Talk:Assassin leader

This is the discussion page for Assassin leader. Here, you may discuss improving the article. 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

Fang Xiaoru

Shouldn't Fang Xioaru be here?Killeras 11:12, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he should, my bad. Adding him now. -- Master Sima Yi 11:37, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, also I think Ishak Pasha should be here too, as an Assassin leader. I would add him myself but I'm afarid I don't really know how, and might screw up again if I try.

Grand Master

I remember some time ago when we got clarification on what exactly the rank of "Mentor" was that we deleted the "Grand Master of the Assassin Order" article and moved the "Grand Master of the Templar Order" article to Grand Master. That's all well and good but I think we should still include the title of "Grand Master" on this article in the lead paragraph (maybe with a {{youmay}} at the top). Mainly, this is because Mario Auditore's database entry in Brotherhood quite clearly labels him as 'Grand Master' of the Italian Assassins up until his death.

I'll try and get an exact quote later today; but opinions? --Jasca Ducato _{Council Chamber} ^{Assassination record} 14:23, March 11, 2013 (UTC)

Mario's database entry in Brotherhood doesn't label him as Master of anything. Just noble, mercenary and "a born leader." Sadelyrate (talk) 14:53, March 11, 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, it must not be his entry, but one that mentions him. Regardles, the fact remains he is referred to as Grand Master of the Italian Assassins at least once. --Jasca Ducato _{Council Chamber} ^{Assassination record} 16:24, March 11, 2013 (UTC)

He is referred to as such in the Brotherhood novel. I spoke with Darby McDevitt about this some time ago, and he mentioned that the title of the Assassins' leader was initially Grand Master but was changed to Mentor some time before Revelations was released - I think to differentiate the names of the Assassins' and Templars' leader. Thus, it is a retcon. I would agree with making a mention of this as a trivia point, but not in the lead section where the canon stuff goes. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 16:30, March 11, 2013 (UTC)

I was just about to edit my post when I remembered it came from the novel. Whilst I agree that it has been retconned out in favour of the title 'Mentor', it was still referred to quite a few times in canon, so the title does technically exist in canon. Perhaps a simple "The position of Assassin leader, sometime referred to as Grand Master was given to any member of the Assassin Order who had received leadership over a branch of Assassins." That is all it would need (and perhaps a mention on Mario's article, as he is the one in question.) --Jasca Ducato _{Council Chamber} ^{Assassination record} 16:41, March 11, 2013 (UTC)

A retcon is an alteration of previously established facts, not the introduction of a new one. In the latest version of the AC canon, no such thing as a Grand Master of Assassins exists, thus it would serve no purpose in a canon paragraph. I stand by my point of putting it in the trivia section. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 16:45, March 11, 2013 (UTC)

Retconning something does not remove the original from the continuity, it simple retroactively changes it; the fact that Mario is referred to as Grand Master won't change, it is the fact that the Assassin leaders are no longer known as such that has been retconned. I would also say that whilst the rank of 'Grand Master' is explicitly stated in canon material, "Assassin leader" is a somewhat conjectural title we developed to refer to Assassin's with a seemingly higher level of authority (e.g. Machiavelli) whilst not having been refered to as Mentor or GM. I'm not suggesting we change the article name (for the same reasons the article was originally deleted), but it's all things we should consider. I have no issue with it being placed in the trivia section so long as it receives sufficient acknowledgement to that fact.--Jasca Ducato _{Council Chamber} ^{Assassination record} 16:51, March 11, 2013 (UTC)

It removes the original from continuity by changing it to a new version, whilst the original medium is not re-released to display this updated version. Mario is referred to as Grand Master in canon material previously, but that does not indicate that the title of Grand Master still exists in canon. And canon is what we display in our articles. My opinion remains the same. Also, the actual title would be "leader", but since there are also Templar leaders this is the version to go by. "Assassin leader" is also a term explicitly mentioned in ACR's multiplayer: "I have an announcement to make. We now know where the Assassin leader, William M., is located." -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 16:57, March 11, 2013 (UTC)

It's a minor point, so I guess we should just agree to disagree on that. Do you have a proposed wording for the trivia point? I would suggest it feature on both this article and Mario Auditore, as he is the individual in question. --Jasca Ducato _{Council Chamber} ^{Assassination record} 17:07, March 11, 2013 (UTC)

Al Mualim is also referred to as being a Grand Master, and so is Altaïr in ACR - admittedly at Darby's error. I don't think it would be really relevant to mention it on all their pages, so I think it'd be better to just mention it on the Assassin leader page and the Mentor page. As for the proposed wording, I'll let you decide. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 17:23, March 11, 2013 (UTC)

How about this:

"Early in the series, the title of 'Grand Master' was used interchangeably and with some confusion, with the title of 'Mentor', with at least two Assassin Leaders – Mario Auditore and Rashid ad-Din Sinan – both being addressed as such. To avoid apparent confusion with the identically named title in the Templar Order, subsequent releases neglected to use the term in favour of 'Mentor' and 'Master Assassin', effectively retconning the title out of canon."

―Proposed.

If you have a record of your discussion with Darby referenced above, that would be handy to include as a source. Also, I have just noticed that the title of this page is list "Assassin leader (lower case 'L'); if we're treating this as a title we should probably capitalise the second word, or otherwise place a conjecture tag at the top of the page. AFAIK the only time the term "Assassin leader" has actually been used is in regards to the Den Defense units from Revelations. --Jasca Ducato _{Council Chamber} ^{Assassination record} 10:27, March 12, 2013 (UTC)

"Assassin leader" title was used at least a couple of times in the Secret Crusade, in reference to Al-Mualim. Sadelyrate (talk) 11:22, March 12, 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the fact that it is uncapitalised suggests it is a description, not a title. A bit like calling your boss "the big man", it wouldn't necessarily make that his official title. --Jasca Ducato _{Council Chamber} ^{Assassination record} 11:32, March 12, 2013 (UTC)

Having the l in capital letters would be more conjecture than it already is, and not based on in-universe sources. I already posted a quote up top that refers to it as "Assassin leader". And yes, that wording sounds good. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 18:31, March 12, 2013 (UTC)

Malik al'Sayf

Shouldn't be Malik is supposed to be here as he was a temporary leader in the absence of Altair before Abbas usurped power? -- AgentG231 (talk) 22:56, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. Make sure you use the term de facto though. Slate Vesper (talk) 00:02, October 25, 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't Connor also technically be a de facto leader of the Assassins? I know it hasn't officially been confirmed, but wouldn't he technically be the de facto leader upon Achilles death? Toolen (talk) 21:27, December 19, 2013 (UTC)

Giovanni Auditore

Ezio's father led the brotherhood alongside MarioSpanish assassin (talk) 12:05, December 25, 2013 (UTC)

Mentor and Assassin leader

Okay, so what's the difference between a Mentor and an Assassin leader again? Because I tried looking for some clarification in both articles but I couldn't find one. (I might have overlooked it.) - Zero-ELEC (talk) 01:03, November 23, 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, Mentor is a title bestowed upon a particularly wise Assassin leader who has passed on much of their knowledge to students. While I don't know if a Mentor outranks a Leader, they certainly receive more respect, judging from Yusuf's interactions with Ezio. --Crimson Knight _Intercom 01:07, November 23, 2014 (UTC)

Mistake

I think that this was a mistake from a time when the ranks of the Assassins were less clear. "Assassin leader" isn't an actual rank. There's no rank with that title. Just looking at the section just above this, "Mentor" is not a special title granted to someone in lieu of their wisdom per se, it is the rank and title of an Assassin leading a branch. I think a lot of people previously got confused about "Assassin leader" being a title given it was used in reference to Al Mualim or William Miles, but this is just a description, not a rank in itself. William Miles is one of the leaders of the Assassins, hence why he is called an Assassin leader. Al Mualim's title is "the Mentor" but since the common name we know him by is just "the Mentor" in Arabic, he's commonly described as an "Assassin leader". But "Assassin leader" is not a rank nor is it a title in and of itself. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 20:38, March 30, 2017 (UTC)

There is no confusion, aside from that created in the games. This article was created because Revelations convolutes the whole Mentor-leader thing. Yusuf Tazim was the leader of the Ottoman Assassins, but he was not a Mentor. Mentor is not a title granted to anyone leader a branch, as Revelations clearly specifies. As such, people who are not directly called Mentor but are stated to lead a branch, should not be stated to be a Mentor, as this is speculation. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 16:16, October 10, 2017 (UTC)

More leaders?

Does Boris Pash count as a leader or is the Bloodstone Unit only considered a cell rather than guild? What about Jack the Ripper's radical sect? Or Robert Fitzwalter's group during the 2nd Barons' War? Lacrossedeamon (talk) 08:19, October 15, 2019 (UTC)

French council as leaders?

Is there any reason all of them are included and not just Mirabeau and then Trenet? Lacrossedeamon (talk) 07:21, October 31, 2019 (UTC)

From what I understand, the term "Assassin leader" as a title and not just a descriptor, is our own invention and hence which high-ranking Assassin in a leadership position qualifies for this "title" is entirely subject to our own interpretations. I understand though that the intention behind this page's creation was to designate "Mentors" who we are not entirely sure actually held that title, so if that were the case, then the definition of an Assassin leader would be precisely that: "Mentors who we, as wiki editors, are not sure have been Mentors". For clear reasons, I still remain opposed to this page even standing since it misleads our audience into thinking "Assassin leader" is in itself a canonical and official title. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 07:34, October 31, 2019 (UTC)

I guess this just goes back to Ubisoft needing to publish more info on the actual hierarchy. I feel the article is still valid as there are Assassins who were in charge of branches that weren't considered Mentors which I believe was to be reserved for top of top leaders. However it does seems Ubisoft have been moving away from that. Maybe we should add the conjecture banner to address your concerns. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 09:17, October 31, 2019 (UTC)

Assassins being in charge of branches without being Mentors exists, but "Assassin leader" being an official, formal position and title for this role does not. By having an article on this, it suggests that it is, in fact, an official position. "Assassin leader" is a leader who is an Assassin or an Assassin who leads, it is not an actual title. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 10:20, October 31, 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we ever describe it as a title though. But as I said the conjecture banner should help clear that up for others that might be reading too much into it.

Edit: I see this comment was about 2 minutes late. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 10:28, October 31, 2019 (UTC)

The mere fact that we have a page on this implies to readers that "Assassin leader" is an actual title and position because if we took the term "Assassin leader" as just a descriptor for an Assassin who leads, it won't merit an article. Any Assassin can perform the action of leading. The article before I changed it just now did state in its very lede that it is a "position" which, without the conjectural name tag, would necessarily imply that it is concurrently a title since offices/positions are very often also titles (e.g. president, King, general, Mentor, etc.).

I actually had missed your last line before suggesting that we mark the title as conjectural. Coincidentally, I had the same thought just now, but I want to clarify that the various directions we can take with this article.

One is that we recognize that this article deals specifically with Assassins who head branches but who are not Mentors, as Sima has told me before was his intention with this article. In doing so, we must be aware that the canonical title of this position, if it exists as an actual position, is unknown. Hence, the position exists—perhaps informally—but our treating "Assassin leader" as its rank & position title (rather than as a qualified noun for Assassins who leads) is our own invention. In this case, the conjectural name header is needed.

Another option is that we treat this article as referring to Assassins who are in any leadership role, which seems to be its current content. In which case, I think this article should be deleted because essentially, any time an Assassin happens to lead, they become an Assassin leader. It is not an actual position or rank, but an adjective + noun. We might as well then have a page for an "Assassin thief" for any Assassin who commits the act of theft.

Or perhaps this article should be about Assassins who head branches whether they are Mentors or not. In this case, I don't think it's necessary to have an article on this. We can just have an article on Mentor, and if there are any Assassins who head a branch but has not been confirmed to have been a Mentor, we just describe them as such in relevant pages. We don't need a page for the generalized concept in my opinion.

Finally, we can recognize that this specific conceptualization of "Assassin who heads a branch but is not a Mentor" is our own creation. This is not to say that there aren't Assassins in the lore who lead branches but are not Mentors, but the conceptuaiization of this as a coherently defined role is our own creation for our own fan convenience. The fact that we do not know precisely what this article should be describing is indicative of this. "Assassin leader" as a strictly defined position is in itself not canonical. It is the result of individuals misreading what is a qualifies noun (I honestly really do not know the technical grammatical term for this) in Assassin's Creed: Encyclopedia as a title for a position or the name of a position, when in fact, it was used in the sense of a "leading Assassin" or an "Assassin who leads" and was never meant to be taken as a title. If we can recognize this then, the article should be deleted. It may be convenient for us, but it the very concept of it as something formally defined is our own conjecture, and not just the name. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 11:00, October 31, 2019 (UTC)

I feel the article should be a mixture of both points 1 and 3. 2 I feel isn't what the article is and for that reason we should remove Adriano as we don't include any other cell leaders. 4 to me is also false because it's clear that while we don't have an official name for the role the leadership role does exist. My issue with 1 is that I feel if we have this article it should include mentors because I don't feel the terms are mutually exclusive, it's a squares are rectangles issue to me. Hence why I say a mix of 1 and 2. While I think that most of this article is covered by its related category page I prefer the compartmentalization and visualization provided by this page. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 02:15, November 1, 2019 (UTC)

I was kind of being rhetorical with those four options to illustrate why the article never made too much sense to begin with. The mere fact that we ourselves are deciding what direction it should be shows that we're relying on our subjective interpretation of lore rather than documenting it as it has been laid out to us in canon. That being the case, where is your source that this leadership position exists? How do you we know that there is actually such an exact, formal position like this?

I should also point out that, if you scroll up in this talk page, there has already been at least one contributor who mistook "Assassin leader" as an actual rank in the hierarchy, even though this "rank" was again, our own original creation in this wiki. This is by far not the only case, and it is my overriding concern.

With that having been said, I should point out that #4 is not false because part of the origins of this page does lie in the fact that there were contributors who misread "Assassin leader" as a term for a rank in Encyclopedia rather than as just a description. In this regard, #2 wasn't meant to be an actual option; I was presenting it as a rhetorical device. #2 is "Assassin leader" as it is used in the source this page mainly derives from. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 06:50, November 1, 2019 (UTC)

I don't think its subjective though. The fact that barring specific upheavals every single branch has had a leader is my source that the position exists. What is unknown is that position's exact name or if it even has one but I don't know how you can argue that it doesn't exist. You can say this is an inductive reasoning fallacy but I think it's valid.

I don't own the Encyclopedia so I can't judge how it was used. However this thread is the only place on the talk page where the Encyclopedia is brought up. I also don't see the confusion about rank other than Crimson Knights statement that a Mentor is more prestigious than the leader of branch who isn't considered one.

I feel your third point more accurately describes this article more than the second as otherwise Janice, Xavier, Galina, etc would all be included. And again your fourth point doesn't ring fully true either as the page was created by Sima who recognizes that its not an official canon name. 07:42, November 1, 2019 (UTC)

"The fact that barring specific upheavals every single branch has had a leader is my source that the position exists. What is unknown is that position's exact name or if it even has one but I don't know how you can argue that it doesn't exist."

As I've explained in earlier comments, the contention here isn't that there haven't been Assassins acting as heads of branches. It's whether or not "Assassin leader" is an official, formal position, putting aside that the name is conjectural, and that is what we need a source for. (EDIT: It is entirely possible for branches without Mentors to operate in a collective leadership structure where one Master Assassin, of the same rank as the others, just happens to have the most respect and authority due to charisma or the like.)

Crimson specifically referred to the question of whether or not "Mentor outranks Leader", with leader capitalized, suggesting a misunderstanding that it is rank and that the question is how it fits in the hierarchy with Mentor. This is not the only case where I have encountered this misconception. As for the fourth point, my notion that the creation of this article was partly reinforced by contributors' misinterpretation of "Assassin leader" as a term for a position rather than merely a description is derived from past conversations on Discord. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 07:57, November 1, 2019 (UTC)

"I feel your third point more accurately describes this article more than the second as otherwise Janice, Xavier, Galina, etc would all be included."

On this line, it sounds like you still misunderstand my raising of the second point in particular. Of course it does not describe the content of the article as it is which is moot anyways because the article has already received some confusing contradictory revisions and is not in a settled state; I was explaining the different ways that "Assassin leader" can be defined, with the second being how it has only ever been used in Ubisoft sources. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 08:02, November 1, 2019 (UTC)

After reviewing discussions on Discord regarding this, I realized that I had entirely forgotten that Sima had last said that he was open to merging Assassin leader with Mentor due to recent sources seeming to try hard to make them the same thing. I am undecided on this. There were also past talks with the Wikia Editor that I cited which sounded significant, but I have forgotten what was discussed. In any case, the lack of clarity on the definition and/or distinction of "Assassin leader" in canon, rather than how we would like to define it, is for me a central issue. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 08:34, November 1, 2019 (UTC)

Then we should rephrase the article to make it clear that it's an official or formal rank but is still a position that is held by an individual just held de facto rather than de jure at which point they seem to be considered Mentors.

"Another option is that we treat this article as referring to Assassins who are in any leadership role, which seems to be its current content."

This is the part of the second point I was contesting because if the current content of the article did reflect that statement then as I said Xavier, Janice, Galina, etc would be present. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 02:05, November 2, 2019 (UTC)

I have already made it clear several times that the four options I brought up weren't to question what definition the article reflects at the present moment but what definitions are possible, with the second being the probable one used in Ubisoft sources. What the current article states is not relevant. I'm not sure why you keep on restating your point without regard to my clarification. :-/ (EDIT: Just caught that you were referring specifically to the fact I wrote "which seems to be its current content". I'm not entirely sure why I added that in those exact words, but I believe I was referring to how the state of the page is constantly in flux, with indeed those Assassins you've mentioned occasionally being added to the page because people are confused as to who qualifies for this page or not. I should also point out that Sima called for those Assassins to be removed from the page not because they aren't Assassins who led, but because they led cells not guilds because there was confusion over whether cells are still branches or not.)

"Then we should rephrase the article to make it clear that it's an official or formal rank [...]." Did you mean to say that "Then we should rephrase the article to make it clear that it's not an official or formal rank nor a position?"

And we could, but that still doesn't change the fact that we ourselves are the ones deciding how to define "Assassin leader". This is why I brought up the four possible ways to define it. The fact that we are having this discussion about how it is defined shows that the definition and the concept has not been firmly established in canon. Even Sima had last said that perhaps it should be merged with "Mentor" since it is no longer clear if Ubisoft had intended a complete retcon over any head of a branch not being a Mentor. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 02:28, November 2, 2019 (UTC)

Yes I did mean "Then we should rephrase the article to make it clear that it's not an official or formal rank. Although I do feel it is still a position someone occupies or maybe role is a better description. And I disagree that we are the ones deciding how to define it. Unless you are referring to how we exclude the aforementioned cell leaders in which case the article's name should be changed to reflect that. I also disagree with the merger because their would be nothing to move over to the Mentor page all that would happen is that we lose the distinction that there were individuals who were in charge of branches that weren't Mentors. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 02:50, November 2, 2019 (UTC)

The point is that we actually aren't sure if canonically there really were still individuals who were in charge of branches who weren't Mentors or if this has been retconned. We're also not sure if, in the case where an individual who led a branch wasn't a Mentor, if it was actually the case that their rank was just a Master Assassin who shared equal power with other Master Assassins and just happened to be the most respected. In such a case, we then won't know if we should only include one individual or others alongside that individual who may have shared equal rank. We also aren't sure if we should be excluding cell leaders.

"And I disagree that we are the ones deciding how to define it." Yet here we are doing this even at this very moment. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 03:17, November 2, 2019 (UTC)

Ubisoft seems very reluctant to explicitly say they've retconned things but given that Yusuf is the classic example and this wasn't changed in Rebellion where he is described just as the leader while Ishak on the other hand is explicitly mentioned as a Mentor says to me it hasn't been fully retconned, at least not regarding Yusuf. All future branch leaders might be Mentor from now on to clear confusion but the fact that this isn't always the case is still valid. However renaming this article Assassin branch leader would clear up the cell leader confusion. And I disagree that's what we are doing. Ubisoft defined it when they made Yusuf the leader of the Ottoman assassins without making him a Mentor. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 03:51, November 2, 2019 (UTC)

According to what Sima reported from asking Darby about this matter, Yusuf's status as not a Mentor was written at a time when "Mentor" was not clearly defined by Ubisoft, and Darby himself has regrets about it. I agree that there should be explicit sources for a retcon, and I have often disagreed with Sima regarding presuming things being retcon based on our inference of Ubisoft's intentions rather than what is expressly given to us in sources (e.g. that the Babylonian Brotherhood is no longer a thing, not even as a retrospective name for Iltani's group given by later Assassins), but I think that we should not take Yusuf as such a strong supporting evidence of anything given Darby's own admission of confusion about it. Of course, Yusuf is still, as far as we know, not a Mentor, but before proceeding further, I think it is important that we take a step back from the idea that it is such a golden example because doing so would mean failing to recognize the origin of it lying in Ubisoft's own confusion over the matter.

Our development of this concept stems directly from trying to resolve Ubisoft's confusion, not because it was clearly articulated by Ubisoft. Take for example that this article has at times read that "Mentor" is an honorific given to certain Assassin branch leaders (such as Ezio) not that it is mutually exclusive from it. Disagreements over this on our part over the technical specifics of an Assassin branch leader is a result of us developing this concept on our own independent of canonical sources articulating this matter. We deduced the existence of this role based on Yusuf (rest his soul) while developing its technicalities on our own. We should be honest with ourselves, as a matter of principle, that based in certain canonical facts or not, the development of this concept and what it entails is our own.

Anyway, it's time I contribute to solutions to this. I haven't until now because it is my practice to try to bring out the full details of contrasting perspectives of something to have the most thorough understanding before jumping to solutions.

Although my ideal preference is for this page to be deleted or merged with "Mentor", since I am isolated in that stance (even if Sima might have changed his mind to the latter), of course I will not make a move to delete it.

• I like your idea of renaming it to "Assassin branch leader" for clarity though I'm still a bit apprehensive that it would invite confusion over the fact Mentors are also branch leaders. Nevertheless, it is a better alternative to just "Assassin leader".
• In addition to this, I would like us to be very strict with the inclusion of members to this page. They must clearly be heads of branches who we know for a fact weren't Mentors rather than simply heads of branches who we aren't sure of their status as Mentors. This also helps with clarifying the meaning of this article so that people know that it's not referring to just any ol' Assassin in a leadership role. Going back to your very original question, all members of the French Council at the time of the French Revolution should be removed. If this page specifically refers to Assassin heads of branches who were not Mentors, then none in the French Council qualifies since Mirabeau was a Mentor and the others were his subordinates.
• Based on the sources we have, cells do constitute branches as I think I've explained to you recently in another talk page. The cell system is just the form Assassin branches have devolved to because of their present day circumstances, but for example, the remaining cell in Japan is still called the Osaka Brotherhood. When there is a clear leader of a cell as the leader of that branch, they should be included. I think for the Osaka Brotherhood, this would be that elderly lady whose name I forgot... ._. But as in the previous point, we should be strict about this and not add individuals just because they were cell leaders. I think maybe it should be clear that that cell represents a branch as is the case with the Osaka cell for Japan.
• We should openly explain in the Trivia (or a Behind the Scenes) section the origin of this article lying in the confusion caused by Ubisoft's evolving definition of the rank of "Mentor".

Is this good? Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 04:42, November 2, 2019 (UTC)

Personally I feel excluding Mentors from the page would invite more confusion. It would imply that they are something different which to me implies some sort of hierarchy or ranking. As I said earlier it's like squares and rectangles; we include scimitars on the swords page even though we have a separate page for scimitars, don't we?

My reservation's about including all cell leaders however is knowing when they fall outside the jurisdiction of the "Worldwide leaders", at least post purge. Russia and Japan seem to do this but I'm not sure Layla's, Janice's, Adriano's, etc do.

On that note I think we should discuss individuals like La Volpe, Paola, Bartolomeo, etc who are Assassins and leaders of specific guilds affiliated with the Assassins but still fall under someone else's authority. I think it's an easy "no, they don't qualify" but I'd feel remiss to not bring them up. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 07:58, November 2, 2019 (UTC)