Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 15

Post-Avatar Depression
Should we add some info about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ComradeWolf (talk • contribs) 11:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Read above, at the #"Too real?" part.


 * Again, I ask people to check the talk page for already discussed matters (even recently archived discussions); a topic you are thinking of starting has likely already been discussed or is currently being discussed. Flyer22 (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Young actors to keep budget down [citation]
It says there is a citation needed for "Cameron cast the Australian actor after searching the world for promising young actors, preferring relative unknowns to keep the budget down."

http://www.hulu.com/watch/116516/the-tonight-show-with-conan-obrien-sam-worthington-part-1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmanser (talk • contribs) 06:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I watched the video and added the reference. DrNegative (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

citation no15
"with cameras that were specially designed for the film's production." I can't find it on the citation no15. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aris berd (talk • contribs) 09:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Environmentalism in Avatar
A lot of commentary regarding the film is focused on its environmental message, its "pocahontas/ferngully connection" if you will. I just read this news item, that talks about how Avatar is only the third film that Bolivian President Evo Morales has ever seen in his life. (link in Spanish). Mr Morales has been named "World Hero of Mother Earth" by the UN general assembly, and is notable for his positions on ownership of his nation's natural resources. In fact, Bolivia's situation regarding its reserves of lithium has interesting parallels with the mineral exploitation depicted in the film. I suppose I'm wondering out loud if there should be a larger, or perhaps more focused treatment of Avatar's environmental and political postures, including criticism coming from outside the film world (might need a separate article). The film is turning out to be quite the phenomenon, even if all it's doing is bringing old arguments back into light. This could be an interesting direction to take. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting a separate article, or expanding this article? Trusilver  19:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, perhaps there wouldn't be a problem with WP:UNDUE if it was a separate article, although I'm not sure whether or not that would be considered a POV fork, and thus unacceptable. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are writing a new article in order to write contested material that was rejected from another article, that would be a POV fork issue, but a second article that elaborates on a facet of this article wouldn't be. I don't see any problem with it, as this article is already starting to run a little bit on the long side. Trusilver  21:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would suggest the creation of a separate article dealing with themes and criticism thereof. Somewhere we can elaborate upon the impact of these themes outside the scope of cinema. I do feel that things like the religious viewpoint expressed by sources from India, while inappropriate in the film's main article (where critical reception is limited to established film critics, and so on), could be part of a subarticle dealing with themes and cultural impact. Something like Themes in Blade Runner, though there's obviously less material to work with. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You might call it "Sociopolitical themes in the 2009 film Avatar", if I understand correctly what you want in it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. Just out of curiosity, did you come up with that on your own or are there other comparable articles created from other movies? I haven't ever looked into that before, it might be something to check out before creating an article. I'll take a look when I have some time today. Trusilver  16:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Avatar rehashes themes of the nobility of adapting a more "natural" equilibrium with one's environment and the spiritual gains wrought from the formation of such an equilibrium, which are present in many other creative works. Avatar is not unique in its presentation of these themes. - Gwopy 23:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs)

"domestic" means US and Canada?
In the 4th paragraph of the lead is this phrase, "$77 million in the United States and Canada on its opening weekend", whereas in the the source there is this phrase, "domestically with a total of $77.3 million". Is there some reason to believe that "domestic" means US and Canada instead of just US? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * From what I understand, the word "domestic" in the box office applies to both the United States and Canada. I have rarely seen source differentiating between Canadian and American grosses. There is a bit better explanation at Box office. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 04:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, "domestic" does mean US and Canada.. or North America, whatever you fancy. :-) — Mike   Allen   04:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Domestic traditionally means the domestic market. For US or Canadian films that will be US and Canada.  For UK or Irish films that will be UK and Ireland.  Betty Logan (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The above comments were helpful. I made a corresponding edit to be in accord with source and added a wikilink to explain "domestically". --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not use "domestic" when you can say United States and Canada; we are the English-language Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia. Considering that this film has performed enormously well because of territories outside the United States and Canada, we should avoid even more the usage of the word "domestic" in any capacity. Erik (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And to answer the original question, Box Office Mojo says here: "All grosses published reflect domestic earnings, i.e., United States and Canada, unless otherwise noted." Erik (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Re "Considering that this film has performed enormously well because of territories outside the United States and Canada, we should avoid even more the usage of the word "domestic" in any capacity." - I don't understand the logic of this remark. Also, "domestically" is what is used in the source. It's not clear why you would have Wikipedia avoid the usage of "domestic" when it seems to be the standard usage in all the sources,  and specifically the source that is used to support the statement. Perhaps you have a source that uses US and Canada gross instead of gross domestically, with regard to Avatar? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The source is for American readers, so "domestic" is clear to them. In this article on the English-language Wikipedia, we do not have this specific audience.  We have a global audience.  Saying "United States and Canada" is clearer to everyone than "domestic".  It is just a matter of converting the word so no one misunderstands the meaning. Erik (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * re "The source is for American readers, so "domestic" is clear to them." I don't think it is less clear to those outside the US. Also, note that the sources make no mention that domestic means US and Canada, and it would thus be safer to follow the sources instead of violating WP:SYNTH and making the conclusion that domestic means US and Canada for Avatar domestic gross, which doesn't seem to be in any of the sources for Avatar. Note that we are an encyclopedia and we reflect what is in the sources. The usage of "domestic" seems to be standard usage in all the sources, and specifically in both sources that are used to support the statements. Perhaps you have a source from outside the US that uses "US and Canada gross" instead of "gross domestically", with regard to Avatar, to support your assertions? --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Box Office Mojo states that "domestic" means the United States and Canada, so there is no synthesis on our part. "Domestic" and "United States and Canada" can thus be used interchangeably, but it is better to be specific and just identify the territories being referred to.  The cited sources that use "domestic" are written for American audiences.  Here is an example of a non-American source: BBC says, "Avatar has topped the Christmas box office in a record-breaking weekend for cinemas in the US and Canada."  Thus, using "domestic" is systemic bias in favor of American wording.  We should be writing "United States and Canada" for the English-language Wikipedia's global audience. Erik (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The BBC article that you mentioned did not say that numbers for the opening day gross of $27 million or opening weekend gross of $77 million was  for the US and Canada. The reference to the US and Canada was not in reference to any specific numbers. When it came to specific numbers, the article mentioned the US but not Canada, "In its 10 days of release, Avatar has made $212m (£132.6m) in the US, and could be on its way to grossing more than $1bn (£625.6m) worldwide." --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that you don't believe that "domestic" means United States and Canada, even though Box Office Mojo and BBC indicate this? Yahoo! Canada says, "James Cameron's 3-D sci-fi epic earned $48.5 million across the United States and Canada..."  In addition, this is why we have List of highest-grossing films in the United States and Canada. Erik (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ABC News says, "So far, moviegoers had snapped up $9.67 billion worth of tickets at domestic -- U.S. and Canadian -- box offices through Tuesday." Erik (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect that all of those sources that mention US and Canada base their interpretation on Box Office Mojo for their definition of "domestic". I hope Box Office Mojo is right. I wonder what Box Office Mojo's source is for that definition? It is curious that the BBC article you mentioned used only "US" and not "US and Canada" when it referred to specific numbers. For now I will accomodate your points regarding "domestic" and leave "US and Canada" in the article. Of course, if a source more authoritative than Box Office Mojo shows that "domestic" means US only, or if it is shown that "domestic" or "US" alone is also used the most in articles outside of the US for the gross numbers, then I would reconsider. Please note that sometimes incorrect information from a single source can propogate a lot and it may seem to originate from many sources when it doesn't. However, I am open to wholeheartedly agreeing that using "US and Canada" is preferable if these points are cleared up, but for now I won't object to using "US and Canada" in the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the "United States and Canada" term precedes Box Office Mojo. The 1980s in Google News Archive Search reflect this. Erik (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll look that over. There was an when I tried to add something to my previous message so here it is:
 * However, it would be cleaner if you could find a source that uses "US and Canada" for the numbers $27 million and $77 million. It's a bit of synth in the article as is, according to the first paragraph of WP:SYNTH, in my opinion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Enough! "Domestic" does not specifically mean "US + Canada". "Domestic" means the national market of the country of origin of the movie, where the movie is considered to be originally released (not counting gala releases or special early screenings), the primary market, etc. For "Hero", it would be China, for "Ringu", it would be Japan and for "Låt Den Rätta Komma In", it would be Sweden. The fact that articles concerning non US+Canada movies use the term makes this abundantly clear. Also, the word "Domestic" in itself has no direct ties to the US+Canada. For "Avatar", the domestic market happens to be the North American market! Yuna-chan (talk) 08:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoops. Second thoughts. In reading that section again, the use of "in the United States and Canada" twice seems awkward. Please note that with "domestically" there is a wikilink to where it is explained that it means United States and Canada and it is not so cumbersome. So, for the purpose of better writing, could it be rewritten so that either "in the United States and Canada" only appears once, or substitute "domestically" etc. ? I didn't see a good way of rewriting it so that "United States and Canada" only appears once. Maybe you will have better luck. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

How about this,
 * It grossed $27 million on its opening day domestically, i.e. in the United States and Canada. On its opening weekend it grossed $77 million domestically and $232 million worldwide.

This seems to be more in accord with the sources used, clarifies for readers outside the US and within the US too, informs the reader as to what "domestic" means in the context of Avatar discussions (which is useful when they look at sources), and isn't awkward like using "in the United States and Canada" twice. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why should someone have to go to another article to understand what "domestic" means, when it can be easily written in the original article (i.e in the United States and Canada). I don't see an issue with writing out United States and Canada.  That way it clears any confusion. —  Mike   Allen   06:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In the above suggested version it is written out, so perhaps you could clarify your comment. Did you mean that you were supporting the above version? --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see what you did and I like it that way (written only once). Disregard that above.  —  Mike   Allen   04:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Please re_read the wikilinks for "Domestic", which reads: For movies released in North America, box office figures are usually divided between domestic, meaning U.S. and Canada, and foreign which includes all other countries. The term "Domestic" is not, at all, usable only for the US+Canada. Yuna-chan (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you need a reminder to stay civil, per WP:CIVIL? Flyer22 (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Edited. Yuna-chan (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is rarely a significant marketing or sales distinction between US and Canadian markets for retail items. Maybe the movie "Miracle" played differently in Canada, given the nature of hockey, but the Canadian retail market is generally considered equally alongside the US, which adjustments only for the weather and the tax rate. - Gwopy 23:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs)

Talk Has Turned Into Fanzine
The discussion has engendered a lot of sci fi speculation, so much so that the article has morphed into a fanzine. The two major items that should be discussed, I believe, are the plagiarism issue (Cameron already got caught stealing "The Terminator" and "Omega Code" so these constitute the "reliable source" criteria for claims of script hijacking, not to mention that Hollywood steals scripts on a regular basis) and the expensive 3-D effects. Everything else seems to fall under the heading of "zealous sci-fi fans" and perhaps a special fanzine section should be added, then people can discuss the film freely without having to wonder if it falls under proper Wiki guidelines. The discussion is interesting, but very, very long and could constitute an article unto itself. I think something should be done to sort all this out. After all, what is "Avatar" and has it created a sociological phenomenon in our "pop" culture? What about the downstream marketing? Are we to see "Avatar" costumes next Halloween? Will girls start wearing blue makeup? --See what I mean? All kinds of thought can be engendered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.246.181 (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your presumption of a "reliable source" over this speculation of Cameron stealing the script from an outside source. This has been discussed and consensus only finds WP:OR or violations with WP:V everytime it comes up. Want to challenge it, list your sources. As for you concerns with the nature of material on the talk page, talk dicussions are here for discussing implementation of material into the article or improving it, especially when others disagree with what is already within it. Everytime an IP or registered user for example decides to add something that is original research or unverified we have to revert and disuss it here, so it seems like fanzine when in reality its not. The article is becoming very well balanced in terms of MOS:FILM guidelines so I must disagree with you on the sections that require most prominence. The special effects could probably use expansion though I will agree and in time it will. As far as things like halloween costumes, keep in mind WP:EVERYTHING. DrNegative (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not culturaly relevant? The NYT doesn't seem to think so: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/movies/20avatar.html AniRaptor2001 (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Man died of over-excitement after watching Avatar
Apparently no joke: http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/movies/man-died-after-watching-avatar/story-e6frfmvr-1225821333043 —85.178.107.97 (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Analysis section?
For the eventual analysis section this should be included: a Psychological analysis of Avatar by philosopher Stefan Molyneux as "an epic journey of emotional growth... about the development of empathy". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.21.155 (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Great stuff. I'm hoping we can collect enough analysis into the film's themes that we could open a Critical analysis section, such as this one from the Pulp Fiction article. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


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


 * BTW, did you notice that Jake is short for Jacob, and Jacob in the bible had a twin too, and we can find more parallels there, the number depending on imagination? Also, there's jake leg.  Of course it's OR but it's a sample of how easy it is to come up with all sorts of stuff that may or may not be relevant.    --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha I suppose I should actually watch the clip before declaring it useful material. My comments regarding the creation of a new section still stand, though, Avatar brings together a lot of classic sci-fi themes that deserve good analysis. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think Sci-fi themes in general that are used in Avatar are worth mentioning since that is a given for a  movie of any genre to use the themes of its genre. Getting back to Jake, in the development of the script he was once named Josh,   like Jake/Jacob another name of biblical origin   Joshua, which also has parallels to the character in Avatar.  Hmmm. Maybe Cameron was choosing the name because of biblical parallels. If I see an RS with this I may put it in somewhere, or maybe not.  Depends if it fits in.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI the parallels with events and characters in the Book of Joshua are striking, although Cameron reversed most of the original story, which is his real original contribution. My brother is into evangelical studies and he immediately picked up on the Na'vi as the Canaanite sons of Anak, "giants of old, heroes of renown". He thinks the story is Cameron's take on how the Old Testament might play out allegorically in science fantasy terms but reversed in message. That is, if one can believe a fable where the not-fully-human enemies of some metaphorical futuristic "exodus Israel" would have the righteousness and power of the deity on their side, Cameron then shows how this futuristic "Israel" would be defeated. The humans (figurative Israelites) assume the superior means and values as if divinely advantaged. But from the movie's POV they are presented mainly as a rapacious foreign menace invading what is figuratively and cinematically a fantastical promised land. Since the movie favors the alien (figurative Canaanite) POV, Cameron apparently saw little need to further embellish the judeo-christian counter-meme with some "divine" hand or presence in the human (figurative Israelite) base camp, other than perhaps the proxy power attributes of high technology and organization.


 * The Na'vi princess Neytiri stands for the figurative biblical character Rahab in reverse, turning Jake Sully (figurative Israelite spy in Jericho) against his own nation, in the process uplifting thematically from a fearful, treasonous Canaanite prostitute into a loyal, stalwart princess of the Canaanite religion. Which BTW, is paralleled by the Na'vi Hometree, a shoo-in for the Tree of Life associated with the Canaanite goddess Asherah, of the ancient sex-fertility and child-sacrifice religion which Hebrew prophets gave warning against. Na'vi Princess Neytiri is also a reverse dead-ringer for the biblical Midianite sex-princess, the one who got skewered in fragante delicto along with her Israelite lover by the biblical zealous warrior Phinehas - reversed-roled by zealous warrior Jake Sully with spear in hand. As in the original, the spy had to go for a swim before meeting and living with the pagan alien female in the enemy citadel.


 * Like Mel Gibson, Cameron wants to stick it to the Israelites (and their wannabees) in the past as well as the "future".Trackerwiki (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone that liked this awful, corny, sad, ridiculous, derivative and boring Laser Floyd of a Hollywood movie ever read any novel by Ursula K. Le Guin...? "The Word for World is Forest", for example? Will you gringos ever get things right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.210.220.126 (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Academic references to Hindu deities' color
Bob K31416 -- I disagree with your removal of the sentence: ...alluding to the fact that principal deities in Hinduism, such as Vishnu and Krishna, are traditionally depicted as dark-blue.

under Themes and inspirations because (1) it is not an original research, but references to books on the topic by some of the most prominent contemporary scholars of Hinduism, and (2) the article ought to explain to readers what Cameron means by "connection to Hindu deities, which I like conceptually" -- something he himself did not bother to elaborate on. Please consider reverting your removal of this line. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you made the point against the edit yourself when you wrote, " something he himself did not bother to elaborate on." When an editor elaborates, it is a violation of WP:NOR because it hasn't been mentioned in a source in connection with Cameron's  comment. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the use of the words "alluding to the fact" smacked of ascribing intentions to Cameron that he did not spell out, and thus could be against WP:NOR. However, the exact connection between the color and Hindu deities which he is talking about in the quote is not clear and may leave readers wondering, and IMO requires a reference. Would it be ok to say, plain and simple:

...connection to Hindu deities. Traditionally, principal deities in Hinduism, such as Vishnu and Krishna, are depicted as dark-blue.


 * Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Same reason. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you feel that such an explanation from some other source that is not against WP:NOR could/should still be included? Cinosaur (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, because it is a digression, in my opinion. But who knows, maybe you can come up with something worthwhile, and I'm open to that possibility. But frankly, any more about Hinduism than what is there, would seem to have the purpose of informing the reader more about Hinduism, rather than the film. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and what's wrong with informing the reader of Hinduism just to the extent and in a manner that helps him/her get a clearer idea of what Cameron is referring to in the quote? Cinosaur (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that there's any problem with the revision? Cameron stated that he chose blue in part because of the connection to Hindu deities. Followed by an explanation ("principal deities are depicted as dark blue.") It's a clarification, it seems to be fine. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 04:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is how it seems to me too. However, Bob K31416 appears to believe it to be OR. Bob K31416, could you please consider elaborating on your claim? Cinosaur (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The following is in the 2nd paragraph of the lead of WP:NOR, "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article". The sources that you gave are not directly related to the film Avatar, which is the topic of the article. The material in the sources that you presented  are related to the topic Avatar (film) by you, not by the sources themselves, and hence the material that you are trying to include is  a violation of WP:NOR. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob, Cameron said "Plus, there is a connection to the Hindu deities, which I like conceptually". Based on this phrase alone, an average reader unfamiliar with Hinduism will think that all 33 million Hindu deities are blue. This is not true. Some of them are red, green, yellow, white, black, or you name it. Citing reliable reference to clarify the important but potentially misleading quote and to show that there is a connection that Cameron is talking about is not OR, but a clarification. Is not it directly related to the topic? It would be OR if I tried to imply which deities exactly Cameron meant. But I just cite the fact that there are blue deities in Hinduism and that they happen to be the principal ones. That's all.

BTW, this is pretty much what you yourself did with Alpha Centauri in the lead paragraph. If the explanation that I propose here is OR, then so is yours on AC, isn't it? Cinosaur (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Re "BTW, this is pretty much what you yourself did with Alpha Centauri in the lead paragraph." - Was the source for the Alpha Centauri sentence directly related to the film Avatar? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was, I agree. But from what I could gather from the discussion there, Boston Globe it was a borderline source, which was included for clarification, and the statement about AC is not supportable by Cameron's own words yet. Mine are nor related to the film "Avatar" directly, but are supportable by Cameron's words. So how does this fact make the explanatory sources on Hindu deities more OR than yours? And could you please comment on the first paragraph as well? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Since you seem to be confused about things like the Alpha Centauri sentence that you brought up, directly related, and WP:NOR, I don't think we are able to communicate. Perhaps you should get another opinion at WP:NORN. Here's the first sentence at that link. "This notice board is provided so that editors can ask for advice about material that might be original research (OR) or original synthesis." Good luck.  Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link to WP:NORN, Bob. I will check it out. However, I am not the only editor questioning your judgment on this inclusion as OR, which gives me reason to believe that I am not as confused about OR as you seem to think I am.


 * On a different note, agreeing that the AC source is direct and not OR, what would you say about the following quotes as possible clarifications of Cameron's statement, which mention Na'vi color as similar to that of Vishnu, Krishna, and Rama and Vishnu-blue? Cinosaur (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment via WP:NORN - the academic references come across as labouring the point, but I wouldn't view an explanation as original research as such. There's no doubt that Cameron is referring to deities such as Vishnu and Krishna - what else could he possibly mean? - and it seems reasonable to explain the allusion for those who don't know they're blue. Personally I'd just footnote it. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, Cameron said that he just liked the color blue and its conceptual connection to the Hindu deities.

Re "it seems reasonable to explain the allusion for those who don't know they're blue. " - Perhaps the following would be the simplest way,
 * "Also, Cameron said that he just liked the color blue and its conceptual connection to blue Hindu deities."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 05:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Bob, do I take it to mean that we agree now that the proposed inclusion was not OR? Cinosaur (talk) 07:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

After carefully considering the comments, I have added the following footnote to the article.
 * According to Hindu beliefs, the god Vishnu has appeared in human form as a blue avatar.

Cheers, --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like a good idea, who reads footnotes anyway? It's better to just include this information in the article, it will be very useful. It is in no way OR since there're RS which mention Vishnu and Krishna in relation to the film.--Gaura79 (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Bob K31416 -- I appreciate your silent consent with my first revision as being non-OR. I also admire your careful crafting of the footnote that you want to replace my revision with.


 * However, let me point out that:
 * your removal of my original revision is no longer justifiable by WP:NOR;
 * three independent editors (including one from WP:NORN who was consulted on your suggestion) saw no problem with keeping my original revision "as is" in the text;
 * the footnote format is your own choice, and I do not support it;
 * however carefully worded and descriptive, a footnote of any kind does not serve the purpose of clarifying Cameron's elliptic statement on Hindu deities here as much as a couple of words in the text do; and
 * the text you composed for the footnote: "[a]ccording to Hindu beliefs, the god Vishnu has appeared in human form colored blue" is your own inexact rendition of the source referenced, and one that might itself be leaning towards OR.


 * Agreeing with you that sources directly related to Avatar are preferable to the academic ones I quoted (though none of the three editors objected to those either), I would like to replace your footnote revision with the following:

Also, Cameron said that he just liked the color blue and its conceptual connection to Hindu deities, which some reviewers linked to blue-colored Vishnu, and his avatars Rama and Krishna.


 * Please let me know if you have any further comments on the wording and references. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Having a footnote was also suggested by the opinion you got when you went to WP:NORN, and which was mentioned above. As before, I think that it is too much of a digression and isn't needed in the main text. Unfortunately, this discussion is approaching WP:DEADHORSE, at least from my perspective, since I don't think you have responded with anything new to my concern that it is too much of a digression for the main text. I probably won't be participating any more on this matter, but you are free to pursue getting a consensus with other editors. Please keep in mind that I am opposed to putting that material in the main text, and you shouldn't presume that I have changed my mind if I don't respond. This situation seems to be approaching another you had where there was a long discussion which ended in  WP:DEADHORSE. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A simple footnote would suffice here. It doesn't matter what the reader concludes because we covered what Cameron stated. Anything beyond that could lead to WP:SYNTH. DrNegative (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding, Bob. I presumed that you changed your mind not because you did not respond, but because you went ahead with a revision that you had earlier opposed to as OR. "Having a footnote" was indeed suggested by the NORN editor, but only as a personal preference, and we did not discuss it before you implemented it. "Too much of a digression" is exactly what the three editors above, besides myself, have explicitly differed with you on, so I am not sure what "new" you expect me to respond with to make this clear. So it seems that we do have a consensus of sorts. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * DrNegative -- could you please elaborate on how the above latest proposed inclusion "could lead to WP:SYNTH"? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a statement by Cameron in his choosing of the color for his characters in the film. The phrasing used after his comment are two sources of combined viewer reception to this choosing, implying that was what Cameron had in his mind when he was thinking of the deity(s), but we do not know exactly what he was thinking beyond what he actually stated. Synth (A+B/=D). DrNegative (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The way I worded it with the verb "linked" implies that the opinions are attributed to the viewers and them only, in accordance with WP:V. But maybe you can offer a better wording? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I did, a footnote "to add explanatory material, particularly if the added information would be distracting if written out in the main article." But thats just my opinion, your free to seek others. DrNegative (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * DrNegative, on a second thought over your comment I think it should say "some reviewers" to be on the safe side. As far as footnotes, looks like the entire choice between a footnote and a few words in the article hinges on whether it will be seen in the article as a useful explanation, and as such, an improvement of the article, or not. Since so far more editors here seem to favor this option, and since it complies, to the best of my knowledge, with all Wiki policies, including WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V, I will give it a try in the article and hopefully get more feedback there. Thanks and regards, Cinosaur (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob K31416 -- You have not described and certainly have not proved by referring to any of policies and guidelines that my revision which you removed was a case of digression. In fact, you acted in defiance of expressed opinions of other editors as well. I am asking you to either prove your digression charge here in terms of WP:PG or, if you consider your further participation in this discussion unlikely, restore my revision in the article and let other editors agree or disagree with it. So far I have not given you a single reason to suspect me of disrespect towards you and your opinions, please do not give me one either. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Bob K31416 -- Assuming good faith on your part, I carefully thought over possible reasons for considering my revision a digression. I could not find any from the point of textual flow as such. But I found one reason which I will comply with and which supports using footnote over direct insertion -- as of now, the Themes and inspirations section is composed solely of Cameron's own statements or their paraphrases. So inserting even an otherwise RS and NOR explanation in the text will at this point be at odds with the style of the section. As long as the section remains Cameron's soliloquy, I will go along with that and will work on the footnote to make it more true to the sources instead.


 * As a side remark, if you came up with this argument yourself in the beginning, we would not have had this long discussion. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)