Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Trudy as Na'vi's casualty

The Plot says:

As the security forces attack, the Na'vi retaliate but suffer heavy casualties, among them Tsu'Tey and Trudy.

However, the previous mention of Trudy in the Plot section was:

Trudy Chacón (Michelle Rodriguez), a security force pilot disgusted with Quaritch's senseless violence, breaks them out.

with no in-between mention of her switching allegiance to Na'vi, or staying, along with her copter, with the fugitives. It's kind of implied, but might need to be clearer. Also, the way it is worded makes her sound as one of the Na'vi tribe. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose we could say "pro-Na'vi forces" or something...Jake and Norm also fight for the Na'vi but aren't Na'vi (technically even their avatars aren't, being hybrids and all). This seems a bit nitpicky to me personally though, and I think the current wording is clear enough for plot summary purposes. Also, Na'vi isn't a tribe, it's a species. Omaticaya would be the primary tribe in the film. Doniago (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this very minor, but perfectionism seems to be favored in the article. Maybe just plain "Na'vi forces" will do the job here. I will give it a try. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Moved recently added sociopolitical paragraph here for discussion

recently added international sociopolitical paragraph

Internationally, critics applauded its themes of anti-capitalism and anti-imperialism. Bolivian columnist Huascar Vega Ledo, writing for Bolpress, said, "It is the imperial attitude with all the coarseness and fiction of cinema. And in the cinema, the good guys win. But in reality ... there is no change." Bolivian President Evo Morales praised Avatar for its "profound show of resistance to capitalism and the struggle for the defence of nature". Columnist Oscar van den Boogaard, writing for De Standaard in Belgium said, "It's about the brutality of man, who shamelessly takes what isn’t his." One Chinese columnist said the film might incite unrest there because of parallels between its plot and the plight of many Chinese fighting eviction in the face of development. "Avatar may not have much depth, but it inadvertently hits a nerve in a country where the bulldozer is both a threat and a sign of progress," wrote Raymond Zhoe for the China Daily. Angolan critic Altino Matos saw a message of hope. For the Jornal De Angola, he wrote: "With this union of humans and aliens comes a feeling that something better exists in the universe: the respect for life. Above all, that is what James Cameron’s film Avatar suggests." Writing for Hindustan Times and The Sydney Morning Herald, Maxim Osipov commended Cameron for “convincingly” defining culture and civilization as “the qualities of kindness, gratitude, regard for the elder, self-sacrifice, respect for all life and ultimately humble dependence on a higher intelligence behind nature”.

I think we need to consider WP:UNDUE regarding this paragraph about comments in some articles outside the US. Just like comments about sociopolitical issues that appear in some US articles, I suspect it doesn't correctly represent international opinion on the film with respect to WP:UNDUE and focuses on sociopolitical aspects only. It seems that it should be considerably shortened and merged with the sociopolitical paragraph that is the third paragraph in the same section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I not for it being in the "sociopolitical paragraph." I feel that we need a "positive paragraph," a "negative paragraph," and whatever else. Right now, the "sociopolitical paragraph" is the "negative paragraph," with one positive take. I am not keen on it being a blend of negative and positive comments. Flyer22 (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this paragraph, in whichever form and in whichever section, is long overdue, for reasons that I have already started discussing above. We agreed before on unnotability of certain minority groups and their views on the movie, gone and done with. However, without mentioning, to some healthy extent, responses from notable international media the Critical reception section will appear WP:Biased. Admittedly, defining the exact ratio and selection of such reviews is an arduous task, but this does not cancel its importance. I, for one, am ready to take part.

Besides, cherry-picking only those reviews (or excerpts from them) that dwell exclusively on sociopolitical aspects is in itself a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. IMO, as it stands now, the Critical reception section is already overdosed on sociopolitical stuff and will not benefit from more of the same from overseas. Cinosaur (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I was suggesting that this info go into another article, where the themes are expanded upon, but not just a list of non-film world critical responses. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand Cinosaur's sentiment, but I agree with AniRaptor. The critical reception section is constantly threatening to fly out of control. It's already skating a very thin line with WP:UNDUE. I like the idea of creating another article to expand on the criticism section with a hat added to the critical reception section on the parent article. Trusilver 16:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think these information is quite unnecessary. Since the film is popular worldwide, there are countless of bloggers and columnists from everywhere who are now commenting on the film, or criticizing and interpetating its various themes. Unless the article is extremely reputable, or is of "serious" film criticism by notable film scholars, it doesn't belong in the critical reception. The article is getting very long already.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What is "extremely" reputable? We only go by reliably sourced, reputable, and non-reliable. Flyer22 (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am in favor of a separate article dedicated to the film's critical reception internationally. Bloated articles are ugly -- but so are skewed ones. Cinosaur (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

However, many of these are just individual's perspectives (commentaries) on the film's themes, and not "critical reception". A lot of these are just from some columnists and bloggers; they are not necessarily professional film analysis. If there is a separate section, I would actually like to see content from professional film scholars and some in-depth analysis from "prestige" film publications such as Sight and Sound, Film Comment, Cahiers du cinéma or Senses of Cinema if they are available; these are real film criticisms, not web-columns from a newspaper.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The Critical reception section is not only for notable film scholars. And we could easily format the Critical reception section in the way that the Changeling (film) article is formatted. Flyer22 (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Professional film critics abroad are quite likely to write pretty much what their counterparts in US have already written exhaustively about 3D, the wow factor, special effects and the like. On the other hand, there is a lot of deep and interesting reviews, both within and outside of US, albeit not by professional film critics, which explore the movie's cultural and philosophical aspects in a better way than any film pro would do -- and Wiki readers deserve to have them readily available somewhere.

Say, I believe that conservative Christian stances on the movie, like the one by Ross Douthat, should not be squeezed into a line between similarly notable (and squeezed) reviews, and would be better situated in a separate article, as is feedback from Vatican. And we can safely assume that, as the rave settles, there will be more in-depth cultural and philosophical analyses of the kind from other quarters that will have to be accommodated as well. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

We have definitely hit and slightly passed the recommended max size for an article. Its giving me a warning on my edits. Maybe a branch at this point wouldn't be such a bad idea if consensus led to it. DrNegative (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone yet that seems opposed to splitting the article. Trusilver 20:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I added the paragraph in question. It seems the community is suggesting separate but equal for international reviews. Why should international perpectives be carved out on a separate page? They differ significantly, offer a different cultural perspective and are as valuable to the discussion and as informative as the American reviews. I also apologize, as I added it back without knowing who deleted it and knowing proper etiquette, and I welcome the discussion occurring here. Amandaroyal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amandaroyal (talk • contribs) 20:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you address the points mentioned at the beginning of this section that explained my actions and suggestions. It doesn't seem that you read them yet.

Re "It seems the community is suggesting separate but equal for international reviews." - I'm not. As I mentioned in my opening statement, I'm trying to combine them, keeping in mind WP:UNDUE for the sociopolitical topics that you selected from some of the international reviews. I also noticed you selected two from Bolivia on similar subjects. It's not clear why you gave that country twice the weight, in somewhat repetitive sentences, compared to the others in your paragraph. With a movie that is getting so much attention in the press there is going to be many articles on all sorts of subjects related to the movie. What is to be considered is how prominent the subjects are compared to the subjects in all the articles. Their percentage representation in the Avatar article should roughly reflect their percentage representation in all the articles written about the film, in my opinion, according to WP:UNDUE and here is the opening sentence for that policy, for your convenience.

"Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."

Again, you have not put in just international reviews, but selected parts or reviews that are purely sociopolitical in subject matter. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The primary concerns about this seems to be its influence with article size, weight, and MOS:FILM guidelines placing recommendation on critique in the "Critical reception" section to be from the film's country of origin. DrNegative (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should start thinking about summarizing the info in the quotes while keeping the citations, like is done in an encyclopedia, and reducing the number of quotes in general. Some of the quotes in general seem repetitive and without much informative value, except to say that so and so liked the movie, for example. Also, mentioning in the text the name of the person quoted, and their affiliation, seems to squander space, and this can be helped by reducing the number of quotes and hence the number of times this is done, while keeping the citations and summarizing the information in the quotes that are removed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob, mentioning in the text the name of the person quoted, and their affiliation is not squandering space...especially if the person is well-known or simply has an article on Wikipedia. During FA nominations, for example, mentioning the reviewer is often important. Saying things like "The New York Times said" (attributing the thoughts to the newspaper rather than the author) has been considered bad practice here on Wikipedia, as seen with the Brad Pitt article when it was up for FA status. There could be two editors from the same newspaper with two different views on the same film, for example.

The Critical reception section does not need some radical re-design, unless we are going to be significantly expanding it. It is not difficult to simply summarize the international thoughts about this film. Flyer22 (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Re "mentioning in the text the name of the person quoted, and their affiliation is not squandering space" - Perhaps I was unclear. I meant that with all those quotes, there comes all those people and affiliations mentioned too. Reducing the number of quotes, in the way I suggested, would correspondingly reduce the space taken up by mention of all those people and affiliations. Re replacing some of the quotes with summaries and keeping the citations, I thought I made a good case for that. I guess we just disagree on that. Sure are a lot of quotes that don't seem like encyclopedic style. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am only for summarizing if it comes off as good as it does in the Zombieland article. These reviewers do not all have the same thoughts, and I am worried about their thoughts being reduced to "the same" as others. The notable people with similar thoughts should be side by side, I agree with that. The Roger Ebert and A. O. Scott comments, for example, are better left as they are. We note a bit of what Ebert stated, then how Scott felt. While watching Avatar, they both felt like they did when watching Star Wars, but their thoughts are not necessarily the same. I am also worried about what I stated above, mentioning publications without mentioning the authors' names; this would likely happen while summarizing. In addition to that, I am worried about weasel words, such as "some," per WP:Weasel. How would you summarize these reviewers' thoughts? Would it involve words such as "some reviewers"? I would appreciate you giving a "rough draft" below in this section (text here or a link to your user space), about how you would write the current reception section with your proposed summary style. The reception section seems encyclopedic to me, Wikipedia style-wise. I also do not see summarizing cutting down on too much space regarding this article. This article's reception section should be bigger anyway; it is the second biggest film in the world thus far, and a lot of critics and various types of notable people have had something to state about it. But if you can convince me that your summary style would be better, I may be for this particular proposal. Flyer22 (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest leaving in the current article only reviews by very prominent US and international professional film critics, and shifting cultural, religious and sociopolitical analyses, both from US and abroad, to a a separate article named "Avatar (2009 movie) -- Cultural, religious and sociopolitical themes" or something like that. I agree with Amandaroyal that splitting these two articles along the geographical line will otherwise appear WP:Biased. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am against the split. It makes no sense to me to split the article to cover reception for a film, even one as popular as this one. It certainly makes no sense to me to split the article just to cover international reviews. This is not the American Wikipedia. And, yes, this article is big, but so is the Changeling (film) article. The Critical reception section can be formatted to resemble its Reception section. And the sociopolitical aspects should definitely stay in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Flyer22, not that I am for the split per se, but only as a means to accommodate more in-depth and objective coverage. If that could be done without the split, all the better. But it seems to me that many editors here do not want to increase the size of the article. Cinosaur (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The size of this article is likely going to increase regardless. I again point people to the Changeling (film) article and its size. The Critical reception section of the Avatar film article should be bigger anyway, especially when you take into consideration the Changeling (film) article's Reception section...and the fact that Avatar is a much bigger film (with plenty of more reviews available about it).

Having a separate article to cover Avatar's widespread reviews does not mean that a bit of the non-American views should not be covered here in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to BobK31416, I count at least 14 American reviews in the critical reception section right now, and zero international sources. One from Bolivia, one from China, and one from Belgium does not seem out of balance to me. I also included a quote from Bolivia's first indigenous president, who is not a critic, but his critique I found fascinating. As I expected, someone added more as soon as I was done, from India, etc. In response to the suggestion that one page contain only "very prominent US and international professional film critics." How do we define prominent? And how do we determine if a collumnist is prominent in another country, if we do not live there? How do we determine if someone is a "professional"? I assumed all the collumnists I linked to, besides President Morales -- are paid by their publications to wrte. As to the sociopolitical content of the reviews, this is valuable information and belongs somewhere, and I'm not so sure the American reviewers left out their sociopolitical perspectives Amandaroyal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for your response, but I was a bit disappointed that you didn't address the quote I presented to you from WP:UNDUE. Please note that the quote referred to viewpoints, rather than the people having them. Since I don't feel you adequately responded to my concern re WP:UNDUE, I'm still opposed to that paragraph, for the reasons I mentioned. May I make a suggestion? The first sentence of the 3rd paragraph of Critical reception is, "Armond White of the New York Press wrote that Cameron used villainous American characters to misrepresent facets of militarism, capitalism, and imperialism." I thought one could show another viewpoint regarding this with a sentence made from the material in your paragraph. Could you make a sentence that could be used following the 1st sentence of the 3rd paragraph of Critical reception? That would appropriately give another viewpoint there, in my opinion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Amandaroyal, some of the editors here seem to know who the prominent professional film critics are much better than me. All I can try and judge more or less objectively is the relative prominence of the international media in their respective countries. As far as their international notability, one of possible gauges (but by no means the only one) could be the IMDB's "list of partners". Cinosaur (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob K31416, Thanks for your patience. And thanks to everyone else for the discussion. I agree that the proposed graph is similar in viewpoint to Graph 3 of Critical Response. For the sentence Bob K31416 proposes, it would be easy to just say: “Critics from as far away as Bolivia, Angola, and China expressed similar sentiments.” That boils it down, but doesn’t give them as much space as others. Thanks to Cinosaur for the list of partners.

Here is a shortened version of the original, divided into two graphs of "anti-imperialist" and "postive" themes, proposed to follow Graph 3:

Bolivian columnist Huascar Vega Ledo said it represented America’s invasion of Iraq and lamented, “In the cinema, the good guys win. But in reality ... there is no change." Columnist Oscar van den Boogaard, writing for De Standaard in Belgium said, "It's about the brutality of man, who shamelessly takes what isn’t his."[8] A China Daily columnist said the film might incite unrest there because of its revolutionary themes.[9]

Angolan critic Altino Matos saw a message of hope: "With this union of humans and aliens comes a feeling that something better exists in the universe: the respect for life."[10] In the Hindustan Times and The Sydney Morning Herald, Maxim Osipov commended Cameron for “convincingly” defining culture and civilization as “the qualities of kindness, gratitude, regard for the elder, self-sacrifice, respect for all life and ultimately humble dependence on a higher intelligence behind nature”. [11][12]--Amandaroyal (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I just want to note that there is no reason at all to exclude reliable sources such as China Daily, etc.

As for keeping all the sociopolitical comments in the "sociopolitical paragraph," there is nothing wrong with having two "sociopolitical paragraphs"; one can be about certain themes, and the other can be about certain themes. Or we can have a "negative sociopolitical paragraph" and a "positive sociopolitical paragraph." Whether we have one or two, I feel that the current paragraph should begin noting that it is about the sociopolitical themes of the film. Not everyone realizes that paragraph is only about "the sociopolitical" when reading it. We already had one editor who feels that the reception section bounces back and forth from positive to negative reviews, after the initial two paragraphs, and is sort of scatterbrain in that way...not getting that the reception section is divided into any themes. Flyer22 (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that such a paragraph has long been overdue. I argued for an inclusion of a similar paragraph but encountered firm resistance from other more active editors to this article. But the film's sociopolitical value has been increasingly garnering attention internationally and domestically. I agree with allowing the paragraph to remain, and the Changeling (film) is a wonderful template for re-formatting this article's reception section.--haha169 (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Re "But the film's sociopolitical value has been increasingly garnering attention internationally and domestically." - It has? How do you figure that? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Amandaroyal for the edit. It is fine with me. I agree with Flyer22 -- it is better to keep a short verbatim quote from China Daily, if possible, since this gives the source more weight. Something like: "Avatar... inadvertently hits a nerve in a country where the bulldozer is both a threat and a sign of progress". The name of the author should also be kept, as per FA standards mentioned by Flyer22 above. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break - Moved1

This is just my opinion and it is not documented, but I won't need a source for this personal argument. When Avatar first came out, most of the media was about its beautiful visual effects. Later on, some conservative media popped up with negative criticism and the LA times documented it thoroughly. Now, however, especially with a major release in China, these --sociopolitical views have been popping up every which way, especially in the foreign media.haha169 (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm OK with that type of answer. : ) I'm also open to that possibility, if I see enough to believe it. It does make sense that about all there is to say about the reaction to the visuals of the film have already been said. So after the press has logged that forest, so to speak, it moves to another forest, e.g. sociopolitics, and continues its logging operation there. But of course that's just my speculation. Personally, I haven't seen enough to tell if there has been an increase in the subject of Avatar sociopolitics in articles. Anyhow, I'm just trying to follow WP:UNDUE. If you can make a case that there is a prominence in sociopolitcal avatar articles that would allow a greater amount of discussion in the Avatar article, I'd be open to that. But so far I haven't seen it. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said, most of them are in foreign media. I recall reading a 20-page long Chinese article on Sina regarding the bulldozer analogy presented in the above paragraph (for some reason, I can't find it. It might have been removed). I'm not very well-read with most of the sociopolitical issues concerning Avatar, but I have read some prominent articles about the bulldozer "nail-houses" issue in China, as it is very present even in Western media, such as the Wall Street Journal and other English-version Chinese media like Xinhua. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haha169 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That article seems to digress from Avatar the movie, since the demolitions mentioned in the article took place in a city, not a forest or jungle. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

My take on this would be that the sociopolitical aspect of the film was not actually promoted leading up to the film's release, which is why the effects received most of the coverage originally. It's not specifically because the film was released in China. FWIW I think the paragraph in question would be more suited to a "themes" section than the reception, but otherwise it's very well written and it's definitely worthy of inclusion in the article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's sum it up. We seem to have four options in this discussion:

1. leave the paragraph or its rewrite under Critical reception;
2. place it under a separate subheading, like "Cultural, religious and sociopolitical themes" in Release (or somewhere else, as Thumperward is suggesting);
3. shift it to a separate article like "Avatar (2009 movie) -- cultural, religious and sociopolitical themes" and elaborate on the topic there;
4. scrap it altogether.

Now, where do we go from here? Cinosaur (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The idea of a separate, expanded "Themes" section, where we can break down each theme (religion, environmentalism, race, imperialism) and detail its particular critical reception, should definitely be considered. For an example, see Changeling_(film)#Themes AniRaptor2001 (talk) 09:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the present amount of space given to sociopolitical aspects is roughly in line with WP:UNDUE. If much further info on the subject is desired, a separate article may be the way to handle it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I added Bolivian president Morales comment with citation for the reasons I mentioned previously about adding a sentence from the subject paragraph to the place after Armond White's quote. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob, we do not split critical reviews of a film into a separate article. I cannot think of any film article that has done that. This article would be setting a precedent on that matter, I think, and that is not a good thing. I feel that the notable positive reviews and criticism about the film should be covered in the film's article. Some people do not even like splitting stuff that would be WP:UNDUE in one article to instead be in its own article. I suppose a precedent could be set with this article, on the matter of it having a subarticle about its critical reviews, but it should not be just to deal with WP:UNDUE. There is no reason that more than one international review cannot and should not be in the Critical reception section of this article. That is not WP:UNDUE, in my view. I am certain that there are international reviews out there which are not just about the film's sociopolitical themes. Flyer22 (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There was no suggestion by anyone that only negative reviews should be split off into a separate article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I was speaking of international reviews, whether negative or positive. But using the subarticle mainly to cover the negative and international reviews seemed to be the main suggestion. Either way, there should not be a separate article just to cover all viewpoints. If all viewpoints are adequately covered in this article, there should be no need for a separate article just to cover reviews for a film. My point is that international reviews can and should go in this article. If certain international criticism of the film, for example, is covered in two or more sources...yes, it should be in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

But what DrNegative stated below, in the section immediately after this one, should be taken into consideration. Flyer22 (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break -- moving towards consensus?

Bob K31416, thanks for including the quote from Morales. Still could we somehow reach consensus on what to do with the rest of the paragraph? Should we consider steering the discussion to a vote? Right now editors' preferences expressed here on the issue look like this (please correct me and amend misrepresented placements in the list, if any):

1. keep the proposed paragraph or its rewrite under Critical reception: 5 in favor - Amandaroyal, Flyer22, Cinosaur, Haha169, Thumperward
2. place it under a separate subheading, like "Cultural, religious and sociopolitical themes" in Release (or somewhere else, as Thumperward is suggesting): 3 in favor - Haha169, Cinosaur, Thumperward
3. shift it to a separate article like "Avatar (2009 movie) -- cultural, religious and sociopolitical themes" and elaborate on the topic there: 5 in favor - AniRaptor2001, Bob K31416, Trusilver, DrNegative, Cinosaur
4. scrap it altogether: 1 in favor - DerechoReguerraz

Comments? Suggestions? Cinosaur (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The "sociopolitical paragraph" already in this article should not be scrapped. There should be a paragraph in this article about this film's sociopolitical aspects, of course. We already have a Themes section in this article, called Themes and inspirations, and critical reviews about the themes should not go there...because those are the opinions of the reviewers. As for a Themes section in the Release section, it would need to be a subsection of the Critical reception section -- unless we divide the Release and Reception sections, like the Changeling (film) article -- but I am not sure that a subsection for the cultural, religious and sociopolitical themes is best. That can be sufficiently covered in the Critical reception section without a subsection. Flyer22 (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Flyer22 -- do I get you right that you're suggesting to keep the sociopolitical paragraph proposed by Amandaroyal in Critical reception? Or do you mean the already existing one starting with "Armond White of the New York Press wrote..."? BTW, I looked at and liked Changeling formatting a lot. A good FA film article to emulate. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I meant the already existing one. But as for the proposed one, I will state I do not feel that the current Critical reception section has taken care of enough; I feel this way because of the constant complaints about the Critical reception section leaving out certain criticisms and not having a worldwide view. The American view is not a worldwide view. Yes, it is obvious that a lot of people all over the world like or love this film, but some reviews from those other aspects of the world can be noted without being redundant...or at least traded out with a few of the American views saying the same thing. It is not WP:UNDUE to include a few non-American reviews. In fact, Wikipedia articles should present a worldwide view. Flyer22 (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur. How do we move ahead, though? Cinosaur (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If we decide to put notable international reviews within the article, try to remember that if the majority of critcs in China (for example) gave the film a positive review, and we put one single negative comment from a critic in China, that would falsly represent the views of the majority in China to the average reader of the article. Just try do give it due weight, thats all I am concerned with at this point. DrNegative (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that quote as negative, merely an observation.--haha169 (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

DrNegative (et al) -- can we then formulate and agree upon some specific criteria for acceptable international sources for this section, like the most obvious ones (for me) that such a source:

• must be in English;
• must be a prominent/leading source in a large geographical/demographical region of the world;
• must not repeat the already over-reported lines about the movie's visuals, plot, and cast;
• must present a novel and relevant cultural, religious or socio-political angle, which US critics did not report and could not have reported;
• should preferably be from a partner of IMDB.com or news.google.com or...
• etc.

Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a logical start for criteria. On another note, have we come to a consensus as to how we should address this issue? DrNegative (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, and I have no idea how to proceed about it. What would you DrNegative suggest? Cinosaur (talk) 10:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The way I read this situation is that NPOV demands that international reception should be documented. With all films the focus seems to be how it performs in its home country and how it performs internationally, not how it performs in Germany, Kazakhstan, Bulgaria etc. Therefore NPOV does not dictate we balance the reception in China, just that we balance the coverage of reception internationally. The coverage between domestic and international reception should roughly be equal. China and India having 2 billion people between them should be represented individually. As financial backers the UK should represented individually. As a major filming location the film is of interest to local industry so New Zealand should be represented individually. The EU can be represented as a whole, and the former Soviet bloc are usually classed a cultural whole. We then just need something from Africa and South America and then all the continents and interested parties will be accounted for. The section should not be any larger than the domestic coverage. The preference should be for English language reviews, although Wikipedia guidlines do not insist on this (and may be impossible in cases like China). Google and IMDB connections are certainly not necessary, the criticism should be from prominent reviewers within that country's mainstream media. As for repeating commentary by the US reviewers this will be unavoidable because many international reviewers will pick up on the same things so will be necessary for the coverage to be balanced. Betty Logan (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

On that note we also have the option of looking at international views as a collective whole too. I am really unsure about which option would be the best to implement in this case. DrNegative (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Very good points Betty Logan! How about restructuring Critical review in a way similar to Changeling movie, as a few editors here have already suggested. The way it is structured now, the Critical reception section is very heavy on the eye, inflexible and mixed up in parts. See below. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Like I have stated before though, population and demographics do not have influence on notability or weight. If we were to even go by those terms the US would actually win the ticket per capita ratio. China and India with their 2 billion people combined have only pulled $95 million total together in contrast to the US (300+ million people) and its $500+ million box office receipts. So should US reception be more prominent as a result? My point is this is why quoting demographics is pointless on these issues. Another problem with giving each country its very own space for reviews is, this[1] - Who decides which one of the countries get their say in the reception? Editors will ask why don't their reviews get listed as well? Before you know it, we could literally have enough reviews to merit their very own article(s) which would be what some other editors seem to be against as well. See the spill-over effect?

Do any of these countries have a censored press on certain issues is another question. Would Chinese journalists be allowed by its government to praise a US film on a certain socio-political issue for example?[2] Could that violate NPOV? These question are mostly rhetorical, but are still questions we need to take into consideration. "International" is a very broad term and could easily violate NPOV if not done correctly. DrNegative (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed restructuring of the Critical reception section

Based on suggestions by a few editors here, in the hidden section below please find a dummy on how we could try and overcome current limitations of the Critical review section, such as difficulty for reading, inflexibility, mixed contents, and arbitrary allocation of space to various reviews.

I believe that the proposed format will also facilitate objectively balancing relative weight of various geographical and perceptional contributions, by means of both the area and the place they occupy. Each subsection under Thematic reviews should ideally be preluded by Cameron's own statement on that topic in the movie, to ensure compliance with WP:UNDUE. I removed heading formating to exclude the dummy from TOC.

And please remember that this is this is only a dummy. I am just proposing a structure and am showing how the current Critical reviews section fits into it. Please feel free to suggest revisions to bring it in accord with WP:UNDUE and other Wiki policies. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 07:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

proposed restructuring of the Critical reception section

Reception

---

General response

The film received generally positive reviews from film critics. Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reports that 82% of 246 professional critics have given the film a positive review, with a rating average of 7.4 out of 10. Among Rotten Tomatoes's Top Critics, which consists of popular and notable critics from the top newspapers, websites, television and radio programs, the film holds an overall approval rating of 94%, based on a sample of 35 reviews. The site's general consensus is that "It might be more impressive on a technical level than as a piece of storytelling, but Avatar reaffirms James Cameron's singular gift for imaginative, absorbing filmmaking." On Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from film critics, the film has a rating score of 84 based on 35 reviews.

Domestic reviews

Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times called the film "extraordinary" and gave it four stars out of four. "Watching Avatar, I felt sort of the same as when I saw Star Wars in 1977," he said. Like Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings, the film "employs a new generation of special effects". A. O. Scott of At The Movies also compared viewing the film to the first time he viewed Star Wars. He said "the script is a little bit ... obvious" but that "is part of what made it work". Todd McCarthy of Variety praised the film. "The King of the World sets his sights on creating another world entirely in Avatar, and it's very much a place worth visiting." Kirk Honeycutt of The Hollywood Reporter gave the film a positive review. "The screen is alive with more action and the soundtrack pops with more robust music than any dozen sci-fi shoot-'em-ups you care to mention," he stated. Rolling Stone film critic Peter Travers praised the film, giving it 3.5 out of 4 stars and in his print review wrote, "It extends the possibilities of what movies can do. Cameron's talent may just be as big as his dreams." Richard Corliss of TIME Magazine stated, "Embrace the movie — surely the most vivid and convincing creation of a fantasy world ever seen in the history of moving pictures." Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times felt the film has "powerful" visual accomplishments but "flat dialogue" and "obvious characterization". James Berardinelli, film critic for ReelViews, praised the film and its story, giving it 4 out of 4 stars he wrote, "In 3D, it's immersive - but the traditional film elements - story, character, editing, theme, emotional resonance, etc. - are presented with sufficient expertise to make even the 2D version an engrossing 2 1/2-hour experience."

International reviews

Europe

United Kingdom

India

China

New Zealand

Africa and South America

Peer reviews

The movie blog /Film accumulated a list of quotes about Avatar from fourteen writers and directors in Hollywood. From Steven Spielberg, "The most evocative and amazing science-fiction movie since Star Wars." Frank Marshall wrote, "Avatar is audacious and awe inspiring. It's truly extraordinary". Richard Kelly called the film "amazing". John August termed it a "master class". Michael Moore recommended, "Go see Avatar, a brilliant movie [for] our times." The only negative reaction in the list was from Duncan Jones, "It's not in my top three Jim Cameron films. ... at what point in the film did you have any doubt what was going to happen next?"

Plot similarities

In terms of similar plot, film critic Ty Burr of the Boston Globe called it "the same movie" as Dances with Wolves. Parallels to the concept and use of an avatar were in Poul Anderson's 1957 short story Call Me Joe, where a paralyzed man uses his mind to remotely control an alien body. Other reviews have compared it to the films FernGully: The Last Rainforest and Pocahontas. NPR's Morning Edition has compared the film to a montage of tropes, with one friend of an editor stating that Avatar was made by mixing a bunch of film scripts in a blender. In a similar vein, columnist David Brooks describes the story as "oft-repeated". In this trope, he stated, "a manly young adventurer ... goes into the wilderness in search of thrills and profit" but finds the native people of the wilderness "noble and spiritual and pure. And so ... emerges as their Messiah, leading them on a righteous crusade against his own rotten civilization". Cameron acknowledged that the film is thematically similar to such classic "going-native" films as Dances with Wolves and At Play in the Fields of the Lord.

Thematic reviews

Various interpretations of the film led Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune to label it the "season's Rorschach blot".

Socio-political themes

Armond White of the New York Press wrote that Cameron used villainous American characters to misrepresent facets of militarism, capitalism, and imperialism. Russell D. Moore in The Christian Post concluded that propaganda exists in the film and stated, "If you can get a theater full of people in Kentucky to stand and applaud the defeat of their country in war, then you've got some amazing special effects." Adam Cohen of The New York Times was more positive, calling the film's anti-imperialist message "a 22nd-century version of the American colonists vs. the British, India vs. the Raj, or Latin America vs. United Fruit". Annalee Newitz of io9 concluded that Avatar is another film that has the recurring "fantasy about race" where "some white guy" becomes the "most awesome" member of a non-white culture. Internationally, reviewers applauded its themes of anti-capitalism and anti-imperialism. Bolivia's first indigenous president, Evo Morales, praised Avatar for its "profound show of resistance to capitalism and the struggle for the defence of nature". Bolivian columnist Huascar Vega Ledo, writing for Bolpress, said, "It is the imperial attitude with all the coarseness and fiction of cinema. And in the cinema, the good guys win. But in reality ... there is no change." Bolivian President Evo Morales praised Avatar for its "profound show of resistance to capitalism and the struggle for the defence of nature". Columnist Oscar van den Boogaard, writing for De Standaard in Belgium said, "It's about the brutality of man, who shamelessly takes what isn’t his." One Chinese columnist said the film might incite unrest there because of parallels between its plot and the plight of many Chinese fighting eviction in the face of development. "Avatar may not have much depth, but it inadvertently hits a nerve in a country where the bulldozer is both a threat and a sign of progress," wrote Raymond Zhoe for the China Daily. Angolan critic Altino Matos saw a message of hope. For the Jornal De Angola, he wrote: "With this union of humans and aliens comes a feeling that something better exists in the universe: the respect for life. Above all, that is what James Cameron’s film Avatar suggests." Writing for Hindustan Times and The Sydney Morning Herald, Maxim Osipov commended Cameron for “convincingly” defining culture and civilization as “the qualities of kindness, gratitude, regard for the elder, self-sacrifice, respect for all life and ultimately humble dependence on a higher intelligence behind nature”.

Ecological themes

Cultural and religious themes

Ross Douthat of The New York Times opined that the film is "Cameron’s long apologia for pantheism" which "has been Hollywood's religion of choice for a generation now".

Awards and nominations

Main article: List of awards and honors received by Avatar

The New York Film Critics Online have honored the film with its Best Picture award. The film also received nine nominations for the Critics' Choice Awards of the Broadcast Film Critics Association, including those for Best Picture and Best Director. St. Louis Film Critics have nominated the film for two of its annual awards—Best Visual Effects and Most Original, Innovative or Creative Film, and the film won both awards. The film was a runner-up for the best Production Design award of the Los Angeles Film Critics Association annual awards. The film also picked up four nominations for the 67th Golden Globe Awards including Best Motion Picture – Drama, Best Director, Best Film Score and Best Film Song. The Austin Film Critics Association and the Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association have placed the film on their top ten films of the year lists, while Chicago Film Critics Association has nominated the film for its annual Best Cinematography and Best Original Score awards. The Las Vegas Film Critics Society has awarded the film with Best Art Direction award, and the Florida Film Critics Circle honored the film with Best Cinematography award. London Film Critics' Circle has nominated the film for its Film of the Year and Director of the Year annual awards. Phoenix Film Critics Society has honored the film with Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing, Best Production Design and Best Visual Effect awards and also included it on its top-ten films of the year list. The Online Film Critics Society has nominated the film for Best Director, Best Cinematography and Best Editing awards. The film was also nominated by the Producers Guild of America for its Darryl F. Zanuck Producer of the Year Award in Theatrical Motion Pictures. James Cameron has been named as one of the 2009 Nominees for Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Feature Film awarded by the Directors Guild of America. The film is considered to be a front-runner for Best Picture at the 82nd Academy Awards due to its strong box-office and critical reception, and reportedly successful screening held for Academy members.

Opinions, corrections?

Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Opposed - In my opinion it would violate WP:UNDUE by giving too much weight to what are called in the proposal "Thematic Reviews", which appear to be sociopolitical aspects. In just the subsection Socio-political themes there is a significant increase over what is currently in the article. The other subsections in "Thematic Reviews" that are presently empty or nearly empty would add even more when completed.

From WP:UNDUE, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." My feeling is that the movie is primarily an action/adventure film for entertainment purposes, and the interpretations of the sociopolitical aspects is a minor part in comparison. This is based on my viewing of the film, and the coverage that I have seen in reliable sources.--Bob K31416 (talk) 07:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob, I have to disagree with you on this one. Just because the movie is seen by some (or even by most) as primarily an action/adventure film on the surface, does not imply all its other themes are subservient and secondary. The article itself already quotes both Cameron and other sources as saying that the film has very important aspects deliberately planted in it, like pro-ecological, anti-military, anti-colonial, ethical, cultural and even what some call 'spiritual' themes. After all, these themes are the author's own and expressed intention. Therefore reviews covering these implicit but still palpable aspects of the movie deserve, in my view, as serious an attention. Visuals are the wrapping, but message is the contents, and both require adequate coverage in the article, unless we want it to be plainly superficial.

And, as I said earlier, there are ways to regulate a particular view's weight in the proposed rewrite by means of allotted position and space. Headings such as "Thematic reviews" do not confer weight by themselves. Dixit. Cinosaur (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob, regarding your concern over undue weight of Socio-political -- this is just a dummy and dummy only!. I am just proposing a structure and am showing how the current Critical reviews section fits into it. Please feel free to suggest revisions to bring it in accord with WP:UNDUE. Sorry if this was not clear. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Opposed to the proposed structure. That is an interesting layout you have going on, Cinosaur, but all those subheadings are not needed (especially the Thematic reviews one, which only has one lone sentence). And I am not quite getting the rearrangement, such as putting the peer reviews higher than the sociopolitical aspects. You started off the structure in the Changeling (film) format, but then you got a little carried away (no offense). We can simply design the structure completely like the Changeling (film) article; General consensus and Reviews is all that is needed before the Awards and nominations section. We do not even yet need to split this article up like that just to cover the international reviews you and others want covered. Furthermore, not all those international reviews are needed. Just a few will do. And if they are redundant with what has already been stated by the non-American reviews, they can be traded out with a few of those or combined with them. Flyer22 (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think you can sub divide the section into domestic and international reception, and peer review. As for plot similarities and themes I would try to incorporate those type of reviews into that structure. For instance, the American press has focused on the influence of other films while the Indian press has focused on the Hindu influence, so these aspects should perhaps be discussed in relation to those countries. Thematic review shows how different peoples and cultures perceive the film in different ways. It reminds me of Spielberg at Cannes in 1975 when Jaws premiered and he explained the film was about a killer shark, and the French press kept asking him about the underlying Communist message! To Americans the film is about a shark, to the French it's about Communism. The geographic structure looks fine to me, giving a short paragraph to China, a short paragraph to Europe etc, as long as the overall international ratio for positive and negative reception is reflected and of course the section doesn't exceed the size of the domestic setion. Betty Logan (talk) 05:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't believe that shoehorning all of this material into one "reception" section is productive. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Chris, will you expand on what you mean? Are you saying that the Critical reception should be divided like proposed? If so, I am not seeing how that is the best route to go. Why does the Critical reception need to be divided into more than two subsections just to cover the reviews? All this came about with Bob's removal of the international reviews. We do not need a radical redesign of the Critical reception section just to cover the international reviews. And it is not like all the international reviews should be included, especially the ones redundant to the American reviews.

DrNegative gave good reasons above in the #Arbitrary break -- moving towards consensus? section for not dividing into these proposed subsections. Flyer22 (talk) 12:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and prominence of sociopolitical aspects

"Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." WP:UNDUE

I think this means that we do not give more or less prominence to the sociopolitical aspects of Avatar, than they are given in reliable sources. Currently these aspects are discussed in the section "Themes and inspirations" and in the 3rd paragraph of the section "Critical reception".

What's the consensus here on this? Do the editors here feel that the sociopolitical aspects that are presently in the article, have more, less or about the same prominence that is in reliable sources? --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob K31416, it would help me answer your important question decisively if I knew how you measure prominence of a particular view in reliable sources, so we could sync our "prominence yardsticks". I am serious, no sarcasm intended. Cinosaur (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

There didn't seem to be specific guidance on a "yardstick" from WP:UNDUE, although the following from it might clarify how it pertains to this issue. "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject."

My feeling is that the movie is primarily an action/adventure film for entertainment purposes, and the interpretations of the sociopolitical aspects is a minor part in comparison. This is based on my viewing of the film, and the coverage that I have seen in reliable sources. Of the sources that I have seen, I feel that the present weight given to sociopolitical aspects is similar to the weight it is given in the reliable sources. It's my judgement call, rather than a mathematical proof. However, in coming to this opinion, I have tried to think of the space that these aspects have been given in the articles on Avatar. I think that one has to be careful not to confuse what is significant personally with what has been considered significant by the totality of reliable sources.

So those are my thoughts on how to approach this issue. Other editors may have other approaches and it is one of the purposes of this discussion for editors to express how they have decided what constitutes appropriate weight. Perhaps you could express how you would try to satisfy the policy WP:UNDUE. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Bob, the above makes sense to me. As for the "yardstick", I mostly meant your and a couple of other editors' treating news.google hits as such a gauge. Since in order to decide on exactly how the article space should be apportioned among different views on the movie we have to have a quantifying method, I wonder if news.google could be one of them.

I have to disagree with you in that the movie is primarily an action/adventure film on the surface, but Cameron himself admitted to having planted in the movie pro-ecological, anti-military, anti-colonial, ethical and cultural themes, and drew upon some oriental motifs for their settings. So reviews covering these implicit but palpable aspects of the movie deserve, in my view, as much attention.

As for how to best satisfy the WP:UNDUE policy in regard to international reviews, I think Betty Logan summed it up quite nicely above, an I support the idea expressed by this editor. What do you think? Cinosaur (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob, WP:UNDUE cannot apply in this case. There is no mention of any sociopolitical aspect in the article, and an addition of a single paragraph on the topic does not violate that rule at all. In fact, I would say WP:IGNORE because the media is attracted to the visual effects of the movie, while the sociopolitical aspects have generally been thrown aside; but such aspects have been mentioned and acknowledged by relevant people such as James Cameron. Therefore, it is notable and does NOT give too much weight to one side. The current article that lacks a sociopolitical aspect, I believe, violates WP:UNDUE. --haha169 (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. Presently, the article features only American reviews and the socio-political aspect is ignored. A separate section should be created where this issue could be addressed in an appropriate manner.--Gaura79 (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not quite getting how the sociopolitical aspects are ignored. Not only are they addressed in the Themes and inspirations section...but they are also presented in the third paragraph of the Critical reception section. Perhaps, it needs to be clearer that those are the sociopolitical aspects, like I suggested before. Not everyone is going to know from just looking at that paragraph that it is the "sociopolitical paragraph." It needs a lead-in.

Either way, I am for more international reviews in the Critical reception section, and it seems consensus is for that as well. Flyer22 (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel the current socio-political comments already within the article satisfy enough due-weight on this topic. DrNegative (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Cinosaur for your efforts. It appears everyone feels the same as they did last week when we started this discussion. I support including the international reviews in the critical review section because of their unique and inherent value. There is nothing is WP: UNDUE that would prevent their inclusion. These reviews are both "reliable" and "verifiable" and I'm not sure I want to debate the "prominence" of a China Daily collumnist whose potential audience is 1 billion people. There is clearly a sociopolitical discussion ocurring worldwide over this movie. If the American reviews that mention the sociopolitical aspects are included in the main article, some international reviews should be included as well. This should not be first come first serve. Another solution is taking all sociopolitical discussion to another page. Dividing American and international viewpoints, as is currently the case, is not acceptable.--Amandaroyal (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, except for putting all the sociopolitical views into another article. Dividing the viewpoints like Cinosaur's proposal may not be acceptable to most (me included), but presenting more than one international review is clearly acceptable to some editors here (...me included). Flyer22 (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Flyer22, please feel free to edit the dummy according to your vision. This was the original idea to collectively iterate the proposed structure towards consensus. For a start, we can convert all geographical subheading to placeholders and move Peer reviews beneath Thematic reviews, as you suggested. Sorry, I meant to incorporate yours and others' suggestions myself - and still do - but got caught up on another front. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 05:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with all the headers, may are unnecessary imo, but I think we all agree that we need a more international presence in this article. Wikipedia is supposed to prevent a worldwide view on the topic, and the fact that the worldwide gross is more than double the domestic gross completely puts to rest the WP:UNDUE debate. I also staunchly believe that some semblance of socio-political aspects are included in the final revision of the critical reception section. --haha169 (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Haha169, do you support making Critical reception into a second level heading Reception as proposed? Cinosaur (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm for including more "international film reviews" in the critical reception; however I don't see the need for more sociopolitical analysis, especially if they are all over the place. By international reviews, they should be actual "film reviews" from reputable publications, again, not just an opinion column from a newspaper. I would welcome foreign language film reviews (for example, excellent Portuguese film magazines such as Escrever Cinema and Spanish publications such as La Fuga). I would definitely like to see more international reviews in the critical reception, but the quality of the film review should be considered.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we should consider what is in a source, rather than where it comes from. For example, I added information from the Bolivian news agency ABI that appeared in the Huffington Post, to the sociopolitical paragraph. It is the second sentence in the 3rd paragraph of the Critical reception section. The reason for adding it wasn't because it was international, but because it was the other side of the issue mentioned in the 1st sentence of the paragraph, and hence it improved the article.

Here are the two sentences.

Armond White of the New York Press wrote that Cameron used villainous American characters to misrepresent facets of militarism, capitalism, and imperialism. Bolivia's first indigenous president, Evo Morales, praised Avatar for its "profound show of resistance to capitalism and the struggle for the defence of nature".

--Bob K31416 (talk) 11:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Amandaroyal deserves credit for initially bringing this item to the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times just posted an article that contributes to this debate http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/movies/20avatar.html?hp. I wasn't the only one who noticed what the Chinese were saying. --Amandaroyal (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, that is a high-profile article that lists examples from notable reviewers from across the globe and with varying ideologies. That article is a wonderful starting point for such a paragraph. --haha169 (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting how some of the material in the Itzkoff NYT article parallels the article and talk page here. For example, "Critics have also said that “Avatar” copied story elements from the movies “Dances With Wolves,” “Pocahontas” and “Ferngully: The Last Rainforest”; the Poul Anderson novella “Call Me Joe”; and the “Noon Universe” book series by the Russian authors Arkady and Boris Strugatsky." One reason the last one about Strugatsky didn't make it to the article was because a reliable source couldn't be found and I'm not sure if that book series has ever been translated from Russian to English.

Also, I made a comment about Rorschach test here on Jan 3. Since then, Rorschach has popped up in the press at least a couple times. I didn't see it anywhere before I made the comment. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that too on other issues and thought it was a coincidence. Now that you mention it as well, I'm thinking some journalists read our talk page discussions for the latest info. DrNegative (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw this article about a week ago and was going to make the suggestion to include. What do we think? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 04:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: maybe a quote from this article could serve as an appropriate lead into a new paragraph on cultural and religious themes in the movie? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: the Strugatsky novels, there has been a lot of controversy in Russia over Avatar. The authors themselves have apparently denied anything was copied, but a splinter communist party in Russia has been up in arms. Here is a translation from the Russian press on that subject http://worldmeets.us/KPRU000002.shtml (Komsomolskaya Pravda:'Communists Say Avatar Director 'Robbed' Soviet Science Fiction). And one from Russian TV station Russia Today http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-01-11/communists-ban-avatar.html?fullstory--Amandaroyal (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)