About the anagram thing:

1. The Pandoran god is "Eywa", with no 'H' letter(s), that would be necessary to make it into "Yahweh".

2. There is no point in hunting for anagrams. Either no anagrams at all, or we'd have to include the following too:

• "Na'vi" -> "Vain"
• "Pandora" -> "Or Panda"
• "Dragon" -> "Rag Nod"
• and so on.

I vote for the "No anagrams" policy. Zovits 21:48, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

If people want to do things like this, the appropriate place is the Fanon site. Chadlupkes 21:50, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

Ah well...but this actually has some relevance. i mean, the Na'Vi have nothing to do with being vain, and pandora has no pandas. but yahweh is the name of a god and eywa is a god...see the connection? and think of it, Eywa-Yahweh. It sounds very similar doesnt it? maybe its not an anagram but if you mess around with the syllables it sounds the same.

Please tell me how Yahweh relates to Eywa? just because they sound the same means absolutly nothing, especially if they have nothing in common other than being worshipped. JayBo Talk IRC 23:10, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

well i just thought it had some relevance...thats probably how james cameron thought up of the name eywa. and yahweh refers to the christian god, seen as the creator of all things. just like eywa is thought to be the creator of all things by the na'vi. and tell me this...how is odin anything like eywa other than the all mother all father thing? Odin was a god of war, hunting, and poetry among many other things. he also ruled over lesser dieties like Thor, Frigg, and Baldr. there's only one eywa. dont you think the eywa-yahweh thing as at least some trivial interest?

What you say I agree with, I would say there are 2 choices, allow the yahweh, only have it worded as its not a play on words, but how they relate to another. Or remove the odin comment JayBo Talk IRC 23:40, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

Saying "James Cameron probably though that...." isn't enough. Unless we hear it from an official source, it isn't relevant. End of story. --Zervonn ^TALK 01:15, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

well yes, i didnt really want that in there. But the eywa yahweh subject has the same amount of relevance as the odin and eywa subject. odin and eywa are only similar in title and yahweh and eywa are similar in their name. but in their meanings as well, a being that created all life.

Is there any problem with the relation of Eywa to Yahweh? They both mean the same thing and it's a nice connection. Maybe not so much for the Panda anagram (Panda thing seems far fetched I suppose). And with the last one, are you trying to say that Rag Nod might be a nod to Ragnarok or the Nidhogg? IWantheUltimateChange 13:03, January 16, 2010 (UTC

No, there is no problem with it. But it also doesn't mean anything, and that's why I oppose it. And the anagrams above are there to illustrate what might happen, if we allow anagrams. Many people are fanatical anagram-makers, who will try to persuade us that (for example) Neytiri got her name from "Tiny Ire". This makes as much sense as the Yahweh anagram, since Neytiri was not really the angry kind. So if people put a little more effort into it (more than the two minutes it took me to enter those words into an anagram software), they will come up with more such examples, that we'd rather not see here. Zovits 22:59, January 16, 2010 (UTC)

I say that anagrams have no relevance whatsoever to Avatar and the "all mother" and the "all father" have a lot more relevance to each other than you may think. so i say keep the odin thing but get rid of the anagrams this wiki is for Avatar lovers not people who try and twist the story (not saying that anybody here would do that) but as you said earlier people will say that the anagrams are connected to the film and will therefore twist the story to suit them. Tsmukan

dont bully the poor guy

similaritys Edit

being similair dosn't mean their exactly the same, Yavanna for exampple is very similair, both are heavily assocaited with planet life and the protection of it and are concerend more with the natural world rather an individuel, they both eve take drastic actons to stop the destrution of the natural world from miners.User:Swg66-Cambria ne'er can yield! 21:44, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

By this low standards ("heavily assocaited with planet life and the protection of it") you could add a very long list of gods. Yavanna is described as a creator, Eywa (if existent) as a spiritual concept and natural balancer. Yavanna has a personification, Eywa does not. Yavanna has direct influence on life, Eywa does not. Yavanna favors plants, Eywa cares about everything that lives (and seemingly even after death). I still think the differences are too big to make it worth mentioning Yavanna. Faern. 3D-HD-Pics 16:51, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Their is a difference in this situation, 1 it is already mentioned that Eywa is similair to earth deitys earlier, that would encompass all deitys related to earth and plants, 2 Yavanna is a fictional representation so she couldn't be associated with the other gods. They both do hae a direct influence on life, yes Eywa does maybe not in the same contexts but they both do. They both had to deal with the destuctive activitys of miners and both acted in protection of the enviorment. Eywa is descibed as the giver of life. They are not exactly the same but they share many similaritys, particuarly the protection against minersCroc117 01:00, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

The one about Jörð is questionable too.

"They both do hae a direct influence on life" Where in the movie did you see any direct influence of Eywa?

"Eywa is descibed as the giver of life." Where?

We don't even know if it was Eywa who acted. Since it's a "biological internet", a single creature with a leading role could have sent a command through the neural network to attack the humans. This leads to the question, if Eywa even exists, which Yavanna evidently does.

Sorry, I don't believe people that can't even write a single correct sentence. ;) Faern. 3D-HD-Pics 18:54, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

All living things Edit

Hi Faern ~ To quote the line I edited: "It is sometimes theorized by human scientists that all living things on Pandora connect to Eywa through a system of neuro-conductive antennae." When you reverted my edit, you made the notation that "plants!=creatures". Dictionaries typically give "a living being, especially an animal" as the first definition of "creature" to show its most common usage and will then add "anything living" to be less specific.

However, our own wiki makes a distinct separation between Creatures (click on the tab found on the main page which will take you to the Creatures Category Page) and Flora (which is found by doing a wiki search for flora to get to the Flora Category Page). The Creatures Category Page contains the animal species and also includes organisms that have characteristics of both animals and plants. The Flora Category Page contains the plant species. On our wiki, plants do not necessarily equal creatures.

I agree that the Na'vi are able to connect to the fauna of Pandora and to some of the flora with their neuro-conductive antennae. I don't agree that they are able to connect to all of the flora with these antennae, or else there would be no need for specific locations such as Tree of Souls, Tree of Voices, etc.

However, all Pandoran fauna appear to be able to connect to all flora with the touch of their appendages (hands/paws/feet/hooves). And if Eywa is, indeed, the collective psionic consciousness of Pandora, the biological internet, this makes a very convincing argument that all fauna are able to connect to Eywa through the Pandoran flora.

My conclusion: it isn't necessarily true that all living things on Pandora connect with Eywa through a system of neuro-conductive antennae. Some use their appendages (hands/paws/feet/hooves) as the connective pathway to Eywa Therefore, all living things on Pandora connect to Eywa either through a system of of neuro-conductive antennae and/or by touch.

PS In that first sentence, should "sometimes theorized" be considered canon? An absolute truth?
PSS The Flora Category Page has 68 entries ... shouldn't that be enough to warrant it's own tab on the main page?

Hmmmmm ... what do you think? Don't shoot me down, ok? :-) Be well my friend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghaziya (talk • contribs)

I think, the sentence you edited was not supposed to refer to the Na'vi or creatures specifically, but to all life on the moon. I suspect the original editor wanted to reflect Norm's answer on Jake's question about Eywa: "only their deity, their goddess, made up of all living things".

The flora category already has an icon on the main page right beside the creatures icon. Or what are you referring to? Faern. 3D-HD-Pics 23:14, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Hi Faern ~ I, obviously had fun with my above "argument" or I wouldn't have spent so much time on it. Thanks for reading through it ... I didn't convince you, did I? Still going to revert my edit I imagine? Re: Flora, I was actually pointing to the menu tabs at the top of the page... they are titled Characters, Creatures, Mythology, Community and Browse by Category. I do know what icons you are referring to. Take care. 23:27, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Blame Wikia for the menus. They limited the number of navigation menus to 4 with their new skin, and the creatures from the movie are supposedly more interesting to readers than plants. Faern. 3D-HD-Pics 23:43, January 27, 2011 (UTC)