Talk:Ascension (Stargate)

True Origin

As far as I know, the concept of ascension has existed in science fiction for FAR FAR far longer than since it was introduced to Stargate, and yet there is no discussion of this in the Wiki. Ascension is a common theme to MANY science fiction writers including Ian M. Banks and others. Anyone else know more/want to change this, or the disambiguation, article? 86.3.34.97 18:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"This suggests that Buddhism was founded upon the studies into Ascension that the Ancients made." Does one of the characters make this suggestion? If so, can someone write in that it was suggested by so and so character? If there is no source for the suggestion it shouldn't be in here because it wouldn't be encyclopedic 06:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Daniel says so in less words, but the whole episode itself suggests it with more strength. There really is no doubt that the suggestion is intended. --Alfakim-- talk 16:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Article Clarity

I may already know what ascension is, but I'll be damned if this article was even the least bit clear on what it is. People don't want (boring) episode summaries when they're trying to find out what a key concept of a television series' plot is.Apostrophe 05:34, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see what you are getting at but it still is good to have an explanation of how SG1 came to larn about ascennsion. Mabey there should be a brief summary of what it is then go into further detail about what episodes it was in. Also some info on how the ancients researched ascension in Stargate Atlantis would probably be good to--Lightamplification 07:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC).

I think the plot summaries are good, but perhaps you are right that there needs to be a clearer, more specific description section before them. What exactly did you find was unclear though? I thought that the first paragraph was sufficient. --alfakim 19:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the first poster. This article is very poorly written, badly organized, and excludes many key details. It needs a major rework. I should tag this article for cleanup. Tobyk777 02:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ori

The Ori are not truly ascended.

So what... does this article mention them? It should if it doesnt. --alfakim 19:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Thats completely wrong, the Ori are indeed ascended... --Klaser 13:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

It is not safe to assume that the Ori ascended through evolutionary means, since Oma Desala aided Anubis in ascension, and he could not be described as being "good of heart". The only place where being "good of heart" is really mentioned is on what criteria that Oma herself will help someone to ascend. --Despair 08:00, 07 March 2006 (GMT)

The Ori ARE ascended, but they are NOT enlightened. Not all ascended beings are enlightened, Anubis being a specific example, as Oma told him to "find his enlightenment". What 'enlightenment' means exactly, is certainly debatable at this point. --Seastallion 10:17, 10 March 2006 (EST)

The Ascended nemesis of the Ancients, the Ori, are evil beings. It is unclear how the Ori Ascended, but based on their selfish nature, and how advanced their technology is, it is safe to assume that they Ascended through evolution, or with technology, but not spirituality, as that path is only open to the good of heart. Unless, perhaps, the spiritual concentration and focus of their worshipers pushes the Ori into an Ascended state, effectively allowing the Ori to steal the Ascension earned by others, Ascention by proxy.

(Quoted from the main article)

I kind of have a problem with this ^^ Aside from the obvious spelling mistake at the end of it, it seems to be based on supposition that isnt supported by evidence in the show. According to Orlin the Ancients were the ones who devoted themselves to science (and we know for a fact that they used technology in some cases at least to artificially evolve themselves to ascension) whilst the Ori were more religious (and no evidence thus far that they used technology to further their evoloution). That suggests that the Ori WERE spiritual and, when added to the comment made by Merlin in 'The Quest Prt2', in which he states the Ori began with the best of intentions, it seems more likely from this that the Ori did in fact ascend through spiritual means rather than technological. Its still not clear cut, but it is definitely a possibility, strong enough to make the above section seem wrong to me. Also, it states that a person be good of heart in order to ascend spiritually, however according to Daniel that is only true if you want help from an Ancient to ascend you. If someone who was basically evil devoted their life to meditation the way Merlin and Morgan did, they could concievably ascend without the aid of technology - at least there is no evidence that an evil person could NOT ascend through spiritual enlightenment.

Oh, and as a side note, it also says that the Ori had advanced technology prior to their ascension ("and how advanced their technology is"). Again, there is no evidece of that. All Ori technology seen in the series was made by their followers after the Ori ascended and gained the knowledge of the universe. We know the Ancients, devoted to science, had advanced technology before they ascended, but the Ori who were more religious may have shunned technology before they ascended - we just dont know. And we certainly dont have the evidence to say that the Ori had advanced technology before they ascended, let alone that they had the technology and the desire to use science to achieve ascension by messing around with their DNA, something I find hard to believe a group of religious zealots would be eager to do. Genetic manipulation is largely considered unnatural by religious organisations, further adding strength to the possibility that the Ori ascended through spiritual meditation. --Anon - 11:04am, 08 March 2007--

Does anyone agree? Disagree? If no one has a problem, can someone edit/delete the text in question? --Anon - 2:38pm, 14 June 2007--

Ontology

The Ontology section needs a lot of cleaning up, if not large scale scithing. JoshuaZ 02:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it makes no sense. Most of this article needs a major cleanup. Ill tag it. Tobyk777 02:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I've modified and retitled the Ontology section. Its still pretty bad thought. JoshuaZ 02:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Epiphany

The ascended people of the Stargate Atlantis episode Epiphany get surprisingly little mention in this article, despite the fact that the episode is one of the only times we've seen someone ascend in the series (other than Daniel and Orlen), and a bit of insight into the actual process of ascending. Kuhan 03:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ascended Oma Photo

Generally the page had too many photos. But in addition to this, the ascended Oma photo pushed the Ascended Orlin photo over into the article. I was originally going to make the Oma photo smaller, but I realized that we already have a picture of Oma, and the real purpose is to show what an ascended being looks like, no need for two photos for that, and no need for two photos of Oma. The Filmaker 19:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Too many pictures?

Does this article have too many pictures? They dont seem all necessary. JoshuaZ 14:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think, perhaps. Not really. They all illustrate the paragraphs next to them. Some are quite vital.-- Alfakim --  talk  15:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

divine order

This was recently removed:

It appears that there is a cosmic order, perhaps instigated by [[God]]<ref name="Origin">{{sgcite|Origin|show=ref}}; Mitchell posits a God above the Ascended</ref>, a battle between [[Good]] and [[Evil]] that is meant to take place at the highest of levels<ref name="Prototype">{{sgcite|Prototype|show=ref}}</ref>

I'm not saying it should be put back, but i think it might eventually be put back, so i'm just making a quick save of it.

Although "divine order" was made as a passing comment, the show strongly suggests it in "Origin" and "Prototype". In each case, its a character's own idea (mitchell; jackson), but lends a lot of sense to the stargate cosmos. like a lot of other things in stargate (and our articles), i'm fairly sure the writers intended us to make the inference that they were giving us a small bit of explanation.

Note: the above text begins with "appears". anyway this probably classes as original research, so we'll leave it out for now until stronger suggestions are made, unless you guys think otherwise. -- Alfakim --  talk  11:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It's possible, but it completely goes against various themes that have been introduced, and continued into Season 9, in Stargate, such as the idea that good and evil is not such a black and white thing as this "divine order" hypothesis suggests (examples include the Tokra who are not as evil as the Goa'uld, the Replicators, who became much more complex when human-form replicators began showing up, the Trust, who regularly did things that could have been debated as 'for the greater good', the Wraith, who are not so much evil as they are amoral and simply obey their instinct, and even the Ancients).

Anyhow, good thinking saving it. Maybe the idea may be followed up upon in Season 10. SG-1 certainly could use a higher power on their side. --Kuhan 04:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The above seems to me to be exactly where the show is going and has been ever since the beginning of Season 9 when Ascension really became central. Watch prototype again - when Daniel is in the chamber where Khalek is, he discusses some points that really sway this argument. -- Alfakim --  talk  12:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, I don't have a copy of Prototype to check... but I do remember a line about half way through when Sam says something along the lines of "I always thought you had to be a good person to ascend." to which Daniel responds with something like "Certainly if you have an ascended ancient helping you. Naturally though it's just a matter of evolution", which represents a much more amoral process than what we had seen pre season 9. --Kuhan 00:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, S9's made ascension very amoral (or much more scientific), but there are two types of ascended being never the less - the good ones and the bad ones. that was daniel's comment: "the battle between good and evil is meant to ascend to a higher plane and take part on a cosmic scale." (from memory). -- Alfakim --  talk  07:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

the Atlantis S3E14 episode (The Tao of Rodney) seems to suggest that Ascension is a purely scientific process, and they have given the monitoring device used in Prototype a name - the "ascend-o-meter". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.21.67.38 (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

Citing sources

Man, I really spend too much time on this article.

Anyhow, I was never particularly good at citing sources in school, but the amount of cites in this article seems a little excessive. Wikipedia advises to only cite when the fact stated is likely to or has been disputed. In that case, we should probably remove most of them except the snopes cite. If needed, we could make a list at the bottom of the page of episodes of note/interest, but at the moment, the amount of cites seems akin to someone citing every line of the Jesus article to a verse of the Bible. Any thoughts? --Kuhan 04:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagree Wikipedia encourages more refs and cites. An example of a Stargate article with an admazing, number of refs, almost tot the point of overkill is DNA Resequencer. I think all the sources are crucial. Almost everything in the article, mabe even the entire stargate project is definite and pretty much undisputable if you watch the show. We shouldn't remove all the refs, in fact, I don't think this article has enough. Tobyk777 05:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, most of the ascension storyline (in fact, most of the concepts) in Stargate were borrowed from Rodenberry. Star Trek: Next Generation had at least two alien groups who existed as pure energy.

Power and Age

"The Ascended plane of existence appears to have several 'levels' and 'ranks', evident because some Ascended beings are greater in power than others. As seen in such episodes as "Threads", those who have been Ascended for longer, or who Ascended of their own wisdom, achieve a "higher" Ascension; Daniel Jackson, who is Ascended by Oma Desala, is always of the least power."

I removed that because we've seen no evidence of any Ascended beings being "more powerful" than any others on an individual level. Daniel Jackson is always interfered with because the other Ascended beings act as a group, not because he's the youngest and weakest. Anubis was forced down to a lower plane of existence by the others acting together, Morgana was taken away by the others acting as a group, etc. If it turns out that there is such a correlation between age and power, we don't know about it yet because it hasn't been mentioned in any episode.

If there is such a connection, then why is Oma unable to defeat Anubis on the Ascended planes? He Ascended millenia after her, and with her help as a matter of fact, and isn't even fully Ascended anymore, but the two are completely perfectly matched that neither will ever be able to defeat the other (Mentioned quite specifically in "Threads"). JBK405 19:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You are completely right. I read that sentence and it didn't make sense to me either. However, some ascneded beings are more powerful than others. Their power depends on how many humnas they have worshiping them, not how old they are. That is why the Ori are more powerful than the Ancients. Tobyk777 22:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Close, but not quite. The Ori are not more powerful than the Ancients, if they were then they would have already conquered them. What they hope to do is become more powerful than the Ancients by having all of the Milky Way humans worship them. Form what I can gather from in-show dialogue, the two are rather evenly matched right now, with the Ancients numerically superior, but the Ori equalling them in power via the whole sucking life from humans thing. JBK405 21:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Q Continuum

I just removed this; Also, this whole matter of Ascension, and all things related with it, reminds of similar god-like´Q´ race (´" Q "-beying) from Q - dimension´, as it is from the Star Trek universe. from the 'as a central theme section' for reasons of poor grammar & phrasing, as well as not fitting the section it was placed in and using incorrect and confusing terminolgy for the Q Continuum. But I think that a small reference to the Q continuum would be suitable as a reference to a similar concept, as well as the similarity of presenting the continuum and the higher plane as a mundane real world representation to less advanced beings brought into them. Perhaps a small section for similar beings/concepts in other fiction? Though none leap to mind off the top of my head, I'm sure there's a few that are similar enough to warrant mention in such a section.Number36 23:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Major problems with this article

I would just like to point out that the Stargate Atlantis episode Tao of Rodney completely contradicts this whole article of ascension. Aparently, the evolutionary aspect of ascension and the spiritual side are not independent. They are both needed. I could be wrong but after watching the episode I do feel that this section should be rewriteen. Adam Y 19:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, I believe the whole spiritual side simply allows one's body to achieve the state required for ascension. The subconscious mind will not allow the mind to achieve the correct mental state if one is not at rest with oneself. 82.21.67.38 17:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, you have to want to ascend. As Daniel tells Jack "This is something you have to want," and Roddney did not want to Ascend, partly because his mind had finally come up with an alternative to simply dying or ascending (the soloution he gives to Carson). --Anon - 8:55am, 11 March 2007--

Fair use rationale for Image:Ascension Orlin.jpg

Image:Ascension Orlin.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. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia: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 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 22:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Full Circle Daniel Attacks.jpg

Image:Full Circle Daniel Attacks.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. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia: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 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 13:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Meridian Oma.jpg

Image:Meridian Oma.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 Wikipedia: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 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 22:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Meridian Ascension.jpg

Image:Meridian Ascension.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 Wikipedia: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 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 22:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Reckoning Probe Mind.jpg

Image:Reckoning Probe Mind.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 Wikipedia: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 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 23:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Maternal Instinct Meditate.jpg

Image:Maternal Instinct Meditate.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 Wikipedia: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 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 04:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Maternal Instinct Bratac.jpg

Image:Maternal Instinct Bratac.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 Wikipedia: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) 16:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Spiritual Ascension

We don't know that there's even such a thing as Spiritual Ascension. The article currently contains a lot of Original Research. All of the people who Ascended at Kheb were most probably helped by Oma and it was never stated that all of the generations that came before that of Teer's in "Epiphany" Ascended. She stated that they'd been in there for "many generations". It's most likely (in my opinion) that they've been there for many generations meditating to Ascend. With each generation, the meditation helped them further along the evolutionary ladder culminating in generation(s) of Ascension. I will edit the article to reflect this should no one protest in the near future. After all, virtue is not a necessity for Ascension so any Tom, Dick and Jane could just sit down and meditate. And you really think Teer's little sister managed to Ascend on her own simply through meditation? What was she, 12? She spontaneously Ascended through meditation after, what, 9 years of meditation? Doubtful. Yuna-chan (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Threadscafe.jpg

Image:Threadscafe.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 Wikipedia: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) 02:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Prototype212.jpg

Image:Prototype212.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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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) 04:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

71.100.204.152 (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Were the Ori killed or not?

I really dont have a clue... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.204.152 (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• As stated in The Ark of Truth, they were indeed killed by the Sangraal. Then Adria ascended and inherited all their power — until SG-1 took care of her. - Sikon (talk) 10:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Uppercase

Why is the word "Ascend" in uppercase everywhere throughout this article? It's a standard English verb and should be written according to the rules of the English language. - Sikon (talk) 10:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Lower quality class to Start-class

In 2006, this article was assessed as A-class, seemingly without discussion. Well, this article doesn't fulfill the current quality demands anymore, and I am not sure it ever did (for example, it doesn't list any real-world sources except one that I would label as synthesis. I therefore boldly re-assess this article as start-class. If a merge target comes up (probably Ancient (Stargate) or a new Fictional universe of Stargate, who knows), this article will likely be transwikiied and then trimmed and merged, if it isn't AfDed first. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)