Talk:Tau'ri

I'd like to change this back to "Tau'ri". It may be personal taste--I'm used to seeing it and hearing it that way, with the break between syllables. Also, "Tauri" makes me think of bulls...

Anyone else want to chime in with an opinion one way or the other? —wwoods 02:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When I said, "specifically, Scotland", I kind of meant that the most important person from the UK was Carson Beckett. No big deal, though. But where do you get your info about all those nations? I'd like to know. LD 20:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From the show itself, just looking at the flag patches they wear. The first episode specially was a good source for that. Screencaptures are also helpful.

If you want to make that distinction with Scotland, then you have to make it with USA and Canada too. I just wanted to list all national flags shown, regardless of the character who wears them --Andromeda 21:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It may seem trivial, but that list of nations can be useful. LD 20:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We know that the Goa'uld word for a genetically advanced human is a "hok'taur." Should the proper spelling be Taur'i then, as opposed to Tau'ri? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.57.49.249 (talk • contribs)

i think that the picture should be changed back to people actually in stargate instead of some random dude. and for person who did change this fore shame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.197 (talk • contribs)

I remember in the episode where Vala formally becomes part of the SGC Landry and Mitchell said that she would be a probational SGC member, not specifically a member of SG-1. If that's so, then Vala should not be listed with Teal'c or Jonas as SG-1 non-Tau'ri members. Wl219 16:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, she does become a member of SG-1 in "Memento Mori"... Maartentje 10:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some additions to this section by elaborating on Earth's conventional (ie. real) Military capacity. I haven't tried to establish how effective entities such as the Australian Defence Force or the People's Liberation Army might be against a Goa'uld attack, since they are never depecited fighting any aliens. Basically I pointed out that we have millions of soldiers scattered across the planet with Tanks, Artillery, Combat Aircraft, Warships and of course Weapons of Mass Destruction that would at least pose some sort of obstacle to any invasion. P.S. They would likely be a massive obstacle to any attack, as discovery of an alien threat would no doubt lead every Army on Earth to change their priorities towards defence against external attack and hence change their entire defensive posture. Moreover, Jaffa go down to a brief burst of small arms fire even when wearing full armour, so their effectiveness against the massive numbers of trained Infantry troops they would face here is limited, let alone against Tanks, Artillery and Attack helos. The Gou'uld might have some counter-part to Tanks and the like that hasn't been shown, or alternatively they may never have seen the need to develop such weapons as they've never encountered them on the primitive or peaceful worlds they have conquered. The Kull warriors would be more of a problem.

in the alternate reality seen in "There But Fore the Grace of God", Earth's militaries were apparently not very effective against the Goa'uld. fine, they would certainly kill some Jaffa on the ground, but the Goa'uld could wipe out entire armies from orbit and there wouldn't be a thing that all those tanks and attack helicopters could do about it. Maartentje 14:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would think our jets would do some damage since an F-16 was shown to be able to destroy a Alkesh in Insiders

Alkeshes, fine, but when a mothership would wipe out all Earth's cities, airfields and military bases from orbit... when the Goa'uld would want to occupy the planet, they wouldn't stand much of a chance indeed, but when they would want to blast us out of existence, the conventional military would don't even matter... Maartentje 00:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, although I still contest that we would constitute a very difficult target compared to the other Races shown. Essentially such a conflict would likely take the form of a surprise attack from orbit to spread chaos and panic throughout the planet, and from there the Goa'uld would try to eliminate any opposition that arose methodically. We'd probably try to fight a guerila war of sorts since that's how it usually pans out on the show, only this time on a massive scale (there are 6 and a half billion of us after all). --Spoonman.au 03:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the military capabilities, is it really "Earth" that operates a modest fleet of starships? Since this ships are operated by the US Air Force, shouldn't it say that the United States operates the ships? 17:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The people or the planet? ==

Hi.

I think I've also heard this term used to refer to the planet Earth itself in some SG episodes. Should this be mentioned? For example, in SG-1's Season 2 episode, "The Tok'ra, part 1", there is the following line: "I assume you are from the first world, the Tau'ri." It is obvious that it is being used to refer to the planet Earth. It therefore seems it is used to refer to both the people of Earth and the Earth itself. 74.38.32.195 07:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRMRMcKay (talk) 12:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)== As far as I understand it, Tau'ri was originally translated, as you said, to "first world" so we were "the people of the Tau'ri" so to speak. I guess common usage in the galaxy led to the term Tau'ri referring to the people as well as the planet.[reply]

Where did that bit about the Asgard destroying Orilla and taking out several Ori cruisers come from? Last I checked Orilla isn't even in the Milky Way galaxy. Admittedly I've missed a couple episodes, but the idea that the entire Asgard race suddenly went extinct is unfathomable. I've not found any sources for it yet. Gateworld makes no mention of it. Eban 17:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Unending" - The Asgard destroy there planet as they're dying, very fast. The Odyssey is outfitted with lots Asgard technology and there knowledge databases. Orilla is not in the Milky Way, either. Matthew 18:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you Eban 20:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression what the Ancient outpost in Antarctica was under the control of the IOA, not the Department of Homeworld Security, as stated in the IOA Wiki article. Oldsk3wl 11:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this isn't necessarily true. there could be thousands of more advanced races in the far reaches of space. and what about the nox and the furlings? (Bigandyc 14:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I agree, so I tagged the technology section with an original research tag. 129.16.49.4 19:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page lists the Phoenix as a 304, we don't necessarily know that for sure. And to stay consistent with the BC-304 page on this issue, I removed the ship from the list of Tau'ri ships. It shouldn't be listed until the actual episode airs since it isn't cannon until it is on TV. Pre-production information can change and shouldn't be used. - OracleGuy01 (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had to remove it twice now, can this page be semi locked (at least locked to edits by non loged-in users)--Heruur (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Also possibly "The Bulls" as Tauri is the plural form of the latin word for bull, Taurus."

How is this relevant? Tau'ri is a Go'auld word which is based in ancient Egyptian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.213.122 (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It says in the article that the first off-world mission was to Chulak. This should be Abydos, should it not?. Alakazam (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the Stargate Programme be merged into the Tau'ri article instead and not the other way around. This seems like a little more sense to me. Matthew R Dunn (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the "Discuss" link next to the merge proposal at the top of the article. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just left a short, but (in my opinion) compelling argument on the Wikiproject discussion page. Matthew R Dunn (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]