User talk:ACsenior

Welcome to the Order, ACsenior!

Welcome to the Assassin's Creed Wiki! We hope you enjoy your stay, and we look forward to working with you!

Have you something to say?

You can always ask our beloved administrators! Our local staff members can always lend a hand! You can also visit the wiki's community portal! We also have the IRC if you're ever in the mood for a chat! There is also our forums, where all users can help you out. You can also check out the blogs, where you and other contributors can voice out your opinion.

We seek unity, stability and order.

Not sure where to start? The AC WikiProjects are always accepting new members! You can always help out by sharing what you know on some of our stubs. Got some useful pictures? Share them with us on these articles. Got a useful concept for an article? Why not help out in some articles in need of a revamp? Always remember to sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~) to avoid any confusion between users. You can also refer to the wiki's help pages if you're ever in doubt. Please remember to read our wiki policies to avoid gaining any unnecessary attention.

We wish you safety and peace on your future endeavors. Happy Editing!

Feel free to contact me on my talkpage if you need anything. -- Vatsa1708 (Talk) 16:44, 2012 April 8

User page edits

Hello there :) I'd like to ask you to try and keep the edits to your userpage to a minimum. Please use the preview button to check everything, so that you won't have to edit your page three or more times right after each other. Thanks! Have a nice day and happy editing! :) Nesty ^{Contact me!} 20:32, September 10, 2012 (UTC)

I'll remember that ;)--ACsenior (talk) 20:36, September 10, 2012 (UTC)

Userpage

Hey ACSenior, I just saw that in your userpage the gallery tab is little effed up...for the gallery you can use this code: <gallery position="center" type="slideshow"> and then put either {{-}} or {{clear}} above the </tabber>. ;)--Odranoelluta^{Talk✲<choose><option>http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/marvel-cinematic-universe/images/1/18/Sig.png</option></choose>} 16:53, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks --ACsenior (talk) 17:10, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

ACsenior pls use the

File:575000 612523105440568 1541905856 n.jpg

Edward Kenway

to put it in Edward Kenways Page

For News Items

Just copy+paste the code below. The stuff you need to change is in CAPITALS.

{| class="collapsible collapsed" width="100%" style="border:2px solid white; background: #505050; -moz-border-radius:12px;"
!<font color="white">ARTICLE NAME/ETC.</font>
|-
|
CONTENT OF ARTICLE
|}

- kabutsu ^{Enter the Animus} _{The Crimson Polls II} 20:35, May 23, 2013 (UTC)

Comment

You can leave me a message on my talk page if you wish to communicate with me directly, rather than posting a comment on a blog. And I cannot even fathom how my comment indicates I want to ban you. A quick Google search of the lyrics I posted should get you directly the song "Cars" by Gary Numan. Look at the person interviewed in your article, and you can figure out the rest. If I wished to ban you, I wouldn't be anything but direct about it. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 13:58, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

Consider my previous "situations" I prefer to stay at the lowest profile possible. No it's not the comment itself bot how "of topic"(related to previous "situations") it seemed, especially since I don't even know about the song and who Gary Numan is. I'll look at the person soon enough. That might be the case but I still think you do to be honest, that's because of the previous "situations". I don't want another "war" either so I'll just go off the grid again and just delete the comment since it was a misunderstanding.--ACsenior (talk) 14:15, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

You're making a nuisance out of nothing. I didn't even pay enough attention to who posted the comment to know it was you. Seriously, relax. If I have a problem with someone, I'll talk to them about it to get it out of the way. And I cut everyone way too much slack before I give them a ban, which I rarely give anyway. If I have a problem with you, you'll read it directly from me here. Now please stop antagonizing me. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 14:23, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

Return

Come back on the Grid hermano!!! Abelzorus Prime (talk) 18:43, September 23, 2015 (UTC)

Without my position as the "news guy" I feel kinda useless here, I'm nothing but a simple informant now dropping information here from time to time. I'll never work here the same way again, sadly. --ACsenior (talk) 14:28, September 24, 2015 (UTC)

Hey ACsenior, you can always post news you find in the Syndicate news thread, if you want. Or start a general news thread yourself :) Crook ^{The Constantine District} 14:34, September 24, 2015 (UTC)

Checking In

Hey ACsenior, I noticed that you haven't been active for almost a month. I appreciated your assistance with the Assassins article, providing constructive advice, so I wanted to check-in to see if you're on hiatus. Although I have since published the "Corruptions" revision, as well as the "Methods" revision, I believe there are some parts that need refinement, and I'm not confident that these sections are ideal. I'm currently focused entirely on finishing long overdue content concerning Altaïr's Chronicles, but let me know if you feel like checking back in on the Assassins article. :) Sol Pacificus (talk) 10:04, March 10, 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'll read the "Corruptions" revision first, then move on to "Methods". Then you'll get some advises. --ACsenior (talk) 14:48, March 10, 2016 (UTC)

It's fine if you're busy by the way, and I might not get around to it myself for a while. Sol Pacificus (talk) 01:26, March 11, 2016 (UTC)

RE:Corruption

I'm not sure if I should be responding to even just your initial response again here because that might make the discussion really hard to follow, but I have said so much that I wanted to have a place where I can brieflyfailed... >_< and clearly state my points. This is only in regards to just your "Corruption, Part 1".

1. I'm not "taking a side" in regards to editing. I will confess that I align with the Assassins in my personal philosophy, but this does not affect my edits. I have taken enormous care not to include my personal beliefs of what the Assassins believe from what is cited in the sources of what the Assassins believe. (And actually ironically, the principle of NPOV and looking at multiple perspectives is core to Assassins anyways, Wikipedia is literally like a website created with an ideology identical to that of the Assassins).
2. I think you missed my point that valuing neutrality was not a source of contention. It is something that we both strive to uphold, but we have different ideas on how to achieve it, but obviously, taking a side is not a way to go about it, and honestly, I was (and probably still am if I'm being honest) very irritated that you emphasized that so hard because that is not a problem here. I am extremely committed to showing multiple perspectives; that has been literally a founding part of my philosophy since I was 7 years old. Even if I wasn't dedicated to "not taking a side" in my work (and I am dedicated to not taking a side in my work), a true Assassin believes in showing multiple perspectives even ones that put them in a negative light anyways.
3. The point of just that one paragraph you responded to was not even constructive criticism, it was just a cautionary note that we should proceed carefully and how we can mess this up, but I think for now, we are fine. I'm not opposed to including criticism of the Assassins, in case that is your misunderstanding. I wanted to explain how we can ironically become not-neutral in striving so hard to be neutral, by the Golden Mean Fallacy (which you have to make sure you read up on).
4. Here's 'biggest point that I missed in my responses there and what necessitates that I respond here as well: it's not a matter of whether we should or should not be including different perspectives in the article. It's that correct wiki policy on NPOV is that we do not include perspectives that are our own. This is why Wookieepedians oppose "Controversy" articles. Even if our personal interpretations are valid, we simply aren't supposed to include them in the article. Criticisms are supposed to be entirely within an in-universe light in order to ensure that we aren't biased because even if we aren't biased, we will have our own personal opinions, and those opinions will inevitably leak into our writing when they shouldn't. We should not be including our personal interpretations. I strove very hard when I wrote the ideals of the Assassins not to include my own personal extrapolations, like how I believe that a true Assassin believes in universal love. I did not include that because it is not cited and is my own personal belief. Instead, I included that they believe in perspectivism and the idea that one shouldn't assume that he is unquestionably right because these are heavily supported by textual evidence. In the same way, I would only support Corruption sections in the Assassins and Templars articles because of cases where the characters in the game cited were corrupt cases. We shouldn't be included what we think are corrupt cases. I thoroughly believe that Ezio's destruction of Cappadocia was a horrendous violation of Assassin philosophy, but because it was not cited as such in-game, we technically should not be including it under "Corruption" because that is our personal interpretation. On the Templar side, I would almost certainly not support including Hitler in a Corruption section because while Assassins and all of humanity thinks he is evil (and he was), it's not cited as a case of Templar corruption or deviation from their ideology. Instead, the Borgias are a good inclusion because the Abstergo files clearly explain that the Templars remember them as a Dark Age of corruption, and the Borgias might even be the only case I would support including.

Okay, so as always I failed to be even remotely brief. But my initial responses to even just that first response of yours was more in reaction to your incorrect accusations of me being motivated by an allegiance with the Assassins and not constructive, so I felt the need to respond with something constructive, which is what has been written here. But maybe it's better to redirect our discussion here.

EDIT: I cut-out 50% of this message (with examples as such) before posting because I suck at being brief :( and you must be overwhelmed, so I should wait for your responses before proceeding further :P Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 01:52, September 26, 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, I'll reply to everything either way. This and the expanded vesion too, only for us to cleaify a few things before we continue our discission. Or we can move it here.

1. You misunderstanding my point(part of it at least). Your current writing of the Corruption section and the ideology and goals is eludently writen non-biased. I know you try to avoid putting your own interpretations in it, I've read everything and helped you with balencing it before you started. Makes two of us then as I too attempt to stay as true to the source as possible when helping. I guess the reason we gave the great balance is also because of our opposing ideals, as you've noticed I do agree with the moderate Templar philosophy.
2. True, we do have a common goal here but different ways of archiving it. Exactly, it only appeared like you took a side, it was never my intention to disrespect. I know and I'm sorry for that, and I know you can.
3. It wasn't mean to be constructive criticism but a note of caution because we should proceed carefully to avoid bias. It apreaed like you did, that's why I ephitized on taking a side. But as you've said, we're fine for now. We seem to be misunderstand each other then. I get that point now but you didn't get mine, I'm trying to avoid both of these: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RonTheDeathEater

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DracoInLeatherPants That goes for things like for example a moderate Templar section or a corrupt Assassin section, two of the most "controversial" section we'd have in the AC wiki. Regarding the Golden Mean Fallicy, the AC series is to black and white for us to end up doing that. They'll never be equally bad, the only way to reach such a point is if we do the two throes I just liked you. By creating our definitions rather than using established lore and citing direct sources. Like the words of an Assassin and Templar about their own idealogi.

1. I don't disagree with that, seeing as personal opinions has no value in the wiki as it's meant to tell facts. Understandable that they avoid it but for AC it's needed because of it's focus on philosophy. It should be taken from an in-universe light as the rules and principles within the AC universe deside who that's what and why. I've no doubt you did and it's good work to, we just have to be cautious to not include our own interpetations but rather use the rules and principles of each order to constructively write how they operate, what they belive bad what their goals are. A slight disagreement here, while I'd prefer cited evidence for everything we also has to take to consideration their own principles and rules. If a brotherhood does violate the creed, then it is corrupt. Most Assassins world wide supported Achilles but that does't mean his brotherhood isn't corrupt. The War Letters shows the approval of his brotherhood by Assassins. We know for a fact his brotherhood violated the creed, it's a major case and don't need to be citied because it's obvious. The same apply to Jack and Abbas who work the same but not in such a great scale as Achilles brotherhood. There's a difference between the two Thropes above resulting in fan-definitions and usining established lore. So despite Ezio's actions not being cited as corruption, he still is according to their own rules and principles. That includes the assassination of Tarik, the Harbor Riot, the destruction of of Cappadocia and the Great Chain. Actually the Templars page need 3 sections. A corruption page with the Borgia as the example seeing as it's the best explanation of corrupt Templars. Corrupt Templars are as stated trough the series, people who use the order for personal gain and doing things for personal gain goes against the orders interest. For the extremist Templars we can use the MD Templars who wants to enslave mind and are willing to do anything to accomplish their goals. The WW2 Templars with Hitler as the obvious extreme example. Or the Parisian Rite lead by Germain. For moderates that don't want to eradicate freedom but merly detest it(how unity is possible) you have the Byzantine Templars, the Colonial Rite, the Carribean Rite and the Parisian Rite lead by the De la Serre family. As said, I'd prefer if both pages does in depth in it's sections. We can have examples of traditionalist Assassins as well under the ideals and goals part but what's also missing is an ideals and goals part regarding the corrupt Assassins. --ACsenior (talk) 15:32, September 26, 2016 (UTC)

NPOV is far more nuanced than we might think. For example, Ezio's violation of the creed in Cappadocia isn't sourced, but it's a logical deduction because (a) Assassins expressly say "don't kill innocents" and (b) he got civilians killed. I think logical deductions such as these should be allowed, but I'm not sure if you see how it is less obvious in other cases such as the riot in the market and the Destruction of the Great Chain. The 50% of my response here I cut out covered this, so here it goes. Besides the destruction of Derinkuyu, I really want you to understand just how debatable most other instances are. My stance is that we should actually just be very strict with what we include, such that we only include (a) >u>examples that can't be debated by logical deduction (b) examples that are heavily cited as corruption and presented as a matter of internal conflict & strife whether or not it can be debated or not. Aside from the f

1. It can't be debated that François Mackandal violated the creed because he sought to massacre the white population of Haiti indiscriminately and his letters show his conflict in ideals with the rest of the Assassins.
2. While Pierre Bellec's desire to purge the Assassins he disagrees is apparently noted by Shaun to have been debatable, he did teamkill (which should count as killing innocents... but maybe that's why Shaun said it was found to be a debatable case), and it is presented in the game as a source of great conflict since Arno ends up fighting Pierre to the death.
3. The assassination of Tarik Barleti, however, which I introduced in spite of finding it debatable... While theoretically an Assassin should only use assassination as a last resort, and thus great care must be made for investigations, it is possible that this is more of an error in judgment than a moral violation. That is to say, Ezio thought he had investigated enough, just as Arno as a noob killed Chrétien Lafrenière erroneously because he was too hasty. While Ezio should not have been so hasty, it can be argued that he just made a mistake rather than a full-blown corrupt violation of the creed. That is to say, he hadn't meant to anymore than Arno had meant to kill the wrong person, and I think it's more alike to a soldier making the wrong move that gets people killed, such as his allies. Perhaps a soldier misidentifies an ally squad for the enemy in the dark of night, for instance. At the same time, mistakes that cost innocent people their lives can be argued as corruption, especially with management such as the Charge of the Light Brigade. But my point isn't whether or not this was a clear act of corruption or not, but the fact that it is debatable if we look at different perspectives of this. Now you might say that it is presented as a major plot point, but it does not become a major source of internal strife within the Assassin ranks nor is it cited as corruption. It could or could not be considered as a reasonable mistake since the evidence against Tarik was compelling given Ezio saw him strike a deal to sell weapons to the Templars. I do not think it should matter whether or not it is a reasonable mistake or a case of Ezio's corruption or not, only that the fact it is debatable,I would rather be safe and not include.
4. Rashid ad-din Sinan was seen as a traitor to the principles of the Assassins by the Assassins, and his ideology was exposed as one completely in contradiction with that of the Assassins. It was also the the principle conflict in the game, so it should be noted.
5. The Destruction of the Great Chain, that's where we really see ourselves approaching our own personal interpretations. The fact that we can even argue whether or not that constitutes an example shows that it shouldn't be included. Are military targets acceptable or not? We shouldn't be arguing this. Maybe it was a violation, but what should be important is whether it obviously is, as obvious as killing an innocent person when your creed explicitly forbids it. Your argument that it is, I think, stems from the fact that the Ottomans were not necessarily Templars and because the Great Chain does serve to defend the city itself. Honestly, when I played that mission, I was thinking to myself that in order to get to Cappadocia to stop the Templars, the Great Chain has to be destroyed, but it was only a temporary casualty as it can be rebuilt. The expenses might be heavy for the Ottomans, but these things just happen in conflicts, we make some sacrifices, the most important thing is that civilians weren't harmed in the end. So the question is, are military targets acceptable or not? Do they constitute as killing innocents when the military targets are in opposition against you, but it is not because they are Templars or aware that you are an Assassin? It is so debatable that I just think that if we even bother to include it, it would certainly be because of our personal interpretation. It's not a simple matter enough to be a case of logically deducing it as a case of corruption. Not like "Creed says don't kill innocents, you willfully kill innocents".
6. I think the Lisbon earthquake was absolutely just a tragic case of misunderstandings and poor communication. Achilles assumed it was an artifact (which if consistent with all other Assassins, he had meant to find to destroy or hide from Templars though we don't know for sure). He never imagined that it could just be some weird "seismic tree". He sent Shay, who didn't know how Pieces of Eden looked like or what to explain to retrieve it, and he accidentally triggered the earthquake. Shay comes back in a fury, but Achilles isn't open-minded enough to put two and two together with the Haiti earthquake (note that Vendredi had been murdered so the Assassins never learned that Vendredi had reached the site before he was killed). I'm not going to go over the whole scenario again, but my verdict is that Achilles and Shay were insanely immature in this scenario and that was the problem. Their mutual failure to communicate and listen to each other's side, how it was just a tragic accident, and their desire to demonize one another and make each other look like the absolute bad guy in what was just a tragic accident is just idiotic. Now, it can be argued that Achilles' attitude violated the teachings of the Assassins, but I think in such a case it's more similar to how even Obi-Wan Kenobi and Qui-Gon Jinn "violated" the Jedi code by developing romantic feelings for Siri Tachi and Tahl respectively. They're human beings who we can't expect will get their emotions right every time, which is why I think that Achilles' reaction while unjustifiable, is understandable because it's no different from the way teachers and doctors and bosses in our society are sometimes too close-minded in interacting with students, patients, and employees' struggles. I do find such teachers, doctors, and bosses to be wrong to the point of being immoral, but I know that at the end of the day, they're not evil and didn't mean to hurt anyone. They're just ignorant and not mature enough to be open-minded. The Lisbon earthquake I absolutely don't see as a matter of corruption so much as a great noob mistake on Achilles' part. He was a new Mentor who was so inexperienced he didn't teach his apprentices correctly and didn't take necessary precautions and then became mentally unhinged because of the death of his wife and son. HOWEVER, I do think it should be included in spite of my enormous objections because it is a central plot point to Rogue, hence this shows what I mean by personal interpretation vs. what is cited. I disagree with this so much, but it is too central to ignore.
7. Kesegowaase's terror assault against Albany should be included because it's a clear, simple case of harming innocent lives, and it is one of the pieces of evidence central to the game of Rogue of Assassin corruption.
8. With the case of Ezio causing that riot at the Arsenal, I disagree with his action and personally do see that as a violation of Assassin's creed, but to be honest, I didn't want to include it because I wasn't sure that even traditional Assassins saw rioting as a violation even while I think it most certainly is. Connor started riots with Stephane Chapheau. Hence, it is a case of us imposing our personal interpretations. Is its inclusion as a violation sourced? It's simply not as straightforward as "don't kill innocents, willfully kill innocents". It is a case of "don't kill innocents, risked innocent lives by galvanizing them into an uprising". From one perspective, Ezio manipulated the people into risking their lives for his own agenda. On the other hand, his likely perspective is that he is helping their lives by fighting the Templars, and if they hadn't already been downtrodden enough to want to engage in an uprising and fight for themselves, they probably won't have been triggered in such a way. From his perspective, he was just giving them the courage to take action into their own hands. I do disagree with this method because I oppose riots, period, but from his perspective, he probably saw it no different as political activists would in rallying people for protests. I support only peaceful protests, but then the target of their uprising was the Arsenal, a military target. Yet again, the market was also damaged. But then this might be countered that the damage to the market was a minor loss for the greater good. You see, it is debatable enough I can debate with myself on this matter, and my point stands that I don't think we should be arguing whether it constitutes as corruption or not. If it is debatable and is not cited as a case of corruption, we shouldn't include it.

So those were some examples. I always wanted to point out that this is why I thought that perhaps it may be better to rename it as "deviations" or "Examples of Violations" which I think allows us to be more technical and objective, since we are declaring whether an action was in violation or not, not whether it was corrupted which is a personal judgment of the action's morality. I think the only case for using "Corruption" is that it is a more succinct way to word it, but it is less objective. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 22:01, September 26, 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Templar Corruption

I disagree with splitting the Templars into three sections: moderate, extremists, and corrupted. The reason is because while we can definitely see different strains of Templars, this clear delineation isn't cited and would be a case of our personal interpretations. I know that back in Wookieepedia, I was cautioned about doing just this because even if I were correct, I might even be influencing or setting precedents for future AC producers with my interpretations when this was an interpretation they did not have. It might sound odd that this is possible with Assassin's Creed, but Wookieepedia was enormously influential on Star Wars authors back in the day.

But my main reason for opposing this is because Templar ideology honestly hasn't been clearly defined. It is not like Assassin ideology where we were given these key tenets, explicitly set down, and Altaïr writes a philosophically profound book on the whole matter, and then we weave together all the consistent explanations and words by the rest of the Assassins.

The Templars don't have this because we don't really see from their perspectives. We know a lot about their beliefs from just their arguments and last words, but there isn't anything that we can say is a definition of a who a Templar is. I thought that a Templar is defined by (a) the idea that the best route to peace is through the imposition of a New World Order run by Templars (b) in contrast to Assassins they view security and stability as a paramount priority over welfare and fulfillment (which is a real-world contrast b/w conservatives and liberals) because the Assassins value freedom not for freedom's sake but because they think that peace without the fulfillment of individual expression of character, happiness, & life is an empty peace, or a low-standard for peace, hence why it is not okay to sacrifice these things for security; the Templars think that Assassins are idiotic because peace is more easily achieved by the securing stability and security, whether cultivating internal (individual) "prosperity" or not, hence why they think that the Assassins' method of allowing freedom of expression and liberties is too risky. (c) a mentality of certainty within one's own beliefs, which Haytham cited was the deciding allure of Templar ways when he was introduced to them; he felt he could be sure of himself (d) a lack of faith in humanity's ability to gradually achieve peace through mutual understanding; the pessimistic belief that humanity is inherently corrupt(d) achievement of the goal of New World Order by any means necessary is acceptable.

I didn't go too deep into my understanding of Templar philosophy, but these were some of the unifying characteristics that I found, most of which were almost entirely taken from Haytham since he's the Templar whose views were most well described. But are these characteristics really what defines a Templar? The last point is especially contentious since it essentially means that it is not against Templar philosophy to pursue their goal by any means necessary, hence genocide is justifiable. Templars are known to be more callous or dismissive towards innocent lives; Haytham killed the guards he and Connor captured for interrogation to Connor's horror. In Haytham's eyes, they weren't necessarily innocent since they were military targets, and he did not bat an eyelash at the prospect that their lives were in any way valuable enough to risk the effort to keep them around. But even Haytham (who I personally don't find to be that moderate) condemned the wanton brutality of Edward Braddock, who was so extreme, he probably thought the Templars he associated with were not severe enough in their methods, so it is conceivable that Haytham likely would not have endorsed wholesale genocide.

But is it established that Templars are explicitly against genocide? Is it established they have any specific moral code that forbids the killing of innocents? Or is this only a case-by-case individual basis because there is simply no regulation against it in their code? Does the traditional Templar code have any reservations against burning books, mass censorship, performing medical experiments on patients who have not consented? So here's the key question: are moderate Templars the norm or are they the exception in the same way Mackandal and Jack the Ripper are exceptions to Assassin standards? Perhaps this is why you argue that we should treat three different strains of Templars, but we simply can't do that if we don't have it sourced explicitly they saw themselves as 3 discrete strains. It's only our interpretation that there are 3 discrete strains. Certainly they saw that the Borgias were too corrupt to represent them, but would Haytham and Shay have disagreed with Jubair al Hakim? With Garnier de Naplouse? With Warren Vidic? With Laureano de Torres or François-Thomas Germain?

We know the general Templar ideology, but we don't have their discrete code, not like that of the Assassins. As a result, we can't decisively say when a Templar action violates their code or not. When you cite Hitler and Stalin orchestrating WW2, yes, that is corrupt to us, but would it have been corrupt to the average Templar, to Germain, to Robert de Sable? Is it a deviation from their normal code? They called the Borgias corrupt, but it wasn't so much their brutality or disregard for innocent lives so much that this disregard served no purpose other than to satisfy their own personal greed. Templars traditionally seem to think such atrocities are justifiable, but only in service to a greater good, hence why the Borgias were corrupt in their eyes, not because of their methods, but because of their intentions and goals. And if we call Hitler a corrupt (and he is!) Templar, are we (a) not being neutral because we are casting judgment (b) also being biased because we think to ourselves that because he is evil, he must be an exception to Templars, thus implying that standard Templar ideology must be opposed to his ways. This actually goes back to what I said about Golden Mean Fallacy. We shouldn't assume that traditional Templar ideology is pure evil and endorses genocide. We also shouldn't assume that traditional Templar ideology will most assuredly be opposed to these atrocities because that is us denying the fact they can possibly be that low on average. It isn't me taking a side, it's me acknowledging the possibility that here we have a faction whose morality doesn't classically oppose such actions, whether or not I believe that is okay or not.

The Golden Mean Fallacy is when we do take a side. The side of a "third way" which is a side in itself. I like to remind my friend that it's not that in defying black-and-white thinking, we should take the side of absolute grey. You're supposed to see the world in shades of grey, and sometimes people end up seeing an absolute grey instead. (This friend, because he wants to be open-minded enough to not see the world in black-and-white, ends up thinking ethics is so non-existent, it is perfectly fine to do anything he wants even at the expense of others; this is by the way, something that Altaïr mentioned is a danger to the creed, some Assassin recruits end up seeing the world in absolute gray in stead of shades of grey). We shouldn't assume that Templars are black, but we shouldn't assume they are perfect gray either because then we may end up willfully cherry-picking out any crimes they commit as decidedly not representative of their "true" way, which just isn't objective or honest. Who are we to decide that the "true" Templar way doesn't condone these atrocities? And that's what I fear is going to happen. We are afraid to make the Templars too evil, so we brush aside all the atrocities they have committed by either saying that they are exceptions to the Templar standard or not representative of them, but how do we know that they don't represent the true Templar way? This is why NPOV shouldn't revolve around psychologically manipulating the presentation of facts such that the sides are more equal. My point is we shouldn't manipulate at all. We are supposed to give the facts, period. If Templars classically commit so many atrocities, we present it as just a factual description. This is what they did, this is how they acted, and we act as though this doesn't necessarily make them evil because we shouldn't be judging, but if that makes Templars look more evil in the eyes of the audience, then it can't be helped. We promote honest facts. We have been doing fine thus far, but we should be careful of manipulating the presentation of facts in our quest for "neutrality" which would be faked through our forced manipulation. If we were to somehow present such extremist Templars as the exception, then that is exactly what we would be doing: manipulating. We don't know that they are the "exception" to classical Templar code because we don't know whether classic Templar code prohibits such excessive methods. The case of wiki editing, seeing the world in shades of grey may mean we do subconsciously "pick a side", hence why neutrality is a delicate matter, but we also have to be mindful that picking such a perfect middle ground is still picking a side when as you said, we shouldn't be picking any sides. We shouldn't assume at all.

I know that that preceding paragraph may be missing your intention, as you may be seeking instead to present both extremist and moderate Templars as just different strains without presenting either as "norms" or "exceptions". But the other issue is that it is subject to personal interpretation which ones are moderate and which ones are extremists. Assassin's Creed is not nearly as black-and-white as most franchises, like Star Wars, or Harry Potter, or Dragonball, or Pokémon, or Naruto, or The Lord of the Rings, or Orphan Black, or even Game of Thrones. Even Death Note, where the villain protagonist Light Yagami has pretty much Knight Templar goals is more black-and-white because he's portrayed as ultimately a psychopath no different from the criminals he murders. Case in point, the Assassins' resolve to deliver their own form of social justice, even as precise as it is, is still constantly questioned in terms of morality. Shaun and Rebecca even comment on it. The Templars in Assassin's Creed were as follows and these examples also deal with the difficulty of distinguishing moderates (like Haytham) from extremists:

1. Robert de Sablé's views honestly weren't too well defined, he was just the leader of a faction who wanted a New World Order and probably condoned the actions of his subordinates. He could have been no different from Haytham.
2. Tamir murdered a subordinate, but we have seen Haytham murder redcoats he interrogated who had nothing to do with the conflict.
3. Abu'l Nuqoud massacred his party, but he did so out of defiance against the prejudice he suffered in life and believed that the Templars would pave the way for a world without such prejudices. It is villainous, but there's a realistic humane reason behind it. Again, this goes back to what I mean about the Golden Mean Fallacy. Sometimes, people do commit atrocities, and I don't want us to sugarcoat it by saying that oh this isn't representative of how Templars are truly like or complain about how it's being biased or making the Templars look evil. This is what occurred, and the audience should judge as they will without us trying to adjust the presentation such that we make sure Templars don't look "evil". What made this extremely profound for me is that here we have someone who clearly did something villainous, but we also see his human motivatons behind it. This is what it means to promote a grey-and-gray tale, shades of gray, not taking turns portraying opposing factions as pure good vs. pure evil (AC2 & Brotherhood, then Rogue), but showing characters with complex characters, who are villainous but have human motivations, or who are heroic but with villainous tendencies or dark depths.
4. Majd Addin is shown to be a pure psychopath that wanted power and nothing more, but he was no different from Thomas Hickey, a hedonistic, psychopathic mercenary that saw morality as non-existent and did not buy into the Templar dream.
5. Jubair al-Hakim went on a literary inquisition, burning hundreds of books, and his mass censorship in our democratic society is inexcusable but we shouldn't just think "ah this is evil so AC is black-and-white" there's a perspective behind it that still motivates many conservatives and also totalitarian regimes, who do such extreme censorship as the morally right thing to do. If we label this as extremist, are we not then being biased by implying that it is corrupt? Yes, I do think it is wrong, but there are many people in real-life who don't think this is wrong, so by labeling it as extremist, we are taking a side. By not realizing how this isn't so black-and-white, how much of AC1 isn't so black-and-white, we are failing to look at the different perspectives that were brought up. Jubair has a compelling counter-argument: am I not just another source of knowledge that you seek to extinguish for the greater good? It's actually quite powerful because his words strike at you, asking whether the Assassins are any better than the Templars, but Altaïr responds in his journal that while there is a similarity, he personally thinks that the difference lied in the precision, the selection of targets, but at the time he admitted he didn't have a satisfactory answer. And there is a satisfactory answer, but the producers ensured Altaïr didn't give it at the time so that the situation was more morally ambiguous.
6. William Johnson wanted to force the Iroquois to relinquish more land, arguing that doing so would allow him to protect them more against colonists, yet we see that he thinks that killing them is an acceptable means of forcing them to sign the treaty that allows him to, in the long-term, "save them". This perspective is awkward enough that not just Connor and Shaun, but even Haytham mocks it his journals, but is it extreme enough to be extremist? Or is it just a lapse in judgment.
7. William of Montferrat argued that while his method of disciplining his troops were strict and severe, he had acted responsibly and competently for the good of the city and its people.I do not see how William is more extreme than Haytham, as we never see William killing innocents but merely being severe with his ways of management, yet William colluded with Templars who did perform unethical medical experiments and abduct people into slavery. My point is that, delineation of "moderates" and "extremists" just isn't clear.
8. And as for George Munro, Christopher Gist, Jack Weeks, and François de la Serre, we honestly don't know anything about them. We see them being normal, friendly people, but this isn't enough for us to tell who they are and what they truly believe. Just because they act as friends, doesn't mean that we know what their convictions and goals are. So they stopped crime and helped the city, so moderate Templars are mere vigilantes who believe they are promoting general peace? This doesn't distinguish them from even a moderate Assassin. What do they believe? We have nothing. Just rhetoric about peace and harmony is too vague especially since they meant to convert Shay. An Assassin can argue that the believes in peace and harmony too.

So yet another point is that, I don't think we have enough information to really describe what moderate Templars believe to commit to an entire section for them. I think at best we just give a general overview of main Templar beliefs, which can manifest in more extreme actions or not, but dividing them into "moderate" vs. "extremist" is too discrete, too blatant, and too subject to individual interpretations and opposing viewpoints.

I do support a Corruption section, but only because the Borgias are explicitly described as being corrupt by the perspective of the Templars, and we know why: it wasn't their methods but their lack of end goals to justify those methods. But we don't know how much "moderates" were horrified by the actions of "extremists". We never read any commentary on them.

The "Corruption" in the Assassins article is better described as cases where Assassins violated their tenets. To judge them as corrupt is to take a side too, the side of traditional Assassins, in all technicality, even though the actions of Mackandal and Jack the Ripper are obviously corrupt to all but psychopaths, in terms of professionalism, we are still taking a side by calling them corrupt. But in the Assassins article, we have an explicit code to refer to such that we can objectively judge whether an action violates that code or not (for some cases, not the more nuanced cases like the Destruction of the Great Chain). We don't have this code for Templars. If the Templars don't have a code that condemns viewing innocents as exploitable and expendable in the name of the New World Order, and this is almost entirely consistent throughout the entire series with the exception of Rogue and de la Serre's faction where it is ambiguous, then we can't have a section that treats such atrocities as "violations of Templar code". Because do genocide, do exploitation of innocent lives contradict classic Templar code? We don't know. And we might call it "Corruption", but then we strike upon the same problem we have with the Assassins, which is that we are essentially taking a side by condemning the majority of Templars as corrupt or extreme. It may even be ironically counter-productive to the cause of neutrality because with the majority of Templars having the "extremist" perspective, the audience might view extremism as the standard or true identity of the Templars. Unlike the Assassins, we can at least get away with calling those extremists "corrupt" because we know that they violated a sanctified Assassin tenet. In the same way, we can get away with calling the Borgias corrupt because besides the fact the Templars remember them as such, we at least know that wanton savagery in the name of personal greed and powerlust is against Templar ideology where such methods have to serve a "greater good", but for all the other Templars, we don't know if such methods that do serve a "greater good" violate their classic philosophy. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 22:59, September 26, 2016 (UTC)

Give you time to respond

If you want me to stop responding so quickly and with so much content, and give you time to catch-up, let me know here. I can't imagine that you won't feel overwhelmed. I can wait. :)Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 22:59, September 26, 2016 (UTC)

I am overwhelmed, so I'd prefer if you'd stop for a while to allow me to rethink, reorganize, rewrite and then respond. I've a few old and new cases to deal with because of everything so far. Give me so time and I'll returns with a case that touches everything. I can't guaranty when as for some of your claims I'll have to look up some old and new content you havn't seem to be updated on. Like the difference between, corrupt, moderate and extremist Templars. So I'll return with a lot of content. Be patient and you'll see :). Just tough I'd give a heads up instead of keeping you working in the dark.--ACsenior (talk) 14:25, September 27, 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah I have a bad impulse of feeling compelled to respond promptly to any message I receive. Well, maybe normally that won't be a bad thing. I do want to point out that I actually re-read the article yesterday, and it is actually in a better state than I had expected. There are a few places that I think needs some modifications or tweaking, but I will tell you more about those later. For the most part, I think we have done fairly well with trying to maintain neutrality, so I think I've been a little overdramatic. ^_^ Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 20:30, September 27, 2016 (UTC)
• Amd that's why I've waited with responding to this as well. It's not but I got a lot to reply too, I'll be busy with a few days. Surprised and good to hear it's in a better shape than expected, but I've been holding back so far but won't be doing the same this time, even if it's in a better shape. I'll try to get my points out clearer and better explained. We can discuss the modifications and tweaking another time. We both have as we have different methods of wanting neutrality while being cautious and are in the opposite side of the spectrum as I agree with the (moderate)Templar philosophy and you with the Assassin philosophy. It's a bag of snakes. Either way I'm just going to say that I've just started writing the reply.--ACsenior (talk) 18:49, September 29, 2016 (UTC)

So do you plan to not post your response until you have everything written out completely? That way I know when you're ready for me to reply. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 01:37, October 2, 2016 (UTC)

That's the plan, I'll write everything and then respond. I'm soon finished with the Assassin part and have made some groundwork for the Templar.--ACsenior (talk) 07:02, October 2, 2016 (UTC)