Talk:Artaxerxes I of Persia
Contradictory info[edit source]
This is an ongoing discussion.When meeting the the man who would go on to become Darius II his dialogue implies his father is still alive and not exiled. The note earlier in the arc from Gergis states the Order wanted him dethroned and sent an assassin implicating Artabanus/Darius but notes that Artaxerxes lived while making no comment on whether we was successfully dethroned. In light of this I think we should write more speculatively on the individual Kassandra meets in Megaris. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Have we been able to rule out that "Prince of Persia" takes place after Legacy of the First Blade? Because that would be the less speculative choice. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 19:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hard to say but nothing in that memory really makes any historically logical sense. If it's after LotFB there wouldn't be too much time if any before Artaxerxes's historical death date. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 01:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- You would have to elaborate in full detail about this. I always took the premise of "Prince of Persia" to be that Artaxerxes was dethroned and officially reported dead in 424 BCE but actually survived and escaped to Greece, so his death date in Assassin's Creed isn't meant to be the same as his historical death date. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 02:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Well given the dialogue the memory seems to take place before Kassandra meets Darius which would place it a few years prior to Artaxerxes's historical death date. Also the failed assassination attempt mentioned by Gergis would have to take place before Legacy of the First Blade (memory) where the dialogue implies Artaxerxes is still alive and reigning. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Can you cite specific quotes as evidence? Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 17:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Well given the dialogue the memory seems to take place before Kassandra meets Darius which would place it a few years prior to Artaxerxes's historical death date. Also the failed assassination attempt mentioned by Gergis would have to take place before Legacy of the First Blade (memory) where the dialogue implies Artaxerxes is still alive and reigning. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- You would have to elaborate in full detail about this. I always took the premise of "Prince of Persia" to be that Artaxerxes was dethroned and officially reported dead in 424 BCE but actually survived and escaped to Greece, so his death date in Assassin's Creed isn't meant to be the same as his historical death date. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 02:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hard to say but nothing in that memory really makes any historically logical sense. If it's after LotFB there wouldn't be too much time if any before Artaxerxes's historical death date. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 01:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
This whole exchange implies to me that Artaxerxes is still alive and ruling:
- Son of Artaxerxes: I am Darius. Son of the Persian king, Artaxerxes.
- Darius: Artaxerxes...
- Son of Artaxerxes: You know my father?
- Darius: We've met... But it's been a while.
- Son of Artaxerxes: He's a good king and a great father. Persia knows peace. She prospers. I miss him.
It's not explicit but the tense and phrasing is not what I'd use for someone that has passed. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm aware that Artaxerxes is alive and ruling at the ending of Legacy of the First Blade. That is unambiguous and not what I was asking about. The fact that Artaxerxes is the king during the events of the DLC doesn't eliminate the possibility that the memory "Prince of Persia" is set after, when Artaxerxes has been dethroned and officially pronounced dead to the public and to history while still being covertly hunted by the new king.
- You mentioned in response that the dialogue of "Prince of Persia" suggests it should be set before Kassandra meets Darius. You also noted a failed assassination attempt described by Gergis prior to the ending of Legacy of the First Blade. Admittedly, I don't remember off the top of my head when he mentioned this since it's been a while since I played it. It is these two pieces of evidence I am asking for direct reference to. Of course, I could spend the time to investigate all of this myself, but I'm handling many things at once on the wiki. Since you're the one posing these counter-points, I hope it's not too much to ask that you really present the case you want to make about this in full by laying out all the evidence you have in mind thoroughly. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 01:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- The description of a failed assassination is in a scroll we have transcribed over in Smoke and Fury:
- For decades Artaxerxes brought peace and prosperity, but Persia needs more.
From promise of legacy and glory to coercion and threat, unlike his predecessors, Artaxerxes refused to yield. But the Order needed him dethroned. We led him to believe that Artabanus made the attempt on his life.
Artaxerxes lived, but no matter. The King is ephemeral.
The Order is eternal.
- The Herald. - Meanwhile, from Prince of Persia we have these quotes:
- For decades Artaxerxes brought peace and prosperity, but Persia needs more.
- Kassandra: Your turn to tell me something. You said a man tried to kill you.
- Artaxerxes: The man who rose up to kill the tyrant Xerxes was named Darius... He was of a new creed of killers, unlike any Persia had known. He was also the man hired to kill me.
- Kassandra: A killer of kings, hired to kill a simple blind man? Why?
- [...]
- Kassandra: Now that's out of the way, you owe me a tale. You said the king killer, Darius, was hired to kill you, too.
- Artaxerxes: He was. By my brother.
- It does very much sound like she's learning about Darius for the first time, but that might just be me. - Soranin (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for locating these Sora. Both of these pieces of evidence actually jog my memory. When I first encountered Gergis' note, I thought it was referring to the event recounted by the Blind King in "Prince of Persia" of being ousted from his throne. Gergis mentions that "Artaxerxes lived" after the Order made an "attempt on his life" because they "needed him dethroned". I took this to be consistent with the premise in "Prince of Persia" that Artaxerxes survived an assassination attempt that dethroned him. Although the public believes Artaxerxes died, the Order knew he "lived". At that stage in Legacy of the First Blade, it all looked brilliantly consistent to me. As well, if Gergis' scroll does align with "Prince of Persia" telling of events, then there is actually a conflict within legacy of the First Blade, between Gergis' scroll and the ending. There is the also the possibility that when Gergis writes that the "Artaxerxes lived", he also meant the plot to dethrone him also failed, in which case it won't conflict with the ending.
- It does very much sound like she's learning about Darius for the first time, but that might just be me. - Soranin (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- The dialogue in "Prince of Persia" does heavily sound like she had not yet met Darius at that point, and that was how I must've also interpreted it when I first played it. Thus, "Prince of Persia" does conflict with the ending of Legacy of the First Blade whether or not it conflicts with Gergis' record. But I find the idea of "writing more speculatively about the individual Kassandra meets in Megaris" to be too... well, speculative... because speculation is not allowed. Perhaps Lacrosse meant to say ambiguously instead. Writing ambiguously is not unprecedented when we are confronted with lore conflicts, and it is a good tactic. But I am concerned about inserting speculative headcanons as a "solution" to the conflict here. While Legacy of the First Blade is a more important source than "Prince of Persia", and the man Kassandra entrusts Elpidios to is likely more trustworthy than the blind stranger in Megaris, how do we know this? If we write ambiguously about the stranger in Megaris, should we also write ambiguously about the man who takes Elpidios into his care? Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 22:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- Not sure what you are trying to get at at the end. All I’m saying is on Artaxerxes's page we note that Kass meets a guy who claims to be Artaxerxes without us directly stating whether he is or not. I think in this context "speculatively" is not an incorrect word to have used. We’d probably need to delete the Hystapes page since that is just supposition. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- Well, speculation has a specific meaning in the context of wiki writing, and it is a general guideline across wikis that it is prohibited. What you're asking here is what is called writing ambiguously, not speculatively. Speculatively would be like if you actually claimed he wasn't Artaxerxes based on your own speculation aka conjecture aka headcanon. What I am asking is, if we have to "note that Kassandra meets a guy who claims to be Artaxerxes without us directly stating whether he is or not", should we also note that Kassandra meets a guy who claims to be Darius, the son of the current ruler of Persia that is Artaxerxes, without stating whether he is or not. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 23:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- Honestly I’d be fine with that but your counterargument seems like a straw man to me, or at least false equivalency. There is nothing that contradicts Darius’s statements while there are a couple issues as detailed above with the old man’s. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 06:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- Well, speculation has a specific meaning in the context of wiki writing, and it is a general guideline across wikis that it is prohibited. What you're asking here is what is called writing ambiguously, not speculatively. Speculatively would be like if you actually claimed he wasn't Artaxerxes based on your own speculation aka conjecture aka headcanon. What I am asking is, if we have to "note that Kassandra meets a guy who claims to be Artaxerxes without us directly stating whether he is or not", should we also note that Kassandra meets a guy who claims to be Darius, the son of the current ruler of Persia that is Artaxerxes, without stating whether he is or not. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 23:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- Not sure what you are trying to get at at the end. All I’m saying is on Artaxerxes's page we note that Kass meets a guy who claims to be Artaxerxes without us directly stating whether he is or not. I think in this context "speculatively" is not an incorrect word to have used. We’d probably need to delete the Hystapes page since that is just supposition. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- The dialogue in "Prince of Persia" does heavily sound like she had not yet met Darius at that point, and that was how I must've also interpreted it when I first played it. Thus, "Prince of Persia" does conflict with the ending of Legacy of the First Blade whether or not it conflicts with Gergis' record. But I find the idea of "writing more speculatively about the individual Kassandra meets in Megaris" to be too... well, speculative... because speculation is not allowed. Perhaps Lacrosse meant to say ambiguously instead. Writing ambiguously is not unprecedented when we are confronted with lore conflicts, and it is a good tactic. But I am concerned about inserting speculative headcanons as a "solution" to the conflict here. While Legacy of the First Blade is a more important source than "Prince of Persia", and the man Kassandra entrusts Elpidios to is likely more trustworthy than the blind stranger in Megaris, how do we know this? If we write ambiguously about the stranger in Megaris, should we also write ambiguously about the man who takes Elpidios into his care? Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 22:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
As I have explained above, the only contradiction to the claim by the man in Megaris that he is Artaxerxes is the claim by the man at the end of Legacy of the First Blade. Likewise, the contradiction to the latter is the claim by the former. They contradict one another, and I am asking whether (or why) we should privilege the claim by the man in Megaris over the claim by the man at the end of Legacy of the First Blade. I do not agree with the case you were trying to make that Gergis contradicts the man in Megaris.
I also felt the need to remind you what speculation means since you indicated confusion about it both in this case and in the past and because it is imperative that you understand it. Within the practice of wiki writing, speculation is a common part of the jargon with a more specific meaning, referring to inserting information based on original research, personal headcanon, and/or fan theory. The Merriam-Webster dictionary provides different definitions of speculate, including:
- "to meditate on or ponder a subject"
- "to take to be true on the basis of insufficient evidence
- "to be curious or doubtful about"
I thought you might have been confused because you may have been using definition (1) or (3), so that is why I explained that within wiki jargon, speculation has the narrower definition of (2). So for instance in this case, we could approach in the following ways:
- (A) "According to the blind man Kassandra met in Megaris, he was the deposed King of Persia, Artaxerxes."
- (B) "The blind man Kassandra met in Megaris claimed to be the deposed King of Persia, Artaxerxes."
- (C) "The blind man Kassandra met in Megaris may or may not have been the deposed King of Persia, Artaxerxes."
- (D) "The blind man Kassandra met in Megaris claimed to be the deposed King of Persia, Artaxerxes, but [he could not have been / this was a lie]."
(D) is form of speculation because it is an insertion of a headcanon unverified by official sources as a solution to a lore conflict. (C) is speculation in a different sense: it is written as though to "wonder out loud". (A) and (B) are what are called writing ambiguously but truthfully and not speculatively. They confine the claim to the character, attributing it to them while refraining from unnecessarily casting judgement on whether their claim is true or false or even to put weight on the dubiousness by "wondering out loud". This is the approach I used in regards to Washington's burning of Connor's village.
The prohibition of speculation and of original research is a standard policy across wikis. In the Assassin's Creed Wiki, we have made the conscious decision to be more lenient about this owing to the nature of our subject matter. Unlike Star Wars, Harry Potter, The Elder Scrolls, etc., we deal closely with real-world history. So for example, your recent suggestion to me to use the real-world timeline for the An Lushan Rebellion as opposed to the incoherent timeline laid out by Xu Xianzhe in Assassin's Creed: Dynasty may be viewed as falling within original research on some wikis and not an acceptable approach. However, wikis are allowed to be flexible to confront the unique needs of its franchise, so I actually think your suggestion there is a good one. We are also more lenient with speculation in "Behind the Scenes" sections than Wookieepedia historically has been since we permit the discussion of reasonable deductions in this section. Be that as it may, we still have to guard ourselves against unbridled speculation.
I was not making a strawman counter-argument. I was clarifying to you what speculation means in the wiki community to ensure we are on the same page. It was unclear to me whether you were advocating that we approach this subject with (B), (C), or (D) when you use the word speculatively instead of ambiguously and then maintain that your usage of the word was correct.
For the sake of transparency, I also do not share your headcanon that the blind man Kassandra meets in Megaris is delusional or a liar, as you have stated on Discord, but that would be a different debate. But I do agree that there is a conflict between his claim and that of the man Kassandra entrusts Elpidios to and that this conflict warrants ambiguity in discussing the identity of the blind man of the examples (A) and (B). As well, my asking about whether we should also write ambiguously for the man Kassandra entrust Elpidios to was not meant to be a "counter-argument" in the first place but a genuine question to double-check our decision. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 00:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry for using a word that you interpreted the wrong way. I was suggesting something similar to your A) or B) options. The Gergis case was to point out that the assassination attempt is mentioned prior to the meeting with the supposed Darius II who refers to Artaxerxes as being King in the present rather than a direct contradiction to the blind man in Megaris. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 05:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Then I agree with your proposal. There's no need to apologize—sarcastically or not—because it was not a matter of whether you were wrong on the usage or I was wrong in the interpretation. The word speculation can be vague, hence again why I was double-checking we have the same understanding of what it means. Knowing how it is commonly used in wiki practice is also good for future ease of communication, whether in this wiki or in others. That being said, may I have your clear affirmation that you understand and respect our policy on speculation in article content? Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 07:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Vaguely insulted it's come down to that but yes I do and always have understood not to frame statements in articles as C) or D). Lacrossedeamon (talk) 07:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, I really appreciate it. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 07:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Alright so how do we proceed from here. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- You can write a revision, which I will then review, or I can write a revision, which you will then review. Or someone else can write a revision for us to review. I am likely to be too preoccupied to do the rewrite at the moment though. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 19:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- Alright so how do we proceed from here. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, I really appreciate it. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 07:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Vaguely insulted it's come down to that but yes I do and always have understood not to frame statements in articles as C) or D). Lacrossedeamon (talk) 07:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Then I agree with your proposal. There's no need to apologize—sarcastically or not—because it was not a matter of whether you were wrong on the usage or I was wrong in the interpretation. The word speculation can be vague, hence again why I was double-checking we have the same understanding of what it means. Knowing how it is commonly used in wiki practice is also good for future ease of communication, whether in this wiki or in others. That being said, may I have your clear affirmation that you understand and respect our policy on speculation in article content? Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 07:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Current rework User:Lacrossedeamon/Artaxerxes Lacrossedeamon (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Bump Lacrossedeamon (talk)