I think it is important for us to have a thorough discussion regarding this because I have noticed inconsistent application of the names words proto-Assassin and proto-Templar ever since the release of Origins. This issue is especially relevant in this period before the release of Valhalla, and perhaps even after it has been released. My proposal is that Hidden Ones and the Order of the Ancients be referred to as Assassins and Templars respectively, not proto-Assassins and proto-Templars.
I understand that a lot of fans assume that the prefix proto- should simply refer to any organization before the names Assassin and Templar came into being, but I believe that this is incorrect. Proto-, from the way I have seen it used in other contexts, does not merely mean "before the name", it means before the group's very existence. Two organizations bearing two different names but having clear continuity with one another can still be the exact same organization.
Where do we draw the line?
Of course, we have to recognize that the beginning of an organization can be highly subjective. Take, for instance, the founding of a state. There are people who argue that a present-day country wasn't founded until its current constitution or form of government. By this reasoning, the current France was not founded until 1958, when the French Fifth Republic was established. Such a strict definition would be unacceptable to most people (as it should be) because it's inconvenient and any French person would find it perplexing to think their country didn't exist before 1958 even if it wasn't the same government. Others reel the date further back to the founding of the Kingdom of France. Wikipedia treats this as occurring with the crowning of Hugh Capet in 987, thereby establishing the Capetian dynasty. Still, people can debate that France already came into being with the Treaty of Verdun (843) that partitioned it from the division of the Carolingian Empire. This was when the countries that would become France and Germany first became distinct. But then why can't we say that France and Germany were founded together as the Carolingian Empire in 800 or as Francia, the Kingdom of the Franks, in 481?
I felt that this example was absolutely necessary to demonstrate that I understand how arbitrary the founding of a state or political organization can be. I also wish to make it very clear how arbitrary this truly is, and so it comes down to this question: where do we draw the line?
In-universe & mdern day Assassins' line
This question I believe can also be a way to reconcile the lore conflicts regarding when the Assassins and Templars were founded. Rather than it being a hard retcon, we can assume that modern day Assassins see their conflict as extending all the way back to Cain and Abel. That is where they draw the line: Templars began with the Cainists and Assassins began with either Abel or Adam and Eve. For this reason, I don't think that we need to treat the designation of Darius, Iltani, Wei Yu, etc. as Assassins prior to Origins as non-canonical. It's not a hard retcon, and unless Ubisoft explicitly tells us it is, it goes against sourcing policy to assume that it is a hard retcon. These forebearers themselves might not have identified themselves as Assassins, but apparently later Assassins retrospectively saw them as such. My proposal, however, is not to start calling these figures Assassins again. It is more convenient and factual to call them proto-Assassins, but we should also be mindful that it would not be entirely invalid to treat them as Assassins retrospectively.
(For example, the Babylonian Brotherhood, a canonically verified name, should not have been renamed as Iltani's Order, a conjectural name of our own invention, simply because of our assumptions based on implied retcon. Sourcing policy dictates that the canonical name, even if inaccurate, overrides the conjectural name, and it can be explained as the way the Assassins retrospectively calling it as such.)
Where we might draw the line
Back on topic, we can choose to draw the line at the two groups' reorganization into public forms in the Middle Ages, the Assassin state and the Crusading faction the Knights Templar. So all Assassins and Templars before them are "proto-". I disagree with this because I think the prefix proto- goes beyond a name change; it means before the group existed. But like with my France example, this also isn't necessarily wrong because it is all subjective. Maybe these reorganizations are significant enough that they basically became brand new organizations.
Ubisoft's line
Ultimately, it is not on us to decide where we draw the line but on Ubisoft. So where does Ubisoft draw the line? As far as I know, Ubisoft has never called Assassins between the founding of the Hidden Ones under Aya & Bayek and the reorganization under Hassan-i Sabbah "proto-Assassins". This includes the Scandinavian Assassins in Last Descendants. I have asked about this on the talk page of "Thorvald Hjaltason", and Maxattac told me that "proto-Assassin" and "proto-Templars" do not appear in the book (but neither do "Assassin" and "Templar" by the sound of it). So are the Hidden Ones Assassins?
I think the answer to this question is actually so simple. Ubisoft heavily marketed Origins as telling the story of the origins of the Assassins. This means that they have drawn the line there. As fans, we had made such a big deal about how this retcon dramatically reduced the Assassin–Templar conflict from time immemorial to just two thousand years. We were dismayed and confused that suddenly the Assassins were only founded in 47 BCE. When this retcon had settled, however, we started applying the proto- prefix to any Assassin or Templar before the High Middle Ages. By doing this carelessly, we have ironically scaled back the founding of the Assassins even further, all the way to the 11th century. Our use of the proto- prefix for Hidden Ones is incorrect because if the Hidden Ones are proto-Assassins, then this directly contradicts the very premise of Origins that Bayek founded the Assassins. I think by sourcing policy, the Hidden Ones are Assassins.
The danger
There's one other reason why throwing around the term proto-Assassin can be problematic. Long-time wiki editors understand the influence that our wiki can have on lore and canon. The Essential Guide has at times copied from our wiki (without citing our work). While there may be some among you who see this influence enthusiastically, it means that we have to be especially safe with our statements on lore. Our role as wiki editors is to document, not to determine canon unless we have no other choice but to favor one interpretation over another in the process of documentation. If we start throwing around the label "proto-Assassin" carelessly, we really could end up popularizing the idea the Assassins were not founded until the 11th century in contradiction to Origins, creating a double retcon. By the principle of safeness, I highly recommend using "Assassin" when in doubt. "Proto-Assassin" is inherently a firmer statement on the status of the group because it is more specific whereas "Assassin" has been used vaguely and retrospectively by modern day Assassins for their antecedents. Calling Wei Yu or Iltani an Assassin could be interpreted by our readers as an outdated or inaccurate description. Calling any Assassin before the 11th century a proto-Assassin signals that a definite interpretation has been made.
What about the Templars?
The Templars are more complicated. For organizational purposes, I would recommend that the Order of the Ancients, as parallels of the Hidden Ones, be treated as Templars not proto-Templars in the absence of any word from Ubisoft clarifying this. However, Cris seemed to have said many months back that the second edition of The Essential Guide calls the Order of the Ancients proto-Templars. We would need to verify if this is true.
tl;dr
In summary, my proposal includes all of the following points:
(a) we treat the Hidden Ones as Assassins not proto-Assassins
(b) we call any Assassin-group between the 1st century BCE founding of the Hidden Ones and the 11th century establishment of the Assassin state "Assassins" not proto-Assassins if we are not sure
(c) we verify if the Order of the Ancients are explicitly called "proto-Templars" in any source; if it is ambiguous, we will treat them as Templars, not proto-Templars, as a temporary solution
My reasons are as follows:
(a) Sourcing policy: Ubisoft has called Origins the game which tells the founding of the Assassins; ∴ Hidden Ones are Assassins
(b) Sourcing policy: Assassins in the period from the Hidden Ones to the Assassin state have never been called "proto-Assassin" in any source so far; Templars in the period from the OotA to the Crusades have never been called "proto-Templar" in any source so far AFAIK
(c) Sourcing policy: we know that the terms "Assassins" and "Templars" have been used retrospectively by modern-day Assassins & Templars for their antecedents even when they may not have identified themselves as such. This has not been hard retconned; ∴ we have leeway to do the same when we are uncertain if an individual is "proto-" or not.
(d) Definition: In my experience with the prefix proto-, it doesn't simply refer to the organization as a different name, but a different group or individual before the organization or the ideology even existed, often unrelated and if related, distinctly a predecessor without clear continuity (e.g. "proto-feminist" for an ancient person like Euripides, "proto-socialist" for the Sassanian reformer Mazdak, "proto-liberal" for Han dynasty Taoists, "proto-Mongol" for the Xianbei). It is implied that there is clear continuity between the Hidden Ones and the Assassins as one organization.
(e) The danger: Using "proto-Assassin" and "proto-Templar" is the less safe option and can lead to us popularizing the idea that the Assassins were not founded until the 11th century, effectively retconning even Origins, because we are violating sourcing policy.