Talk:Hidden Ones

This is the discussion page for Hidden Ones. Though the main page has since been deleted, this talkpage remains for archival purposes. To discuss the subject itself, use the Forums.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.	Be polite Assume good faith Do not insult other people

Idea for Infobox

I believe the Hidden Ones should have a reorganized subsection, or at least have the Date reorganized section have 1090 (as the Assassin Brotherhood). AngelicDragonborn (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Merge into "Assassins"

I think it's pretty clear from this point, coming off of Assassin's Creed: Mirage, that the Hidden Ones and Assassins pages should be merged as the distinction as far as we know is more of a name change rather than there being any discontinuity between the two. In fact, this was already clear enough from Assassin's Creed: Origins in my opinion and reinforced in Assassin's Creed: Valhalla. Merging these two pages is extremely overdue, and so I will be committing to it by the end of this month if there are no strong objections and potentially earlier if there is popular assent. The confusion to our readers about the lore that leaving these two pages as separate articles has caused and may continue to cause is serious. Merging these two pages will also be in line with our community discussion back in 2020. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 23:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree with the merge. Like you said, the fact that it was only a name change has been clear for long. TiagoFF (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not a strong objection but having separate pages may be an easier read with each broadly covering a thousand years each. Vetinari^{(Appointment)} 00:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I am leery of doing this before we have more definite lore surrounding Hassan-i Sabah. Per official canon he captured Alamut from someone. As far as we know Alamut never left Hidden One control. So regardless of what Ubisoft has said this implies some schism of some sort. I mean until its in actual canon anything Ubisoft says about future lore is just as speculative as anything we say. I'm not against the merge per se and its seemingly not as big a break as between the Ancients and the Templars but it's still something to think about. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Vetinari, the history section of the Assassins article has already been moved to its own page, "History of the Assassins", due to its length (even though I would argue a brief 1–3 paragraph summary of it should still be present in the Assassins article. In addition, the scope of Assassin history spans as far back as Adam and Eve, as antecedents of the Hidden Ones are regarded by modern Assassins as part of their historical tradition. The idea of "Hidden Ones" discussing 1 millennium of the Assassin history and "Assassins" discussing the next millennium is premised on the misconception that there is a clear delineation between the two in canon and within in-universe historiography. This is not the case as it has not been confirmed—as has been fans' assumption since Origins—that in the Assassin's Creed universe the name "Assassins" originated with Hassan-i Sabbah.

To repeat what I said in the community discussion, Ubisoft had advertised Origins to be about the origins of the Assassins—it just turned out they used the name Hidden Ones at first. Origins made a retcon that shifted the beginning of the Assassins from Adam and Eve to the 1st century BCE. In reaction, fans then conceptually shifted the beginning of the Assassins to the 11th century just based on assumptions about when the name Assassins must have arisen and that that name's invention must entail when the modern Assassins were actually born. This is not what was said in the lore. In this way, fans' misconception threatened to make a more extreme retcon on top of a retcon, and it is vital that we rectify this. Ubisoft's retcon is that the Assassins, by the name Hidden Ones, were founded in the 1st century BCE in Egypt. There is no delimitation about when or how Hidden Ones transitioned into using the name Assassins at this time, making any arbitrary delimitation with articles improper. It is clear, however, that it is the same organization.

In addition, "Assassins" currently expounds upon philosophy, ideology, goals, and methods, which are more or less identical with the Hidden Ones. So information between the two pages on these topics are the same. The Hidden Ones article would just be folded into "Assassins" and cut down to keep the page concise.

Lacrosse, I double-checked the AC1 game guide and both editions of The Essential Guide and can find no mention of Hassan-i Sabbah "captur[ing] Alamut from someone". Was this mentioned in Valhalla or Mirage? Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 03:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I might be bringing in real world knowledge. I don't own any of the reference materials. Sima might know more. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 03:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I also cannot speak for reference materials that I do not have, but I do know Lacrosse is (almost) bringing in IRL knowledge. WP does say on Hassan's page that he captured Alamut during the Nizari–Seljuk conflicts by converting the surrounding village and then the fort inhabitants his cause...but the former owner is unnamed and, excluding two references to Dr. Farhad Daftary's book The Ismāʿı̄lı̄s: Their History and Doctrines 2nd ed., the section on Alamut's capture has a handful of {{Cite}} tags dating to May 2018. – Darman (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Name for former owner: Mahdi, a Zadyi Alid/Alavi. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 08:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that the idea of Hassan-i Sabbah conquering Alamut from someone else in the Assassin's Creed universe or a schism happening among the Hidden Ones is too speculative at this time. It's a much more specific claim about the narrative than just Alamut belonging to the Hidden Ones in the 9th century and eventually it passed to Hassan-i Sabbah in some way. It is unfortunate that Mirage has Alamut already in their hands in the 9th century, but it reinforces the Hidden Ones and Assassins being the same organization. The only source I'm missing is the Assassin's Creed Encyclopedia. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 23:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I have enacted the merge. I looked over what should be salvaged from this article, but most of its content was a history section that went far too much into detail into Bayek's specific exploits. The history could be and already has been condensed into "History of the Assassins" (although I have yet to review that page). It did not appear to me that there was any information missing from that page or "Assassins". That having been said, anyone may refer to this page's old edit history if you would like to verify if there's any information that should have been carried over but haven't yet. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 18:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

So, since the pages have now been merged, should "Roman Hidden Ones", "Hidden Ones of Alamut", and "Hidden Ones of the Great Desert" all be renamed to match the format of other guilds, something like "Roman Brotherhood", "Alamut Brotherhood", and, uh..."Great Desert Brotherhood"? (this seems...off) – Darman (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

No. Those groups were still called Hidden Ones in their own time. The pages are merged just because the Hidden Ones and the Assassins are the same organization which is known by the latter name today. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 03:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

OK. Then we type [[Assassins]] for the group from here on out instead of [[Assassins|Hidden Ones]]? Just want to try and be clear since, as you said above, there's no official date for when the name changed. – Darman (talk) 04:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Hidden Ones is still a valid name. For the most part, use the name that is contemporaneous to the characters. For example, the organization as it was known during Basim's time was called the Hidden Ones. If you were writing from a broader view of history, on the other hand, it is okay to use "Assassins" generally. The name "Assassins" is applied retrospectively by modern Assassins for even periods predating whenever it started to be used. (Kind of like how we use the names Vietnam or Korea when talking about these countries' entire histories even though both names were not invented until a later time). For example, "Bayek and Amunet were founders of the Assassins" is correct although "Bayek and Amunet were founders of the Hidden Ones" is more precise. "Bayek, Amunet, and Numa Al'Khamsin were all Egyptian Assassins" is also okay. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 04:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)