Editing Talk:Sangheili

{{Archived|multi=Archives<br /><small>[[Talk:Sangheili/Archive 1|1]] • [[Talk:Sangheili/Archive 2|2]] •  [[Talk:Sangheili/Archive 3|3]]</small>}}

==New Ranks==

Maybe we should add a new line to the rank table template called "Storm" and have "Infantry" "Ranger" "Commander" "Warrior" n "Zealot". Thoughts? {{Unsigned|92.24.223.118}}

Agreed. Since the "[[Covenant remnant|Storm]]" is only a splinter faction of the former-[[Covenant]] (which has now broken up and disseminated since the Great War) and, in certain aspects, completely different from the [[Covenant military]] altogether; it only makes sense if we create and organize a separate rank structure for the newly specific military roles Storm has introduced. Granted, some are, in retrospect to the time-era, related to titles given by the Covenant from before (suck as the Ranger specialists), they are still different. It should also include the member species as well if the Administration chooses so. Killjax 22:23, 22 September 2012 (EDT)

== Another attempt to fix the ranks/titles ==

This has been brought up [[Talk:Sangheili/Archive_3#Ranks_are_a_Mess|before]], but it was not implemented (to my knowledge). I [[User:Subtank/Update|made an attempt]] similar to the linked, but without using a table. This is because the information in the table misleads readers into thinking that they are a hierarchy. By eliminating the table and putting the ranks/titles into paragraphs, I think this new format presents the information better and more accurate. — <span style="font-size:16px; font-family:OrbitronMedium;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span>  23:55, 30 September 2012 (EDT)

:Of course not, the user that brought it up was too afraid (or lazy) to edit the article himself, instead attempting to goad other editors into implementing his ideas. Anyway, I read your page, it's much clearer than having a table (unless said table can be organized close to how you have it written there). <b>[[User:Smoke.|<span style="color:Gray; font-weight:bold; font-family:Tahoma Small Cap">Smoke</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Smoke.|<span style="color:Gray; font-weight:bold; font-family:Tahoma Small Cap">Sound off!</span>]]</sup></b> 09:32, 1 October 2012 (EDT)

::I tried using a table (and images) but it looked disproportionate and out of place. If we can nail this one, we can use the same format for the rest of the Covenant.— <span style="font-size:16px; font-family:OrbitronMedium;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span>  13:29, 1 October 2012 (EDT)

== Page picture. ==

Would this be a more suitable image? I ask this because he is standing upright while the current one is hunched over.[[User talk:ArchedThunder|ArchedThunder]] 05:18, 30 October 2012 (EDT)
<gallery>File:SangheiliWarrior.png</gallery>
:I prefer the current one; the hunched-over stature is fairly natural to more recent depictions of the Sangheili. Plus the swordsman stance looks better in the title image than the Warrior's "come at me bro" pose. --[[User:Jugus|<font color="MidnightBlue"><b>Jugus</b></font>]] <small>([[User talk:Jugus|<font color="Gray">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jugus|<font color="Gray">Contribs</font>]])</small> 06:18, 30 October 2012 (EDT)
::I also prefer the current one, I just thought I'd bring it up since the Elite is standing up straight in that image and I didn't know if others would prefer that.[[User talk:ArchedThunder|ArchedThunder]] 06:22, 30 October 2012 (EDT)

== [[Talk:Sangheili/Archive_3#Mary_Sue-like_description_of_racial_traits.3F|Mary Sue-like description of racial traits? (2)]] ==
Okay, rather than pointing out the many flaws in your argument's logic in a long list, I'll just go over the essential points. Humanity didn't lose all of their worlds--a good number of the Inner Colonies were outright never even contested, as the Covenant went straight after Reach, then Earth, within the span of less than a year. Losing a war does not mean you are less competent at warfare, or even that your military is inferior. Here's an example: The Winter War. Finland against Soviet Russia, one on one. Despite having inferior technology, vastly inferior numbers, and no ability to go on the offensive, Finland avoided total defeat and inflicted a casualty ratio of more than 4-to-1. Why? Because of vastly superior tactics, strategy, use of available tech/resources, and ingenuity. In the Halo 'verse, humanity uses superior tactics and strategy than the Covenant every. single. time. Why do they ever lose? The Covenant have vastly superior technology, numbers, and insurmountable strategic initiative. The Fall of Reach? A vastly outnumbered and outgunned UNSC force inflicted vastly disproportionate casualties through the use of far superior tactics, strategy, intelligence, organization, and ingenuity. Name a battle, and the Covenant either lose against all odds or win with far heavier losses (or with far less efficiency) than any half-competent tactician/commander/force should. And it's not rocket science as to why--religious fanatics raised in a society built upon corruption, superstitious feelings, caste-based governing and rule, advancement-by-faith-or-feats, and an honor-bound warrior-culture that pits soldiers in duels to the death as part of training and selection are extremely unlikely to make good tacticians or leaders. When a harsh code of honor completely overrides rationalism, pragmatism, or survival (and even victory), you are not a good tactician; at best, you're good in spite of all those things. Okay, next; the Elites were the best fighting force in the galaxy because they hadn't been defeated? Not only is that not true (they lost to the Prophets, in large part because they--irrationally--refused to even study the highly advanced Forerunner relics for religious/dogmatic reasons, something that the Prophets themselves had no problem doing), but their toughest competition after that defeat was the Jackals--and in this case, it took a while for the Elites to wear down disorganized groups of pirates whose ships weren't even capable of FTL (and even then, the war ended when the Prophets struck a deal to basically give the Jackals a small degree of autonomy and monetary dispensation for their services). The Hunters? The Elites got their asses kicked on the ground, and resorted to threatening orbital bombardment to get victory--against a race that had no combat spacecraft at all, or colonies. Grunts? Similar story. The Brutes were fairly willing to join without being at the end of a gun. As for the super advanced technology they ''do'' possess, it's pretty much a given that the vast majority of it comes from the Prophets and/(perhaps OR)Engineers, who are basically 'do everything for you, including self-replicate and self-educate' supercomputer engineers that already know a good deal about Forerunner tech. And after the end of the H-C War, the Elites can't even build new ships because they don't know how (says a lot, there). Until the Prophets completely drop off the map, the Brutes are actually winning against the Elites because the Prophets help them keep building ships. As for treating the Elites, an entire race, as a single person for stereotyping purposes--I'm not doing that; the article in its current form ''does'', describing all Elites as intelligent, very strong, cunning warriors with intense bravery (and so forth). The problem is, you can't find more than a handful of Elites that match that description, but you can very easily find countless examples of ones that contradict it. The only cases of Elites winning battles/engagements through superior tactics/intelligence are against Brutes--who are repeatedly demonstrated to be quite stupid in most areas (though to be fair, I'm sure a good deal of that is due to deficiencies in their culture, society, governing systems, etc, not so much to biology) and have only been using Covenant-level tech for a few decades, compared to the centuries/millennia for Elites. Oh, and remember Thel's first mission as the Arbiter? That clever/suicidally brave idea he came up with for dealing with the Heretic faction and its leader? The fact that it wasn't the ''first'' idea they had is alarmingly stupid/irrationally dense of them. In most cases, the tactical skill level that Elites show is an adept understanding of animalistic, hunting-style methodology against small groups of prey. In naval battles, they literally prefer to charge head-on into close combat regardless of the nuances or details of the situation. It says a great deal when the highest-ranked Elite soldiers fight like shock-troops, individually, on the front lines wielding swords in a battlefield of guns, explosives, vehicles, and many kinds of fire and air support--not commanding or leading, but personally rushing into the fray with a knife in a gunfight. [[User talk:SaltyWaffles|SaltyWaffles]] 17:21, 30 October 2012 (EDT)SaltyWaffles

:The entire situation with the Human-Covenant War is essentially an [[wikipedia:Excession#Outside_Context_Problem|Outer Context Problem]]. To use examples from the events of World War Two is wrong: those empires/governments/factions are similar in terms of military technological achievement. The easiest and best example of understanding how the Human-Covenant War was fought is to look back to events during the expansion of the Old Empires (i.e. British, Spanish, Dutch, French) on native lands of the Americas, Indian Seas, Africa and the islands near Australia, where most native empires are driven to extinction. Military commanders have the tendency to be bold (and make rash decision) when they are technologically superior than their opponent, eventually underestimating their opponent's abilities (i.e. recent example being Afghanistan War and the '60s-'80s Vietnam War). — <span style="font-size:14px; font-family:Arial;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span>  21:52, 30 October 2012 (EDT)

A tactical fleet that loses more men than the enemy is no true tactical fleet --[[Special:Contributions/90.198.194.108|90.198.194.108]] 06:10, 24 August 2015 (EDT)

World history and logic disagrees with you. [[User:Alertfiend|Alertfiend]] ([[User talk:Alertfiend|talk]]) 08:01, 24 August 2015 (EDT)

==Life expectancy==

Has it ever been stated how long they live? Halo: Glasslands stated that Jul was considered to be young at 64 years old...if that's the case then they must live for at least 150 years. That would basically make them sentient giant tortoises.

--[[User:Long Night of Solace|Long Night of Solace]] ([[User talk:Long Night of Solace|talk]]) 16:16, 20 September 2013 (EDT)

:Sapient would be a better word to use.[[User:Sith Venator|<span style="color:green">Sith-venator Wavingstrider</span>]] [[File:Fett helmet.jpg|20px]] ([[User talk:Sith Venator|<span style="color:blue">Commlink</span>]]) 16:39, 20 September 2013 (EDT)

Not much is known on their full life expectancy, but here are some approximate ages for Sangheili as of when we last encountered them:

:Arbiter (HW) 53
:Arbiter (H2) 68
:Jul M'Dama 69
:Gek 'Lhar 59
:Parg Vol 77
-[[User:ScaleMaster117|ScaleMaster117]] ([[User talk:ScaleMaster117|talk]]) 16:45, 20 September 2013 (EDT)

:Well they most likely age at a different rate, Jul is probably in what would be a human's 30s, is what I would guess. [[File:Colonel Grade One.png|20px]][[User:Spartansniper450/IRC Quotes|<span style="color:#000000">''Col.''</span>]] [[User:Spartansniper450|<span style="color:#00416A">Snipes</span>]][[User talk:Spartansniper450|<span style="color:gold">4</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Spartansniper450|<span style="color:silver">50</span>]][[File:Colonel Grade One.png|20px]] 17:49, 20 September 2013 (EDT)

Thanks for answers, guys. And I know "sapient" would have been a better word to use; I was just in a bit of a hurry when I wrote that. 

--[[User:Long Night of Solace|Long Night of Solace]] ([[User talk:Long Night of Solace|talk]]) 10:44, 22 September 2013 (EDT)

== Vision ==

Sangheili are colourblind. They cannot see purple. The entire time they thought that they were using blue. Their visual spectrum ranges from Blue to the infrabrown range. Therefore it can be assumed that they do not have a word for purple and instead they use other species' words to describe colours in the purple region that they cannot see. Josh Holmes and Frankie conformed that on Twitter. Check my Twitter for the source because I cannot link you since I am on mobile phone. My account is: @TheMasterBuild1 {{Unsigned|The Master Builder}}

:[https://twitter.com/JoshingtonState/status/458279139850858497 For ease of reference]. Anyway, what is confirmed by the the staff is this: Elites are [[wikipedia:Dichromacy|dichromats]] <s>and they cannot perceive blue (tritanopia)</s>. Not so sure what is meant by "infrabrown range". Other than that is MasterBuilder's own speculation. — <span style="font-size:14px; font-family:Arial;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span>  15:05, 21 April 2014 (EDT)
Nobody said that they are dichromats, only that they see our purple as blue. We should ask Frankie for clarification. About infra brown; brown is made of black,yellow and red and covers many wavelengths. We should state only that Sangheili see purple as blue. {{Unsigned|The Master Builder}}

:Considering the source linked sounds entirely like a joke at Mr. O'Connor's expense, I would err on the side of doubt until we get a more official source for it. -- [[User:Morhek|<b><font color=indigo>Qura 'Morhek</font></b>]] [[halofanon:user:Specops306|<u><i><font color=blue><sup>The Autocrat</sup></font></i></u>]] [[User talk:Specops306|<u><i><font color=purple><sup>of Morheka</sup></font></i></u>]] 06:59, 22 April 2014 (EDT)

For now we should leave it as it is. What we can do is bombard 343i on Twitter about the subject. I can get a couple of Archivers to assist.{{Unsigned|The Master Builder}}

I added a template tag for "Verify_Source" as I don't believe there are any merits to including this colour vision issue in the article. The first problem is that due to the tweet no longer being available, it's now very difficult for people to assess the context within which the tweet was made. Was it a serious observation or comment on the canon, or just something made in jest? Looking at the text of the tweet, above, it seems to have been a friendly jibe at Frank O'Conner's expense as opposed to a proper comment on the fiction.

I think that what Morhek said here years ago was the most sensible course of action - hold out until a more reliable source comes up. A more reliable source is needed in my opinion because this out-of-context tweet is actually challenging years of established canon regarding what colours we have seen Sangheili characters comment on. Throughout canon (both new and old) there are several references to Sangheili commenting on red colours as well as blues, which means that the article is wrong in claiming that Sangheili lack an analogue for the L-cone receptor. The ability for them to distinguish red and blue also challenges the idea that they can't see purple, as purple is composed of blue and red light wavelengths leaving a material's surface and both being detected by the eye. The argument that they are merely using other species' names for red doesn't make sense, as they would be unable to distinguish red materials (from a human point of view) in order to know when to use that word. What they would see would either be grey if the material only had red light leaving its surface - or some other colour that they could see if there were other wavelengths of light leaving the surface that they could detect.

Finally, the word "infrabrown" - as far as I can tell it doesn't mean anything. Top google results just reveal discussions about this exact topic on some Halo sites, followed by a deluge of social media handles. Infra means "before", so "Infrared" for example only makes sense because red is on the EM spectrum of wavelength where we can apply concepts such as "before" and "after" with reference to another wavelength on that spectrum. Brown isn't on the EM spectrum so "infrabrown" makes no sense. There is no "before brown".

In light of these points I believe that this should be removed. - Voka

:Yep - looks like yet another case of fans taking a half-joking dev comment a bit too seriously. --[[User:Tacitus|Tacitus]] ([[User talk:Tacitus|talk]]) 11:59, 18 November 2018 (EST)

As it has been a while now since I raised the point and there have been no objections, I decided to remove the part about colour blindness and "infrabrown". - Voka.

== Mandibles ==

Recently on Waypoint Catalog confirmed that the differences in mandible shape/teeth/structure are a result of different phenotypes.

==Sanghieli Mythos==
Should there be a page devoted to ancient Sangheili mythology? From Kel 'Darsam to the Guardian at Sunaion, to what we know of the worship of their pantheon of gods, (Urs, etc), to the nine serpents of Dur'at'dur, the many-mouther watcher, sand dwellers, etc.. Not to even mention the Sangheili interpretations of the Foreruner artifacts. Is such a page warranted to have now in order to build off of int he future? -{{unsigned|Japeth555}}

Why would there be? [[User:Alertfiend|Alertfiend]] - Warning, my comments may appear passive aggressive. <small>([[User talk:AlertFiend|Converse]]) </small> 17:04, 15 May 2016 (EDT)

== Reference 91 ==

This reference does not refer to a specific version, and in the version that I have checked [Google play version] there is no source that supports this claim. Is the source present in the paperback copy, or is it an extrapolation/conjecture without much proof to back it up?

== Adding in Kaidons ==

The section on the cultural and political leaders could use the addition of something on Kaidons, as they are quite significant in Sangheili culture. It doesn't have to be particularly lengthy, as there is already a page on it, but it is still something that warrants inclusion in such a section.{{Unsigned|Navytuna}}

==Phenotypes Image for the Article==
Hello. I do not wish to step on the toes on anybody with higher authority here, but I want to get the green light on something here.
It's pretty agreed upon by the fansbase that despite graphical differences, the elites in Halo 1, 2,3, and ODST are all of the same phenotype. Beyond that, we also know the Reach elites and 4/5 elites are a different phenotype. However, there is a distinction in appearance for the Halo Wars elites that also appear in The Package. I would like to add an image for the Halo Wars elite at the top of the article. But, I wanted to get the okay and not be presumptuous. From where I sit, based on facial structure, number of teeth, body shape etc, the Halo Wars elite is a distinct phenotype from the other 3 we have covered already. Please confirm I can add it in and I will. Thanks--[[Special:Contributions/24.187.82.207|24.187.82.207]] 13:15, October 18, 2020 (EDT)
:Sounds reasonable - you're referring to the Halo Wars announcement trailer elites and the Package ones, right? The only main issue in my thoughts is that the stylisation of these (and the trailer status of one) makes them somewhat dubious. Though the HW cutscenes are fully valid. I'll bring it up in the Discord to get some second opinions but my thinking as of now is this seems pretty reasonable.[[User:BaconShelf|BaconShelf]] ([[User talk:BaconShelf|talk]]) 13:18, October 18, 2020 (EDT)
::They also appear as such in the actual Blur cinematics of the game. Most notably, the opening, the scenes with the Prophet of Regret, and the final fight against Red Team. I spent about an hour trying to see if I could justify leaning towards the H1-3 design or the Reach design and I just couldn't pin it in either direction for it to sit right with me. But yes, those are the ones. Unlike, for example, the Halo Origins depiction where it is suspect and likely of Cortana's conjecture in the same vein as Forerunner depictions, this design is actually observed in the game as well as The Package. I appreciate your consideration. Thanks!--[[Special:Contributions/24.187.82.207|24.187.82.207]] 13:23, October 18, 2020 (EDT)
:::Hey so I made the edit. Sorry I wasn't logged in before. Looks good and you can clearly see the distinction. That being said, if you and your peers ultimately disagree, feel free to reverse it. Thanks!--[[User:AdmiralPedro1stFleet|AdmiralPedro1stFleet]] ([[User talk:AdmiralPedro1stFleet|talk]]) 15:02, October 18, 2020 (EDT)
::::Based on discussion with several other users in Discord, we're electing to remove that part of the infobox entirely and just use a picture of an Elite, and not specify which ones are different phenotypes specifically as no source specifically indicates as such outside of catalog. Will be making this edit shortly. [[User:BaconShelf|BaconShelf]] ([[User talk:BaconShelf|talk]]) 15:06, October 18, 2020 (EDT)
The rationale makes sense, so long as the article continues to mention that  multiple phenotypes exist. I agree with this assessment. Better to not include it when 343 hasn't confirmed than to do so under an assumption. I see your point despite my own point as well. Okay. I agree. We can consider the matter resolved then. Thanks!--[[User:AdmiralPedro1stFleet|AdmiralPedro1stFleet]] ([[User talk:AdmiralPedro1stFleet|talk]]) 15:45, October 18, 2020 (EDT)
== Phenotype of Sangheli ==
https://youtu.be/OH4rQM6zlIo