User talk:关云

Welcome to the Order, 关云!

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! There is also our forums, where all users can help you out. You can also check out the blogs, where you and other contributors can voice out your opinion.

We seek unity, stability and order.

Not sure where to start? 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. Sol Pacificus (talk) 14:51, May 2, 2019 (UTC)

Greeting

NIce to meet you, Lucky Kwan!

:) —unsigned comment by 一个赛艇门‎ (talk · contr)

Mao Zedong being a Templar

Hello Guan Yun, I noticed that you removed all references to Mao Zedong being a Templar. I understand that you did this in good faith because you were waiting on citations for those, and we entirely forgot about it. The actual source was an interview that one of our admins, Master Sima Yi, had with Jeffrey Yohalem. It was completely our fault for not providing citations for this, which is a bit difficult because I have to find the exact podcast where this interview was conducted. I've reverted your edits for now, and I would ask you to please wait one more week, and if I don't provide citations then, feel free to remove the references to Mao being a Templar again. I simply forgot all about it, but your edits helped remind us. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 01:56, June 16, 2020 (UTC)

Fine. Settled then.关云 (talk) 02:03, June 16, 2020 (UTC)

So I got in touch with Master Sima Yi regarding this, and he informed me that the interview he had with Jeffrey Yohalem came after Loomer's podcast which can be found on YouTube. Because of this, it isn't in the actual video and cannot be cited. Well, technically speaking, personal interviews off-camera can be cited, but to keep things uncontroversial, it's probably best we don't do that. Given this, he has already removed the reference to Mao being a Templar on the page, and I have followed suit on the pages China and Shanghai Rite of the Templar Order.

On a site-note, think some of the information you added to the Chinese Civil War goes too much detail into things we only know from real-world history, and we try to minimize details like that, so I will have to review that article.

Let me know if you have any other questions or concerns! Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 18:36, June 17, 2020 (UTC)

I explained the detail time and events related to that because I edited original contents about the time of the Second Chinese Civil War. Since I shouldn't add too many details that can only be known from real history, I agree to remove those contents. However, if something related to the real world is mentioned, I think it should be accurate.

As for the issue that Mao Zedong being a Templar, it's really sensitive for Chinese netizens. We remove related contents after we confirmed that there is no citation can be found. The expression "the puppet of Templar" does hurt the feeling of Chinese mainland netizens. I think personal interviews off-camera can be cited, but the content related to that shouldn't appear in the main content, since it is not the public official setting about the celebrity.

Now I have no more questions or concerns. Thank you for helping me.关云 (talk) 01:58, June 18, 2020 (UTC)

Glad to help! If you don't mind me asking, I was wondering what is it about that expression that hurts the feelings of Mainlanders exactly? I would like to understand. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 18:54, June 19, 2020 (UTC)

Usually the expressions and topics hurting Mainlanders' feelings can devided into following types:

• Denying and ignoring the contribution of China (contribution in all historical periods are included).
• Insulting the image of China (especially insulting the national image of PRC) and the revolutionaries of China. From so-called Opium War to the founding of PRC, Chinese people had suffered from invasion and corrupted useless government for total 109 years. It is Sun Yat-sen and his fellow comrades first and then CPC who help Chinese people out. That's why Mainlanders can't accept Mao Zedong being a Templar or Sun Yat-sen being the Grand Master of Chinese Rite, since Templars are always villain in the series.
• Disagreeing the ideal of "One Nation, Two Systems", supporting regions like Hong Kong, Taiwan, Inner Mongol, Tibet and Xinjiang to be independent. These actions or related expressions intolerable for Mainlanders. Fundamentally speaking，region conflicts are the results of invasion wars and civil wars. We can't accept such expressions because we have been hurt in old days.
• Serious mistakes in history narration and the beautify invasion. It's also the result of invasion wars.

Altogether, the offensive expressions and topics will be described as insulting China (辱华) in SNS of mainland. Just like topics and expressions about races in Western world, it's our "political correctness". Hope my explanation can help you understand more about Mainlanders.关云 (talk) 04:01, June 20, 2020 (UTC)

Guan Yun, I figured that Mao Zedong was associated with the villains of this franchise might be the reason, but my confusion lay in the fact that many Mainlanders I've met abhor themes like "freedom", "free will", and "democracy" which are all core principles of the Assassins. These loaded words are associated with Western culture, and I've met many Mainlanders who think that belief in them is the result of being brainwashed by Western society. Hence, my expectation was that Mainland fans of Assassin's Creed would actually agree with the Templars, who preach that world peace can only be achieved if an elite group of men "guide" nations through surveillance and strongman rule—along with the coercive measures that comes with it.

Many Mainlanders I've met greatly admire Mao exactly because he didn't approve of democracy or human rights. For example, a former childhood friend of mine sees Mao as his idol, but it is because he believes that the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, and the massive death toll that resulted from them were great events which were necessary for the industrialization of China.

Obviously today, the party line is to introduce a social credit system, enforce strict censorship, and use heavy-handed methods against all dissent, even entirely peaceful ones. The Templars would support this because they believe that they have the "wisdom" to judge all the people they govern, and if people should just obey and listen to this "wisdom" without questioning, there would be world peace. This is the justification and logic of the CCP today, and it is the same justification and logic of the Templars. The creators of Assassin's Creed didn't always wanted to show that the Templars were pure evil either. Instead, they wanted to show their reasoning and make us ask ourselves, is there some truth to it?

In any case, it is a fact that many of the ways the Templars act in the fiction of Assassin's Creed is the same way that the CCP has treated its people in the past, and in Tibet, Xinjiang, and Hong Kong now. Simply speaking, I expected that Mainlanders who respect Mao will agree with Templar philosophy, see Templars as the real heroes, and believe that Assassins are only portrayed as heroes because Ubisoft is a company coming from a Western perspective. That's why I didn't think that Mao being a Templar would be offensive.

I hope this is not too shocking for you. It is clear that there must be some presumption that I had wrong. For example, maybe you guys do not think that Assassins' idea of free will and democracy is wrong, so actually agree that Assassins are heroes? Maybe you guys think that the Templars are too extreme and that Mao's errors are exaggerated? In any case, thank you for taking the time to share the sensitivities of Mainland people. To clarify, I am actually Hong Konger, and as you probably know, there are a lot of misunderstandings between the Mainland and Hong Kong. If you don't mind, I would also like to take this opportunity to clear up some of those misunderstandings on our end too. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 05:49, June 20, 2020 (UTC)

All of our editors at the Chinese Wiki understand that Templars are not always evil, and we have concluded why English Wiki lists Sun Yat-sen and Mao Zedong as Templars for their behaviors. However, a person who behaves like a Templar may not be a Templar. We editors mean that if we can't prove Mao is a Templar with accessable official information, we won't claim him as a Templar. It's our final decision to remove related contents for no citation is provided. An interview without being recorded or open to public is way too hard for us to accept. (We have an editor majoring in document management. He told me it's unacceptable.)

And the historical events you mentioned involved citizens and the process of the events now seems had gone beyond the intention and handling capacity of Mao, even of the CCP.

Most Mainlanders are against "western freedom" and "western democracy" but not "freedom" "free will" and "democracy". And the concept like "freedom" "democracy" "human rights" are related with western society, that's why Mainlanders seem to give up pursuing freedom. In fact, they just dislike the way that western society has proved to be unreliable. (While elder people are against that for their hatred of Western and Japan Imperialists.)

Many Mainlander fans of Assassin's Creed really in favor of Templars like Haythem and Shay (By the way I and many fellow editors consider Shay as a tool) for they eradicated the gangs in North America. We are in fear of a society where crimes could be carried out in the name of freedom. But the stories about Assassins overthrowing dictatorship and tyranny are welcomed. We Mainlanders may only accept what proved to be praciticable. It may be contradictory to find that we Mainlanders want order and freedom at the same time.

You may not know that many fan-settings at Mainland SNS websites consider Mao as an ally of Assassins. He was really a savior to many people of China Mainland at that time.

In fact, if you have browsed the contents of Mainland SNS and know more about our Internet companies, you might think our government or CCP have lost control of Internet. Take Weibo as an example, the company have deleted the announcement of some government departments for many times, and dissents are everywhere if you have searched for specified contents. You may heard of Fang Fang, the female writer who finished Wuhan Diary and published it in foreign countries. The contents of her book are proved to be total nonsense by those who fought in the front against COVID-19.

The scene that censorship shows is different. The censorship standard according to related laws is ambiguous. The real executive standard depends on the offcial who censors the works. Works once published may not succeed another time. It's an awkward situation, and it's hard to solve. Now, I think maybe the ideal of CCP are contradict to the executive process of government.

On issue about regions like Xinjiang and Tibet, PLA liberated them in 1950s and 1960s from feudal rulers and slave owners. And there is no religious persecution or labor camp there. How we should get along with them will be more proper? Contents about Muslims are forbidden not because of religious persecution but the harassment from Muslims. Or when supporting Tibet Independence some people just mean that Tibet returning to the rule of slave owners better than a Socialism (with China-style Characteristics) government?

As for Hong Kong and Taiwan, issues are more comlicated. Now I haven't figure out why Hong Kong protest broke out. As a mainlanders, the only problem of Fugitive Offenders Ordinance that I know is its incompletence because it was passed too hurried, and I read the law articles last year in Wikipedia. In fact, too many Mainlanders think we tolarate too much improper actions of Hong Kong and Taiwan, yet the government and CCP havn't taken any practical measures though many Mainlanders request. It remained to be discussed.

As a Mainlander I can figure out that misunderstandings among Mainlanders, Hong Kongers, Taiwanese and forign countries' people can fill a whole encyclopedia. We don't know each other for real. Communication is welcomed. At least, I wonder if there is any western journalists in Western China. Thank you for providing a chance to have a discuss about the political issues since many so-called dissents of Mainland main-stream thoughts I know (they are Hong Kongers, too) always stop arguing or debating while consider us as brainwashed fools. It can't be better if you can discuss the issues with me. Hope my poor English won't bother you when you read my replies.关云 (talk) 10:05, June 20, 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we also remove uncited information if too long of a time has passed without a source being provided. Our policy might differ a little in that we follow Wikipedia's standard where information that, by our discretion, is definitely or almost certainly false is immediately removed while information where we expect a source can be provided but has not yet been is labeled [citation needed]. After an extended period of time, users are authorized to remove the information if the citation request has not been fulfilled, but since there are many occurrences of this throughout the wiki, there are many that we miss.

We have established that Mao Zedong's affiliation with the Assassins or Templars in Assassin's Creed has not been proven, but what is my personal opinion? The Assassins stand out from other freedom fighters and revolutionaries in that they have the strictest taboo against harming innocent people. "Stay your blade from the flesh of an innocent". In history, we see time and time again that when oppressed people rise up, it is too tempting to turn to fury and exact vengeance against entire groups of people related to the enemy, even women and children, even if they haven't directly taken part in the oppression. Thus, we become the very monsters we seek to destroy; what starts off as a justified revolution becomes just one evil against another. Assassins are unique in that, while there is a lot of freedom, one of the things that is intolerable is committing actions which hurt innocent people.

This is what sets them apart from Templars, as in Assassin's Creed Altaïr notes that the Templars he meets are like Assassins but "their methods are too brutal and imprecise". Both seek world peace, but their differences are more than just desiring control or desiring free will. Assassins believe, in theory if not always in practice, that conflicts must be fought in a way that minimizes collateral damage, minimizes the disruptive impact on society and everyday human lives, and which are precise. This doesn't mean that Assassins are pacifists because they believe that in political struggles, violence is sometimes necessary to protect innocents. But when Assassins do resort to violence, it is meant only when "there is no other way", as Rebecca told Desmond, it must be swift and meticulously executed, and they must not revel in it. That is why in Assassin's Creed: Syndicate, Evie Frye, described as a studious model Assassin, criticizes her brother for killing Templars recklessly without regard for societal disruption like economic damage. She finds herself having to fix the fallout from every assassination to minimize the ramifications on the common people of London and possibly the world.

Of course, in practice, Assassins in the story aren't perfect. We see often that even the best of Assassins can accidentally kill the wrong person, like when Ezio kills Tarik Barleti in Assassin's Creed: Revelations. In Rogue, Achilles' new recruits for his new branch seem to not understand the tenets of the Creed at all and constantly violate them, but this is partly bad writing.

So let's connect this principle of precision, minimizing collateral damage, and the absolute rule against hurting innocent people to Mao Zedong being an Assassin or Templar.

First, I would like to say that like you, I was really offended when Ubisoft made Sun Yat-sen a Templar Grand Master. I believe that in contrast to Mao, Sun Yat-sen truly believed in creating a society based on the consent of the governed, the rule of law, and humane governance (i.e. human rights), so he could not have been a Templar. I think they should have made him an Assassin. I even made kind of angry forum post about this a long time ago, haha. Yuan Shikai should've been the Templar. But I read that the author's reasoning for Sun being a Templar was just because he wanted a "noble, good person to be a Templar" since the Assassin's Creed: Templars comic series was supposed to make Templars seem like heroes. I don't think that the author really did research on who Sun Yat-sen was.

I see Sun Yat-sen as one of my heroes, but I really don't like Mao. If you would pardon my honesty, with the mayhem and destruction of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution which my grandparents lived through and escaped, I don't believe that Mao was a great ruler. In fact, I believe that he was one of the worst leaders in Chinese history, responsible for the deaths of more of our people than any other Chinese leader in our history. A common estimate of the death toll under his reign is 40 million. That's the figure I read the most. This alone is about the same total death toll of World War II across the entire world. Of course, people may argue that this figure is exaggerated. The lowest estimate I have read is still 20 million; the highest is 80 million.

The science and data doesn't support the idea that he contributed to China's industrialization. Instead, he held it back by decades; industrialization only began under Deng Xiaoping. But even if Mao, like my childhood friend believes, had set the path for China's industrialization, it still cannot justify the bloodshed and devastation of Chinese culture that he was responsible for. There is absolutely no accomplishment of a leader which can vindicate such atrocities. There are many ways to make a country great again without so much senseless loss of life. My belief is that he was comparable to Qin Shi Huang.

But my personal views of Mao aside, the sheer sweeping purges he conducted, the cultural destruction, the attacks on professors and scholars, the shutdown of all higher education violates the Assassin principles of precision, minimizing collateral damage, and especially the taboo against hurting innocent people. The Cultural Revolution was similar to the Reign of Terror in the French Revolution. The Assassins' way is meant to target specific enemies, specific individuals, not wholesale groups indiscriminately. They also promote free thought and education. If Mao believed that traditional and Confucian culture had been responsible for holding China's progress back, Assassins would have believed that the right thing to do was to teach students to learn from it, not to burn it all down. Altaïr was opposed to Jubair's book burning in Assassin's Creed for this reason; Ezio was opposed to Girolamo Savonarola's Bonfire of the Vanities in Assassin's Creed II for this reasoning.

Whenever there is a conflict, people in power will be tempted to use repressive means which target blanket groups of people rather than at the precise perpetrators. This is both easier and Templars like Haytham would argue, more efficient. The risks involved with having to try to identify specific people rather than covering all who have the potential to be a threat are too great in Templars' eyes. Assassins disavow this; every innocent life matters and the desire for "easy", "riskless", "efficient" means of eliminating a threat is no excuse to use methods which may hurt innocent lives.

This is why I don't believe that Mao can be an Assassin. His methodology goes against these sanctified principles, violating all that is forbidden. I have read that he criticized Nikita Khrushchev for resolving the Cuban Missile Crisis peacefully because he believed that nuclear war should be welcomed if it would mean that the communists can ultimately emerge victorious. However, I don't think he would necessarily be a real Templar either. From what I've read of him, I think that Mao truly believed in the communist revolution and driven mad by it. I don't hate communism, but I think Mao was a religious fanatic when it came to communism because any ideology can become like a religion if the proponent is too extreme.

At the same time, writers of Assassin's Creed can come up with any convoluted plot. Stalin is a Templar or at least a Templar puppet. Mao was an ally of Stalin, and he broke ties with Khrushchev over destalinization. Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger worked for Templar interests like many of the United States presidents in the Cold War; they were the ones who opened ties between the United States and the People's Republic of China when Mao was still alive, a process that occurred in secret at first. So, these established affiliations in Assassin's Creed lore do make a connection between Mao and the Templars possible narrative-wise, but at this point, this would be speculation. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 20:53, June 21, 2020 (UTC)

It's CCP... Oh, it's not CCP but Mao should be blamed for all the suffering of China. While if China overcome the difficulties, it's all the achievement gained by people. Things can be concluded according to your view.

Though government were more close to CCP at that time when Mao as the supreme leader was capable to affect everyone in China who were willing to follow him, it doesn't mean that everyone really obeyed the real command from the leadership.

If you have watch the documentaries of Great Leaping Forward, you will find people were willing to cater the unrealistic request of CCP. And the problems of the campaign were caused until people got to work on it. Wrong actions were taken.

And you should know that China is too big to be completely regulated by a single central government, let along CCP is unable to guide the government directly. In fact, the top leadership may not expect the magnification of the campaigns they initiated. CCP and central govenment did make mistakes, yet local governments and CCP local branches made more mistakes. And people who killed time and almost did nothing just to cheat a lobor credit were not blamed, yet Mao was to be blamed for the casualty caused by food shortage.

It's werid to say Mao should be blamed for all these things.

As for industrializaion, if Mao's reign devasted it, how can Deng make great progress on the base of industry and economy of RoC that was just like a piece of shit. In fact, since so-called Golden Decade,

people lived in the territory of CCP enjoyed better life. If people remain on their former pace, they won't starve themselves when they tried to cater the unrealistic request.

I'd like to tell you that the casualty and mistakes were not caused by a single person nor a single Party. I think if everyone practise the ideal of CCP precisely, things would have been better.

As for Cultural Revolution, it was the peak of PRC's political fault. However, we never know if those who persecuted others holding the Quotations from Chairman Mao believed in our socialism cause. But we know that victims who survived the decade tend to blame Mao and CCP for their suffering. The campaign against old culture never succeeded, the worst part from traditions and old culture survived.

And these political campaigns were initiated for the reason that we did have enemies inside our country, our people (we don't name enemy as people in Chinese), and our Party. The magnification is a pity, and it tells us we do have enemy who seems to be loyal to our ideal and cause.

You believe it or not, many people just consider as the savior who brought them freedom in Mainland.

As for Soviet Union, PRC only enlisted help and support from them when we need it. CCP disobeyed the order from Communism Internation under the leadership of Soviet Union since Mao came to power in 1935, and we refused to join Soviet Union from the very beginning. The Sino-USSR relationship especially PRC-USSR relationship broke up since Khrushchev came to power, another Soviet Union leader who encouraged cult of personality and chauvinism. It's hard to describe the relationship between China and Soviet Union, but at least we never share the same ideal as the Soviet Union. And the three years of natural disasters that caused many people starve to die are also a part of result of Soviet Union's blockdown. Mao was not the ally of Stalin. Or, will you put your ally under house arrest when he's visiting your capital?

In conclusion, I mean to explain two points.

• One is Mao shouldn't been blamed for all the casualty and victims, the heavy-hand measures were carried out by people themselves (Deng ordered the army to take restrainted actions with no other choices, the actions were stiil described as the massacre. Let along Mao who organized CCP to plan a unrealistic production plan for the country and mean to eliminate the enemy did exist and does exist. When will you be concerned about the cruel actions carried out by people?) Mao himself order the end of Great Leaping Forward. He was one of the most moderate leaders in the Cultural Revolution. It was under the leadership of Mao that PRC people provided PRC with the resources and fundament for Reform and Opening (and I need remind you that the mistakes CCP made never held back the development and industrialization too much, according to the conclusion of historians, the process was stopped in fact.)
• The other one is Mao may not be a Templar though he had links with some known Templars. Yet he can be a normal person in the history of Human. Templars can make its members rivals against each other. They can create any illution they want you to see. Tokugawa supported by Assassins was less open than Toyotomi supported by Templars, then how can you judge one is more close to Templar or Assassin according to his behaviors without any official setting to prove it? And Sun Yat-sen, well, ignoring his actions about self-centered Revolutionary Party of China and KMT, he can be closer to Assassins according to your views. Never try to judge the revolutionaries of the revolution age of China just from one single aspect.

related issues are too complex. Hope I've made myself clear.

关云 (talk) 04:38, June 22, 2020 (UTC)

Hello again Guan Yun, I had meant to reply back to you weeks ago, but as I was also going into the Hong Kong perspective, I honestly started to feel a bit anxious that it was too much text and that might bother you. I ended up putting it aside for a while wondering how I might shorten it and make it more concise, and I think I will rewrite it from scratch.

In any case, I will still proceed with that later in a separate section if you do not mind because like I said, I think it's important to have that sort of discussion, but here I will respond more immediately to the content I think relates more to Assassin's Creed.

You are right that there are other possibilities as to why Mao might not be a Templar in Assassin's Creed (apart from the fact that it hasn't been conclusively decided by Ubisoft of course). I think I've already mentioned this at first, but ultimately, it is up to the storywriters. No matter how much we think it may or may not make sense, Ubisoft can essentially choose to make any historical figure an Assassin, Templar, or neither, and the issue would lie in whether they can somehow make it make sense or if it might end up feeling forced. We as fans can speculate instead whether we personally think the historical figure would fit Assassins or Templars more, so I would like to make that distinction. I personally think that it would be most fitting for Mao to be a Templar puppet and also that it should be impossible for him to have been an Assassin because he didn't abide by their principles, but obviously, there are many ways where Ubisoft can write the story to make him contrary to my opinion and still justify it, depending on their creativity.

I think my main takeaway is just that you think that Mao wasn't directly responsible or in control of the excesses of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, but you do acknowledge that those calamities happened. The texts I have read about Mao have always said that he was the one who initiated and catalyzed the Cultural Revolution, even partly to preserve his loss of prestige after the Great Leap Forward. I am therefore highly skeptical that his fault can be mitigated. As well when you ask how Deng could have industrialized if Mao had devastated the Mainland, I will use a common quote that "it is not that the Mainland industrialized because of those catastrophes, but that it industrialized despite those catastrophes". Under that argument, it was entirely possible for the Mainland economy to prosper and industrialize if Mao's policies hadn't happened; it simply would've happened twenty years earlier.

I see China "lifting millions out of poverty" as a natural outcome of gradual recovery after a long period of civil war rather than a miraculous achievement. China's vast resources and manpower as well as industrialization being dependant on trade ties with the West made that rebound highly likely from the beginning once one of the first conditions of industrialization, a functional state, was fulfilled with the end of the civil war. Had the KMT or any other of the vying factions won the civil war instead, that condition would have been still been fulfilled.

But when we reach this point, it starts to become a debate, which is not really what I was seeking since I only wanted to hear your perspective. There are intense scholarly studies regarding China's industrialization, arguing for your position and mine, and the only way we would be able to proceed is to consult those and begin citing data, and I don't think we should go that deep as it would be time-consuming and exhausting, so we should probably agree to disagree.

The last thing I wanted to comment on though was your comment regarding how the PLA liberated Tibet from feudal lords and slave owners. I fear that that justification for conquest is the same kind of reasoning that the United States under George Bush used to invade Iraq in 2003, something that I adamantly opposed at the time and still do to this day. It is a hallmark of Templar philosophy, where wholesale assault and conquest can be justified in the name of acting as a savior without the consent of the common people whose homes fall under the attack.

I expect that you might argue that humanitarian intervention is also a belief of the Assassins, and if you were thinking of making this rebuttal, there is some validity to that. There are pacifists in this world, who really don't regard intervention as justifiable in any way, fearing the kind of crimes committed by Bush in Iraq or the PLA in Tibet. And the Assassins are not these kinds of pacifists. There are cases like the rise of Nazi Germany and the Rwandan genocide where the world should have intervened far earlier, and Assassins would have stood by those interventions. Even still, there is a mile of a difference between intervening against genocide and conquering territory out of the pretext of liberation; namely, the former doesn't consist of subjugating the local people. The latter is just a very typical argument for imperialism and colonialism. In international relations, we call the American form of this imperialistic thinking the "democratic peace theory".

I decided to remark on this point about Tibet when I was not going to initially because I was concerned about your understanding of Assassin and Templar philosophies and how they apply to the real-world. You don't have to agree with me here either, but I think you should reflect more on these fine details of their beliefs and where one slides into the other.

You mentioned that you think, in fact, that liberation from tyranny is a good cause. But if those you honor in real-life act like Templars, would you be able to recognize it? If those you respect in real-life were guilty of tyranny, would you be able to acknowledge it, or would you try to excuse them or downplay them? I'm not asking this to be condescending, but it is because it is a question that everyone should ask themselves. I ask myself these questions as well. Often, we are complicit in oppression without realizing it; when our own people become the oppressors, it is then when we turn a blind eye even where we once were oppressed ourselves. We can observe this at the level of global politics, but we can also observe this at the level of the elementary school yard when children bully one another. Bullies very often don't realize that they're bullying because they justify to themselves why their victims deserve it in some way or another.

I think this is one of the greatest lessons of Assassin's Creed and why I love it so much even though its philosophical commentary and quality has severely declined. :) Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 18:25, July 8, 2020 (UTC)

Fine, finally our discussion seems come to an end.

First of all, in most time, Ubisoft means Templars to be villains and never justify their cause. That's why we can't except Mao as a Templar.

And as we know, it's a fallacy to draw conclusion based on the hypothesis contrary to the fact. And if the fact is a part of China's history, it means the conclusion must be denied. In real history, there is no Assassins nor Templars. It turns out even Ubi claim Mao as an Assassin's ally is unacceptable for China mainland. (Let along let him become an Assassin like Russian Assassins) He is someone who can't appear in fiction works. (Laugh) I guess he wouldn't like such a situation.

What I argued for is that Mao had no relation with any faction in the Assassin-Templar War. Leaving him alone is good enough since Ubi has not announced anything about him.

No one mitigated Mao's fault. The conclusive work had been done in Deng's Resolution on Certain Questions in the History of Our Party Since the Founding of the People's Republic of China, a speech in 1981. It figured out that among what Mao had done, the fault took up 30%. And I have to repeat that the magnification of political campaigns after the establishment of PRC was not initiated by Mao. In fact the top leadership always lost their control on the campaigns. And in most time, we consider the top leadership of CCP as one complete group in making decision. Deng' speech figured out that, even though Mao maked critical fault in Cultural Revolution, it basicly aimed at people inside the leadership(while it certainly would affect the whole society since everyone respected him), and he maintained the Socialism system of China. And Deng who was also critized wrongly in the campaigh said the Economy development was still on progress even during the Cultural Revolution.

And, I think you should know that sometimes people not always result in something as they expected or planed. Mao called to eliminate the enemies of Socialism, the result should be some certain people were caught and sentenced. According to Deng's speech, there should have been none under arrest. So, it was who that had caused the casualty? Mao expected the casualty of enemies, yet the outcome was the casualty of innocent people. Now Mao is blamed for all this. It just doees not make sense.

As for industrilization, economy development and root-out poverty, there is no natural outcome in such aspects. Things never been like this before, won't be like this in future. In the Golden Decade I mentioned before, how many poor peasants in China? I look up for related data about the decade. Oh, what a great progress made by Japan-controlled Anshan steelworks. And the number of factories was decreasing. About peasants? Well, nobody think RoC government would take them into account and no date can be found. Natural outcome? Are you kidding me? KMT signed Sino-US friendship and mutual assistance treaty in 1946. The treaty meaned American and Chinese people share the same rights but in fact promised Americans with way too many opportunities to lauch economic invasion that can destroy China's national industry. Even Japanese invaders performed better in economy development. But they were invaders, we had to drove them out of China. Or you can just see the loss under the leadership of Mao, while the outcome and progress are all ignored?

As for Tiber Issue, I can guess you have never look up detailed information about PLA's Liberation of Tibet. Just like most common viewpoint of Western World(or maybe just outside China Mainland), people consider the liberation war as an invasion. We had the claim of Tibet's territorial sovereignty, since it's a part of China since Yuan Dynasty (Yuan Dynasty established before the split Mongol Empire, a classical Ancient China dyansty but with some Mongol characteristics). Over 90% of people who lived in Tibet before Tibet Liberation were slaves(they even could not be peasants). No hope for equally rights, no hope for better life, no hope for modernized life. You might think it is the pretext for so-called invasion - Fine, I can't persuade you on this. At least we do help Tibet to make progress in development. You can deny that, but it just exists. We Mainlanders always think Iraq was a country good enough before American Invasion, but if anybody who think Tibet was good enough before being liberated, I guess the Tibetan Revolutionary Gendun Chopel would like to receive the power of Living Buddha to be resurrected in order to kick their asses. He had the chance of becoming a Living Buddha but turn to the revolutionary cause, then he was executed in 1951 by Tibet religious government. If you mean to criticize PLA's campaign, please let me know you will criticize Britain's occupying Hongkong since Opium War and forcing Qing dynasty to admit it. Oh, Britain took no pretext for the occupation. How democratic it was! How generous Britain was! How civilized the action was! Before you criticize PLA and PRC government, you should really pay attention to whether your methods will lead to conclusion you won't agree with.

The history told Chinese people, even pacifists need to arm themselves and fight against enemy. We had fed up with justification in our history since the Opium War. Yet you dare to describe our liberation war as crimes done to Tibetan people, I can't figure out whether you really know something about modern age history of China. I can recognize tyranny of course. And the ideal of AC works just like a toy comparing to Marxism. I see the ridiculous censorship, I see the incomplete law system and terms, I see the enemies of Socialism(they just hate socialism while make good use of issues we have not improved or corrected) should have been ericated from the very beginning of PRC. Only people I know won't be oppressors are CCP members who are loyal to the Party's ideal and those who have a great dream about future and the whole society and work on it. I really have to say CCP are trying to solve social problems. Yet you always name the solutions as tyranny and can't see the enemy inside our party and our government. You make the mistake of poisoning the well in the first place, then tell me I can't recognize the tyranny, the discussion really needs to be ended.

Mao Zedong once said, no investigation into a issue, no rights of talking about the issue. If you really decide to criticize the historical events, make sure you at least hear voices from both sides of the events.

You learn the lesson from AC series? I learn it from real life and real history. What else I have learned is, if people done soemthing not in accordance with the order of leadership while in the name of leadership, never blame the leadership only. After all, it was not the leadership that made all the mistakes. (You describe a person who trusted people so much as a Fascist? Oh you may never understand the ideal of China Mainland.)(As for the comments of Cultural Revolution, it's obviously in ignorance of Palmer Raids in America, Great Purge in USSR, White Terror in Taiwan and Oppression of Student Campaign in Japan. As far as I know, only actions of USSR and China Mainland were named as Fascism actions. How ridiculous.)

I have been fed up with stupid Twitter comments, so I can't hold my thoughts back anymore. That's why this time my reply will be offensive for you. Your reply reminds me of those unreasonable comments, thus annoying me. Discussions on Twitter always begin with poisoning the well. If there is really a well, I had already been poinsoned to death. I agree to keep disagreement on these issues. We can't persuade each other and there is no need to persuade each other. Let it be.关云 (talk) 06:54, July 9, 2020 (UTC)

Guan Yun, I'm really disappointed that our discussion has taken such a turn, and I think your venting was uncalled for and there was no need to feel so offended. It seems that you extrapolated many implied meanings of my reply that were not there.

For example, I did not accuse you of being blind to the tyranny of the CCP, but asked you, quite earnestly in fact, if you would be able to recognize it if it occurred in the people you admire (whether that is the CCP, Mao, or anyone else). If you think you can, then you could have just said so, and I would have accepted your answer with all due respect. If you think you can, but don't think that this applies to the CCP, you could also have said so. In that case, I would have disagreed, but I would also have accepted that answer. I pointed out that I myself ask these questions of myself to try to let you know that I am asking in good faith, so there was really no need to rage. You are welcome to test me with the same question if that would make you feel more reassured.

The reason why I asked this question is because it speaks to the principles of self-fallibility and humility. We must always be prepared to question the side we support and also ourselves as a check against our biases and to recognize when our own side commits crimes. No, I did not learn this principle exclusively from Assassin's Creed, but I have to be honest that your extreme reaction shows that this is a lesson you have yet to learn yourself.

My perspective of Mao wasn't meant as an insult. I was only sharing my perspective, just as you shared yours. Just as I did not rage at you when you shared your perspective, I did also expect that you would have the maturity not to rage at me for my perspective. It was not my intention to try to convince you to agree with me or to tell you that you were wrong, so as I said, I am not going to go further into a debate about China's industrialization. I will only clarify that you are right that industrialization is never deterministic but that was not my meaning by "natural outcome".

Some of the things that you extrapolated is that I am ignorant of the Palmer Raids, the White Terror in Taiwan, the Great Purge in USSR, and Japanese atrocities. This is a gross, appalling, and erroneous assumption. Just because I criticize Mao and the CCP's atrocities, it does not mean that I am also not critical of the rest of these, but they were not the topic at hand. I did not excuse the atrocity of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, so I am not blindly supportive of the USA. I do not excuse the fact that the Europeans killed off 90% of the indigenous American population. I recognize that the KMT also were a brutal dictatorship, and like you, I am absolutely, absolutely disgusted whenever I go back and read about what Britain did to China and the injustice of the Opium Wars. That last reference I think speaks to the popular misconceptions about Hong Kong people I had hoped to clear up with you because in fact, most Hong Kong people who hate the CCP also oppose British colonialism and can acknowledge that dark history.

And no, I do not find your response offensive at all. I am only disappointed and also surprised because you were being open-minded up until that point. If I sounded harsh at any point in this reply, it is not because I am angry because I am not, but we are both adults here and experienced editors of this wiki, and I expect appropriate behavior on the talk pages in response to disagreements. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 08:46, July 9, 2020 (UTC)

I lost my temper in my last reply. I apologize for that. And thank you let me know you are against any kind of oppression in any country at any time.

You are not the first one I met who criticize Mao and CCP, those I had seen in Twitter, Weibo and real life behaved more harshly. Your continual accussation on industrilization and Tibet issue just make me feel that you are same as them, harsh, but unreasonable. Since you have explained your viewpoint, I have to admit that I extrapolated your opinions.

Because of that, I lost my temper at the second I thought you accuse CCP and PRC government of crimes without understanding China Mainland. But after all things you described as crimes CCP, PLA or PRC government had done. I just can't tell it apart from unreasonable accusation. After you say I extrapolated your opinions and perspectives, I begin to doubt that whether I really had read your accusation and critism.

And you should know, criticizing and self-criticizing are what every member of CCP needs to do. Your continuous questions in addition to your viewpoint really emphased a image that you didn't think our people(I have to admit that I am a pre-member of CCP) are able to own the ability to recognize what is wrong, from my viewpoints. We CAN recognize what is wrong, and we should recognize what is wrong all the time in order to correct them. You may not mean that, but it is posed as you mean that. Continous questions are not so friendly since we are not on the same side.

After all the contribution that Mao and CCP had achieved and the freedom I enjoy as a China Mainlander, I...I really can't tell if your accusation of PRC government and CCP apply atrocities to China Mainland can be considered as the insult towards CCP. And I'd rather your use of authorianism, at least it is a Political concept that fits the system of China Mainland now. I don't know if you understand that how the feel is when you are working on something and someone tells you that you has done nothing but destroying it. We are constructing our democracy system and ideal, we are trying to make China Mainland a more free place.

You are disappointed with me for I losing my temper. It should be like that. But people who enjoy the freedom provided by CCP(but you will not agree with they have the freedom), when they hear the accusation or even insults, who will mind their disappointment after so much efforts had been paid in introducing China Mainland and establishing friendship?

When you think CCP applying atrocities, will it be a prejudice out of the common sense of Hongkong society or Western thinking-syle, just like my misconception about Hongkongers welcoming western countries at the same time of hating CCP? I live freely, repeated viewpoints about PRC or CCP dictatorship are also disgusted.

You didn't lose your temper, but I did. You are a nice person. I am not. Sorry for all that extreme reaction as a normal people who is really easy to lose temper. Maybe I am even not qualified to talk with you for I haven't master the appropriate behaviors when facing things can be considered as insult. Sorry for that.关云 (talk) 10:27, July 9, 2020 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that I showed our conversation to my younger brother, and he said you were "so wholesome" in your last reply. :) It means that he was impressed and touched by your nice apology even if our exchange had some bumps along the way. I agree with him. It's no hard feelings at all as long as we are on the same page now. Anyway, I initially drafted some things about the Hong Kong side of things, but it's too long. So instead of sharing that, I just wanted to let you know that if you ever have any questions for me in turn, whether about Hong Kong, my philosophical or political views, our work on the English wiki, feel free to ask. Also pardon me for the late reply. It has become a bad habit of mine recently. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 06:55, August 3, 2020 (UTC)

Templar symbol on Chinese wiki

This has actually bothered me for a long time, and it actually gave me the wrong impression about the Chinese wiki. Did you know that on the Chinese wiki, the website icon that shows up in the tab (I don't know what's the technical term for it) is a Templar cross? Why is that? I know since I'm not an editor over there, it's not really my place to ask, but if you guys don't like Templars, would you be able to change it? Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 07:01, August 3, 2020 (UTC)

Please don't extrapolate any implied meaning of the Templar Cross icon that was not existed.

It usually happens when we need an iconic icon. People who decided to use the icon have been away for a really long period, and people who have found out the truth all make it by themselves. Details are hard to find. Asking me is useless, I can't explain it. It's none of my business. Without people who made the deicision explaining, you may figure out the true meaning of the icon, or you will never know it. When you think you know it, you may not know it. When you think you don't know it, you may know it. At least in common sense, without being told the truth or any clue to investigate, how can you know it.

By the way, I (and my fellow editors) have no access to change the icon.

And after all, nothing is real, everything is permitted.关云 (talk) 09:38, August 3, 2020 (UTC)

No worries. I was just double-checking. I know not to take it as meaning anything now. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 01:02, August 4, 2020 (UTC)

BtS of "Mao Zedong" on the Chinese Wiki

Hello again Guan Yun, it was brought to my attention a few months back that you edited the〈幕後故事〉 section of the Chinese Wiki's version of "Mao Zedong" to describe the dispute over whether Mao Zedong was a Templar puppet or not. Specifically this bullet point:

英文維基中原本表示他是「聖殿騎士的傀儡」，但這個說法沒有引用任何信息來源加以支持。一方面，英文維基對於「傀儡（puppet）」一詞的定義十分寬泛，並不能說明他知道聖殿騎士組織的存在，更不意味着他受到了聖殿騎士的操縱或是與聖殿騎士間存在合作關係。另一方面，這一說法據英文維基編輯表示來自於一場沒有文字記錄也沒有錄像更沒有對外公開的談話，最後因為無法找到可以引用的可靠來源加以證實，已經刪除。

The editors on our end were displeased with this addition. While I can understand that it may be important to clarify whether or not Mao Zedong is a Templar in the lore, we question whether it is necessary to document for posterity an editing dispute within the wiki as this is not common practice in our articles. I think it is only needed if you are really still worried that fans could still mistake Mao Zedong for a Templar even when he is no longer described as such in either of our articles, but we don't believe that that would be the case.

Additionally to this, we take issue with the subtle leaning of the way this was written, especially with that last sentence, part of which has even been bolded: 「另一方面，這一說法據英文維基編輯表示來自於一場沒有文字記錄也沒有錄像更沒有對外公開的談話，最後因為無法找到可以引用的可靠來源加以證實，已經刪除」. Now, it has not escaped my notice that the statement is technically, factually correct for the most part because I can recognize that you did not write that we 「找不到來源」('could not find a source'), which would have been wrong. Instead, you wrote 「無法找到可以引用的可靠來源」('no way of finding a citable, reliable source), which is indeed more appropriate. We agreed with you on our end that an off-record interview is not a reliable source although based on academic standards, interviews are technically citable. Citable and reliable are two different things, as a citable source can entirely be unreliable. Whether or not the interview is citable or not is a question I will leave behind, as that is not the issue we have with that statement.

Rather, even though I recognize that the statement you wrote on this matter is technically true for the most part, the underlying diction (i.e. word choice), the presentation of this account, and conscious omission of exact details tells a particular narrative and paints that dispute in a misleading light. For instance, you called it 「談話」 rather than 「訪問」, implying it was a mere chat rather than an interview and also did not mention what parties were involved, i.e. our former head administrator with Jeffrey Yohalem who wrote the glyphs. Hence, it comes across as one-sided to us, used to present the impression that we carelessly and disingenuously added unverified information rather than disagreement on our end about whether an off-record interview with the primary source can be submitted as evidence. The distinction here may be subtle, but it is significant in terms of rendering a neutral and objective account of the matter.

We maintain that we do not disagree with you that the interview is unreliable due to being off-record. Even Master Sima Yi, who conducted that interview, has insisted that it not be mentioned ever again. However, our editors all suspect that your inclusion of this dispute on the Mao Zedong page is in bad faith. The wording and tone aside, we simply believe strongly that wiki activities are not noteworthy trivia points unless it is absolutely necessary to clarify confusion in lore. But even if there is such a necessity, the focus of the trivia point you wrote is not on the confusion of Mao Zedong's affiliation but on your dispute with our wiki.

As a result, we would like to request that you remove that trivia point from your wiki for the sake of professionalism. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 17:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I recommend you to learn Chinese by yourself or use DeepL instead of Google translation. I can tell at least your understanding of my words is one of the worst among you English wiki editors. Take the phrase "谈话" as an example, it means more than merely chats. You just don't know it includes the meaning of interview. What are you doing? Questioning a Chinese native speaker if he speaks Chinese correctly? I just hope you have not tried to comprehend the words translated by google. Google translation sucks.

You had repeated the phrase "off-record" for many times, I really doubt if you really know what a reference should be. Since it is uncitable, how can you prove its existence? Since you can't prove its existence, how can you prove it's reliable? A citable resource can be unreliable, then how can a uncitable resource be reliable? You doubt my professionalism, now it's my turn to doubt yours. If you just decide to define an off-record interview as a reliable resource, then show me how can it be reliable please, you professional editors.

And I remember I left that part to "Behind the scenes" section instead of "Trivia" (in which you editors used to record details and facts of the real world by repeating "in real history", "in fact" for thousands of times). So I had already said it's something outside the AC Universe. You English Wiki editors did consider Mao as a Templar, you English Wiki editors did never provide with any reference while repeating and emphasizing it was an off-record interview and we Chinese Wiki editors did disagree with your opinion and statement. And the whole dispute is about whether Mao was a Templar or not. Why can't I record it in the story behind the scenes? You created the confusion for most Chinese AC fans, now I clarify it, then I will be a unprofessional editor in bad faith? You caused a issue on the historical figure leading to our dispute, now you request I to delete the record of our dispute. Don't you think it is ridiculous? Are you really show any respect to Chinese Wiki editors or AC fans?

As a conclusion, your request will be denied. And don't remember to figure out Ubisoft never spell Theodford in the way it should be, using the pennyweight at a time when it hadn't appeared. Cling to it, enjoy it. I believe you will create a complete correct Wiki loyal to Ubisoft in good faith.

最後，要我說，Sol Pacificus，您之前自稱是香港人，那麼何苦要用英語和我對話？無論政治立場如何，如果您在與中國人對話時下意識使用了英語，您真的會是一個能夠流利使用中文的人嗎？該不會說，您覺得自己連中文都不會，還能了解中國人和中國文化吧？不會吧不會吧？您是不是對中國對外文化傳播的現況給予了太高的估計，覺得已經到了不需要學會中文就可以了解中國文化與現況的地步？還是覺得用中文很不尊重其他英語用戶？不會真的有英語用戶閒得無聊到我這麼個不起眼小人物的討論頁來旁觀我們的爭論吧？（再者中國人和中國人對話用中文不是天經地義嗎？難道用法語？）說句難聽點的話，不懂中國就不要插手做中國相關的內容，不然只會讓您看起來是個文盲，而不會是一個很懂中國的專業人士。（畢竟連台灣正體和港澳繁體把AC稱呼為刺客教條都不知道，硬生生給王朝這部漫畫捏造出一個官方從來沒有公佈過的繁體中文名出來，真的很專業。）這次的回復只讓我明白一件事，您之前還怪我在您的說法上添油加醋進行反駁，現在看來您幾位也不相上下，我只是陳述事實，就可以被稱為有偏向性與錯誤思想，那可真是了不得，幾位想必只要會中文，一定能在文革中順風順水。

記住，從來沒有什麼事情只要有人說它確實發生過就能證明它真的發生過。並且，既然您都可以不相信中國近現代的歷史記載，不相信我可以找到出處的辯解，那我為什麼要相信您和 Master Sima Yi 再三強調的不便公開的採訪？特別還是世界觀設定這種創作者與記錄者應該認真對待的事情上？你們是覺得我有病，還是太寬容了？关云 (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

"Since you can't prove its existence, how can you prove it's reliable? A citable resource can be unreliable, then how can a uncitable resource be reliable? You doubt my professionalism, now it's my turn to doubt yours. If you just decide to define an off-record interview as a reliable resource, then show me how can it be reliable please, you professional editors."

First of all, allow me to get this out of the way that I have clearly been constantly saying that the off-record interview is not a reliable source, so your entire response is predicated on a miscomprehension.

The reason why I constantly converse with you in English not Chinese, even in regards to the past political discussion is for the sake of transparency. When I previously asked you to share your perspective on how Mao could be an Assassin, this was an intellectual exchange that many of the other editors on our team, who cannot read Chinese, were also interested in and had told me they were closely watching. In the same vein, this latest matter was of grave concern to the other staff as well; we held community discussions regarding it. We are approaching this as a community, and it would not do for them to not be able to read our correspondence on this matter.

Guan Yun, I think it is a given that you are not showing the same degree of respect, consideration, and patience that I have rigorously shown you. When this matter was brought up to me, we had members on our staff who fervently saw your edit as a display of petty spite, not a good faith contribution to your wiki's article. These included editors who steadfastly agreed with you and me to remove all mention of Mao Zedong as a Templar and even disapproved of a behind the scenes mention in our own article regarding that conversation. For you to go behind our back in turn after we acknowledged and respected your own discomfort with us even so much as mentioning it in our behind the scenes section is deeply hypocritical.

I could have immediately leapt back onto your talk page to accuse you of maliciously trying to discredit another wiki out of an insecure grudge over a resolved issue, but I refrained from doing so. Instead, I left room in my heart for the possibility that this was a careless if tactless addition to a previous edit, of which the consequence and message you had not anticipated. Because of this, notice that in sending this request to you, I opened with questioning its necessity, expressing our own feelings and thoughts on the matter openly and honestly without attacking your person or background. The most I did was to mention that we have editors who suspect you of bad faith, which is the truth—they do suspect this—but I stopped short of being so presumptuous as to say that these suspicions are true, only that these suspicions exist, for it is important for us to be transparent about this. This is what it means to show etiquette and consideration for others. Please compare your response to my message to mine.

If you for whatever reason think that that addition to the article was truly necessary, and that you did not write it out of spite, you could have simply explained your reasoning to us without launching into such a rant with so many baseless accusations and charges on my background. I hope my response here is déjà vu because it is the same pattern from our previous discussion.

We do not deny that the dispute happened, but it is false for you to say that we "repeat[ed] and emphasi[zed] it was an off-record interview" and that "Chinese Wiki editors disagreed with [my] opinion and statement". From the very beginning, when you brought the matter forth to us, we investigated the source of the edit on your behalf and only shared with you what we found was the source behind the erroneous edit, before we promptly agreed to remove it. You only have to scroll up to the talk of your talk page to review our exchange. We were in agreement with you the entire time that the edit should not have remained—only undoing it initially while the investigation was pending—so your mischaracterization of this as though we emphatically defended an erroneous edit after we promptly helped address your concern is gravely belligerent and comes across as unprovoked malice.

As it is, it is entirely unprofessional to document wiki and editorial disputes on mainspace pages. This is not a practice on Wikipedia, on any encyclopedia, or in professional journalism because it would normally create a distraction from the actual content readers came to the article for. (It might be noteworthy to mention what the writer of those Assassin's Creed II glyphs clarified about his intent and message, but it would not be noteworthy to mention that several editors debated about it.) For you to break from this consistency on this particular affair, as though to cement it, engrave it upon stone, rather than allowing everyone to move on like with any other editorial discussion, there must be a reason you made this exception. I repeat that that reason, our wiki by and large suspects, is petty, emotionally-driven spite, not a desire to help your audience. I need to emphasize that your extreme, hostile tantrum only serves to prove rather than dispel this suspicion.

As an aside, I would like to clarify several other points. Interpretation of diction is subjective and can and will be disputed even among native speakers of the same language, so your allegation that I am not a native Chinese speaker was beyond exceptionally rude. 'Chat' or 'conversation', either one works and does not alter the point—I did not say that 談話 means only 'chat' like this is a 1:1 translation with English—because the point remains that your diction was vague and deliberately omitted notable details. If you felt it was so necessary to transparently document why the error was made, the account you rendered fails to do this. In any case, this was but one small example.

Regarding what amounts to a citable source, this misunderstanding between us stems from a common misconception of what a source is, conflating the word with 'verifiable sources' and 'reliable sources'. We often say that a source should be citable, verifiable, and reliable, which is certainly true, but I have noticed that this leads to a flawed practice among such editors of including information but not citing it because their source does not fulfill this criteria, then arguing that it is because their source—almost always Wikipedia—is not authoritative. This is wrong because the fact that their source was not authoritative or reliable doesn't change the reality of their source of information.

A source, by definition, is where an individual got their information, regardless of how reliable or verifiable it is. A principle of sourcing is transparency, so that others can judge and critique whether the information given is convincing or reliable. So in the aformentioned example with Wikipedia, what these users should do instead is not included information whose source they were uncomfortable with citing, or maintained that information but cited to the unreliable source, so that others can know that the source is not strong and judge the information may be unreliable.

When I say that an off-record interview is citable but not unreliable, this is all I mean. I am not calling it credible in the slightest, and that seems to be your misunderstanding because I also recognize that an off-record interview is not verifiable either. From my perspective, any source is citable because citing to a source is just the mere practice of being honest and transparent of where you obtained that information, so that others can judge the credibility of both the source and the editor. But that we can cite a source doesn't mean that others can verify if it is a factual or truthful source. It may be that the editor lied about the source they cited to, which I understand is your concern about the off-record interview. This is a fair concern. At the same time, even if the source is verifiable, like if one were to cite to Wikipedia, a site anyone can access to verify if the cited information actually exists on there, it may not be reliable. Very often, every one of us acquires information from hearsay, our social media feed, and/or a random article. The things we hear or articles we read may not all be accurate; it may even be fake news, but if we are asked to provide the source of our information, and that source happens to be just what we heard from a friend, then we are essentially citing our friend as the source, even if we cannot prove that we had that conversation with the friend or that the friend's word is reliable.

Sources that may be off-record are not all useless and insignificant. For example, if an eyewitness to a murder was not able to take footage of the murder, that eyewitness's account can still be cited and taken into account in the case files. That the eyewitness's experience is citable does not mean that it necessarily can be verified or that it is necessarily reliable because they could be lying, but it is still a source and part of investigative work is weighing the reliability of the sources we are given. We do not throw out a source just because it happens to be anecdotal; we investigate its reliability because they could still prove to be significant if they happen to be honest.

Back in college, I was allowed to cite lectures I attended for my papers. These lectures could not be recorded because that violates laws on intellectual property, but they were accepted because even if it cannot be verified if those lectures actually taught what I cite it as teaching, that does not change the reality that if I happen to include information provided to me in a lecture by a certified professor, that that is my source. It is for others to judge if my paper is credible because I included in the mix a few sources which could not be verified. Indeed, relying on lectures for a paper does not make a strong paper—I used them sparingly as supplementary sources—but if I happened to be drawing from something that I learned, I have to be honest about where I learned that from even if I cannot prove that is how I learned it. That again, is what sourcing really means.

When I have said before that an off-record interview is citable, you misunderstand that I am arguing against you that it should have been included in the main content even though I expressly cooperated with you in removing all references to Mao being a Templar puppet from our page. It appears that when you use the word citable, your meaning is an appropriate source that can be used for the wiki which is different from the literal way I am using the word (whether something can physically be cited or not). An off-record interview is citable only because it is a source, and any source becomes cited when someone refers to it as the source for their information. The interview with Jeffrey Yohalem is citable in this literal sense of the word, but it is not verifiable, so we have always agreed with you that it is not appropriate for the main content of the wiki.

Behind the scenes/trivia sections are for sharing noteworthy and significant information about the development of the subject or clarifying confusion and inconsistencies over lore. Whether or not this is appropriate in the "behind the scenes" section of an article depends on how significant the information is in alleviating confusion and weighing it against our discomfort at sharing information that cannot be verified. For example, I myself have questioned if it would be useful to inform our readers that Yohalem, the writer behind the glyphs, had given us an answer many years ago clarifying what he meant. We specifically decided against even mentioning this to our BtS section because we respected your perspective that the interview being unverifiable makes it hard to accept as even noteworthy information while even our former head administrator, Master Sima Yi, thinks exactly the same as you on this matter.

Finally, it is horrifically revolting and arrogant for you to constantly flaunt your own political convictions as though you speak for all 1.4 billion Chinese people under PRC rule, as though a diverse country with that many people can possibly be a monolith, as though there have never been other Chinese people apart from you and me who have views different from us. Why should I believe you over my own lived experiences, or the lived experiences of my friends and my family or my grandparents?

When I re-read your messages twice then three and four times, I feel even more offended. Because you did not attack just me or my team. Your very last comments were heinous transgressions against the humanity of all victims of the PRC regime, past and present. To allege that I do not understand China where our views differ because I can actually recognize and empathize with these victims, knowing many personally, is an implicit and odious assault against them. In this way, you are hurting the feelings of Chinese people. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 07:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Unacceptable Behavior

	"I learned what becomes of those who lift themselves above others..."
	Patience is a virtue that many of us do not spare lightly, and indeed, we have fairly rationed it, but it seems that we cannot come to an agreement. As a community, what the administration requires from its editors is not obedience, but cooperation. If you cannot offer that, then our ultimatum is such: cease and desist. This is your final warning. Our patience is at our limit. Arrivederci.

We do take into account your feedback on reliable sourcing, but there is a certain level of respect and decorum necessary to free speech and open discussion that isn't present in your recent treatment of our editors. I am issuing you a 3-month ban for violations of sections 1, 3, 4, and 7 of our community guidelines.

• 1. 'Behave normally' -- have respect for others, even when you disagree, and confine your arguments to the points at hand. This is a basic requirement for open dialog.
• 3. No real-world politics. No political party shall shape decisions made by this Wiki, as we represent the international community as a whole.
• 4. Keep your responses in English for transparency. Attempting to mask personal attacks on a user in another language is not going to work.
• 7. Ignorance of the rules is not a defense for violation -- we will not hear appeals based on ignorance of the above rules.

We do not tolerate ad-hominem attacks, and real-world politics will not dictate how this particular Wiki archives content from Ubisoft. Please take this time to become familiar with our guidelines and evaluate how we arrived here. DarkFeather ^{Raven's Nest}_{Raven's Hunt} 07:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)