User talk:Piedpiper100

Welcome to the Order, Piedpiper100!

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^(Cyfiero) 19:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

"Brahmastra" dispute

Hello Piedpiper100, a couple of weeks back, our staff noticed that you had an editing dispute with Darman at the article "India" regarding a reference to the Brahmastra. I waited a little while to intervene because I wanted to observe how you two can handle it yourselves. In the meantime, we reviewed the glyph and the disputed information, and we determined that there is no reference to Jodhpur or Brahmastra, so you were correct on that. Even though the dispute seems to have already been resolved, I feel the need to leave a comment about it because you were at one point told that:

"Original research, such as the many Wikipedia links here, is allowed as needed or at editor's discretion per Sourcing policy."

Since you appear to be a new editor, we do not want you to be misled about our policies. This above statement is entirely false. Original research is not allowed, which is why our sourcing policy has a section titled "no original research". There seems to be a little confusion since our wiki does allow the use of sources external to Assassin's Creed to supplement our content.

For instance, we can cite to scholarly texts or even Wikipedia if need be for basic facts like dates. The reason why we permit this is that sometimes exclusive reliance on Assassin's Creed sources leaves awkward gaps due to the writers of Assassin's Creed assuming some basic knowledge of historical events or real-world locations. However, using external sources is not the same as original research; for all intents and purposes, the policy against original research remains in that speculation, original analysis and theory, etc. are not allowed. The only difference is that we treat sources outside Assassin's Creed as valid sources as well when it comes to factual information. Of course, this also should be used sparingly and only when necessary to convey needed context Assassin's Creed sources does not cover adequately.

For this case regarding the idea that there is a connection between the irradiation of an ancient city in Rajasthan by a Piece of Eden and the legend of the Brahmastra, we do not see how external sources can tell us that the Piece of Eden was the Brahmastra. This is a connection that requires a leap in deduction that would be speculation. External sources can tell us that there is a legend of the Brahmastra, but this does not mean that the Ubisoft writers had intended the Piece of Eden behind the destruction of this ancient city to be the Brahmastra. Of course, it is possible that Darman had more evidence on hand to substantiate such a connection, but when reviewing, we were not able to find any such evidence ourselves.

Anyway, thank you for your contribution, and we hope you were not too confused about our policies. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 19:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)