Talk:Themes in Avatar/Archive 2

Finished; recap
Hi, Cinosaur. I've finished my proofread of the article. As others have said, I think it was an excellent idea of yours to start the article, and you have done a super job on the research and assembing all the information. To sum up my thoughts: I still think there is too much redundancy in the article, and the quotes and cites added in the past day or two I think are entirely repetitive. If you add a new cite for an idea that is already there, then it should be better, and more clearly or concisely make the point: then delete the old one. Why do we need two quotes from Cameron (2007 and then 2010) for the simple idea that the name of the film is indeed related to the Sanskrit term? You don't need to include everything, just the best things. I think it is a good article and deserves to be read, so I really urge you to go through the article and cut, cut, cut: The shorter and clearer the article is, and the less repetition it contains, the more likely a reader will read all the way through it. I also think there is too much quoting of Cameron. If he is saying exactly the same thing that the commentators are saying, indicate it in the shortest possible way: Cameron confirmed that this was deliberate.[cite] You don't need a quote from him for every point. The MOS discourages too much quoting, so think about whether every quote, even from the critics, is necessary, or whether you have already really said it and can just add the ref. Also, where you have the choice of several critics, generally, you can just take the one or two from the most prestigious publications. Finally, you don't need to mention every theme that a critic though worth mentioning. Stick to the most important ones, and you'll retain the interest of your readers. So, basically, I think that, for this article, brevity is the soul of quality. I am de-watching the article now, but if you want my input on anything, do not hesitate to leave me a note asking me to review something. Best regards. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you again for your tremendous input here, SSilvers. Now I see what you meant when you said in your barnstar posting that "I don't know if I really earned it yet!" So all I can do now is restate my gratitude again. It's a pity to see you go unwatch the article, but I will definitely get back to you again, while trying to implement your above suggestions. Also, if you know an expert editor or two, who could give the article a fresh look and assessment, I would appreciate. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Two things you can do if you want more input beyond the editors already here (although I think User:Betty Logan could probably give you a good read) are 1) you can post on the Films project talk page; 2) you can get a WP:Peer review. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I read through this and there isn't much to criticise. It looks structurally sound and well sourced and it's pretty well balanced - all the criticisms are countered with an opposing view.  The only one that wasn't was under the "Racism" section where an Israeli journalist accused it of promoting neo-Naziism - since this isn't explored in any detail or opposed maybe it would be better to drop that sentence because it's quite a sensationalist and lurid accusation, and could trip it up on NPOV in a GA review. Betty Logan (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Betty. As for the neo-Nazism quote, will it be better balanced if the word 'neo-Nazism' itself it dropped, to make it read:


 * Noting that "the only good humans are dead – or rather, resurrected as 'good Navi'", a writer in The Jerusalem Post thought that the film was inadvertently promoting supremacy of one race over another.


 * continuing the same narrative throughout the paragraph? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is the whole Jerusalem Post article really, because the writer approaches it from a neo-fascism perspective rather than racial supremacy, and it's an extreme viewpoint to adopt. Personally I would still remove it, but I don't think it would get in the way of GA review if you choose to keep it.  I looked at the images used in the article, but since you've updated most of them in response to the review it's a moot point now.  Dr Negative brought up the point that the Hinduism section should be under "Spirituality and Religion", and I think he has a good point.  Most people would expect Hinduism to come under "Religion and Spirituality" and someone reviewing it for GA status might question why it's not there.  It's a very well written article btw, I'm basically having to nitpick to find flaws. Betty Logan (talk) 05:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the JP piece is bordering on paranoia, but I thought that a properly weighed mention of such an extreme outlook would give the reader a better idea of just how much of a Rorschach blot this movie is. After all, JP is a prominent newspaper, and the author is a somewhat prominent columnist. Maybe if the quote is qualified to read like:


 * Noting that "the only good humans are dead – or rather, resurrected as 'good Navi'", a writer in The Jerusalem Post went as far as opining that the film was inadvertently promoting neo-Nazism, or supremacy of one race over another.


 * the quote will be appropriately toned down and no longer edging towards a POV? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As for the Hinduism section, this is what I wrote in reply to DrNegative's point:


 * [U]nlike any other religious belief, Hinduism is the only religious connection in the movie repeatedly acknowledged by Cameron and joyfully picked up by the media. As for the other perceived religious connections, like pantheism, we had to draw on sources other than Cameron — and there are not so many of them, which explains the relative prominence of the Hinduism section. If it's felt that its treatment in the article is bordering on WP:UNDUE, I will think how to balance it — but I do not see how we can expand the pantheism share in the article. If you think that some significant comments on pantheism in Avatar are overlooked, please let me know. As for the placement, I tried placing it under Religion and spirituality in preview, and it Hinduism ends up outweighing and eclipsing the rest of the section, so I thought it would be better structurally and stylistically to leave it as it is — at the end of the article but under a heading of its own.


 * Do you feel it answers yours and his suggestion regarding shifting the Hinduism section under Spirituality or I am missing something? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Human dream revisited
I would like to keep this poetic quote from Cameron, which belonged to the now deceased Human dream and guilt subsection. I feel it adds a new positive dimension to the article.

Avatar comes from a childhood sense of wonder about nature... We go from this state as children where we don't know what we can't do. You fly in your dreams as a child, but you tend not to fly in your dreams as an adult. In the Avatar state, [Jake] is getting to return to that childlike dream state of doing amazing things ... In a funny way, it's actually kind of a comment on the way we find expression for our imagination [and] on the huge gap or shortfall between what you can imagine and what you can actually do.

But I fail to see where it fits in the present structure. Any suggestions? Would it be more appropriate to just box quote it somewhere? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 00:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Opinion re: GA process
FWIW, I don't think that this article has to go to GA. This sort of "daughter" article is useful in its way - it helps keep the main article down to a reasonable length, and yet it allows interested readers to read more about a particular aspect of the main article. But it is hard to make such an article "comprehensive", since it is merely an attempt to summarize the opinions of commentators and an attempt to give them relative weight depending on how mainstream/popular that opinion is. Also, since it is a compendium of opinion, and must stick closely to describing what the commentators said (in order to avoid OR), it is hard to optimize the prose. IMO, the article already fulfills its function, everyone should bask in the glow of a job well done, and the encyclopedia would be better off if the editors moved on to new projects. Just my 2 cents. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment, Ssilvers, and your help all along. While respecting your opinion, I thought that if the main article on Avatar is GA, its main "daughter" also ought to strive for the same status. Looks like our article satisfies all GA criteria. Also, a few editors above favored the GA move (yourself being open to the idea too, at least at that time). Besides, it is a good learning curve for me. Let us have a run, with your good wishes, and we will see how the reviewers respond. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Certainly. There's no harm in trying, and requesting the peer review is the best preliminary step one can take prior to a run at GA.  I hope to see you on additional projects soon.  Best wishes, and happy editing!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I hate multitasking and prefer to focus on a single writing project at a time instead. But yes, I have already got plans to participate in some other articles once this one is finished. Thanks for the encouragement. Cinosaur (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations
Congratulations on the article's promotion to GA. And thanks for the kind star. :-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Religion as a cultural theme
Doesn't "Religion" belong under the section "Social and cultural themes"? - User:Hpfan1 (talk), 17:43 26 April 2010 (UTC).
 * It might or might not, depending on how you look at it. However, given the amount of reviews on religious parallels in Avatar, having a dedicated "Religious" section is better for the article's structure and readability. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 03:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

undue weight?
Should worldmeets.us be used as a reference? How the hell does destroying the tree they live in by using a bulldozer, remind people of the Twin Towers being destroyed on 9/11?
 * The visual similarity between the destruction of the World Trade Center and the felling of Home Tree in the film raised the issue of whether encouraging the filmgoer to identify with the indigenous people in the film was intended to portray the military contractors as terrorists, so that audiences could empathize with the position of Muslims under occupation today.[9][10]

Does anyone not see the article is nonsense?  D r e a m Focus  15:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you are confusing two different things. Home Tree was destroyed by fiery missile attacks by aircraft; that is what is being compared to the World Trade Center attack.  The bulldozer scene is a different tree.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, the article is still pretty ridiculous. A lot of comparison of it to Jesus Christ and terrorist acts and anti-American propaganda.   D r e a m Focus  06:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed that which is credited to that one source.
 * The visual similarity between the destruction of the World Trade Center and the felling of Home Tree in the film raised the issue of whether encouraging the filmgoer to identify with the indigenous people in the film was intended to portray the military contractors as terrorists, so that audiences could empathize with the position of Muslims under occupation today.

This is nonsense. The movie was written BEFORE any of that happened, so how could it have been intended to portray this?  D r e a m Focus  07:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, you seem to be pushing a WP:POV here. After all, both the passage in question and Cameron's response to it:
 * Cameron said that he was "surprised at how much it did look like September 11", but added that he did not think that it was necessarily a bad thing.
 * appeared in WP:RS, and thus we have no business shunning them in the article. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 08:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I simplified the sentence. See if you think it's an improvement.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the bulldozer scene has to do with Israel. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

What about philosophical and musical themes?
Hi. Some sources reject any type of philosophical connection in Avatar, but I saw it differently. For example, the end scene where Jake opens his eyes suggest he is "waking up" to and "seeing" humanity's own actions. Another is where Jake's Avatar exists in the same world his body does and the two can interact in some way, and waking up in the human spaceship removes the consiousness from the Avatar, suggesting a self-reference. This may be related to religious themes, but most of these are quite different. The depiction of Eastern spirituality is quite poor, as one friend likened the worship theme to Buddhism, which would be innacurate. As for musical themes, some of the music was written by an ethnomusicologist, and it would add weight to the article to explain some of the musical inspirations and themes in the article in addition to the aspects of the Na'vi language as explained in other articles. Also, in addition to criticism, some interpretations of the movie by reviewers should be included as well. Please try to avoid as much original research as possible. There should be plenty of reviews out there on these subjects, but what types of sources would be considered (inn)appropriate for citing in the article? Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 00:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for writing in, AstroHurricane001, but I am afraid I am not exactly sure what your suggestion is. Can you be more specific as to its proposed wording, placement and WP:RSs? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

l or L?
should libertarian be capitalized in the phrase libertarian Cato institute? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.160.47 (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅. Thanks for pointing out this one. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 01:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

External media
The fact that we have an "external media" template does not mean that it can be inserted into the body of the article. *All* external links go into the external links section, even sister projects links. The template is just used to call out the fact that the link is to media rather than to an external page containing media. Is the template being correctly used in this case? Or should we simply have a bullet-point in the EL section? Yworo (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Technically, since the video is used as a reference and linked from references section, it should not even be linked from External links. Yworo (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yworo, thank you for your good faith edit. I appreciate your point above. However, the temlpate is not used only to to call out the fact that the link is to media rather than to an external page containing media as you wrote. See its documentation, which states in part:


 * If an image, audio or video clip is available online, but cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia, it may be appropriate to use external media to provide a direct link to the file and a (referenced) description of what it contains.


 * The Charlie Rose clip linked by the template here is an essential part of the article as Cameron's own (and the most descriptive to date) exposition on his movie's themes. Therefore, IMHO, it deserves a prominent place in the body of the article on themes in Avatar. Demoting it to the EL section may make it more obscure and thus may decrease the article's EV.  Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing in that excerpt says it should be placed in the body of the article rather than in the external links section. Yworo (talk) 05:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yworo, may I ask you to refrain from removing the external media template from the article for the time being until we get a broader and more educated feedback hopefully leading to a consensus as to its proper use. I am not at all opposed to removing it if its current placement is indeed against Wiki policies, but I just want to make sure that it is there (or not there) for a reason other than our personal preferences. Thank you for your understanding. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 10:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

External media template use
I wonder if the external media template is used correctly in the article here. See the above section for context. Thanks for your comments. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * All you have to do is to read WP:EL.


 * "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be used in the body of an article."
 * "If an article has external links, the standard format is to place them in a bulleted list under a primary heading at the end of the article."


 * You will also want to note that even links to sister projects are required to be in the external links section, see WP:SISTER,


 * "In normal lists and articles, if there is no directly relevant section in the page, then the links are usually placed in the external links section (creating that section if using an external-links style link instead of a large, graphical template), or, if no such section exists and you are using a large, graphical template, then the links should be placed in the last section of the page, as described in Wikipedia:Layout. Sister links are not normally included in See also sections, which are reserved for links to pages within the English Wikipedia."


 * Since I am fully aware of the policies, my movement is policy-based and you are merely operating out of personal preference, it is you I must ask to stop moving the link in clear defiance of policy. Further movement will be reported as edit warring. Yworo (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Addendum: the Wikipedia policy on external links has always been intended to keep people on Wikipedia rather than sending them to an external site. The external links section is always placed last to encourage people to read the Wikipedia article before leaving the site to find additional information. Putting an external link prominently in the lead is the worst possible violation of the spirit and purpose of the restriction that external links must be confined to the References, Further reading, and External links sections. Yworo (talk) 15:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see the point of using the template in this case. The link in question is used as a ref for at least one instance to back up a specific point and if readers have any interest in the expanded points raised by said interview they can simply follow through via references as per usual. What am I missing? Millahnna (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Millahnna and Yworo for your feedback. As I said, I just wanted to understand the proper use of the template. Could you explain when the template in question is justified in an article's body? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 10:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I was wondering about this as well. The policy cited specifically says, "should not normally be used in the body of an article", which implies that there are exceptions to this rule. DrNegative (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It's up to the editor(s) who wish to put it into the article body to provide a policy-based reason that supports an exception being made. Since I don't believe it merits an exception, don't ask me to explain: research the policies yourself and see if you can find support for making an exception.


 * My opinion is that no external link ever merits an exception, template or no template. I'd only consider an exception for links to sister projects, and then typically only for Wikinews, temporarily in a section covering a recent event, never in the lead section. Yworo (talk) 20:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Policy-based exception? DrNegative (talk) 01:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * IAR is meaningless w/o an argument. IMO, highlighting an external link in a box in the lead is not an improvement to any article. Therefore, IAR doesn't apply, because the normal external linking rules are contributing to rather than preventing an improvement in the article. Yworo (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yworo, so it's easier for you or other editors to tell me where I am off, here is my line of thought leading to the inclusion of the External Media template in the lead:
 * The article's topic is themes in Avatar.
 * The main authority on the topic is James Cameron.
 * As such, James Cameron's own elaborations on the themes in Avatar should be, whenever appropriate, given prominence in the article and precedence over other sources, including in the lead.
 * His interview on Charlie Rose is by far Cameron's most exhaustive direct elaboration on Avatar's themes in a reliable, published, and most notable source to date.
 * The lead section is meant to:


 * ...define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences...


 * The Charlie Rose interview does just that – sets the context for the article and summarizes its most important points, putting the rest of it in the context of Cameron's own words, which merits its inclusion in the lead as a stand-alone resource, an infobox of sorts for the topic. This is definitely an improvement of the article.
 * Since the Charlie Rose interview in not availabe on Wiki Commons, the Template:External media should be used to provide a convenient link to this key resource for the article.
 * Contrary to your statement above:


 * "My opinion is that no external link ever merits an exception, template or no template. I'd only consider an exception for links to sister projects, and then typically only for Wikinews, temporarily in a section covering a recent event, never in the lead section." – Yworo


 * the External media template is indeed used on Wiki even in its FAs. See War against Nabis for one example.


 * Therefore it is justified and appropriate (1) to include the External media template in the article's body and (2) arguably, to place it even in the article's lead.

Looking forward to being corrected on any or all of the above points. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, seeing as how the same link is used as a source several times in the article, I don't see the point. Millahnna (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Cinosaur made an excellent justification for inclusion of the box and making this external-link more prominent within the article. This is not a secondary source which simply grazes the content of the article, it is James Cameron himself addressing almost every point which the article attempts to summarize for the reader, most of which are based on the opinions of critics. The reader has the option to read the entire article which contains vast interpretations of the themes presented within the film from the critics' interpretation, or with the box they can also be drawn to the opinion of the person who actually created the film itself, one of the very few full videos in existence interviewing James Cameron about the film's thematic elements. This is just my opinion though and I am willing to step aside if other editors feel that this link being displayed more prominently than usual destroys the article's integrity. DrNegative (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Nicely put. I think I'm starting to get it now.  At this point, then, I could go either way.  If the consensus goes the way of not including the link so prominently, perhaps we'd be wise to look into seeing what other specifics in the article it could be used to reference.  RIght now it is used three times (I believe) but in light of your comment, it could probably used to back up many other points throughout.  Millahnna (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying my inapt explanation, DrNegative. I have requested Yworo for a comment so we could reach a consensus on how to proceed with the template. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 06:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If indeed it is used as the primary source for many of the uncited points in the article, then it should be cited as a reference on those points. If the interview were the subject of the article, I might buy Cinosour's argument about the media link. But the article isn't about the interview, it's about themes in Avatar. Articles are not supposed to be based on a single source, and fortunately this article is based on multiple sources. Articles are also not supposed to give undue weight to a single source. Putting an external media box in the lead does just that, gives undue weight to a single source. I am in fact considering nominating the template for deletion, as it encourages violation of our pretty hard and fast rule, no external links in the body of the article. Yworo (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we have a weak consensus for keeping the template in the lead unless Yworo manages to have the template deleted or its documentation amended. But while the template is still in use some 1018 times throughout Wiki and counting, including FAs and GAs, why can't Themes in Avatar be one of them? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 07:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I see no consensus whatsover and will be reverting you. Yworo (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yworo: DrNegative and myself conditionally support the template in the lead (please forgive me if I am misrepresenting you here, DrNegative, but this is how I read your text above), unless there is a strong evidence that this placement of the template goes against the Wiki policy --something that you have so far failed to prove both here and on the template discussion page. Millahnna says they can "go either way". You are opposed. So, arithmetically, it is two "for", one "against", and one "abstained" -- something I called "a weak consensus". If you manage to resolve the issue on the template discussion page, I will happily comply with the outcome, whatever it may be. Until then, however, your removal of the template is not justified. Or if you think it is, being consistent, would you mind removing it from the rest of the articles on Wiki? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * A consensus on Wikipedia is a supermajority. With four editors participating, you'd need three supporting. As to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it's a bad argument and I may do just that. As far as I know, no other article has the template in the lead section of the article. The RfC is not yet over, and I believe you would need a strong consensus to overrule clear external links guidelines. Yworo (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

While I do still feel there are valid points on both sides (Cameron as the authority v. article topic is themes and not the interview), I don't think we have a consensus either way yet. Perhaps we should ask for more eyeballs on the issue at WP:FILM? Millahnna (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I would love to have more participants with the right kind of expertise on this discussion to overcome the impasse. How do we do that? Cinosaur (talk) 10:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Remove template. I am responding from the note at WP:ELN.  I have taken a few days to better understand the ways the community uses this template, which I didn't realize existed.  While I believe that this is a valuable video link, I do not think that it should be placed in this template or in the lead.  IMO the link should be listed as a plain, ordinary link under ==External links==, not highlighted as a special resource.  Personally, I'd change the format to something like "* James Cameron interview about themes on the Charlie Rose talk show (30-minute Flash video)".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No external links in the body of an article, period. Any template that does so should be changed or deleted. We are not a web directory, plain and simple. DreamGuy (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * All right, this seals the issue for me. Thanks everybody for your comments. RfC tag removed. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 05:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Tree of Souls
Note that the connection in the section on mythology the Tree of Souls is quite wrong. The "Tree of Souls" is the Hebrew folklorist analogue of the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden. Trees are present in many myths, from Ancient Middle Eastern to Tolkien and beyond. But this connection is stronger than any other. This fits with the luminescence of the Pandoran forest and the Na've themselves, since Hebrew folklore says that Adam and Eve were luminescent before their fall.63.28.105.112 (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Categories
The categories on this article appear to be way too broad. We should work on narrowing them. For example, we could narrow Category:Colonialism to Category:Fictional colonies. This article simply does not belong at the top level of most of the categories it has been put in. Yworo (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Does an article have to be on the top level of a category to be legitimately listed under it? Besides, most of the categories the article is listed under are categories for the themes in Avatar strongly perceived by WP:RS and widely commented on. Therefore one of the film's themes is, for instance, not Category:Fictional colonies, but Category:Colonialism.Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 03:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There are no other items in those broad catagories which are themes from fictional works or even fictional works themselves. Our categorization process requires that articles be placed in the narrowest categories pertaining to then and not also above that level. Yworo (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)