Do this and Grand Master of the Assassin's Order deserve their own articles? All important information already is on the main factions' pages. This seems kind of pointless to me. -- Master Sima Yi 13:10, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
- A precedent has been set by the Novice, Master Assassin and other rank/title articles. So I would say yes, unless you're challenging the other articles as well. --Jasca Ducato Council Chamber Assassination record 02:00, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not. Just leave it like this. -- Master Sima Yi 15:46, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
Branches
There are several branches of the Templars, as shown in AC II (Rodrigo Borgia - Leader of the Italian Templars). So it is possible that there was another Grand Master for, say, the English Templars. What would be the best way to mention this in the article? -- Master Sima Yi 15:46, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
- You're probably right that there are more branches, but I don't think I've seen any source of proof in the games of this. So if this is not mentioned in the game, then I would leave it out. - Altaïr 17:51, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
- Well, there's the fact that Jeanne d'Arc was burned by the Templars, probably English, and I doubt that the Templars would've gone to Italy right after that all of a sudden. And Rodrigo's database entry says "Leader of the Italian Templars". If there would've been just one branch, they wouldn't have needed to say "Italian Templars". -- Master Sima Yi 15:55, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that we can only speculate about the others. Likely it's the case that they were united under one Grand Master during the crusades, but split up under several branches afterwards. Maybe because they expanded. But that's all speculation, which we can't put it. Altaïr 18:06, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
- I know that. But there has to be something that confirms what I said in the game... -- Master Sima Yi 16:13, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
- Can't we just write something like, 'The database reveals that Rodrigo Borgia led the Italian Templars. So far it's unknown who led the other branches.' Altaïr 18:17, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
- Well, as you said, let's just leave it out since there's no real confirmation of there being more than one branch. I'll look for some kind of confirmation once I have my copy back. -- Master Sima Yi 16:19, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
Hey I wonder... Why were most Grand Masters in the Middle East french?Le Vulpe 23:10, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
Well it was mostly the English and the French who led the crusades I think --Altaïr 00:13, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
hey..wasn't cesare borgia become grandmaster of templar like his father???why no one's put his name and pics in the article?
- No, Cesare wasn't become grandmaster. Is it ever said he was? No. -- Master Sima Yi 09:06, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
- Nice mockery there.. :D --THIEF 09:27, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
- Well, Cesare killed Rodrigo, then he was arrested, then he escaped and went on the run before being killed. So I think it's pretty unlikely he ever became Grand Master. Subject One 20:24, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
- Nice mockery there.. :D --THIEF 09:27, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
- If he wasn't, I wouldn't have put it up there, now would I? I sourced it. It's said in the Brotherhood novel, where it says he went on to lead the Templars after Rodrigo's death. -- Master Sima Yi 20:30, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
Ahmet
Ahmet is a Grand Master. There is a Grand Master leading the Byzantine Templars, as evidenced in the memory "The Yerebatan Cistern". If you take a look at the Encyclopedia, specifically Manuel Palaiologos' section, it says "A younger and more charismatic man, Ahmet comfortably slipped into the role of leader," That, plus the fact that Ahmet was pulling the strings in the Ottoman Empire, putting Manuel Palaiologos in charge of the Masyaf expedition (source: memory "Escape"), makes Ahmet the leader of the Byzantine Templars; thus, the aforementioned "Grand Master". -- Master Sima Yi 20:07, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
- 2+2 =/= 4. Ahmet is called a leader, yes, but never the leader, and certainly not "the Grand Master". Yes, there is one particular cutscene wherein a Grand Master is mentioned, but a personal name is never given. --Jasca Ducato Council Chamber Assassination record 20:16, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
- Wrong. I just finsihed the game a hour ago, and Ezio specifically states that he is in charge of the Templars. I can't remeber the exact phrase, but Ezio says something in the means of "Ahmet is the guy in charge behind all this shit". Sima is right. -- D. Cello 20:19, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know if any world in which 2+2 is not equal to 4, but that might just be me. And no, he is not called "a leader", he is called "the leader". And yes, Ezio says that Ahmet is the "person leading the Templars here" in a letter to Claudia, right after the Cappadocia sequence. -- Master Sima Yi 20:20, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
- So. Doesn't mean he's the Grand Master. You forget, Cesare attacked Monteriggioni without his father, the Grand Master in Italy, giving him permission to do so. People are more than capable of acting above their station; and what I mean by "2+2 =/=4" is that just because we know something to be true, doesn't mean that's the case in this particular fictional universe. --Jasca Ducato Council Chamber Assassination record 20:22, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know if any world in which 2+2 is not equal to 4, but that might just be me. And no, he is not called "a leader", he is called "the leader". And yes, Ezio says that Ahmet is the "person leading the Templars here" in a letter to Claudia, right after the Cappadocia sequence. -- Master Sima Yi 20:20, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
- Jasca, there's NO one above him -- after he died, the Templars fell in dissaray. The operation in Masyaf collapsed, and Ezio didn't faced ANY intervention getting to the library. That clearly indicates that he WAS the higher ranked leader there -- without him, everything went to dust. And he was royal family and ready to be a sultan -- you really think he would be below someone taking orders? He was the Grand Master, even if it wasn't said with those exact words. -- D. Cello 20:25, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
- And you know that for a fact? Coz I'm pretty sure I played the exact same game and read the exact same encyclopedia as you, and not once is it mentioned that Ahmet is the highest ranking Templar in that particular area. So what if he's a Prince and heir apparent to the Sultanate. That has nothing to do with the hierarchy of the Templar Order. The fact that Ezio faced no "seen" intervention in getting to Masyaf after Ahmet's death is circumstantial; and I continue to maintain the key point in this issue, which neither of you have yet tried to dispute. Not once has the words "Grand Master" and "Ahmet" ever been mentioned together. --Jasca Ducato Council Chamber Assassination record 20:33, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
- Two things do not have to be said in the same sentence to know something is true Jasca. How can you not see all the points that have been made so far? Upon revising, it seems quite clear to me that we are the ones with stronger arguments. Nesty Contact me! 20:35, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
- And you know that for a fact? Coz I'm pretty sure I played the exact same game and read the exact same encyclopedia as you, and not once is it mentioned that Ahmet is the highest ranking Templar in that particular area. So what if he's a Prince and heir apparent to the Sultanate. That has nothing to do with the hierarchy of the Templar Order. The fact that Ezio faced no "seen" intervention in getting to Masyaf after Ahmet's death is circumstantial; and I continue to maintain the key point in this issue, which neither of you have yet tried to dispute. Not once has the words "Grand Master" and "Ahmet" ever been mentioned together. --Jasca Ducato Council Chamber Assassination record 20:33, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
- No, Nesty, both have strong arguments. Jasca claims that we don't have de facto confirmation that he is the GM since it was never explicitily said in the game, but Phil claims him to be GM because in the game during the Yerebatan Cistern, the Templars mentioned that the Grand Master wanted the Masyaf key and Ahmet was the one masterminding the Masyaf expedition. Phil simply connected two plus two, and Jasca thinks that just because it equals four, it isn't the only possible explanation -- he may also be just THE leader of that expedition. But I personally believe he IS the GM. -- D. Cello 20:44, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
- "Prince Ahmet - Suleiman's uncle - is the man leading Templars here. He is the mastermind behind the Masyaf expedition, and he will stop at nothing to retrieve the keys, all of which are now in Assassin hands." - "Ever since the Grand Master found that damned key. But he hasn't got a clue what he's doing. All he knows is they're somewhere in the city." Ahmet is the one leading the Byzantine Templars, and they are the ones who found the first key. Ahmet IS the Grand Master, there is nothing to even suggest that he is not. Templars were a widespread organization, and there were multiple Grand Masters. -- Master Sima Yi 20:47, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
- What argument? I don't see why you lot can't seem to understand this one simple fact: Ahmet is NEVER called "Grand Master", so he has no place in this article. It doesn't matter if Manuel and Shahkulu answered to him, or that after his death the Templars in that region fell into disarray, or that Ezio himself said he was leading the Templars in that region. He is never called Grand Master, not once; and until he is, as far as this wiki should be concerned, and according to our own sourcing policy (which require explicit mention of a fact for it to be worthy of entry into an article), he remains nothing more than an influential player in the Order; not its Grand Master? EDIT: Sima, where is it said that Ahmet was the one to find the first Key? As this is what your argument seems to hinge upon. --Jasca Ducato Council Chamber Assassination record 20:48, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
- "as far as this wiki should be concerned", you are not the wiki. We are all in it, and as long as this discussion is going, there are people who are concerned; therefore, why bother saying it? Shall we also remove Armand Bouchart from the Grand Master list, since he was just a "leader" and not a Grand Master? If Ahmet is not the Grand Master, you are saying the true Grand Master is someone who completely plays no role in the story, up to the point that he is not mentioned whatsoever? And "found the key" does not imply that he literally found it with his own hands, but it just as well means that it was found on his order. Seeing as Ahmet was the one who commandeered it, he was the one to find it, though not directly. Are you implying Leandros is the GM? -- Master Sima Yi 20:54, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see how anything I said could be construed as my claiming to "be" the wiki. Armand Bouchart is called GM in The Secret Crusade. Perhaps that is the case, we don't know because a name for the GM is never given. So now your saying that Ahmet didn't find the Key, he commandeered it? Because those two terms are not the same. Where does Leandros come into this? He's never, as far as we know, even seen the Key let alone been mentioned to have found it. --Jasca Ducato Council Chamber Assassination record 21:04, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
- "as far as this wiki should be concerned", you are not the wiki. We are all in it, and as long as this discussion is going, there are people who are concerned; therefore, why bother saying it? Shall we also remove Armand Bouchart from the Grand Master list, since he was just a "leader" and not a Grand Master? If Ahmet is not the Grand Master, you are saying the true Grand Master is someone who completely plays no role in the story, up to the point that he is not mentioned whatsoever? And "found the key" does not imply that he literally found it with his own hands, but it just as well means that it was found on his order. Seeing as Ahmet was the one who commandeered it, he was the one to find it, though not directly. Are you implying Leandros is the GM? -- Master Sima Yi 20:54, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
- Commandeered the finding of the key... You could've figured that out yourself. Hold on, the Gamescom trailer has confused me, I still have the alternate version of the first sequence in my head. My bad. -- Master Sima Yi 21:09, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
This discussion is getting useless. You claim that the rules say something needs to be "explicitily stated" to be added to an article, but we cannot abide by something that blinds us to what is real because it simply isn't stated precisely to be so. Ahmed is clearly built as to be the GM of Bizantine Templars, and regardless of someone actually calling him that in front of Ezio's face so we have recorded evidence, all the odds point towards him being GM than the contrary. 10 people on IRC agree that Ahmed being the highest ranking member AND in charge of the Masyaf operation, and is as such, by definition, the GM of those Templars.
We are a community, and as such, most have decided he is to be classified as GM, regardless of those exact words ever being uttered or not on screen. I am adding him as GM, and I don't want to see it changed. -- D. Cello 21:12, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
- So we're going to follow our own rules, but only when it suits our argument? Even if said argument had fallen apart. Classy. --Jasca Ducato Council Chamber Assassination record 21:17, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
- We're following our own rules as long as they make sense. -- D. Cello 21:18, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
- I think perhaps it would be sensible to make a Templar leader article for iffy characters like Ahmet, after all, we've done the same for the Assassins. Makao the Byzantine {T/\L|<} 17:38, November 3, 2013 (UTC)
- No, because Ahmet is not a Grand Master, so there's no need to try and account for him. --Jasca Ducato Council Chamber Assassination record 09:32, November 4, 2013 (UTC)
- I think perhaps it would be sensible to make a Templar leader article for iffy characters like Ahmet, after all, we've done the same for the Assassins. Makao the Byzantine {T/\L|<} 17:38, November 3, 2013 (UTC)
Grand Master vs. Inner Sanctum
Where is it stated that the Inner Sanctum totally replaced the position of Grand Master? I cant find anything in the dossiers that specifically indicates such, and there do seem to be indications that there's still a single overall leader. For example, Alan Rikkin appears to be Vidic's superior; and, perhaps more significantly, the Truth files in Brotherhood contain an audio clip of an unidentified individual (whose voice is heard in several other audio clips in the puzzles) leaving control of Abstergo in the hands of a successor. Guardian Assassin 04:27, February 25, 2012 (UTC)
- Quick addendum to that: the clip even mentions the Grand Masters, implying that the title is still functional. Guardian Assassin 04:31, February 25, 2012 (UTC)
Basilisk
Is Lord Basilisk considered canon enough to have a paragraph on this page? RomanEagle 10:27, March 12, 2012 (UTC)
- Basilisk is canon, but apparently his position as Grand Mster was retro bed away with the release of the Encyclopaedia. --Jasca Ducato Council Chamber Assassination record 13:30, March 12, 2012 (UTC)
- The position of Grand Master became vacant in 1189 after Gerard de Ridefort's death, and it wasn't used again until 1191 by Robert de Sable. So the most plausible solution would be is that Basilisk was the de facto leader, but not a Grand Master per se. -- Master Sima Yi 13:41, March 12, 2012 (UTC)
- Well, Cesare Borgia is listed as a de facto leader on this page, I think Basilisk should be listed. RomanEagle 20:32, March 13, 2012 (UTC)
- Cesare is listed because he usurped power from his father, the legitimate Grand Master, before he had died; he later took on the position completely. Basilisk, however, did not. --Jasca Ducato Council Chamber Assassination record 14:08, March 14, 2012 (UTC)
- Well, Cesare Borgia is listed as a de facto leader on this page, I think Basilisk should be listed. RomanEagle 20:32, March 13, 2012 (UTC)
About Rodrigo
The timeline of Initiates' website revealed that Rodrigo became the Grand Master in 1476, so it should be added.
source : http://acinitiates.com/timeline/#!panel=10124!
Remember to sign your posts. Trever09 A place for Chivalry | Blog 10:41, October 26, 2012 (UTC)
Birch photo?
Reginal Birch photo? 83.223.121.252 16:22, December 6, 2012 (UTC)
Ahmet picture
This has been disscussed before: Ahmet is considered the GM in Revealations. However, I noticed it was gone and tried to put it up again in the gallery but it keeps getting removed. I see no reason it should be removed, so why? Serpentaxy400 (talk) 01:40, December 16, 2012 (UTC)
State your source. We don't add people based on the presumption that they're "considered" the Grand Master, we need an actual in-universe source that explicitly states that they are one. Also, where exactly has this been discussed before? ~ GI Auditore Comms Channel 01:50, December 16, 2012 (UTC)
On this very talk page in the Ahmet section. I don't think it was ever stated Ceasere was Grandmaster either, yet it haas remained untouched.Serpentaxy400 (talk) 04:01, December 16, 2012 (UTC)
Derp. I just read through all that, sorry. I still suggest you talk with Sima before you do it. And Cesare was mentioned to be a Grand Master in the Brotherhood novel. ~ GI Auditore Comms Channel 04:08, December 16, 2012 (UTC)
Laureano Torres y Ayala
Must include Laureano Torres y Ayala
- No. Not until we have confirmation he's an actual Grand Master, and not another feint for the sake of making trailer. --Kainzorus Prime Walkie-talkie 17:35, October 17, 2013 (UTC)
Ahmet
I've noticed that the subject of Ahmet never solved. Should we consider him as Grand Master or not? SPANISH ASSASSIN 10:58, September 3, 2014 (UTC)
- No, the Grand Master the Byzantines in the cistern mention could have been Manuel Palaiologos, not Ahmet. --Alientraveller (talk) 12:12, September 3, 2014 (UTC)
- We already agreed on this years ago. Ahmet was the one who found the key, and was thus the Grand Master.--Bovkaffe (talk) 12:14, September 3, 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, Sima repeatedly stated that Darby never intended for Ahmet to be a GM, and references to him as such are a mistake. --Kainzorus Prime ⚜ Walkie-talkie 12:22, September 3, 2014 (UTC)
- We already agreed on this years ago. Ahmet was the one who found the key, and was thus the Grand Master.--Bovkaffe (talk) 12:14, September 3, 2014 (UTC)
If I can help a little on this: In AC Recollection (The Revelation Expansion) the SP Story suggestes that both Manual and Ahmet were leading the Templars... one didn't appear to have more power than the other, they both were leading different, yet linked, tasks to further the Templar Aims in the region. But as others have said there doesn't seem to have been mentioned a GM at all, not even Cem is mentioned as GM, yet it was him that bought the two together. Lord Vespasian (talk) 12:54, September 3, 2014 (UTC)
Élise de la Serre
Is it in the game that élise is referred to as Grand Master? Because I don't remember anything about it. In the novel, élise is indeed raised to be her father successor, but her behavior during her youth and the fact that she disappeared during months, mourning her father's death, alienated her potiental followers who didn't saw her as a reliable leader; Lafréniere never answered to her letters. In truth there was no conservative faction, all its potential members were either purged (le fanu, burnel,...), threatened (de Pimôdan) or forced to hide (Lafrenière), in fact there was the official Templar Order of Germain and on the other side the rebels, Lafrenière and élise.
The only peoples who ever called her Grand Master were 1. Weatherall, who raised her 2.Jean Burnel, who was in love with her and was chosen as her lieutenant, but died very soon after 3. Pimôdan while leading her into a trap ("her coronation"). By 1790, she had no followers, had never been enthroned as Grand Master and after Lafreniere's death all the Order was faithfully or forcefully under Germain's control. Maxattac (talk) 06:32, December 8, 2014 (UTC)
Never put the novel before the game itself. It's a side media. Elise was leading the conservative faction, which recognized her as a successor to Grand Mastery, just as Germain's followers in the extremist faction called him the Grand Master, despite the fact he had no claim to it. --Kainzorus Prime ⚜ Walkie-talkie 13:19, December 8, 2014 (UTC)
- Where is she mentioned to be a Grand Master and leading the conservative faction, actually? From what I remember from playing Unity, she mostly seemed to be on her own, working together with Arno. Like, I don't recall her being called Grand Master at any point :s Crook The Constantine District 14:44, December 8, 2014 (UTC)
She isn't, only in the novel. -- Master Sima Yi Talk 14:48, December 8, 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, she is called Grand Master in the novel but not officially because the ceremony prepared to confirm her status never took place and was turned into a trap by Germain. Only four persons ever called her Grand Master, herself, a British Templar, a dead lover and a traitor.
- And Kainzonorus, Germain had a better legitimacy as a Grand Master because the extreme majority of the Templars follow him and had chosen him as their leader contrary to élise who was indeed the chosen heir of her father but was followed by nobody. So by logic, the self-proclaimed or claimant Grand Master is élise not Germain, who is the official Grand Master of the Order.
- Is it enough that she considers herself as the legitimate Grand Master without ever being officially recognized by the Order to be included in the list of Grand Masters ? For me, it's no.Maxattac (talk) 21:47, December 8, 2014 (UTC)
So, shall we remove Élise? -- Master Sima Yi Talk 22:17, December 8, 2014 (UTC)
- I've not read the book, but from what I've read in this discussion I feel there is a stronger case for removing her form the list, then there is for keeping her on it. Strike her name from the list! --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 17:18, December 12, 2014 (UTC)
Move to Grand Master of the Templars
Under the same reasoning as why we moved "Apprentices" to Assassin apprentices, I think this article should be moved to Grand Master of the Templars or Grand Master of the Templar Order to be more specific. It would also be consistent with how all the Templar rites are named with their official name such as Roman Rite of the Templar Order rather than just "Roman Rite" (even though technically no source ever actually gives the full name of "Roman Rite of the Templar Order" I think). Just as there can be other Roman Rites (such as the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church—which by the way I just noticed Wikipedia has at just "Roman Rite" o.O...), and apprentices of other organizations, there are Grand Masters of other orders. Specifically, Garnier de Naplouse held the title and rank of Grand Master of the Knights Hospitalier while simultaneously being a leading member (but not Grand Master) of the Knights Templar. We do not have an article on Grand Master of the Knights Hospitalier, and even though we only have one example I think, we probably should. In any case, the name for this article should be more specific. I understand it was moved from "Grand Master of the Templar Order" (or Templars?) originally after "Grand Master of the Assassins" was moved to "Mentor", but I think the moving of the Assassin article didn't have to necessitate moving this one.
However, one counter-argument to this move might be that for consistency, we might want to move "Mentor" to "Mentor of the Assassins", which I find a little awkward. However, we really probably should accommodate the fact that there are Grand Masters of other orders, such as the Knights Hospitalier. I think Sibrand was also Grand Master of the Teutonic Knights right? Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 22:38, March 30, 2017 (UTC)
Original research
ACSenior and I debated at length in years past regarding original research, but I find that we must revisit the topic again in the writing of this article. I think the most problematic section is "Applications" to the extent that I think it is necessary to remove immediately unless it can be rewritten in accordance with the no original research (NOR) policy.
In particular, it reintroduces ACSenior's dichotomous rhetoric between "traditional Templars" and "moderate Templars". Although traditonal and moderate are indeed words which can be used descriptively rather than nominatively, whether they are accurate descriptors is up to personal interpretation. Bearing in mind my past debates with ACSenior where he insisted that these were irrefutable, concrete classifications, I have to assert once more that our sources do not use such vocabulary to my knowledge nor delineate Templars so cleanly.
Moreover, I dispute that Haytham is a "moderate" Templar. He is, in every respects, the archetypal, mainstream Templar. When I think of a moderate Templar, François de la Serre is the first to come to mind, yet from the perspective of Templars, he may have been extremely radical for making peace with the Assassins. I also have my doubts that Haytham would have sided with de la Serre instead of Germain; I don't see the evidence for presenting him as an antithesis of Germain as the section does. He only sounds reasonable because he is given extensive screentime to vouch for his beliefs, but who is to say he wouldn't have approved of Germain's methods? Furthermore, I have never interpreted his truce with the Assassins via Connor in the same light as de la Serre's truce with Honoré Mirabeau. Haytham gave Connor a chance and dabbled in the idea of reconciliation because Connor was his son, not because his political and philosophical positions gave room for such reconciliation. That is my opinion. Hence, moderate needs to be qualified, and no, we should not feel free to formalize it as a canonical definition as previously seemed to be the implication in my talks with ACSenior over this.
I am trying to find the merit to this section. That Birch believed that deceiving Adepts was an acceptable, if not essential, method of training is indeed significant, but I have to ask: is this ACSenior's interpretation of Birch's deception or did Birch express that this openly? Did Birch deceive Haytham because he considered it procedural in training Haytham to become an eventual Grand Master or did he deceive Haytham because it was his means of indoctrinating Haytham as a Templar? There's a substantial difference here. Though these two need not be mutually exclusive, while we can readily verify the latter, I find the former to be too dubious.
Finally, I find that there are too many syntax errors in this section. I have trouble extracting the main points and revising it properly. I am open to reintroducing it in a revised form, but I find it pressing to remove it entirely for now until further notice. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 18:01, September 15, 2020 (UTC)
- In my own honest opinion, "moderate" templar is a specific term applied to de la Serre's (both Elise and François) faction(s) during the infighting in Unity, as opposed to the "radical" faction of Germain and his allies. It should not be applied to others not involved in this particular conflict. - Soranin (talk) 18:22, September 15, 2020 (UTC)
- Oh is the term moderate used in Unity? I'm aware extremist is. I think you have a good point about not applying it to others not involved in that conflict. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 19:20, September 16, 2020 (UTC)
- The term is actually used in Forsaken By Reginald Birch, aside from that I'm currently writing a reply to your post that I will take to your talk page. And just a small thing, to make Elise's moderate Templar philosophy exclusive to her conflict in the French Revolution is impossible, given how much her views became influenced by Haytham's moderate views.--ACsenior (talk) 19:51, September 16, 2020 (UTC)
- The novel only uses the term moderate 4 times. Twice to describe Mirabeau and twice for Elise's mother. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 19:54, September 16, 2020 (UTC)