Talk:Chilean Rite of the Templar Order

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

Propose delete

I move to delete this page. Just like with the also-deleted Indian Templars, none of the local population is known to have formally established a Rite. At most there would be Chilean allies and members, but they are not named. And while the 1973 Chilean coup was historically orchestrated by the American government as part of Operation Condor's wider Red Scare campaigns in South America, since the American-based Abstergo execs planned it for their own purposes separate from Assassin purges, I feel that the coup can be ascribed to either the American Templars specifically or "the Templars" as a broader organization if needed. – Darman (talk) 00:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

We've had this discussion around two to three times already, and many of these pages have already been purged while the ones that remained had been allowed to remain by previous consensus. Also, this is not like the Indian Templar case because the problem with the article for Indian Templars is that we already knew that the Templars from Chronicles: India were British Templar agents. In this case, the issue is that we do not know which rite these Templars operating in Chile belonged to if any. At the same time, I am having second thoughts about keeping this page though since both Templar rites and Assassin guilds are still poorly defined in lore. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 20:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems I didn't properly read before that you meant that you think the Templars behind the coup were affiliated with the American Rite instead. Let's check with our local Chilean Cristophorus and see what he thinks. ^^ Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 07:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for referring me!

I agree with the deletion of this page but not because of abscence of evidence, but evidence of abscence. As we know, the 1973 Chilean coup is mentioned in Brotherhood and this confirms Pinochet as a Templar puppet. But considering all that has transpired from this like the Chicago Boys, the establishment of shock doctrine and neoliberal economic policies, and all the conspiracies that took place after the coup like Orlando Letelier's assassination, makes me think that there could be more stuff involved. Operation Condor could have been started by Abstergo and the American Templar Rite, but keeping things "under control" for 17 years needs something more than just international intervention to guarantee the Templars' dominion. I think a Chilean Rite exists, it just hasn't been mention. DINA would be a good candidate for a special force administered by this hypothetical rite if not something that's part of the rite itself.

Nevertheless, this is all speculation, nothing has been confirmed. I look forward to the rebirth of this page in the future, hahaha. It'd be cool to know what happened to the Assassins and Templars after the coup. As I see it, the Templars should have total control of the country, leaving the Assassins almost gone. I can imagine different Assassin cells existing in Chile but not an entire organization as in a "Chilean Assassin Brotherhood". Perhaps in thr 19th century, but not in modern day.
Cristophorus35 (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I defer to you on this—although isn't what you described absence of evidence not evidence of absence? ._. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 05:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

What? No. No, no, no. It's evidence of absence; I mean that is just because it hasn't been mentioned doesn't mean it doesn't exist.Cristophorus35 (talk) 06:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

That's absence of evidence Cris. >.< Evidence of absence would be if there is something that either implicitly or explicitly suggests that the Chilean Rite doesn't exist. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 08:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

What? No. Isn't it the other way around? When there's something that either suggests, implicitly or explicitly, that the rite does exist?Cristophorus35 (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you're confused about the English phrasing. Absence of evidence means there's no evidence. There's no evidence that the Chilean Rite exists, which is what you're saying as I understand. It would be a logical fallacy if we conclude from that that the Chilean Rite doesn't exist, which is what I think you're also saying, and you're saying that in spite of this, we can err on the safe side that it doesn't need an article or now.

Evidence of absence is evidence that something doesn't exist, which would mean that we have evidence or even proof (to verify) that the Chilean Rite doesn't exist. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 21:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

So, what you are saying is that I have lived in a lie this entire time?! Owww, man...Cristophorus35 (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)