User talk:Sol Pacificus

Welcome to the Order, Sol Pacificus!

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 Discord if you're ever in the mood for a chat! 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? 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. Master Sima Yi (talk) 12:39, November 10, 2013 (UTC)

Sandbox

Might I suggest this if you plan on doing an article revamp. It insures that all edits, between now and when you take the template down, are done by you alone. Stormbeast ♉ ^{The Helpful Place} 06:33, November 27, 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I appreciate your suggestion though excuse my ignorance, I must confess that I'm confused as to how a sandbox works and whether it is necessary and/or mandatory. Thanks! Sol Pacificus (talk) 08:26, November 27, 2013 (UTC)

To quote a friend: "It's best to put into mainspace when it's good and ready, rather than half-done" and "it stops random people from screwing up plans." As to how it works, you just open the link I posted, create it, and copy the code from your project into your sandbox. It's not mandatory, but it is recommended. Stormbeast ♉ ^{The Helpful Place} 16:39, November 27, 2013 (UTC)

If I may make another suggestion, and I'm aware you've already put it on the Assassins page, try to refrain from these extremely long paragraphs. Five to eight line paragraphs should be the max, since that makes for easier reading. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 09:54, March 26, 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware I have a very bad habit of writing too much or being wordy, a problem that's pretty much dogged me since elementary school. Helpful reminder nonetheless though, thank you. I actually need to check some of my older edits for word cruft. By the way, did you mean only in discussions, or also in my edits? In terms of the articles themselves, I'm not sure if this wiki favors inclusionism, hyperinclusionism, or prefers to be more concise than comprehensive if they ever contradict, especially in regards to character articles. Sol Pacificus^Telepathy 21:52, March 26, 2016 (UTC)

I'm talking about your edits. I'm not telling you to cut stuff out, just to use more paragraphs. Paragraphs that stretch over 20 lines are just way too long. Turning one paragraph into multiple will make things a lot better to read and easier to go through. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 21:55, March 26, 2016 (UTC)

Ohhh that's different then from what I was thinking. Alright, I'll be sure to refrain from excessively long paragraphs from now on. Sol Pacificus^Telepathy 22:12, March 26, 2016 (UTC)

Reverted Edit

Hi, as for the grammatical errors that may have been in my Altair page edit there was nothing wrong with the facts I provided as it came from canonical sources. I suggest leaving my edit alone as all the facts deserve to be posted on a informative web page such as this. If I don't hear a response from you explaining yourself I will re-edit the page (and be mindful of the grammar) Thank you.ConmanWAR (talk) 04:37, March 20, 2016 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks for bringing it up with me as I myself was a bit concerned I was too hasty. So here's my explanation:

I noticed that on the Assassins article you modified a sentence with a similar statement, that Altaïr decisively changed the direction of the Assassins towards the goal of absolute freedom. While Altaïr was indeed responsible for a great reformation of the brotherhood, I fear that such a statement is far too generalized. For one thing, we know that the Assassins predated Al-Mualim in other parts of the world for centuries (probably originating with Abel by the way), and the Roman brotherhood called themselves the Circles of Liberals which implied that they already believed in freedom and liberty to some degree. Although the Levantine Assassins definitely advocated strict obedience to their Mentor, which was abolished by Altaïr, it is actually not known with exactness how much of the ethos of free will already existed before Altaïr's reforms. This is because even in Assassin's Creed I, they talked of "freeing the minds of men" and that "peace must be learned, rather than forced."
Most especially, however, it is a misconception that the Assassins believe in absolute freedom as their highest goal. Notice that in the sentence you modified in the Assassins article, it was specifically worded to note that the Assassins came to emphasize liberty more throughout the centuries, until Haytham accused them of no longer believing in peace, just freedom. Beyond this accusation by Haytham and the transgressions against the Assassin code in Rogue by the Assassins in that game, this has never been substantiated, and even in 1794, at the end of Unity, Arno repeats this line:

"The Creed of the Assassin Brotherhood teaches us that nothing is forbidden to us. Once, I thought that meant we were free to do as we would. To pursue our ideals, no matter the cost. I understand now. Not a grant of permission, the Creed is a warning. Ideals too easily give way to dogma. Dogma becomes fanaticism. No higher power sits in judgment of us. No supreme being watches to punish us for our sins. In the end, only we ourselves can guard against our obsessions. Only we can decide whether the road we walk carries too high a toll."

―Arno Dorian

The fact that the conflict between the Assassins and Templars is simplified as freedom vs. order is a prevailing misconception among characters in the story, and fans themselves, to the point it's almost like a hidden, overarching theme. There are other lines given by Mary Reed, Altaïr, etc. which I can provide if you want.
In brief, Assassins emphasized liberty and freedom more as we moved closer to modern times. This trajectory began with Altaïr's reforms, but we should be careful of proclaiming it happened outright from him as he himself repudiated that the Creed meant freedom simply and continued talking about peace being a goal in his writings. Ezio's goal in the games is shown to be not freedom as an ends, but social justice, freeing the cities from corruption, but not necessarily freedom per se. The transition seems to have been a gradual process.
We should make a distinction between free will and freedom, however. Free will, a component of liberty, was probably always endorsed by Assassins from the very beginning, as far back as Abel, which was another problem with your edit that it began with Altaïr. Free will and/or freedom as a main goal, with peace no longer a goal (as your edit implied), simplifies the goals of the Assassins too much. We see even in the French Revolution, that the Assassins didn't fight for freedom for freedom's sake, and fought against the anarchic revolutionaries.
I personally thought that your edit didn't necessarily mean that the Assassins only cared about freedom, period, but it was far too general of a statement, such that that could easily be construed as the meaning.
This has become a long explanation so here I will try to list out the factual errors:

1. Free will likely had always been a core tenet of the Assassins, going back to the Roman era, the Qin era, etc. evident by the name "Circle of Liberals." It did not begin with Altaïr's reforms.
2. In spite of this, the Assassins did not make free will or freedom the one supreme goal, nor did they starting from Altaïr. There has always been many other components of their goals, and it's too bold of a claim, especially in light of how many characters have said that freedom being the only meaning of the Assassin is a misconception.
3. Even if the Assassins came to emphasize freedom/free will more after Altaïr, it is more likely that it was a gradual process (and it's actually possible that this was only an isolated case in the American colonies).
4. Your edit implies that the Assassins no longer fought for peace or the end of tyranny (because of their shifting towards free will more), that this shift, if it did occur, sacrificed the goal of peace or the goal of ending tyranny is almost certainly untrue (esp. since for the freedom-fighter, ending tyranny and freedom goes hand in hand).

That only covers the factual errors. The citation error is the format of your referencing, though I don't really know how to explain it as I just follow the format, and I'm not the best with coding. More notably though, I pay very close attention to each and every last line in every game, and I don't recall Rogue actually explicitly saying that Altaïr's reforms shifted the Assassins to free will as the main goal. It's already dubious if the Assassins in Rogue actually believed in freedom as an ends (in all technicality, while their actions implied it, their intentions were never explained), but where was the specific statement that Altaïr made this specific revolutionary change of making freedom as a goal above everything else they stood for? I would've asked you first instead in case I really just missed it, but because of the multiple issues of the edit, I chose to revert it entirely.

I would very much have tried to modify it accordingly instead rather than reverting it outright, but the deciding reason was that the article is a featured article, so I assumed the community already considered it to be in a "perfect state". Because of that, I would be very wary of editing it, though I'm not sure what's the policy around editing featured articles. Your edit was far too general of a statement, and could easily lead to the common simplified understanding of the Assassin vs. Templar conflict as freedom vs. order, when it is far deeper than that. It implied that Altaïr's reforms instantly brought about that shift, when it is more likely gradual (or even never happened and was an isolated case in the American colonies). Because it was such a contentious statement, I decided that even if I modified it, it might still be incorrect, and I didn't want to mess with that state of a featured article.

I apologize if my reversion seemed capricious. I myself was very concerned it wasn't the best call and later decided I should've just waited for a more experienced user to deal with it. I also greatly appreciate you being so prompt in checking in with me about it. :) However, my points about why I think the edit is flawed stands. I have no opinion about the latter line about Altaïr changing the order to allow women into the brotherhood, as I do not have the encyclopedia and cannot corroborate whether this is true or not. Sol Pacificus^Telepathy 06:41, March 20, 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, I thank you deeply for getting back in touch with me and offered me a valent reason as to why you made the edit. While you offer a very intelligent and deep reason I must counter some things. The first being the freedom debate. When you bring up the Liberals argument the term does not equal liberty. Liberal by definition is "open to new behaviour or opinions and willing to discard traditional values" which the term for the Roman Brotherhood was stated through not liberty. Furthermore, in AC1 when being lectured by Al-Mualim he says "do you remember what the Assassins fight for" in which Altair responds with "peace in all things" so this is saying the Assassins didn't have the goal of fighting for free will prior to Altair especially since the targets that Altair was forced to track down were oppressors to the poupulation and tyrants. Another case in point is that through various game dialiogue it says the Assassins and Templars both wanted peace and we know the Templars wanted control but the Assasssins went against them beause they believed against tyranny not because they wanted free will at that time. Other evidence is when Illtani poisoned Alexander the Great because one, he was a Templar puppet and two because he was bringing war and the Assassins killed him in order to restore peace, just like Altair killed his targets to restore peace by ending the third crusade.The Assassins fought for peace and the pursuit of knowledge, not necessarily freedom, though sometimes in pursuit of these two things would end with liberty but it was more on the back burner so to speak and wouldn't go out of there way as they do now to accompish it. Another piece of evidence towards this is that in The Chain comic the Mentor says that the Assassins once used to kill anyone who got to greedy which ties in with the other evidence provided. Also there is a difference between free will and freedom (which often people don't understand and why Altair is the one that brought free will) because the Assassins like Illtali, Altair, Darius (who killed Xerxes to bring peace) freed people from tynanny and corruption not free will until Altair made it so. After however (in Bloodlines especially) Altair starts discussing the importance of freedom (because he saw what lack of free will causes when he battled Al-Mualim) to Maria which is drastically different dialogue from him only a couple weeks ago. During the rooftop scene Haytham says "it's your lot that partakes in freedom. Time was the Assassins professed a far more sensible goal, that of peace". Which means at some pointh the Brotherhood adapted to the ideogy of free will but that does not mean they gave up on peace because Connor says "freedom is peace" which can also be attributed to the Assassins mindset before Altair as well as I've said before freedom and free will are different in most aspects. Furthermore, Altair's understanding of the Creed which is in AC1 and AC:Initiates is that he says "our creed does not command us to be free, it commands us to be wise" which speaks to the mindset that I already discussed of the Assassins at this time that knoweldge is one of their sole goals. Another proof (which is the most canon apart of the in-game universe) is when Otso Berg during AC:Rogue (Berg's Inspirations) says "it was only after Altair reformed the Brotherhood with it's new ideals of "free will" that the conflict truly escalted and spread across the planet". This is proof in itself that Altair was the one who brought the basic ideology and importance of free will to the Assassins. I know this is long and I apologize but this is all the evidence that prove that Altair gave the ideolgy of free will to the Assassins during his reformation especially the in-game proof of Berg. 

Moving on, why did you remove The Three Ironies? This is not only described in the encyclopaedia (which you said you don't but I copied almost the same wording as said in there) but also the codex. This is undisputable fact which I suggest putting back on to the main page. 

And yeah the encyclopaedia says that women were allowed to rejoin thanks to the councelling of Maria during Altair's reformation. 

I apologize again for the length of this reply but I am a huge nerd when it comes to the lore of the series, I have every game, DLC, novel, graphic novel, comic book, even the short movies and I have done a lot of research regarding Altair's reformation of the Brotherhood and everything I originally posted on the main page was backed by in-game facts. With your help I want to add these things again but I would like if you could properly site them and reword them if necessary. You are very informed but I don't know if your a huge follower of the lore but the evidence I provided is all canon. This is a community for truth and I would very much like if you could repost my previous edits and help with the references and things like that. Thank you. SnapperHeadAC (talk) 07:42, March 20, 2016 (UTC)

Edit: I just recieved your other two notifications and I'm sorry if I sounded mad or anything I just wanted to talk to you about it, you're a good guy and if you read my above reply hopefully it will make more sense as to why I made the edits in the first place. SnapperHeadAC (talk) 07:49, March 20, 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry you didn't sound angry to me at all :). A lot of what you pointed out seems to only prove that the Levantine Assassins' goal before Altaïr's reforms didn't revolve around freedom, their main goal being peace. This is not in contention, as it's actually part of my point, only that I'm convinced that the Assassins never deviated from that being their main goal, as by the time of Mary Reed and Arno, they also discuss freedom as not the real meaning of the Creed, and you can tell by all the Assassins actions save that of Achilles' that anarchy was not their pursuit. If freedom is their absolute goal, if freedom is their ends, this technically means that they are for anarchy, because anarchy is essentially freedom taken to the extreme such that it is the ends. They opposed anarchy in the French Revolution because they fought against the extreme radical factions such as the Hébertists and Enragés, and supported the Girondists, who were moderate revolutionaries. There is nothing in Assassin's Creed III to suggest that Connor support anarchy over the republicanism of the Patriots. The only thing that keeps people thinking that he wanted freedom as an ends is because of his simple exclamations of "All should be free!" but in the context of the American Revolution and if we look at what he did, it was much more likely that he supported democracy and a republic (e.g. the United States) over a stateless society completely, which is what absolute freedom technically means. Making this distinction is very important, which is why I thought your edit was far too general, and I made a massive revamp of the Assassins article correcting it. When you mention the lines given by Haytham and Juhani, you have to really take note that these are Templars speaking, who have always misinterpreted the Assassin's creed to mean "do whatever you wish." This is why when I wrote this sentence that you modified: "For this reason, the Assassins identified with the ideals of liberty over the centuries, to the extent that by the American Revolution, many Templars, notably Grand Master Haytham Kenway, believed that the Assassins had abandoned their goal of peace in favor of freedom as an ends [...]," I worded it specifically that Haytham believed that the Assassins abandoned their goal in favor of peace. This was something very notable to mention, but I left it ambiguous as to whether this is true or not (I can bet you though that it certainly is not true if you asked most of the Assassins). The conflict between the Assassins vs. Templars has never been so simple as freedom vs. order. The roots have been about the idea that it is irrational and unethical to act that any person has the Truth vs. the idea that the Truth is order. That Templars do not understand this and simplify it into "Truth is Freedom vs. Truth is Order" rather than the reality that it is "there is no Truth_{(nothing is true)} (by extension, we can only understand it through perspectivism, & by extension we can only learn it if people have free will) vs. the Truth is order." Finally, even if Juhani's words were completely true, that the Assassins' had shifted totally to freedom as a goal over peace, he was referencing the material from Shay, and Haytham took his interpretation from the same colonial Assassins. It's not impossible that they (and we the fans) have been basing this evolution purely from the deviation from one particular branch, using it to generalize all the Assassins. Finally, the fact that the Assassins shifted more towards emphasizing freedom doesn't necessarily mean that they replaced global peace with it as a goal completely. It could just be rhetorical. Templars like Juhani and Haytham would easily misinterpret it as such (because they'd see Assassins as anarchists).

Oh okay so it seems we're on the same page then, I must have interpreted it wrong, my apologies. Yes it's true that the Assassins didn't completely abandon their goal for peace because as you've said Assassins after Altair still killed in the name of peace. My argument and the evidence that I provided was to say how Altair gave the free will ideology to the Brotherhood as another goal to strive for in order to better humanity (I shouldn't have said they replaced peace with freedom in my orignal edit) and how Assassins before him didn't fight for free will. You and I are both correct in saying that the Assassins fight for both free will and peace now instead of just peace.The Assassins also fought to open the minds of men that would eventually lead to peace, not free will until Altair. There's the mixup I think even the biggest fans get confused over. I'll try to put it simply: Prior to Altair- fought for peace and/through knowledge/ Post Altair- fought for free will that would lead to knowledge and peace. Not that big of a difference but a differnce all the same. I'm sorry I misinterpreted what you originally said. Do you think we can add that part back in then and say something like "during Altair's reformation of the Brotherhood, free will was was focused upon as well". That way we are both correct and it stays true to the lore of the series. SnapperHeadAC (talk) 10:18, March 20, 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what do you mean by the Three Ironies. Do you mean that was mentioned in the Paradoxes of the Assassins page? I was the original person that suggested it be introduced years ago actually, but at the time lacking the time to write it myself, someone else did. I realized that it left it open-ended, making it appear to many that the Assassins therefore are irrevocably hypocritical and irrational (and indeed many fans I met online were citing from the page). That was also before Black Flag where Edward gave his answer to these paradoxes, as did Ezio in Revelations. I never removed the section. I updated it with new information from Revelations and onward that it was lacking because characters had answered the ironies. It's actually dubious in itself because the irony of obeying the Mentor (i.e. implicitly without question) in spite of preaching free will likely dates to just before Altaïr reformed the brotherhood and so it may have been in reference to Al-Mualim, and knowing him the contradiction existed because he was manipulating the Assassins.

The Three Ironies are stated in the codex and in the encyclopaedia (was created by Altair) and it basically created a contradiction to the Creed's Three Tenets and created a sense of uncertainty and balance to the Brotherhood because it allowed the Assassins to meditate and think upon what the Creed stands for. And the free will vs obedience woudn't have come up as free will wasn't adopted until Altair but it contradicts opening the minds of men (meaning knowledge) compared to strict rules from the Mentor. SnapperHeadAC (talk) 10:18, March 20, 2016 (UTC)

I would honestly recommend not touching the Altaïr article for the moment as it is a featured article, and I'm afraid to mess it up. I already asked a bureau member what's our guidelines on that so I'm waiting for his feedback because I'm not sure what is appropriate to edit on a featured article. Sol Pacificus^Telepathy 09:42, March 20, 2016 (UTC)

I disgree, we are fans and equals on this wiki page and basically the admins are trying to create a sort of dictatorship here without putting the facts on certain articles (I've had this happen before). As long as we have legitmiate canonical sources they can't argue against it. We are hardcore fans and facts should be told in this truth-based forum. I say we put up the facts that we've discussed here because they're all canon and factual. SnapperHeadAC (talk) 10:18, March 20, 2016 (UTC)

And yes, I am an enormous fan of Assassin's Creed. As I said, I take note of every single line (although not flawlessly), and the philosophies in the franchise speaks to me so much. If you take away the killing portion of the Assassin maxim, it can very much just be adapted to life in general: wisdom starts with the understanding that true knowledge is unattainable and no one is absolutely right, and nothing can be perfect; because nothing is perfect, we can choose nihilism or we can choose to strive our best towards the unreachable to make the most of what we can; to therefore redefine success by the journey not the destination (a huge part of the reason why Assassins have faith in humanity but Templars believe they are inherently corrupted so we have to control them); anything is possible in nature theoretically speaking so we must be open-minded; we are responsible for the lives of ourselves and the lives of others whether we like it or not because our actions will speak volumes on the world at large and of course ourselves so we must be ever mindful of our potential for great success or great disaster; that peace can only be achieved through education not force; and more. Assassin's Creed has literally helped me a lot with my ordeals in life, so yes it is my favorite franchise. Beyond the philosophy that matches me perfectly, which helped me refine all the ideas I had growing up, I'm also a huge fan of parkour, stealth, the ninja archetype, history, swordsmanship, and cultural diversity. It seemed like a video game just made for me xD. Sol Pacificus^Telepathy 09:42, March 20, 2016 (UTC)

That's so good to hear, it's good to know that AC fans like you exist in the community. AC is my favourite series too and I've done a lot of research on the lore through the canon and lore material, just as you have. so I am confident that what I post on these wiki pages deserve to be told as again they are facts. I'm glad we have this discussion with a fellow hardcore AC fan, and again sorry for the mixup about the peace vs. freedom thing. We are both correct that they adopted free will through Altair but also get the ideolgy of peace. I look forward to hearing back from you. SnapperHeadAC (talk) 10:18, March 20, 2016 (UTC)

Hey Conman/SnapperHead, so the bureau member I contacted regarding the extent that we can modify featured articles has yet responded to me. At this point, feel free to edit "Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad" (and of course any other article) as you wish. I have decided that if I do happen to disagree with any of your edits on Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad (even grammatical errors), I will refrain from touching it in any way for the time being, or at least I would discuss it with you first. This way, I give others a chance to review or provide their input as well. :) The only article that I'll be watching over strictly in terms of quality edits is the Assassins article since I'm actually still in the process of revamping it and just haven't found the time to commit to it enough for it to warrant a {{working revamp}} tag. Sol Pacificus^Telepathy 22:14, March 22, 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I think it would be in the best interest if we do edit the Altair page together, such as I would bring forward an edit and you could double check it and make sure everything's in order. Does that soung good to you? That way we can ensure that maximum clarity and facts are brought forth. Continue doing a great job and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this proposal. Have a good day, 

SnapperHeadAC (talk) 11:49, March 23, 2016 (UTC)

That's a good idea, but I actually don't have Altaïr on my checklist of articles I have time to commit to at the moment. It's a featured article, so it technically shouldn't really need that much more, if any, work, which is kind of the point of why I didn't want to modify it unless a bureau member tells me it's okay. I'm fine with you editing it with whatever you wish, I just don't want to intrude on it in any way. I really want to give others in the community a chance to provide their input on it if any. Also, I hope I hadn't intimidated you with my reversion of your edit at the time. Sol Pacificus^Telepathy 03:57, March 24, 2016 (UTC)

Corruption

I'll make a page for Sergei's corruption from ACCR once I get a, he's a minor case but his operations that he did is stated to not be in line with the traditionalist Assassins ideals and methods by Nikolai. Then there is Abbas Sofian and Jack the Ripper, both are major cases of corruption like François Mackandal and Achilles Davenport. Point is that while I'll make the pages themselves(when I got the time) I'll let you rewrite it to a higher quality as you're a more eloquent writer. As for the expansion of Ezio's corruption, it's as pointed out in the article itself. His lack of precision and the casualties and damages caused by his methods. Arguable the assaults at the arsenal after Yusuf's death can be included as it was a massacre to get to Ahmet. While guards isn't innocent per say, it's still another offensive action that result in a massacre. Like him burning the Ottoman navy, although that events biggest mistake was blowing up the tower(s) holding the Great Chain. Like other corrupted, his actions are closer to terrorism than the standard vigilantism by traditionalist. As said arguably, but that's not what this message is about. But the expansion of the corruption part by including Sergei, Jack and Abbas.--ACsenior (talk) 18:36, September 21, 2016 (UTC)

I just would like to clarify that I removed the last sentence concerning how Ezio's corruption was never punished for the following reasons:

1. I was wary that the tone of it verged too close to bias, or even if not bias, merely opinionated. This is trouble with articles such as this, which is why my preference was to not have a "Corruption" section at all, but that was not the opinion of other contributors. It would seem that Wookieepedia, the Star Wars wiki, which is in many ways the role model for franchise-specific wiki, tries to avoid discussing the philosophy and the controversies of Jedi and Sith altogether, in spite of the fact that both sides have far more explicit faults than the Assassins and Templars. In any case, my stance is that we should still keep the Corruption section as minimalistic as possible, and to trim it right down to the most factual of statements, and to avoid if possible, any rhetoric that may seem to verge on being opinionated, even while that may not be wholly possible to do.
   
2. As well, technically-speaking, we do not know if Ezio ever faced any reprimand from the other Assassins after these events. Even as Mentor, it's not impossible that he could have reflected on the incident and judged himself or be judged later to have erred and been punished in some way, whatever degree behind-the-scenes. It is unlikely, and I certainly don't believe he was (though I would bet some Asssassin would have at least criticized him for Cappadocia), but in connection with my statement above on minimalism, I think we should be as technical as possible.
   
3. I fear that we are going too far with cherry-picking here. I already disagree entirely with mentioning the destruction of the Great Chain. The reason is because we have to remember that Assassins, in spite of their stance on precision, are still a militant faction in its own way, and that they are in the midst of a war against Templars, even if the battlefields they fight upon are not clearly defined as in conventional wars. As with any war, even for those seeking to be precise and minimize collateral damage, they may find themselves in open conflict which necessitates that they use greater force or more overt means. In this case, if we argue that the destruction of the Great Chain was a terrorist act, then I would argue that the belligerents of any conventional war become terrorists as soon as they bomb a city and kill innocent lives in the process. Indeed, such an argument can be made (hence why I personally oppose wars). This should not excuse Ezio's actions in Cappadocia, but in the case of the Great Chain being raised by the Ottomans, who were hunting him and putting Ezio's life in danger, and with the danger of the Byzantines lurking about, I would say that we simply shouldn't be too quick to judge. Civilians were not targeted during the destruction of the Great Chain, and the Great Chain's destruction itself and the Ottoman fleet do not constitute as collateral damage because the Ottoman fleet is a military force seeking to harm Ezio and the Great Chain was an instrument they could use to accomplish this purpose. I find that citing this as another example verges far too close to cherry-picking and is also awkward for the article because readers might notice this cherry-picking given that the Great Chain and the Ottoman fleet cannot constitute as collateral damage. Sol Pacificus^Telepathy 20:37, September 21, 2016 (UTC)

On another note, I would like to keep the size of the "Corruption" section proportional to the other sections. This falls in line with what I said about cherry-picking. Honestly, if we were to add such sections to the "Jedi" and "Sith" articles on Wookieepedia, at some point, I will stop short of mentioning every last example that the Sith committed an atrocity or the Jedi behaved in a way that was detrimental to the mental health of their students or hypocritical, and instead summarize them. I am at present, quite behind in Assassin's Creed, and I have not yet played the Chronicles series. I also have still not yet played Jack the Ripper; I just finished installing it the day before yesterday in fact. So I will not be reviewing those if you write anything concerning them, though I would feel pressured to be in greater haste to catch-up. xD Sol Pacificus^Telepathy 20:37, September 21, 2016 (UTC)

1. That's why discussing these things are important. Now that, at least to me, also sound close to bias. The wiki is mean to inform people of anything AC related, so not explaining the corruption of the Assassins can be looked at withholding information to maintain the stereotypical image of all Assassins being good guys. Showing all sides and all ideals of the Assassins is a more neutral way as it's not taking any side, but rather showing both. Your part explaining the Assassins traditionalist ideals and methods are a perfect example, however it's also missing a corruption section of it's own to explains the ideals and methods of the corrupted. Showing one side only isn't neutral as it's only painting one imagia of the Assassins without a critical and flawed side to balance it. The corruption section so far shows examples of it more than it explains their general thinking and methods like the philosophy section at the begging. What can be trimmed down are small cases of corruption that can only be explained in 1-3 sentences, like Sergei's corruption shown in ACCR. Where we have little ideology to go with but some methods. To solve this we can have a others section for those cases or not write about them all given how small it was. I may come of opinionated or/and biased in my writing of it but my only aim to have the wiki explain things with more depth.
2. Beyond that I agree with you taking away the line of Ezio never getting punished for his corruption. Wether we know or not can be explained by someone that have read the Revelations novel as it deals with his story after the game to Embers.
3. Cherry-picking would be using a single even like Altaïr using the Apple on civilians in Bloodlines to accuse him of being corrupt. So because of that there's no reason to mention Sergei, despite his methods as it wasn't a major or minor case but so small it's not worth mentioning. Obviously this contradiction what I've said earlier about him but that's the point, he's an example of what cherry-would be. There's no need to include him. Star Wars is bigger than AC, so mentioning all unorthodox Jedi and Sith would be ridiculous but AC isn't that big. So a corruption section wouldn't be to big. Unless we start cherry-pitching and stretching it, however major cases like Jack, Abbas, Achilles, Ezio and François Mackandal are worth writing about as we have enough philosophy and methodology to explain what that saperate them from the traditionalist Assassins. As for the Ottoman fleet and the Great Chain, you've said it yourself. Their war is not clearly defined. And that's why it should be judged as one, rather a conventional war. With idealogical backing of course as it's their own ideals that determine what's right for an Assassin to do and not do. Circumstance where they are forced to act out of their ideals should only go unmentioned when it's only one instance and the individual isn't corrupt. Like Altaïr in Bloodlies unlike Ezio in Revelations that purposely destroyed places and got civilians killed. You're rite it's not collateral damage but it's still an act going against the traditionalist methods in his time of corruption. Wether justified or not since guards isn't innocent does't change the methods he used and the damage he created. Them trying to prevent Ezio from leaving isn't an offensive act like his attack of the place. They was on the defensive from a guy that just killed their leader. And no it's not awkward, if anything people have said that the destruction of the Great Chain was missing and some are arguing his attack of Ahmet at the arsenal should be included. The danger of the Byzantines isn't relevant to the Ottomans trying to defend themselves and the city from Ezio. They didn't raise the chain to prevent him hunting them but to try to catch Ezio for his actions.

It's not cherry-picking if we stick with major cases and explain their ideals. Well I'm trying to prevent a half-assed mention of every corrupt Assassins, as it's something that should be dealt with in the same depth as anything else on the Assassin page. Refusing to explain the other side itself can be looked at as bias as doing so would only explain the traditionalist Assassins way without showing other perspectives of them and their creed. So in this case bias is a double edged sword, wether it's cherry-picking or refusal of showing anything except the good side of the Assassins. What is it the Assassins use to say? Nothing is true. I'll let you know when I've started writing about Jack, I need to replay it and refresh my memory before writing it. As for Abbas, I havn't read The Secret Crusade, so I can't explain Abbas corruption in depth. Someone else has to write it.--ACsenior (talk) 10:31, September 25, 2016 (UTC)

My goodness, I have not even begun to review the Templars article which doesn't even have a Corruption section. While you may argue that it does not need one as the Templars are the antagonists in the series and therefore are inherently at a moral disadvantage, this is something that I very much disagree on. I want to go back to Rogue to explain my thoughts on this matter. See, with that game, I was very hopeful that the producers would create a game that would portray Templar ideology in a sympathetic light while showing the defects of the Assassins. At the same time, knowing that this would have to be handled delicately, I was fearful that they could end up making the game too shallow, one that only made it seem like Templars were good and Assassins bad. This is exactly what occurred with the game. The Assassins blatantly violate their tenets while the Templars are portrayed as good only because they help to fight crime, save civilians, and improve cities, actions that Assassins of previous games performed. The one greatest crime of the Assassins, the Lisbon earthquake, could not have been written as obviously deliberate because that, at least, would have been enough to make even the failed producers of that game understand that they have severely broken characterization. So, they made the earthquake an accident, but then proceeded to depict the events that transpired about that in such a way as to twist it so that it's treated like it was deliberate when it was a product of a series of immature misunderstandings from all parties involved, Achilles and Shay. While Shay does have some quips against the things that are taught to him, none of them are particularly intellectually profound on the level of most every past Templar and Assassins. It is entirely ignoerd that the Templars would have caused the earthquake had they only reached there first or that they only ceased their search for those sites because Shay communicated his understanding of them to them in a matter-of-fact way rather than throwing a temper tantrum. Finally, Achilles' motivations are completely censored, leaving us to run with Shay's assumption that he had meant to use the artifacts for power rather than as was the policy of every, last Assassin in the entire series, to hide or destroy from the Templars. Most egregiously, the Templars in the modern-day of Rogue are still every bit as psychopathic, forcing the protagonist at gunpoint to join their cause, which makes it seem as though the producers really were insincere and did not give a damn about the grey-and-gray moral balance of the game. Why am I going into all of this & what relevance does this have to this discussion? Because Rogue made the mistake of switching the labels around (while also relying on superficial appearances to serve its point). The Assassins essentially do what Templars did in previous games, the Templars do what Assassins did in previous games, to the point that Shay's criticism of Achilles is actually a criticism of Templar ideology. The game relies so heavily on making the Assassins into political strawman, that it did justice to neither side. And my point: I want us to be wary of making this same mistake. Every time someone tells me that the Assassins are commonly seen as the perfect, white heroes anyways and that we must "neutralize" this with virulent criticism, I fear that people do not understand how delicate this is. Two wrongs do not make a right, and portraying one nuanced viewpoint of multiple perspectives is better than portraying two polarizing extremist perspectives. I like to use the example of Gandhi and Hitler as the former is upheld as a saint and the latter the epitome of pure evil in our society. In my mind, Rogue was tantamount to "neutralizing" the benevolence of Gandhi by making him into a terrorist that launched nukes everywhere (hehe Sid Meier's Civilization reference) while explaining that Hitler was a man who believed in non-violent movements, when how it should have approached it is to expose the relatively unknown sexual scandals in Gandhi's private life and question whether that contradicts his principles of human rights, while being upfront with Hitler's genocidal ideology but show how he, as a human being, came to embrace such evils. I understand that in this article, we're not lying about Assassins beliefs and flaws, but I still fear that we will end up doing something similar: trying too hard to make Hitler seemed justified and humane that that takes precedence over the Holocaust and WW2 while trying too hard and focusing so much on Gandhi's hypocrisy that that takes precedence over his philosophy of pacifism. You can argue that at the current moment, we have a healthy balance, but I still think that this preoccupation of contributors in trying to "neutralize" Assassin's moral ground is a slippery slope that is unhealthy. Before I reworked this article, one user who was a professed Templar and understood nothing of Assassin philosophy simply filled the page with biased, vitriolic criticisms of the Assassins, which is how this "Controversy" section even began. I also must not forget to mention how in the idea of AC being a game of grey-and-gray morality began because the first game did not show the Assassins as unquestionably good, but strove to give each and every last Templar victim a compelling argument as their last words. This is the balance we should look to. Not the example of Rogue, where to "neutralize" Assassin morality, you have the Templars seem good, then when the Assassin victims are killed they leave no profound last words and only mock Shay with "you're a monster", "you are dead, Munro is already dead", "sooo you're still convinced that you are right?" where in attempting to make a balanced game, only ended up making one of the most black-and-white games in the entire series, except the labels were switched. Two wrongs do not make a right. Now, I understand that my whole lecture here isn't necessarily applicable to you. I understand that you have been very attentive to balance and NPOV, but I really felt the need to go into this as a cautionary reminder. When we try to "neutralize" the moral ground of the Assassins, we have to make sure that we're not so focused on this task that we forget that the series has always tried to show that the Templars are not pure evil anyways, and to be careful that we don't just switch around the labels and make the Assassins evil and Templars outright good. Currently, "Templars" is a featured article when it lacks a Corruption section, and that is simply not balanced. Either both articles have an Ideology section that explains their ideology or neither articles have a Corruption section. Our balance shouldn't be dependent on our preconceptions of popular perspectives, but on non-bias, period. We shouldn't skew our balance so that a side that is more unpopular is lifted higher; that would be tantamount to Wikipedia trying hard to make the Taliban and KKK good. We must also be wary of the Golden Mean Fallacy, where we assume that when given two options, both sides have to be equally wrong and equally right. If we are given the Jedi and Sith, while the Jedi do have many cases of questionable practices including a strict policy of censorship, a culture that at times restricts open discussion, and forbidding love and are not the best of people overall, we can't expect that they are as immoral as their opponents that have no qualms about destroying entire planets and enslaving entire populations. In the same way, I fear that in striving for NPoV, people are trying too hard to force the Assassins to be as equally wrong with the Templars as possible, which is a manifestation of the Golden Mean FallacySol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 12:39, September 25, 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for splitting the discussion like this. Simply making easier to focus on the point of all arguments. Actually the Templars page need 3 sections as there are 3 kinds of Templars that fundamentally are different. There should be a Corruption section dealing with Templars doing stuff for selfish reasons, an Extremist/Fanatic section about Hitler-like Templars willing to do anything and a Moderate section about more Gandhi-like Templars with that tries to avoid/end conflicts while also doing stuff for innocents. Despite their methods not always being clean, so I don't disagree that the Templars page does't need a corruption section, if anything, it needs that and more. And this is where we disagree entirely, Rogue did would portray Templar ideology in a sympathetic light by letting us play a Moderate Templar while showing the defects of the Assassins by having them portrayed as the same corrupted way as Abbas, François Mackandal and Jack The Ripper. All corrupt Assassins blatantly violate the creed, it's what makes them corrupt. Templars have fought crime, saved civilians, and improved cities before. Moderate Templars do it because of the way they intemperate the Templar philosophy. Therefor it is in line with the characterization of both orders. Destroying cities does not go against the Extremist Assassins ideology because their ideology is closer to both anarchism and terrorism. It's what makes who they are and Achilles Brotherhood is no different than Jack's and Mackandal's. And that's why Ubisoft has a greater understanding of both the Assassins and Templars characterizations because they know all this and have portrayed both orders like it before. The only difference was that we played a Templar in a time the Assassins was corrupt rather than an Assassin like when we played corrupt old Ezio, Evie fighting Jack and Altaïr fighting both Al Mualim and Abbas. It's nothing new. Unlike you I'll avoid taking any sides when writing about the Assassins and Templars, easier to be objective when neutral rather that avoiding establish lore and misinform because of an opinion created by it. Like claiming Ubisoft switched labels despite there already being Templars and Assassins like those in Rogue. That's how Rogue gave both sides justice, by showing the Assassins in the anarchistic way they did with Abbas and Jack while showing the Templars in the liberal fascist way moderates like Haytham, Ahmet and Torres operate. Only less worse but in terms of ideology and methods it's still in line with established lore. Claiming they switched titles contradict that lore, what I'm saying is facts over feels. This isn't the current US election. Shay's criticism of Achilles is actually a criticism of the corrupted Assassin ideology that's an anarchistic Mob Rule that usually involve themselves in terrorism. They operate that way by ruling a city bottom up rather then top down like all the Templars have, even in Rogue this is correct. Had they switched labels, then things would be other way around with Templars using gangs(ex: Brotherhood and Syndicate) and the Assassins using the high society(ex: AC2, Brotherhood and Syndicate) to fight crime, save innocents and restore the cities. A noble goal but you are making another mistake entirely. Basically: taking a side. Something this wiki has rules against(if I remember correctly). Being neutral and objective is being delicate as bias won't be as much in the way, like it would if you took a side. Thing is that by taking a side you'd be saying a side is more right, that's why having the Assassins and Templars philosophy from multiple perspectives as not all are the same kind of Assassin. Therefor there is no right way of writing this as not all view their ideology the same and therefor has different rules and principles. Hence why it's better to virtue the methodology and idealogical of all views, the only way to have one nuanced viewpoint is by having a General ideal/characteristics section that points out the similarities all the Assassins have and one for the Templar page as well doing the same. No need for me to go into your Hitler and Gandhi example as I've deal with it's point already. Beyond that we are not doing what your suggesting with your example, as you've said. We currently have a healthy balance but that's because of the neutrality since we have avoided taking sides so far and sticked with established lore instead of feels. It's unhealthy to take a side and not showing all perspectives. I've read the "controversy" section by that user, I get your point and his fault was takes a side when writing rather using established lore. That's also something I'm trying to prevent, bias has no place here. AC1 was not gray, it tried to portray Hitler in a good way by trying to justify mind-control(genocide) while showing the Assassins as unquestionable good as Altaïr unlike old Ezio never did anything bad. He was silent, precise and there was no casualties. It's grayness is fake and only rely on a deathbed conversation rather actions to prove it. That's AC1 doing the mistake you try to prevent, AC3 is gray as they have both actions and words to make it gray while Connor does questionable stuff like starting a war. Rogue is balanced in an unorthodox way as the fist 2 of 3 Templars we kill are evil(making it the grayest black and white game in the series) while showing a moderate view of the Templars and a corrupted view of the Assassins. Just like AC2, Brotherhood and Syndicate did by showing the Templars as evil and the Assassins as good with no profound last words. They are the most black and white games in the series and two of them switch labels by having Templars ruling bottom up rather than top down. Regarding those games you'd be right that two wrings make no right but not Rogue. Because I try to stay neutral rather than taking a side. An outside view can deal with two opposing view better than someone taking a side. Thank you. But you're also forgetting we are dealing with the corruption of the Assassins with the section. It's meant to be an in depth explanation of their ideals(ex:anarchism), methods(ex:terrorism) while offering an in depth description of cases of corrupted Assassins. Their corruption is what makes then inherently bad unlike the traditionalist Assassins that are inherently good. All because of their different views of their ideology. The corruption section deals with the evil Assassins and Assassins being evil is by no means switching labels. As it's nothing new. Yes both articles need an ideology section, and as said. The Templars one need 3 sections, extremist, moderate and corrupt, all who are fundamentally different Templars. That's what I've been saying, we should be non-biased and being natural is the best way as we'd not take a side while showing the rights and wrongs of both the Assassins and Templars philosophy by showing all perspectives and methodology of their ideologies. To do this we should stick with established lore and only use times we know for a fact someone was corrupt rather than cherry-picking or refusing to go in depth of corruptions. --ACsenior (talk) 20:10, September 25, 2016 (UTC)

I want to emphasize that I have not "taken a side" in terms of editing. While I may have my own ideological views, which cannot be helped because the Assassins simply align almost exactly with my real-life ideological views, I am capable of not taking a side in professional work on a wiki. I have striven so immensely hard in the ideology section to not include my own personal extrapolations of the Assassins philosophy and using only what can be cited, and I was even wracked with guilt that I even had to make this comprehensive rework, but I had to correct what was a factually incorrect interpretation of the Assassin creed that has been debunked repeatedly: that they believe in freedom as an ends and nothing but. My analysis and opinion of Rogue is not at ALL about "feels" and based on rigorous critical analysis. If my ideology is Assassin-like, it is so because I strongly believe in the principles of NPOV and perspectivism which is core to their code: trying to understand and humanize the perspective of the enemy and knowing how to play Devil's Advocate. I approached Rogue with excitement, wanting that game to portray a very sympathetic viewpoint of the Templars. Even if you disagree with my opinions, such as that on Rogue, it is not respectful of you to accuse my analysis as based in emotions rather than hard logic, just as how I have not accused your analysis of Ezio's actions in Constantinople as based in subconscious bias even while I have my doubts that they are. Remember that I gave you a detailed critical analysis of the entire exchange between Shay and Achilles, how it was brimming with misunderstandings at every point, and not one-sided. This is what it means to be able to view something from different perspectives. You do have a fairly competent point in arguing that Rogue does achieve its purpose, but I think you focused too much on whether it works In-Universe, when I was talking about it from a purely Out-of-Universe perspective especially when I said "switching the labels around" which I meant from an OOU perspective, not an IU perspective. Yes, you can try to "even out" the Assassins moral ground by showing that they are capable of corruption and the Templars are capable of goodness, but it's not as effective as showing the errors of their traditional philosophy while showing that Templars only seek to be a proactive force in their society and have legitimate reasons to believe why they are the best to guide humanity. But I think the main point of contention here is that you are assuming, again, that both sides must be equal, and that even as I say this, I am "taking a side". Therefore, I strongly advise that you read Golden Mean Fallacy because in assuming I am "taking a side" by saying that the two sides aren't necessarily equal, you are making this logical fallacy. If I am given two sides, the Jedi and the Sith, will I prefer the Jedi? Yes that is true because given 2 sides, it doesn't mean that they are perfectly, morally equal. But I fiercely disagree with the Jedi but would never want to be one, but I understand that a faction that supports genocide is not preferable to a faction that explicitly forbids it. Note that even when I describe to you the Golden Mean Fallacy, I am not saying that Assassins are morally better than Templars, but that we shouldn't be trapped in the thinking that they have to be morally equal. I think the issue here at hand is that you have the perspective that the Templars aren't fundamentally defined by genocidal tendencies, and you believe that if I think that they are, I am, again being biased. I never said that I don't believe or acknowledge moderate Templars such as François de la Serre, and the argument can be made, but it is complicated because the actions of individuals can change the identity of a faction. In the case of Assassins, this can occur too, but the difference that they have with the Templars is that their code and tenets have been solidly written out, so we can see exactly when the Assassins' views deviate from their written tenets (such as "stay your blade from an innocent") and know that genocide goes against their foundations. In the case of the Templars, we do not have clearly written tenets, so my perspective is taking from a generalized analysis of all Templars in general, while your perspective seems to be taking only from moderate Templars while believing that any time a Templar does anything bad, it goes against their codified philosophy. How do we know that Templars do not traditionally believe that innocent lives are expendable for their great cause? We don't, and I'm not assuming that that isn't their position (that innocent lives are expendable), but I think you are assuming that that it isn't when it simply has not been codified. If Templars in every game but Rogue and de la Serre's faction in Unity have been callous towards innocent lives, how do we know that it isn't their traditional belief that innocent lives are expendable in their great cause.

My response here is far less organized than the one that you replied to, so I doubt you would understand what I mean as I am speaking rather haphazardly now. So I will try to now be more clear. You missed my entire point that I am striving very hard to uphold NPOV and respect both sides and not favor a single side, but I cautioned that this is a delicate matter, and you can do it in the wrong way. We have different opinions on Rogue and AC1, but if you even begin to think that just because I have a different opinion than you in regards to whether they achieve being grey-and-gray or not, that I must be motivated by emotions and bias rather than my own critical analysis, then you are not being respectful of my perspective. I think AC1 did it better because every character had a different perspective shown whereas Rogue just made characters seem blatantly bad or blatantly good: thus, 2 polarized, clear-cut, positions rather than a nuanced perspective of everyone. That is the simplest I can explain it. If you disagree with me, that is fine. I acknowledge where you are coming from, but if you can't acknowledge that my opinion is based on my reasoning rather than my "feels" then I fear for our cooperation. If you continue to doubt my sincerity to neutrality or if you approach my words by doubting my devotion to neutrality, then I don't see how we can cooperate in a healthy manner. I suggest you reread the response you replied to, this time with a different lens: that I am not taking a side, and not motivated by my "feels".

I just asked for the advice of Wookieepedia. I have thus far only received one reply, but the editor said that he personally thought "Controversy" sections are a "terrible idea, as the only path that can go down is anarchic edit-warring between people with opposing points of view. If you intend to be encyclopedic, a "Controversy" section should only cover verifiable real-world controversies (the Unity debacle, for instance). Discussion and debate is fine, as long as its kept to its appropriate venue—not crept into articles that are meant to be factual descriptions and explanations". Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 23:59, September 25, 2016 (UTC)

So many fans fail to understand that it is possible to dislike with Rogue without being offended by the fact Assassins are bad in the game and Templars are good. I dislike Rogue because it didn't portray the defects of Assassin ideology. It avoided Assassin ideology because the Assassins in the game didn't remain faithful to it. Yes, Assassins can be corrupt and violate their tenets, but that is a given. It happens in every faction in real-life no matter how benevolent. It is such a given, that it just would have been better had the Assassins shown to be bad people while staying true to their creed so we can tell what is wrong with their philosophy. I disagree with Rogue because I wanted the Assassins' flaws to be revealed. And I wanted the Assassins to be shown in a negative light because my beliefs are like the Assassins: that we should see things from different perspectives, a core foundation of their creed. Showing that the Templars are capable of being moderates that stop crime and help civilians is a step forward but it is not good enough. The game is based on superficial appearances of their actions while cleverly shrouding deep characterizations. We don't know what is the Templars' higher agenda in the game, to the point that it's possible (not saying that it is) that they were lying to Shay the entire time and putting on false appearances to convert him. It's because that I think it didn't do justice to the Templars or show the defects of Assassin ideology that I disagree with it, not because of what is your assumption: that "I side with the Assassins". If the Assassins in the game are bad because they violate the creed, doesn't that mean that Assassins are normally good? The producers of the game were so focused on making Assassins as people bad and Templars as people good that they missed what was the real target: showing that Assassin philosophy can be bad and Templar philosophy good(of which "stopping crime" & helping the city is not good enough b/c that is something that is shared by moderates of virtually any philosophy). Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 00:29, September 26, 2016 (UTC)

I think in the case of the Destruction of the Great Chain, we may have to ask ourselves, what could Ezio have done to be able to properly judge his action. You shouldn't make the Ottomans out as purely on the defense against Ezio. From what I understand, they were hunting him although I don't think it was very clear at all. From the dialogue, I'm not even sure it was explicit that it was in reaction to Ezio's assassination of Tarik Barleti, though that should be our inferrence. He needed to stop the Byzantines and get to Cappadocia as soon as possible. I feel like at this point, you are arguing that not all Ottomans are bad, many obviously being enlisted soldiers who have families and are only doing their duty. But in this case, we could bring that up with pretty much every war and every last conflict in any media. Most stormtroopers were enlisted personnel who were not even aware of the Empire's oppressive measures. The Jedi in the Clone Wars have killed the soldiers of hostile planets even though they understood that they were not evil men, but people with their own political beliefs or loyalties to their planet's affiliations. The Jedi do reflect on the morality of even just fighting in a war as a result, but then in another conflict, the Mandalorian Wars, the Jedi for this very reason opted out, and as a result, turned a blind eye to genocides taking place in the Outer Rim. And when they fought the Mandalorians, even though some Mandalorian commanders were bloodthirsty psychopaths, not all were, and of course in the middle of the battle, the Jedi and the Republic killed all Mandalorian soldiers. That is the nature of war. When there is conflict, you can't expect that there is a perfect, moral decision, and I see the Destruction of the Great Chain in the same light. It may not be a conventional war, but the same applies. It is a conflict, people have taken the opposing side, obviously each and every last individual has their own stories, their own redeeming qualities, but you have to stop the enemy faction. The Assassin philosophy is to minimize collateral damage and be more precise in their selection of targets, but I don't think one can realistically expect that this ideal is always achievable. I have to be honest, and I mean this in not at all a condescending way, I cannot believe that I actually have to explain all of this :/, the fact that when you are in armed conflict, conventional war or shadow war, such hard decisions such as this are inevitable. I mean obviously the question at hand isn't whether or not the Assassins are right or wrong to make hard decisions per se, but whether it violates their ideology. Certain hard decisions, like whole-sale massacre or the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki certainly are on the scale of moral event horizon and if the Assassins had perpetrated them, they would have clearly violated their creed, but destroying an enemy blockade? I really don't see how that is a violation. Probably could have said this simply. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 12:39, September 25, 2016 (UTC)

The assault of the Arsenal certainly does not count because all the hostiles in that situation were Templars, or Byzantines aligned with the Templars. (Again you might object with the same argument that one can make about how most stormtroopers are just citizens doing their job). What can be argued about that case is that Ezio did it out of passion or vengeance for Yusuf, which as taught by Mario, is not the way of an Assassin. However, Ahmet's forces was also holding Sofia hostage, and Ezio was also clearly motivated by his love for her and fear for her life. This should be one of the clearest examples of a case of a direct clash between the Assassins and Templars, period, not a case of terrorism or massacre. At this moment, what is traditionally a shadow war happened to be an open conflict, where one military committed a direct assault on another, partially in retribution for Yusuf, yes, but also in response to a hostage crisis, and with no civilian casualties or property damaged. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 12:39, September 25, 2016 (UTC)

Actually, in the case of Jedi and Sith, it's not so much about unorthodox Jedi and Sith, so much as moments of hypocrisy committed by the Jedi in general and atrocities of the Sith (not hypocritically as they endorse such atrocities). Most unorthodox Jedi, such as Qui-Gon Jinn and Revan, tended to be more light-sided than the Jedi themselves. Wookieepedia does cover this in those character's personality sections anyways. The argument that Wookieepedia has for not including controversy sections is that it's too opinionated and also constitutes original research. I think from their perspective, one can simply narrate all their actions, when a character has specific objections, and that would be enough to factually explain their actions without going into judgment. Their position is likely not to be one of censorship, but the idea that descriptions of events are enough without a dedicated section about In our case, our Corruption section slips dangerously into judgments, original research, and personal opinions and interpretations. We argue about this event or that, whether it constitutes corruption or not, but in strict Wiki policy, this isn't allowed because at the end of the day, we are giving our own personal interpretations. We make an exception for the ideology sections because those are necessary to even explain what the Assassins and Templars are (Wookieepedia doesn't even include ideology sections for the Jedi and Sith), but strict Wiki policy would draw the line against a Controversy section. Did any character in-universe comment on the destruction of the Great Chain as violating Assassin ideals, for example, or is it our own personal interpretation? Neutral point-of-view can be achieved by only giving objective statements without delving into interpretations of them, which is probably what Wookieepedians and Wikipedians would argue, but I understand that this isn't Wookieepedia. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 12:39, September 25, 2016 (UTC)

First or last names

Hey Sol!

I saw your message on the IRC this morning, so here's my response. As far as I know, we do not have a policy on names, no. I understand some other wikis prefer to use last names primarily, but personally, I feel like that creates an unnecessary formality for characters we primarily know by their first name (e.g. Ezio, Evie, Edward, etc.). I'd find it very weird to continually use "Frye" to refer to Evie on her article.

How the characters are primarily referred to in-storyline (be it a game, comic or novel) is usually a good guideline. More often than not, antagonists or characters in a formal/superior position will receive the last-name treatment (e.g. Laureano Torres, Sophie Trenet), but this is not really a rule and there are plenty of pages who do the opposite (e.g. Haytham Kenway, Madeleine de l'Isle, Robert de Sablé). The only real rule is that the page should be consistent in whether it chooses to use first or last name.

Basically, pick the name that seems right to you and stick with it :p Crook ^{The Constantine District} 10:05, January 23, 2017 (UTC)

• Very helpful response Crook, thank you! :) Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 10:13, January 23, 2017 (UTC)

Assassin Turncoats

Hello there! I assumed she could be classified as an Assassin turncoat because not every individual sorted in that category joined the Templars: just look at Al Mualim, Hiram Stoddard, Baptiste, Jack the Ripper, Nikolai Orelov. I thought 'em being turncoats was simply about defecting the Order at a certain point, even if that doesn't mean outright working against it (e.g. Stoddard, Baptiste). So was I mistaken? --Piero.schiavone1994 (talk) 16:36, January 23, 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that Crook just seemed to have changed the description in the category page. Anyways, when I check the dictionaries such as: Dictionary.com, it seems that the definition should involve a reversal of allegiances, or at the very least becoming an enemy. I think it's not realistic to say that a turncoat must always choose the opposite side because not every conflict has two exact polarized sides. Instead, a turncoat should at least be an enemy. Helene Dufranc did desert, but she didn't exactly "defect", which is different from desertion as desertion is more about abandonment while defection is about choosing an opposing side. It was more like walking out of the family or quitting a job. Anyways, it was most glaring because Helene was a friend and ally to Ezio and since she targeted Templars on two occasions. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 16:46, January 23, 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I do agree that definition of "turncoat" does fit all individuals in the category, but isn't for Helene. Thanks! --Piero.schiavone1994 (talk) 16:48, January 23, 2017 (UTC)

I did change the description slightly, but it was a wording issue, not a meaning issue. However, maybe the description could include something like "and actively worked against the Brotherhood's interests" for the Assassin turncoat category to truly apply. As Sol has pointed out, while Helene Dufranc left the Assassins, she did not go out of her way to sabotage them or ally herself with the Templars (even if she apparently entertains the idea at one point, if I've read her article correctly). Crook ^{The Constantine District} 18:08, January 23, 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, side-note. that line about entertaining helping the Templars I actually wasn't sure if it was even significant enough to add to the article :P especially since nothing ever comes of it. I think it's entirely possible she said it because she was frustrated with Ezio foiling her mission, so I could never tell if she was sincere. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 01:53, January 24, 2017 (UTC)

IRC

Hey Sol,

Can you join me on the IRC for a minute? Crook ^{The Constantine District} 09:59, January 26, 2017 (UTC)

Same question. Come find me on the IRC when you've got time :p Crook ^{The Constantine District} 10:40, January 29, 2017 (UTC)

I believe you dropped by earlier, but if you have time now please do so again. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 20:12, January 29, 2017 (UTC)

Assassin cell or cells?

Given that the Assassin Guilds are in plural, shouldn't the cells be in plural as well? The Wikia Editor (talk) 22:31, February 14, 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't think our policy should be to pluralize page names because that is kind of unprofessional. We do it for factions to be consistent with the games, which pluralize them because they refer to them as collective groups for gameplay purposes. However, I disagree that we should be extending this to other subjects, like swords for example. It's rather unprecedented for encyclopedias to pluralize subjects. I don't really know how to describe it, but it's not really grammatical. When we refer to a subject, we use the subject in its base, unmodified form, just as a dictionary might. Check out Wikipedia, for example. Our article at "Guilds" should be singular, as should our article on "cell" is my opinion. I asked on the IRC, but no one replied, so I went with the singular for "cell" to bring forth the issue. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 22:07, February 14, 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I understand. I hope this gets resolved. The Wikia Editor (talk) 23:33, February 14, 2017 (UTC)

Well what are you thoughts on this though? Do you think I'm being too finicky? Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 22:54, February 14, 2017 (UTC)