Talk:Themes in Avatar/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Comment

I can see some underlying evidence of bias in this article (such as conservative critics, trigger-happy mercenaries). Please do your best to remove bias from the article, they aren't the biggest deals in the world i know, and this is a political film, as you so very well described, but I feel uncomfortable seeing bias in an article in an encyclopedia that is supposed to be unbiased. Thanks! --Bismarck43 (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Too, there've got to be some quotable Christians who do not find the movie offensive to their religion, or even whose spirituality may have been deepened by the experience. I know the "X-is-of-the Devil" squadron howls the loudest, but in my experience they are much in the minority and are even deemed an embarrassment by other Christians. The article makes it sound like they all think like that. Awesome entry otherwise! -- Limetanus (talk) 09:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Limetanus, thank you for the suggestion. I myself have been on the lookout for notable positive Christian reviews to balance that section, but could not dig out any. If you have links to such reviews, please share them here. I will be most grateful. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Found something. "Avatar and its Conservative Critics" - Matthew J Milliner argues that Avatar is Deist, not Pantheist; Pandora can represent Eden and a state of community before the Fall; the Deity directly intervenes, in contrast to the Na'vi's own beliefs; and that fallen Man (e.g. Quaritch's mercenaries) can no longer deal with the way things work on an unfallen world. He quotes CS Lewis' Space Trilogy (the Perelandra series): "For one draught of this [precious substance] on earth,” remarks Ransom, “wars would be fought and nations betrayed.” -- Limetanus (talk) 07:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 Done. Many thanks. See if you like the insertion. Cinosaur (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hinduism — section or subsection?

DrNegative, thanks for your participation in editing here, constructive as ever. I was also tempted to place Hinduism under Religion, but on a second thought stuck it in as a separate section, because Avatar's connection with Hinduism is (1) its only religious theme explicitly admitted by Cameron, and (2) by far less speculative and more substantially covered than the other religious/spiritual parallels put together. Therefore I favor placing Hinduism as a separate section — as thematically and contents-wise more justified than squeezing it with its sizable subsections under Religion. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I was simply thinking of overall structure and organization of the article since Hinduism is after all, a religion. By not placing it there, I was assuming the average reader could imply that Hinduism doesn't fall under the category for religion when in fact Christianity was listed there. I do see your view though and if you revert it, I will not challenge it. DrNegative (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
What about swapping Hinduism and Religion, so the latter comes across as a general religious topic after the more specific one is covered? Cinosaur (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


Suggestions

I showed the article to a few friends and they enjoyed reading it. I think it could use some expansion on the environmental themes. I'm sorry, I don't have many sources on that. I also think it's worth noting somewhere in the article that the movie was eventually banned in China and the China Daily collumn sheds light on why. Finally, I have here two more foreign perspectives. I'm not sure where this one belongs because I haven't seen this "war-mongering" theme brought up, but I do think it's a unique point:

A Quebecer collumnist for the French newspaper Le Monde wrote that the film makes the argument that war is justifiable. "All wars, even those that seem the most insane, always occurs for the 'right reasons' because they're for defense. … Let us recall, even for Hitler, the war was just. … We don't go to war to fight, whatever any warmonger says, but to defend ourselves!"[1]

I think the "noble savage" references in "technology vs. culture" go better under the "Race and Racism" section. Here's one more for that section:

Josef Joffe, publisher of Die Zeit in Germany, said the film bows to the notion of the "noble savage" which European philosophers, including Rousseau, have written about for centuries. “So, as deep and precious as the metal in this film, slumbers a condescending, yes, even racist message. Cameron bows to the noble savages. However, he reduces them to dependents.”[2]

--Amandaroyal (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Amandaroyal, thank you for the quotes, especially for the last one. Great stuff!  Done Already included. The "war" perspective is indeed an interesting view, but I am not sure where it fits. He appears to be tongue in cheek about "justifiable" wars, so maybe Anti-imperialism is the best place for it. What do you think? And how do you suggest shifting the existing noble savage" references to the "Race and Racism" section, which is tied up with a clearly environmental statement? And yes, I would also like to have more environmentalist references and will be on the lookout for them. What I would also like to find is an illustration for each section, and would appreciate any help with thatt. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
This Newsweek article may be a better source for the "banned in China" bit. There appear to be many reasons why the film has been removed, from the potential of social unrest over lost property to issues relating to Tibet to the Chinese film industry being annoyed at its tremendous success (and I'm sure additional sources could turn up more). The article makes note that the 2D version, while appearing in twice as many theatres as the 3D version (1600 vs 800), contributed relatively little to the overall ticket sales in that country. The 3D version is being allowed to stay, with the government simply asking theatres to ensure that 2/3rds of films shown are domestic productions. And Avatar's replacement, a biopic of Confucius, was so badly panned by the audiences that the Chinese government eventually relented and the 2D version of Avatar eventually returned to theatres. Remember, with China, it's rarely as simple as the situation first appears! — Huntster (t @ c) 01:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Huntster, thanks for the Newsweek link. Where do you suggest it fits best in the article structure, given that, as you said, the move's real motives were as murky as it gets in China? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Huntster,  Done. Many thanks. Can you have a look if your quote from Newsweek is taken care of properly in the article. Cinosaur (talk) 11:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Yep, looks fine. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
After a second read, I agree the two noble savage references are fine where they are right now. As for the China issue, I think one sentence after the China Daily reference would suffice: "... in the face of rapid development.[16] Chinese authorities temporarily removed the film from theaters after similar editorials appeared in other Communist Party-run press.[3]"
Now, as for the Le Monde article, I don’t think he is being facetious. It is really a bizarre and unexpected viewpoint, but he supports it well. I think it could anchor a separate theme: “Pro-militarism”
A Quebecer collumnist for the French newspaper Le Monde wrote that the film justifies war, and that viewers have been suckered into thinking it is pacifistic. Pierre Desjardins notes that the films hero is a former Marine, that the Na’vi’s tree falling brings to mind the fall of the World Trade Center towers, that the jungles are reminiscent of Vietnam, and the dragon which Jake rides to victory is reminiscent of the symbol of America, the bald eagle. This all amounts to a message that war and violence, especially in response to an attack, are justifiable, he says. "All wars, even those that seem the most insane, always occur for the 'right reasons," Desjardins wrote.[4]
And, he also has something to say on the “Race and Racism” theme: “The natives are depicted as creatures attached to outmoded rituals who must be led into battle by the film's intelligent hero.”--Amandaroyal (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
What irritates me is that many times, and in the case of the Le Monde article, these folks seem to be *trying* to find issues with the film. Comparing the dragon with a bald eagle?? Falling tree versus World Trade Centers (the Yggdrasil comparison in the article is *much* more apt)? The last bit about racism is particularly hilarious...such an indigenous race would almost *have* to have support, as they're dealing with a huge variety of unknowns. They have no real understanding of the Sky People's technology, nor how to combat it. The movie made it fairly obvious that even with Jake's help, the battle would have failed were it not for Ewya directly intervening. I of all people know that we're just here to report what others write, but sometimes I heartily wish we could be more selective and leave out the obvious drivel. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for suggestions, Amandaroyal and Huntster. I have renamed section "Anti-militarism" to "War and militarism" to be able to accommodate the Le Monde quote. I agree that it is a weird one, but also too notable to pass up on. And the reader will be amused too. Sorry that I am behind your suggestions — currently too much work at hand. But should you so desire, you are most welcome to include them yourselves as you see fit. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Section for a new theme

Maybe add a section mentioning the love-theme eventually. Cameron seems to bring it up in quite a few of his interviews. In his own opinion, from the source I added below, "boy meets girl" in the middle of a dramatic story-arc is the most significant theme to draw a vast audience from all demographics. This already has some mention in the main article though. DrNegative (talk) 08:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You must be reading my mind, DrNegative. :) However, what made me uncertain was if there is anything special in Avatar's take on the theme that would set it apart from the rest of love stories in the rest of films? And -- will we be able to cover the theme significantly deeper or/and more extensively here than its coverage in the main article? If both answers are "yes" than we should have it here. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I will have to look further into that for sources. Cameron seems to like those love-themes that are doomed from the start. This star-crossed love theme is notable for being between an alien and a human and was mentioned by some journalists, probably not notable enough for inclusion though as it stands now. As for what is already mentioned in the main article I would say your are probably right. Not much more we can elaborate on it here. DrNegative (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I would like to have the section here, but would hate to have it just copy-n-pasted from the main article. And yes, thanks for the B-rating. Cinosaur (talk) 06:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not for a Love Theme section; but if one is written, it could also mention the quite old stories of love between humans and magical beings such as the Fae, who almost always suffer for their transgression in crossing the barrier between worlds (and sometimes their human lovers do too). Avatar differs from these in one great respect: the "Fae" survive the experience.  :-) -- Limetanus (talk) 07:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

More references

As provided by SSilvers for possible inclusion:

Thank you, SSilvers, for more quotes. May I remove those already mentioned to make your list slightly less formidable-looking? :) Cinosaur (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. The only purpose of the list is to assist you in the research. You're doing a super job! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Merging info from main article

Someone put a suggestion up to merge info in the "Themes" section from the main article over to this one. What do you guys think? The main article is 130K and could probably use a small trim. DrNegative (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I feel strongly that it should not be merged; the themes section is very important to the understanding of any reader of the main article, which should include a summary of the most important themes, and those themes should be examined in more depth in this article. Of course, if there is anything in the main article that is of less importance to the general reader, and it is covered here, it can be streamlined there. I also wish you would remove the ugly "merge" tag: I really don't think it's a serious suggestion to entirely delete the themes section from the main article. HOWEVER: I do think there are lots of opportunities to shorten the main article: In the "Cast and characters" section, there is information that is either already in the Plot section or just not that important, such as in Norm's description: "because of the shot, he can't operate an avatar after the battle...." I don't think we should describe everything that happens to each character throughout the film; the section should just introduce the character and show the relationships among the characters. Also, "Weaver said that Augustine reminded her of Cameron". This is just trivia. Next, in the Origins section, does it matter that Cameron "reportedly" wrote the script treatment in two weeks? In the "Release, Initial screening" subsection, we have a whole paragraph beginning "Difficulties arose during a 3-D preview showing in Germany on December 16...." Is this whole paragraph worth more than a sentence? The "Performance analysis" section contains gorey details on what people predicted about the box office that turned out wrong. I think that this whole section could be reduced by more than 50%. Maybe some of this info could be moved to another article, but really, James Cameron stated the obvious when he said that the film would do better if it got repeat business. In fact, I am going to go over to the article and try to make some of these cuts right now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Good points, I never placed the merge tag btw, someone else did. I was just opening discussing here as to what should be done about it. You are right though that whenever a daughter article is created, the main should contain a summary in relation to it. Problem is the theme section within the main article was written at a time when there was no daughter article and it was meant to be stand-alone. I was just wanting input from other editors, including yourself, as to what you thought should be done about it. If someone wants to remove the suggestion box, i will not object. DrNegative (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree. While details could be shifted to the daughter article, a thematic summary covering all significant themes should always stay in the main one. The same goes for Critical reception, paragraph 3. Reverted the tag insertion by Hpfan1. Cinosaur (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Russian broadcast

SerdechnyG, I understand your desire to include these facts here, but they simply do not belong. The article is about themes in Avatar, and not about allegations of plagiarism, which have been too many to name. You may consider starting a separate article on Avatar plagiarism charges and then link it in under the main article's appropriate section, if you get consensus there. Repeated reverts here are not helpful to get other editors to respect your proposed contributions. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This article focuses exclusively on the themes in Avatar. I am not sure why you were directed to this article, but if your material belongs anywhere it is in the main Avatar article; possible inspirations for Avatar are dealt with in Avatar_(2009_film)#Themes_and_inspirations where possible influences on Avatar are discussed. My suggestion would be to reduce the size of your edits and incorporate it into the first paragraph of that section which specifically discusses other possible film influences such as Dances With Wolves and John Carter. Betty Logan (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Call me George. To the point - there was no desire from my side. Frankly, I don't give a damn about it. I just wanted to tell about this controversy and nothing more. I agree with You, Betty, that "This article focuses exclusively on the themes in Avatar." But, when I wrote it in Critical reception - it was deleted in few minutes. In Russia we call it "soccer", when one group redirects you to another, brushing it aside because "that's not our business", dodging the question, and repeating this vicious circle again and again. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate it's no fun to be told on both articles it belongs in the other article. The main article has a section called "Themes and Inspirations" while this article is just called "Themes". Do you feel that your edits document a theme, or do they document an inspiration? It's up to you to decide which heading they should come under and then argue your case on the appropriate article, rather than just slipping it in where resistance is the weakest. Cenasaur met with a lot of resistance to material he was trying to put into the article which is how the dedicated themes article came about, so that is always an option for you. Another option would be to widen the scope of this article so it covers both themes and inspirations, but is sometting that needs to be discussed and agreed on first. The remaining option might be to reduce the size of your edits to the most salient points and see if they are acceped in the main article. The main article after all has to maintain a balance between all the different aspects of the film's coverage so the problem may just be an undue weight issue. Betty Logan (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I didn't try to find a hull breach to insinuate. I'm just trying to follow the advices of other wikipedians. And I guess I'm doing it for nothing. It's better to stay on my own, than to accept such advices. We're speaking different languages. However, thank You very much. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I added a much shorter mention of the Noon Universe similarities at the main Avatar film article, citing an article from The Guardian that has a good summary of the issue. I hope that satisfies everyone. George, I think the problem with what you wrote was that it was much too long. Since you are making the same point as the article already makes about similarities with various literature and media, you should try to keep your contribution concise and fit it in with the tone of what was already there. I think this will help you in your future contributions to Wikipedia. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead section

I did a reorg of the lead section, trying to further put the aricle in context, as well as adding to the list of themes more of the themes discussed in the article, pursuant to WP:LEAD. Hope you like it. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, SSilvers. I definitely like it. I am just wondering if the LA quote is not given undue weight in the lead by quoting its graphic epithets such as "pop-corn epic" verbatim. Also, may I ask you if spirituality should really be mentioned as being versus religion in the lead, as it was only some Christian reviewers that contraposed the two. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind saying Spirituality "and" Religion, or just listing them, but the 'versus' shows that there is discussion below of the relationship between the two. Also, I remember seeing some Christian articles that said that there were many elements of the film that were, indeed, very Christian, like the theme of forgiveness. Did I miss that here? Is it really true that the non-Christian commentators did not relate the spiritual themes and religion? That seems strange. Regarding undue weight, I think that "popcorn epic" is actually a very efficient way of conveying the point that the film should have been, in the reporter's opinion, just a piece of mindless entertainment; he is unhappy that the discussion of the film has been co-opted by everyone "thinking" about the themes. Far from being given undue weight, I think the LA Times article raises a crucial a threshold issue: Why are we writing an article about Themes for a film that is supposed to be primarily a popcorn and special-effects escapist fantasy? Having raised that question, we answer it: It's because critics, commentators and audiences have raised all these issues, and dog-gone it, we are going to address the discussion, because the discussion itself is notable. Does that make sense? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it does. I like the balancing presence of the LA quote in the lead, but am wondering if we should tie it up with the preceding sentence for a better flow. As for religion and spirituality, vs. is used throughout for indicating contention between two views: technology vs. culture, state vs. citizens' rights, pantheism vs. Christianity. However, spirituality is contrasted with religion only in one subsection, Pantheism vs. Christianity, therefore I wonder if saying "spirituality versus religion" in the lead is consistent with the rest of the article. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
SSilvers wrote: Also, I remember seeing some Christian articles that said that there were many elements of the film that were, indeed, very Christian, like the theme of forgiveness. -- that would be a very valuable addition, SSilvers. Do you think we could still find those articles? Many thanks. Cinosaur (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, what do you suggest? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me tweak it in the text and see if you are happy with it. Cinosaur (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
As I was saving my edit, I ran into yours — just to discover it to be almost identical with mine. I am happy with our oneness of thought here. :) Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Order of sections

Shouldn't the Religion and spirituality section go before Hinduism, which is really a specific case of the former? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I also suggest that we remove footnote 17 - it seems to be amply covered by 15 and 16 - 3 refs for the same well-documented fact seems like overkill. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Restructured and removed the extra footnote. See if you like it better this way. I thought Hinduism has to precede Spirituality as a theme specifically acknowledged by Cameron, unlike religion, but put it last for now. I also thought that that social and cultural themes deserve a separate section, especially because there are a few reviews talking about human guilt and human dreams as separate themes, and I want to incorporate them under that new section. What do you think? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I think it is more logical this way, and the organization of the article keeps improving. As for the caption on the Krishna image, don't you think the florets, dragonflies or whatever it is surrounding him are an obvious inspiration for the scene in which Jake is surrounded by the seeds of the Tree of Souls? It seems like Cameron must have been paying homage to this image. I wonder if he ever says so? Also, what about the eye in Krishna's hair and the "I see you" theme? The all-seeing eye? Is that why you mention the mark on the forehead? Also, I very much like the archer image of Rama. Indeed, as I understand the Rama story, his arrow is supposed to bring peace to the world. Doesn't that tie into the Na'vi's attempt to bring peace back to their planet? Obviously, all this is OR unless we can find and article mentioning it.... All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I know the artist personally, and until I uploaded it to Wiki, her drawing of Krishna had been known only to an immediate circle of friends, which Cameron was not privy to. :) I am not completely happy with this image in the article as being too cartoonish , but it serves the illustrative purpose well. The eye in Krishna's hair is actually a peacock feather. And yes, Rama is even closer conceptually to Avatar the movie than Krishna. Thanks for your fine job editing. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Er, I'm sorry to say it, because I do like the image, but I think we should use famous traditional images. Perhaps the image of Rama, alone, does the trick? It does show the blue skin, black hair, bow, mark on the forehead.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer to illustrate all the Hindu deities mentioned in the article (Vishnu, Rama, Krishna) for the Western audience largely unfamiliar as it is with Hindu iconography. I will be on the lookout for a better image of Krishna, though. As for the image of Rama, it is uploaded today, and I do not know yet if the Wiki copyright squad is happy with the free use rationale I provided, so there still is a chance that it won't stay here. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw it. I think you may need to add some evidence of what year it was published. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sermon for inclusion?

I wonder if including a quote from this sermon or this blog will be an improvement for the article? Cinosaur (talk) 08:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Unless there's some evidence that this believe is widely held (which I've not seen), I'd say no. Seems like the proclamations of a fairly far right preacher who sees this as an opportunity to promote fire and brimstone. Just my opinion, but his wording seems overly inflammatory, going beyond just a warning to not view this film as a promotion of pagan beliefs, which is what I'd expect from a normal sermon. Of course, I find it strange that a preacher would be discussing a pop film in church...certainly not something I've encountered before in mine. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
To use primary sources for opinion pieces notability has to be established. Usually notability is established if the same comments are published by a third party through a verifiable source, or if the person's notability is established by regular publication in reliable third party sources. Betty Logan (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think this sermon adds anything. I think we already have plenty of coverage of commentary suggesting that the film is anti-Christian. Indeed, if we are missing anything here, we are missing the commentary from some Christians that said that the film is Pro-Christian in emphasizing themes of forgiveness and anti-materialism. The blog raises this issue to some extent, but it is all over the place and a pretty good example, I think, of why blogs are not generally regarded as reliable sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"...of why blogs are not generally regarded as reliable sources." Hah, I was just thinking the same thing after giving it a second read-through. I believe I'll use this as an example next time asks why such-and-such blog can't be used as a source :) — Huntster (t @ c) 16:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks all for your comments. Agreed. Cinosaur (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's an article with a rather balanced Christian view of the movie's themes: http://whatisthebible.com/2010/02/14/religious-themes-in-avatar.aspx -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Godt it. Thanks. However, since this appears to be a blog, I wonder how Wiki policies treats the use of blogs as WP:RS? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
SSilvers, I have read the article and was left uncertain if this would add any substance to the article if included. Please correct me if I am wrong. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 06:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy

This article makes me happy. Glad to see so much good info about a great movie. Good work, everyone. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing, AniRaptor2001. Should we propose it for GA at a certain point, after we're done working on the proposed sources and have it copyedited again for style and flow? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Sure thing. I haven't been keeping up, so I don't know how comprehensive it is, but it looks like it covers all bases well. Though with 60 articles in the GA film review queue, it could be a while... AniRaptor2001 (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Pending a good good copy-edit, this article should be able to pass a GA review. DrNegative (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ani, and I certainly think Cinosaur and everyone have done an outstanding job of getting all the important content into the article, but I would hold off on a GA nomination for a couple of weeks more. I am planning to give it a new copy-edit, since a lot of content has been added since I last looked at the whole thing, but I still think that some things need to be moved around to make the article flow optimally. I also think - I'm not sure, since I haven't given it a full read in a while - but I think there is quite a bit of repetition. I'd suggest that in addition to DrNeg and me, it would be great if Betty and Ani could also give it a full read and then compare notes with Cinosaur, maybe move a few quotes around, and then let it rest for a week to see if we have new ideas before rushing it into GA review. After all, there's no deadline.... Just my 2 cents. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

SSilvers, I am of course counting on your final copy-edit after all the new stuff is in, as well as on thorough critiques by our fellow editors mentioned here. You might have noticed that I have already added quite a bit of conservative criticism to a few sections per your request, to balance the themes' coverage, and will now go through the list of extra sources that you and others have offered to see if they can substantially add to what is already there. What I think to be particularly needed is turning most of the direct quotes a la Critical reviews in the text into an easy-flowing narrative for each subsection, which will give the reader an in-depth view of the theme without sacrificing the many references and their individual nuances. It is a daunting editorial task, for which I rely on your guys expertise. And certainly there is no rush for GA review.
BTW, shouldn't there be an importance rating for the article too? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 06:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Cinosaur. Please let me know when you're done checking the list, and I'll get started. Someone from the film project should give the article an importance rating. I don't want to step on their toes. But I added two more project tags that I think are relevant; their members may be interested in helping with the article; and I nested the tags to save space. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikiproject Films stopped using the importance rating several years back for individual article assessments related to the project. You can find more info about it here. DrNegative (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Interestingly, the article is already quoted here as "an amazing and amusing array of foaming-at-the- mouth reactionary reviews from all over the world, as well as this and other interviews." Do we take it to mean that the article currently has a strong conservative slant? I thought just the opposite. Cinosaur (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Anti-patriotism

"Anti-patriotism" is assumed equal to "anti-American propaganda". That is definitely not the case. There are en.wikipedia users that are not U.S. citizens. That subsection must be clarified. 18:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.158.57.243 (talk)

Thanks for your comment. Patriotism is defined as "devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty". Since some critics saw Avatar, an American movie, cheering to the defeat of "its own US military", it is not inappropriate to call this perceived theme ”anti-patriotism". If Avatar were made, say, in Iran, it would have been more appropriate to call the section "anti-American propaganda".
However, you are welcome to propose a better title for this subsection if you have one. Or how else do you want the subsection clarified? Please keep on mind that we are still in the process of filling the article up with relevant references, and once it is done, you might find the final contents of the subsection more in tune with the title than now. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

We should make it clear that the RDA secops personnel are not members of the American armed forces, although, presumably, many of them are ex-US soldiers. Some of the reviews must have commented on this? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point and edit, SSilvers. Cinosaur (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Here is something I found Ssilvers that sums them up nicely. "In the movie, a corporation hires Blackwater-esque mercenaries led by the villainous former Marine Col. Quaritch, to evict the natives of a mineral-rich planet." -- Source: [1]
Thanks, but what I meant was, there must be articles that discuss how they are not US military personnel, and so the movie is not criticising the US military as such, but rather militarism and the use of force for illegitimate ends. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
There's something like this in the new article that I just posted below. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Though it's easy to just refer to them as "Blackwater of the 22nd century", we should try to use the term mercenary, or its "less-taboo" modern equivalent, private military contractor, to describe them. Though Jake Sully himself describes them as such in the movie, it seems as though many moviegoers simply didn't hear him, didn't listen, or lost sight of that fact in view of the SecOps forces all referring to each other by their military ranks, and wearing their U.S.-issued uniforms. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

9/11 as a theme?

I know it's somewhat tenuous, but a few authors, including Cameron, commented on the parallel between the felling of Home Tree and the 9/11. Should it be included as a subsection under Political themes? Cinosaur (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe: not sure. What is the "theme"? What does the comparison of the two images of destruction say? Was Cameron trying to make any particular point, or does the media see any particular point? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Anyhow, I've created a hidden subcategory at the bottom of Political themes, where I've started storing notable comments on 9/11 theme in Avatar - just so we do not have to scurry for links in case we decide to include it later on. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've copied the gist of it here, so we can discuss it:

"The corporation’s most villainous act... is the destruction of Hometree, the Na’vi’s ancestral home and the root of their connection to Pandora. Its support structures blown apart by missile fire.... The resonance with the familiar images of lower Manhattan is inescapable... except that here, the U.S.’ stand-ins are the perpetrators, and not the victims.

Cameron’s willingness to question the sacred trauma of 9/11 is audacious.... If Avatar has a claim to revolution, that is where it lies." Citing: Sam Adams (!?) http://www.avclub.com/articles/going-navi-why-avatars-politics-are-more-revolutio,36604/ December 22, 2009

Well, Hometree is not the Na'vi's "ancestral home and the root of their connection to Pandora". It is the Omaticaya's village. Each tribe seems to have their own hometree, and it is the lit-up trees, like the Tree of Souls that are more of a "connection" to Pandora. But my question still is: what, if anything, are we to draw from the visual similarity between the destruction of Hometree and that of the World Trade Center? What theme is explored by reversing the "perpetrators" and the "victims"? This seems to be relevant to the main article's "critical reception" section, but so far, I'm still not sure it's a "theme" - something about politics and 9/11, maybe, but what? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Even though I myself think that the desire to see 9/11 into the felling of Hometree is almost Freudian, since it has been consistently mentioned in notable sources as a possible or even accidental allegory, it may have to be reluctantly included here, to make the article more encyclopedic. I, for one, do not feel it even warrants a separate subsection, but in the process of research I did come across a number of prominent reviews picking up on the perceived allegory, which is hard to ignore. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree that we shouldn't ignore it, and you're certainly right that it has been mentioned a number of times. The only question is whether it belongs in an article about "themes". I'm interested to hear how it fits in with this topic. I don't think we should include it simply if people have felt, without explaining why, that it has a somehow political connection. I'm just saying that, if we are to include it here, we have to be able to discern some sort of "thematic" point being made, rather than simply repeating the fact that people have said "It reminds me of the attack on the World Trade Center, and it must be some kind of political symbolism". I'm not saying that we won't be able to describe what the "theme" is, I'm just saying that I'm not sure yet what it is. It could be, even if it was intentional, that the only purpose of it is to show how rotten RDA is, which isn't much of a "theme". Any thoughts? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Will do. Can you find the Cameron quote about how the felling of the tree is meant to show us "what it feels like" to be on the receiving end?

Is this the one (it is already in the article)? -- Cameron said: "We know what it feels like to launch the missiles. We don't know what it feels like for them to land on our home soil, not in America." [5] Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
SSilvers, I hope you do not mind that I've gone ahead and added the subsection in question, to take the load of compiling it off your shoulders. You will get to edit it anyhow. :) Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 08:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sections

By all means. Sorry for the ongoing delay. It's a rather busy weekend for me, and I'm struggling to keep up with both my rl and wikipedia obligations. But I will get to this asap - promise! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've also split Technology vs. culture and environment into two separate subsection, for ease and clarity. It felt like separating Siamese twins. :) I hope you approve. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Of course, I haven't analyzed it yet, but my feeling in general is that there were too many little subsections with overlapping themes. Better, IMO to combine as many sections as possible so that related themes can be discussed together; which will also help in reducing redundancy and improve flow. Taking a very quick look at the article, I think it would much assist what I need to do if you could find a way to combine all of the sections that have less than two or three paragraphs. I don't know how you separated those two, but I'd suggest going back. Once I weed things out a little, it won't be too long, I think. Also, anti-patriotism and Sept. 11 seem to be two sides of the same coin; and the human dream and guilt section, I think, seems to be a collection of stuff that could be distributed to other sections. I also will combine a couple of the sections in the Hinduism part, but that should be easy to do. If you do the combining before my review, I think it will be easier for you to follow my edits afterwards. If not, no problem, and I'll try to leave good edit summaries so that you can figure out what I have done. Gotta run! All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I am in a dilemma here -- on the one hand, as you said, some subsections (such as Anti-patriotism, State and citizens' rights and Iconography) are too short and do not merit a separate title on these grounds. On the other hand, from what I have learned from my cursory study of journalism, there is an optimal size for a block of text, beyond which an average reader rapidly loses his/her interest and clear comprehension of the matter (I, for one, can clearly see how it is true from the Critical reception section in Avatar, which I have to strain myself to wade through). Thus, it is advisable from a journalistic POV to intersperse a text with subheadings every, say 4-5 paragraphs, which also help the reader tune into what is being read or be able to look up a specific topic. Besides, as they stand now, the subheadings do seem to refer to distinctly identifiable (and identified by reviewers and Cameron) themes, however small.
As a suggestion, could we first decide on a list and names of themes that merit their own subsections, and then it will be clearer how to distribute the existing text between them. Sorry if I see the issue more complicated than it actually is. Many thanks. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Also, I tried to acknowledge and stress interconnectedness of Anti-patriotism and September 11 attacks by placing the image just between them, as well as by the image's caption. Cinosaur (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible nonexistence of trees?

I think that there are a lot of references that suggest that trees have ceased to exist on Earth by the time the events in Avatar occur. There is no paper; instead, there is electronic paper which can be seen in many scenes. While it is said that Grace "wrote the book," it could be referring to an e-book, which should be easy to understand with today's booming e-book market. And, most importantly, Jake Sully says at the end "There's no green there" when referring to his own world. This could mean that there are no trees left on Earth. 24.187.190.157 (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a scene in which the the scientists hold Grace's book on the Na'vi. It's a paper book. There are plenty of references in the movie, however, to the destruction of the natural environment on Earth, and this article has a whole section called "Technology vs. culture and environment". Is there a particular newspaper review or magazine article that you would like to add to that section? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
That might of course be a book made of plastic paper in the movie, but, as SSilvers correctly said, we have to have WP:RS to be able to include this point in the article. Cinosaur (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
And the cardboard box Jake's brother was cremated in. DrNegative (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, that can too be some form of combustible plastic, can't it? As far as I remember, there is no telling in the film of whether they actually had real paper then, thus leaving the question to sheer speculation. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 06:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I agree, sheer speculation, and no, cardboard is a paper material. Either way, they had a whole new planet full of trees to utilize so seeing paper wouldn't help either. DrNegative (talk) 06:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I meant cardboard of 2154, which may have no paper in it at all. Or maybe shipping trees from 4.5 light years afar to make cardboard boxes for cremation on Earth will be the latest craze then? (Just kidding:) Cinosaur (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Supply and demand. ;) DrNegative (talk) 08:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Article gets a shout out

World Front Network News mentioned this article: http://worldfrontnewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2010/03/film-reviews-hurt-locker-vs-avatar.html The article argues that Avatar is considered political because its bias is liberal, while Hurt Locker is considered apolitical because its bias is conservative. Here's an interesting quote:

Ironically, Hurt Locker ... basically accepts the fantasy that war is fun, at most concerned with the danger to the soldiers getting high off it and not at all with what they are doing to the people of Iraq and why. In contrast, Avatar is a science fiction movie in 3D, with digital special effects.... Yet Avatar, which takes place in 2154, is far closer to the truth about the world we live in now.

Possible quotes that we might consider from this article:

  • The director could not have chosen more iconic images of the Vietnam war than his scenes of flack-jacketed soldiers firing through open helicopter doors at lightly clad guerrilla fighters below.
  • RDA has no mode of existence other than ruthless expansion, and its insatiable lust for economic profit has a military expression that can only be stopped by another military force.
  • Re: the lack of bias against the U.S. military: "At one point Sully says that back in the old days the RDA's ex-Marines were "freedom" fighters" but now they've become "mercenaries" in the pay of a greedy corporation."
  • Re: the 'white messiah' accusation: "That charge misses Cameron's point: not that the Na'vi can't help themselves without a white guy but that his Sully character and the others do the right thing by deserting the system and taking the side of its enemies."
  • Re: the 9/11 comparison: "The message seems to be: We've done this to other people again and again. In an interview explaining why he had the colonel use the words "shock and awe" to describe it, Cameron said he wanted audiences to think about "what it feels like" to be on the receiving end."
  • The director's point is not to glorify Sully but to speak to soldiers like Hurt Locker's James in Iraq and similar wars – including both the whites and "people of colour" among them – and of course to the tens of millions and more people who see this film, and tell them that it's time for them to take a stand too.
  • Religion/science/corporate greed: "according to the lead scientist, Dr Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver), Eywa is not a supernatural fairytale but a name given to a natural phenomenon, the fact that everything in the planet is joined together as one single organism. Eywa, she explains, is another name for the tendency of this biosystem to maintain biostasis, ecological equilibrium.... The true part is that on the planet Earth ... human beings are part of nature and dependent on the ecosystem. In the capitalist system under which we live, economic chaos will result if supremacy is not given to private profit over the collective good and to short term results no matter how unintended and undesirable the long term effects. So sustainable development is as vital as it is impossible to achieve without overthrowing our planet's overlords."
  • Er... then there's a lot of communist discussion.

-- Ssilvers (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, SSilvers, for the quotes. I have already mentioned this "shout out" above, at the end of the "Happy" section, asking whether its claim of the conservative bias in Themes in Avatar was substantial. But, admittedly, I have not read it thoroughly enough. May I ask how notable this source is? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I missed it. It doesn't claim that our article has a conservative bias, it just notes that we have collected an array of conservative viewpoints that the author finds amusing. Is your question whether this is a WP:Reliable source? The guideline says that it should be applied "strictly" to BLPs, so there is a little more leeway for other articles. The guideline says: "How reliable a source is, and the basis of its reliability, depends on the context". So, I'd say that if you find something he says especially applicable, I'd use it, and let the quote speak for itself. I'll let you decide if you think any of these quotes are particularly helpful. But realize that eventually someone may disagree that the source passes muster. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Notable?

There is an interesting analysis of the movie here: http://www.noozhawk.com/local_news/article/011610_tam_hunt/, but I am uncertain as to how notable it is. Where do we draw the line between WP:RS and WP:EVERYTHING?Cinosaur (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the same thing I said just above. If you think something he says adds an important element to the discussion of themes, then I'd use it and let his reasoning speak for itself. If he says the same thing as a source with an established reputation, go with the established source. Personally, I think this is a reasonable source to stand for the proposition that this is how some portion of Christians interpret the movie, and that not all Christians agree that the movie is anti-Christian. I have seen similar things written elsewhere, but I can't tell you if they were more established sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
(answering your both comments here) What if, as a provisional local rule, we decide to mention in the article the names and authors of only traditionally notable sources with established editorial policies, and include other sources which, as you say, add important elements while not passing the notability threshold, only in sentences containing collective references to such sources without mentioning their names in the text and preceded by "Some authors" or "Other authors" or something like that? In this way we may be able to clearly differentiate between these categories of sources along the notability lines while retaining important perceptions of the movie's themes in masses. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I always go a step further: I only mention author names and publication names if they have a blue link. Otherwise, frankly, who cares what their name is. They'll be in the footnote, of course. But a source doesn't need to have a WP article about it to be a WP:RS. We shouldn't use the word "notable" - that is a different concept that is applied to articles, not sources. The question for sources is whether they are WP:RS, WP:SPS, etc. See also WP:CK. Also, you don't want to use the word "some". See WP:WEASEL. You can say "critics have noted X, but Roger Ebert says Y. Or: "Christian authors have frequently noted that X, but a dissenting Christian view is that Y". -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Good points, SSilvers. Will follow your format on X-Y statements. I have no opinion yet on whether we have to oust all "non-blue" names and publications from the article. It will perhaps be best decided holistically when you do your grand CE finale. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 06:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

India: http://trueslant.com/abytharakan/2010/03/09/media-needs-avatar-backing-to-write-indigenous-peoples-issues/ -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, SSilvers. Looks like the True Slant report for the most part draws upon the Time magazine piece (which is already used in our article), and upon The Sun report (which is not yet used). We could of course quote The Sun too, but that will be the third reference to the story in our article, on top of Time and Guardian, so I wonder if that is not going to be an overkill. Other than that, in the presence of such far more prominent sources I doubt we need to cite True Slant, especially because it does not add any novelty to the story. What do you think? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 10:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 Done Added reference to The Sun in a separate clause. Cinosaur (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Armond White

It seems that every section of this article ends with a negative quote from Armond White. It gets pretty tedious to read after awhile and makes it hard to take this article seriously, especially given White's previous reviews. Does anyone see a problem with this? Richiekim (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Richiekim. Don't worry, this article is not nearly finished. So far, Cinosaur and the other editors have been concentrating on finding all the relevant information and putting it here for comment. I (and others) intend to give it a really thorough copy edit over the next few days, and I will certainly look at it with your comment in mind. I intend to carefully consider the balance of the article, redundancy, the flow of the prose, the order of the sections and the concepts within sections. Certainly, the article should not be dominated by the views of any one commentator, although I suspect that Cameron's views will be given more ink than any other single person at the end of the day, since most of the sections will mention his view. So, give me/us a few days, and we will consider this issue, as well as all the other issues. If you are still not satisfied next week, let us know what you think still needs to be done, and well roll up our sleeves again. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback, Richiekim, which we will surely take into consideration. I have little to add to SSilvers' response except that Armond White is representative of his kind as one of the most outspoken conservative critic of the movie, which explains his prominence in the article. But it could be substantially toned down by blending some of his footnoted quotes into sentences with other similar critiques. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 07:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
That isn't correct. The use of Armond White in this article goes against standard policies and guidelines. I first noticed this in December of 2009, and a report was filed on the NPOV noticeboard here. The use of White in this article violates WP:UNDUE. Viriditas (talk) 11:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Veriditas, I appreciate your concern. As SSilvers said above, the article is due a thorough copy edit. Have a visit then and see if you have any further comments. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I don' see a particular problem with him, taken into account that he is acknowledged as one of the biggest critics of the film. He has also been widely quoted in the news and academia after his review of "Precious", which was considered to be the stongest criticism of the film. --Harac (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Harac, that isn't true. White's so-called "criticism" of Precious wasn't taken seriously by anyone, and it was the same absurd commentary he made about District 9, calling both racist films. He's just a shock jock, and he says crazy things to get attention. This might work to sell papers or generate revenue, but it isn't how we use sources to write articles. The discussion about White on the NPOV board is fairly straightforward. Please read it. White's opinions are not representative of the critical commentary on this or any other film. Due to the bizarre and extreme nature of his work, which nobody takes seriously, I don't think he should be used at all in film articles. Undue applies here. I agree that White is a good performance artist, and the shocking things he writes might entertain some people, but he isn't known for writing serious film reviews, and that's what we need on Wikipedia. This isn't a parody of an encyclopedia. Some reliable sources have noted White's strange opinions about certain films, in which case, we should be allowed to simply use the secondary and tertiary sources to briefly note it. That's it. Viriditas (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, and I am ready to substantiate this if needed. --Harac (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Please put me in my place. As an example, which serious film critics or reviews concur with and support White's absurd claims that District 9 and Precious are "racist" films? Is there any serious film critic who found Precious to be racist? Have you actually read his review of Precious? It's 100% absurdity. WP:UNDUE applies. There isn't a single reason to mention White in this article, other than to note what secondary sources have said about his criticism. Just because a wacky reviewer holds strange opinions about a film doesn't mean we quote them out of proportion to what most critics say. White's opinions are so far out of sync with mainstream film criticism that they hardly deserve mention. It's one thing to have an educated opinion about a film, and to use good arguments to support it; It's quite another to make wild claims based on nothing but provocative opinions intended to offend or denigrate for no reason other than to get attention. In terms of film criticism, we favor the former and generally ignore the latter. And what about accuracy? Is White's critical commentary accurate? For example, White says Avatar has a pacifist message. Considering everyone is fighting for survival in the film, where's the pacifism? Does Mr. White know what the word means? I can go on and on analyzing Mr. White's contrarian claptrap, but it's so far outside the mainstream, there's no reason for us to even consider it. My suggestion is to remove everything from White in this article except for what good secondary sources quote him saying about the film. When dealing with controversial or fringe sources, best practice is to use what reliable sources say about the subject, not to let editors cherry pick from the disputed source itself. As I have previously argued on the NPOV noticeboard, whether we like it or not, White has received attention and media coverage for his controversial opinions. Some of these opinions may be notable enough to mention, but only if secondary sources have covered them. Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Began copy edit

I did a copy edit and re-org on the first section. I streamlined the text and captions, eliminating some redundancy; tried to focus the argument more clearly; sought to improve flow and logic of the presentation; and tried to both clarify the POVs represented and to give each its proper weight. Obviously, this is just one pass through, and others should be able to improve it further. I plan to work on the rest of the article in the next few days. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for a very impressive start, SSilvers. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 11:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I did a little more. I'm about half way done now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, Ssilvers. It's inspiring to watch the article take a new avatar. :) A couple of small questions:
  • I wonder if we could/should keep the quote by Adam Cohen from NYT about the film being morally educating and "touch stone" that was in the section lead, as it seems to be one of the most succinctly overarching statements on the movie's moral/cultural themes to date.
  • Speaking of section leads, as you could see, I tried prefacing each of the sections with a small lead of its own, to summarize its contents. Do you think these section leads are unnecessary?
Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, no offense meant, but I thought the leads were unnecessary, repetitious and, in some cases, dangerously close to WP:OR. Let's keep it short and simple: Extra points for conciseness, since encyclopedia readers don't want to spend more time than necessary, so we should try not to repeat ourselves. On the other hand, the WP:LEAD section of the article should in fact give a summary "overview" of the article, so you that a reader could just read the intro and get a good sense of the meat of the article. I also didn't like the idea of starting with Cameron's reactions to the critics. Let the critics talk first, and then let Cameron respond. Some strategies I try to follow: stick closely to what the sources say, and quote only the most important words. As I copy edited, I usually did not read your sources, so if any changes I made obscure or mischaracterize the point that the source was making, please rewrite or point out on this page that there is a problem. If you want to say that lots of critics say the same thing, just make the point once, and follow it with cites to maybe the two most prestigious sources that said it. But, you don't need multiple sources for a simple or obvious point: Not every nuance is important - stick with the most encyclopedic facts and arguments from the sources. Adam Cohen: We cite him elsewhere, I think. I didn't see what the "moral" education thing added, and I didn't find the statements clear. It didn't seem to elucidate any of the "themes" we were discussing. If you think he was making a point that adds to a section of the article that is not already made by another good source, then by all means, try again, or put a suggestion here. Perhaps if you rephrase it, I'll see what you meant. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Also if you have a question like this for me, please put it at the bottom of the page, or else alert me on my talk page that you have embedded a question under an old heading. It was only by chance that I noticed that you had written this up here. Or, if you want to keep the section together, you can move the whole heading down to the bottom. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Do You Guys Know What a Theme Is?

I'm not sure you guys really know. A theme is supposed to be a universal idea explored within the movie. Currently the article is about "Imperialism, Militarism, Anti-patriotism, Technology vs. culture, etc. and those aren't themes, they're political and social criticisms. If you head over to sparknotes, you'll see what a proper theme really looks like: The Deceptiveness of Fate (Moby Dick), The Corruption of Southern Aristocratic Values (The Sound and the Fury), The Tendency Toward Violence and Oppression in Revolutionaries (A Tale of Two Cities), Alienation as a Form of Self-Protection (Catcher in the Rye), and so on. If you browse around a bit you'll come to see that "Imperialism" is just a word and isn't a theme because it doesn't assert what aspects of imperialism is explored in Avatar. A theme would be "The Inherent Tyranny of Imperialism" or "The Evils of Imperialism" or even more simply: "Imperialism is Bad" or something like that. In short, this article meant to explore the themes in Avatar doesn't have any specified themes in it, and this should be fixed immediately. Come on, this is a high school grade mistake, guys. On that note, I should probably mention on the topic of exploring themes not to get side tracked into doing original research. Awegbaweafwefa (talk) 01:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Awegbaweafwefa. Without delving into discussion on what a theme is, I would simply refer you to WP:MOSFILM#Themes, which says:
Themes are unifying or dominant ideas and motifs in a film's elements (such as plot, dialogue, photography, and sound) conveying a position or message about life, society, and human nature. Most themes are implied rather than explicitly stated, regardless of whether their presence is the conscious intent of the producer, writer, or director. Inclusion of a treatment of a film's themes – well-sourced and cited to avoid original research – is encouraged since an article's value to a reader and its real-world context will be enhanced. A separate section is not required if it is more appropriate to place the material in the Production or Reception sections.
(emphasis mine). Given this style guideline and 90+ WP:RS' quoted, I fail to see how this article is implicated in WP:OR or is off on the film's themes. Besides, as you could see, practically each theme is covered from diametrically opposite sides, which makes it difficult to attach a linear "The Evils of Imperialism" kinda title to it as you seem to be suggesting. Or am I getting you wrong? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
What you bolded from Wikipedia's definition of themes is merely that themes are implied within a work regardless if they are intentionally put there by the creator or not, which doesn't rebuke that I was saying the "themes" found within this article are not in fact themes. I'd like to draw your attention to Wikipedia's definition of what a theme is:
Themes are unifying or dominant ideas and motifs in a film's elements (such as plot, dialogue, photography, and sound) conveying a position or message about life, society, and human nature. Most themes are implied rather than explicitly stated, regardless of whether their presence is the conscious intent of the producer, writer, or director. Inclusion of a treatment of a film's themes – well-sourced and cited to avoid original research – is encouraged since an article's value to a reader and its real-world context will be enhanced. A separate section is not required if it is more appropriate to place the material in the Production or Reception sections.
The thing is "Imperialism," or "Militarism," or "Anti-patriotism" (etc.) are not themes because they do not convey a position or message about Imperialism, Militarism, or Anti-patriotism, etc. These broad topics should be specified to state what Cameron's position or message on those topic are. Hopefully this clarifies what I meant. Awegbaweafwefa (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The article isn't meant to necessarily approach "themes" the way scholarly literary criticism does. It's meant to portray a broad synopsis of the themes as discussed by various film critics and other notable observers around the world. The article has evolved since its creation from a few very specific themes to many specific themes that had to be categorized by broad section headings in the interest of conserving space. There isn't space for both anti-militarism and pro-militarism sections, for instance. I think that your criticism is of the section headings, which describe categories of themes. The content itself describes the detailed themes in the way you suggest. Each source has a slightly different view of the overarching theme of the film, so to distill those views down any further and draw our own conclusions on the overarching "themes" in the way you seem to suggest, IMHO, would actually be verging on original research. --Panda609 (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Wow, beautifully stated, Panda. I'd also point out the the WP:MOS requires headings to be very concise. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Awegbaweafwefa is entirely correct. The article title should be changed to Interpretations of Avatar or something along those lines. Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, Viriditas, given that each subsection in the article is based on Cameron's own statement(s) on the perceived themes, would you rather suggest it be called Cameron's interpretations of Avatar? Just kidding. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Could you give me specific examples from the sources that address the concerns raised above? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Viriditas, I think Panda answered yours and the other editor's concern eloquently, and I have little to add. Can you respond to their points and we will see if anything else still needs to be clarified. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 10:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, there is an article called Interpretations of Fight Club. Erik (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
This seems like substantial evidence. The article Interpretations of Fight Club accomplishes exactly what this article is doing, the differences being that it is for a different movie, and the Fight Club related article doesn't misinterpret wikipedia's definition of what a "theme" is. I agree with Viriditas that renaming this article from "Themes in Avatar" to "Interpretations of Avatar" is the proper course of action to follow. Awegbaweafwefa (talk) 07:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Awegbaweafwefa, if Interpretations of Fight Club is substantial evidence, so are Themes in Blade Runner and Themes of The Lord of the Rings. We can, of course, continue arguing back and forth over what constitutes a theme in a film, but I believe that these kinds of disputes are best settled by first discussing relevant WP:Policies or WP:Guidelines, if they seem to be too vague to assure uniformity in the naming of thematic articles. As for your above point:

The thing is "Imperialism," or "Militarism," or "Anti-patriotism" (etc.) are not themes because they do not convey a position or message about Imperialism, Militarism, or Anti-patriotism. These broad topics should be specified to state what Cameron's position or message on those topic are.

we should note that, what to speak of notable critics, even Cameron himself sometimes identifies diametrically opposite themes in the film. For instance, Cameron said that "the bad guys could be America in this movie, or the good guys could be America in this movie, depending on your perspective", and that the film was a criticism of war but not anti-military. Likewise, Ann Marlowe of Forbes said that the film is "both pro- and anti-military". In other words, while most agree that, say, war is one of the themes "by design", exactly what the film's position on war is is left up to individual perceptions. It just cannot get any more specific that that. And the same disparity of opinions goes for just about any other theme in the movie, thus proving its "ideological Rorschach blot" title.

So given the critics' simultaneous unanimity on themes and disparity on what the movie's exact messages on them are, all we could do was find reliable and notable sources (almost 100 and counting), identifying what they perceived as themes in the movie, and grouping/organizing/balancing them around those themes in terms of WP:DUE under overarching names or "superthemes" or topics all of them agreed on. Therefore, IMHO the current format is not misleading because it allows the reader to conveniently and accurately look up any theme perceived in the movie, be it pro- or anti-militarism, pantheism or Christianity, racism or anti-racism, as reported by the most reliable sources available to date. What else could we possibly do? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 08:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It still doesn't fit Wikipedia's definition of a theme. You can argue all you want, but the "themes" in this article are not themes according to Wikipedia's definition of what a theme is; it's really as simple as that.
if Interpretations of Fight Club is substantial evidence, so are Themes in Blade Runner and Themes of The Lord of the Rings.
These articles on Blade Runner and The Lord of the Rings are not substantial evidence. The articles have been tagged as having multiple issues, and after glancing at Themes in Blade Runner, I see that article makes the same mistake this one does. One specific section of that article discusses "Eyes" but that's symbolism, not a theme; "Religious symbolism" also isn't a theme. The two articles you've shown make the same mistake this article is making. Apparently the users of this website have a widespread misinterpretation of what themes are.
We can, of course, continue arguing back and forth over what constitutes a theme in a film, but I believe that these kinds of disputes are best settled by first discussing relevant WP:Policies or WP:Guidelines, if they seem to be too vague to assure uniformity in the naming of thematic articles.
There is no issue of vagueness when determining what a theme is, Wikipedia makes it perfectly clear that themes have to assert a message or position, something this article fails to do.
war is one of the themes "by design", exactly what the film's position on war is is left up to individual perceptions.
"War" is not a theme. It asserts no message or position! A theme has to assert a message or position! Wikipedia says so! Additionally, themes are not "left up to individual perceptions," but I'll tell you what is: interpretations! You can interpret a film however you wish, and that is what the cited critics in this article seem to be doing. If you wish to argue that Cameron presents both "pro" and "anti" aspects of a topic (not theme) and then leaves it up to interpretation then we are still not discussing themes. A theme, by definition, is supposed to have a pervasive message which holds sway in a particular direction. If Cameron had no particular feelings for or against a topic, presented both sides of the topic, and there is no message or position taken, then there was never a theme to begin with. Really, I can't make this any more obvious. I'll say it once again: a theme has to assert a message or position! Either say what the messages/positions are so that the article discusses themes, or change the article's title to something like "Interpretations of Avatar," because you're not presenting themes. Awegbaweafwefa (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Awegbaweafwefa, I apologize if my last point has evaded you. There are themes. Messages are sent. People do get strongly swayed, and in very particular directions, albeit sometimes in opposite ones. Do they pick up a theme or fall prey to interpretations? On a separate note, may I request that you present here a list of actual themes in Avatar? Or does it have any? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Arguments from both sides make some very good points. I was wondering though, what is the rationale for those against renaming it Interpretations of Avatar? Would the title hurt the article or mislead the reader? DrNegative (talk) 06:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

My rationale for keeping the title is that themes are clearly defined in the movie and reflected in the article, in terms of unifying or dominant ideas and motifs...conveying a position or message about life, society, and human nature:

  • Anti-imperialism: Director James Cameron acknowledged that the film is "certainly ... about imperialism in the sense that the way human history has always worked is that people with more military or technological might tend to supplant or destroy people who are weaker, usually for their resources" Critics agreed that the film is "a clear message about dominant, aggressive cultures subjugating a native population in a quest for resources or riches."
  • Anti-militarism: Cameron stated that Avatar is "very much a political film" and added: "This movie reflects that we are living through war. There are boots on the ground, troops who I personally believe were sent there under false pretenses, so I hope this will be part of opening our eyes."
  • Anti-patriotism: Many commentators, particularly conservatives, perceived an anti-American message in the film, equating RDA's private security force to American soldiers.
  • Environmentalism: Cameron has spoken extensively with the media about the film's environmental message, saying that he envisioned Avatar as a broader metaphor of how we treat the natural world. He told Charlie Rose that "we are going to go through a lot of pain and heartache if we don't acknowledge our stewardship responsibilities to nature." Interviewed by Terry Gross of National Public Radio, he stated: "Avatar is saying ....we can't just go on in this unsustainable way, just taking what we want and not giving back".
  • Racism: Cameron stated that "The Na'vi represent the better aspects of human nature, and the human characters in the film demonstrate the more venal aspects of human nature."
  • Spirituality: According to Cameron, one of the film's philosophical underpinnings is that "the N'avi represent that sort of aspirational part of ourselves that wants to be better, that wants to respect nature, while the humans in the film represent the more venal versions of ourselves, the banality of evil that comes with corporate decisions that are made out of remove of the consequences.
  • Hinduism: James Cameron said that the title Avatar, the magical land of Pandora and the Na'vi look had a subconscious reference to Hindu mythology. He added: "I just have loved every thing, the mythology, the entire Hindu pantheon, seems so rich and vivid. I didn't want to reference the Hindu religion so closely but the subconscious association was interesting."

These are themes as seen and defined by the author himself, or (anti-patriotism) strongly and unanimously felt by most critics despite his feeling otherwise. The fact that they are given to interpretations, which are also reflected in the article, does not invalidate them. Agreed, there are some quotes in the article that can be better described as interpretations, which, as I said above, attempt (and succeed for some large audiences) to sway its thrust in various directions. But they do not obscure the main imports of the film.

Therefore I, for one, think that, yes, it will be misleading for the reader to have the article renamed as 'Interpretations of Avatar' and thus it will also hurt the article itself. What I am open to is renaming the titles to match the themes more closely, and reorganize the text accordingly. Or, to preserve compliance with WP:MOS as far as headings, we can insert explanatory subheadings, or just bolded themes within the text.

That's why I asked Awegbaweafwefa to come up with a list of themes in Avatar so we could see where we concur and differ. Or who is eligible to define what the themes of the film are, for that matter? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 08:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

How tiresome. DrN, are you aware that Awegbaweafwefa has never created an article? How is it possible that newbies can walk in and be taken seriously when they say "you must rename your article; I don't like the name". Why doesn't Awegbaweafwefa contribute something to this encyclopedia, and, after going through all the move/rename discussions we all do after creating and editing a couple of hundred articles, come back with some experience behind his/her innovative ideas. In the meantime, I think the title of this article is just fine. What's broke here, Dr. N? Why would you encourage him/her to waste more of Cinosaur's time? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I asked a simple question Ssilvers, and Cinosaur made an elaborate answer. Editors have spent so much time justifying why it should be named "Themes" and I was wondering what some thought as to why it actually shouldn't be named "Interpretations". This is a talk-page where we discuss problems/issues with the article and if you consider it a waste of time then I suggest you focus on other things that are not as such. Did I actually say anything was broke or did you just jump to a conclusion? You don't have to support a suggestion to be open to it. DrNegative (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps there isn't a reason why it can't be called "Interpretations of...", it's just a case of who got there first with the title. I don't really see a compelling reason to alter the title - beyond academic writing the term "theme" is often generalised to include subject matter. I'd be happy with either, but there doesn't seem to be overwhelming support for renaming the article. Other editors will eventually drop by and maybe a clear preference will emerge. Betty Logan (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Not that I favor it, but if there ever is strong consensus for accommodating both sides of the discussion here, Avatar themes and interpretations or something similar may be considered, along with an attempt to differentiate the former from the latter in the text — although, admittedly, that will be quite difficult to do without bordering on OR. And the name is clumsy too. Cinosaur (talk) 04:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I am happy with either, but until other editors decide to chime in their thoughts, it should remain as it is now. DrNegative (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Dead links

I have successfully cached web references in the article using webcitation.org. However, two are dead now:

I could not find any tertiary sources to them yet. I wrote to the authors inquiring if they have alternative links. What else can we do? Also, shall we replace the rest of valid references with their cached twins now before they may also expire? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No. If the article was published in a print publication, the url is not essential: you can just cite the author name, title of publication, publisher and date AND page number if available. See WP:CITE. If it only appeared on the web, and the link goes dead, you can search for an alternate link then. This is the problem with doing web research, which we rely on too much in Wikipedia. If you just can't find the article again at all, forget about it and find a different source to support the fact given. Most importantly, don't worry too much. Take a deep breath and remember that you're a volunteer. If one source is not easy to find to make a point, either there are others readily available, or the point is probably not encyclopedic. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Anyhow, I have managed to retrieve the articles' cached pages and ran them through WebCite to get permanent links. And I have added page number to Charlotta Observer citation. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Image of Rama nominated for deletion.

Here. I argued against the proposed deletion and am wondering if it has to be reclassified as being under fair use? It would be a pity to lose it in the article. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in arguments over images. I don't need the stress. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, SSilvers. I do not need it either. Then if you need to oust an image from the last section, as you wrote below, sadly, this one will be the first to go. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Cinosaur, if it's any consolation, I'm not sure if the Rama picture is necessarily the right one for the article anyway. I'm no scholar on Hinduism, but I do know that Rama and Krishna are definitely distinct, and its my impression the avatar legend applies only to Krishna. Many Hindu gods are depicted blue, but perhaps the image of Rama is not the best to illustrate the avatar legend?--Panda609 (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, Rama was sure mentioned as a possible prototype along with Krishna, and as such, his image with bow and arrows connects with the film even better than Krishna's. And I am not aware of any other blue Hindu gods except Vishnu, Rama, Krishna, Shiva, and Durga, and all five are mentioned in the article. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 05:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Progress on copy edit

I merged the content of the dreams section into other sections. This was, IMO, by far the weakest section in the article, containing much repetition and discussion of matters that are elements of the fantasy of the film, but not related to the political and social themes we are discussing. I also put the "noble savage" and racism sections together. The rest of the ce should be relatively easy. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

SSilvers, pardon me for saying it, but I've got somewhat mixed feelings about the latest revision. On the one hand, it did get the article rid of unnecessary repetitiveness and further improved the flow. On the other hand, I do not feel that the thrust of the now deleted subsection Human dream and guilt is fairly covered by any existing themes.
For instance, Panyushkin's statement about "us the scoundrels" does not necessarily pertain to militarism, where it is plugged under now, but to human cruelty in general. Cameron's statement on "childhood sense of wonder", albeit an important self-contained theme, is now gone, as is his important NPR interview link. I appreciate and agree with your observation that as it stood then, the subsection was the weakest spot in the article, but am wondering if we could preserve its gist in a more distinct way, reflecting the prominence given to it, for one thing, by Cameron himself without trying to relegate it to the already existing themes. Your reverted suggestion on Morals is perhaps how it would be best described. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Also, shouldn't we keep reference to Panyushkin's translated article at worldmeets.us? Cinosaur (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not surprised, because I had to do a lot of violence to the information that you collected, and I knew this was going to sting. I don't really know what to tell you, except I think I cut stuff that didn't help the article. Frankly, I felt that the section hurt the credibility of the whole article. If you feel strongly that any of this material is essential, go ahead, and I won't revert you. I'm happy to delete the "us the scoundrels" quote. I don't think we need it. I'm not sure what the worldmeets.us was, but if you think it's essential, again, I leave it to your judgment. I listened to part of the NPR interview and didn't think it had anything to do with themes. If it did, it's 'way too long. Usually sound clips on Wikipedia are just a minute or two long. I have my doubts about whether it is OK from a copyright point of view. If you think Cameron is saying anything essential, try to put up just the short segment where he says the crucial information. As for the "childhood sense of wonder" thing, I think it's just saying: This is a nice fantasy and makes you feel good. That is true, but what *theme* does it illustrate? IMO, we should keep it simple and stick to the strongest "themes". As for the morals thing: I don't think it deserves its own section. Cameron is saying that it is a moral thing to protect the environment, to avoid war, etc. We also mention the choice between good and evil, and I think we've definitely said enough about that. So, again, I'd say that I tried to retain the things that I thought might really fit into this article and delete the stuff that was either repetitive, non-notable, or just didn't fit into this article. It's up to you if you diagree strongly. It is very hard to see other people edit your writing, and you have a great spirit of collaboration. You are the custodian of this article: When I'm done with the copy edit, I'm going to unwatch the article and leave it to you. So, ultimately, you have to be happy with it. As I do the last parts of the article, I think I will need to delete two images. There won't be room for 5 images after I slim down the material. Please let me know which ones you think are the least essential in the religion/hinduism sections. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ssilvers, I wonder if you listened to the whole Cameron interview with Terry Gross? He expresses disappointment that everyone has ignored this theme about dreaming and aspiring to do the "impossible." Funny you should also want to delete it. Perhaps, if the section is revitalized, which I am in favor of, and there are objections over the length of the interview, the audio could just be cut to include that part? Also, can you provide a more detailed critique of the section that would help improve it if it were to stay? Perhaps more thought should be given to it, but it should not be dismissed. It's not meant to be "this is a nice fantasy and makes you feel good." Rather, it's quite poignant to me: Most of us, as we grow old, become jaded by the rigors of the world, and stop aspiring to do great things. There is a message there that many people have found inspiring. --Panda609 (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Panda, thanks for your comment. I believe it will be more productive to let SSilvers finish their thorough (and most difficult) copy edit of the article, and then string the remaining (sub)themes, if/as needed, on the streamlined prose. As for the audio interview, we cannot really clip it because the audio box was just an reference to an external link — which hopefully also answers SSilvers' concern with possible copyright violations. Cinosaur (talk) 04:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Re: the audio, if it's just a link, it would be better to use it as a footnote. In any case, you could tell people where to listen, for example "Cameron discusses X topic beginning at 13:46 into the clip". -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
It's a good suggestion regarding time-tagging, SSilvers. Will give it a serious consideration should we decide to revisit the interview in the article. Thanks. Cinosaur (talk) 05:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Look, if y'all disagree with me, that's fine, but I really didn't see how the section fits in with this article. I don't see how to save it. Seriously, how is aspiring to be heroic or to be able to fly, etc. - how is that thematic? Superman has that theme. There are lots of things that critics wrote about that don't belong in this article - the smoking issue (which I really wish was mentioned somewhere), the people getting depressed after seeing the film ("Avatar blues"), and lots of other things that were discussed in the media, but if this article is to be readable and useful, we need to edit ourselves and select only the themes. As I said before about the audio clip, we should select the best minute or two of it if we want people to listen to it. If you and Cinosaur can write a great section about dreams and show how it is a "theme", great, but the section that was there before was, IMO, so weak that it made the whole article seem more like bs, and I couldn't figure out how to use that content. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, I think a thorough copy edit is the unquestionable priority now. We will be able to decide what to add and how later. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The article mirrored

Here http://www.answers.com/topic/themes-in-avatar, along with the main article on the movie. Answers.com looks like a partial Wikipedia clone. Cinosaur (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

At the bottom it attributes the copyright to Wikipedia. It seems quite a few Wikipedia articles are used on answers.com: [2]
Under the Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 which we submit our work under, anyone is allowed to clone it as long as they attribute Wikipedia as the original source. DrNegative (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Not that I am complaining. :) Cinosaur (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, answers.com and lots of other sites routinely mirror WP articles. Often they have older versions. Don't accept imitators. Read the real Wikipedia!  :-)~ -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ January 28, 2010 Avatar: Nothing But a 'Stupid Justification for War!'
  2. ^ [January 17, 2010 Avatar: A Shameful Example of Western Cultural Imperialism
  3. ^ Confucius Says: Ouch
  4. ^ January 28, 2010 Avatar: Nothing But a 'Stupid Justification for War!'
  5. ^ Hoyle, Ben (December 11, 2009). "War on Terror backdrop to James Cameron's Avatar". The Australian. News Limited. Retrieved December 24, 2009.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Themes_in_Avatar/Archive_1&oldid=785091301"