Talk:Turian

i think the assumption that saren may be a turian subspecies is ill founded. the facial horn structure of turians is part of there exoskeleton this exoskeleton is said to be metallic but not strong enough to stop a bullet.it could. so perhaps if this material is soft it could be shaped or have to trimmed. it could be alot like hair is all i am saying.or perhaps different turian clans house or colonies have different customs.think the bounding of Chinese girls feets (eww). most turians i saw in the game seemed to have slightly. it is a rude thing to assumed that he is a "subspecies." in a way it is similar to saying black people are a sup species of human (that is if he is a subspecies). or maybe its because hes a freakin cyborg.

Liliharex
I removed the statement that Li has no facial markings. I played Noveria today and I could clearly see them along his jaw-line. They are simply more a match to his skin-tone, thus not as visually apparent as the facial markings on other turians (i.e. Executor Palin's blue markings on his dark brown skin). --Incrognito 20:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Israelis?
I gotta say, not seeing the link to the Israelis. Many nations have compulsory military service (Brazil, Austria, Russia, etc...), there have been many examples of total war mindsets in history (the Soviet Union in WWII, ancient Sparta), and the Liberty incident created a short period of tension between two otherwise very close allies. The Terran Federation is a much better, less tenuous, inspiration. SpartHawg948 21:09, September 28, 2009 (UTC)

Turian biology
"Turian blood has a dark blue colouration, possibly from the presence of hemocyanin rather than hemoglobin, which would fit with the biology of a metallic exoskeleton."

Is this canon? because it's not supported by any scientific evidence I know of. There's about as much metal in hemoglobin (which contains iron) as there is in hemocyanin (which contains copper). It is true that hemocyanin is more efficient at colder temperatures and lower oxygen pressure than hemoglobin (and vice versa), but I'm not sure if that is relevant to turians. Also, hemocyanin is bright blue in arteries and colorless in veins, so perhaps the turians' dark blue blood doesn't contain hemocyanin at all but some other oxygen carrier.

I'm also not sure how a metal-poor planet can support a whole ecosystem of metal-skinned organisms, but at least that's canon.


 * This may be purely casual observation, but hemocyanin does contain the word 'cyan' which represents multiple shades of blue. Perhaps they took this to mean the blood would actually be blue ('dark cyan' is a darker blue which is similar to the blood Turians shed in Mass Effect 2).  Incrognito 05:03, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Turians not resistant to cold/snow
Shouldn't this added to the Turian Biology part of page?

Garrus mentions this in ME1 when visiting Noveria.Veniathan 01:58, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

List Turian planets?
In the article on the Hanar, I noticed a listing near the bottom of Hanar-owned/occupied worlds. Should the same sort of list be incorporated into the turian article?SuperLoNC 01:27, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Gender Issues
I doubt this is an original question, but I am no less curious. Despite the confirmed existence of females of the turian, krogan, salarian, and batarian species, no models exist for them in Mass Effect or Mass Effect 2. The abscence of salarians females is explained by their status and cultural role, but none of the other species really have a canon 'excuse' for said abscence. There are female batarian characters mentioned in the Mass Effect novels (written by one of the principal writers of the game's story) and female krogan are commonly mentioned, especially in Mass Effect 2 (you even find the body of a supposed female during Mordin's loyalty mission, although the model is a mere body-bag). Garrus mentions a tussel with a female turian crewmember during his time in the turian military. My question is, has the Bioware dev team relayed a canon-related or practical reason why this abscence is still apparent? The game seems to missing a lot of character when it represents so many different species with only one gender. Incrognito 05:45, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

It could be that female turians look nearly identical to males. And there is a female krogan, alive, in the Urdnot camp, one of her guards yells at you. she looks almost identical.Kre &#39;Nunumee 16:12, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Allusion
Could the Turians also be an allusion to Taurans from the Forever War? I mean, a war started over a simple miscommunication, except that one, without a Council, lasted for centuries.Omeganian 17:49, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know... that one seems like kind of a stretch. And you have to remember, the bits about the turians being inspired by the Roman Empire and the Terran Federation were added into the article by one of the writers of Mass Effect, which is why it's labeled as devconfirmed. And said writer stated quite clearly that turian is based off the word "centurion", which itself is in no way related to the Taurans. So I'm going to go ahead and say no. SpartHawg948 22:45, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Metallic
Regarding metallic exoskeletonss, thee appaearene part of the article claims that they have metallic exoskeletons, they dont look metallic and this has never been specifically said, the closest thing that i can find is one of the codex entries says that most life on their homeworld developed metallic exoskeletons, keywordd there being MOST, so do we know for certain that turians fall under this category. ralok 04:39, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems possible for turians to develop metallic exoskeletons, though in terms of appearance, I think it's mainly a technical and/or artistic limitation not to show the "metallic-ness". Teugene 04:46, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

The point is that it is never said anywhere that turians have metallic exoskeletons, and they dont appear to have metallic exoskeletons, so why does it say that they do in this article? ralok 04:56, April 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Becuase it says it here in the codex entry "The turian homeworld, Palaven, has a metal-poor core, generating a weak magnetic field and allowing more solar radiation into the atmosphere. To deal with this, most forms of life on Palaven evolved some form of metallic "exoskeleton" to protect themselves. Their reflective plate-like skin makes turians less susceptible to long-term, low-level radiation exposure, but they do not possess any sort of "natural armor". A turian's thick skin does not stop projectiles and directed energy bolts." source Codex: Turian Biology Lancer1289 05:00, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

And as you (you being Ralok, there was an edit conflict) point out, the Codex says most life on their world does possess a metallic exoskeleton. Turians are lifeforms, and they are the dominant lifeform on their planet. It seems at least possible to me that most life on Palaven could include the turians. And remember, the metallic exoskeleton bit appears in the Codex entry on turian biology. If the turians were one of the few lifeforms on Palaven to not have this exoskeleton, why would it be specifically mentioned in the entry on turian biology? Short answer- it wouldn't. SpartHawg948 05:02, April 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * But it isnt stated specifically, for all we knwo it was only giving that information to give us a general idea of what turians have to deal with on their homeworld. And then it goes on to refer to the turians as having thick skin, and not a metallic exoskeleton, and i repeat it says that MOST lifeforms on their homeworld have metallic exoskeletons. THIS IS CONFUSING, that codex entry better be written to be more understandable in mass effect 3.ralok 05:08, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point and it is very confusing, however the codex wasn't rewritten for ME2 so therefore it probably won't for ME3. Also becuase as Spart said Turians are the dominant form of life and it is logical that they developed this exoskeleton as well. Lancer1289 05:11, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

It specifically mentions metallic exoskeletons in the TURIAN BIOLOGY entry. Pretty sure if they didn't have them, said entry would point out that, unlike most life on Palaven, the turians don't have metallic exoskeletons. And it wouldn't then need to go on and explain how turians aren't bulletproof. Note how it mentions the turians "reflective plate-like skin". Reflective plate as in metal. And then it points out that this is not 'natural armor'. Armor as in metal. As for thick skin referencing something other than this, if it did mean thick skin as in a thick epidermis, they probably wouldn't hate the cold, as we know they do thanks to Garrus' comments on Noveria. SpartHawg948 05:15, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

The point is we have to take the codex at its word, not infer what we think its supposed to mean basaed on the poor wording. And dont bring up logic, logic doesnt exsist (this is a joke) ralok 05:17, April 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * SpartHawg beats me to it, but here's my explanation before the edit conflict: I'm not sure how is it difficult to understand "their reflective plate-like skin makes turians less susceptible to long-term, low-level radiation exposure, but they do not possess any sort of "natural armor". It is specifically referred there; reflective plate-like skin (metallic) on turians. I do not think there's any poor working on the codex. Teugene 05:19, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Ralok, I AM TAKING THE CODEX AT IT'S WORD!!! It says in the TURIAN BIOLOGY entry how most life on Palaven has metallic exoskeletons. If doesn't say that turians are an exception to this. It then goes on to elaborate on how the turians metallic exoskeletons (the 'reflective plate-like skin') isn't 'armor' and doesn't make them impervious from bullets. If an entry on humans said 'most life on Earth evolved calcium-based skeletons', went on to describe how a human skeleton works, and then leaves it at that, would you say it'd be unreasonable to put in the article that humans have calcium-based skeletons? SpartHawg948 05:24, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * edit conflict x3 I want to retract my good point statement becuase I wan't thinking at the time and state that this conversation is confusing and the codex is clear. My own comments are confusing to me and I want to say that the codex is clear and the codex is law. Well that is out of my system. Lancer1289 05:25, April 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * You are misquoting what it said though, i beleive that the turians have metallic exoskeletons, metal doesnt necessarily imply shinynessness, i beleive this is true, i just dont see anything that confirms this. ralok 05:21, April 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok i am going to leave the metallic bit alone for now, and bring up another exoskeleton problem, why does this article use carapace, i never heard it reffered to as such in any mass effet lore, and they are sorta synanyms but not entirely, doesnt carapace imply a more complete covering, or something that can be shed, it just sounds out of place in thisarticle. ralok 05:30, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * As for confirmation of metallic exoskeletons, for the, has to be like the 5th time or something, it's the turian biology codex entry. SpartHawg948 05:32, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yah, ok the arguement for the exoskeleton and metal is settled, now about hte usage of hte word carapace, does anyone else feel its out of place? ralok 05:39, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * No becuase the two words, exoskeleton and carapace, basically mean the same thing. So no it isn't misplaced. Lancer1289 05:41, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well they mean the same thing in this context. Lancer1289 05:44, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right but this is more of a question about style, when i hear carapace i imagine something naked and having only it shell, something covered in a shell, but when i hear exoskeleton i imagine something with a skeleton on the outside which ithink fits better with turians . . . sighralok 05:50, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Bird look
As for whether or not to leave in the bit about them resembling birds as well as raptors (whether the bird or reptile is being referred to), just want to point out that turians ARE specifically mentioned as looking like BIRDS (I'm in a very emphatic move tonight). Example- "A pair of turians fixed their avian eyes on him, following his every move like hawks ready to swoop down on an unsuspecting mouse.". Avian? Hawk-like? Hmmm... If they're described as 'avian', which does mean 'of or pertaining to birds", describing them as looking like birds doesn't seem out of place, does it? SpartHawg948 05:21, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Wrong section, chief. Stay on topic. SpartHawg948 05:25, April 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * (that was like the worst eidt conflit ever) anyways, raptor is for birds first, and then used for dinosaurs withi similiar traits, and its these traits that make turians look like both, therefore only raptor needs to be said (head splosian) arent hawks a form of avian raptor, they certainly seem raptorsih, maybe we should just use the word birds of prey (not in the context of a mediocore tvshow) ralok 05:27, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Or, maybe since sources describe them as 'avian' which refers to birds in general, not just birds of prey, we leave it like it is? Also, I forgot to state what the above quote was taken from. It's from Mass Effect: Revelation, page 103. SpartHawg948 05:30, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * (I can't seem to catch a break today edit confilt again)then you just settled it because raptor can apply to both. It was first for birds then dinos. They do look like birds however, and their shape lends to an avian ansestory. Lancer1289 05:31, April 15, 2010 (UTC)(small edit Lancer1289 05:36, April 15, 2010 (UTC))

this is why i approve of raptor, and justraptor alone because no doubt if you asked 50 people 25 would say turians are dinosaurs and 24 wouldsay bird, and one would say cockroach but that guy isnt to bright so we are going to ignore him. With just the word raptor used it covers everything, and to say they look like brids and raptors is redundant. ralok 05:37, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

But again... taking a deep breath, trying (and failing) to be patient... '''AN OFFICIAL SOURCE DESCRIBES THEM AS AVIAN. AVIAN AND RAPTOR ARE NOT SYNONYMOUS. SAID SOURCE DESCRIBES THEM AS AVIAN AND HAWK-LIKE (hawks being raptors). WHY WOULD THEY DISTINGUISH BETWEEN BIRDS AND RAPTORS IF THEY JUST MEANT RAPTORS? TURIANS HAVE FEATURES THAT ARE AVIAN BUT NOT NECESSARILY RAPTOR-LIKE. THIS IS WHY BIRD NEEDS TO STAY.''' SpartHawg948 05:43, April 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * You are scaring me, ok i get it but i stand by my opinion. But the fact that it remains as is though is going to cause a paradox in my brain everytime i read it, and i will track you down if i develop a tumor and make you pay my medical bills. ralok 05:48, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Why would it cause a paradox to have to non-synonymous words, both of which were used, separately and explicitly, by an official source to descirbe the turians in the article? That's about as paradoxical as describing an elephant as a mammal and a pachyderm. Also, if you do intend on trying to track me down, be prepared to encounter several guns and a large dog. Cancerous tumors develop either due to family history or your own choices and actions. Reading the word 'bird' does not cause cancer. Please refrain from melodrama in the future, and don't ever try and force me to take care of you financially. It won't end well. SpartHawg948 05:58, April 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * That was a joke, i was trying to end the conversation in a humorous manner, and appearently i fialed spectacularly, and you are right it isnt a paradox, but it is redundant, because when i hear raptor i htink bird, but i should endavour to be more tolerant of these redundanies because not everyone thinks the same way i do. ralok 06:03, April 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh and dont worry about me tracking you down, i can barely work a toaster let alone track a person down, also i am afraid of dogs. ralok 06:07, April 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * and appearently i fialed spectacularly :'( ralok 06:07, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Again, it isn't redundant. In order to be redundant, the terms would have to be synonymous. They are not. Raptor can mean a type of bird or a type of reptile. Let's look at it this way. Some birds are raptors, and some raptors are birds. Not all birds are raptors, and not all raptors are birds. With that in mind, it is in now way redundant or paradoxical to say they resemble birds or raptors. As for your attempt at 'humor', given what you know of me and my beliefs, some of which you learned first hand on my talk page, what on earth made you think the thought of you tracking me down, coming to my house, and forcing me to pay your medical bills for a condition I had nothing to do with would be amusing? SpartHawg948 06:08, April 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Because the idea itself is ludicrous, the idea of trackign a person down ebcause of something that can barely be intepreted as redundant and forcing them to pay medical bills doesnt make any sense. Because obviously there would be no connection beetween said tumor and the article, and it is likely that if i started raving about a tumor being conneted to birds it is likely i would be put away, I just presented a rediculous idea in hopes that iwould generate a humrous reation, and to be honest i thought your omment about guns and dogs was a humorous rebuttle. And now i am even sadder than i was before. ralok 06:12, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

You're right. It doesn't make any sense. It was so nonsensical (while managing to hit an issue I feel strongly and negatively about) that any 'humor' was lost. SpartHawg948 06:15, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * But hey, whatev. This isn't the place for this sort of talk, and this thread has gotten just a little bit off topic, so let's just let this one go, shall we? SpartHawg948 06:18, April 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * I dont think i have ever been this sad during a seemingly casual conversation, i will lay off the noonsensical humor in the future ralok 06:20, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Re-opening an old discussion
Ok new information has come to light concerning whether or not turians have metallic exoskeletons or not, page 103 of mass effect revelation "their heads and faces were covered by a rigid mask of brown-grey cartilidge and bone" I initially was going to dismiss this as being andersons observation but this chapter (i am not sure if all chapters are) is written in third person (not sure if its subjective or omniscient), this coupled with the fact that the ingame codex does not refer to the turians actually having metallic exoskeletons (instead saying that most life on their planet has this, i dont know why it pointed this out though) is it safe to change this article to read otherwise? ralok 17:49, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * The codex says that most live on Palaven has those metalic exoskeletons for protection from solar radiation. Considering, as far as we know, turians are the dominant and most populous species on the planet so it is logical that they would have the same skeletons as well. Personally I think the article is fine and doens't need to be changed. As to the most life thing, there are plently of species on Earth that live below the ground and rarly come up. Those species probably don't have it nor probably do the ones that live in Palaven's oceans, however again as far as we know. So most life is appropiate. Finally yes all the chapeters are written in third person omnicinet viewpoint, just wanted to answer your question. Lancer1289 17:57, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

But this statement itself raises the question, the codex entry only suggests, and this information presented contradicts the suggestion, as much as we all want the turians to be metallic that might not necessarily be true, a side note i really wish there wasnt like four types of third person narrative. ralok 18:04, April 23, 2010 (UTC)