number of matches with creativity of Strugatsky brothers takes it for granted, and not just bloggers (incidentally, a little clarification: in the Russian language the word "blogpost" denoted by a newspaper column the part of journalists, not blog in the true sense of the word). Here, for example, a few Russian-language papers:, And, I repeat, we are talking about coincidences, but not the charges for borrowing. Perhaps this very fact (observation of Russian visitors and Strugatsky's reaction) will be useful for the "Trivia" section or something like that.
 * В Рунете вопрос о ряде совпадений с творчеством Стругацких принимается как данность, и не только блоггерами (кстати, маленькое уточнение: в русском языке словом "блогпост" принято обозначать авторскую колонку стороннего журналиста, а не блог в прямом смысле слова). Вот, для примера, еще несколько русскоязычных статей. Причем, повторю, речь идет именно о совпадениях, а не об обвинениях в заимствовании. Возможно, сам этот факт (наблюдение русских зрителей и реакция Стругацкого) пригодится для раздела Trivia или что-нибудь в этом роде. --Luch4 (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Even with "talking about coincidences, but not the charges for borrowing," it looks as though it is "charges of borrowing" by having this in the Themes and inspirations section. Cameron does not cite this work. Thus, I am not seeing how it belongs there any more than the works in the Critical reception section that are noted as being similar do. It should be removed from the Themes and inspirations section and instead put into the Critical reception section, but significantly cut down and with a quote by one of the creators or some other notable person comparing the stories, or put into a Similarities to other works section. Flyer22 (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The content is unreliably sourced and does not belong. There do not seem to be any reliable (authoritative) sources about this matter.  The comparison should be excluded from the article. Erik (talk) 01:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Erik. Without an actual reliable source confirming this, it should be excluded. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree too. No source from the actual people involved in making the film it can't be added to the article. Peppage tlk 20:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not for them to admit, it's for us to see. If a shoplifter has 20 items in his purse exactly like the ones a shop carries, he has noting to admit. It's in plain sight for all to see. I think new section is to be added to the article, under "Allegations of plagiarism". As such, it would need no confirmation from the film makers, only from the allegation makers. And for this we do have a direct confirmation from the author himself, at the link given above - http://www.rusf.ru/abs/int0135.htm#17 . WillNess (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It might not be for them to admit, but it's not for us to see either; when a reliable scholarly or critical source identifies this as plagiarism, it can be put in. It's still less than a week after the film's release; if there are serious plagiarism issues, they will come to light in time, rest assured. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Official statement by Boris Strugatsky:

Recently, the Internet was reported that I, Boris Strugatsky, accusing the film's "Avatar" in a conscious plagiarism - namely, the use of materials compositions Strugatsky brothers on the planet Pandora, and a variety of adventures there. I hereby have quite clearly state the following: 1. Never and nowhere has the film's "Avatar" I did not accuse of plagiarism and accused did not intend to continue. 2. Film "Avatar" I have not seen anything about him I do not know, except that the action is happening "monsters on the planet Pandora". 3. All - supposedly my, - sentiments about this film, given in I declined as well, are someone's reckless fabrication (whose purpose I do not understand). Long live the Internet, a storehouse of reliable information!

В последнее время в И-нете появились сообщения о том, что я, Б.Стругацкий, обвиняю создателей фильма «Аватар» в сознательном плагиате, а именно – в использовании материалов сочинений братьев Стругацких, касающихся планеты Пандоры и разнообразных приключений на ней. Настоящим имею совершенно недвусмысленно заявить следующее: 1. Никогда и нигде создателей фильма «Аватар» я в плагиате не обвинял и обвинять впредь отнюдь не намерен. 2. Фильма «Аватар» я не видел и ничего о нем не знаю, кроме того, что действие там происходит «на планете чудовищ Пандора». 3. Все, – якобы мои, – сентенции по поводу этого фильма, приводимые в И-нете, являются чьей-то беспардонной выдумкой (цель которой мне не понятна). Да здравствует Интернет, кладезь достоверных сведений!

Source: http://www.rusf.ru/abs/int0136.htm#04

--Luch4 (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Aquablue (Comics French) : Similarity graphs and same story
In France, Avatar is criticized for plagiarising the Comics French Aquablue (1989-2006) with the same story, similarity graphs, the ecological theme, etc.Avatar VS AquablueAvatar copie Aquablue ?.

Synopsis of Aquablue - Volume 1, Nao :

The only survivor of a shipwreck space, the young orphan Nao lands on a planet unknown Aquablue, the world-ocean, where peaceful fishermen are responsible for his education. But this ideal life is shattered by the arrival of earthlings from creating an industrial complex to disastrous climatic consequences. Nao is the heart of the unequal struggle that engages the bearer of a mysterious inheritance, it also has a special link with the most powerful inhabitant Aquablue ...

(Also, The space ship that sank with Nao's parents called the White Star. The disaster is not without allusion to the Titanic. Besides, the company that owned the Titanic was called the White Star ...)

Similarity graphs :
 * 1) The Natives blue skin...
 * 2) The wicked exorobots armed combat, want to exterminate the natives to exploit the planet.
 * 3) Natives have a telepathic link and / or with the spiritual world and the animals

Thank you to announcements in Critical reception section of the film

--Losthighway42 (talk) 06:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Are there any reliable sources making such claims? Forum postings and blog postings are not reliable sources, nor is another Wikipedia. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 07:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Warcraft mythos parallels
People in the Internet have noticed evident paralels between Avatar and the World of Warcraft

http://gameaxis.com/friday-fives-%E2%80%93-james-cameron-plays-world-of-warcraft/ http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=21971447665&postId=219694805404&sid=1#0 http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=22049519266&sid=1 http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=22050164968&sid=1

Some important connections:


 * Na'vi = Night Elf/Draenei

http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/2118/nightelf2.jpg vs http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x89/edwardbayntun/news/avatar-poster-1.jpg - http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/wowwiki/images/4/49/Nightelves-160x.jpg vs http://gameaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/HunterAvatar.jpg


 * Vortex zone = Nagrand

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.massively.com/media/2008/01/os0120s.jpg vs http://gameaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Nagrandavatar.jpg


 * Home Tree = World Tree

http://gameaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/teldrassilavatar.jpg vs http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/wowwiki/images/thumb/6/65/Teldrassilmovie.jpg/800px-Teldrassilmovie.jpg or the inner side http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/wowwiki/images/thumb/0/0c/NordrassilWellOfEnternity.jpg/800px-NordrassilWellOfEnternity.jpg

Many of these characteristics aren't original of Warcraft, but have passed to Avatar throug the Warcraft model. --Bentaguayre (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In your first link some of the responses to the article in that link essentially said that WoW came out too late to affect the plot of Avatar. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Also night Pandora is very similar to Zangarmarsh.

Yes but i can't agree with that opinion [original heading: "World of Warcraft inspiration?" Jotun26 (talk) 06:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Jotun26], we don't know what was the original Avatar when was written in 1994 and how many changes have been done since that moment, it's far easier an inspiration of Cameron on Warcraft than the opposite, because until recent times anybody but a small group of people knew what was Avatar. I'm looking for official sources but is nearly impossible, only vague references saying that Cameron has agreed that he likes Warcraft. Anyway, it's very difficult a true recognition so recently. Probably the important thing is that many people agree about the connections of the two works. --Bentaguayre (talk) 11:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jotun26 (talk • contribs)

A Man Called Horse
Did anyone, anywhere, point to the similarities between Silverstein's film and Cameron's? --RCS (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A quick look around google turns up nothing beyond comments on blog posts and articles. Similarities have been drawn between Avatar and a great number of films and works. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jotun26 (talk • contribs)

City (novel) by Clifford Simak
I don't suppose anyone was struck with the similarity of the premise to the Jupiter tale in Cliff Simak's novel. Thought not. Nuttyskin (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's pretty much common knowledge by now that Avatar's plot combines details from many different stories. It's not a revolutionary storyline. If you check out the Themes and Inspirations section, Cameron himself admits that the movie brings together "all the science fiction he knows", etc. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Relationship to biblical Book of Joshua?
As noted below, inverted associations with Old Testament material likely point to Avatar as a fantastical retelling in reverse of the biblical Israelite conquest of the Promised Land. In this counter-biblical fable about a metaphorical space-faring "Israel" coming to seize rights to the putative promised land of Pandora, god is instead on the other side. The movie is POV'd from the eyes the aliens ("I See You") and their allied human traitors. Cameron presents the human force, metaphorical stand-ins for the Israelite army investing the Promised Land after travelling from afar in search of prosperity, as a rapacious foreign menace with overwhelming technological and organizational advantages. Advantages which are thematically indistinguishable, as Arthur Clarke would put it, from magical - or divine - power.

To put it another way, as the "deity" is shown to be on the pagan aliens (figurative Canaanite) side, none is of course shown to be on the human (figurative Israelite) side. Although the case can be made for the attributes of human technology and organization as an allegorical proxy for a fraudulent human deity which failed in the face of the mighty "righteousness" of the alien pagans and their deity Eywa-Gaia. The fall of the Hometree? Figurative fall of the walls of Jericho, except that the Canaanite inhabitants fought back courageously and won instead. The daisy-cutter mother of all bombs which failed to drop? Figurative Ark symbolizing the physical powers of Israel's God, except that it was a Failed God in this reverse case of the OT.

Biblical Colonel Joshua's zealous spies get remade into traitors against their own nation, by what would have originally been a fearful God-fearing prostitute named Rahab but who is now figuratively reversed as Na'vi Princess Neytiri, a stalwart defender of the Canaanite naturalist religion and successful corruptor of (figurative) Israelite spies. The Na'vi seem to parallel the biblical giant races of Canaan (figurative sons of Anak, giants of old, heroes of renown). Neytiri also figures in reverse as spearer-of-enemy-prince-in-battle Na'vi sex princess, in place of the biblical speared-with-enemy-prince-in-bed Midianite sex princess. Paralleling the biblical incident, the princess receives orders from the alien king and his crafty advisers to seduce one of the invading enemy into worshipping their ways and deities.

In summary, Avatar can be likened to a triumphant if wishful Canaanite retelling of an OT story where they had their way. Something which the "ghosts" and sponsor, if it were, of all those vanquished pagan tribes would surely appreciate if they were around today.Trackerwiki (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fascinating. Please see WP:OR. --Dweller (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed this stuff from the article, as the only source given does not hold up as a reliable source. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll just trim it down to cite what is for now a newly rising observationTrackerwiki (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's still not coming from a reliable source. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No major sources AFAIK, so ok will let this one go. But trust me, this is already breaking out among serious students of the Abrahamic religions. You heard this here firstTrackerwiki (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Duly noted.WP:POINT DrNegative (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

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., His concern was supported by Nevada Clergy Association,  Rabbi Jonathan B.Freirich, a Jewish leader in Nevada and California  and Satnarayan Maharaj, a Hindu leader in Trinidad and Tobago.  However, some other Hindu followers in US considered the film as elucidating on the actual meaning of 'Avatar' rather than sacrilegious.  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.


 * Ross Douthat of New York Times called the film “the Gospel According to James” of “Cameron’s long apologia for pantheism” incompatible with Christianity. 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",  emphasized the film's thematic elements deemed objectionable by Christians,  and suggested that Christian viewers interpret the film as a reminder of Jesus Christ as "the True Avatar".

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,   with the use of 'Avatar', "one of the central themes of Hinduism", as the film's title and asked J.Cameron for a disclaimer., ,    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.


 * 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 — a view shared by some other Christian critics. ,


 * ...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)

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."
 * 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."


 * 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."


 * 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." 

"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)


 * Lambanog, I do not mind reverting the quote back to 'apologia'. I like 'apologia' better than the current 'case for', but took Bob's word for its having "too obscure a meaning for most people". Please discuss it with him. Cinosaur (talk) 06:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ Note for Bob K31416 -- I agreed with Lambanog, reverted it back to 'apologia' and wiki-linked the term for those who find it too obscure. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 09:38, 14 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:
 * Cameron admitted to having borrowed the movie title's idea and inspiration from Hinduism.
 * Before the release some Hindu leader(s) and other clergy voiced concerns that the title Avatar may offend Hindus.
 * They publicly asked Cameron for a disclaimer.
 * 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
 * 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.
 * 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,, 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". 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." .  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.


 * 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. 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". 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." . A Hindustan Times’review said that while 'Avatar' is "a downright misnomer" for the film, its message is consistent with the Bhagavad Gita.


 * 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)

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 There also was a sockpuppet GoonerDP  User_talk:GoonerDP 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. 

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


 * I don't see it as violating WP:DUE to include a paragraph on Indian reception to the film. Simonm223 (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Critical Review
The Critical reception section could really stand a good rewrite. At the moment, it ping pongs from positive to negative to 'more positive' in a most scatterbrained fashion (although that's understandable, given the nature of such a section's evolution). Perhaps it would be better to wait a few weeks for the dust to settle, but it's never too soon for interested editors to begin collaberating on a sandbox revision for ultimate presentation. In the whole of wikipedia, critical reception sections are unique in that the ratio of majority to dissenting opinion is available as a fairly concrete and verifiable number. As such, adherence to wikipedia's policy for undue weight shouldn't be an issue in the organization and presentation of a revision here. I've swapped Armond White's negative assessment with that of a more reputable critic (J. Holberman - Village Voice) whose comparable assessment expressed more clearly the issues taken with the film's ideology and political subtext. --K10wnsta (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing the problem with the Critical reception section. It "ping pongs from positive to negative to 'more positive' in a most scatterbrained fashion" because we relay the good reviews first, then the negative reviews, and then the reviews about the plot and whatever else; the reviews about the plot and whatever else are not all going to be positive or all negative, of course, so obviously that half will be a blend. Critical reception sections do not need to consist only of positive reviews first, then negative reviews, and that's it.


 * As for Armond White, that was discussed at Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 1, and the compromise was to leave him in but scaled down.


 * Also, when you add references, make sure to properly format them; it is extra work for others to have to do that when you do not. Flyer22 (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To be accurate, the Critical reception section does not go from positive to negative to more positive. It goes from positive to negative to criticism of the plot, to the mostly positive comments made by other directors. I have tweaked the Critical reception a bit, though. Flyer22 (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Re "it ping pongs from positive to negative to 'more positive' in a most scatterbrained fashion" - It has the following paragraph organization as I see it: 1) Quantitative summary of reviews 2) Standard reviews of entertainment aspects 3) Sociopolitical aspects in film 4) Comparisons of plot/story to other films 5) Sample reaction of film writers and directors. Perhaps this organization should be made more evident in a lead paragraph for this section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Bob, I do not see why this should be in the negative paragraph. Yes, it is speaking of the sociopolitical aspect of the film, but so are parts of the paragraph about similar plot details. The paragraph you added that piece back in is considered the negative paragraph, which is why it seems out of place there. If anything, it should be last in that paragraph since it is positive. Flyer22 (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a purely sociopolitical paragraph, and the part I restored is a purely sociopolitical comment, not an entertainment aspect of the film. It is placed where it is most relevant in the paragraph, which is after two comments that discuss subjects that are more similar to it, compared to the other comments in the paragraph. Most of the sociopolitical comments have been negative, just as most of the entertainment comments have been positive. So the entertainment paragraph is mostly positive because of that and the sociopolitical paragraph is mostly negative because of that.   The similar plots paragraph is not a sociopolitical paragraph or entertainment paragraph. It's unifying aspect is the similarities to other films.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good explanation. But as for the "entertainment paragraph" being mostly positive, it is cleaner either way to present the positive reviews of a favorable film first and then the negative reviews second...as we have done. I do not think in terms of "entertainment paragraph." I generally think "positive paragraph" and "negative paragraph." Although...as I stated to K10wnsta, "Critical reception sections do not need to consist only of positive reviews first, then negative reviews, and that's it." Zombieland is one example, and so is this article. But either way, if the Critical reception section starts off with a positive paragraph, and is then followed by a negative paragraph, I do not feel that negative "entertainment comments" should go in the positive paragraph. I feel the same way about positive comments going in the negative paragraph, which is why I did not quite understand your revert on that matter, but, yes, now I understand your reasoning. Flyer22 (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

International reviews as just "Anti-"?
The opening sentence of the last paragraph under Critical reception appears (unintentionally?) WP:Biased. It reads: "Internationally, critics applauded its themes of anti-capitalism and anti-imperialism" -- as if all international reviews are written in former colonies or by imperialism victims cheering to the movie's jab at their former tormentors. From what I could see, there is plenty of notable reviews in European, Asian and Australasian media which do not dwell on "anti-" messages of the film at all, highlighting its positive ecological, ethical and even spiritual themes instead. I wonder therefore if this descriptor covers international response to the movie -- or even the reviews quotes later in the paragraph -- accurately and sufficiently.

Can we either rewrite the lead sentence or at least add a couple of positive modifiers to it to make it more balanced? Like: "Internationally, critics applauded its ethical and ecological message as well as its themes of anti-capitalism and anti-imperialism". Or do we need the lead sentence at all? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Update: The paragraph in question has been moved for discussion here. Cinosaur (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)