This is the talk page for Batarian.
Please limit discussions to topics that go into improving the article.
If you wish to discuss matters not relevant to article upkeep, take it to the blogs, forums,
chatroom, or discussions module.
Thank you.

I posted this screen because it is a hell of a lot better than what was there. It's official too, straight from the new DLC. Not sure if it went through, its taking longer than usual to show up. Spectre J 19:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Edan's dealings with the Krogan... Was this or was this not supposed to be an example of a Batarian attempt to intimidate a Krogan with his 4 eyes? If so, the inference that was removed needs to be put back in, if not -- what the heck is it mentioned for?

Batarian? Edit

the batarian pic here looks different then the one in the in-game codex. is this right?

Yes, obviously. Blutteufel 17:02, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the original pic be included somewhere? Like maybe in the trivia section?Drunken Lemur 00:07, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Sure. If you have it, by all means put it up. SpartHawg948 02:57, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
I found it. Its not a rip from the game's files, but it'll have to do. Darkman 4 06:15, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Very nice! SpartHawg948 06:17, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Dreadnought and cruisers Edit

I'm just wondering what the source is for the statement that the Batarians have one dreadnought and the Hensa class of cruisers is. I never came across in in Revelation or Bring Down the Sky. Was it from Galaxies (I don't have it)? If so, what was the exact statement and source within it? Tophvision 01:09, September 23, 2009 (UTC)

Well... the source for the dreadnought is the game, specifically the information provided for the planet Jartar in the Dis system (see also Leviathan of Dis). As for the Hensa class cruiser, that comes from the novel Mass Effect: Ascension. The quarian Migrant Fleet includes the Idenna which is a decommissioned batarian Hensa class cruiser. Hope this answers your question! SpartHawg948 02:04, September 23, 2009 (UTC)
  • Also just wanted to clarify- the article states that the batarians have at least one dreadnought, not that they have one. I know, I know, this is pretty much me quibbling over semantics, but it's what I do! :) SpartHawg948 02:12, September 23, 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Tophvision 02:53, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

Reaper? Edit

The batarians are believed to have stolen an gigantic ancient genetically engineered starship called the 'Leviathan of Dis.' Given revelations about the Reapers, the Batarian Hegemony either has a technologically advanced warship or an actual Reaper in their possession." That is in the Trivia Section, can someone tell me where the idea of them actually having a reaper comes from? It seems a little far fetched. Or is the person who wrote this trying to imply that the Leviathan of Dis is actually a reaper? -- Looq 17:32, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the reapers are the only known genetically engineered starships and that the Leviathan was estimated at a billion years old (50,000 years everything dies, dont know how old the reapers are though), and was termed gigantic Sovereign dwarfed the citadel and geth fleets, it’s likely to be a reaper (a dead one presumably). Otherwise if they took it they at the least have an advanced warship in their possession. The salarians also apparently showed documentation so it’s very likely that they did take it and it did exist. I agree it should be worded as a possible reaper for clarity. Though none of this can be confirmed so perhaps it does need to be removed? But it does have quite a few similarities/coincidences so it could definitely be a reaper, it would not be the only one left behind either there's that derelict one. Be intresting to see if the batarians suddenly start deploying reaper styled ships in ME3:}.DC 17:24, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

Removed that bit as A) They aren't "believed to have stolen" anything. They did recover the corpse of the Leviathan of Dis (they didn't steal it as it didn't belong to anyone), and B) The notion of the batarians now somehow having a "technically advanced warship or an actual Reaper" in their possession is predicated upon the assumption that the batarians were either able to render the Leviathan operational again (which seems unlikely, given it was dead) or that they were able to reverse engineer anything from it, which is far from certain. SpartHawg948 22:47, February 13, 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough good points I just read something on the Sovereign talk page about the leviathan that seems more likely too. Just to clarify when I said an advanced starship, I didn't mean it was operational or they reverse engineered tech from it, but rather they may have it in their possession to study and research (though they would of had it for 20 something years when the games start and nothing has being seen or mentioned yet). Also I didn't know they definitely did take it I thought they were only suspected, though Im 99.9% sure they would have of taken it :}. As for the stealing part sorry good point I should of clicked on to that.DC 16:42, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
Actually my point was how do we even know the Leviathan was a reaper? "Genetically engineered" starship seems more likely to refer to a biological starship, more like Moya from Farscape or Tinman from Star Trek than a Reaper. It's mute now it's been removed, but the fact that is dissapeared so quickly would probably indicate that a standard servey team wouldnt have had time to decern the reaper was biological at all. Reapers are cleary mostly mechanical, and we didnt even know the extent of the reapers biological parts (if any at all) until the end of Mass Effect 2.-- Looq 20:45, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
Well by NOW it seems silly and utterly stupid to have it say that they got indoctrinated by "The Leviathan" seeing as the Leviathan is NOT a reaper, but the race that KILLED the reaper corpse that the Batarians de Facto got indoctrinated by, as even Balak himself states in his dialogue. (As well as being the creatures harvested first to create the first reaper aka Harbinger). So PLEASE remove that BS about them being indoctrinated by the Leviathan, since Leviathan is NOT the reaper corpse but living creatures. Which has been known now for HOW long without this entry being altered? Not going to alter it myself since some here seem hell bent on keeping things untouched and utterly nonsensical, and simply revert peoples utterly needed corrections for no reason what so ever, possibly apart from "don't change my writing, it's MINE"... *none named none forgotten*

And state that they got indoctrinated by the reaper corpse they found, which was mistakenly referred to as "The Leviathan of Dis" because the true Leviathan didn't want to be found.--Baalzie (talk) 15:08, March 13, 2014 (UTC)

Mad Prophet = Notable Batarian? Edit

Do you think the "Mad Prophet" from Omega should be included in the list of notable batarians? Or should he be excluded, on the grounds that he really didn't do anything significant?

Pre-BDTS codex picture Edit

Before Bring Down The Sky established the appearance of the Batarians, an earlier design served as the example image in the codex. I suggest it be uploaded and used in the notes/trivia section, because I doubt most people would remember this earlier design. --FFN 23:17, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Military Strength relative to the Alliance Edit

The batarian military is believed to be weaker than the Alliance military. It is not known to be. Balak's statement was a terrorist trying to justify his actions, which is why it isn't taken as concrete proof. As for the bit that was inserted in (and subsequently removed) that batarian military weakness was demonstrated by the fact that they provoke and fund proxy wars against the Alliance rather than confront the Alliance directly, that's just silly. There are many reasons a state would rather fight through proxies than risk direct war. After all, if funding proxy wars was evidence of military weakness, the Soviet Union was militarily weak. The Soviets were all about the proxy wars. They funded proxy wars against the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Greece, Turkey, South Africa, Peru, and many, many others. Does this mean they were militarily weaker than those countries? No. Claiming that they were weaker than Peru or South Africa is just absurd. All that is demonstrated when a state provokes proxy wars against its foes rather than fight them directly is that it wants to avoid an out-and-out war, and there are many reasons they might wish to avoid such a war. SpartHawg948 20:31, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Fur Edit

Should it be mentioned somewhere that Batarians are covered in a fine layer of fur? In the Biology section, perhaps? I believe it's mentioned in Relevations? Raphaeldisanto 13:59, March 4, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, how nice, I'm not the only one who's noticed. I wanted to post before it too, but I've only read Revelation in Russian, and I thought that could be something the translators put there. --kiadony 15:19, March 4, 2011 (UTC)
I don't suppose either of you would happen to know where in Revelation it is? I'm looking and not seeing it, though I could easily be missing it, as I'm just skimming. SpartHawg948 19:36, March 4, 2011 (UTC)

Well, in *my* book, it's near the beginning of the fourth chapter. --kiadony 06:33, March 5, 2011 (UTC)

Would that be in the third paragraph of the fourth chapter or thereabouts? Lancer1289 06:37, March 5, 2011 (UTC)
If we're adding it, we need to be accurate about it. If we're talking about the same part of the book, it doesn't say that "Batarians[sic] are covered in a fine layer of fur". Rather, it states that their faces are covered in a layer of fine hair. It may not seem like a big distinction, but it is. The original post makes it sound like their entire bodies are covered in fur, as opposed to what the source says, which is that their faces (it makes no mention of anything other than their faces here) having a later of fine hair. SpartHawg948 06:45, March 5, 2011 (UTC)
Kind of what I was getting at with my question. Anyway I have to agree, that we would have to word it to reflect that. Here's the full quote in English from Revelation Page 60. "Their faces were covered with hair so short and fine it looked like the soft velvet of a horse’s nose, though the hair grew longer and thicker around the mouth." I think I can see how fir might get mixed up in there, but then I'm nowhere near an expert on translation. Lancer1289 06:52, March 5, 2011 (UTC)

So the translation is actually quite accurate, hm. I don't know in which language did the OP read it, but the word used in the Russian book can indeed be translated as "fur" (as in fur coats) but also as "hair" (basically it can be used for any hair that grows on the animal). --kiadony 07:31, March 5, 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, though if it goes into the article, I'd have to insist on 'hair', as the language it was written in specified hair, and in English hair and fur are two distinct words, with fur referring to the coat of an animal, and hair being used more in the context of people. SpartHawg948 07:38, March 5, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, sure. --kiadony 07:45, March 5, 2011 (UTC)
Agreed as well for the reasons that Spart already gave. Lancer1289 18:05, March 5, 2011 (UTC)

Batarians are hairless as of Mass Effect 1. Revelations was written before their appearance was completely retconned by Bring Down the Sky, and it includes descriptions based on the original concept art rather than their actual in-game appearance. If there's going to be a note, it needs to include that fact, and should probably be listed under trivia rather than in the article itself.Fimbria (talk) 22:31, November 9, 2012 (UTC)

And do you have a source for this information because there really isn't much to contradict the statement. What you did requires a source and since none was provided, then it has been removed and will stay that way until one is provided. Lancer1289 (talk) 22:57, November 9, 2012 (UTC)
You're asking me to source the fact that batarian appearance and physical description was retconned between the writing of Revelations and BDtS? "Diamond-shaped heads" and so on? Look at any batarian in-game or in any of the comics. Read any of the later books. Never again is batarian hair mentioned, and it isn't visible in any of the post-BDtS art. Sorry for updating the page to reflect the most recent information, but you should at least leave a note that batarians having hair predates their current version and may no longer be true. Fimbria (talk) 00:23, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
Yes I am because that requires a source. We don't know what information was given for Revelations and when it was changed. That beyond a doubt requires a source and baring any other information to contradict it, it will remain in the article as it is. Lancer1289 (talk) 00:44, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
They changed the codex image to something completely different, and made plenty of posts about that fact on the old Bioware forums. They're sadly unavailable now, but the change of the codex picture is common knowledge (there are posts about it farther up on this page and in the trivia section alike) and clearly reflects the new design, and it didn't happen until BDtS was released. I'm not sure why you're being so hostile about this. Fimbria (talk) 00:49, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
Who is being hostile here, because what I am seeing it is you. I am making a simple request, and you keep arguing the point. We need a source for that information because we have no idea when the image was changed and what information was available when and to whom. So we need a source saying it was written with the old information not the current information for anything to be changed. I again make a request that would be asked in any situation like this, and has been done in the past, and will continue to be that way. Again, either present a valid source, or nothing will be done. Lancer1289 (talk) 00:56, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
I'm not being hostile, all I'm asking for is a note indicating that the hair part may no longer be accurate, or ideally for the note about hair in general to be moved into trivia. Mass Effect: Revelation came out May 1, 2007. Mass Effect 1 came out November 20, 2007, and used the original concept art in the in-game codex. Bring Down the Sky came out March 11, 2008, and updated the codex image. The timeline's clear enough - when Revelation (and ME1 itself) were released, there was one batarian look in use, and that was changed sometime in the six months before Bring Down the Sky was released and the codex image was updated to reflect the retcon. Fimbria (talk) 01:05, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
And I still see an argument over a simple request that can, has, and will continue to be in any situation like this. There is no way that anything will go into, or be removed from the article without a source in this case. I will not argue this further until a reliable and valid source that can verify this is presented. Lancer1289 (talk) 01:09, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
I just did. Those dates are from this wiki, cross-verified with Wikipedia. You're being completely unreasonable and refusing to look at what actually happened. It's not as if including a few extra bytes to clarify the issue is going to bring the site crashing down, and it's not like the original statement regarding their hair was sourced in the article to begin with. Fimbria (talk) 01:14, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)This will be my last reply on the subject because you are the one being unreasonable. I have asked a simple request, one that is asked of anyone doing something like this, and you have continually fought it. We don't know if BioWare just left it in there because they didn't have anything else to put in, or they overlooked it. We need a definitive sourced saying that the look of the batarians was changed between those two time periods, or that old information was given to Drew for the novel. We so far have knowledge that it was changed, just not when. So either get a source, or nothing will be changed. This is again a request that is made of anyone that does something like this. It is not an unreasonable request.
And the edit conflict statement, the fact you made that shows that you do not understand how our information is sourced here. All information is sourced from teh books, games, and any other media directly. Only outside sources get mentioned. Lancer1289 (talk) 01:22, November 10, 2012 (UTC)

Clean up: Batarians. Edit

Could someone please clean up this article, the brackets are wrong in some places. -RS

I believe this a Wikia issue. Those curly brackets you are probably seeing are the templates tags, which isn't displaying correctly now and then for a while now. — Teugene (Talk) 05:03, June 28, 2011 (UTC)

Mass Effect 3 Edit

Should there be a trivia entry stating that batarian territory has suffered a large-scale Reaper invasion? Evidence for this is the Cannibals - clearly batarian husks.

First that is trivia how exactly? Second, that will be covered differently once we have more information. Third, current information about the cannibals says they are actually a combination of various things rather than purely batarians. Lancer1289 16:21, July 30, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that's pretty speculative. After all, there are also plenty of batarians outside of batarian space. For example, batarians are pretty common in the Terminus Systems. The batarians for the husks could easily come from there. It's pretty likely that batarian space has been invaded, but we can't just assume it's happened. SpartHawg948 19:30, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

Bioware's Alliance News Network blog says that Batarian space has been overrun by an overwhelming powerful invader. [1] 08:36, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

MINOR SPOILER ALERT Just wanted to let you guys know that Admiral Hackett confirms that the batarians were hit on by a Reaper invasion and that they had no allies to call on. "I think the batarians are history." I don't want to update the main page since I'm not subscribed, but if anyone wants to do it, here's your proof. You can talk to Admiral Hackett after the Genophage mission to hear this quote. 00:41, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
I confirm this. Hackett says exactly this when you investigate on the reaper invasion and ask about the batarians. BUT, I'm not sure that the race is history since batarians are pretty much everywhere and are not confined inside their colony (like the raloi for example). --Buthane 14:23, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

Cigarettes? Edit

This probably isn't relevant story-wise or touched on anywhere in the lore, but I noticed that Batarians seem to be the only species besides humans depicted smoking. I thought it was interesting that two species with such animosity share this, and I was wondering if there were more information available anywhere on the subject. Thanks! SolisV 09:30, April 7, 2012 (UTC)

Companion Edit

We have Human, Asari, Krogan, an old Salarian, Quarian (who need an enviro suit to survive outside the Flotilla), a Turian with a busted up face (as per ME2), a mortally sick Drell, and even a "resurrected" Prothean. Why do we not have a Batarian Companion? Batarians and Humans work together in the Blue Suns, so they can obviously put aside differences to get the job done and get paid. Why can't we have a Batarian squad member who can put aside his differences with a Human commander to save the Galaxy? I understand they were hit hard, but wouldn't that make all the more reason for a Batarian to step up and be an ally to Shepard?... Bioware, this is a minor let down, but a let down still... --Geotexan 23:56, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

Topics like this belong in a forum or a blog post as this isn't what talk pages are for. Lancer1289 23:58, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

Batarians and medicine Edit

I'm not sure where we can add this information on the page but it is relevant information from ME: Revelation :

chapter 15 §2

"Batarians were on the cutting edge of medical science, and the standard of care at their facilities was among the best in Citadel space."

(those informations are to be placed in the context of ME:R (before the events of th skylian blitz and their withdrawal of the cidatel space.-- 11:13, March 6, 2013 (UTC)

First contact date Edit

Please, can anyone tell me what the source of this assertion: “The Citadel Council made first contact with the batarians in approximately 200 BCE, and granted the batarians an embassy on the Citadel a century later.”? I didn’t found confirmation in the Codex, books, comics, game texts etc. And the “Galactic Codex Essentials edition 2183” doesn't mention batarians at all.--Alexpolt (talk) 07:46, October 25, 2013 (UTC)

Origin in MEA Edit

See Twiter :

"The batarians came aboard Ark Paarchero, Note: seems to be just two batarians"

The other one should be a squadmate??--DeldiRe (talk) 17:50, July 6, 2017 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.