Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:46, 20 September 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Avatar article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Hinduism: Krishnaism B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Krishnaism (assessed as High-importance).

Avatar received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Avatar (2009 film) link in other uses

The film link is repeated added to the article. IMO, singly out the film is unfair to all other links in Avatar (disambiguation), though Page statistics of Avatar_(2009_film) suggest that it is heavily trafficked. Should we put the link using {{two other uses}} temporarily? --Redtigerxyz 06:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I just changed to the double about note. Meant to do that when I reverted earlier, but I forgot and didn't realize until this popped on my watchlist! -SpacemanSpiff 06:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't know what the disambiguation guidelines say about this, but IMO we can use common sense and save a bunch of users an extra click by linking to the film directly, without sacrificing encyclopedicity. Can reevaluate in a few months to see if the link is still needed. Abecedare (talk) 06:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, say after a month after its release. Traffic stats should be checked to take a decision on the issue.--Redtigerxyz 10:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried a similar idea on the Star Trek page when the new film Star Trek (film) came out. But I was shot down. see Talk:Star_Trek/Archive_7#Disambiguation_link. However, for the sake of discussion. see WP:NAMB. Oldag07 (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NAMB says you don't put Hats on articles that you can't get to by accident. For example, Avatar (computing) which you can't get to directly by typing Avatar in the search box. So this guideline, is not be applicable to the page without the parenthetical clarifiers like this one. Now, if the proposed move goes through then the hats on this page would no longer be necessary. -- KelleyCook (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

we can keep the separate mention of the film during the film's launch, as there will be much traffic related to that. This will pass in a month or so, and we can remove it again after Christmas. --dab (𒁳) 18:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it's now past Christmas, I'm for removing it. Including the film in the hatnote seems to me to go against the spirit of disambiguation policy by unfairly singling out one possible meaning of "Avatar" on recentist grounds; there is no need to have links in that hatnote beyond Avatar (disambiguation), particularly when the meaning in question is covered on that disam page. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The Avatar (2009 film) article is still getting over 200,000 views/day, while this page is getting around 60,000 excess views/day over its "normal" traffic. While I agree that we shouldn't mould our article content on grounds of short-term popular use of the term and opposed the proposed article move above; I don't see why we need to inconvenience ~60,000 persons per day, when we can easily accomodate them and no cost to encyclopedicity. I'd suggest that we wait a month or two, for the traffic to settle itself, before removing the hatnote link to the film article. Abecedare (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I second Abecedare's thoughts. --Nemonoman (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I am new to the discussion here, and will be glad to be corrected, but would it be both prudent and academically honest to include a section "The Concept of Avatar in Popular Culture" or something similar at the bottom of the article and keep updating it with the releases of cultural phenomena of the likes of Avatar? I have made a separate suggestion to this effect in the last section of the discussion page with a draft related to the Avatar movie. Thank you for your great work! Cinosaur (talk) 09:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Academic resources

I had said that a blog commentator Sandeep once stated of Western Indologists, "There’s an entire cultural, philosophical, and spiritual heritage that cannot be understood merely in theory and bookish learning; it requires living the tradition." I had seen a reference to Hanuman being labeled an avatar of Shiva in the previous version of this avatar article by referring to this academic resource referenced in footnote 28-Lutgendorf, Philip (2007). Hanuman's tale: the messages of a divine monkey. Oxford University Press US. p. 44. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=fVFC2Nx-LP8C&pg=PT333&dq=avatara+Hanuman&lr=&client=firefox-a&cd=1#v=snippet&q=avatara%20%20Shiva&f=false. This is clearly not an universal statement. Many other Hindu followers consider Hanuman to be an avatar of Vayu. So I changed the statement to read: Hanuman who helped Rama - the Vishnu avatar is considered by some to be the eleventh avatar of Rudra (Shiva). Please critically review the academic resource and don't blindly follow the academic. This academic is clearly wrong again! Thanks, Raj2004 (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's another good source for "Hanuman is sometimes regarded as an avatar of Shiva". So it's clearly not 'wrong', just because you've never heard of this view before. For me, one of the great joys of editing Misplaced Pages is learning more about other views of Hinduism, Vishnu, Shiva, bhakti, etc. — even when those views are 'different' (not 'wrong') from what I've thought for so many years. And in this case, I had never heard of Hanuman being an avatar of Vayu. I had always understood that he was the son of Vayu, which I believe is the more common (but not necessarily 'right') view. Priyanath  21:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarification. You have to read my statements entirely in context. I didn't mean clearly wrong that way. I will clarify. What I mean to say is that to consider Hanuman as the avatar of Rudra as the absolute universal statement is clearly wrong, as the academic Philip Lutegendorf suggested in the brief excerpt in the link. I had not read the book so I can't say what Yes, Hanuman is most commonly considered to be the son of Vayu but followers of Dvaita consider him also as an avatar of Vayu. You probably did not know of this view either so the statement asserting that Hanuman is an avatar of Vayu is not an erroneous statement just because you did not know of the statement either. I agree that in editing, we learn about other views of Hinduism. Thanks, Raj2004 (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Raj, you said that "This academic is clearly wrong again!". Can you point to a specific sentence in Prof. Philip Lutgendorf book (not our wikipedia article) that you found to be wrong ? Abecedare (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Abecedare, the wikipedia article as revised by us is correct. I have not read the entire book but :the website links that was provided make an affirmative universal statement (as if it is accepted :by all Hindus):

for example, pg 293: Since Hanuman is regarded as an avatara of Rudra-Shiva, his own incarnation may be termed as an avatara of an avatara. This suggests an universal belief held by all Hindus, which is not true at all. There seems to be several excerpts from the web links repeating a similar theme.

Please be aware that I have never read that book so the website links may be taken out of context.

Thanks, Raj2004 (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

How does the sentence suggest that the belief is held by all Hindus, especially when one reads the rest of the paragraph, in which the author comments upon how freely and loosely the term avatar is applied in Hinduism ?! Earlier in the book (pg 44) the author even says, "Although Hanuman's later identification as one of the eleven Rudras, or the "eleventh avatara" of Rudra/Shiva, may reflect a Shaiva sectarian claim on an increasingly popular God ...".

I think it behooves us to respect expertise, and trust that a scholar like Philip Lutgendorf who have spent 20+ years of his life studying and teaching this area will know more about the subject than editors and blog writers, whose only claim of knowledge may be "living the tradition" and being bereft of "bookish learning". (You'll note that I never dismissed the views of Sivaya Subramuniyaswami either, because while they may be inappropriate as a source for wikipedia article, they are more noteworthy than an average amateurs'). Sorry about being snarky, but it is tiresome when we start fooling ourselves into believing that browsing the web and editing wikipedia articles, places us at par with actual scholars in the area. We would never accept such claims of innate knowledge in the fields of medicine, physics etc, and I wonder why we implicitly accept that fields of religion, history, or literature are shallow enough to be imbibed through osmosis alone.

Ok, I'll stop my rant now, since this off topic for the page. ;-) Abecedare (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, your rant is quite on topic for this discussion on sources. An encyclopedia is written by "well-educated, well-informed content experts" — according to the Misplaced Pages article, but also from what you see with real-life encyclopedias. By its very nature it is written by experts who have studied the subject, rather than people who have lived the subject. In our case, because we are not experts and are writing this encyclopedia, we must use those experts as sources, also known as Reliable Sources. It's ironic that Philip Lutgendorf is the one being questioned here, regarding being wrong on Hanuman. Looking at the books and articles he's written on Ramayana and Hanuman specifically, he's surely one of the world's leading experts on Hanuman. Priyanath  00:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Abecedare, please calm down. As I said before, "Please be aware that I have never read that book so the website links may be taken out of context." I don't have access to the book so I only was able to view some selected pages such as pg. 293 viewable on the Google link so I was not aware of the existence of pg. 44.

Also, all academics are not equal. I would trust an Indian academic more because they know the culture and are aware of multiple meanings for a Sanskrit word such as linga, i.e., someone like Professor Yuvraj Krishnan. I would trust an Indian academic of his calibre when it comes to referencing, rather than a Western academic like Wendy Doniger who misconstrues and applies one meaning of a Sanskrit word.

Raj2004 (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, I agree with you in using academic sources. But sources in soft areas like religion, unlike science, are so politicized that they are not viewed as credible by many Hindus. Please see organizations such as Hindu American Foundation which vigorously opposes many of these so-called Western experts on Hinduism. This is the reason why many devalue academics on religion, literature, history, etc.

As I said before, all academics are not equal. I would trust an Indian academic more because they know the culture and are aware of multiple meanings for a Sanskrit word such as linga, i.e., someone like Professor Yuvraj Krishnan. I would trust an Indian academic of his calibre when it comes to referencing, rather than a Western academic like Wendy Doniger who misconstrues and applies one meaning of a Sanskrit word. A western academic fixates on the phallic meaning of linga while Hindu scholars such as Swami Sivananda focus on the alternative meanings such as sign, mark, as mentioned in other religious texts.

Raj2004 (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have not read books by Philip Lutgendorf so I can't say whether he's an acknowledged expert. My gut feeling is that he is. Just being an academic with many books does not make you credible if your interpretation is off base. Wendy Doniger has written many books on Hinduism, but her scholarship has been questioned by many Hindus. Also, as I said before, soft areas like religion, unlike science, are so politicized that they are not viewed as credible by many Hindus.

Raj2004 (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hanuman = Shiva is more of Shaiva thing, rather than a Dvaita, Vaishnava idea. Added a book reference which list all Puranas and Ramayana versions which identify Hanuman with Rudra.--Redtigerxyz 12:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Philip Lutgendorf acknowleges Vayu avatara theory as Dvaita (Madhava) POV. --Redtigerxyz 12:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Other Vaishnava avatars

Where can Avatars of Shesha like Lakshama, Balarama, Patanjali be added? They come under the Vaishnava fold. Also, Lakshmi incarnates as Sita and Radha - is a Vaishnava idea, rather than a Shakta one. --Redtigerxyz 16:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

How about creating a List of avatars in Hinduism ? This article can then discuss the significant avatars (and their significance) in text in one single section, instead of having lengthy lists. Abecedare (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggested addition of Section "The concept of avatar in popular culture"

Hello. Thank you for the great job you are doing on this page.

May I suggest to include a section entitled "The concept of avatar in popular culture" in the article

• Draft:

Prior to the release of the Avatar film by James Cameron in 2009, a US-based Hindu statesman Rajan Zed expressed concern with the use of the term 'Avatar', which he called "one of the central themes of Hinduism", as the film's title and asked J.Cameron for a disclaimer. , His concern was supported by Nevada Clergy Association, Rabbi Jonathan B.Freirich, a Jewish leader in Nevada and California and Satnarayan Maharaj, a Hindu leader in Trinidad and Tobago. However, some other Hindu followers in US considered the film as elucidating on the actual meaning of 'Avatar' rather than sacrilegious. Hindustan Times wrote that “Avatar is a downright misnomer” for the film, but concluded that its message is consistent with the Bhagavad Gita, a sacred book of Hinduism.

I am sure we can also mention the Avatar: The Last Airbender animation movie here and its concept as based on the original Hindu term, but I am not familiar with that film at all. Cinosaur (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The para is more concerned with Avatar_(2009_film) and is better discussed there than here, IMO. --Redtigerxyz 13:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

To Redtigerxyz: I agree that the topic has to be discussed there too -- and am on it. But, firstly, Avatar the Movie does not limit the usage of the term 'avatar' in popular culture, and the section will have to cover other usages too, including the future ones as they appear. And secondly, since the term 'Avatar' has gained prominence in modern popular culture in ways other than its original meaning, and since this fact sometimes creates concerns among Hindu believers, like the ones mentioned above, it is relevant for the article here and deserves to be mentioned. Or am I wrong? Cinosaur (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The word has entered common parlance, and the reader is directed to such use through the hat note on the top of the page. However any detailed or list-y discussion of such use would be misplaced in this article, which deals with the concept of avatar in Hinduism. You'll be hard-pressed to find any reliable source on the topic of this article that devotes any/much space on the concept of avatar in popular culture. At best we can add a sentence explaining that the term has been adopted for use in the fields on computing, gaming, comics and movies. Abecedare (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

To Abecedare: Thanks for the comment. I agree that "Avatar in popular culture" is a topic not studied well yet, and that us gathering data on it will be more like an original research unfit for a wiki article. Fair enough. That said, it appears to me that reported facts of some Hindu followers' public concerns over the use of 'Avatar' as a movie title does deserve a place here more than anywhere else. I might have formulated the suggestion inaptly‚ but its gist still appears to me relevant for the article here.

As far as popular culture, I second your suggestion for including such an explanatory sentence. Cinosaur (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with the concerns stated above about the draft paragraph, I'm inclined to think a section like this could be a good addition to the article, if framed properly. The concept of incarnation embodied by "Avatar" has been subsumed in many areas of modern culture. See for a New York Times essay on the subject from 2008. This is a reasonable extension of the article, in my opinion. --Nemonoman (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Controversy about Avatar as the movie title

I agree with Abecedare's opinion that "Avatar in popular culture" is too vague a topic and is best not touched upon in the article. However, I think we ought to include facts on the recent concerns of some Hindu leaders over Avatar as the J.Cameron's movie title. I disagree with Redtigerxyz that this issue's exclusive domain is Avatar_(2009_film), because the singular focus of their concerns is obviously much more on Hindu religious feelings about Avatar-the-concept than on the Avatar-the-movie's aesthetics. I propose that we put the following paragraph under a separate "Controversy about the film Avatar" section:

Prior to the release of the Avatar film by James Cameron in 2009, a US-based Hindu statesman Rajan Zed expressed concern with the use of the term 'Avatar', which he called "one of the central themes of Hinduism", as the film's title and asked J.Cameron for a disclaimer. , His concern was supported by Nevada Clergy Association, Rabbi Jonathan B.Freirich, a Jewish leader in Nevada and California and Satnarayan Maharaj, a Hindu leader in Trinidad and Tobago. However, some other Hindu followers in US considered the film as elucidating on the actual meaning of 'Avatar' rather than sacrilegious. Hindustan Times wrote that “Avatar is a downright misnomer” for the film, but concluded that its message is consistent with the Bhagavad Gita.

Opinions? Cinosaur (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I would still argue that this is WP:UNDUE to the article topic. In fact, it's an extreme WP:RECENTISM, of interest purely because the film launch was less than a month ago. In another six months, nobody will care one fig about this. If our aim is to build an encyclopedic, stable article on the concept of Avatar in Hinduism, we should avoid such tangents.

Also, fwiiw, Rajan Zed is not a "US-based Hindu statesman", he is just a vain person who is trying to pass himself off as notable on the net. We had him personally spamming Misplaced Pages over his "historic first Hindu prayers in the State Senates of California, Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, Colorado, and Washington besides Arizona House of Representatives". This is one man's quest for personal fame and has nothing to do with either the Avatar concept nor with Hinduism more generally. --dab (𒁳) 11:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I maintain my position, that the draft (in preceding section) is more fit for Avatar_(2009_film) and is an WP:UNDUE here. Also, do we need to have popular culture section? If yes, where does Avatar in popular culture end? The whole Avatar (disambiguation) is full of popular culture links. --Redtigerxyz 12:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

absolutely. This is much like Odin or Beowulf vs. Odin (disambiguation), Beowulf (disambiguation). See List of artistic depictions of Beowulf for an "in pop culture" article that survived, an Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Balder in popular culture for a bunch that didn't. If we are to create an article on "Avatars in popular culture" we should bear in mind that deletion discussion. --dab (𒁳) 15:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for comments. Even though a case could be made that a bit of recentism is relevant here, I will go by your guys ethics here and will just sit back admiring your job. Cinosaur (talk) 07:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO, your research should not go in waste and can be incorporated into Avatar_(2009_film). Please go ahead and do so. --Redtigerxyz 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Also, I do not object to good "popular culture" sections. Experience just shows that it is almost impossible to maintain good popular culture sections on Misplaced Pages, because they deteriorate into {{fictioncruft}} lists very quickly. --dab (𒁳) 09:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Similar to the usage of "Avatar - a small picture used to represent oneself on Forums etc" - it seems to me that it is impossible to prevent words from meaning multiples of things and so we have the disambiguation page which directs people to the other uses of the word. It would be wrong to start filling this article with popular usages not relevant to this article merely because they use the same word.

I would suggest reordering the first line so that the film is last (or remove it completely) as the disambiguation page already has a link to the film or perhaps moving that line to the suggested section. It does not need to have anything other than links to the articles about popular usage - and as in this case the film is clearly accepted as having a message consistent with the Bhagavad Gita as quoted by Cinosaur above.

Chaosdruid (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

the current hatnote just reflects that at present most search queries for "Avatar" will intend the movie. This will change back to normal in a few weeks or months, and we can also change the hatnote back to normal ({{otheruses}}) after some time. I suggest it is reasonable to leave the current hatnote in place for another couple of weeks and change it back in March or so. --dab (𒁳) 11:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The hatnote is suitable at this stage. But due to the popularity of the film and it's recent success in the box office, traffic may continue at high levels for quite some time. Therefore, instead of using the hatnote, why don't we direct searches for Avatar to the disambiguation page. Compss 19:48, 1 February 2010 (GMT +10.00)

That is recentism in the extreme. Further, since the movie was named for the religious concept, I see no credible challenge to the primary-topic-hood of the present page. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

you mean "topic primacy". Or possibly "primary-topicity"? :o) --dab (𒁳) 11:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

March has come and gone, the movie is mostly out of the news, I suggest we can go back to standard disambiguation ({{otheruses}}). --dab (𒁳) 13:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Second dab. This avatar page (currently about 6k hits) is slowly returning to its usual (see year-old stats) 3-4k hits. --Redtigerxyz 14:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

I have requested a series of moves.

• Avatar → Avatar (Hinduism)
• Avatar (disambiguation) → Avatar

Discuss here

• B-Class Hinduism articles
• High-importance Hinduism articles
• B-Class Krishnaism articles
• High-importance Krishnaism articles
• Old requests for peer review