Jump to content

Talk:Avatar/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Buddha as the Ninth Avatar

I am a Hindu, have known Hindus well-versed in the Vedas, etc. so I have reasons to believe what I was taught about Hinduism is a view being held by a sizable Hindu population. Now coming to the problem at hand:

  • This is the first time I have come across Buddha being considered an avatar among the dasavatara. No, I am not a Buddhist. I am a Hindu. I firmly believe that it should not be said that considering Buddha as an avatar is the predominant Hindu view. (At least the fact that the article says Hindus believe he is an avatar and Buddhists don't is reassuring in that I can get that bit extra support!).
  • The Hindus that I know believe Balarama is the eighth avatar and Krishna is the ninth. I never knew there could even be a dispute about the ninth avatar.
  • There is a belief that the main reason for Vishnu taking the "great" avatars is to reduce Bhoomi bhara/bharam, the weight of the population that Bhoodevi (Earth) has to "bear", by causing widespread damage. This is shown by Parasurama killing many kshatriyas, Rama killing Ravana & his asuras, Balarama & Krishna being instrumental for the Kurukshetra war, Kalki believed to kill many more people. Buddha and Chaitanya did nothing towards this.
  • I don't say Buddha must be removed from the list, just that it shouldn't be said that he is more popularly regarded as an avatar than Balarama.
  • I don't think I have done many (any?) POV edits related to Hindu Mythology at all, so my POV hopefully wouldn't be considered vandalism just like the edits of many anonymous users who removed Buddha from the list.
  • The article seems so wrong to me, I have an urge to "correct" it, but I doubt my corrections would be regarded as NPOV. Also I don't want to get involved in any edit wars over it (nor do I have the time for them). I also considered listing this in Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute. But I don't know if a "reasonable" consensus can be reached at all since there might probably not be enough people knowledgeable in Hindu Mythology, who are active in Wikipedia. (I feel so because even in a premier Indian college like mine, I haven't convinced enough people to contribute) But in due course as wikipedia increases in popularity I believe the page would represent a "reasonably" NPOV.
  • I don't want to force my opinions on the article page, but I thought I'll (force them here:) ) at least put forth my arguments here instead of not caring about what happens to this article & allow it to become better eventually. -- Paddu 20:17, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)


In response to Paddu: You are right that this is not a majority opinion. And yet, it has great following in many areas of India. Lots of Hindus I know refer to Buddha as Buddhadeb (or Dev if you're a Hindi speaker) and do consider him a form of Vishnu come to earth. For this reason, just recently, in the Birla Mandir in Kolkata,a beautiful Radha-Krishna temple, there is a series of murtis depicting the avatars which includes Buddhadev as one. Also, your theory about Vishnu's coming down to lessen population is weak, and as far as general Avatar thought in Hinduism, at best a minority opinion (I restate that this is only my feeling). Reasoning? Well, Matsya, Varaha, Vamana and Narasimha did not do any mass killing, and Kalki's aim is to dissolve all the world and existence, not lighten the load. The point of Avatars' coming is to uphold dharma, and if that means getting rid of one person, or destroying an army, it will be done. --LordSuryaofShropshire 19:14, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
IMHO it is not an opinion held by the majority of those who have been influenced by the description of Hinduism found in the internet. My theory is basically that earlier Hindus used to consider Balarama as an avatar (among the dasavatara) and not Buddha. Later, some persons started preaching the "Buddha among the dasavatara" theory since that made it appear that Hinduism is flexible enough to accomodate "competing" religions. The only references to "Buddha among the dasavatara" you could find is in the WWW or in temples built recently.
It could be argued that my version of Hinduism is outdated & the only version that holds currency today is one that includes Buddha & not Balarama as an avatar. But such a claim cannot be proven by e.g., google searches, since the Hindus which do not care what the WWW says about Hinduism outnumber those who do (e.g. because many cannot afford to learn to use a computer, many learn very minimally about computers, many do not bother searching the web for Dasavatara related topics [which is so specific, not many would be interested in it]). IMHO a description of Hinduism must include views held by a majority of the entire Hindu population, and not just a majority of those who have put up Hinduism-related websites & those who visit them.
<strong pov>I almost get the feeling that wikipedia is not working the way I expected it to, etc. Such feelings mostly lead to people leaving the project. But I believe (or at least I've forced myself to believe:) ) that eventually wikipedia will start "succeeding" ("working the way I want"), for example in the present case, once more persons knowledgeable in Hinduism become Wikipedians, I expect the article to be the way I want.</strong pov> So rather than taking any drastic steps (which includes modifying the article to suit me), I just wanted to leave a comment here (which would never be deleted, by Wikipedia rules) so the views that I have presented are not unnoticed.
Note that I am not considering "Buddha as an avatar". I am only considering "Buddha among the dasavatara". For the present, I am extremely happy that the statement which said a majority "favoured" Buddha to Balarama has been removed.
BTW I remember visiting a site which says that both Balarama & Buddha, as well as the other Avataras except Krishna are avatars of Krishna. -- Paddu 20:42, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I have read quite a lot of Hindu literature and I have read several times from 3 unrelated sources/groups the view that Buddha was an avatar. Andries 19:24, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Buddha as an avatar is a very recent change in Hinduism to appeal to the mass Buddhist populace. I have ALWAYS learned it as Balarama is the 8th avatar of Vishnu and Krishna is the 9th and most recent. Please correctly put Balarama in the right spot at least and not on the 9th
In the Bhagavata Purana there are a large number of avatars listed, of which Balarama is the 19th, Krishna is the 20th and Buddha is the 21st. See Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 1.3. Who decides upon which avatars are included in the Dasavatars? Is there a scriptural reference to this list somewhere? GourangaUK 15:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
See Buddha as an Avatar of Vishnu‎ where this is explored in more detail. Ys GourangaUK 11:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Christ as an avatar

This topic is being discussed on Talk:Hinduism#Jesus. I guess the contents of the discussion can be included in this article. Jay 12:00, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Jesus is considered an avatar of/identified with Krishna due to similarities in the places they were born/lived (Jesus among shepherds, Krishna among cowherds). There is also a story about Mariamman (an avatar of Parvati) appearing before an Englishman (when India was a colony) and making him realise that she was none other than the Virgin Mary. I've just come to know that Buddha is identified with Dakshinamoorthi (A form of Shiva) as both are always depicted under a tree, with a few (4?) disciples. -- Paddu 06:57, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This is not at all a well-known or accepted theory. The number of Hindus who consider Jesus an AVATAR is miniscule, and the supposed similarities between Krishna and Christ are limited to comparative religion buffs. Most Hindus see Christ as a great yogi. --LordSuryaofShropshire 19:18, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
I agree. I should probably have stated that these are not well-known theories. I just wanted to say about some of the beliefs that some people have. Whether wikipedia should cover them is debatable. -- Paddu 20:32, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yes, if they are going to make Buddha a avatar then why not Jesus? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Silverbackman (talk • contribs).

Jesus is considered to be an earthly manifestation of the christian God. He is considered to be PART of God, yet to be not just an extention. I would say he fits the definition of an Avatar. If he is NOT an Avatar, what is he? He is part of God, so he can't be just a DemiGod. Corrupt one 00:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to make a comment regarding Silverbackman's comment, Shri Siddharta Guatama Buddha has long been considered an avatar of Vishnu. This very article cites references to him in the Bhagavata Purana and the Garuda Purana. Heck, there's a debate about that in the section above this one! I may have interperated your comment incorrectly, and if so I apologize.--ॐJesucristo301 (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw a religious poster once in South India which depicted Jesus as one of the 10 avatars of Vishnu. It was nearly 30 years ago and I can't even remember exactly where it was, but I just wondered if there's a North/South or possibly caste-based difference in the view of Jesus in relation to Vishnu. Perhaps someone who knows much more about the subject than I do could comment? OldSpot61 (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Hindus are free to believe to whatever we want (i.e. we're not even required to believe in or recognize God). Our "religion" is inclusive and we consider different religions as different paths to God. Christianity has a significant presence in South Indian states like Kerala so Hindus there might have picked up on it and absorbed it from their Christian neighbors.
BTW, why did you think it's a North-South or caste-based difference? Caste originally meant duty and now it's become social status/history of a family. I don't think that would play a role in this. Also, India is much more than North and South; there are many Christians in the East and Northeast. I think it's just depends on how liberal the Hindu is and his/her experiences with other religions. AyanP 20:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Answering AyanP's question, I wondered if the much greater and longer history of Christianity in South India, particularly Kerala, meant that Jesus had become more assimilated into Hinduism there than in the North, where I saw very little sign of that having happened. Regarding caste, there's been more conversion to Christianity among dalits in states like TN and AP than among other groups but as there are few if any social divisions between Hindu and nominally Christian communities there, e.g. Diwali and Christmas are both widely celebrated, I wondered if that had caused Christianity (or Christian religious ideas) to become more extensively assimilated into Hindu practiec in those communities. I'm aware there's also a large proportion of Christians in the North-East, but does the fact that they (or their forebears) are converts from tribal religions rather than Hinduism mean there's been less assimilation from Christianity into Hinduism (or vice-versa)? I must emphasise that my personal experience of this is from nearly 25 years ago and I appreciate that much may have changed in the meantime. OldSpot61 (talk) 10:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Disam page?

There are quite a few meanings for Avatar listed on this article. Should we break out a disam page for the various meanings? We could rename this article to something like Avatar (Hinduism). Objections? —Frecklefoot 17:49, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think that because all the usages derive from the original hindu term, and don't have extensive amounts of information, it would be better to keep them all on one page. I know others might disagree, but that would be my inclination. — MOBY 18:01, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Harry Palmer

I think the business about the the vague programme for self-improvement is non-famous, advertising, and vanity. It should go. Smerdis of Tlön 01:12, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It is quite well known in the Netherlands. I will re-add it. Andries 18:39, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Avatars and Virtual Worlds

What is this doing in this article? There is a disambiguation page linked to at the top that links to the virtual reality article. There's no need to mention it here. I'm removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benna (talk • contribs)


I don't understand why this article does not make any reference to "atavar" in the more common sense as understood by internet users.

See Avatar (disambiguation), linked at the top of the article. The common usage is taken from the original Sanskrit concept explained here. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 15:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

oh yes! thanks

I'm no Supreme Being, but I've got an Avatar

And here I thought an Avatar was just an icon representing a person online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.65.176.194 (talk • contribs)

I am from Iyengar community form Bangalore, brought up and educated there. Though I used to study about Lord Buddha in the Princely State of Mysore at that time, I did not find any proposal those days falling on our ears about considering Lord Budda as an Avatar or even 11th Avatara. After migrating to Chennai(Madras), there also I did not find at any time even in general discourses any proposal as above. Therefore Wikipedia has to note that this subject has to be widely discussed now due to the whole world becoming one, before arriving at a conclusion.

--Dore chakravarty 22:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Balarama

How come Balarama is the *ninth* avatar ? He comes 8th and Krishna 9th, while in the 'Budha version', Krishna is 8th and Budha ninth. Tintin 00:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Madhva

Talk:Madhvacharya has some stuff that can be integrated here. --Pamri • Talk • Reply 16:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Evolution? Citations needed

"The animal evolution and development connotations also bear striking resemblances to the modern scientific theory of Evolution." in this (current as of this post) version of the article needs some citations in order to be justly claimed.--152.19.194.43 06:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have heard (through people around me and also mythological Tamil films) that in Tamil literature (is this the right word to use here?), living beings are classified as having 1 to 6 arivu. Humans are believed to have 6 arivus (the 5 traditional senses and intelligence). The number of arivus believed to be possessed by Matsya, Kurma, Varaha, Narasimha are believed to be in increasing order. -- Paddu 21:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


Meaning of Balarama

Balarāma does not mean 'one who holds a plough', it means 'strong Rama'. One of his other names, Halāyudha, means 'plough-armed'. --Grammatical error 09:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Original research?

I removed this text, as it reads as an mini essay WP:NOR and does not have any references. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 07:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

== Rational View ==
Avatara: means re-incarnation. Also literally means to come down in Sanskrit. Interpreted as a god is reborn or come down from heaven. It should be re-interpreted as the person has re-incarnated or re-created all the properties that is attributed to a particular mythical character.
For example, in the epic Ramayana, Rama, Laxman, Bharat and Shatrughan all were Vishnu's re-incarnation. Meaning that, they all had attributes of Vishnu's character. And, not that the Vishnu's soul had been literally divided into four parts and entered into the bodies of the four brothers!

I agree the above should not be put back. It is not only original research, but part of it is quite definitely incorrect. How a word "should be re-interpreted" is also opinion. chris 11:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sanskrit word daveed??!

Looks like a crazy statement:

It derives from the Sanskrit word daveed which means "descent"

The word avatāra- itself means "descent". Can anyone find "the Sanskrit word daveed" in a dictionary, I wonder? So I'm removing it.--Imz 04:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if you are curious to know: it came from a vandalism [1]--Imz 05:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the errors produced by me

Dwayne Kirkwood, thanks for fixing what went wrong after my edits, I haven't noticed that. Probably, it's a problem of my browser :-(.--Imz 07:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Jagadguru Kripaluji Maharaj

Someone recently added

Jagadguru Kripaluji Maharaj is claimed to be an avatar of Krishna and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu by his followers.

However, the page for Jagadguru Kripaluji Maharaj doesn't make any mention of this. Either his page needs to be improved, or this addition needs to be removed Dwayne Kirkwood 04:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Main page has been desecrated.

Can someone find how the foul language (the F-bomb) was inserted and fix it? I tried to edit, but did not find the words I wanted to remove. It must be code of some sort.

71.42.30.186 20:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Dashavatar needs a separate article

Dashavatar is an important part in Hindu mythology and should be taken as a separate article and the Avatar page should describe the generic meaning of avatar, while pointing to the important type of Avatar- Dashavatar of Vishnu.

Regarding the 9th Avatar controversy, I dont think that there might be a possible of amicable solution. Balarama is considered to be one of the avatars by some groups, but not all. Meanwhile, Buddha was added as an avatar a long time back, ostensibly by scholars like Ramanujacharya who sought to keep Hinduism as a whole and preventing a splinter group called Buddism from being an independent body. Many other great saints in this period like Adi Sankaracharya and Madhvacharya, who brought reformation into Hinduism by bringing a lot of elements from Buddism (removing of Sacrifice elements & harsh rituals, bring Vegetarianism and most importantly the concept of Mutt from the Buddist concept of Sangha) also seem to have agreed to this.

From where I grew up both Balarama and Buddha were not accepted, and Hayagriva was thought to be an avatar. So, I believe that the 9th avatar could be described as a subject of controversy and go on to elaborate on the remaining 9 Avatars on which there is no controversy. Balajiviswanathan 20:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


Hello Balaji Prabhu - I would disagree on creating a new article with this for the following reasons:
  • 1) Each of the ten/eleven 'Dasavatars' are already covered in depth in their own individual articles. Why seperate this list from the avatar article where it is obviously of great importance. We would just be repeating information for the sake of it.
  • 2) The Dasavatar is essentially a somewhat arbitary list of 'the most popular' avatars - there is no real scriptural basis to seperate them off from other avatars which are of equal importance in the scriptures themselves.
  • 3) In terms of Balarama and Buddha - The Dasavatar is a man-made list - there is no ultimate truth on if Balarama is no.9 , or if it is Buddha. We can say with authority that both are described as avatars, and very different avatars at that. As long as both Balarama and Buddha are mentioned then it covers all bases. I have added something to show both sides of the argument. Thank you for pointing that out. Best Wishes, GourangaUK 12:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong Vishnu bias

I know Vishnu's avatars are the most famous avatars but this article seriously ignores vitually every other devata or devi that have avatars. Where are the avatars of Shiva (even though it isn't a strong belief in Shaivism, Ganesha and Mata Devi? Even Vaishnavas acknowldge that Vishnu's consort Lakshmi has many avatars as well as Shesha Naga who has come as Lakshman. GizzaChat © 11:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, the information on other avatars is somewhat lacking. It should be a more general overview on the concept of avatar, including those other than Vishnu as well. As you say, even in Vaishnavism there are avatars of other personalities such as Sesha, Harihara,Shiva and Brahma etc... If the page becomes too large it could simply be split into different articles later on? Ys, Gouranga(UK) 12:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

vishnu came to earth as an avatar so that he could protect people.and so that he could see how people act. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.132.51.51 (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

I concur that the article could be expanded to include other examples of avatars. There are four avatars of Ganesha described in the Ganesha Purana and an additional eight described in the Mudgala Purana. These avatars are important in Ganapatya tradition.Buddhipriya 03:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Vishnu Avatara [and number 22]

I have added the list of Vishnu Avatar based on what is stated in Bhagavad Purana. It is correct and authentic. At some point I will link the SB references to suitable verses from this site - "http://srimadbhagavatam.com/1/3". Dont revert the number [of Avatara] back to 25 because it is incorrect.MohanSonti 15:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed references to both numbers (22 and 25) as it seems largely irrelevant to the article. Thank you for supplying the text references from the Bhagavatam and tidying the list. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 15:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks.
(1) The reference for SB 1.3.26 already exists as Reference #2. The link in the sub-section created another reference (#4) with same name. I did not know to edit that. Can you please fix this.
(2) I have added the word 'numerically' in the description of the list because they are actually mentioned as "First Avatara is ..." to "Twenty Second Avatara is .." in the Srimad Bhagavatam.
(3) Since the number 25 is quite famous and certainly a misconception, I think we should make it clear somewhere about how the number was arrived at. The prigin of the numbers 22 and 25 need to be clarified to the readers somewhere. IMO MohanSonti 16:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Fair comment. I've fixed the reference and made mention of the 25 total, but kept it out of the sub-title. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 16:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


What about Demon Avatars?

Are only Gods allowed to have Avatars, or can other powerful supernatural beings, like Demons, have them? I would like some examples. Corrupt one 01:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

According to my knowledge, it is not a mainstream Hindu belief. Except there is one exception, Ayyavazhi, a Hindu sect in Southern India. They believe all the evil demons (eg. Ravana, Kansa) are avatars of the same Devil-like being called Kroni. GizzaChat © 05:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Chaitanya in the list of Vishnu avatars?

With due respect, Chaitanya is an avatar only to his followers. They see evidence of his avatarhood where no one else sees them as is the case with Swami Narayan and others.

Does it make sense to include his name along with standard, undisputed avatars of Vishnu? We might as well include Swami Narayan, Sai baba and everyone else by the same logic.

As there is a separate section for other avatars, that is where Chaitanya belongs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.116.83.251 (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

If solid references from the Puranas (as with that of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu here) are also in existance for other people worshipped as avatars then I believe they too should be included in that section as it deals specifically with avatars described in Puranic scripture. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 17:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not out to start a debate. But the fact is, there is not a single shred of evidence that a Gaudiya can offer that is acceptable to a non-Gaudiya. Sources such as Chaitanya Upanishad and missing Purana references are dubious and unacceptable; where the sources are legitimate, translations are always twisted and meandered to mean something totally out of context. When the supreme is described as golden in color in the Upanishads, it is interpreted by the Gaudiyas as a prediction of the 16th century Chaitanya.

As one example, Vishnu's list of avatars is mentioned twice in the Bhagavatam and Chaitanya is not mentioned in either list. However, a verse from elsewhere in the text is interpreted out of context to mean a prediction. When challenged the pleading is he was a "hidden" avatar and hence is not mentioned in standard avatar lists. If all the evidence was hidden, how does the word prediction hold good then? Honestly, this approach can be used to call anyone an avatar! In fact, some south east Asian muslims have created web pages which "predict" in similar fashion the arrival of the true prophet Muhammad in Hindu scriptures. Verses from the Rig-veda are interpreted out of context and explained as predictions of Muhammad.

In my opinion, a professional encyclopedia should not try to pass such dubious claims as accepted standards. Chaitanya is an avatar only to his followers as the so-called scriptural evidence is only acceptable to a faithful Gaudiya. Once again, I say he belongs to the "other avatars" along with Sai Baba and the rest.

- RV —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.116.83.251 (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC).


The following paragraph from the article is pretty straight forward in what it says:
Based on a verse in the latter texts of the Bhagavata Purana([2]), and a number of texts from the Mahabharata and other Puranic scriptures([3]), Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is also listed as an avatar and widely worshiped by followers of the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition. In this connection Chaitanya is often referred to as the Golden Avatar.
It is not saying Chaitanya is an avatar is it merely stating some people believe him to be so, based on verses from the Puranas. Also he has not been included amongst the standard avatars, but as a note underneath the main list. The other list of avatars is more general, without references to the Puranans. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 08:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest a slight transposition of ideas in the currect paragraph from the article to address the issue that some followers believe this, and then cite sources to support their views. As it currently reads it may imply that these sources are so compelling that anyone reading them would reach the same conclusion, which overstates the case. Consider the alternative:
Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is also listed as an avatar and widely worshiped by followers of the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition. In this connection Chaitanya is often referred to as the Golden Avatar. Devotees who subscribe to this view refer to a verse in the latter texts of the Bhagavata Purana([4]), and a number of texts from the Mahabharata and other Puranic scriptures([5]) for support.
Buddhipriya 00:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


Buddha described as a Reformer

If you read the Puranas properly, Gautama Buddha is described as a person who is born to delude the enemies of the gods, so with reference to the Hindu Puranas, Buddha cannot be called as a Reformer, but as a deluder. So I'm changing Buddha from Reformer to a Deluder, If anyone has issues, please discuss. Saravana Kumar K 16:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Avataras of Great Mother

What about?

Austerlitz -- 88.72.23.186 (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
This article is skewed towards only avatars of Vishnu,there are plenty of other avatars. Even within Vaishnavism, there are avatars of Lakshmi which should be taken into account. And of course as you have alluded, the Great Mother/Shakti, Ganesh and Shiv all have avatars, few or none of which are mentioned here. Another set of avatars important for Vaishnavas and others perhaps are those of Shesha Nag, the two most significant being Lakshman and Balaram. GizzaDiscuss © 03:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the present article is only a start with many personalities from various traditions to be added and expanded upon. For example, there are also Female avatars within Vaishnavism. Mohini, an avatar of Vishnu, is one such example. I will try to add some of this information as well. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Suggestion: Split articles into daughters articles: Avatars of Vishnu/in Vaishnavism.

And then writing writing the article in summary type with links to Avatars of Vishnu and Ganesha Purana and Mudgala Purana, were Ganesha' avatars are described. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Pharaohs as Avatars?

I was wondering why Egyptian Pharaohs aren't considered Avatars in the "people who have been..." section, seeing as they are often called incarnations of the god Horus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk • contribs) 19:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Tuthoth, The term "avatar" is specific to Hinduism. There are strongly analogous concepts in many other cultures. See Incarnation for a few. The main religions that have the concept of Incarnation are Christianity and Hinduism, and yes the Egyptian ideas of Pharoahs may also be analogous. But this would more appropriately go in the Incarnation article which is more broad and covers the concept as it appears in different traditions. Pippa17 (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Should probably have it as a section in the article on incarnation. Wikidās ॐ 07:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Buddha disambiguation

Hi, I am working on repairing ambiguous links, and this page links to the Buddha disambiguation page, rather than a specific article within Wikipedia. I have to admit that my understanding of Eastern mythos is limited to a single college course and a few visits to the local Buddhist temple, so I don't feel confident enough to fix this link. I.e. I don't know if the link is actually referring to Gautama (sp?) or if it is referring to something else. Right, so obviously my knowledge is quite limited. Anyway, could someone please fix the link? It is located at the top of the page below the image of the various avatars. When you fix it, please leave a comment below to let others know that this has been handled. Thank you! Macduffman (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I linked it to Gautama Buddha in Hinduism, since it's the most specific available article related to the context of this page. Also the same link has been given for Buddha in the next section. Hoverfish Talk 16:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Hoverfish! Macduffman (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Dashavatara of Vishnu

Merge as content duplication, covered in this article.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

My feeling is to keep the other article Dashavatara of Vishnu. Even if it has very little additional information, it may grow. Even now it actually has some additional information, additional references, and many additional external links that would not be appropriately merged into the Avatar article. The idea of such pages is to allow expansion of a side-topic. I think Dashavatara is a good candidate. Tommytocker (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Dashavatara is a concept in itslef above and beyond concpt of avatar. Vedantahindu (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, but the current article is barely more than a cut and paste, and doesn't include any new information of note. I have removed the 'main article' link in the Dashavatara section for this reason. Unless and until the current Dashavatara section becomes better documented to the point of being unweildly, a redirect from Dashavatara of Vishnu to Avatar is all that is needed. If the section grows, breaking off an article seems like a right idea. Dashavatara is a concept in itslef above and beyond concpt of avatar. Let's see some better info about this in the current article.--Nemonoman (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ramakrishna as Avatar

I removed the mention of Ramakrishna as Avatar for two reasons. First, the citation given was a link to a website that never used the word "avatar" at all. Second, in The Gospel of Ramakrishna, as Ramakrishna was dying he said he was Krishna, but then added "But not in the Vedantic sense." So he not only did not say he was the Avatar, but also clarified that he did not mean this. If you put this back, please include a source that says this; preferably a published source. Thanks. Pipaaz (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Work on lead required

While I sympathise with whoever injected their point of view into the lead of this article, it is somewhat misleading; or rather, it doesn't lead anywhere, which is not a good thing in a lead.

What I mean is, at the current revision, the lead says that "avatar is mistranslated as 'incarnation'" or words to that effect. This is FUD. It is true that avatar literally means 'descent'. The Monier Williams entry (p. 99) gives us the following.

Ava-tāra, as, m. (Paṇ iii, 3, 120) descent (especially of a deity from heaven), appearance of any deity upon earth (but more particularly the incarnations of Vishṇu ...)

However, the current lead expresses a point of view regarding this which is original research. It is editorial opinion, unsupported by reliable sources. In fact, it is explict about denying reliable sources. It shows it doesn't understand that reliable sources translate Sanskrit avatar—in its context of indic religious thought—into English 'incarnation'—in its context of Greco-Roman and Judaeo-Christian thought.

Reliable sources translate avatar as 'incarnation' because the ideas are parallel, only the linguistic metaphors differ. A spiritual being like Vishnu or God the Son becomes manifest, apparant, tangible to human senses in a specific form in this world. Descent focuses on a metaphor that transcendent beings go "above and beyond" this world, hence what is known of them in this world is only a "descent". Incarnation focuses on a metaphor that transcendent beings are "more than flesh and blood", hence what is known of them in this world is only an "embodiment" or incarnation (Latin for en-flesh-ment).

In fact, Hindu thought is very explicit about the "embodiment" of Vishnu in his avatars (the types of body are described in detail), and Christianity is very explicit about Jesus "descending" to this world (a lot of the Greek of the New Testament implies God is "up" and we are "down").

My own original research is to translate avatar as 'manifestation' in many contexts, because this focuses on the intention of the language usage—what is normally not available to the senses becomes available to the senses. It is an epistemological and scientific way of understanding the claims of the religious writers. However, perish the thought that this article should contain original research from any editor! We need to be helping one another to exclude one-another's opinions in favour of the opinions of sources as much as possible.

So I propose we stick to WP:RS and adopt a WP:NPOV by removing the WP:OR claim that 'incarnation' is a "mistranslation" of avatar. The sources that can be cited against this editorial opinion are legion. In fact, the contrary opinion has many avatars! ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow! That is one brillian lead now! Thank you very much to the kind contributor, very clear and informative. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

"incarnation" isn't a "mistranslation", it is the most common translation. It isn't a literal translation, but obviously nobody who knows the first thing about translation would confuse "mistranslation" and "non-literal translation". If you translated a Sanskrit text strictly according to the etymological meanings of its words, you would end up with a "translation" that was practically incomprehensible, and comical. --dab (𒁳) 13:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section seems to be unnecessary

The criticism section does not seem to give proper information at all. We have a supposed quote by Swami Raghavendra about the "fake gurus". This is irrelevant. There seems to be no proper citation to the quotes of Swami Tapasyananda. I'm removing the entire section. Please discuss here if you feel that it is relavant to the Avatar section and needs to be included. freewit (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Also another section says "Many Hindus with a universalist outlook view the central figures of various non-Hindu religions as avatars of Lord Vishnu or divine essence." and goes on to say that figures like "Zoraster" "Mohammed" etc...are avatars of Vishnu or divine essence?

First and foremost, nowhere in the Hindu scriptures does it claims that Zoraster or Mohammed are avatars of Vishnu. Not even a fringe view.

This section has also been removed. Feel free to discuss if you think it is essential to the article. freewit (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move: Avatar → Avatar (Hinduism)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was No consensus for move. KelleyCook (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Avatar → Avatar (Hinduism) — It's doubtful that the original meaning of "Avatar" is still the main use of the word "Avatar" in English. Neal Stephenson co-opt of it, Avatar (computing) is probably already the most prevalent form. And mistaken hits to the original definition will only get worse with the new big budget Hollywood "Avatar (2009 film)" movie coming out in a few weeks. So I propose that generic links of Avatar go to the disambiguation page. -- KelleyCook (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

For the purposes of discussion, a Google search of the word "Avatar", other than the Wikipedia entry has nothing on the first page to deal with the Hinduism. Similar results can be seen with bing. Oldag07 (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
That can be a case of WP:Recentism as the film gets more hits recently. While the meaning of the Greek Xenos may be less known as Greek religion is dead, the Hindu avatar is frequently used in Hinduism. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Changed to neutral. I do support putting up the Avatar (2009 film) hatnote, but I am not going to fight it.Oldag07 (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose While Avatar has several derivative uses in popular culture, its primary meaning is still connected with Hinduism, especially in sources that discuss the subject rather than just casually use it as a buzzword. This is the only meaning of the term that Britannica even has an article on, and is the primary definition provided by OED ("Hindu Myth. The descent of a deity to the earth in an incarnate form"). Compare with Guru, which again has entered popular culture and has 5 similarly titled movies; or resurrection with dozens of similarly named comics and movies. Abecedare (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: the word has been coopted for popular reasons before and will no doubt be coopted again...probably right after the James Cameron movie. The original meaning of the word is unchanged, and just as important as ever for about 750 million to 1 billion people, not to mention billions that preceded them. It would be unfortunate to make this change based on the current usage of the word by a fraction of persons so small it is statistically a blackhead on the back of an elephant. Let's be sensible.. --Nemonoman (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support As a term that's been in use for over 20 years I don't think [[WP:Recentism] applies. It's precisely because most people know it as Avatar (computing) that James Cameron and others have been able to use it. And Wikipedia by it's nature going to reflect changes in language and word usage before other dictionaries and encyclopaedias, which are anyway not good secondary sources. JohnBlackburne (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Note The very first sentence at WP:Recentism begins "Recentism is the practice of some Wikipedians to edit articles without regard to long-term historical perspective,..." Because of the historical meaning of Avatar, "most people" would therefore include the billion in India and countless others throughout the world who have, and continue to, use the historical meaning. Priyanath talk 20:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment:
  • As a term that's been in use for over 20 years (by a very few persons, comparatively -- with the other couple of billion persons, the term has been in use for about 5000 years).
  • And Wikipedia by it's nature going to reflect changes in language and word usage before other dictionaries and encyclopaedias, which are anyway not good secondary sources. -- But this is not a question of article content, but of primary meaning, so a dictionary would be an entirely reasonable source.
  • The Wikipedia article Avatar (computing) begins:

    An avatar (अवतार, from the Sanskrit word for "a form of self", commonly used in many Indian languages)

    -- in other words, explaining its origins by describing this article. Let's not put the cart in front of the horse. Let's not have the tail wag the dog. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Also compare:
As expected, in none of these cases do we let popularity trump sources or our goal of building an encyclopedia. Abecedare (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Multiple answers to really poorly constructed strawman: 2001 had to be since it was a year link and you really don't get into the WP:MOSDAB fight. Titanic is obvious, since Titanic (the movie) was a movie about Titanic (the ship). Ditto the movies that came directly from books. However a Computer (Avatar) is not directly Hindu religion. Count the Google hits on Avatar the vast, vast majority of the uses are not referring to religion. Fortunately English is a language that is allowed to evolve and it really doesn't matter where the name came from (see "assassin", "barbarian", "salary".
      • The Computer alter-ego definition is, by far, the most widely used in today's English language and gaining greater acceptance ( http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_user_ldate=1990&as_user_hdate=2008&q=avatar&scoring=a&hl=en&ned=us&q=avatar&lnav=od&btnG=Go ). Here is a nice link (from a writer with a PhD in religion) from April about the word's journey into common usage. Meanwhile why would you two revert obvious changes like putting a HAT at the top, unless you knew you were being wrongheaded except to be obstinate? Personally, the stats say Avatar (computing) should be the main link. But when reasonable people disagree on what is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC moving to a disambiguation page is the answer. It is the reason they exist. -- KelleyCook (talk) 01:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
        • If I might, the Avatar of Vishnu isn't going to be in the news, it's reasonable to assume that the news only includes current topics, and Google news archives go to documenting current topics from the past few decades at best. -SpacemanSpiff 02:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Were in full agreement that the old definition is not going to be in the news. But this wasn't a GoogleWar arguement, it was deeper than that. The point is look at the graph, use of the word "Avatar" in news items has been steadily growing each and every year. Thus showing the new meaning has been coming into common usage and is not "merely recentism". (Also there is a reason I did not include 2009 as thats bound to get skewed by the movie) -- KelleyCook (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:PRIMARYTOPIC can change as the readership's needs (and passing fancies) change. WP:RECENTISM covers article coverage (the content of the articles); it does not say that a topic that is not the most likely destination gets to be primary as long as it's not recent. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose As per the arguments of Abecedare and Nemonomon. All the other meanings of Avatar example as in computing are derived from the Sanskrit root word Avatar. The Hindu usage carries a greater significant meaning and long standing history. Avatar (computing) should be considered a word of recent usage. The recent usage of Avatar (computing) may disappear because of cultural changes. However the significance of Avatar (Sanskrit usage) would not change. Saravana Kumar K (talk) 08:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
    Being the source of derived terms is not a criterion for "primary-topicness" on Wikipedia. Primary topic on Wikipedia is determined by usage, not history. Earliest, most recent, most important, biggest, etc., are only useful in as much as they influence usage of that meaning. If the current division of usage (i.e., lack of primary topic) later changes so that once again only one meaning has significant usage, then that article could then be moved to the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
    The sanskrit usage (original term) may not carry significance for non-indians. Contrary to your understanding, the real meaning of Avatar in India still has not lost its importance. When it makes importance to more than 1 billion people around the world, this cannot be ignored as non primary usage of the word. The computing concept I'd still consider as WP:RECENTISM when compared to the usage of Avatar in the Indian sense.Saravana Kumar K (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
    To examine why Avatar_(2009 film) is a case of WP:RECENTISM and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies to Avatar Hindu usage. Go back to page stats 2009/05: disambig: 35886 [10], Avatar_(computing): 44934 [11], Avatar_(2009 film): 7 [12], Avatar (this page): 91490 [13] - let us assume that all who visited disambig - visited this page: that leaves 55 604 visitors who only viewed this page. 2009/06: computing: 37979, disambig: 69595, this page: 111723 (42k - worst case for this page alone), the film: 150697 (Since there are more hits to film than this page, not all people took the Avatar -> disambig -> film path). The page views stats of film increase as the release date nears. Til 2009/05, this page has had more hits than computing, 2009 film, disambig articles. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
    Right, 55604 who reach this page and intended to (back in May) is comparable to the 44934 who reached Avatar (computing) and intended to (back in May). Neither is "much more used than any other", so there was no primary topic then, and less so now, so the disambiguation page should be at the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
    I do not think you understand my understanding. The importance of the "real" (or rather, original) meaning of "avatar" in India is important in determining the primary topic of "avatar" on Wikipedia only in as much as it affects the usage. Which is what I said. WP:RECENTISM is a guideline/policy on article content. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is a guideline/policy on article naming. They are not in conflict. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
    55604 is a worst case number. We may never know how many more visited this page alone. It is not necessary that all people take the (Avatar -> disambig -> computing) path as reasoned in the film case, as reasoned. Also, WP:RECENTISM is linked as it documents reasons why some articles may get more hits in recent history. Moreover, notable dictionaries and encyclopedias use this page's meaning as the primary meaning (sometimes, only meaning as in case of Britannica and Oxford). --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
    We also may never know how many more visited this page when intending one of the others and left without going to the dab page. 55604 is the number we get to work with, and it's not worst case. I know why recentism was linked; I simply pointed out that it was not at odds with primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 05:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Avatar the dab page sitting at primary isn't placing the computer avatar in place of the Hindu one, it's placing the neutral dab page there, which does not conflict with RECENTISM, while also allowing PRIMARYTOPIC easy access. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • support would make disambiguation much useful. --CarTick 02:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia:Recentism, respecting the "historical perspectives", the original usage in Hinduism, subsequent usages can always be accessed through dab page. Thanks! --Ekabhishektalk 02:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: Again the essay (not policy) about recentism doesn't apply to a definition 17 years old (read about the ten year test in that essay). There might be a news spike from the movie, but not the definition that use of the word that the movie's title comes from. -- KelleyCook (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes it absolutely does - the essay asks what will be the most common use "In ten years". Considering how recently the pop use of "Avatar" has become 'pop', compared to the thousands-of-years old usage, it's a legitimate question, with an answer that we legitimately (AGF) disagree upon. Priyanath talk 18:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per above. Its usage in Hinduism is the original meaning and more well-known outside of a group of specialists, even if there are less links to it. There may for example (not sure if its true or not but that isn't relevant) be more links to Apple Inc. than to Apple the fruit. The software company might be more extensively covered than the fruit on Wikipedia because a high percentage of the Wikipedian demographic are fans of technology and that there is simply more to write about the company than a type of fruit. But that does not make the company more notable than the fruit. Nor does it rebut the common sense presumption that the original meaning of the word, unless it has completely fallen out of usage in the modern era, should be the main article with that name. GizzaDiscuss © 21:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
    • For the sake of discussion, Apple Inc, is Apple Inc, not Apple (corporation). Oldag07 (talk) 04:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Which also happens to render that argument moot. -- KelleyCook (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
        • How does it? It simply means that the Apple example isn't quite the same as Avatar. But the reasoning still applies. To use a better example, Guru still refers to the religious sense of the word, even though there are many famous pop-culture references (see Guru (disambiguation)) and it now has an adapted meaning in English (spiritual teacher has become master or expert).
        • Suggestion Because both sides are fairly polar on this issue, I suppose a compromise would be to move Avatar to the alternative spelling/pronunciation of Avatara. This is similar to how Pundit is a disambiguation page but the Indian meaning is at the uncommon spelling of Pandit (though in terms of literal transliteration more accurate). "Avatar" can then be a disambig. GizzaDiscuss © 00:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
          I think a compromise is a great idea, and from a disambiguation point of view, your proposal works fine. From that POV, finding another unambiguous name is the same whether the new name is disambiguated with a parenthetical phrase or with an alternate spelling. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Still OpposeAs per the discussion and various examples cited, Avarar should point to the original sanskrit meaning. This is also as per the policies of Wikipedia. Just because one part of the world is familiar with only one meaning of Avarar, a historical meaning that is still in heavy usage in India and from which all other words have been derived can't be ignored.Saravana Kumar K (talk) 07:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Another example of the Wikipedia plain-name page being not the original meaning and not a disambig, is page Tank, which is about the army vehicle, although the word "tank" at first meant "artificial lake in India", and nowadays most commonly means some types of container. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The Tank example isn't really a valid comparison because of the lack of significance or importance of the word "tank" or "tanki" in the Indian context. A comparison to Avatar would be Messiah, which rightly takes one to the Biblical concept and not to Messiah (Handel) or a disambiguation. The Biblical concept is of course more familiar to most of our western editors, while certain Hindu concepts are obviously not, but that doesn't make them any less significant. Quite obviously, one isn't going to say that all religious terms have equal importance, but in this case, there are enough well-minded editors who have weighed in with the subject matter knowledge. The argument for moving that has significant merit is presented by JHunterJ, but I disagree with it in this situation based on this explanation. -SpacemanSpiff 04:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • It isn't the film that is why this page should be moved. The use of the word Messiah for Handel's music piece is not nearly as big as Avatar (computing). A term that I believe is the linchpin in the argument in moving this page. As mentioned earlier Amazon might be a more appropriate page for comparison. I quote Yamara from that page "Since the myth, the river and the company all seem equally notable, surely making Amazon a disambiguation page is self-explanatory. . . . Amazon River was named for the legendary tribe, and Amazon.com was, in turn, named for the River."
  • I personally heard of the word, "avatar" first in relationship to computing, not hinduism. I would guess that the western non-hindu world, sees the term by its computing definition, not the hindu definition. However this is a global encyclopedia. Hinduism is a large religion. And only a minority the world's population has access to a computer that can render avatar is. Hence, why i have my initial vote on the subject as neutral. Oldag07 (talk) 06:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Suggest automatic archival of this page

This talk page is now 117 kilobytes long. I propose automatic archival of this talk page using User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo (or other similar tool if other editors prefer). Please indicate your support or otherwise. Many thanks, --MegaSloth (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I think you can go ahead and do this kind of thing w/out discussion. Priyanath talk 03:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Archive settings of >60days with minimum of 5-7 threads left on the page. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 04:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Done. Abecedare (talk) 04:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Well normally I would just go ahead, but given the recent heated debate and the instructions at MiszaBot suggesting to ask, I thought it would be prudent and harmless to do so first. Cheers, --MegaSloth (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Gaia Online

The inclusion of Gaia Online seems to be irrelevant to the subject of avatars. I've decided to remove it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.48.222.168 (talk • contribs).

Spurious Carl Sagan comment

The comment...

"This dating in the Puranas was noted by Carl Sagan to be surprisingly accurate in comparison to estimates of the Sun imploding and thus ending life on earth."

...is clearly spurious. Carl Sagan has talked about the end of the life of the sun coming in several billions of years, not just over 400,000 years from now. The only Hindu time scale comments I could find from him are from an interview at http://www.rediff.com/news/jan/29sagan.htm where he finds it interesting that some Hindu epics use a time frame of billions of years while Western creation epics talk in thousands of years. His comments are directed at multi billion year cycles, not half million year cycles.

I am going to remove the comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aecarol (talk • contribs)

Srimad Bhagavatam List

Maybe some of the original verses from the Bhagavata-Purana can be incorporated?

Srimad Bhagavatam, Canto 1, Chapter 3:

Suta said: In the beginning of the creation, the Lord first expanded Himself in the universal form of the purusha incarnation and manifested all the ingredients for the material creation. And thus at first there was the creation of the sixteen principles of material action. This was for the purpose of creating the material universe.

A part of the purusha lies down within the water of the universe, from the navel lake of His body sprouts a lotus stem, and from the lotus flower atop this stem, Brahma, the master of all engineers in the universe, becomes manifest.

It is believed that all the universal planetary systems are situated on the extensive body of the purusha, but He has nothing to do with the created material ingredients. His body is eternally in spiritual existence par excellence.

The devotees, with their perfect eyes, see the transcendental form of the purusha who has thousands of legs, thighs, arms and faces -- all extraordinary. In that body there are thousands of heads, ears, eyes and noses. They are decorated with thousands of helmets and glowing earrings and are adorned with garlands.

This form (the second manifestation of the purusha) is the source and indestructible seed of multifarious incarnations within the universe. From the particles and portions of this form, different living entities, like demigods, men and others, are created.

First of all, in the beginning of creation, there were the four unmarried sons of Brahma (the Kumaras), who, being situated in a vow of celibacy, underwent severe austerities for realization of the Absolute Truth.

The supreme enjoyer of all sacrifices accepted the incarnation of a boar (the second incarnation), and for the welfare of the earth He lifted the earth from the nether regions of the universe.Varaha

In the millennium of the rishis, the Personality of Godhead accepted the third empowered incarnation in the form of Devarshi Narada, who is a great sage among the demigods. He collected expositions of the Vedas which deal with devotional service and which inspire nonfruitive action.

In the fourth incarnation, the Lord became Nara and Narayana, the twin sons of the wife of King Dharma. Thus He undertook severe and exemplary penances to control the senses.

The fifth incarnation, named Lord Kapila, is foremost among perfected beings. He gave an exposition of the creative elements and metaphysics to Asuri Brahmana, for in course of time this knowledge had been lost.

The sixth incarnation of the purusha was the son of the sage Atri. He was born from the womb of Anasuya, who prayed for an incarnation. He spoke on the subject of transcendence to Alarka, Prahlada and others [Yadu, Haihaya, etc.].

The seventh incarnation was Yajna, the son of Prajapati Ruci and his wife Akuti. He controlled the period during the change of the Svayambhuva Manu and was assisted by demigods such as His son Yama.

The eighth incarnation was King Rishabha, son of King Nabhi and his wife Merudevi. In this incarnation the Lord showed the path of perfection, which is followed by those who have fully controlled their senses and who are honored by all orders of life.

O brahmanas, in the ninth incarnation, the Lord, prayed for by sages, accepted the body of a king [Prithu] who cultivated the land to yield various produces, and for that reason the earth was beautiful and attractive.

When there was a complete inundation after the period of the Cakshusha Manu and the whole world was deep within water, the Lord accepted the form of a fish and protected Vaivasvata Manu, keeping him up on a boat.

The eleventh incarnation of the Lord took the form of a tortoise whose shell served as a pivot for the Mandaracala Hill, which was being used as a churning rod by the theists and atheists of the universe.

In the twelfth incarnation, the Lord appeared as Dhanvantari, and in the thirteenth He allured the atheists by the charming beauty of a woman and gave nectar to the demigods to drink.

In the fourteenth incarnation, the Lord appeared as Nrisimha and bifurcated the strong body of the atheist Hiranyakasipu with His nails, just as a carpenter pierces cane.

In the fifteenth incarnation, the Lord assumed the form of a dwarf-brahmana Vamana and visited the arena of sacrifice arranged by Maharaja Bali. Although at heart He was willing to regain the kingdom of the three planetary systems, He simply asked for a donation of three steps of land.

In the sixteenth incarnation of the Godhead, the Lord as Bhrigupati annihilated the administrative class kshatriyas twenty-one times, being angry with them because of their rebellion against the brahmanas the intelligent class.

Thereafter, in the seventeenth incarnation of Godhead, Sri Vyasadeva appeared in the womb of Satyavati through Parasara Muni, and he divided the one Veda into several branches and subbranches, seeing that the people in general were less intelligent.

In the eighteenth incarnation, the Lord appeared as King Rama. In order to perform some pleasing work for the demigods, He exhibited superhuman powers by controlling the Indian Ocean and then killing the atheist King Ravana, who was on the other side of the sea.

In the nineteenth and twentieth incarnations, the Lord advented Himself as Lord Balarama and Lord Krishna in the family of Vrishni [the Yadu dynasty], and by so doing He removed the burden of the world.

Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Anjana, in the province of Gaya, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist.

Thereafter, at the conjunction of two yugas, the Lord of the creation will take His birth as the Kalki incarnation and become the son of Vishnu Yasa. At this time the rulers of the earth will have degenerated into plunderers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.32.210 (talk • contribs)

I have deleted the image of vishnu with its 10 avataras as one of them is that of the Buddha. The thought that Buddha is a vishnu avatara is repugnant to all buddhists. Buddha can never be an avatara of vishnu. Buddha was an ardent critic of Rigvedic religion ( now called as Hindu religion). The obstinate attempt to appropriate the name of Buddha by Bhramins (the priestly class of Hindus)is malicious. Gravely threatened by the onslaught of Buddhism which had almost destroyed the stranglehold of Bhramins over the society, they started usurping the Buddhas religion by calling him an Avatar of Visnu, in order to destroy buddhism,(Buddhism is highly critical of Bhramin supremacy and the foundation of hinduism, The Caste System). This started when the Bhramin commander, Piyushmitra shunga, of the last Mauryan Emperor,assasinated the king and took over the throne. He systematically started the persecution of Buddhist monks leading to partial annhilation of buddhism in India. Read Babasaheb Ambedkars Thoughts on the same subject on http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/19A.Revolution%20and%20Counter%20Rev.in%20Ancient%20India%20PART%20I.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.170.10.119 (talk • contribs)

Current Yuga

"satya yuga, the time period in which we currently exist, which will end in the year 428899 CE" This is a misapprehension. Which was corrected by the jnanavatar Sri Yukteswar Giri, in his book "The Holy Science", he points out that a kali yuga lasts only 1200 years, and not.. some ridiculous number as is stated here. This is obvious of course.. we no longer live in a dark age, but an atomic age, or dwapara yuga. According to this "incarnation of wisdom" who indeed has displayed more knowledge of vedic astrology than anyone else as far as I know, kali yuga ended in 1700. I just felt that this should be pointed out.

Btw, what the eff happened to the article? As I was posting this comment it suddenly vanished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.49.37.154 (talk • contribs)

Requested move to Avatara

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no move. Consensus at this time does not support a page move as proposed. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


Avatar → Avatara — Using an alternate English spelling of the Sanskrit word will allow for the disambiguation of the other form of the English word that has multiple meanings. This was suggested by Gizza [14] --KelleyCook (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You might want to look above since a request for moving Avatar to Avatar (Hindusism) was just closed hours ago.--76.69.166.88 (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Closed by the nominator in order to list this here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Clarification: The closing was after nine days of discussion, when seven is the recommended timeframe. I could have relisted it, but instead I opened this modified request in hopes for gaining more consensus. -- KelleyCook (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose As was discussed above, the concept of Avatar in Hinduism is the primary topic for the term; being the only/primary correction appended term that is even covered by Britannica, Encarta, Oxford English dictionary, Merriam-Webster etc. Secondly, Avatar/Avatara are just two transliterations of the same term, and no source suggests any difference in meanings; as such Avatar and Avatara should point to the same article. Finally, avatar seems to be more popular in English (that is the only spelling mentioned in OED), and has 10x hits on JSTOR compared to avatara - so I prefer the current arrangement. Abecedare (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
    As was discussed above, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC isn't about the oldest or original topic; it's about the one that is more widely used by the readership than any other. Since no one of the "avatar" topic are more widely used than the others, there is no primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
    I know we have a good faith difference about this, but I want to clarify one point about my view: I am not arguing (and never had) that oldest/original use makes something a primary topic. My argument is based on what other reliable sources consider to be the primary use of the term, which in my opinion, is what wikipedia content should always be based on. Abecedare (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the corrections; while Britannica and OED do not talk about the use of the term in computing, M-W does provide that as a secondary definitions (Encarta unfortunately is now extinct, so I cannot link to the original article on Avatar). I have corrected my post above. Abecedare (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose as before. Copy-paste: "Hindu deity meaning is the only meaning in Oxford Dictionary. It is also the primary [first] meaning in other encyclopedias [15][16]EncartaMerriam Webster." --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Wait just a darn minute: WHAT exactly is "another good indication that there is no primary topic"? My comment notes that you couldn't win a consensus, so you're back again with an even LESS useful suggestion. Why don't we change the name of Avatar (computing) to Avatara (digital computational) while we're at it? For pete sake. --Nemonoman (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)"." Correction: I'm not back again; User:KelleyCook proposed one move, closed it (possibly prematurely), and proposed the alternative move as suggested by User:DaGizza. I'm just casting my !vote in each, and explaining the primary topic guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current usage is the primary one per consensus (above), OED, and Britannica. The current spelling is also the predominant one by a wide margin — as Abecedare points out and real life also bears out. While a compromise would be nice, in this case it would be neither accurate or elegant. Priyanath talk 00:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
    There was no consensus above on the current usage being primary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
    If that's true, then that discussion was closed prematurely — though Britannica's and OED's primary usage of "Avatar" is quite convincing. This discussion is almost moot, since "avatara" clearly isn't the commonly used spelling in English. Priyanath talk 03:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
    The above discussion may have been closed prematurely, but it was closed as "no consensus for move", not "consensus is the current usage is primary". Britannica and OED may have different ways to determine their namings; as far as I know, they don't have a disambiguation project. Since there is no primary topic, the disambiguation page should be moved to the base name. This article would then need to be disambiguated, either by a parenthetical phrase (as suggested above) or by using a different name. If common name dictates "avatar" here (and I suspect it would), then a parenthetical phrase is needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks — I understand the discussion. I just think, like several others, that the reliable sources with the most weight support the current Primary usage of Avatar for this article — and thus the current hatnote is perfectly sufficient for directing readers to the other uses. Priyanath talk 03:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
    WP:PRIMARYTOPIC isn't about article content (while WP:RS is). Primary topic is currently determined by Wikipedia readership use for the ambiguous article title. Incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere, Wikipedia article traffic statistics, and Google web, news, scholar, or book searches may help to determine it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
    The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline isn't as definitive as you make it out to be. The guideline doesn't come close to saying that that "Primary topic is currently determined by Wikipedia readership use". The guideline only says, somewhat vaguely, "Tools that may help determine a primary topic, but are not determining factors, include...." (first italics are in the original, second are mine). In the end, it is determined by the editors on the talk page, just as we are doing here, using WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as a guideline, "though it is best treated with common sense", which would clearly include using reliable sources to help determine a primary topic. Britannica and OED are easily the most reliable sources for primary word usage and in fact the only clearly non-arbitrary 'opinions' in this entire discussion. Priyanath talk 18:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
    I would argue that Merriam-Webster and the [Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary] are of equal authority to the Britannica and OED, latter of which doesn't use the Hindu definition at all. Oldag07 (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
    I would disagree. Britannica for encyclopedias and OED for dictionaries are the Crème de la Crème. Even Merriam-Webster gives this page's meaning as definitions number 1. and 2. The "Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary" is a bit of a joke if it doesn't even mention the main usage, source, or origin of Avatar. Priyanath talk 20:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
    The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary is a basic dictionary directed towards high-schoolers learning English as a secondary/foreign language, and intending to take English competency exams, such as IELTS. The "advanced" in its name is to distinguish it from more basic dictionaries in the series that are intended for primary, and middle-schoolers. Abecedare (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
    Still, the fact that the word's computing definition is prominent enough to be put in a children's dictionary, does suggest the term's importance. Oldag07 (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
    The guideline is definitive; the measures are not (and I have not made them out to be any more definitive than they are). Britannica and OED are not Wikipedia; Because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover -- and because Britannica and OED have chosen to limit their coverage, they do not have to deal with this question of disambiguation or primary topic. So their coverage of one of the topics is not a reliable source for what the primary topic on Wikipedia should be. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
    The guideline describes "the process of resolving conflicts in Wikipedia article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic" in language that is anything but definitive — using ambiguous (couldn't help it) phrasing such as "that may be a sign...", "Tools that may help determine a primary topic", "In some cases, the primary topic may be...", "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense...", etc. If the guideline were definitive, we wouldn't still be having this discussion. Britannica and OED are not Wikipedia, but the aforementioned common sense says they are a very good reality check on all of the opinions being presented here — and they may have professionals at their helm who know a thing or two about word usage, primary and otherwise. Priyanath talk 21:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
    The aforementioned common sense does not say that Wikipedia must follow Britannica and OED. Because Wikipedia is not one of those paper products, common sense (and not just following their example) must be used. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
    The aforementioned guideline also does not say that Wikipedia must follow any specific factor, whether it be blindly following traffic stats and g-hits or seeing what the (typically maligned) experts say, in this case in the field of word usage. Getting away from wikilawyering, so arguably off-topic: I think the underlying issue is the clash between pop culture aficionados and those looking at this from the broader perspective of humanities and world culture. See this article[17] which alludes to the "uneven coverage of topics in science and humanities" compared to coverage of pop culture. Priyanath talk 16:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
    It's not a pop-culture thing. The computer-interface usage is not pop culture. But it's irrelevant: pop culture, religious culture, information age culture, they all are allowed to contribute to the primary topic decision. We've got an ambiguous term "avatar" and no clear primary topic based on usage. If our readership slants pop or tech, then there's no need to try to edify them by putting an extra article that they won't read in front of them. (And my "side" in the clash is none of the sides you list -- I have no background with any of the "avatar" articles, only with the disambiguation project.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks for (I think) reading the article. Whether its the readership of Wikipedia that leans toward pop culture, or its editors, or both, it's an issue that will continue to be brought up by the more educated media. And no, I wasn't alluding to you personally having a dog in the 'avatar' clash - I'm aware that your interest is in disambiguation in general. It was only a musing based on seeing this directly relevant (imo) issue yet again covered by the (non-pop culture) media. Priyanath talk 17:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
    The way I understand it, Avatar's computing usage is a very recent, and until recently limited to the computer literate. Certainly Cameron's new movie will help push the new definition into the standard lexicon. While it might not be appropriate to make the dab the primary page yet, there is definitely reason to believe sometime in the future that the term's new definition will be seen in future revisions of Britannica (if it doesn't go broke) and OED. Evidence can definitely be seen in the less, but STILL authoritative sources mentioned above. Does the computing definition AT THIS MOMENT have enough sway to push the Hindu definition out of the primary topic spot? I have made my opinion clear, but I certainly understand people who disagree with me. Oldag07 (talk) 02:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
    Based on the article traffic, yes, at this moment there is no primary topic. The disambiguation gets more than half the hits of the base-name page, so more people are looking for something else than are looking for this meaning. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral on changing avatar to avatara. but per my recent references mentioned above. support now closed discussion. Oldag07 (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose/ Support Avatar is the primary spelling of world. However, as my research suggested, the discussion of the primary topic is far from done. We should reopen the discussion above. It clearly was not finished. Oldag07 (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the reasons stated in the above discussion, and in addition, this not even being the common name/translation. -SpacemanSpiff 01:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support there is no primary usage, the dab page should be at the primary name. 76.66.194.154 (talk) 05:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment -- and note to JHunterJ: Please get on topic: This discussion is about moving Avatar to Avatara. The discussion about whether Avatar should be a landing disambiguation page was held and closed. And there is virtually no reason at all to change the title of this article - a term used by millions - to a title used by nobody. It certainly doesn't improve disambiguation, and in fact would make disambiguation to this topic a nightmare. That one editor (you, primarily) still forcefully tries to beat this dead horse is NOT a true indication of the vitality of the topic. Your Primary Topic arguments are not relevant to this this discussion--unless you are arguing that everybody commonly uses the word Avatara when Avatar is meant. --Nemonoman (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
    Please examine the proposal (and the earlier one) again. Each discussion is about two things: moving Avatar to another name (first Avatar (Hinduism) and now Avatara) and moving the disambiguation page to the base name. Since there is no primary topic on Wikipedia for "avatar", the disambiguation page should be at the base name. Since the disambiguation page should be at the base name, the article at the base name needs a new name. I have no opinion on what that new name should be. And I'm not the only editor to observe that there's no primary topic here -- I've just been the most active in trying to recap the Wikipedia policy on primary topic where it appears to be unclear. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks-I actually have read this proposal and the one made previous which was closed as no consensus. And I see no consensus arising in this discussion either. And so, may we expect another proposal after this one fails? To move Avatar to Avatar (Incarnated Hindu Diety)? And following that to Mahavatara? Etc? Etc? When does this crusade end? --Nemonoman (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
    The crusade to improve Wikipedia? I hope it never ends. We could simply hold a RM to move the dab page to the base name, and if that has consensus, then the determination of the new name for this page could be made as a separate decision, since there is discord as to what the new name should be if this isn't primary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: The Britannica and OED arguements are false. Also Encarta is online and the computer usage is mentioned there: http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?lextype=3&search=avatar. I disagree with the assertion about Enc. Britannica. See http://www.britannica.com/bps/search?query=avatar Yes, their esteemed editor haven't blessed this new usage worthy of an encyclopedia article yet. But please note that list also shows "Playstation Home", "Second Life", "Nintendo Wii", "online gaming (computer science)", "World of Warcraft", "The Virtual World of Online Gaming", and other entries. So the writers at The Encylopædia clearly have recognized the new usage. Next up AskOxford.com which was sited before is not the actual Oxford English Dictionary. It is the Compact Oxford English Dictionary and it happens to be the 2005 edition. The fact that it is not in the print edition of the OED should also not be a definitive argurement as it was last published in 1989 with final supplements added in 1993 and 1997. This new usage is, in fact, in their subscription-only online Oxford English Dictionary http://oed.com which is considered the most up-to-date reference. It is also mentioned Entymology online http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=avatar&searchmode=none It mentions new usage dating back to 1992. For that matter check out One Look which links to a lot of online resources -- http://www.onelook.com/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/bware/dofind.cgi?word=avatar Unsurprisingly, newer ones use the new definition, older ones don't. The point is this usage of the word is 17 years old and has been steadily growing, to the point the old definition can no longer be considered a definitive WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- KelleyCook (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
    If multiple usages at an Encarta dictionary word article were an argument for a dab page here, then our Tank article should be a dab page (which would be absurd, imo). In fact, Encarta has the 'armored vehicle' dicdef all the way down at #6.[18] Britannica is not only an encyclopedia, but arguably the most vetted, reviewed, and authoritative one — "It is widely regarded as the most scholarly of encyclopaedias" if you believe Wikipedia :-). Priyanath talk 23:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Move Avatar (disambiguation) to Avatar (and Avatar to an appropriately disambiguated term yet to be agreed) per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and JHunterJ's comments. The current page is clearly an important use of the term, however I am not persuaded by the evidence suggested to support it being primary topic per the provisions of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline. Avatara appears to be a suitable location for this article per WP:NCDAB as this alternate transliteration is highly likely to refer to this meaning alone, although I would support parenthetical disambiguation equally happily. I suggest a redirect to this page from Avatar (Hinduism) or similar in addition, as this will aid searching using autocomplete. Arguments based on its use by billions of people for thousands of years forget this is English Wikipedia; it is current usage in English, primarily by readers of English Wikipedia that is in question here; WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is part of the disambiguation guidelines and as such is a measure introduced for convenience rather than to establish a hierarchy of importance, which Wikipedia does not do. WP:RECENTISM could arguably be applied to Avatar (2009 film), in as far as it applies to disambiguation, but not to Avatar (computing), which according to http://stats.grok.se/ had half the hits of Avatar before the recent blip, presumably attributable to the film. Even assuming all the visitors to Avatar wanted the meaning in Hinduism (which seems unlikely to me), a ratio of around 2:1 is sufficiently small to indicate no primary topic. --MegaSloth (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • IMPORTANT:PLEASE, Please stop this madness. This request to move Avatar to Avatara is being used to reargue the Primary topic dispute. I understand the desire to rehash the dispute -- but the ACTUAL REQUEST, to move Avatar to Avatara is simply unacceptable. Avatara is not standard English spelling (I'll bet that 99% of the links to Avatara were made in articles whose editors had English as a second language). Avatara is clearly not what most english-speakers people will enter if looking for the incarnation article. The results of THIS move request would very bad - the originally proposed Avatar (Hinduism) is much more sane. If they want to rehash the original results, I implore the Move crowd to relist their ORIGINAL MOVE REQUEST for Avatar (Hinduism) -- that request was rational and reasonable compared to this request, which is a bizarre travesty. For the good of Wikipedia, please close this move request, and if you must rehash, PLEASE use Avatar (Hinduism) as the basis. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
    • There is no need to open a separate debate - if it is proposed within a debate and gains consensus, the result of the move proposal can be (and often is) a move to a page name other than the one originally proposed. Really it's pointless closing and opening debates when there is no consensus on whether there is a need for a move. If people should come to a consensus that this page is not the primary topic, I would expect it to be relatively simple to pick the appropriate alternative. Discussing the primary topic here is neither "rearguing" nor "rehashing" - the closer of the previous, unresolved debate is the opener of this one, by his own admission as a continuation of that debate. Perhaps it would have been better simply to propose the new target within the old debate, but it has been done this way now. I have edited my !vote declaration to show what part of the proposal I support (already mentioned in the justification). --MegaSloth (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: So let me get this straight: The original discussion lasted 2 days longer than it should have, but it was closed prematurely. The original discussion had no consensus, but this discussion -- which has virtually the same players -- will not be closed until consensus is reached (which means, apparently, it stays open until the "movers" are good and ready") -- the seven day limit is a quaint nicety that doesn't obtain in this Important Case. The proposal is to move Avatar to Avatara -- except it's not. When the movers decide a consensus for a move has been reached, however long from now that happens to be, then the losers will have a chance to call this article something else, so there's no need to worry. And it the proposal fails, for some reason -- like persons opposing shouldn't have say as after all no person with an opposing opinion has any credibility -- then it will be relisted, because there is no end to the effort that must be made to 'improve Wikipedia' in the way the movers prefer. This is some set of proposals. --Nemonoman (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Additional Comment: On my talk page here an editor has reminded me to assume good faith, avoid personal attacks, etc. I believe I have done this, and I apologize for any impressions to the contrary. That same editor, however, describes these move requests as a little messy, which is an understatement. I feel entirely within bounds to point out the mess. --Nemonoman (talk) 12:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Seven days is a minimum, not a time limit. It's perfectly normal for move discussions which have not reached consensus to last longer and/or be relisted, sometimes more than once (see Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions). Closing and reopening is unusual and probably unhelpful, certainly I wouldn't have done it. Nothing I wrote in any way assumed a particular outcome for the debate. No move, or closing after "relisting" as no consensus are both possible outcomes. I would regard simply closing after seven – or even nine – days as no consensus as unusual. --MegaSloth (talk) 09:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Nevertheless, I have described common practice and the content of the instructions linked from the template, which I referred to above. Perhaps the template's text should be changed. If you object to the procedures followed here, I suggest you query it at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves, where I'm sure the admins will ensure things are brought into order from a procedural standpoint. --MegaSloth (talk) 13:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Response: You clearly have more experience with move requests than I do. I just take the words at face value, while you know that they don't mean what they say. Stupid Me. Perhaps there's a Secret Decoder Ring I never got. As to running to Mommy for help, I don't think that's necessary, but if you feel the need to do so, I'll certainly understand. --Nemonoman (talk) 13:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
And you believe you've assumed good faith, avoided personal attacks, etc., while mocking other editors like that? In addition to working on those areas, please also avoid marking your addition of comments to a talk page as minor. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Since I've been accused of bad faith, personal attacks, hijacking the debate (and now of failing to understand that my comments -- which I regard as minor -- are in fact major edits), I'm taking myself out of this discussion. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Apologies Nemonoman, I did not mean to accuse you of hijacking the debate, not personally and certainly not deliberately. What I meant to indicate was that the debate on procedure was becoming a distraction from the request itself, and I hoped to resolve the procedural issues swiftly and amicably. I have edited the offending comment. I'm sure your opinions, appropriately presented, would be appreciated by all involved editors. I would certainly appreciate them. --MegaSloth (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Megasloth. I accept your apologies as a courtesy, as it would be impolite to leave your good wishes hanging, but I don't feel you should feel the need to apologize at all. I know you meant no offense, and I did not take offense. I pointed out your wording only to show that I was not alone in inching toward the Dark Side -- although I don't think, personally, that any part of this has anywhere near approached Personal Attacks. But it is clear to me that I am a bull in this particular china shop, and the merchandise is much more fragile than I am used to. To step to the sidelines while some of the teacups are still in one piece seems a good idea to me.
My opinion should be pretty clear. But I want to make it clear that I acknowledge 100% the validity of the requested move -- it's a reasonable request I just oppose it. I am pleased that the matter is being discussed, and not just done without any notice at all (note: I've seen serious undiscussed moves before, and they suck, so thanks for the discussion).
Nobody needs to get hurt by this request or by my opposition. But I am clumsy and oversized, and I will stomp on sensitive toes. Better I sit out during the rest of this dance.
I will, however, make one more
Observation: Lack of consensus is actually a form of consensus. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
No need to sit out the discussion or explain yourself, Nemonoman. For a discussion that began 12 days ago, with approx. 2/1 editors opposed to the move(s), this is going on rather long. Your impatience is more than understandable. Allowing the discussion to continue as long as people still have something to say (actually repeat) seems counterproductive to me also. Priyanath talk 16:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Priyanath, as I'm sure you're aware, requested moves are not a vote, so neither party should be overconfident or dismayed by a simple count. Rather the objective is to persuade others and to reach a compromise. Also, I find it interesting that a lack of consensus over whether Avatar has a primary topic should be regarded as an argument for no move, when WP:PRIMARYTOPIC lists it as a potential indication that there may be no primary topic. --MegaSloth (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Avatara should be a redirect to the WP:COMMONNAME for the concept in Hinduism. Said concept is far and away more broadly used across the spectrum of our users, and should be at the unqualified title. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
That Avatar is the common name is not in dispute. The problem here is that the common name for the term in Hinduism is also the common name for a type of user representation in computing, and other concepts. Thus we must be more precise to disambiguate, following guidelines at WP:Disambiguation. Critically, can the term in Hinduism be considered the primary topic for this title? I submit that it cannot, per my argument above, and thus the disambiguation page should be at avatar, and the concept in Hinduism moved to a suitable different title, such as either of those recently proposed. --MegaSloth (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I read the above discussion. That coupled with my own investigation of the supporting sources is why I oppose moving the Hindu concept off the unqualified title. As I stated. The concept in computing is significantly less widely used and less likely to be a reader's intended target. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The traffic stats contradict your claim of "far and away more broadly used across the spectrum of our users". What are the supporting sources you're basing that claim on? -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Since we seem to have discussed ourselves into a standstill, I say, we give the matter a rest for a month, and try discussing the issue next month. Oldag07 (talk) 07:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Avatar/Archive_1&oldid=1136540239"