text:
Talk:Impossible object

Underlying principles
This article does not do a good job explaining the principles behind impossible objects. It fails to mention the math behind it. In particular, all impossible objects are derived from the fact that information is lost when translating 3d points into a 2d plane. Since different 3d points can translate to the same 2d point, points that are detached in 3d space can be apparently consistent in the projection. For example, if you take 2 points A and B, where A is directly over B, there are many different 3d paths that will project in a way that joins A and B. One path is to go directly about the Z axis. Another path is to go about the Y axis, and then the X axis (that is, pretend A and B are both in the XY plane). When both possibilities are entertained in the same image you get an impossible object (in this case, a Penrose triangle).

There is a lot more I could write on the topic, but I fear I am approaching the boundaries of "original research." (IIAOPSW (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC))

Examples
It'd be interesting to see in this article some efforts to construct actual "impossible" objects. This paper notes that many impossible objects rely upon a particular viewing angle to seem impossible, and gives examples of many such objects that can be constructed three-dimensionally. The impossible cube, in particular, would be quite easy to construct: The front top beam that appears to pass behind the rear beam could in fact have a hole cut in it to make it appear that way when viewed from a certain angle. I may work on some of these in Blender. -- Wapcaplet 02:18, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wow, the impossible cube was even easier to construct than I might have imagined. I suspect there are other ways to do it, too - curvy pieces that really do pass behind the other bits, but appear to be straight beams when viewed orthographically. -- Wapcaplet 03:02, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I deleted the impossible bottle from the list since its something that can actually be built, it just looks strange. user:vroman
 * Somebody must have put it back so I have removed it again. --DanielRigal 23:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Beyond Escher for Real has several examples of "impossible objects" that have been modelled in 3D, some have even been made with Rapid prototyping. --Zarboki 16:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

"In fiction

Does this really belong here? --K_R 01:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * In the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "I, Borg", a plan was made to destroy the entire race of Borg – malevolent cybernetic aliens whose minds were interconnected – by showing one of the borg a picture of a highly-complex impossible object. This image would be transmitted back to the Borg hive, overloading its consciousness in larger and larger attempts to understand the image. This plan was dismissed as being genocide, so its potential results were never seen."

Is a Klein bottle a valid example? It certainly can't be constructed in a three-dimensional universe.user:Olaf Davis 17:26, 23 Sep 2006

 * I don't think so. I think the definition must be an object that can be drawn in 2D using individually valid but conflicting perspective elements so that the mind inteprets it as a 2D picture of a 3D object before realising that this is not actually possible. In other words it is an optical illusion, which the Klein Bottle is not. I am currently reading Bruno Ernst's book on the subject and that is sort of the way he defines it. If nobody objects, I would like to reword the description along these lines as I think that will help people understand why things like the Impossible Bottle don't belong here.--DanielRigal 23:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

 * ( says):"No, this is not a Klein bottle. It is a three-dimensional picture of a Kelin bottle but not a real one, just as other "impossible objects" have two dimensional pictures which are not the real objects."

 * Whilst I agree that 's contribution is mistaken, it shouldn't be deleted from the talk page. I have restored it above and appended 's edit summary refutation. Captainllama (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

In fiction
In the In fiction section, the item had the following comment added 09:04, 13 June 2007 by user:71.194.202.81:
 * In the video game Diablo II, the "Arcane Sanctuary" region was based on impossible drawings.
 * (on purpose? i think this results from being unable to show a 3-d area on Diablo's graphics, and is a coincidence-)

While possibly relevant, it needs some editing and fact checking before going into the article proper. Or, the whole item should be removed as unsourced / original research.--Niels Ø (noe) 09:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a picture of it. SpectrumDT (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Impossible only as some dimwits interpret it!!
All the impossible objects can be made in 3d. The only problem is when we rotate them the trick is revealed. But hey, whoever said about rotation in the 2d representation presented to our eyes... So, in a way I tend to disagree that the showed 2d image is that of an impossible object. If nothing else, what we see, can easily be constructed as thin wires arranged in a way and welded together and photographed to look similar to the image shown. Whatever you want to call such objects(read drawings), it is certainly wrong to call it an optical illusion. This is no illusion, just an example of bad engineering-drawing. Could someone paraphrase/copy-as-it-is the logic I have given here and then use it in the article. Saurabh Mangal (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

 * The mental function of stereoscopic vision is always to try to interpret what is seen as a real 3D object, even when parallax is not evident e.g. when the scene is at great distance, one eye is shut or when looking at a drawing or photograph. Please don't disparage this mental function as "some dimwits" because it is vital to understanding the world around us. Images of impossible objects lead the mind to start modelling an object that cannot be properly modelled. The brain's optical function labours under the illusion that there is an object that can be realized, hence optical illusion. Replacing a line drawing with a view of wires merely changes the physical medium of the image that is causing the optical illusion. (There is no such thing as a "good" engineering drawing of an impossible object.) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Hi. Yes,the title of this article is mislead and therefore the article should be renamed. The simple fact, that these objects can be drawn or imagined, in whatever how many dimensions, is proof of the possibility and existence of these obejcts. A definition whether such object exit or not is very relative to the ability of a mind. In respect to the neutrality, therefore this article should be renamed. - Lix (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

 * You seem to miss the point completely. given any "3d" image (that is, an image that is supposed to represent a 3d figure projected to the 2d plane) there are an infinite set of 3d objects that resolve to that image. This is a result of the inherit loss of information when going from 3d to 2d. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that there exists a real 3d object that resolves to a given impossible object. For example, here is a shape that involves several types of ambiguities. http://andreasaronsson.com/2011/08/17/impossible-figure-2011-06-28/.

 * Hello, all. There is such a thing as an "impossible object," and it should remain the name of the article. As for whether it is an optical illusion or engineering-drawing, I would ask what the difference is. Isn't engineering-drawing how you create an optical illusion? Finally, I think that y'all are reading too much into this. --John (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Impossibility in Higher Dimensions
What happens to the feasability of manufacturing these objects when one considers all eleven dimensions?  -RadicalOne •Contact Me•Chase My Tail 04:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Nothing. The use of extra dimensions does not allow these shapes to be constructed at all.

Rune of Xel'lotath
There is discussion on whether the rune of Xel’lotath from Eternal Darkness: Sanity’s Requiem is really an impossible object or not and thus whether it should be removed from this article. I think it is not and therefore should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Synetech (talk • contribs) 08:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Just because something can be imagined does not necessarily mean that it can actually exist in reality! Take for example a massive object that is not influenced by gravity at all! It definitely can be imagined but can such a thing really exist? In my opinion it is logically impossible for such a thing to exist! The phrase itself is simply a meaningless string of words, like someone saying that John is a married bachelor. In all physical theories the very definition of a massive object is something that has a gravitational field! Stating that there exists such a thing as that is the same as saying that there exists a square circle! Yonathan Arief Kurniawan (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)Yonathan Arief Kurniawan

Impossible object versus optical illusion
There seems to be a soft distinction between things that are impossible objects and things that are optical illusions. Some items in Category:Impossible objects suffer from this confusion, as well as some content in this article and the see also section. Some care should be taken in the application of the definition of impossible object. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 20:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Optical illusion is a superset of impossible objects. I think most of the stuff in there is tagged correctly. -- Cy be r XR ef ☎ 08:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Fez video game example
Previous version : this included a video clip of the game Fez, but this does not appear to represent "Impossible objects" in the sense of this article. There are views of a "block" universe from one direction, and the 3D graphics rotate (too quickly to see what is happening) to a different view. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You have to pay close attention to the gameplay. As the player moves, he may for instance climb a ladder that in reality is partially connected to one cliff, and continue by climbing a different ladder that is connected to a different cliff. But this is in one fluid motion that "breaks" the rules of perspective in both a visual and spatial sense. It's very subtle. SharkD   Talk  14:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Fez definitively has impossible objects in the sense that player's movement on 3D geometry is based on that geometry's 2D projection. In other words, there is no "depth" to objects unless the view is rotating and the game totally breaks perspective by allowing player to traverse the projections. For example, objects far apart in 3D space appear to be next to each other when looked from a certain angle and the player can move between them as if there was no depth distance. In video, a good example is at 1:30 -- the player jumps between the purple floating platforms that in 3D view are on 4 opposite corners of the main structure. It takes getting used to. It's the most famous game with this mechanic, so I think it's a very good example to include. There's not many works with complex impossible geometry, yet alone playable/interactive. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * While we don't have free imagery, Antichamber is perhaps a stronger example of impossible objects in video games. --M ASEM (t) 15:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point, in full 3D it's the best example and perhaps best example overall. I would still say Fez is more known/popular, but I guess that's somewhat subjective. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I still feel that the Fez clip is not a good illustration, because it requires too much work to find the "impossible" bit. I think it might be better to add some description, and a link to the Fez article. Have I grasped this: basically, in the game, jumping is always within the 2D projection, as though it were flat. But the player knows that "really" in 3D the planes are different...? I'm not entirely convinced that this is the same sort of thing as the rest of the "impossible objects", which are always tricks of perspective in a 2D drawing. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , Yes, that's how it works. It is 3D (or 4D if you include time) instead of 2D, but it still is an visual artistic representation of an object that can't function in reality. SharkD   Talk  19:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "I'm not entirely convinced that this is the same sort of thing as the rest of the "impossible objects", which are always tricks of perspective in a 2D drawing." Television screens are 2D, so it's not different in that sense. SharkD   Talk  21:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

"Mysteriously"
Calling the trident mysterious seems like an attempt to play it up.--Simplificationalizer (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Echochrome
Here's another video game that features impossible objects. Could maybe link to the video if it weren't so grainy. SharkD  Talk  23:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And the sequel, though it's more about shadows. SharkD   Talk  23:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Waterfall.svg

Remove Bixten Seme/Impossible cards?
I'm just a casual reader, however I notice this example lacks a source and lacks supporting details via a Google search. Should it be removed?

"Impossible linked cards - invented by Bixten Seme and created in real time by an expert practitioner, of which there are only three worldwide. The centers are torn out of two cards and then they are permanently linked."

(I realize there is a magician's tool called the "impossible cards" but they are obviously not *truly* impossible, nor limited to three worldwide. And still no mention of a Bixten Seme.)

(Apologies for the initial accidental post of this comment under the wrong topic not sure if that can be edited or deleted.) Quillseek (talk) 10:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

 * Yes. I agree that this is not notable. Googling "Bixten Seme" returns almost nothing. It also sounds promotional in tone. I have removed it. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the confirmation! :) Quillseek (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Impossible object


text:
Talk:Ancient (Stargate)

2004
Major problems with this page:

1. "And, in fact had evolved originally on Earth several million years ahead of Humans."

The ancients MAY have evolved on Earth, but it's very unlikely. According to the first episode of Star Gate: Atlantis, the ancients whole purpose in life was to reseed the galaxy with humanoid life after a plague had wiped most of it from the universe. In this means, the ancients would have seeded the Milky Way, as well as the Asgard galaxy, and probably any other race that has since developed, including us humans.

 * Yet SG: Atlantis episode "Before I sleep" (think it's S1E15) has some Ancient implicitly tell Dr. Weir that they were the first evolution of Humans on Earth. I'm starting to think that a) the plot is broken there b) the Alterans had a collective loss of memory regarding where they came from during their time residing in the Milky Way c) there was another race on Earth that actually evolved there but merged with the Alterans (who did come from outside the Milky Way).

2. "However, there came a time that many of the Ancients "ascended" to a higher plane of existence (spatial) to escape a plague that was destroying their population. Around this time, one of the ancient's cities on Earth, Atlantis, left Earth and went to the Pegasus galaxy, where it settled on the huge ocean of a planet with barely any land."

The "plague" happened long before the ancients left to go to the Pagasus galaxy. The entire reason for them going was to reseed that galaxy with humanoid life. Why would they go there if the plague would just wipe out the life they seeded eventually?

3. "When the Atlantean Ancients returned, the plague was spreading."

Where are you getting this information? Are you creating it like fan-fic, or are do you actually have show references?

The Plague happened WAY before the ancients seeded ANY galaxies. It was their job to reseed the galaxy after the Plague had already killed off all living beings except the ancients (they were carriers).

4. "After breeding with the humans who had the same physical appearance, some ascended, and became god-like beings"

What?!? See, now I know you're making this up. There is not one single reference for this in the show at all. The reason why some humans (1/16,000) can use ancient technology is due to the fact that we're evolving into ancients, or rather we're evolving the neccessary biology that will allow us to be like the ancients (regeneration abilities, healing others, empathic abilities, so on). The ancients seeded planets with their DNA, and the life that evolved from that DNA will eventually have the same abilities as the ancients once had. They're repopulating their race, not having sex with cavemen.

5. "The Ancients are a member of the alliance of four great races."

The ancients WERE (past tense) part of the alliance of four great races. They're ascended now, and their rules prohibit them from interfering in lesser races advancement. They no longer contribute to the alliance, thus they're no longer members.

I'm going to put together some real references from some real sources, and then rewrite this article, because as it stands now, it's mostly fan-fic inspired, not actually factual pertaining to the series.

I think its getting pretty obvious that ancients are just humans, on the episode where they find the ancient girl in antarctica it said something about the humans being another cycle with the ancients haven previously chosen to return. I don't know, check it out. I'm not a anorak and I saw that episode eons ago --Josquius 22:33, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In the ending of this season, they state that the wraith are evolved from the parasite and the humans. I'm not updating the page directly because I don't have detailed references and it's messed up otherwise anyway. DÅ‚ugosz

Actually, IIRC it's only speculated at by the human main characters on account of the similarities between Wraith DNA and both humans and the tick-like bugs. They could well be wrong about it, they've been wrong about other stuff before as well (their original speculation on why Teyla could sense Wraith, for example). I don't have the detailed references handy either, but I'll continue tinkering with the article as I come across them. Bryan 00:38, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ascention happened AFTER they left for Pegasus! They were still researching it on Atlantis!! (See Hide And Seek) This will require a pretty big rewrite.

Also, two other ways the Ancients combatted the Plague were the failed Time Machine from Window of Opprotunity and the Dakara Superweapon. I'm not as good a writer as some other people, so its probably best if someone else fixed the myriad of errors.

Ancient History
There are many things wrong with the history of the Ancients.

 * 1. If the ori wanted the atlantiens to worship them wouldn’t they have been protected by the ascended beings that that thought is was wrong to interfere in lower technologically advanced beings.
 * 2. I thought that there were two groups of ascended beings the ori and ascended beings that that thought is was wrong to interfere in lower technologically advanced beings.
 * 3. If the atlantiens were the ascended beings that that thought is was wrong to interfere in lower technologically advanced beings why didn’t the ori enslave them to worship before they ascended.

 * 4. If the wraith evolved by sucking the blood of the ancients than in order for the wraith to be 100 times more numerous they would have had too suck the blood of 99% of the ancients.
 * 5. It would take decades at best for the wraith to evolve to the point of space travel capable of destroying the ancients.
 * 6. The wraith can not survive without human food.
 * 7. Why would the ancients allow there people to be killed off for decades allowing the wraith population to grow and evolve to the point of space travel capable of destroying the ancients.

 * All your questions here are answered directly or through inference if you watch the last 2 seasons of Atlantis and SG-1. Just pay attention to what is said, and don't miss any episodes. Some of what you put here aren't questions, they just appear to be your opinion on something you disagree with or dislike the artistic direction of the shows races/characters. Can't help you there. [Thursday, 2007-01-11 T 16:39 UTC]

Who asended first the Ancients or the Ori
Please discuse this.

 * You mean Ascended? The answer is neither, their isn't really anything to discuss on that issue. The show really doesn't directly clarify, and what it does say implies they Ascended first and differed in path second. They were one people and are still essentially the same race, just with differant philosophies about what to do with being Ascended. [Thursday, 2007-01-11 T 16:39 UTC]

your wrong the ancients and ori seperated first and ascended second why else would they be in two different galaxies and why wouldnt the ori then know about the humans in the milky way
 * You are correct. There was a civilization of highly technologically advanced humans, it is unknown what they called themselves at this point, some of them thought they should use their advanced tech to rule other races, others thought they should teach and help other races. Because of this difference in philosophies they split into 2 separate societies, the Ori and the Alterans. Neither of them ascended until much later. As to who ascended first, the Ori or the Alternas, it has not explicitly been said. It has been alluded to that they both ascended at around the same time. This would also make sense seeing that they were the same spices and on the same evolutionary path. --Jimv1983 (talk) 06:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Oma Desala Redirects Here
Why, she's a major character, she has merit for a seperate article. 21:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. She should have a seprate article.  Tobyk777 07:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Move Request
In the interest of encyclopedic perfection, this page should be moved to Alteran as the only reason for calling the Alteran's Ancients is because no one ever knew their proper name, they were just the gate builders, the ancients, the ancestors, but now we have a proper name for them. Carterhawk 01:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I disagree. They're still almost exclusively referred to as the Ancients, and that's what everybody knows them by. bob rulz 03:17, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * That doesnt make it right though. nine of years of not having enough info has ended. It would be like calling the Ori The Ancients Evil Cousins or something. The Alterans left the Ori, the Ori attacked the Alterans, and they both ascended. So much nicer than Ancients. We need to find the very first reference to Ancient in the show, see who said it and why, probably just sounded better than Gate Builders.... Carterhawk 03:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose. Per Naming conventions (common names), we use common names, not official names.  They are commonly known as the Ancients and that is how they should stay.  Dragons flight 04:47, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose. Ancients is the common name used in the series. In fact, a lot of fans are not avare of the Alterans name. Alteran can be created as a redirect, if necessary. - Andromeda 08:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose. The show established the term Alterans in S9E02 IIRC, only a few weeks ago. Aside from die-hard fans, nobody nows the it...yet. -- 84.156.170.236 10:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose. "Ancients" are what they're called now, by almost everyone in the Milky Way (both real and fictional :). That's their common name, so that's what the article should be titled. Bryan 15:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Aren't they from Altair? If so, isn't the name actually Altairan?  -Sean Curtin 03:09, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * I doubt it. Altair is only 17 light years away, and as an A-class star isn't much like the Sun. The Ancients apparently came from outside the Milky Way entirely. Bryan 05:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose. "Ancients" is the more commonly-used names. And for that matter, we've not yet gotten any confirmation as to whether all Ancients are Alterans. The name could for all we know just apply to the ones who aren't Ori. Redxiv 23:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose. In the episode "The Fifth Race", O'Niel reads off 'Noo Ani Anqueetus', Ancient for 'We are the Ancients'.   Maybe 'Alteran' refers to a particular 'nationality' or clan of Ancients, as 'Lantian' refers to those Ancients who went with Atlantis to Pegasus.

 * Oppose. It should stay as ancients, if your going to do everything by its old name, then Americans, Australians, new zealanders are all British, most south americans are Aztec or Spanish, and Canadians are actually British and French….

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. violet/riga (t) 14:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Post-fall Ancient/Human Interaction
Its a well known fact that there was intermarriage between the returning Lantians and humans. Anyhow, I was wondering what theories there were as to the connection between the Romans and the Ancients as well as the simmilarity between spoken ancient and spoken latin.

 * If it's a "well known fact" that there was intermarriage, could you provide some references so that we could make the article clearer on this matter? As for theories about other connections, keep in mind the no original research policy. We need to keep fan speculation segregated and clearly labelled. Bryan 05:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Two words: Explain ATA. There had to be intermarriage. LD 9/17/05

 * If I were to explain ATA, then that would be original research on my part. Please point out an external reference of some kind where ATA is explained in this manner. Bryan 01:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Who changed it to "Altairans"?
Where does your information come from? All I know is, scifi.com has the Ancients listed as "Altera" or "Alterans". They have the scripts; they know more; hence what they say is correct. Thus, I am changing it all back to "Alterans", and I beleive I have the community behind me. LD 9/21/05

 * The Altairans (notice the spelling) are the race that built Harlan who later built android replicas of SG-1. Aarlin81 22:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * LD is correct. The race that because known as the Ancients started as the Alterans not the Altairans. --Jimv1983 (talk) 06:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ancient written from right to left
Since I don't want anyone reverting this, I'll refer you to Anubis' research log in "Prototype", episode 909. LD 03:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, for a few reasons. Just because the text was aligned to the right doesn't mean that it is read from right to left. There was some text on the top left that was aligned to the left, and not the right. In addition, Anubis was using the language as code. He could have done anything to it to make it more difficult to decypher. What Anubis used isn't necessarily pure ancient. Also, we've seen Ancient text scroll in both directions. (But mostly from right to left, showing that the text would be read from left to right.) And I was watching 'The Siege', and some text written in Ancient is aligned in either direction, so we can't really assume that to mean anything at all. Also, when they are looking at a screen in the satellite's interior, and Grodin is pointing out the location of a circuit, the text scrolls in from left to right. If a civilization read their text from right to left, they wouldn't have their computers doing that. MioTheGreat 05:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, you have me on some of those (for the moment), but as for your Grodin argument, I'll refer you to the Al-Jazeera news crawl, which, despite being written in the right-to-left Arabic script, moves from the left side of the screen to the right. Ahh, the advantages of multilinguality! LD 03:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I would mention that in Atlantis (the city), the central staircase's writing on certain steps is upside down. This can also be seen in the Season 8 episode where Jacob/Selmak and Carter are trying to decipher the writing on the wall in the temple on Dakara and must rotate the sections of the wall 90 degrees in order to get the correct translation. There is first the question on whether or not we should go ahead and "translate" the text according to each symbol's Latin Alphabet equivalent. If that is indeed part of the process of determining which way the text is written, then it seems that when the symbols are right-side-up the text is written left to right and when the symbols are upside-down they are read right-to-left. It is possible that the creators of the show are attempting to establish that the Romans and Greeks (and whatever others) based their system of writing in both directions on this.

Cereal Killer 03:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Visit SciFi.com/Atlantis. Move you mouse over the words like CAST, EPISODES, etc.  The letters appear Left to Right.

Scifi.com is generally regarded as being someone inaccurate so I wouldn't go with that and it directly defies things shown onscreen, for example, the Glastonbury cavern in "Avalon", I translated the Ancient text into English and it was indeed left to right.

Faris b 20:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Bad Organization
Hi, After reading this article, and being well versed in stargate, it really seems that the layout of this article makes no sense. All the info is jumbled around in no order. Does anyone else agree that the info here needs to be re-sorted into better section titles in a diffrent order? Tobyk777 05:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. Try to include a special section on language, OK? Lockesdonkey 01:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree.--12.159.57.2 01:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Any Idea as to how it should be reorganized?

How about this:

 * History
 * Ori Galaxy
 * Move to Milky way
 * Life in Milky way
 * Atlantis flight to Peagasus/partial move to peagasus
 * Life in Peaasus
 * Back from Atlantis
 * Life on earth
 * Ascension
 * Physiology
 * Abliites (This might be covered in our article DNA Resequencer)
 * Anatomy
 * Philospsohy
 * Before Ascension
 * After Ascension
 * Current Ascended issues
 * Technology
 * Language
 * Known Ancients
 * See Also
 * Refrences
 * External Links

What do you think? -Tobyk777 04:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Makes sense to me - [[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]]  nath a  nrdotcom  ( T •  C  • W) 04:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Add language section. LD 13:24, 9 March 2006
 * Ok added. i also refined the plan a little. Tobyk777 05:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Vote to execute plan, as per Tobyk's recommendations. Mind your capitals and spellings. LD 22:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Lantians - Lanteans - Ancients - Alterans
Gateworld and other sources seem to make a clear distinction between Lantians and other Ancients, this article doesnt reflect that. Any comments or ideas? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.159.57.2 (talk • contribs).

I know this is probably a few months too late but here's my take on it.

The Lanteans are a different sect/faction of Ancients than the Ancients. I mean, the Ancients were only called the Ancients when they came to the Milky Way, back in the Ori galaxy they were the Alterans and when they moved to Pegasus they renamed themselves the Lanteans. It's basically like different states or countries of them to distinguish their different societies and such.

--Faris b 08:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree with the "it's like different namings", so Ancient = English ie. Milky Way name for any individual of the FIRST evolution of mankind, (At)Lanteans = Pegasus name after "Atlantis",
 * but then: Alteran = (is Latin for "the others" - and Latin was influenced by Merlin&Co-returners to Milky Way) all Ancients that left the Home Galaxy (now:OriGalaxy) for the Milky Way (explains the Alteran Communication Device MilkyWay<->OriGalaxy); Ori = group of people disagreeing with the technological ideology, preferring religion and staying home. cf.. Hm. --FlammingoParliament 18:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

 * So what your saying is that these people basically change their name each time they move to another galaxy? -- SFH 01:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

 * No, it rather is being changed: I do not know what they call themselves, until now i only heard they refer to individuals of their (first) evolution as those "of our kind". But they are given different names according to circumstances: Ancients who live in Atlantis=Lantians, Atlanteans etc. And people who distinguish themselves (like an Opposition)= Others, or same in Latin altera.--FlammingoParliament 11:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess that you might have something in that the Ori don't call themselves Alterans. When Daniel asked the Ori possessed Doci if he knew who the Alterans were, the Ori seemed to get really pissed—of course, I might have imagined hearing him sound pissed, as someone whose eyes were on fire just comes across as angry—but I digrees. Are we absolutely sure that Alteran just refers to those that believed in science, or is it a play on words, a nod to the "Others". -- SFH 22:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Extinction?
I added the word "presumably" to this phrase "They are presumably long since extinct", because Ancients have been discovered in suspended animation, and we don't know if there are others in suspended animation as well.--RLent 18:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the phrase, in episode "Sanctuary" of stargate atlantis, Chaya Sar a living ancient appeared on the episode although yes she contained acension powers she still lived as a normal human in the pegasus galaxy on her homeworld, and don't forget about the ancients in the Milky Way galaxy one ancients who was an Harcesis appeared on the episode "Absolute Power" of the SG-1 Series and then disapeared off to finish his journey, so i don't think is neccesary to put down presumbly extinct, if i'm wrong tell me please...... SKYNET X1000 (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"They are 'presumably' long since extinct", is a statement that I agree with as there may still be some ancients in stasis pods. The examples given by SKYNET X1000 as to why they are not extinct are very flawed. Chaya Sar is an ascended ancient. They can take the form of a normal human to walk among others. This does not count her or any other's as a living ancient as she is an ascended ancient. If Chaya Sar is counted as a living ancient then Oma Desala would have to be included as well as every other acended ancient. This dosn't make all ascended beings ancients. There are a few examples of other races ascending. Daniel Jackson, a 2nd evolution human, is the most notible example(sorry I forget the exact episode). The Harcesis is not an ancient. He is the product of 2 Goa'uld hosts, Apophis and Sha're. This make him a human/Gao'uld hybrid. Oma Desala raised him, teaching him to suppress his Goa'uld memories and urges and put him on the path to ascencion. This would make him and ascended Hybrid not ancient. Exapmles of living Ancients (who later died during the show) would include: 1) Merlin who was in stasis and then revived to help the gang in SG1. 2) The crew of the Aurora in Stargate Atlantis were all in stasis, thus still alive. Although they were to far gone to be revived they were still living at some point during the show. 3) The crew of the Aurora class ship the 'Tria' were many living ancients who were cery much alive. So much so that they were able to take back over Atlantis until they were defeted by the Azuren Replecators. 4) There was also the ancient who was found near the Ancient outpost on Earth. Although she didn't live for long after revial she was still alive. I am sure there may be more examples but that is all I can think of right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scudz3099 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Difference, Comparisons and AKA's
Difference, Comparisons and Also Known As are needed to distinguish what are the differences between "Ancients" "Lantians" "Alterans" "Ori" "Evil ascended Beengs" "Gate Builders" which are all "Ascended Beengs" being braking down to 2 groups:

1) Alterans (aka "Ancients" "Gate Builders", "Alterans", "*Lantians", "*Atlanteans", "*Lanteans")

2) "Ori" (Evil ascended Beengs)

* May or May not refer to the earth explores that came to Atlantis, or known as the SGA team.

We all known that the Ancients are the Gate builder and what we know from early season 9; and later in season 9 SG1 (season 2 SG Atlantis) We learn that Ancients (Alterans) from Atlantis arent called Atlanians but in fact referred to as "Lantians" by some wraith and other human cultures.

The Ori are ascended beengs from the Alterans home galaxy. also known as Evil Ascended beings.

Anyone feel free to correct me i know i screwed up on something accidentally.--Gakhandal 03:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Lantians? Atlanteans? Hmm. I've heard Atlanteans before too. - [[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]]  nath a  nrdotcom  ( T •  C  • W) 04:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

 * "Lantean" is the word used to refer to people living in atlantis.--  Alfakim  --  talk   16:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Please excuse me if I'm being obtuse or have missed something, but is there actually anywhere in the show where a Lantean identifies him or herself as being an Alteran or an Ancient? The reason I ask is that both Ayiana, and O'Neill when given Ancient knowledge/brain alterations, were able to perform incredible mental tasks (such as telekinesis) that has been identified as a state on the way to biological ascension. Ayiana was 5-10 million years behind the Lanteans seen in the Atlantis episodes "Before I Sleep" and "Aurora", yet none of the Lanteans seemed even vaguely capable of such tasks, nor did they seem capable of the extraordinary perception demonstrated by the Anubis clone in the SG-1 episode "Prototype". Thus, it would seem that the Ancients were on their way to biological ascension several million years before the Lanteans managed it, and even before the research into Ascension based on the energy being in (I think) "Hide and Seek".

While I grant that this is all original research, given the evidence I have presented, it seems to be no more unsubstantiated than the claim that the Ancients of Ayiana's time are the same people as the Lanteans when considering the vast differences between them. Can anyone shed light on this? --Despair 17:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Age of the Ancients
"[Ancients] having evolved fifty million years prior to the present day and reaching their level of technology long before life had even evolved on Earth." There's been life on this planet for nearly a billion years. Is there any evidence from the shows that the Ancients are that old, or is this just an exaggeration? Jordan.Kreiger 13:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

No kidding. Someone apparently keeps changing this back. If someone knowns for certain please post something about it here. There is also a lot of cleanup yet some person or persons keeps reverting back to the obviously incorrect information. Aarlin81 17:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I rember back in Frozen that Carter was talking to a scientist in Antarctica, and she said that the DHD found there was Fifty million years old. That's probably when they colonized Earth...or Terre or Avalon or whatever they call. God these people had a lot of names for things. But if I'm wrong about that, please correct me. -- SFH 23:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup tag
Hi, I just tagged this article for cleanup because the organization is so horrible in this article. I don't know how the sections were formulated, but the way they were done doesn't make sense. I have already posted my proposal for the restructuing of this article on the talk page, but I only got one response. Also, even if I got approval, it would take more than one person to get this article right. Tobyk777 23:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * One response=nobody else cares=do it. Now. I would, but I have neither the time nor the patience nor the knowledge of the details of your plan (in spite of what you put above) to do it myself. LD 03:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I decided to be bold and have reformatted the article. --Despair 18:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Alterans and Ori?
Perhaps I missed something here but I know the name Ancients was given to the Alterans by early Romans. Ori is a name later associated with the ascended being who demand worship. It's been explained that the Ancients were once called the Alterans. Unless I missed something it was never explained whether this was the original name for their race (assuming the Ancients and Ori were once one race and not two living in the same galaxy or on the same planet), or a name that they took later after separating themselves from those later known as the Ori. It seems that someone is putting a whole lot of assumptions and pressumptions into this entire article. So I have decided to fix this until someone can show otherwise. Aarlin81 22:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The Ori and Alterans are from the same race. Sorry, I can't cite a source. I have seen all the episodes so many times I can't remember when it was mentioned. As far as I can remember the name of the race before they split was never mentioned. It could have Ori, Alterans or something totally different. --Jimv1983 (talk) 06:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Inacuaracy
This article makes it sound as if all the ancients left for the peagasus. they didn't. Many were left behind. There has been technology found in the milky way from the time period that they were in the peagasus. Also, thor stated that the asgard elevloved about 30,000 years ago. It makes sense that if the great alliance came after that, but before the Goa'uld, it was between 25000 to 10,000 years ago, when the Ancients were in the peagasus. Reading the article it seems like Ayana was the only one left behind. She wasn't. The are other subtle inacuracies in this article. Depite them, I have to say that this article is improving. When I put the cleanup tag on, it was herendous, but its a little better now. Tobyk777 06:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

 * How many and who exactly? Technology found in the Milky Way either predates them leaving or was left when the returned (repository of the Ancients).  Ayiana was the only non-ascended Ancient left behind.  Orlin wasn't left behind.  He was banished.  No real timeline is given to his original ascension.

 * The Asgard evolved 30,000 years ago? I'm not entirely sure but which episode was this?  I need to verify if he was referring to there current state (the used to look more human).  However, as you state "evolved" not "came into being" so the alliance could have existed before the Alterans left for the Pegasus galaxy.  Aarlin81 04:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In the episode, Revelations (Stargate SG-1) it was explicitly stated that the Asgard were building thier first ships 30,000 years ago. This was about the time that they became super advanced.  The Ancients are called the Ancients, even by the asgard, because they are Ancient.  they came millions of years before the asgard.  The alliance took place at about the time that the Ancients wer in the peagasus.  It couldn't have been after they came back because in that time the Goa'uld had risen to power.  Also, saying that only 1 Ancient was left behind, is also saying that all Ancient tech found by SG-1 is from over 5 million years ago.  that just doesn't seem right.   Tobyk777 04:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Just checked out the episode. The 30,000 year reference points to when the ship (that was lost an drifted through space) was launched.  Now given that timeline it does appear that the Asgard atleast joined the alliance during the time when the Ancients were in the Pegasus galaxy.  However, when you consider that the Nox are Milky Way residents they would have been wiped out when the Ancients wiped out all life in the MW.  However, the exact timelines of when the races joined (not always an alliance of 4) is unknown.

 * Now the Asgard do not call the Ancients the Ancients because they are Ancient. The name Ancients was given to them by the Romans.  According to the mythology presented in SG-1, gods called the Ancient Ones taught the Romans (the first road builders) to build roads.  This timeline coencides with their return to Earth.

 * Now the technology. You assume, incorrectly, that all technology found is from before they left.  Not true.  The repository/library of the Ancients would have likely been left after their return.  The Ancients were still trekking around while the Goa'uld were playing around in the Milky Way (how many Goa'uld were in power at the time is not known exactly).  Since all life was wiped out (except for Ayiana who was in the chamber at Dakara) any others left behind would have been wiped out.  There has been no evidence to even suggest that any others were left  behind (atleast not alive).  So, Ancient outpost = 5 million years, repository/library = sometime after their return.  Now wrap your heads around this.  Because the alliance met in the Milky Way, it's likely that some Alterans were poking around and left some stuff, not people left behind.  The others were doing some poking too (Furling Utopia).  Aarlin81 02:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Ayiana in the chamber at Dakara? dont you mean the site of the Stargate in antarctica? Also, An example of tech left behind by the ancients was the gate superweapon used by anubis in S6 - eps1/2.--Ross 21:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Please read a little more carefully. Ayiana would likely have been protected from the device while in the chamber.  Later, ON HER WAY BACK, via the stargate she was possibly caught in an avalanche.  Aarlin81 17:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Wow, I must have missed an episode, can someone point me toward the episode where it's said that Ayiana was the one who activated the Dakara superweapon? Ross (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Ayiana was left behind because she had the plague. When she is revived in Antarctica(Frozen) she was sick. --24.23.143.90 (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Major work still needed
Hi, I just took another look at this article and did a major clean up of the history section (That section still needs alot of work). There is still alot of redundant info throughout the entire article, as well as tons of mising information throughout the entire article. Much of the article is unrefrenced, unorgaznied, and lacking of key details. For such a crucial article in Stargate, this defniately needs alot more work. Tobyk777 03:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Over-confident.
I must say I'm surprised that my favourite WikiProject has neglected this article. Never fear, I am here. I intend to wikify and clean it all up myself... I'll make it a featured article. lol Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III Talk to me! 09:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Don't worry. I fully intend to help with this little project.  Unfortunately, there are people who watch the show but apparently don't pay any attention what-so-ever.  This means that after edits and cleanup are finished, some knuckle-head will revert the article to an earlier, sloppy version.  For example someone actually wrote "While there is still a difference between the Alterans and the Ori, they are still one race, the Ancients".  WHAT?!?  Aarlin81 18:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I was the one who put the cleanup tag on the article. As one of the most active members of the stargate project I have been cleaning it up little by little.  It still has a very long way to go though.  Tobyk777 19:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, OK. Thank you.  Happy now?  Yes, this article needs a lot of work.  It's a good thing I've got a TV, DVD player and seasons 1-8 sitting right behind me as I type this.  So fact checking shouldn't be a problem.  Aarlin81 04:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have all the seasons too, as well as Stargate Atlantis season 1. I even have a self-recoreded copy of seasons 9 and 2.  I have watched every episode ever at least twice.  I have been doing some fact checking too.  However, this article was  too broad of a topic for me to tackle alone.  The article that I have put extrodniaruy effort into was DNA Resequencer, our best Stargate article now.  Now that that one is vertualy complete (I think it's at FA standards), I'll start on this one, (but I may need help).  This article has the potential to be longer than Tobyk777 02:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, got the Atlantis DVD set too. Got some more stuff sitting on the DVR in the living room.  It's gonna be tough going through this article.  I just have to keep from drowning in the ocean of misinformation, blind praise, and various other stupidities with the Kevin Trudeau article.  If I can stay afloat, I should have some time to spend on this one.  Aarlin81 04:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Reseeding Life and Nox in the Mily Way
Somebody decided to put a whoe lot of "incorrections" and assumptions in the section titled Milky Way (first time). It seems that the speculation that Aiayana, already infected, was left to "restart" life in the Milky Way was not right according to their assumptions.
 * Some fans,believe that the Dakara Device wiped out all life, it has the power certainly, to reseed life, for this to be true the Nox would not exist. The Device simply replenished life in the Milkyway.

This supposed assumption that the Nox wouldn't exist is apparently based on the alliance of the four great races. It has been stated that the Ancients restarted life in the Milky Way. The assumption that the Nox wouldn't be around is simply WRONG. There is NO timeline given as to when the alliance was formed. Beyond the Asgard's statements that it took many millenia (a millenium is 1000 years), there is no definitive time frame present in the show. It has never been established as to how old the Nox race is either. Given that the Alterans left Earth 5 million years ago (according to the SG:A pilot "Rising") it is perfefctly safe to theorize that the Nox would have had this time to come into being. That is of course if they are even from the Milky Way originally or settled there some time later. Given that all four races have had some type of purpose for being in the Milky Way which may be how the races came into contact with each other. It is also safe to assume that after life was restarted in the Milky Way, that the Lanteans would have possibly made treks to Earth from the Pegasus galaxy (possibly to meet with other alliance members. Given that any stargate could dial Earth (until they were locked out before they evacuated to Earth which is explained in the episode "Before I Sleep") it's pretty much a given that some might have made these treks.  This could also have been how they met the other races given that all members have had some reason for being in the Milky Way (Lanteans - well duh, Nox - they live their, Asgard - study/exploration, Furlings - Utopia).  Aarlin81 20:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It isnt perfectly safe to therorize that the alliance was formed 5 million years ago. That is wrong.  The Asgard were stated in the season 5 finale to have evolved to their current state 30,000 years ago and only had primitive spaceships at that time, thus the alliance was more recent than that.  Since the Ancients came back from Atlantis 10,000 years ago, the Ancients had to be in the alliance after they came back.  The first time they were in the milky way was too early for the asgard to be in the alliance.  Plus, they wouldn't be called the Anceints by the asgard unless they were older than the other races.  The Ancients had to have been in the alliance the second time they were in the milky way, making it 10,000 years ago, which was the time the asgard became super-advanced.  No time frame was given for the nox, but they were in the alliance, and with the "Ancients" so like the asgard, they are probably more recent.  Tobyk777 03:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I never wrote that I believed the alliance was formed 5 million years ago. Sorry but when I wrote about all the other races being in the Milky Way I wasn't trying to establish any timeframe.  That was simply to suggest that is where they would have likely met each other (or atleast the Nox and Asgard).  I was refering to the where not when.
 * The Ancients aren't called the Ancients because they are older than any other race. They are called that because thhis is how the Romans knew them.  The Ancients then adopted the term (We are the Ancients).  It's more likely that the Asgard later adopted this term or that they joined the alliance after the Ancients began referring to themselves as the Ancients.  Of course it could be that the writers had simply introduced them this way and didn't want to have 50 names for them from day one.  It is quite possible that the Asgard were the last or second to last as well.  We haven't seen the technological level of the Nox or the Furlings either.  The 3 races might have been kicking around the alliance with the Asgard joining up later. The Asgard did mention that the alliance took many millenia to create.  However, this does not make it clear if they mean as a whole or from when they joined up.

Altera/Alterans article should be separate from Ancients
Too much of this article makes the assumption that Alterans = Ancients and has nothing to do with the Ori. In Avalon part 2 Merlin's book reads
 * 'Once upon a time, there was a race of people that went on a great journey through space, across the universe. They were called the Altera. After much time [thousands of years] they found a great belt of stars.' The Alterans named their new home Avalon and built many 'astria porta'

While there has been a lot of reference to the Alterans and the Ancients, it has yet to be established that the Ori were are also not (or were once) Altera. If time allows I will start determining how to separate these two. It seems that there is enough evidence to support the original species being called Altera while Alterans being some type of off-shoot or yet another name they gave themselves is pure speculation. The use of the phrase "RACE of people must be taken into consideration. Aarlin81 20:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Alphabet
Where did that alphabet come from? The existence of 10 seperate digits contradicts The Fifth Race, in which it is shown (or at least heavily implied) that the Ancients used the Octal, and not the Decimal number system. (DrZarkov 08:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC))
 * With the airing of Atlantis the producers decided to come up with a real and standard Ancient language as apposed to the random symbols used in the previous seasons (aka The Fifth Race). The new alphabet was designed so the actually text shown in the episodes would mean what it was supposed to mean. There is an ancient symbol for each letter of the alphabet and a symbol for the numbers 0-9 as well. If you want to justify it, just call it a different dialect or something. --Paddyffrench 12:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The Repository/Library of the Ancients works by downloading compressed data into the brain (likely subconcious which is believed to be able to store massive amounts of data). The information later unspools and writing itself into the persons concious mind (yet in no exact sequence).  It's likely that as an advanced race the Ancients (Alterans) had developed quite a few numbering and mathematical systems.  One need only look at our own history for a deeper understanding.  Aarlin81 17:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The alphabet was accidently discovered by me in July 2004. I've since been keeping track of all appearances and developments of this alphabet on the two shows on gateworld forums, and it checks out. I'm somewhat unsure whether that qualifies as original research or primary source per No original research though. (Quote: "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged.") I would love to work my expertise into this article (only the relevant bits, without image proof, like it's already showcased here), but I want to check if that's fine fine with everyone else before I begin??? Sgeureka 17:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Since no one objected to this, I was bold and included more examples. See the information and the source images on the external links I gave above. – sgeureka t•c 19:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Known Ancients
It was inserted into the known ancients section that Melia and Ganos Lal are one in the same. Melia is given as the name of the Atlantian/Alteran counsel member. She is also shown to be in agreement with Moros at the counsel (regarding Janus' time travel experiment). Ganos Lal is the Alteran name of ANOTHER Lantian/Alteran whose rival is Moros. Both had avatars in Atlantis. One served to greet the expedition team while the other is a teaching and search tool. "Melia and Ganos Lal are one in the same. The former is the ascended form of the latter" is just plain wrong as both are names for PRE-ASCENDED Alterans. To claim that Melia (who was in two episodes of SG:A (Rising and Before I sleep), and Ganos Lal created the educational query tool as well as the avatar in her image. Only Ganos Lal (le Fay) is known to have taken on another persona.
 * Ganos Lal (Alteran) >> Morgan le Fay (later persona)
 * Melia (Alteran) >>  no known alternate personas

Aarlin81 14:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Could someone fix the Known Ancients section. There's a problem with the coding that leaves out Melia and Moros (AKA Merlin).  I've tried messing with it but I can't seem to figure it out.  Oh well back to the tutorials.

Alliances post season 10?
What is that new section about? Are they going to ally with some race this year or what is that all about?

--Faris b 22:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

My revert
I reverted the last edit [|here]. Some of the info might be salvageable but it was filled with random capitalizations and a multitude of spelling mistakes (it is spelled Ori, not Orii). No offense to the editor but it had to be reverted. Perhaps someone can go over it and get ideas for what to contribute to the article. Konman72 08:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I know I'm not the person who wrote it but in your defense, don't worry about it, I compared versions and the one that you reverted was much better, no offense to the writer of all that but the current info is much more accurate and such.

--Faris b 08:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Phrases
Anyone have the official spelling of the planet which name means "Lost in Fire"? The Gateworld.net transcript spells it "PROKLARUSH TAONAS" with a "K" rather than a "C". -TheDevilYouKnow 03:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's spelt with a "c" instead of a "k". I watch SG-1 and Atlantis with closed captions. Trust me. This how I also know that Terra in Ancient was spelled "Terre" instead of "Terra". -- SFH 21:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I definitely would not trust closed captions very much. I have watched them before and they misspell and use wrong words all the time. Konman72 22:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen them wrong  got any examples....
 * Well, most of the transcripts I've seen also spell it as "Proclarush", as well as the Gateworld Omnipedia. -- SFH 22:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Numbers orientation
Is it just me, or are the numbers on the alphabet photo upside down? I just watched 03x09 Phantoms, and in the end you can see Weir talking to Sheppard over radio, and there's Zelenka behind here standing in front of a console, which has numbers written on it, and they're upside down (if you compare them to the photo). I remember I also saw the numbers upside down before. Comments? RypER 20:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the numbers on the alphabet photos are correct, as this is the way they appear on all computer screens on the two shows. It's the numbers on the consoles that are actually upside down. Sgeureka 17:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying, even if it is a few months later RypER 21:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Continued Timeline Problems
The article, particularly the history section, continues to make many unwarranted, unsourced assumptions: There's probably other factual errors here, too, but those are the ones that jumped out at me. Westacular 08:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Was it ever stated that the Alterans "fled" from the Ori? I don't recall there being any mention of actual violence or attempted genocide when the two parted ways. Gateworld and other Wikipedia pages make no mention of this.
 * It was never actually confirmed that Ayiana's illness was the plague that brought down the Ancients' Milky Way civilization (although, I believe it is safe to assume that the writers wish us to believe that is true).
 * Nothing has ever indicated that Ayiana was the only one to remain behind when Atlantis departed. Other Ancient cities in the Milky Way could still have been active and populated. The timeline seems to problematically assume that all of the Ancients were always together in the same galaxy.
 * The Ancients did not cure the plague, they hit a big reset button on life in the Milky Way as a last-ditch means of stopping it from spreading! And, if Ayiana was infected by it, that means that the plague occurred concurrently with (or following) the departure of Atlantis, not before. We do know, however, that this event was a few million years ago.
 * The tablet Daniel reads in Full Circle says that many Ancients ascended as a means of avoiding death from the plague: Ancients were ascending long before the war with the Wraith.
 * The article assumes that all (or most) of the (non-Ori) Ascended are Ancients. Several sections discussing Ascended beings would be more appropriate in Ascension (Stargate). In particular, most of the "Philosophy" section should be moved to Ascension (Stargate), since it's more accurate than what's currently there, and somewhat distracting here. Instead, the Philosophy section should focus on what is known of the Ancients' beliefs before they ascended.
 * The placement of the creation of the Alliance of four great races as strictly after the fall of Atlantis is unproven. IIRC, certain comments here and there make it hard to believe that it could be as recent as 10,000 years ago. Is it not possible that some other Ancients from returned from Atlantis before the war with the Wraith?
 * With regards to the departure from the Alteran-Ori home galaxy, Orlin specifically said that it was the Ori who tried to wipe them out. They fled to avoid a war. As for the Alliance, it is possible that the Asgard, the Furlings, and the Nox had already made it, and the Ancients were new comers. -- SFH 19:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, with regards to the plague, that is kinda nitpicking there. -- SFH 21:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is one thing that is for sure about the timeline of the Alliance. The Alliance of the Four Great Races did not exist before the Ancients came back from Pegasus. The Ancients went to Pegasus ~5 million years ago. There is no way the Asgard could have been part of the Alliance that long ago. They first started exploring space only 30,000 years ago. There is no way there were a "Great Race" that long ago. It is most likely they were not even a species yet. --Jimv1983 (talk) 06:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Offshot
The Ancients are an offshot of the Ori? -- SFH 22:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

according to "the fourth horseman", they once lived in the same society, were a single species, etc, all living happily together on the road to ascension... until two groups began to form, one believing in science (alterans), and one in religion (the ori). then the alterans left. wouldn't that make them an offshoot of the ori?

the situation is somewhat similar to the first pilgrims settling in america, wouldn't you say? persecuted in england, they fled to america. doesn't that make the americans (or at least some) an offshoot of the english as well? Maartentje 22:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose, but the wording seems to imply that the Ori are the "main" race of humans, and that the Ancients are rogues or deviants, instead of the otherway around. Maybe that's just me. -- SFH 23:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

well, they did call themselves "altera", which is Latin for "the others". so apparently, they consider themselves rogues as well. but you're right, "the same race" does sound a bit more neutral... Maartentje 15:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The way the show sounded to me, it is the Ori who are the minority though neither is really an 'offshot' since both divided at the same time. One could I suppose say they are both offshots of one base philosophy that splintered post ascension. In fact since the Ori can't actually take on and defeat the Ancient/Alterans I think that to some extent at least implies they are the inferior power as well (since if they could just defeat them, they would have just ruled over our galaxy from long ago) and even though the Alterans fled it wasn't because they couldn't take on the Ori, it was philosophically they couldn't bring themselves too. I think the show is trying to say or at least we can logically deduce the Ori are very much the minority not the other way around, and much of what they do is because they wish to reverse that position. Neither is an offshot of the other though, they formed at the same time from what was one people. Neither really has anymore claim to being the 'true' people then the other, though I'm sure the Ori would make that claim just as I'm sure the Alterans would never make it. [Thursday, 2007-01-11 T 16:39 UTC]

why couldn't the ancients take on the ori? their policy of non-interference (not to be confused with pacifism) only prevents ascended beings from interfering with the mortal world. As the ancients/alterans were not ascended at the time, they had no philosofical reservations against fighting the ori. but as they were forced to flee from their galaxy, they were probably confident they didn't have a chance against them. and also, just because the ancients' population grew over the millennia and eventually outnumbered the ori's doesn't mean they can't be considered an ofshoot. to continue the analogy of the english and and american people, they're a lot more americans then english too now. but technically you're right, it's more like a schism. Maartentje 18:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

==Oma Desala as picture==

I thought it was unclear if she was an Ancient proper in Stargate lore? Given some of the ascended Ancients shows in both the SG-1 and Atlantis franchises recently, should a differant picture be used perhaps? One of someone/thing that is definetly an established Ancient proper? [Thursday, 2007-01-11 T 16:39 UTC]
 * I agree, it would be a lot better with a picture such as that in which Aiyana and some other Ancient say are in Atlantis, or any of the pre-ascended Lantains. --Sauron18 08:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Alterans
Arent Alterans the Ancients and Ori before they decided to seperate...
 * That's what I've always thought. I know that Altera means the Others in Latin, but remember people, this isn't Latin we are dealing with. -- SFH 01:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And "Ori" may come from "Origin", as in the "origin" of something. Could this be a hint that the Ori came first? 74.38.35.171 07:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm pretty sure this topic has not been clarified. Maybe in the future it will be. --User:TheInnkeeper[TheInnkeeper 20:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I also agree with this as I wrote below. Would anyone mind if I simply changed the picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apc3161 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Aren't Alterans the Ancients and Ori before they decided to separate..."
 * No. The Alterans and the Ancients are the same. They are not the same as the Ori.--Jimv1983 (talk) 01:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Base 8
I was thinking that this page should probably mention that the Ancients count in Base-8 as this is mentioned in the episode The Fifth Race and on the Base-8 page itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.143.29.6 (talk • contribs).
 * it might.FlammingoParliament 21:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Anubis Defeats Daniel.jpg
Image:Anubis Defeats Daniel.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Isent it Oma Desala holding daniel back?

Naming Clarification
To clarify this; the planet is called Lantia (or Lantea), and so anyone living on the planet would be a Lantian. Anyone living in the city of Atlantis is an Atlantean. "Ancients" is the current name for anyone in that race, and "Alteran" is the name they use to go by. (No Ancient has ever refered to themselves as an Alteran in the present tense, in every instance they choose the term "Ancient".)

Example!

You can be a Human, an American, and a Michiganian

They could be an Ancient, a Lantian, and an Atlantean :D

Travis Cleveland 02:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Alterans: Ancients and Ori
This article is going to need some SERIOUS work. According to "The Ori: A New Enemy" documentary (Disc 1 Season 10 Special Features) the Ancients and the Ori are the same race (Alterans). However, there are NUMEROUS entries that depict the two as "Alterans and Ori" rather than "Ancients and Ori". This is also misleading as these names were likely given or assumed later (the Anceints is a name given to them by early Romans). So it seems that linking Alterans directly to Ancients is also an issue. Let's not forget too that Merlin's book referred to the race as the Altera. TheDevilYouKnow 23:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Alteran is what the Ancients called themselves after they split from the Ori. Latin is based on the Alterans/Ori language. Altera in Latin is "the other one" or "the others". They became known as the Ancients much later. I don't recall it ever being stated that the early Romans gave them the name. I'm pretty sure they decided to refer to themselves as Ancients when they met the Romans or sometime shortly before. It has never been stated what the original name of the species was. They may have been just the Ori before the others (Ancients) split off. They may have had a totally different name. --Jimv1983 (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Changing the picture
Hello all,

I'm new to editing wikipedia, but I have reading it for years now and I am also a big stargate fan. Anyways I wanted to talk about the main picture on this article. I believe it should be changed. For articles referring to ascended beings or ascended ancients, it is suitable. However, for the vast majority of their history, ancients were not ascended. Also all of the technology that we see today as a result of their civilization, comes from periods prior to their ascension. Because of this I do not understand why this would be chosen as the picture for ancients. In my opinion, a picture should be used of ancients prior to their ascension.

apc3161 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apc3161 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Part of me don't agree with you, but however though i do understand the comment. The image for the ancient article is old, and although I've slightly started to begun editing but don't know alot of the things, still if agreed by the other users it could be changed to an image of an ancient from the Stargate Atlantis series from the pilot episode where it showed two living ancients at the beginning of the episode, where Atlantis left earth. SKYNET X1000 19:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

un-icluded
There was nothing about orlan or the ancients found in the ship going .999 the speed of light near the midway station. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.17.166 (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Atlantisvrroom.jpg
Image:Atlantisvrroom.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ayiana looking at Jonas.jpg
Image:Ayiana looking at Jonas.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Merger of Pegasus Galaxy (Stargate)
This should be a quicky, but I'm asking just in case. Pegasus Galaxy (Stargate) is pretty much a retelling of the Ancients' story, and can be covered here quite well. It's almost already a copy of Ancient (Stargate), so I wonder if anything needs to be merged at all. – sgeureka t•c 20:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I'd keep it seperate for several reasons. First, it covers significantly more than Ancient activity in Pegasus. It defines and describes the Pegasus Galaxy, as well as describing possible real world analogues. It also covers Earth's activities in pegasus. Second, it would be confusing to redirect here. Third, Pegasus is likely to continue to grow. Pegasus is also significant to other Articles/Races such as the Wraith and Asurans. Stargate70 (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree that the redirect from Pegasus Galaxy to Ancient would be awkward, and I don't know what I was thinking as your other points also make very much sense. It seems I was talking more from an article content point of view than from meaning. However, I somewhat fear that Pegasus Galaxy (Stargate) will just be used for plot retelling in violation of Notability (fiction). I'll remove the merge tag in two days (maybe someone else can provide some input), and I'll think about what other options would be good for that article. Thank you for your reply. – sgeureka t•c 01:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I think they should be kept separate or find another article to merge it into. It's just not appropriate to merge into the article on the Ancients, can't we start an article on galaxies in Stargate, we have four: Ori, Pegasus, Ida and Milky Way. Million_Moments (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

 * That's a good idea, and I'll think about it. We currently have Planets in Stargate as a possible redirect target but not so much as a merge target. The current article content of PG however has also got some similarities with Timeline of Stargate. I believe my original reasoning for proposing the merger was that SG-1 's in-universe wiki coverage has always been good without ever starting/having an article for Milkyway galaxy (Stargate), so why have a PG article for Atlantis? – sgeureka t•c —Preceding comment was added at 21:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal withdrawn. I'll think of something else. – sgeureka t•c 00:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeworld
I was under the impression from the long, vague, and dispersed information regarding the Ancients' history that they did not all move to the Pegasus Galaxy. It's my understanding that there were several different cultural splinter groups from the Alterans - the Ori, the Ancients, and (via the Ancients) the Lanteans. This would also explain why Lantean technology and architecture looks different from Milky Way artifacts and buildings known to have been created by Ancients. It doesn't mean that the Lanteans and Ancients weren't in full and constant contact (thus why the Ancients of the Milky Way and Pegasus were never referred to as a different group post-Ascension). In this case, or even in the case that I'm wrong, I don't think Lantea was ever the homeworld to the entire Ancient race, just their main base of operations in the Pegasus Galaxy. Unless the entire population of Ancients moved from the Milky Way to Pegasus, they most properly had either two homeworlds (Earth and Lantea) or just one (Earth) and a base of operations/staging area on Lantea. Dbutler1986 (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ancient human form (Rising).jpg
Image:Ancient human form (Rising).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fun with language
Try translating some of the Ancient sentences in a Latin-English translator. Kind of funny. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Stargate Chevrons in Language Section
I think that the coordinate symbols on the Stargate should be added to the Language section because is is apparent from Lost City Pt. 2 that the names of planets in Ancient are also the Stargate addresses, thus making the symbols a "language" in their own right. --75.163.185.38 (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Epic Fail
I have no idea who wrote this originally, or how the people coming through previously failed to catch all of these errors, because this article is FULL of them. There are entire paragraphs of mis-information, unproven assumptions, and simply illogical statements, as well as enough grammatical errors and awkward wording to keep an editor busy for hours. I'm going through now to fix as much as possible, feel free to jump in and lend me a hand.

And a word to the idiot who originally wrote this: "You don't REALLY know what you're talking about, so please refrain from EVER writing any more about anything even remotely Stargate related." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0beron (talk • contribs) 01:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the Ancients/Ori
Did they reveal the home galaxy of the Ancients / Ori, in one of the SGU featurettes?

http://stargate.mgm.com/view/content/1666/index.html

The galaxy shown behind Jackson on the monitor when he speaks about the original home galaxy is image:M33.jpg the Triangulum Galaxy.

76.66.193.224 (talk) 11:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Picture of Ancient alphabet
The picture of the Ancient alphabet is wrong. It shows the numbers 0-9 but as stated in "The Fifth Race" the Ancients used base 8 math not base 10 which means the numbers would only be 0-7. --Jimv1983 (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Scientific name/designation for StarGate Races.
The scientific name for Humans is Homo Sapiens, what are the scientific names for other race in the StarGate universe 41.113.173.7 (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Ancient (Stargate)


text:
Escuadrón 201 metro station

Escuadrón 201 is a metro station in Mexico City, Mexico. It is located in the city's eastern Iztapalapa borough, close to the intersection of Eje 3 Oriente (Axis 3 - East) and Eje 8 Sur (Axis 8 - South).

The station was named after the neighborhood in Iztapalapa that honors the Escuadrón 201, the Mexican military aviation unit that assisted the United States in the Philippines during World War II.

The logo of the station is the insignia of Escuadrón 201. It was opened on 20 July 1994.

title: Escuadrón 201 metro station


text:
John Rutherford

John Rutherford may refer to:

Sports

 * Jock Rutherford (1884–1963), English footballer
 * John Rutherford (footballer) (1907–unknown), English footballer
 * John Rutherford (rugby union) (born 1955), Scottish international rugby player
 * John Rutherford (Australian cricketer) (1929-2022), Australian cricketer, sometimes known as Jack Rutherford
 * John Rutherford (Hampshire cricketer) (1890–1943), English cricketer
 * John Rutherford (Cambridge University cricketer) (1935-2013), English cricketer
 * Johnny Rutherford (born 1938), retired U.S. automobile racer
 * Johnny Rutherford (baseball) (1925–2016), Major League Baseball pitcher

Others

 * John Rutherford (physician) (1695–1779), Scottish professor father of Daniel Rutherford
 * Sir John Rutherford, 1st Baronet (1854–1932), British Conservative politician, MP for Darwen 1895–1922
 * Hugo Rutherford (John Hugo Rutherford, 1887–1942), British Conservative politician, MP for Edge Hill, 1931–1935
 * John Rutherford (Conservative politician) (1904–1957), British Conservative politician, MP for Edmonton, 1931–1935
 * John Rutherford (Florida politician) (born 1952), U.S. representative for Florida's 4th congressional district
 * John D. Rutherford (born 1941), fellow at The Queen's College, Oxford, and a translator of Don Quixote
 * John Gunion Rutherford (1857–1923), Canadian veterinarian, civil servant, and politician

title: John Rutherford


text:
Two Minutes Hate

In the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) by George Orwell, the Two Minutes Hate is the daily period during which members of the Outer and Inner Party of Oceania must watch a film depicting Emmanuel Goldstein, the principal enemy of the state, and his followers, the Brotherhood, and loudly voice their hatred for the enemy and then their love for Big Brother.

The political purpose of the Two Minutes Hate is to allow the citizens of Oceania to vent their existential anguish and personal hatred toward politically expedient enemies: Goldstein and the enemy super-state of the moment. In re-directing the members' subconscious feelings away from the Party's governance of Oceania and toward non-existent external enemies, the Party minimises thought crime and the consequent subversive behaviours of thoughtcriminals.

Purpose
In the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, the first session of Two Minutes Hate shows the introduction of O'Brien, a member of the Inner Party, to the story of Winston Smith, the protagonist whose feelings communicate the effectiveness of the Party's psychological manipulation and control of Oceanian society:

Brainwashing of the participants in the Two Minutes Hate includes auditory and visual cues, such as "a hideous, grinding screech, as of some monstrous machine running without oil" that burst from the telescreen, meant to psychologically excite the crowd into an emotional frenzy of hatred, fear, and loathing for Emmanuel Goldstein, and for Oceania's enemy of the moment, either Eastasia or Eurasia. The hate session includes the participants throwing things at the telescreen showing the film, as does the Julia character. In the course of the Two Minutes Hate, the film image of Goldstein metamorphoses into the face of a bleating sheep, as enemy soldiers advance towards the viewers of the film, before one enemy soldier charges towards the viewers, whilst firing his sub-machinegun; the face of that soldier then becomes the face of Big Brother. At the end of the two-minute session of hatred, the members of the Party ritualistically chant "B-B . . . B-B . . . B-B . . . B-B." To maintain the extreme emotions provoked in the Two Minutes Hate sessions, the Party created Hate Week, a week-long festival of hatreds.

Instances and parallels
The attacks on the liberal opposition by state-owned Russian television channels such as Russia-1 and RT have been characterised as reminiscent of the "two minutes hate". Russian television portrayed Ukrainian troops as monsters during the war in Donbas. One of the most notorious examples was a 2014 hoax report on Channel One Russia that Ukrainian soldiers had crucified a three-year-old child. American propaganda by the Committee on Public Information during World War I has also been compared to the propaganda in the "two minutes hate" program.

The Indian far right media has also been alleged to use similar practices to denounce Pakistan to distract people from local issue and make Muslims targets of Hindutva hate attacks.

title: Two Minutes Hate


text: User talk:67.171.242.132

title: User talk:67.171.242.132


text:
Starling equation

The Starling principle holds that extracellular fluid movements between blood and tissues are determined by differences in hydrostatic pressure and colloid osmotic pressure (oncotic pressure) between plasma inside microvessels and interstitial fluid outside them. The Starling equation, proposed many years after the death of Starling, describes that relationship in mathematical form and can be applied to many biological and non-biological semipermeable membranes. The classic Starling principle and the equation that describes it have in recent years been revised and extended.

Every day around 8 litres of water (solvent) containing a variety of small molecules (solutes) leaves the blood stream of an adult human and perfuses the cells of the various body tissues. Interstitial fluid drains by afferent lymph vessels to one of the regional lymph node groups, where around 4 litres per day is reabsorbed to the blood stream. The remainder of the lymphatic fluid is rich in proteins and other large molecules and rejoins the blood stream via the thoracic duct which empties into the great veins close to the heart. Filtration from plasma to interstitial (or tissue) fluid occurs in microvascular capillaries and post-capillary venules. In most tissues the micro vessels are invested with a continuous internal surface layer that includes a fibre matrix now known as the endothelial glycocalyx whose interpolymer spaces function as a system of small pores, radius circa 5 nm. Where the endothelial glycocalyx overlies a gap in the junction molecules that bind endothelial cells together (inter endothelial cell cleft), the plasma ultrafiltrate may pass to the interstitial space, leaving larger molecules reflected back into the plasma.

A small number of continuous capillaries are specialised to absorb solvent and solutes from interstitial fluid back into the blood stream through fenestrations in endothelial cells, but the volume of solvent absorbed every day is small.

Discontinuous capillaries as found in sinusoidal tissues of bone marrow, liver and spleen have little or no filter function.

The rate at which fluid is filtered across vascular endothelium (transendothelial filtration) is determined by the sum of two outward forces, capillary pressure ($$ P_c $$) and interstitial protein osmotic pressure ($$ \pi_i $$), and two absorptive forces, plasma protein osmotic pressure ($$ \pi_p $$) and interstitial pressure ($$ P_i $$). The Starling equation describes these forces in mathematical terms. It is one of the Kedem–Katchalski equations which bring nonsteady state thermodynamics to the theory of osmotic pressure across membranes that are at least partly permeable to the solute responsible for the osmotic pressure difference. The second Kedem–Katchalsky equation explains the trans endothelial transport of solutes, $$ J_s $$.

The equation

The classic Starling equation reads as follows:

 * $$\ J_v = L_\mathrm{p} S ( [P_\mathrm{c} - P_\mathrm{i}] - \sigma[\pi_\mathrm{p} - \pi_\mathrm{i}] )$$

where:
 * $$ J_v $$ is the trans endothelial solvent filtration volume per second (SI units of m3·s−1).
 * $$ [P_\mathrm{c} - P_\mathrm{i}] - \sigma[\pi_\mathrm{p} - \pi_\mathrm{i}] $$ is the net driving force (SI units of Pa = kg·m−1·s−2, often expressed as mmHg),
 * $$ P_c $$ is the capillary hydrostatic pressure
 * $$ P_i $$ is the interstitial hydrostatic pressure
 * $$ \pi_p $$ is the plasma protein oncotic pressure
 * $$ \pi_i $$ is the interstitial oncotic pressure
 * $$ L_p $$ is the hydraulic conductivity of the membrane (SI units of m2·s·kg−1, equivalent to m·s−1·mmHg−1)
 * $$ S $$ is the surface area for filtration (SI units of m2)
 * the product $$ L_p $$·$$ S $$ is defined as the filtration coefficient (SI units of m4·s·kg−1, or equivalently in m3·s−1·mmHg−1)
 * $$ \sigma $$ is Staverman's reflection coefficient (adimensional)

By convention, outward force is defined as positive, and inward force is defined as negative. If Jv is positive, solvent is leaving the capillary (filtration). If negative, solvent is entering the capillary (absorption).

Applying the classic Starling equation, it had long been taught that continuous capillaries filter out fluid in their arteriolar section and reabsorb most of it in their venular section, as shown by the diagram.

However, empirical evidence shows that, in most tissues, the flux of the intraluminal fluid of capillaries is continuous and, primarily, effluent. Efflux occurs along the whole length of a capillary. Fluid filtered to the space outside a capillary is mostly returned to the circulation via lymph nodes and the thoracic duct.

A mechanism for this phenomenon is the Michel-Weinbaum model, in honour of two scientists who, independently, described the filtration function of the glycocalyx. Briefly, the colloid osmotic pressure πi of the interstitial fluid has been found to have no effect on Jv and the colloid osmotic pressure difference that opposes filtration is now known to be π'p minus the subglycocalyx π, which is close to zero while there is adequate filtration to flush interstitial proteins out of the interendothelial cleft. Consequently, Jv is much less than previously calculated, and the unopposed diffusion of interstitial proteins to the subglycocalyx space if and when filtration falls wipes out the colloid osmotic pressure difference necessary for reabsorption of fluid to the capillary.

The revised Starling equation is compatible with the steady-state Starling principle:

 * $$\ J_v = L_\mathrm{p} S ( [P_\mathrm{c} - P_\mathrm{i}] - \sigma[\pi_\mathrm{p} - \pi_\mathrm{g}] )$$

where:
 * $$ J_v $$ is the trans endothelial solvent filtration volume per second.
 * $$ [P_\mathrm{c} - P_\mathrm{i}] - \sigma[\pi_\mathrm{p} - \pi_\mathrm{i}] $$ is the net driving force,
 * $$ P_c $$ is the capillary hydrostatic pressure
 * $$ P_i $$ is the interstitial hydrostatic pressure
 * $$ \pi_p $$ is the plasma protein oncotic pressure
 * $$ \pi_g $$ is the subglycocalyx oncotic pressure
 * $$ L_p $$ is the hydraulic conductivity of the membrane
 * $$ S $$ is the surface area for filtration
 * $$ \sigma $$ is Staverman's reflection coefficient

Pressures are often measured in millimetres of mercury (mmHg), and the filtration coefficient in millilitres per minute per millimetre of mercury (ml·min−1·mmHg−1).

Filtration coefficient
In some texts the product of hydraulic conductivity and surface area is called the filtration co-efficient Kfc.

Reflection coefficient
Staverman's reflection coefficient, σ, is a unitless constant that is specific to the permeability of a membrane to a given solute.

The Starling equation, written without σ, describes the flow of a solvent across a membrane that is impermeable to the solutes contained within the solution.

σn corrects for the partial permeability of a semipermeable membrane to a solute n.

Where σ is close to 1, the plasma membrane is less permeable to the denotated species (for example, larger molecules such as albumin and other plasma proteins), which may flow across the endothelial lining, from higher to lower concentrations, more slowly, while allowing water and smaller solutes through the glycocalyx filter to the extravascular space.
 * Glomerular capillaries have a reflection coefficient close to 1 as normally no protein crosses into the glomerular filtrate.
 * In contrast, hepatic sinusoids have no reflection coefficient as they are fully permeable to protein. Hepatic interstitial fluid within the Space of Diss has the same colloid osmotic pressure as plasma and so hepatocyte synthesis of albumin can be regulated. Albumin and other proteins in the interstitial spaces return to the circulation via lymph.

Approximated values
Following are typically quoted values for the variables in the classic Starling equation:

It is reasoned that some albumin escapes from the capillaries and enters the interstitial fluid where it would produce a flow of water equivalent to that produced by a hydrostatic pressure of +3 mmHg. Thus, the difference in protein concentration would produce a flow of fluid into the vessel at the venous end equivalent to 28 − 3 = 25 mmHg of hydrostatic pressure. The total oncotic pressure present at the venous end could be considered as +25 mmHg.

In the beginning (arteriolar end) of a capillary, there is a net driving force ($$ [P_\mathrm{c} - P_\mathrm{i}] - \sigma[\pi_\mathrm{c} - \pi_\mathrm{i}]$$) outwards from the capillary of +9 mmHg. In the end (venular end), on the other hand, there is a net driving force of −8 mmHg.

Assuming that the net driving force declines linearly, then there is a mean net driving force outwards from the capillary as a whole, which also results in that more fluid exits a capillary than re-enters it. The lymphatic system drains this excess.

J. Rodney Levick argues in his textbook that the interstitial force is often underestimated, and measurements used to populate the revised Starling equation show the absorbing forces to be consistently less than capillary or venular pressures.

Kidneys
Glomerular capillaries have a continuous glycocalyx layer in health and the total transendothelial filtration rate of solvent ($$ J_v $$) to the renal tubules is normally around 125 ml/ min (about 180 litres/ day). Glomerular capillary $$ J_v $$ is more familiarly known as the glomerular filtration rate (GFR). In the rest of the body's capillaries, $$ J_v $$ is typically 5 ml/ min (around 8 litres/ day), and the fluid is returned to the circulation via afferent and efferent lymphatics.

Lungs
The Starling equation can describe the movement of fluid from pulmonary capillaries to the alveolar air space.

Clinical significance
Woodcock and Woodcock showed in 2012 that the revised Starling equation (steady-state Starling principle) provides scientific explanations for clinical observations concerning intravenous fluid therapy. Traditional teaching of both filtration and absorption of fluid occurring in a single capillary has been superseded by the concept of a vital circulation of extracellular fluid running parallel to the circulation of blood. New approaches to the treatment of oedema (tissue swelling) are suggested.

History
The Starling equation is named for the British physiologist Ernest Starling, who is also recognised for the Frank–Starling law of the heart. Starling can be credited with identifying that the "absorption of isotonic salt solutions (from the extravascular space) by the blood vessels is determined by this osmotic pressure of the serum proteins" in 1896.

title: Starling equation