Talk:Background Races

Sapience vs. sentience

Insofar as the two terms have a difference in meaning: sentience, being sensation or the capacity for sense perception, is common to all animals such as roaches and gold fish, whereas sapience is not. Countless races have attained sentience on earth alone (which is not news), but only the human race can claim to have forged civilizations (societies with high development of the arts and sciences), let alone gone into space. Sapience, which is wisdom or the capacity for it, would then appear to belong to the "countless" races (in the ME universe) who have specifically "forged civilizations [and] explored the depths of space", and thus better fits the meaning of the opening paragraph (otherwise the triple predicate should have different qualifications). Notwithstanding anything on the page being a direct quote, I'm returning to a previous user's edit of "attained sapience" (and even changing the Aphras' adjective to "sapient" as well, since the capacity for entering into any "metallic" age really applies to sapient beings; such would also agree with the Aphras main page). -- AnotherRho 19:26, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Just pointing out that we've already had a discussion on this matter and sentience is more accurate than sapience, hence why the article was written the way it was. See here for more. Lancer1289 19:59, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Oh and one other thing. If you have a problem with an undo, then one is supposed to bring it up on the talk page first before undoing an edit. Lancer1289 20:00, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Hey! That's my rant that is being linked to! Neat! Basically, what it boils down to is this: The definition that AnotherRho provides for sentience amounts to "new-speak". It's not the traditional definition of the word. Traditionally, the definition does include sense perception, but is further narrowed down to include consciousness. This definition of the word has been in use since at least the 19th century. The definition of the word as simply being responsive to sense impressions is the medical definition of sentient, which doesn't really apply here.

Sapient, on the other hand, quite literally means having or showing great wisdom or sound judgment. The word actually derives from an old Middle English word (and an even older PIE base word) meaning "to taste". Compare this to sentient's base in Latin, which means "to perceive". So, while sentient, traditionally, means to be self-conscious, sapient implies a level beyond mere self-consciousness. It's why we use the word to distinguish modern man from earlier, but still fully self-aware, man. (We are, after all, homo sapiens sapiens, or "wise wise man".) We can also see evidence of this differentiation in the Mass Effect universe. For example, it could easily be argued that the vorcha are sentient, but not particularly sapient.

And that's it, in a nutshell. Just to point out too: As far as we know, only one species currently residing on Earth has attained sentience in the traditional, non-medical definition of the word, that being humanity, which is also sapient (or so we proclaim ourselves to be). Other species in the past have attained sentience, but are no longer present, and some people maintain that one or two other species may be sentient even now. There are many species on Earth that are medically sentient, but that's it. So I'll have to agree that sentient is the word we want to use here, being the more accurate of the two, due to its broadness, as opposed to a very specific word like sapient. SpartHawg948 21:10, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Lancer, hello! long time no talk. Thank you for your advice; many times I've followed it only to have no responses. In this case, since your stated reason for the undo was "there's a difference", and the difference is as was subsequently stated, I posted both the reason and the change. The reference to the past discussion is helpful; I would reply that canon also uses sapient and much more often (witness the Aphras, the Codex "Non-sapient creatures", Codex: Quarians Religion, etc.), and the Yahg at least haven't taken to space (nor are they on this page). As for Spart's dictionary references (which don't give much of an account, but don't distinguish between being conscious and having sense perception), his interesting account will suffice.

Spart, hello! long time no talk as well. Thank you for the interesting account of the meanings and histories of the words. It is worth adding that "sentience" as I spoke of it is both etymologically more accurate and historically; its use as "conscious" is as you said a product of the 19th century (so, compared to centuries of tradition, a neologism). "Conscious" also has suffered the same neologistic use, probably for the same cause or causes, to refer to any being which is "aware" of something (whereas before it referred to having scientia or demonstrable knowledge of something, i.e. a specifically human capacity), perhaps because of Rousseau and others making "sentiment" so important in human things. Also worth noting is that sapient is also of Latin origin (sapientia), and was (in its reference to "wisdom" or theoretical knowledge) coined and always used by Cicero to distinguish it from practical wherewithal (prudence).

History aside, I don't quite see how you mean "broad", or how its breadth is more appropriate for this article. Whereas it's admitted on all sides that "sentient" at least includes "capable of sensation/feeling", or the sort of consciousness shared by all animals, "sapient" is more specific by referring to beings which are in principle capable of high science (wisdom). And are any of the other beings on this page believed to be as dumb as the vorcha? Yet all the beings on this page were capable of being (it would seem) targets of the Reapers. The first paragraph (and the page's contents) refers to beings all of whom achieved spaceflight and interplanetary travel/habitation, and nuclear or astral warfare, which require at least the capacity for high theoretical or demonstrable knowledge (which we now call science). The exception is the apparently "bronze age" Aphras, who are described on their page as "sapient". In other words, "sentient" (assuming it can include a being which is capable of more than just sensual consciousness) is too broad, whereas "sapient" is a term with less ambiguity.

Scanning the contents of this wiki and perusing a few pages, it seems to me that many editors use sentient and sapient interchangeably, whereas the game's writers almost always use sapient to refer to beings capable of independent space travel and/or profound theoretical reasoning (or, wisdom). For the purposes of this page, I think "sapient" is more appropriate since every being listed had the mentioned capacities in common, and some are called sapient (but none sentient), and the game writers tend to use "sapient" for beings who have the mentioned capacities, regardless of what we say here. -- AnotherRho 22:43, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as regards your last point, you'll find (if you follow the link that Lancer provided) a comment from Dammej which I failed to mention earlier. He points out that the writers describe the yahg in their Codex entry as sentient, not sapient, and in doing so, seem to indicate that, from their perspective (i.e. the perspective of the writers at BioWare, the people who establish canon) "sentient" does in fact mean self-aware. I mean, if the Shadow Broker isn't, as you put it, "capable of high science (wisdom)", then who is? Yet, per the Codex (aka canon), the Shadow Broker and his people are described as sentient, but not necessarily sapient. So, I must argue that your contention that the writers use sapient "almost always" when referring to beings capable of "wisdom" is in error. They too seem to use the terms interchangeably.

Now, as to my meaning of sentient being a broader term: I thought I was quite clear, but apparently, I wasn't. What I mean here is: Sentient, as it is typically defined in a non-medical context, going all the way back to the origins of the word, means any self-aware being. Sapient is a distinction we use chiefly to distinguish ourselves (again, homo sapiens sapiens) from earlier ancestors of ours who were self-aware, but not on the same level as we are (which we term "sapience"). As such, sentient, meaning self-aware but not necessarily "wise", would be a broader term. As such, and since the writers of the series seem perfectly willing to describe advanced beings capable of abstract thought and high science (such as the yahg) as sentient, I still maintain that this is the more appropriate term. It's certainly better (in my opinion) than making sweeping assumptions about all the races on this page, as we don't really have much information on any of them. Who is to say that they are all "wiser" than the yahg, who have been termed (canonically) sentient? I'd prefer to err on the side of caution, using the term we know can be accurately applied to all of them, rather than a term we may assume can be applied to all of them. SpartHawg948 23:06, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

• For ease of reference, the Codex entry Dammej referred to begins thusly: "The yahg are a race of massive apex predators from the world of Parnack whose rise to sentience in no way blunted their violent nature." (emphasis added) Now, it would appear here that sentience means more than simply feeling and being able to respond to external stimuli. Why else would it be considered unusual that their brutal nature had not diminished with the attainment of sentience? Violence, and a "violent nature", after all, are quite common among beings which are capable of sense perception but are not self-aware. SpartHawg948 23:14, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Yes I had read the link and the article (that, and the VI codex's generalization, is why I said "almost always"). Certain it is that the only two species of mere beasts who were written into the Codex are classified as "non-sapient", thus distinguishing them from the other races discussed (who are in several cases explicitly called sapient: e.g. the quarians, turians, salarians). As for the Shadow Broker, of whom we know little, whether the first Broker was right to consider him an aberration among his people (because of his interest in learning) makes no difference. The yahg, who aren't on this page, are called sentient in reference to their "rise" or evolution from predatory beasts, as just quoted. Since you also refer to evolution (by speaking of our ancestors), one may say that this single counter example is no different from speaking of all "humans", i.e. every species in the genus "homo", in their evolutionary development from mere beasts, as "sentient". So it confirms my assertion about the writers (if the writer of that entry wrote with precision), or at least does not contradict it (if he or she wrote loosely).

Thanks for clarifying "broad". I think I divined your meaning, but further asked why it's suitable here. The "broad" term includes beings who were (as just mentioned, and by current scientific dogma) incapable of even fashioning tools, and yet "conscious". This use of "consciousness", being possible for a being incapable of art, has thus become very broad indeed, or even vague. But every race capable of being in a "bronze age", and certainly every race capable of developing interplanetary spaceflight etc., is not properly referred to by a term which includes beasts or things only slightly more remarkable than beasts.

This brings me to the charge that I'm being rash by making sweeping claims about these background races. First, I'm not saying we should change every use of "sentient" to "sapient" on the wiki; merely the two uses here (one "sentient", in fact, explicitly contradicts canon). Also, most of the races on this page are said to be "spacefaring" or to have had starships (or to be starships), in most cases colonizing or attempting to colonize other planets, or employing uninhabitable planets for other purposes (mining, possible grave yards, etc.), or applying cosmetic alterations to a planet's outer atmosphere -- in a word, activities that require extremely high development of the arts and sciences (or, feats which surpass those even of contemporary humanity). There are two exceptions to this: the 7 whomevers who killed themselves through nuclear holocaust, and the inhabitants of Aphras, who were allegedly in a bronze age before being obliterated by orbital bombardment. But both of these races--the least technically advanced of any described here--are called (in the canon accounts anyway) "sapient". The more advanced races are said to have had technical or intellectual capacities not inferior to the ME races called sapient (in Codex entries). On the other hand, not one race on this page is described as sentient. So nothing I'm saying "sweeps" over the whole but rather agrees with the parts and the general sense; however, calling them "sentient" does exceed the canon accounts since such is never said of them (and in two cases contradicts what is said). -- AnotherRho 01:06, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

[EDIT] Anyway, if you are interested in discussing this more, I'm game. But please note that I changed the entry on the inhabitants of Aphras to agree with the planet's page, i.e. with canon, for consistency (acting on the assumption, drawn from past conversations, that consistency and canon-agreement is preferable to needless variation and contradiction). -- AnotherRho 01:18, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

Wow. That is one hell of an assumption there. Assuming that the Codex means "The yahg, who aren't on this page, are called sentient in reference to their "rise" or evolution from predatory beasts" is just plain old speculation. There is literally no factual underpinning for this, just your own assumption. After all, wouldn't any predatory beast be sentient using your definition? It seems clear (to me, at any rate) that what the Codex is referring to is the fact that the yahg, despite having attained sentience (that is, self-awareness, the capacity for abstract thought and reasoning and all that) still retain a very savage nature. It seems pretty explicitly stated in the line I quoted from the Codex. Implicit in this is the notion that sentience, in this usage, is defined as self-awareness and abstract thought and all that. At no point does the codex define the ancestors of the yahg as sentient, which seems to be an assumption underpinning the second paragraph of your latest response. If this is not the case (that this assumption doesn't factor into your second paragraph), then I'm afraid I can't make heads or tails of it at all.

Just to be clear, I did already refer to all the other members of the genus homo as sentient. I'm not sure why you mention this as some sort of hypothetical argument here. Remember the whole bit about us referring to ourselves as homo sapiens sapiens to differentiate ourselves from our equally sentient (i.e. self-aware) but less sapient ancestors? I certainly remember saying that at least once here. I don't, however, remember accusing you of being rash. I warned against making assumptions and such, but never alleged you had behaved rashly. I'm 100% fine with species that are explicitly described as sapient being referred to as sapient. I don't understand why I'd even have to say that. In every other case, though, such as with the article as a whole, I'm still of the opinion that sentient not only suffices as a descriptor, but is preferable to sapient. It really seems to be coming down to a matter of opinion and interpretation of words. Etymologically, the facts would seem to support me, though that doesn't seem to be convincing you, but canonically, both terms are used seemingly interchangeably, so either is acceptable. And, honestly, my personal preference is for sentient. SpartHawg948 01:59, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

• Additionally, I really have no desire to continue this discussion. I don't seem to be converting you to my way of thinking, and I can assure you that you haven't made any inroads into changing mine. It seems to really be boiling down to personal preference, as the canon is vague on this one. And I'm concerned that if this discussion continues too much longer, I'll eventually lose my patience and act in a manner unbecoming of a gentleman. So maybe we'd better just let this one go. That's my thinking on the matter, anyways. SpartHawg948 02:03, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

Well, one almost passes that point by "speaking" harshly to me and with some harsh language. But bah, that happens, and in any case do continue to exercise gentlemanly restraint or patience, which is noble indeed. I perhaps naively thought we were having an interesting discussion basically about whether "sentience" and "sapience" have any real meaning, different, same, or similar; to the end of deciding whether it would be permissible for an editor to prefer one rather than another when canon-quotes are not at issue. Let's then drop it. (That aside, my last comment was merely giving the courtesy of alerting you to my re-making one of the changes that preceded this affair). In the interest of making a meeting of minds, we can certainly agree that the canon has become vague on this one, as on many other things. Cheers and Happy New Year to you and the Golden State. -- AnotherRho 05:08, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

Not to make a huge deal out of this or anything, but at what point did I speak harshly to you, or use harsh language? I can't recall doing anything of the sort, nor do I appreciate being (unjustly, as far as I can tell) accused of having done so. The behavior I feared I may be tempted to exhibit had nothing to do with language, which I pretty much always attempt to keep civil no matter what. If I have spoken to you harshly or with harsh language, please direct me to these statements so that I might make amends. If this has in fact not happened though, I'd appreciate not being accused of having acted inappropriately. SpartHawg948 05:17, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Well, since you speak of some ominous behavior that differs from mere harsh speech, I almost fear to upset you more. What if what I say doesn't satisfy you, especially since you already think the statement is unjust? And how could I persuade you in your own case? But I encourage myself since you speak of gentlemanship (and how few people these days do), and I believe you are earnest. I'll say a little. "Wow. That is one hell of an assumption there, etc. ... is just plain old speculation. There is literally no factual underpinning for this, just your own assumption, etc." You subsequently said that you either understood me to have said such and such (the things called mere assumption and ungrounded), or did not understand me at all. I.e., this makes clear that the alternative to saying I had no grounds ("factual underpinning") for my speech was to ask what I meant, but that you instead chose the former course. It is generally harsh to reject in this fashion what is intended as meaningful and well grounded. Aside from that, "hell" is on this site, and generally, considered a harsh modifier (cursing). -- Even though I think these general observations are true, for my part I merely don't enjoy writing arguments of substance when they'll be dismissed without inquiry (since it's a waste of my time). As for the cursing, site policy notwithstanding, I don't care personally. Enough of this, which gives no pleasure. Be well. -- AnotherRho 06:44, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

The "ominous behavior" I hinted at was the ever-present desire to go all megalomaniac and say "Well I'm the Bureaucrat, so my word is final!" Nothing more, nothing less. As for the other stuff, you know me. When I see speculation, I call it like it is. I call a spade a spade. To paraphrase one of my favorite radio show hosts, I'll be the one to call the baby ugly. And your assumption of what the Codex meant was one hell of an assumption (more on my wording in a moment). There was no factual underpinning for your assumption of what the Codex meant. The next bit was me being honest, too. I wasn't entirely sure what you were driving at in your second paragraph, so I said as much. It was completely unrelated to the prior comment about your assumption of the intent of the Codex. I suppose, in hindsight, I could have made that more obvious by placing it in a separate paragraph. I didn't, which is more than likely what caused the misunderstanding. The bit about speculation and the bit about not understanding your second paragraph (as I did at least make clear several times that the portion in question addressed your second paragraph, no more and no less) were two totally different and unrelated points.

Now, as for the language. I don't believe I've ever come down on anyone for saying "hell". I could be mistaken, but I can't think of one instance. IMO, it's not really a violation of the site language policy. You may, of course, feel differently, but this is one of those cases where I can safely say, with no fear of power trips or megalomania, that it is my word that determines the policy, as the existing policy is understandably a bit vague (we don't want to post a list saying "You cannot say the following words: [insert expletives here]. To quote, or possibly paraphrase, one of my favorite movies, my hypocrisy does know some bounds) and is open for interpretation by the relevant authorities, such as myself. At no time did I direct harsh words or language towards you, merely spoke with the candor I am accustomed to (and which I believe most regular users expect of me), and using language that seems well within the bounds of the language policy myself and one of the other admins crafted years ago. SpartHawg948 06:56, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

Cool, I see the cause of confusion. The ancestors I referred to in paragraph 2 were those human ancestors mentioned in paragraph 1, some of whom were allegedly very incapable of, for example, developing spaceflight. Etc.

I also see that you thought the two issues unrelated. That helps to explain why, regarding the "assumption" statements, I made no impact on you whatsoever. So to speak in like fashion, you make a huge assumption to assume that my interpretation (that "rise to sentience" means evolved the quality called sentience) is "a spade". More frankly: don't assume that it's groundless unless you understand it, and ask if you don't know what I meant. In this case, you did not know. To be perfectly clear: "rise to sentience" is strictly speaking meaningless ("sentience" by any definition is not the kind of thing into which one can "rise" or move up), and so it is clearly a metaphor. I say it is clearly a metaphor for the yahg race's evolution or development of sentience from a pre-sentient beast. This is confirmed by the codex sentence subsequently using the past tense ("in no way blunted etc."). If you think this is ridiculous, as you have suggested, then I ask what the hell "rise to sentience" refers to? If you think this explanation of the phrase makes sense, then we are in agreement (that it refers to the yahg's evolution into sentience, nothing more or less). - - AnotherRho 07:39, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

As stated previously, I have no wish whatsoever to get back into the original subject matter of the thread. The sole reason I continued on with this thread was to get clarification as to the accusations that I had spoken harshly towards you and used harsh language when addressing you, and if possible to get a retraction of said comments, as I do take such accusations seriously, feeling that they could undercut my position as a Bureaucrat (imagine if next time I had to inform someone of the language policy, they replied "Well you aren't following it, why should I?" and cited this thread). I will admit that I too was making assumptions, but I will also point out that I did state quite clearly that I didn't know what you were talking about. You interpreted this as a continuation of a previous comment, which led to the aforementioned accusations. This thread has become one big headache, so again, my sole intent here is now to clear my name, agree to disagree where canon is vague (as it is here, as you yourself acknowledged) and move on. SpartHawg948 08:08, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

Source?

I was just wondering, where does the information on this page come from?

The majority of the info comes from in-game planet descriptions. Generally, if you follow the links that are present in all the entries, it'll take you right to the source. SpartHawg948 10:10, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Ruins and the Reapers

On this page it talks about a few of the ruins of these civilizations demostrating signs of orbital bombardment, such as the Bothros were wiped out. Know to me it seems odd that so many of these civilizations were so advanced then due to some unknown cataclysm disappeared from the galaxy leaving only the ruins of their civilizations behind. It would seem odd that no one would equate these sudden destructions with the Reapers. From the Reaper found floating around Mnemosyne, which is at least dated at some 37 Million Years old, we know that the Reapers have been wiping out civilizations for a very long time. Given that the most recent event with the destruction of the Prothean civilization some 50,000 years prior to the Mass Effect games that someone would see this mysterious cycle of growth and destruction then be more adpt to believe the Reaper stories.

Rac Ward

Topics like this belong in the forums or a blog post as this isn't what talk pages are for. Lancer1289 00:38, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

Tulomorians and Vankshers?

Are we certain they actually existed? I took Javik's joke to mean he made them up. TheUnknown285 04:44, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

I didn't add those two to the article when I added all of the other races for just that reason. Someone else thought otherwise. I'll remove them, but I think this will be far from the last time someone adds them to the page. -- Commdor (Talk) 05:06, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

Despite my questioning of whether or not they actually existed, I think they may should be listed somewhere with a footnote or something noting that Javik mentions them in the context of a joke. TheUnknown285 (talk) 19:31, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

Zha'til

Where does the information on the zha'til come from? Javik's in game description of them makes no mention of Reaper involvment.

Bring Javik on the Geth Dreadnought mission. I think you may have to interact with a console somewhere for the dialogue to occur. -- Commdor (Talk) 16:30, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

The true identity of the "Space Jockey" Race

The inusannon were a spacefaring race that existed at least 127,000 years ago. Little is known about them except that they warred with another race, the thoi'han, over colonization rights to the garden world Eingana, and that they inhabited Ilos at some point. The inusannon were eventually wiped out by the Reapers. Tens of thousands of years later, the ruins of inusannon civilization provided the Protheans with the knowledge necessary to develop mass effect technology.

The inusannon inhabited Ilos, and were the elder race that the Protheans acquired their tech from.

I believe the statues on Ilos are very likely those of the inusannon.

They are the Space Jockey race first assumed to be the Protheans themselves in ME1.

--MinbariVersusAsari 02:08, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

Things like this belong in the forums or a blog post as this isn't what talk pages are for. Lancer1289 02:11, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

I wish I worked for your company so I could give you an award. You're such a great moderator.

--MinbariVersusAsari 11:58, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

Actually read my last comment this time, rather than outright ignoring it. Lancer1289 14:34, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I share MinbariVersusAsari's doubt. But as Lancer1289 pointed out, there are discussions happening at the answers section of this wikia here and at Bioware forums on this matter. Even though what you claim seems the most logical explanation, we will not be able to add that till more concrete proof is found. --NisansaDdS 15:38, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

As I've mentioned elsewhere, the art book The Art of the Mass Effect Universe explains that the statues on Ilos do depict Protheans. The statues' and Javik's appearances differ because the ME3 artists decided to make the Protheans more Collector-like. Early concept art of Javik actually closely resembles the Ilos statues. -- Commdor (Talk) 15:54, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

It is settled then. Sorry for not seeing the other discussion. It would have been great if this claim was true. But what is not, is not. So I drop the matter. :-D --NisansaDdS 17:10, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

Zha

Shouldn't the Zha have their own section? We don't mention them except in the Zha'til section. Granted, the information would overlap heavily, but we do have a section for the Thoi'han even though all of their information can be contained in the inusannon section. TheUnknown285 (talk) 18:51, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

And that would be redundant and as stated merely a duplication of information. There is no reason for it. Lancer1289 (talk) 22:19, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

namakli paintings

well geological evidence simply points to the impossibility of primitive and exposed rock paintings to survive for billions of years - a time before reapers, judging by the leviathan of dis' age, for one thing.

and who's not to say leviathans left some imprint of themselves on the aliens' subconscious - just enough to make an impression on the paintings. speculation, yes, but then again... T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 04:16, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

We are presuming that all thrall races that knew of the Leviathan's appearance became extinct either because of the Reapers or from the thrall races' own AI creations. Having notice your comment that the races could have learned of the Leviathan's appearance from their ball artifacts, the comments from Ann, Bryson's assistant, and the miners from that asteroid seemed to point out that all have been placed in a dark and cold place, but none mention of the Leviathan themselves or their appearance. Shepard is placed there in the "dark and cold place" and he already knew of the Leviathans' true appearance, but the Leviathans used people he met from his memories instead of their true forms.24.60.42.14 05:01, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

speculation: the thrall race on namakli could've been primitive enough not to be a threat so perhaps leviathans cut them some slack and let them stoke their egos. we did see flashes of the giant squid when it was assuming control of the brute on despoina, why won't the thrall race be any different. the other races being put in cold, dark spaces can be attributed to them being advanced enough to be considered potential threats and thus necessitating the need for camouflage, and the same can be said of shepard even if s/he's face to face with one (a meta explanation for shep is that of model conservation and the need for more compelling drama - i certainly won't be impressed by a floating squid in the middle of nowhere, i want faces i can connect to).

the one overriding arg about the rock paintings and their creators' era is simply the planet they're on: erosion, tectonics and biotic (the general definition, not mass effect's) intervention over hundreds of millions (up to the billions) of years pretty much rules out the "time before the reapers" approximation. we don't see or hear of any pre-human tech on the planet other than the brainwash balls, so artificial preservation of the features does not seem to be the case either. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 05:27, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

We see cinematic cuts to the Leviathan as it tries to control the Brute, not from within the Brute's mind. And the rest is speculation.
As for the erosion thing, that's more likely attributable to writer error/misunderstanding; we see whole planets and stars in the games that don't behave according to real scientific principles because of writer mistakes, why not implausible rock paintings?
Another thing to consider is that the Leviathans say that when they ruled, they exploited their thralls for tribute (which I'd say is what the rock paintings are depicting), but when the Reapers were created, they used thralls to erase all traces of their existence. The problem of how the Namakli species knew what Leviathans looked like aside, if the species was enthralled remotely, why did they do the opposite and create visible paintings of the Leviathans? -- Commdor (Talk) 05:40, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

speculation: worship can also count as tribute. we humans tend to put faces on things we venerate, and it seems the namakli guys do too - as a primitive misunderstanding of what giant cthulhu beings lingering in their psyches through the balls want. and we do know what leviathan characterization is like.
and yet another speculation: the namakli thralls could've been dominated remotely in between reaper cycles. there's no real danger for the moment so why not.
this is the problematic part of dating the species and the paintings: we were never given much to begin with. all we know is that we have rock paintings and ancient primitives and we don't know when they're from. the facts from the game that may infer to them being billions of years old simply cannot hold on logical grounds if they aren't outright writer errors - they're speculation bait, as i've just proven. should we just ask bioware how old the paintings are to let this rest? T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 06:19, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

But the fact remains, given the information presented in the DLC and nothing else, the only way the Namakli species could have known what Leviathans looked like is if they were there on Namakli, and that could only have occurred before the Reapers drove them into hiding. There is no basis for your speculation. I also want to point out that while on Namakli, Ann Bryson notes that the paintings are old, "Much older than my father thought". Obviously vague, but I doubt we would have this deliberate line only for the paintings to turn out to be newer than the Reapers and thus less important to the context.
That said, I'll remove the contested statement from the article pending confirmation one way or the other from BioWare. I think the DLC supports it completely, but we'll see what the devs have to say. -- Commdor (Talk) 17:18, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

DC1938

Does an April Fool's joke about Superman really belong on this page?--Zxjkl (talk) 19:12, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

Holy crap! I didn't notice that. Anyways, I think it's dangerous to eliminate information based on our own inferences about how serious the developers were. Just because it's an obvious reference and published on April Fools Day doesn't mean it's not canon. It did get published as part of CDN, everything else of which we consider canon and it's listed on the Wiki as just another story. It might be warranted to include a note mentioning the obvious reference, though. TheUnknown285 (talk) 19:24, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

Alpha Centauri System

I was looking at the CDN storyline about the lost human colony in the Alpha Centauri System when I noticed something I had missed. The first story mentions that the asari discovered the colony accidentally while observing another primitive race that inhabits the system. Would anyone object to adding this race to the list? TheUnknown285 (talk) 03:03, May 27, 2013 (UTC)

Done. -- Commdor (Talk) 03:19, May 27, 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for an Overhaul

I think this page needs to be changed, races such as the Oravores or any other species named in this article should really have their own individual page like all the other races. It makes sense to list species on one page that aren't named and play a very minor role, but doing the same for races that actually have titles seems strange.

No Offense 5:02 PM June 20, 2013

Ok what is known about those races apart from what is listed here? Nothing. There is no reason to create a page with 3 lines of text on it. This was done to make sure that everything is covered and not have a bunch of pages that are only a paragraph long. Lancer1289 (talk) 21:12, June 20, 2013 (UTC)

Several races named an listed in the Background Races page already succeed that requirement for which you have mentioned, such as the Oravores and the Zha'til. I suppose an alien race listed in the Background Races page, that is named, and succeeds the 3 line requirement can have their own page, am I correct?

On an unrelated note, I think it be interesting if all the races had a speciesbox kinda like this...

{{Speciesbox
|imageBG=
|image=
|name=
|planet=
|language=
|height=
|length=
|wingspan=
|skincolor=
|haircolor=
|fur=
|eyecolor=
|distinctions=
|lifespan=
|races=
|members=
|locations=}}

Several wikis have template boxes like this for alien races, I bet it would look quite good on this wiki. For this wiki, it'll need an adjustment possibly, assuming if such a template was put in place. Just a suggestion, of course.

No Offense 7:22 PM June 20, 2013

You actually took that literally? We do not create articles that will have the information of a paragraph without absolutely needing it. Nothing on this page falls under that category. There was an entire project just to get this page implemented so that species who didn't meet the requirements to have a full article could be mentioned.

On the other note, species info boxes have been repeatedly proposed and rejected due to multiple issues. Nothing like that will be present here because that just looks overly complicated an unnecessary with how things are done here. What goes on elsewhere is irrelevant. Lancer1289 (talk) 23:34, June 20, 2013 (UTC)

How am I supposed to know your being literal, there are no Elcor to interpret anyones speech here (the Elcor part was added for humor, just to let you know). Its a good thing I asked again, otherwise I would have went about creating pages for said alien races. Obviously I disagree with your assessment , but arguing will likely will lead me nowhere, so I'll move on. As for the speciesbox template, I'm not sure how its complicated, since other template boxes exist on the wiki for other things, like for planets and enemies. But if thats the prevailing opinion of this wiki, then I won't argue about it anymore.

No Offense 9:33 PM June 20, 2013

Hi No Offense,

As Lancer said, we putted every races in the same articles to not have a huge number of small and poor articles for unknown races who do not have any role in the lore. This layout also permit to have a complete lists of all those type of background species, it permit the wikia users to know about those species even if they were not really looking at them. And with direct link, even if you look for one particular species, you can find it really easily withouth a proper article.

However, I do agree with your proposal of a box for species (even if I would suggest to put in it only the most important informations such as homeworld, biological type, life span, population,... the rest take place in the article). I suggest you to create a sandbox with a template proposal so we can launch a vote on it. I will support it. Good luck by doing so.--DeldiRe 09:27, June 21, 2013 (UTC)

Nitpick about densorin entry

The densorin are known to have studied celestial mechanics and morphological simulations of galactic language, topics beyond the understanding of even the Protheans.

In its original context, this was referring to a specific group of individuals who Javik, after Mahavid: Leviathan, was theorizing may have been under Leviathan control. That connection might be too speculative to include, but it seems a little misleading to me to word this as though it was characteristic of the race as a whole.--Zxjkl (talk) 09:32, October 15, 2013 (UTC)

Innusannon image

THis article has an Innusannon Image. why to remove it?

We do not have footage of the inusannon. The resemblance between the Ilos statues and Husks are incidental – the statues are what the Protheans were supposed to look like before they were redesigned to be more Collector-esque.

This information can be found in earlier posts on this Talk page. Elseweyr (talk) 13:09, October 23, 2013 (UTC)

Beings of Light

I noticed that Klencory and its alleged "Beings of Light" are not listed here. The issue is they are alleged to exist whereas other races listed are confirmed. So, should they be listed? I would say they should be, just note their hypothesized nature. Plus, if we don't include them, then should we also remove Anjea as well as that one is based on a theory. TheUnknown285 (talk) 17:26, October 14, 2014 (UTC)

apples and oranges. in-universe conjecture with anjea explicitly tag the coffin creators as -probably- a "race". someone made those coffins. other unidentified races have explicit stories of discovery of their ruins or somesuch. this page, quite obviously, is for those races that concretely exist within the fictional background of the ME universe.

"beings of light" - you already pointed out the tenuous nature of their existence. we only have the word of a tripping volus (come ME3, no additional reports so we can determine if the volus was really on to something or just happened to have such a grandiose delusion it turned out to be somewhat real). even if they can be assumed to be "real", do we have any explicit claim they're a singular species or are they instead an organization of diverse beings? kumun shol isn't talking either way.

short answer, no. bioware has mined this red herring for all it's worth. and we probably won't know squat unless they decide to revisit this next game/s. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 18:21, October 14, 2014 (UTC)

Addign question/proposal.

Shouldn't Leviathans be added to the page as a background species? -- Theh5 14:35, November 18, 2018 (UTC)