15,196 Pages


aka Black Cross

  • I live in My HQ, The City between the seven mountains
  • I was born on December 11

Welcome to the Order, ACsenior!

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 IRC 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?
    • The AC WikiProjects are always accepting new members!
    • 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. -- Vatsa1708 (Talk) 16:44, 2012 April 8

User page edits

Hello there :) I'd like to ask you to try and keep the edits to your userpage to a minimum. Please use the preview button to check everything, so that you won't have to edit your page three or more times right after each other. Thanks! Have a nice day and happy editing! :) Nesty Contact me! 20:32, September 10, 2012 (UTC)

I'll remember that ;)--ACsenior (talk) 20:36, September 10, 2012 (UTC)


Hey ACSenior, I just saw that in your userpage the gallery tab is little effed up...for the gallery you can use this code: <gallery position="center" type="slideshow"> and then put either {{-}} or {{clear}} above the </tabber>. ;)--OdranoellutaTalkSig.png 16:53, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks --ACsenior (talk) 17:10, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

ACsenior pls use the
File:575000 612523105440568 1541905856 n.jpg
to put it in Edward Kenways Page

For News Items

Just copy+paste the code below. The stuff you need to change is in CAPITALS.

{| class="collapsible collapsed" width="100%" style="border:2px solid white; background: #505050; -moz-border-radius:12px;"
!<font color="white">ARTICLE NAME/ETC.</font>

- kabutsu Enter the Animus The Crimson Polls II 20:35, May 23, 2013 (UTC)


You can leave me a message on my talk page if you wish to communicate with me directly, rather than posting a comment on a blog. And I cannot even fathom how my comment indicates I want to ban you. A quick Google search of the lyrics I posted should get you directly the song "Cars" by Gary Numan. Look at the person interviewed in your article, and you can figure out the rest. If I wished to ban you, I wouldn't be anything but direct about it. -- Master Sima Yi Clogs 13:58, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

Consider my previous "situations" I prefer to stay at the lowest profile possible. No it's not the comment itself bot how "of topic"(related to previous "situations") it seemed, especially since I don't even know about the song and who Gary Numan is. I'll look at the person soon enough. That might be the case but I still think you do to be honest, that's because of the previous "situations". I don't want another "war" either so I'll just go off the grid again and just delete the comment since it was a misunderstanding.--ACsenior (talk) 14:15, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

You're making a nuisance out of nothing. I didn't even pay enough attention to who posted the comment to know it was you. Seriously, relax. If I have a problem with someone, I'll talk to them about it to get it out of the way. And I cut everyone way too much slack before I give them a ban, which I rarely give anyway. If I have a problem with you, you'll read it directly from me here. Now please stop antagonizing me. -- Master Sima Yi Clogs 14:23, June 21, 2014 (UTC)


Come back on the Grid hermano!!! Abelzorus Prime (talk) 18:43, September 23, 2015 (UTC)

Without my position as the "news guy" I feel kinda useless here, I'm nothing but a simple informant now dropping information here from time to time. I'll never work here the same way again, sadly. --ACsenior (talk) 14:28, September 24, 2015 (UTC)

Hey ACsenior, you can always post news you find in the Syndicate news thread, if you want. Or start a general news thread yourself :) Crook The Constantine District 14:34, September 24, 2015 (UTC)

Checking In

Hey ACsenior, I noticed that you haven't been active for almost a month. I appreciated your assistance with the Assassins article, providing constructive advice, so I wanted to check-in to see if you're on hiatus. Although I have since published the "Corruptions" revision, as well as the "Methods" revision, I believe there are some parts that need refinement, and I'm not confident that these sections are ideal. I'm currently focused entirely on finishing long overdue content concerning Altaïr's Chronicles, but let me know if you feel like checking back in on the Assassins article. :) Sol Pacificus (talk) 10:04, March 10, 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'll read the "Corruptions" revision first, then move on to "Methods". Then you'll get some advises. --ACsenior (talk) 14:48, March 10, 2016 (UTC)

It's fine if you're busy by the way, and I might not get around to it myself for a while. Sol Pacificus (talk) 01:26, March 11, 2016 (UTC)


I'm not sure if I should be responding to even just your initial response again here because that might make the discussion really hard to follow, but I have said so much that I wanted to have a place where I can brieflyfailed... >_< and clearly state my points. This is only in regards to just your "Corruption, Part 1".

  1. I'm not "taking a side" in regards to editing. I will confess that I align with the Assassins in my personal philosophy, but this does not affect my edits. I have taken enormous care not to include my personal beliefs of what the Assassins believe from what is cited in the sources of what the Assassins believe. (And actually ironically, the principle of NPOV and looking at multiple perspectives is core to Assassins anyways, Wikipedia is literally like a website created with an ideology identical to that of the Assassins).
  2. I think you missed my point that valuing neutrality was not a source of contention. It is something that we both strive to uphold, but we have different ideas on how to achieve it, but obviously, taking a side is not a way to go about it, and honestly, I was (and probably still am if I'm being honest) very irritated that you emphasized that so hard because that is not a problem here. I am extremely committed to showing multiple perspectives; that has been literally a founding part of my philosophy since I was 7 years old. Even if I wasn't dedicated to "not taking a side" in my work (and I am dedicated to not taking a side in my work), a true Assassin believes in showing multiple perspectives even ones that put them in a negative light anyways.
  3. The point of just that one paragraph you responded to was not even constructive criticism, it was just a cautionary note that we should proceed carefully and how we can mess this up, but I think for now, we are fine. I'm not opposed to including criticism of the Assassins, in case that is your misunderstanding. I wanted to explain how we can ironically become not-neutral in striving so hard to be neutral, by the Golden Mean Fallacy (which you have to make sure you read up on).
  4. Here's biggest point that I missed in my responses there and what necessitates that I respond here as well: it's not a matter of whether we should or should not be including different perspectives in the article. It's that correct wiki policy on NPOV is that we do not include perspectives that are our own. This is why Wookieepedians oppose "Controversy" articles. Even if our personal interpretations are valid, we simply aren't supposed to include them in the article. Criticisms are supposed to be entirely within an in-universe light in order to ensure that we aren't biased because even if we aren't biased, we will have our own personal opinions, and those opinions will inevitably leak into our writing when they shouldn't. We should not be including our personal interpretations. I strove very hard when I wrote the ideals of the Assassins not to include my own personal extrapolations, like how I believe that a true Assassin believes in universal love. I did not include that because it is not cited and is my own personal belief. Instead, I included that they believe in perspectivism and the idea that one shouldn't assume that he is unquestionably right because these are heavily supported by textual evidence. In the same way, I would only support Corruption sections in the Assassins and Templars articles because of cases where the characters in the game cited were corrupt cases. We shouldn't be included what we think are corrupt cases. I thoroughly believe that Ezio's destruction of Cappadocia was a horrendous violation of Assassin philosophy, but because it was not cited as such in-game, we technically should not be including it under "Corruption" because that is our personal interpretation. On the Templar side, I would almost certainly not support including Hitler in a Corruption section because while Assassins and all of humanity thinks he is evil (and he was), it's not cited as a case of Templar corruption or deviation from their ideology. Instead, the Borgias are a good inclusion because the Abstergo files clearly explain that the Templars remember them as a Dark Age of corruption, and the Borgias might even be the only case I would support including.

Okay, so as always I failed to be even remotely brief. But my initial responses to even just that first response of yours was more in reaction to your incorrect accusations of me being motivated by an allegiance with the Assassins and not constructive, so I felt the need to respond with something constructive, which is what has been written here. But maybe it's better to redirect our discussion here.

EDIT: I cut-out 50% of this message (with examples as such) before posting because I suck at being brief :( and you must be overwhelmed, so I should wait for your responses before proceeding further :P Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 01:52, September 26, 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, I'll reply to everything either way. This and the expanded vesion too, only for us to cleaify a few things before we continue our discission. Or we can move it here.

  1. You misunderstanding my point(part of it at least). Your current writing of the Corruption section and the ideology and goals is eludently writen non-biased. I know you try to avoid putting your own interpretations in it, I've read everything and helped you with balencing it before you started. Makes two of us then as I too attempt to stay as true to the source as possible when helping. I guess the reason we gave the great balance is also because of our opposing ideals, as you've noticed I do agree with the moderate Templar philosophy.
  2. True, we do have a common goal here but different ways of archiving it. Exactly, it only appeared like you took a side, it was never my intention to disrespect. I know and I'm sorry for that, and I know you can.
  3. It wasn't mean to be constructive criticism but a note of caution because we should proceed carefully to avoid bias. It apreaed like you did, that's why I ephitized on taking a side. But as you've said, we're fine for now. We seem to be misunderstand each other then. I get that point now but you didn't get mine, I'm trying to avoid both of these: That goes for things like for example a moderate Templar section or a corrupt Assassin section, two of the most "controversial" section we'd have in the AC wiki. Regarding the Golden Mean Fallicy, the AC series is to black and white for us to end up doing that. They'll never be equally bad, the only way to reach such a point is if we do the two throes I just liked you. By creating our definitions rather than using established lore and citing direct sources. Like the words of an Assassin and Templar about their own idealogi.

  1. I don't disagree with that, seeing as personal opinions has no value in the wiki as it's meant to tell facts. Understandable that they avoid it but for AC it's needed because of it's focus on philosophy. It should be taken from an in-universe light as the rules and principles within the AC universe deside who that's what and why. I've no doubt you did and it's good work to, we just have to be cautious to not include our own interpetations but rather use the rules and principles of each order to constructively write how they operate, what they belive bad what their goals are. A slight disagreement here, while I'd prefer cited evidence for everything we also has to take to consideration their own principles and rules. If a brotherhood does violate the creed, then it is corrupt. Most Assassins world wide supported Achilles but that does't mean his brotherhood isn't corrupt. The War Letters shows the approval of his brotherhood by Assassins. We know for a fact his brotherhood violated the creed, it's a major case and don't need to be citied because it's obvious. The same apply to Jack and Abbas who work the same but not in such a great scale as Achilles brotherhood. There's a difference between the two Thropes above resulting in fan-definitions and usining established lore. So despite Ezio's actions not being cited as corruption, he still is according to their own rules and principles. That includes the assassination of Tarik, the Harbor Riot, the destruction of of Cappadocia and the Great Chain. Actually the Templars page need 3 sections. A corruption page with the Borgia as the example seeing as it's the best explanation of corrupt Templars. Corrupt Templars are as stated trough the series, people who use the order for personal gain and doing things for personal gain goes against the orders interest. For the extremist Templars we can use the MD Templars who wants to enslave mind and are willing to do anything to accomplish their goals. The WW2 Templars with Hitler as the obvious extreme example. Or the Parisian Rite lead by Germain. For moderates that don't want to eradicate freedom but merly detest it(how unity is possible) you have the Byzantine Templars, the Colonial Rite, the Carribean Rite and the Parisian Rite lead by the De la Serre family. As said, I'd prefer if both pages does in depth in it's sections. We can have examples of traditionalist Assassins as well under the ideals and goals part but what's also missing is an ideals and goals part regarding the corrupt Assassins. --ACsenior (talk) 15:32, September 26, 2016 (UTC)
NPOV is far more nuanced than we might think. For example, Ezio's violation of the creed in Cappadocia isn't sourced, but it's a logical deduction because (a) Assassins expressly say "don't kill innocents" and (b) he got civilians killed. I think logical deductions such as these should be allowed, but I'm not sure if you see how it is less obvious in other cases such as the riot in the market and the Destruction of the Great Chain. The 50% of my response here I cut out covered this, so here it goes. Besides the destruction of Derinkuyu, I really want you to understand just how debatable most other instances are. My stance is that we should actually just be very strict with what we include, such that we only include (a) >u>examples that can't be debated by logical deduction</u> (b) examples that are heavily cited as corruption and presented as a matter of internal conflict & strife whether or not it can be debated or not. Aside from the f
  1. It can't be debated that François Mackandal violated the creed because he sought to massacre the white population of Haiti indiscriminately and his letters show his conflict in ideals with the rest of the Assassins.
  2. While Pierre Bellec's desire to purge the Assassins he disagrees is apparently noted by Shaun to have been debatable, he did teamkill (which should count as killing innocents... but maybe that's why Shaun said it was found to be a debatable case), and it is presented in the game as a source of great conflict since Arno ends up fighting Pierre to the death.
  3. The assassination of Tarik Barleti, however, which I introduced in spite of finding it debatable... While theoretically an Assassin should only use assassination as a last resort, and thus great care must be made for investigations, it is possible that this is more of an error in judgment than a moral violation. That is to say, Ezio thought he had investigated enough, just as Arno as a noob killed Chrétien Lafrenière erroneously because he was too hasty. While Ezio should not have been so hasty, it can be argued that he just made a mistake rather than a full-blown corrupt violation of the creed. That is to say, he hadn't meant to anymore than Arno had meant to kill the wrong person, and I think it's more alike to a soldier making the wrong move that gets people killed, such as his allies. Perhaps a soldier misidentifies an ally squad for the enemy in the dark of night, for instance. At the same time, mistakes that cost innocent people their lives can be argued as corruption, especially with management such as the Charge of the Light Brigade. But my point isn't whether or not this was a clear act of corruption or not, but the fact that it is debatable if we look at different perspectives of this. Now you might say that it is presented as a major plot point, but it does not become a major source of internal strife within the Assassin ranks nor is it cited as corruption. It could or could not be considered as a reasonable mistake since the evidence against Tarik was compelling given Ezio saw him strike a deal to sell weapons to the Templars. I do not think it should matter whether or not it is a reasonable mistake or a case of Ezio's corruption or not, only that the fact it is debatable,I would rather be safe and not include.
  4. Rashid ad-din Sinan was seen as a traitor to the principles of the Assassins by the Assassins, and his ideology was exposed as one completely in contradiction with that of the Assassins. It was also the the principle conflict in the game, so it should be noted.
  5. The Destruction of the Great Chain, that's where we really see ourselves approaching our own personal interpretations. The fact that we can even argue whether or not that constitutes an example shows that it shouldn't be included. Are military targets acceptable or not? We shouldn't be arguing this. Maybe it was a violation, but what should be important is whether it obviously is, as obvious as killing an innocent person when your creed explicitly forbids it. Your argument that it is, I think, stems from the fact that the Ottomans were not necessarily Templars and because the Great Chain does serve to defend the city itself. Honestly, when I played that mission, I was thinking to myself that in order to get to Cappadocia to stop the Templars, the Great Chain has to be destroyed, but it was only a temporary casualty as it can be rebuilt. The expenses might be heavy for the Ottomans, but these things just happen in conflicts, we make some sacrifices, the most important thing is that civilians weren't harmed in the end. So the question is, are military targets acceptable or not? Do they constitute as killing innocents when the military targets are in opposition against you, but it is not because they are Templars or aware that you are an Assassin? It is so debatable that I just think that if we even bother to include it, it would certainly be because of our personal interpretation. It's not a simple matter enough to be a case of logically deducing it as a case of corruption. Not like "Creed says don't kill innocents, you willfully kill innocents".
  6. I think the Lisbon earthquake was absolutely just a tragic case of misunderstandings and poor communication. Achilles assumed it was an artifact (which if consistent with all other Assassins, he had meant to find to destroy or hide from Templars though we don't know for sure). He never imagined that it could just be some weird "seismic tree". He sent Shay, who didn't know how Pieces of Eden looked like or what to explain to retrieve it, and he accidentally triggered the earthquake. Shay comes back in a fury, but Achilles isn't open-minded enough to put two and two together with the Haiti earthquake (note that Vendredi had been murdered so the Assassins never learned that Vendredi had reached the site before he was killed). I'm not going to go over the whole scenario again, but my verdict is that Achilles and Shay were insanely immature in this scenario and that was the problem. Their mutual failure to communicate and listen to each other's side, how it was just a tragic accident, and their desire to demonize one another and make each other look like the absolute bad guy in what was just a tragic accident is just idiotic. Now, it can be argued that Achilles' attitude violated the teachings of the Assassins, but I think in such a case it's more similar to how even Obi-Wan Kenobi and Qui-Gon Jinn "violated" the Jedi code by developing romantic feelings for Siri Tachi and Tahl respectively. They're human beings who we can't expect will get their emotions right every time, which is why I think that Achilles' reaction while unjustifiable, is understandable because it's no different from the way teachers and doctors and bosses in our society are sometimes too close-minded in interacting with students, patients, and employees' struggles. I do find such teachers, doctors, and bosses to be wrong to the point of being immoral, but I know that at the end of the day, they're not evil and didn't mean to hurt anyone. They're just ignorant and not mature enough to be open-minded. The Lisbon earthquake I absolutely don't see as a matter of corruption so much as a great noob mistake on Achilles' part. He was a new Mentor who was so inexperienced he didn't teach his apprentices correctly and didn't take necessary precautions and then became mentally unhinged because of the death of his wife and son. HOWEVER, I do think it should be included in spite of my enormous objections because it is a central plot point to Rogue, hence this shows what I mean by personal interpretation vs. what is cited. I disagree with this so much, but it is too central to ignore.
  7. Kesegowaase's terror assault against Albany should be included because it's a clear, simple case of harming innocent lives, and it is one of the pieces of evidence central to the game of Rogue of Assassin corruption.
  8. With the case of Ezio causing that riot at the Arsenal, I disagree with his action and personally do see that as a violation of Assassin's creed, but to be honest, I didn't want to include it because I wasn't sure that even traditional Assassins saw rioting as a violation even while I think it most certainly is. Connor started riots with Stephane Chapheau. Hence, it is a case of us imposing our personal interpretations. Is its inclusion as a violation sourced? It's simply not as straightforward as "don't kill innocents, willfully kill innocents". It is a case of "don't kill innocents, risked innocent lives by galvanizing them into an uprising". From one perspective, Ezio manipulated the people into risking their lives for his own agenda. On the other hand, his likely perspective is that he is helping their lives by fighting the Templars, and if they hadn't already been downtrodden enough to want to engage in an uprising and fight for themselves, they probably won't have been triggered in such a way. From his perspective, he was just giving them the courage to take action into their own hands. I do disagree with this method because I oppose riots, period, but from his perspective, he probably saw it no different as political activists would in rallying people for protests. I support only peaceful protests, but then the target of their uprising was the Arsenal, a military target. Yet again, the market was also damaged. But then this might be countered that the damage to the market was a minor loss for the greater good. You see, it is debatable enough I can debate with myself on this matter, and my point stands that I don't think we should be arguing whether it constitutes as corruption or not. If it is debatable and is not cited as a case of corruption, we shouldn't include it.

So those were some examples. I always wanted to point out that this is why I thought that perhaps it may be better to rename it as "deviations" or "Examples of Violations" which I think allows us to be more technical and objective, since we are declaring whether an action was in violation or not, not whether it was corrupted which is a personal judgment of the action's morality. I think the only case for using "Corruption" is that it is a more succinct way to word it, but it is less objective. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 22:01, September 26, 2016 (UTC)

That may be. Exactly, there is no argument when it comes to Cappadocia despite there being no citation of corruption, as you've said. It's a logical conclusion based on their own creed. I'll elaborate further why I think it being arguable does't have to mean it's not corrupt. Originally when bringing those two events up I played a Devil's Advocate because other fans have constantly brought it in posts about Ezio's actions in Revelations and how it's out of character of him to do. But I've done some rethinking on both, I'll elaborate somewhere below. Thanks for simply moving the entire discussion here, makes it easier to reply to. Considering how much we've debated you have made the point of how arguable it is. Don't disagree entirely but one of my concerns is that by attempting to avoid the 3 view too much we end up censoring or misinforming. Resulting in either Draco or Rony, subjective bias is my biggest concern here. Unknowingly making mistakes or go against canon, and because of it we do unknowingly take a side by portraying either as either worse or better than they actually are. So before continuing updating anything any further I'd suggest we debate everything we can to we reach a logical and objective conclusion based on canon and view all of from every angle we can. We being on both sides of the arguments and philosophy will maintain the fine neutrality we have so far.

1. True. And it's a sourced case of corruption.

2. Yes, and his case is debatable among Assassins. All someone has to do is shout that he's either wrong or right to start an argument.

3. Yes. Tarik's assassination is debatable. That Assassins use assassinations as a last resort I disagree with as they use a form of Utilitarianism, and they kill more than just their targets. Moving on to the actual topic again. The assassination of was a mistake and Ezio did question Suliman's decision on having him killed. It wasn't like Liam's blind hatred for Templars that made him kill Monro despite him having done nothing(that we know) that would make him a threat to anyone. You highlighted this when writing that part, that it wasn't Ezio's choice to kill him. Wether it's acceptable by traditionalist Assassin standards however can be debated. You brought up Arno killing Chrétien Lafrenière and that is a fair point. However Arno got lectured when he told the Assassin Council. With responses like this. Arno: I had a lead on Lafrenière. I followed it, and I killed him.

Quemar: Unthinkable! Bellec: What the hell were you thinking? Trenet: I've never heard of such phenomenal hubris! Beylier: How dare you defy the Creed?! Trenet: The arrogance of it is just astounding! Quemar: Bloody-handed murder! Beylier: What gives you the right? Bellec: The next time you circumvent the Council, I'll rip you a new arsehole! ... Mirabeau: While this Council admires your zeal, it is not your place to choose your own targets. You should have reported your findings to us. Arno: Forgive me, Mentor. I believed I had found the man who ordered (Mister) de la Serre's murder. When I discovered further evidence that suggested he was about to strike at the Brotherhood in force, I took action. Quemar: Believed? Suggested? Arno: I am... no longer certain of Lafrenière's motivations. In his memories, I saw him writing the letter that would have warned (Mister) de la Serre of his betrayal. When he spoke of his impending attack, he mentioned a club in the Marais - not one of our safehouses. Mirabeau: What do you make of this? Arno: I cannot say. I would like to investigate further. Beylier: I don't like this. The boy is a gifted Assassin, but I fear he is obsessed with a private vendetta. Let another follow this lead.

According to this an Assassin should always report to the Assassin Council/Mentor before taking any action. However Ezio is a member of the Italian Assassin Council and we do not know if the Ottoman Assassins have an Assassin Council of their own. So this case is already more complicated, and that he's a Mentor(of the Italian Assassins) makes things far more unclear as technically Ezio does outrank Yusuf. While that is the debatable part of this situation you have Beylier saying he defied the Creed, and later you have Quemar questioning him because he tought and acting on suspicion alone is not enough, calling such actions hasty. But we know Ezio didn't choose to kill him but did it under Suliman's order and he questioned it. Once thing Ezio didn't do was to inform Yusuf of it, as Ezio isn't in Italy and despite having a higher technically isn't the leader Ottoman Assassins. Meaning it wasn't his choice to make to do as ordered as he hadn't informed Yusuf who when asked to help infiltrate Topkapı Palace after finding out the Byzantines found a Masyaf Key there and wants to know how. Yusuf tells him that he has no need to snare yourself into the Ottoman affairs and says that they want to protect Suleiman after he insisted on it. Yusuf, like the French Council, should have been informed first. Then there is Altaïr killing the old man in the Temple, unlike Arno, Altaïr was lectured, humiliated and stabbed for it. In Arno's case it wasn't a proper investigation followed by hasty decisions caused by a misunderstanding but Altaïr case isn't arguable and his punishment was worse. You're right that it was a mistake but when mistakes are worth executions and stated as betrayal(Al Mualim) and defying the Creed. Then it should be there. You also have Malik telling Altaïr that he has to tell Al Mualim of Robert's plan instead of simply running of to kill him. Because of this, I'd say let it be. Unless you can find citations of mistakes being accepted and show examples from canon. But I'll admit there are instances where the Assassins don't punish someone for it. Like when Altaïr was tricked to kill someone innocent in Bloodlines when he was both Mentor and worked alone in Cyprus, he wouldn't execute himself for the mistake. So him letting that pass is understandable. In short, it's cited to be against the Creed but is acceptable in some cases. Making it not a debatable case but a questionable case as not all Assassins accept such mistakes despite it not being acceptable according to their own creed. Even Ezio himself lectured an apprentice in Constantinople for making a hasty decision but he didn't punish him for it. But gave that Assassin a pat on the shoulder while saying he should think about what he did. I could look for more cases but since it's cited I'll stop here.

4. True.

5. The Creed: "The second tenet is that which gives us strength: Hide in plain sight. Let the people mask you such that you become one with the crowd. Do you remember? Because as I hear it, you chose to expose yourself, drawing attention before you struck!"(Al Mualim) and "Assassins are meant to be quiet. Precise."(Achilles). It's not that Ezio killed guards per say that makes this debatable but that he didn't do it stealthy, blew up the Great Chain and indiscriminately slaughtered the entire Ottoman fleet. I say "per say" when killing guards because the traditionalist Assassins don't enforce indiscriminate killing despite using a form of Utilitarianism. They are supposed to be stealthy, wether it is blending in the environment or among the people. Choosing to destroy the Great Chain and indiscriminately kill the entire fleet does not go in line with the creed, something that would be more in line with the creed would be to infiltrate the other tower, lower the Great Chain and steal a ship either in the middle of the night of have a distraction in day time. He also exposed himself before burning the fleet by blowing upon the Great Chain. Of course the slaughter of law enforcement isn't something they tend to argue agains, there are exceptions Connor who hypocritically criticized Haytham for something he had done in all his time fighting the Colonial Templars. Old Evie is another example as she's one of the few pacifist Assassins but she's a also hypocritical for criticizing Jack's methods, and ironically enoughshe was trained by her and Jacob. Killing guards I'd generally seen by Assassins as a sacrifice for the greater good in their fight for a utopia. But they do not condone indiscriminate slaughter. Corrupt Assassins like Kesegowaase does as they don't follow the creed, it's what they makes them corrupt. A Templar going against their own Templar Code would be no different. If looked at as a conventional war, them it's a war crime and terrorist attack as there was no military target since the military was in his way instead of the targets that's the Byzantines. If looked at as a non-conventional war. It's not only a still a terrorist attack but also a violation against the creed. The entire argument here also is relevant to the riot at the arsenal but I'll expand it once I reach that point. I got some more to but it's not relevant here. But It's his methods that means this isn't debatable, the guards however where the a sacrifice for the greater good. So I'd say that despite the creed not accepting it that among the Assassins his actions would be questionable. Your "Precision & Stealth" section also drive this point further.

6. I'll go right ahead and apologies for my more aggressive tone here, I've seen the arguments regarding the fight between Shay and Achilles as immature for a lot of reasons, ranging from people ignoring trauma to both of their characteristics. But you're right, it was a tragic accident but regardless of his research nothing would change because of his theory that it would be an Apple of Eden there, his inaccurate research is part of the reason for his disbelief in earth shattering Isu Temples. Being open-minded about it would be out of character and have no shouting at all would be bad writing when it comes to both characters. It's not the first time he's portrayed as a fanatic and arrogant asshole. In AC3, it's shown he don't like being defied, as doing so would usually make him the person to start shouting first. Examples of him being defied is Connor's attempts at getting Achilles to train him and Connor wanting to tell Washington of the A vs T War. But it's not as extreme as in Rogue, where he's even worse as his Assassins follow him blindly, and those where recruited and trained by him. Something that's highlighted by Chevalier in the second memory with a suckerpuch for educational purposes and their recruitment is explained in the database. His policy was that of Al Mualim on the matter and his only surviving member. Bellec, enforced that on Arno by talking him down when he questions him. He always was arrogant. His fanaticism is also more extreme in Rogue, but in AC3 there are hints of it as he encourage Connor to kill them when in the basement while noting that especially Haytham needs to die, he didn't even flinch when Connor said Haytham was his father, there was a few seconds of silence and then he noted that especially Haytham has to die. After killing Johnson you have them discussing in the basement again and he encourage him to kill his father and the rest of the Templars a second time, but putting pressure on the fact that Haytham has to die. Another is his attempts at discouraging Connor's hope for unity, the first time is him saying Haytham might listen but not understand, however we know it was Haytham that eventually offered the truce. The second time is before the attack of Fort George, as Connor says to Achilles that after killing Lee there might be another chance of unity(Connor broke the first). And then the biggest lie Achilles told Connor was that his struggle is the Paitriots struggle. A Native American against slavery is in no possible way having the sane struggle as racist white supremacist white colonist slavers, not only that but Achilles had him working with the colonists since Boston Massacre. As he left him alone in Boston while his ally(a colonist) showed him around the city. The same colonists that he noted thinks it's better to view him as an Italian or Spaniard. The same colonist who after all his years as Mentor should know of their slavery and constant slaughter of natives. All of this shows his fanaticism and how far he'd go to get rid of the Templars. Haytham only lied once and that was about not knowing Ziio was dead. Trough all of this he also talked Connor down while noting he feelt a sense of pride after his accomplishments. Arrogance, manipulation and fanaticism. All are his characteristics and he was even worse in Rogue as he was even more of it all. This explains why he'd not be open-minded along with his inaccurate research. Connor also jumped up from the floor declaring that the a Templars have to be stopped after Achilles teachings to him about the Assassins and Templars, so his teachings can be questioned as well. Especially since hid teachings during the hight of his Brotherhood involved fanaticism.

Regarding Shay, he's the only Assassin that questions the things they do and because of that is harassed by nearly all the Assassins. You have him and Chevalier hating each other, given that's he's been with the Assassins for 4 years it's not unreasonable to assume they've hated each other a long time or that they've ended up fighting each other. Something that's a major point in him questioning the Assassins since as you've said, the fanaticism was enforced by Chevalier. Who despite preaching some traditionalist values did enforce corrupt values such as nit questioning the Mentor and advocating to follow the Mentor blindly. Hope however didn't do that but rather pointed out how laid back he was and because of that didn't reach his full potential, so when he did better than expected she still lectures him as it isn't enough. Liam did the same as Chevalier and not only advocated fanaticism but also showed no sympathy like Shay himself did to his targets, the lack of honor for the dead is something that also drove him away from them. Kesegowaase was the only respectful member, he was only a strict teacher that wanted Shay to train along with the rest. Achilles himself was respectful and he is, unless you defy him like both Connor and Shay did. Not only all of this but that they threaded him like a lap dog didn't help. Seeing as he's the most humane protagonist so far, someone that regretted every kill we did while questioning both sides. Him spending all that time being harassed, and then accidentally starts an earthquake will make the emotional and physical abuse(we have confirmation off) make him even more angry.

There's nothing immature about trauma, he destroyed an entire city as big as both Paris and London. Someone as humane as Shay will get get serious trauma from it. But there was no misunderstanding, they clearly had different theories on things but the argument itself isn't misunderstood. Achilles understand it but don't believe it(inaccurate research) and Shay's opposition during it also plays a part as Achilles don't like being defied, as I've explained earlier. Hope too understands it but she don't think earth-shattering Temples are possible. So she takes Achilles side out of disbelief and blind devotion to the Assassins. Liam overhears all this, only questioning what's going on and follows Achilles order to take him out the there without question to why. During the second attempt you have Achilles starting the discussion upset as he busted Shay taking the manuscript. Shay then calmly explains it a second time but eventually angers Achilles, then fight. He gets chased, shot and left for dead. However destroying cities is in line with Assassin corruption so it should stay, as said by Bellec. He's willing to let destroy France if it means killing all Templars. It's a cited case. Although getting this point across is a bit messy since you brought up the discussion between Shay and Achilles, and therefor I had to go trough it to the point out clearer. So for that I'm sorry for the mess.

7. True. And interestingly his lack of precision, destruction and indiscriminate slaughter is similar to Ezio's attack of the Great Chain. Only difference is that there are no "innocents" being killed. Although there are Assassins that see guards as innocents(Old Evie and Connor) but they are exceptions.

8. It's another questionable case. As seen when Yusuf questions Ezio's plan to start a the riot. But to determine how questionable it is. But bear in mind the lack of precision and stealth also is relevant. For starting conflicts the Assassins are inconsistent in their opinion as when when the Templars do it, they oppose it. If the people do it, they assist. If they do, it's not that questionable as his destruction of the Great Chain. Connor assisted the Sons of Liberty, Ezio's actions was questioned, Adéwalé started the Maroon Rebellion, Aveline assisted in the Louisiana Rebellion and Arno assisted for example the Woman's March. But only Ezio sacrificed the people. The others helped the people and rearlly started the chaos to begin with. And you have them opposing any riots orchestrated by the Templars. So it's not as questionable since it's in general accepted by Assassins. So it's not as much a questionable case as it's a debatable case. However things like the creed and it's demand for stealth and precision still apply and Al Mualim citing exposing himself as betrayal is not without value even here. Despite the general acceptance by the Assassins. As in general the Assassins accept starting conflicts(riots, battles, wars etc...). You're right that we properly shouldn't include it.

Semantics. However most cases of corruption are cited as corruption, not violations. Achilles and old Ezio isn't but they obviously are. But Sergei is with Nikolai saying "this isn't the Creed I've fought for"(something like that), Evie have called Jack's interpretation of the creed twisted. Abbas and Al Mualim, are cited as corrupt. Mackandal however is called a disgrace and not only by Assassins as Berg noted he wasn't a honorable Assassin. But based on the morality of the creed, "Corruption" is more accurate as both "Violations" and "Deviations" are not used at all by Assassins unlike corruption and it's downplaying that they went against their own ideals. Accuracy is just as objective. The methods sections also need an update to tell the methods of the corrupt Assassins, wether it's Mob Rule & Anarchism(Achilles, Jack, Abbas, Bellec, old Ezio) or more in line with the Templar ideology like Al Mualim, but he's also an exception among the corrupt because of that. And to balance all of this we need examples of traditionalist Assassins just like with the corrupted to avoid the Golden Mean Fallacy. Not having a balance would make the Assassins page an example of Draco or Rony as we'd avoid mentioning stuff that puts them in bad light and good light. Not acknowledging it would be either bias or subjective bias and we'd end up taking a side. It needs to be pointed out that most Assassins are traditionalist, and that's why we can't mention all as it would be too long but there isn't too much corrupt and mentioning them wouldn't make it to long because of they are the exception. Something we'd have to point that they are. Balance and accuracy.--ACsenior (talk) 10:49, October 22, 2016 (UTC)

We already have a Corruption section dedicated with explaining violations of the creed and non-traditional methods, I don't see why we will also have to incorporate these same details into the main ideology. This would only create a mess to its organization. My original plan was to include some mention of Corruption in the main ideology, as notable deviations, but we have the sections separate because you guys wanted a Corruption section to more definitely highlight Assassin flaws and mistakes. I acquiesced, but now that we have this, it'd simply be poor organization to then seep information from that into the the other sections. I was thinking of the same thing in regards to the Templar section. Whoever wrote it already discussed both extremist and moderate Templars in its ideology section, and so to create a Corruption section would be to extract and rewrite that ideology section entirely. I didn't understand too well what you meant in regards to balance at the end.
I neglected to bring up a very key point in regards to wiki editing which may be the source for our debate. It's not in regards to NPOV per se but no original research, which alongside NPOV & Verifiability are three of the core principles of Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia:
  • "Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research. This material is of a primary source character. The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified)."
  • "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."
From Wookieepedia:
  • "Original research refers to material that is not attributable to a reliable, published source. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, ideas, statements, and neologisms; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources."
Original research occurs when you introduce or impose your own interpretation or conclusions, regardless of whether it is true or not. The content we create is cannot be of our own analysis, hence why it has to be directly and explicitly stated in sources. This is to assist in the establishment of NPOV, and the policy was odd to you as it was smacking of censorship of the ideas of opposing perspectives, which I understand (and I actually appreciate because it's true & I once shared your sentiment long ago), but the purpose of this policy is to ensure that the wiki stays professional and objective, and it is not objective for the editors to use it as a platform to express their own personal opinions and arguments. Arguments we present have to be expressed by another source. This includes cases such as the destruction of the Great Chain. We don't have a source that where someone posed this argument that it was a violation or corruption. We are extrapolating it from "logical deduction" which is an exception, but these logical deductions have to be as absolutely non-debatable as "1+1=2", as mathematics.
  • "Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source. It should be possible for any reader without specialist knowledge to understand the deductions.
This is why I went into whether or not the cases we have are debatable or not. If they can be debated, then it should be obvious that the logical deduction isn't obvious, and we should remember that we should be treating the exception providing for logical deductions as an exception to the rule, prioritizing avoiding original research as much as we can. You have been arguing that these cases aren't debatable but questionable but what to you is the difference? If something can be questioned, it can be debated, and I could just as easily have chosen to say that if the cases are questionable, it does not qualify as being a conclusion we can easily, logically deduce to be exempted from the "no original research" policy.
We should be very strict on this policy. It's not for the matter of censoring conflicting viewpoints. While it does limit the viewpoints we can express, which we can do so in other platforms, its purpose is to minimalize subjective bias in our writing, by ensuring that all viewpoints delivered are not are own original conclusions at all.
This was something I had to be very mindful of when I wrote the ideology section. It is for this reason that I will be trimming down the section on Rogue because I realized that I seriously verged too hard on original research there. I felt the need to explain how some things were corrupt, but went too far into my analysis especially in explaining Shay's close-mindedness, which while true in my perspective, isn't explicitly cited in the source. The same goes for the destruction of the Great Chain: it's original research whether it's valid or not.
Finally, I want to bring up a point from real-life. You should always watch out for being too hasty with your judgments. As a rule, judgmentalism tends to be flawed because human beings are far too complex and dynamic to be reduced down to the simple adjectives we use to describe them. I'm saying this primarily in the context of Achilles in AC3. While flawed, it should take far more than support of the Patriots or opposition to a peace accord with the Templars or insisting Haytham must be killed to call someone fanatical. We shouldn't throw around extreme words like that so easily. There are many perspectives at hand for why he might think these things. My interpretation for his support of the Patriots, as is many fans, is that he was simply as stupidly ignorant as Connor in regards to their hypocrisy and insincerity as just one example. My point here is just that there's always much more to someone's story or what and why they think the way they do. Try to avoid judging so capriciously. This goes with Ezio too, and I need to remind myself of that in regards to Shay. It's important because we should always be especially careful about treating our judgments or interpretations of someone's character as facts when writing about them in a neutral encyclopedia (but more especially in real-life). We can't read their thoughts and feelings. I remember in Star Wars some people can have very strong opinions of the nefarious intentions of someone like Mace Windu, but then when you read the novel it turns out his thoughts and feelings and motivations were the complete opposite. Anyways for Achilles, this is off-topic, but my brother and I had thought that the purpose of those scenes arguing with Connor was to show that Connor was the immature one unwilling to listen to his teacher's advice but that Connor did have a point that Achilles had been failing the brotherhood. Someone online said that Achilles' line "in your haste to save the world, be careful not to destroy it" was an especially deep way of showing that Achilles regretted his prosecution of the events of Rogue even though AC3 was released before Rogue. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 22:45, October 22, 2016 (UTC)

We already have a Corruption section dedicated with explaining violations of the creed and non-traditional methods, I don't see why we will also have to incorporate these same details into the main ideology. This would only create a mess to its organization. My original plan was to include some mention of Corruption in the main ideology, as notable deviations, but we have the sections separate because you guys wanted a Corruption section to more definitely highlight Assassin flaws and mistakes. I acquiesced, but now that we have this, it'd simply be poor organization to then seep information from that into the the other sections. I was thinking of the same thing in regards to the Templar section. Whoever wrote it already discussed both extremist and moderate Templars in its ideology section, and so to create a Corruption section would be to extract and rewrite that ideology section entirely. I didn't understand too well what you meant in regards to balance at the end.

Yes we have but we also have a methods section by itself and an ideology goals section by itself. So how do you want it? Merge those like you've done with the corruption section or seperate and give a detailed explaination of both? It already is disorganized and I'm simply suggesting we do the same with corruption to get it explained with the same depth as traditionalist Assassins. By balance I mean avoid misinforming with these expansion by stating it as it is, there are more extremist Templars than both moderates and corrupt. There are more traditionalist Assassins than corrupt.
You asked for citations for my claims and I gave it, compromised too. So unless you want to completely disregard all of this, I'll give you the same offer you gave me. Rethink, rewrite and give citations on the cases you consider wrong. We can not get any progress without compromise. As for me changing it from debateable to questionable, what I mean by that is that from a NPOV it's debatable for us but that's only because it's questionable in the canon. By being questionable it's not fully accepted by the Assassins. There is a difference between being strict and censuring, we should be careful but not dismiss things that are citied. As for the destruction of the Great Chain, it's one of those events unlike the riot Ezio started. Seeing as that wasn't a violation of the creed and it's accepted to start conflíct.
And If I'm the only one compromising then there won't be balance either.--ACsenior (talk) 11:52, October 23, 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I think you may still not be understanding me. I didn't ask for citations per se, I was explaining the policy of "no original research". Is your idea that the destruction of the Great Chain being a violation of the creed your own conclusion? Yes. Did a source explicitly say "this was a violation of the creed"? No. Then it is original research. I will be removing parts of what I wrote about Shay and Achilles' Assassins as well, but mostly Shay, because that is my own original research. Under wiki policy, we are not allowed to insert our own original conclusions no matter how valid they are. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 12:18, October 23, 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I think I understated. You missed my point entirely. My response only had one and only one point: to explain "no original research". I did not say in my response you were wrong in your opinion. I did not say in my response I wasn't willing to compromise (quite the contrary since I even said I realized I violated original research in the section on Shay). Heck, I didn't even refer to the cases we were talking about at all except to explain "no original research". I was only explaining the policy of "no original research" because I see now that is what you are simply not understanding, period. This is aside from the fact that you cited none of your claims anyways. Your claims are your own interpretations. For them to be properly cited, someone in a source has to explicitly say "this was corrupt", "this was a violation" etc. We are not allowed to insert our own original analyses, conclusions, and interpretations and we have to be able to step back and ask ourselves, is this our own conclusion? Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 17:00, October 23, 2016 (UTC)
You kinda did, "If it is debatable and is not cited as a case of corruption, we shouldn't include it." - You. Yes and I got the point of that, but that waring of carefulness seems more like deflection rather a constructive counter argument with citations against my arguments with citations. It's not my idea when we have quotes from 3 Mentors demanding stealth and precision. We don't need a direct source from Revelations regarding the Great Chain when Achilles, Al Mualim and even Altaïr says they're meant to be use stealth and precision. I've the citations in the argument, if you disagree I'd suggest you find citations claiming stealth and precision is not required. Along with citations saying indiscriminate slaughter and destruction are allowed. Until then I'd stand by it. Great, some progress. Now let's continue. Warning each other constantly only halt the progress while putting the arguments one hold.
You explained it fine, that's not the problem but I choose to not adress it. That's what it sounds like when I get another warning instead of a counter argument, so naturally I'll not take it lightly. Then discuss the cases itself rather than continuasly return to an argument about carefulness, strict policy and biases with me in the center instead of counter arguments. Beyond that it's nice you've seen your flaw in the writhing of Shay, like how I admitted the riot at the arsenal shouldn't be there after having looked up lore on cases like it and rethought it. So you can take that part away too as it does't violate the creed to start wars and riots, it's not citied as such unlike mistakes, indiscriminate slaughter, destruction and exposing yourself. If you disagree I'd suggest you find citations to prove your point. And that's a problem for me, I got a warining despite even having citations. If you can't trust me to be able to be professional about this, then we won't get anywhere. Can you? I got it but didn't adress it. If quotes about how the Assassins are meant to operate don't count, then everything so far is personal interpretations. Meaning a lot that's written in this wiki so far. I know and I have, have you? And of course some of my quotes did but as said earlier. I got a warning instead of a counter argument addressing any of it.--ACsenior (talk) 18:04, October 23, 2016 (UTC)
First, I'm really getting the impression that for most responses I give you, you're taking them both too sensitively and misinterpreting them. My response didn't address your "citations" which are not because both you and I have been missing the entire point and have been approaching it the wrong way, hence why I felt the need to explain "no original research". It wasn't a warning, it was the best reply I could give because it rendered both your arguments and mine up until this point entirely mute. I repeat again: we are not allowed to insert our own original conclusions.
There's no disagreement about Altaïr and traditional Assassins advocating stealth, precision, and being opposed to indiscriminate slaughter. Heck, I thought you took that directly off of me, given that I was the one that wrote the entire section introducing that to this article and the one who came up with those citations. It's completely ridiculous that you think that I'm the one saying that that's what I'm referring to as un-cited when I was the one who cited them in the article.
I'm not deflecting, I'm not even warning you. I'm explaining what you are simply not understanding. Yes, it is sourced what the Assassin code is. But it needs to be sourced that the Assassins explicitly said the destruction of the Great Chain is corruption, otherwise it's original research. I don't know why I need to repeat this to you again and again. I'm not saying that you're wrong or that your conclusion is wrong. You keep on acting like I'm not counter-arguing or that I'm even supposed to counter-argue that. My point is that there's no point to counter-arguing it anymore because it's entirely irrelevant. I told you again and again, it doesn't matter if your conclusion is valid or not. It could be the most insightful perspective ever, and we still can't include it because you made this conclusion, not Ubisoft, not an in-character, you. It's one of the 3 pillars of Wikipedia, alongside NPOV which we keep on arguing.
You are taking (A) Assassins oppose indiscriminate slaughter [which is true and cited] + (B) Ezio destroyed a lighthouse and an enemy fleet to reach his objective, a controversial scenario [which is cited and factual] = (C) it's a case of corruption. [which is your logical conclusion]. But you are not supposed to do that. (C) is what I'm referring to as un-cited because no Assassin actually says "Ezio man when you destroyed the Great Chain, it was corrupt". You are making your own deduction, which logical or not, a valid conclusion or not, you should not be injecting into the article. That's original research. You're not understanding this extremely crucial principle of wiki editing. You think I'm warning you or I'm avoiding the topic at hand, but I'm not. I'm instructing you in what is a very core and basic guiding principle of Wikipedia because you simply don't understand it. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 00:39, October 24, 2016 (UTC)
Makes two of us then. So we're back to the start again. From what I've gathered with the "no original research" is that it goes both ways since it limits citations to a specific game, therefor any other citationsdont count. Like your own Stealth and Precision section that is a citated case regarding the Assassins but the NOR does't include it since that was not brought up by any Assassins during that event. And because that it's considered "my" interpretation rather than the citated methodology of the Assassins that actually it is.
Exacly and it's citated. I did take it from you, I know and because of that being citated and written by I'm surprised you deem irrelevant and says the case is "my" personal interpretation in a case where the entire section by itself is not an argument for the event but a citation for it. Seeing as "There's no disagreement about Altaïr and traditional Assassins advocating stealth, precision, and being opposed to indiscriminate slaughter." Well it's not my interpretation I used and you knew that, as you wrote and citated it. If citation for how the Assassins operate along with their own Creed don't count, then the NOR is a doubled edged sword.
That's what it feels like when as you've said yourself, because the NOR rule does't consider other citations as it's very specific in it's demands and that causes other citations that would be just relevant to be irrelevant, by making other citations irrelevant any argument with them used would be a "personal interpretation" despite the fact that the conclusion is the same as the other irrelevant citations since they too give the same conclusion. An example of the NOR being a double edged sword is both Bellec and Achilles brotherhood. Bellec has repeated several times how peace isn't possible but that's not it, what is, is the fact that he said the French Brotherhood was corrupted by politics and the peace with the Templars. Unlike true and ciated cases about Altaïr and traditional Assassins advocating stealth, precision, and being opposed to indiscriminate slaughter. We do not have any citations advocating for politics/political power and peace, we know they try both and argue about it. Regarding Achilles Brotherhood you have several Assassins praising Achilles and his brotherhood in the War Letters, like for example Miko. A more specific and uncited case in Rogue is Kessegoases attack of Fort William Henry. From one perspective, Kesegowaase manipulated the natives into risking their lives for his own agenda. On the other hand, his likely perspective is that he is helping their lives by fighting the Templars and the Colonial Authority(slavers, massacrers of natives and thiefs of land), and if they hadn't already been downtrodden enough to want to engage in an uprising and fight for themselves, they probably won't have been triggered in such a way. From his perspective, he was just giving them the courage to take action into their own hands. I do disagree with this method because I oppose conflict, period, but from his perspective, he probably saw it no different as political activists would in rallying people for protests. Because of the NOR, citations from other games don't count or the Assassins Creed. Seeing as it speficly ask for citations for the speficic events in the games themselves, so according to the NOR, Achilles brotherhood would be traditionalist because of the praise it got by Assassins arcoss the word. Should we remove that too? I'd say reason over rules, but that's "my personal interpretation".
What I'm actually saying: (A) Assassins oppose indiscriminate slaughter [which is true and cited] + (B) Ezio destroyed a lighthouse and an enemy fleet to reach his objective, a controversial scenario [which is cited and factual] = (A) Assassins oppose indiscriminate slaughter [which is true and cited]. But as said, the NOR don't consider as true and ciated unless the true and ciated is repeated again as a response to the speficic event. It may not be how it worksas I've said, it's considered irrelevant by the rule. (C) is (A) and (A) is cited because Assassins oppose indiscriminate slaughter [which is true and cited]. It's "my own" according to the rule but such methodology is true and ciated as being opposed, which logical or not, a valid conclusion or not, can be argued wether it should or shouldn't be in the article. As said before, I got it but didn't adress it but now I have. Sorry to bust your bubble but that extremely crucial principle has been broken, as NOR demands that the events are ciated as things in the specific game it happens. So unless we expand our way of writhing the corruption section we will more or less always break the NOR. Something I've no doubt our "fair and balanced" corruption section already have. But if we are to be this strict, then there properly a lot more fat to trim. I'd be willing to follow it and make exceptions as it wants rather than using the lore itself when writing articles, being strict and sensitive with the informating rather than more accurate and more informative. You can edit it away but according to the rule itself we'd have to take away Ezio blowing a city too as it's not citated by any Assassins as corruption, only the killing of Tarik should stay as we have a citation of Ezio in Revelations lecturing an apprentice about killing the wrong target and acting to hasty. Your call.--ACsenior (talk) 18:30, October 25, 2016 (UTC)
So quite honestly, I'm having some trouble understanding your writing for this response. It seems that your syntax isn't very stable for some reason, but I will respond to what I did understand. Some of the considerations you brought up were considerations I already had, and had already discussed.
Far earlier, I explained that we will make exceptions for inclusion of cases such as Pierre Bellec and Kesegowaase because these incidents, while there are certainly many perspectives around it and there's no one true objective way of looking at them, are presented as major plot points in the games. At the time, I mistakenly thought that you understood NOR hence why I delved into "case-by-case" basis of when we can make some leeway, but when it became apparent you did not understand NOR, I realized that we were just recklessly flouting the idea we can make exceptions.
"Sorry to bust your bubble but that extremely crucial principle has been broken, as NOR demands that the events are ciated as things in the specific game it happens. So unless we expand our way of writhing the corruption section we will more or less always break the NOR."
Hence why I didn't want this "Corruption" section at all in the first place, and I think I recall even Master Sima Yi saying initially he didn't understand why we even have this section, and why when I asked on Wookieepedia, they said that maintaining such a section is a terrible idea. It can seriously violate NOR not to mention NPOV other users including you, however, wanted to keep it, so I challenged myself to make the best of the section. I was hesitant about the ideology section for this very same reason, but again, I made the best of the situation given that it's near impossible to absolutely avoid interpretation in explaining philosophy. Rather than thinking about each individual Assassin's personal beliefs, I used all sources together to create the section rather, and in general, most Assassins, i.e. the main ones, don't contradict one another. I did take a step back when Ezio explained that he thinks that the core of what it means to be an Assassin is universal love. You are right that under this policy, even Ezio's destruction of Cappadocia might not qualify for inclusion, but I do have a solution to that.
I realized that that incident really should be included under a "Behind the scenes" section (or Trivia as is its equivalent on this wiki but "BtS" would be better). This way we absolutely do not violate NOR cited as corruption or a violation, but the case is definitely significant enough of a contradiction to be noted. By including it in BtS (though our section is called Trivia), we would be able to note it without any possible original research implications or even bias because we would present it as a critical inconsistency, period, and our audience can interpret as they like (i.e. if they think it shows Ezio is hypocritical or if they think it's an oversight by the developers). This also allows us more room to include other moments we also think are contradictions. The only issue left would be cases which are presented as corruption like Mackandal, Achilles' brotherhood, Rashid ad-din Sinan, Jack the Ripper, and Pierre Bellec, and whether we should still have a dedicated section to them (only because they are significant plot points in the story). Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 02:45, October 26, 2016 (UTC)
I know my writing isn't the best, English isn't even my first language, so I'm sorry for any misunderstandings and confusions.
Unlike you I use cannon all across to the lore, and that's how you wrote the sections about the traditionalist Assassins. But for some unexplained reason you changed the use of the NOR when writing discussing how we'd write the corruption section. Your current definition of NOR allow for far more exceptions and censoring because it dismisses other sources that's just as valid, but they don't count because it's not said within the specific game it happens. Something that allow for more cherry-picking and more leeway in what not to include. This is why I'm calling BS on the current use of the rule as it dismiss lore when it's suits the writer. As an example we could have an Assassin game where we hunt Templars without any stealth and precision while blatantly breaking every Creed but since there's no citations in the game specifically calling the protagonist and his brotherhood we could not include it since the conclusion would be ours as the game itself never says "doing X is corrupt". Be consistent with your use of NOR, so how you want to use it? Strict and limited to specific games? Or use all sources possible? Because with the current use we can not include old Ezio, Achilles Brotherhood and Bellec but we could include the French Assassins during the revolution(cited by Bellec) and the Caribbean Assassins(cited by François Mackandal). Achilles and his brotherhood would have to be moved up to the traditionalist section because of the praise it got by Assassins world wide. Why? Because we are not allowed to insert our own original analyses, conclusions, and interpretations with your current use of the NOR that dismiss any lore that's not said in the specific game. Meaning conclusions made by other Assassins don't count and using their citations would be "original research" and my own "interpretations" rather than the citations they actually are. If we go by the current use, those exceptions you approved would be your own original analyses, conclusions, and interpretations as none of it is cited. What I'm saying is that you've misunderstood and are doing what your trying to prevent by being to strict, pointing out the flaw with the rule itself and your inconsistent use of it.
The wiki is meant to inform, a corruption section should be here regardless of any opinions on the matter as there are corrupt Assassins as well. Not including it would be white washing and biased, that would not be professional. I must say I'm surprised MSY said that. I don't if it's a terrible idea, we started out fine too. You've been sensitive when writing from the begging and I've always used all possible lore, like when helping you with the Assassin Interceptions from Rogue. None of those are cited as corruption but we knew it was since they also targeted innocents and not just Templar allies and turncoats. But I decided to ignore your sensitivity because I expected you to know enough lore to know what to include or not. Unfortunately that's not the case and now we are wasting time with a pointless argument about how to do things despite having used this method from the begging. I've already some citations regarding the Templar section but with your inconsistent use of NOR I doubt we'd even be able to start writing it. We have only violated your second definition of NOR but not the first. You're challenging yourself but your overthinking on these sections is not helping. You're right that you did great work with Ideology & Goals and Methods but do you know why? Because you used the first definition of NOR and used all lore possible to explain the ideology and methods of traditionalist Assassins. Something you've admitted yourself. Actually Altaïr's reforms include love as well, as we can read in his Codex. But it's not a unifying trait as only Altaïr and Ezio has talked about it. So in this case it was right of you to hold back as the majority of Assassins have not spoken of it. Not only old Ezio, but Achilles and Bellec too.
You're complicating something simple. We could rename it to Violations and still have the little description about corruption but have two subtitles. One called Corruption for cited cases of corruption and a second the second called Unorthodox(indication not standard while being neutral), we can mention everything those Assassins did without calming corruption. Or an even better and more efficient solution. Using your first definition of the NOR, as we did in the begging. Your call.--ACsenior (talk) 13:40, October 30, 2016 (UTC)

I have to be honest, at this point, I wonder if no matter what I propose, you will simply call it foul. I don't know what you mean by "first" or "second" definition of NOR, for one thing, as there is one guideline on NOR with many different subpoints, none of which are officially numbered "first" or "second". I have not been inconsistent with NOR because the Ideology and Methods section is all formed from specific quotes and texts that the characters have said or written, not our interpretation of their actions.

This is in contrast to Kesegowaase, whose really only words regarding his beliefs is "Killing should not be meaningless" while teaching Shay to hunt, while it is his actions in raiding Albany and violating the truce at Fort William Henry that are corrupt, but we are interpretating that these actions are corrupt and we would be assuming what they say about the creed. I have taken strictly only what characters have said and written about the creed and nothing else when drawing from AC1, Ezio's Trilogy, and AC3. I also used reference books' entries on the Assassins, thereby what Ubisoft authors actually wrote concerning Assassin philosophy.

I even accounted for the greater inclination towards freedom in Achilles' and Connor's thinking, by noting "to the extent that by the American Revolution, many Templars, notably Grand Master Haytham Kenway, believed that the Assassins had abandoned their goal of peace in favor of freedom as an end, even accusing them of anarchism." Note how this statement in the Ideology section I wrote accounts for Connor's more freedom-inclining thinking of the creed in contrast to Altaïr and Ezio. At the same time, it also incorporates the Templar's perspective for a moment since it was relevant and adds to the description at hand. However, note especially how I worded, that the Templars believed the Assassins had abandoned their goal of peace, it doesn't say that the Templars are right or wrong. This way, we avoid from imposing our interpretations, and state only the facts. The facts is that this is what Haytham said, and it may or may not be correct. This is the kind of non-biased and non-censoring statements we should be looking for.

The issue is that the Assassin's philosophy is not well explained or described at all in Rogue (hence why I dislike the game). Motivations and beliefs are only implied through actions.

"As an example we could have an Assassin game where we hunt Templars without any stealth and precision while blatantly breaking every Creed but since there's no citations in the game specifically calling the protagonist and his brotherhood we could not include it since the conclusion would be ours as the game itself never says 'doing X is corrupt' ".
That is correct. We would mention these as contradictions to the creed they have explicitly professed to, but we won't call them corruption. Something you are having extreme difficulty separating is facts from opinion. You are treating your interpretations and opinions as facts that have to be included or they will be "censored". It is not that Wikipedian policies censors opinions, but that it informs only facts and perspectives and arguments by credible sources. You and I are not credible sources, hence why we can't simply say "this was corrupt" no matter how corrupt it seems. Hell, "corrupt" is one of those words that should be avoided altogether, just as "evil" or "nice". They are not factual words, but opinionated ones.

"The wiki is meant to inform, a corruption section should be here regardless of any opinions on the matter as there are corrupt Assassins as well."
Hence what you have not been understanding since the very beginning that corruption the word itself is biased. I won't write in the article "the Assassins are good people" and have not. I won't write in the Templars article "most Templars are just evil people". These are judgments not facts and you are treating words that are opinions and judgments as facts when they are not.

None of those are cited as corruption but we knew it was since they also targeted innocents and not just Templar allies and turncoats." In professional wiki writing, you cannot say you know it is corruption when it is not cited. Yes, it is obviously corruption to us with our real-life morality, but to call it corruption would be to "take a side" as you always say, it would be a judgment, an opinion. It is not a factual statement.

"You're complicating something simple. We could rename it to Violations and still have the little description about corruption but have two subtitles. One called Corruption for cited cases of corruption and a second the second called Unorthodox(indication not standard while being neutral), we can mention everything those Assassins did without calming corruption. Or an even better and more efficient solution. Using your first definition of the NOR, as we did in the begging. Your call."
I have given you my call. We will be strict with the rule, as I have always been, and we always should be because it's not even our call to not be strict with it. It shouldn't even be a consideration. I gave you the corollary of the exceptions to the rule, but it is meant to be an exception, and I got the impression that you felt free to flaunt it throughout all cases. I have not been inconsistent with it. I have used only textual evidence to compile the entire Ideology and Methods section, taking care only to explain or extrapolate when a quote or interpretation by a character may be hard to understand. The issue with Rogue is that very little actual dialogue where a character explicitly explains his perspective is given, hence why I dislike the game because the characters just trade insults and petty, immature remarks. Louis-Joseph does say that one has to obey his mentor without question, but this is a direct contradiction with all other sourced descriptions of Assassin beliefs. It is an outlier that still warrants mention, just as when Haytham accused the Assassins of abandoning the goal of peace, I did incorporate that appropriately into the ideology section. But you wanted a Corruption section so for the sake of organization, I transferred Louis-Joseph's outlier remark to the Corruption section.
But my call is to mention cases such as Ezio's in the BtS (Trivia) section as contradictions to the creed given and his stated philosophy without casting judgment or interpretation over it. This was the most major point of my previous response, and you did not address the issues with it. My proposal doesn't censor anything.

One great question I have neglected to ask you is: what is your problem? I have told you I have reread the entire article, and I have found only a few cases that needs to be trimmed, but all throughout, you make it out as though everything's a disaster, it needs to be entirely revamped, etc. In its current state, it even includes your cases of Ezio. The only things that were in disagreement were those and Rogue, which verged on OR partially because I was afraid to be too lax on the section, but I realize now that that caused me to make the same mistake as you have. Yet, throughout, you act as though everything's blowing up, and no matter what, things are unbalanced, but what? If things are unbalanced, it is only because we have included OR and judgments. We can reword them to be absolutely objective, transferring them to BtS/Trivia if need be, and it would not be censorship. All cases would be addressed, and my proposal would be less judgmental and opinionated than yours and more factual, thereby abiding by NPOV and NOR. Yet, you are still incensed in spite of this.

Throughout all my arguments, I have only explained. I have explained the wiki policy of NOR. Heck, to be honest, I thought that was totally inoffensive, and was literally excited to present this to you because I thought that would clear up all misunderstandings between us. Instead, your reaction, your assumption was to interpret that as deflection and warning rather than something very substantive and constructive to be processed and addressed. This is one of just many cases of this. I tried to refrain from judging before, but at this point, I feel this must be said: you are being too sensitive, and I think this is causing you to misinterpret or see problems or opposition when there is none. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 17:08, October 30, 2016 (UTC)

No, I've approved a lot so far, but I've also laid out how to proceed if we do some of what you've suggested. By "first" I mean your use of NOR that require specific citations within the game itself that action happens while disregarding citations from other sources that does provide a citation for such actions. The "second" you used is less strict and uses citations all across the lore to deal with such uncited cases, as other sources may cite such actions when another protagonist does it. I only use the second one, I have taken strictly only what characters have said about the cases like those and nothing else. But you did not consider those "citations" despite my methods being exactly like yours. And this is how you've been inconsistent as when you wrote about the traditionalist you allowed to use citations across all over the series but when I did the same you call BS on me and says it's my own interpretations when I did exactly the same. It's a case of Myopia as I'm not allowed to use citations across the lore but it is only allowed when you do. Why is that? How is me using identical methods to you an any way a case of NOR? Changing how to use the NOR when it's convenient is frustrating to deal with. You keep changing your position, wether is mid-argument or not. I have provided specific quotes but you changed your use of NOR after that and since then we've been going trough this mess and I've been trying to find a solution while saying possible outcomes of our actions and use of the NOR. As said, be consistent with it and putting more restrictions on me than you've done on yourself is disrespectful when we've been using identical methods. Only difference is I've not been doing that to you. I'll explain further bellow as you do it here as well. It's not a fuel, it's critic based on the different ways you've dealt with the corruption section in comparison to the traditionalist section. For things I have approved and said possible outcomes, I'd suggest you re-read previous replies. I've laid my cases but your constant change of positions on how to do this makes having a productive discussion difficult. You see the citations I've provided as my own interpretation unlike when you yourself did that. That is not professional, especially when we've been doing it that way from the start.

This paragraph is an example of what I'm talking about. Kesegowaase is an uncited case but like me, you'd go hunting for quotes that deals with situations like that in other AC sources with an citation against such actions, something you've done but do not allow me. While also including the the creed itself. But when I do the same regarding the Great Chain or the second attack of the Arsenal you don't approve it despite my methods being identical to yours. I always use all the lore I can, I've said this time and time again but such actions isn't allowed unless you do it. And that's not respectful. Going by your "first" use of the NOR we can't include the Achilles Brotherhood, Bellec and old Ezio as doing so would be violating your "first" use of the NOR. Seeing as none of those are cited in the games themselves they are in, although a lot of other sources does provide citations for those. So tell me, how should we use the NOR? Why am I not allowed to use it like you did? Why is citations for cases like this my "opinion" when other sources state things against it? Why do you make yourself an exception? How is my actions any different than yours?

Well I don't disagree with this, you're an eloquent writer after all. But are you saying the citations isn't a problem but the wording in the corruption section is? Because that what it seems to indicate here. But as said earlier, I've provided citations but you've dismissed direct quotes from 3 Mentors when I did it. Something I'd doubt you'd do if you yourself had been in charge like when writhing about their ideology and methods when you allowed yourself to use citations across all canon rather than restricting it to individual games. We are not supposed to cherry-pick and dismiss citations when it does't suit us. That's biased and not professional while allowing us to include our own interpretations.

Exactly and therefor including it would be a violation of your "first" use of the NOR. But you allowed it to be included despite the game itself never providing citations for anything they do. Do you start to see your own inconsistency now?

If it is correct, why is Achilles Brotherhood, Bellec and old Ezio there? We shouldn't include them at all then. I mean we could look for citations in other games but that's something you only allow yourself to do. So I can not do that. Btw what Achilles Brotherhood, Bellec and old Ezio could be replaced with is the French Assassins during the French Revolution as we do have citations for it by Bellec in Unity unlike citations claiming he was the corrupt one. He perfectly lays out that they are traitors and have been corrupted by politics. And Rogue provide a citation for the Caribbean Assassins in the War Letters with François Mackandal critic of their weakness and that his version of the creed was the purest. That's cited and in the War Letters you have the Caribbean Assassins asking to help him as well. Does this make any sense? Of course not but your current use of the NOR is broken to the point it's possible as it does't consider citations from other sources valid, even if other citations deals with events just like it. Either we follow your current use of the NOR or we use the one you only allow yourself to use. How you want to do it? Seeing as your treating all citations I come it as my own opinions even when it's quotes directly from the games, direct quotes about things are not my opinions but sources from across the lore. Something you've time and time again failed to understand as you only approve quotes when you do it. We are not writers and developers at Ubisoft, so we can not claim any quotes from the games to not be creditable when it suits us. The work corruption has been used against Al Mualim, Abbas, both with two very different methods of corruption but I won't provide quotes as I already know you don't approve it when I do it. You're confusing direct quotes for my opinions when I do it, so I see no reason to do it anymore as you've dismissed everything so far. We are not writers and developers at Ubisoft, so we can not claim any quotes from any AC sources to not be creditable when it suits us. Claiming the direct quotes from any lore as my opinion is ridiculous, especially when you allow yourself to do that.

Corruption is an in-universe judgement by others within the AC universe, both Al Mualim and Abbas is cited to be corrupt by Altaïr, who's a traditionalist Assassin. The Borgia is cited as corrupt by several Templars, including in a discussion with a Black Cross(Albert Bolden). Who's purpose is to eradicate any corruption and enforce the Templar Code. It's not my judgment is it's cited within the AC universe wether it's Templars or Assassins. This is something you've only allowed yourself to do, to use citations across the lore but when I do it's my opinion. Why is that?

We do know, based on the creed(factual source) and any other citations against the type of actions by Achilles Brotherhood. But it's not a direct citation as those citations you allow yourself would be a citation said against another Assassin that did the same as Achilles Brotherhood. Like Abbas, who oppressed Masyaf for decades. My real life morality had never had anything to do with it, as I've said, I use all lore I can find but such methods is only allowed when you do it. What is a factual statement is the creed. Dismissing citations when it's suits you is not professional, anything that is cited against in the lore can not be considered an opinion if characters within the series comes with statements against it. We do not work at Ubisoft, so we do not have a right to claim what citations that's not true or not. Don't make yourself an exception.

Yes but you seem to change how strict when it suits you. You allow yourself to use citations across the series by when I do it you say it's my opinion. You do allow yourself to be less strict with it when it suits you. As you have called all the direct quotes I provided as my own opinions. A nice gesture but according to your current use of the NOR, all that's written about Achilles Brotherhood, Bellec and old Ezio is OR. Despite the fact that you can find quotes against the actions of all 3 in other games except those they themselves are in. As said, I always use all canon and always will do. You allowing yourself to do that but have to "give me exceptions" is disrespectful. You have and I've laid it out for you as you've failed to understand it. I tried explaining it easy but I see that's been a mistake. So I'm becoming more and more direct about things. Or "sensitive" as you like to call it. You've done that great but why are you unable to do it with every quote I provide? Dismissing all it as mere opinions, might as well say I made up the quotes as their they'd be go just as little value then. Exactly, that's why Achilles Brotherhood should: a) Not be there. b) use citations from other characters when someone else does the same. Seeing as you only allow yourself to do B, I'll not do it as when I provide sources it's my own opinion. According to your current call on the case you'd have to move Bellec and Achilles Brotherhood there as well. Be consistent. I got the point, but as when you put more restrictions on me then yourself I choose to point out the flaws of it. It does if you dismiss direct quotes from sources, something you fail to see as you always call my citations opinions. Even the damned creed itself, why do you dismiss canon?

I've laid out my problems and I very much could ask you the same thing. I know you have. Another misunderstanding, you're confusing my suggestions and critic as it being in a terrible state. Something that's false as I have not said that. If you can find citations encouraging such actions rather than opposing it I'd suggest you try to avoid claiming it to be my opinion, because currently it isn't. The creed, stealth & precision and quotes from 3 Mentors. All dismissed as my opinion when the creed is factual along with the 3 quotes and your stealth and precision is build upon factual statements by Assassins across the series. Are those my opinion or canon? Do we have the right to dismiss canon? Do we work at Ubisoft? Are we writers? Are we developers? Don't confuse statement by others within the AC universe as my opinions, I've not done that to you and never would as I use all lore possible. Wether in a reddit argument or here. Canon is not opinions, canon is factual and should not be disregarded when it suits you. Or provide citations against it, something you've not done as we've been sidetracked by rules and principles despite using identical methods. Only difference is that you don't approve it when I do it.

I know, while you've done that I've pointed out flaws, inconsistency and how to proceed if we'd do as you've suggested. I wasn't offensive, simply full of flaws but every time I address any of it you dismiss it and always returns to claim it's my opinions despite the fact that we've been using identical methods from the start. So obviously I won't take it lightly when you act like this. Simply because I don't respond to it how you wanted does't mean it was not constructively processed and addressed. That applies to you too, you're just as good at throwing tantrums as me. Seeing as that's what out pointless and unproductive argument currently is and boils down to. Must say you've failed to restrain yourself then, but I'll admit I'm no better. It's called being critical, if we can't criticize each other without name calling and disrespect I'd suggest we lay low for a time and return after both have done some research, rethinking, rewriting, self-critic and re-reading all arguments so far. Because as it currently stand we're getting nowhere and wasting time. Progress or back to the start. My cases are laid and I've said what I can to improve things. How should we proceed? If using sources all across the series is breaking the NOR, then why is the Methods section even there? I did what you did when writing that. Looking for citations about specific actions wether to confirm or deny if it was not allowed to do. I did that with the riot at the Arsenal and found nothing to support it as corruption, as it turned out it's allowed by traditionalist Assassins to start conflicts. Unlike killing the wrong target, lack of stealth and precision and the slaughter of innocents. I provided citations for those and you disregarded the conclusions made by those Assassins as my opinions. What Assassins say within the AC universe about how to operate is not my opinion, it's factual statements and you disregarded them. Use the NOR as a shield to protect factual statements rather than a sword to cut out what you don't like. Wether it's because of bias or not. Is the creed not a factual and creditable source? Is the conclusions made by characters a factual and creditable source? I've tried to explain too and gotten nowhere, I've tried to point out your flaws and the progress is minimal, I've tried to point out your inconsistent use of the NOR but you've dismissed it like the statements I provided. I'll be generous and give you a second chance by offering what you offered me. A chance to rethink and rewrite. You don't need to explain how things work, it's not my first day.--ACsenior (talk) 16:12, October 31, 2016 (UTC)

I haven't thrown a single tantrum this entire time. The closest would be when you went on the first tirade about how I was being biased and taking a side when I had been careful to avoid accusing you of the same thing, hence why I felt you crossed the line that time. In my perspective, I tried my best to not make this about you so much about your misunderstanding. As I recall, I have only twice made this about you, in my last response when I said that I think you are being too sensitive, and in a previous response where I advised you against judgmentalism, which was actually an off-topic real-life advice unrelated to work here at all. In contrast, I find that you're so prone in every one of your responses to make all these accusations about say how I'm dismissing citations and being inconsistent with strictness of OR when it suits me. When I gave that point about real-life judgmentalism, that is what I meant. There are alternative perspectives here, but each time, you head straight long into assumptions or accusations. Now that was my perspective when I said you were being too sensitive, but I will take a step back on it now.
I am still struggling to understand why it is that you think that I have been inconsistent or why you think I am dismissing citations when it suits me, and you're not being anymore clear by only repeating your accusation again and again without giving the concrete cases to support it.
However, I think your perspective stems from a misunderstanding of drawing conclusions and citations. I must harken back to this, which I should've addressed earlier.
I gave you: "You are taking (A) Assassins oppose indiscriminate slaughter [which is true and cited] + (B) Ezio destroyed a lighthouse and an enemy fleet to reach his objective, a controversial scenario [which is cited and factual] = (C) it's a case of corruption. [which is your logical conclusion]. But you are not supposed to do that. (C) is what I'm referring to as un-cited because no Assassin actually says Ezio man when you destroyed the Great Chain, it was corrupt'. You are making your own deduction, which logical or not, a valid conclusion or not, you should not be injecting into the article. That's original research."
You corrected me with this: "What I'm actually saying: (A) Assassins oppose indiscriminate slaughter [which is true and cited] + (B) Ezio destroyed a lighthouse and an enemy fleet to reach his objective, a controversial scenario [which is cited and factual] = (A) Assassins oppose indiscriminate slaughter [which is true and cited]".
This is the source of your confusion where your logical progression does not work. Your conclusion is not "Assassins oppose indiscriminate slaughter" from (A) Assassins oppose indiscriminate slaughter + (B) Ezio destroyed a lighthouse & an enemy fleet to reach his objective. That does not make sense, where would (B) come into that conclusion? A = A, A+B=C, not A+B = A. That does not make logical sense. Your goal or point is that Ezio destroying the lighthouse and enemy fleet violated the creed. That is your argument. That is your conclusion. Your conclusion is not "Assassins oppose indiscriminate slaughter", that's your given, the cited evidence you're taking from, not your conclusion. Your conclusion is a new one formed from the synthesis of "Assassins oppose indiscriminate slaughter" + "Ezio destroyed a lighthouse & an enemy fleet", and that conclusion is, therefore "Ezio destroying a lighthouse & enemy fleet is indiscriminate slaughter so it violates the creed". That is the conclusion you're trying to make.
A+B=C, and you tried to correct it to A+B=A which is illogical. A is cited, but what is not cited is your conclusion that because the creed forbids collateral damage and indiscriminate slaughter, Ezio violated it by destroying a lighthouse and an enemy fleet.
I told you that your conclusion can be valid. The problem here is that you see that conclusion you're making that Ezio violated the creed with that act as so clear and direct, it is virtually cited by the mere statement that the Assassins forbid indiscriminate slaughter and collateral damage. But it is not A, it is C, a new conclusion. All your quotes cite A not C hence why you citations do not work. You are citing A which we agree on, and you think it so obviously when combined with B, leads to conclusion C you conflate C with A altogether which is incorrect.
NOR means that you are not allowed to draw conclusions even if they are valid. We have sources that state that Assassins oppose indiscimrinate slaughter and collateral damage. We are not allowed to take Ezio's actions, and then synthesize that with what we factually know of the creed, to reach the conclusion he violated the creed, even if it's true, we cannot include it.
The reason why the Ideology section doesn't violate this is because it is not drawing original conlusions. It is explaining that Assassins oppose indiscriminate slaughter and collateral damage, period, not saying whether anyone is good or bad or violated or abided by the creed, just what the creed says, which is explicitly given. It is a case of A=A.
But A+B=C, while correct is not allowed under the policy of NOR. The reason why I have been "dismissing" your citations is because your idea is that A+B=A (when you mean to say A+B=C) which isn't even mathematically correct. It's totally illogical. You are drawing a conclusion that Ezio violated the creed (C), with the citation that Assassins oppose indiscriminate slaughter and collateral damage (A), but you're skipping a step, and therefore conflating the two.
The exception is if the logical conclusion really is extremely, extremely straightforward and clear, like 1+1=2. Like if Ezio decapitated an innocent civilian intentionally, but he did not. He destroyed an enemy fleet, he destroyed a lighthouse, but these were hostile targets, and it can be debated whether it constituted indiscriminate slaughter or collateral damage, so it does not qualify for the exception. If it is even slightly dubious, we have to be careful. If it is not 1+1=2, we have to be careful.


My inconsistency is owing to the following:
  • In regards to the Ideology section, as I said, in that case I am taking exactly A=A, what is directly stated and given, not synthesizing to draw my own conclusion, logical/valid or not. It is not A+B=C, or your fallacious A+B=A, it's A=A.
  1. In regards to my examples in the "Corruption" section, I specifically said that both you and I failed at NOR here, hence why I need to trim it. However, the reason why I failed to abide by it is because I was trying to compromise with your desire for this section to remain in the first place, which we know would violate NOR completely in itself
  2. To satisfy your desire for this section to even remain, when it violates NOR, I just proposed that the section only allow cases that are so major that they are central to a story, such as Al Mualim for AC1 as the great last boss, Achilles's Brotherhood for Rogue, or Pierre Bellec in Unity or where it's clearly antagonistic to the Assassins, as in Mackandal's case, or Jack the Ripper who has an entire DLC dedicated to him being dark-sided. The inconsistency is because I am trying to compromise by allowing this section that violates NOR in the first place.
  3. Cases which are clear contradictions but are not explicitly called corruptions or violations or presented as such can be mentioned in the BtS/Trivia section.

I called you sensitive because there are misunderstandings between us but it is your habit to jump to assuming hostility on my part, or antagonism or opposition, rather than seeing that I'm just explaining misunderstandings. Your assumption is that I am biased, or I'm being selective about when to be stricter about NOR, or that I'm taking a side, or that I'm preoccupied with giving you warnings, whereas if there are such issues, your immediate assumption should be that there is still some misunderstanding to be clarified rather than making assumptions about my character or my motives or my thoughts. Check the misunderstanding itself first. Stop acting like I'm against you. This is partially why I gave you a real-life advice concerning judgmentalism. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 01:55, November 1, 2016 (UTC)

Those accusations are based on the fact that the citations I provided was not my own words but what was said by several Assassins about how they shouldn't operate along with pointing out the punishments for doing that. It's sources about actions that are not allowed to do, in the same way the citations you used when writing about Methods and Ideology was sources about what actions that's allowed along with the universal world views of the Assassins. By being too strict I mean you attributed a restriction in the OR policy that wasn't there to begin with, namely that we have to restrict ourselves to the games the corruption itself is in only rather than using the standard way of that includes all AC media. Because there are quotes and text against various actions the Assassins can and can't do across everything in this series, alienating those and not even consider it sources when that's how it's always been done is not how things work. You did not have that restriction on yourself when writing the Methods and Ideology sections as you searched for quotes and text related to the topic of the section you was writing, and I've read the sections, so I know the sources they point too, but I did not put the same restriction on you that currently are doing on me. I'm trying to make sure everything is both sourced and all citations about the topic is used as the source. That's my perspective and that's why I'm frustrated with this as that's what you're preventing me from doing by saying the relevant quotes I found regarding all of Ezio's actions was not citations despite being quotes about the same actions and then said it was my opinions. Anything not supported by the canon shouldn't be there at all, my opinions has nothing to do with this. If you mean by stepping back that I'll either be able to source the claims I add or take away something that's not supported by canon. Then step aside, I'm trusting you to not need me to correct your sources on these things and that's one of the reasons I'm letting you do the writing. The first is that you're an eloquent writer and when you use all resources are great at remaining natural and explaining with depth. If you can't find a source for something, don't include it. The sources(quotes and text) we use can be written in the description above the examples of corruption to explain what's not allowed to do as an Assassin. Something that is relevant to the topic of this sections as Assassins that do things should be included. Ezio starting a riot has no support from other sources, as there is none claiming starting conflicts is against their beliefs. I checked and admitted I was wrong about including it, although personally I consider is corruption but our real-life morals are irrelevant to the wiki.

If you ask around about a former "news guy" you'll get the answer that the guy is me by the users still active that remembers it. I spent years in the dark here while using the wiki itself a source for arguments on the Ubi forums until I joined in 2012 and was the "news guy" until they got annoyed by my way of delivering them. I still follow all AC news but since i annoyed them so much I stopped, since then I've simply watched the wiki be slower to catch some new but it was their own call. As the "news guy" I've helping by providing sources and read most articles here because of it. I know how to source and the formula used in all pages is to include all sources about the topic of the page. It's how things also stay updated and prevents us from having to creat a new page every time a new source includes something old. Wether it's an individual, place or belief. Your introduction of restrictions to specific medias is not standard wiki sourcing. If it is, then there is a lot more pages to creat and revamp to correct the wiki under the new policy. Let me do my job, and I'll let you do yours. I'm here to support, don't confuse it with something else. If you don't trust me to able to source the "exceptions", then ask the admin you've tasked to help us to source it instead. But if you do that, then I don't see my usefulness anymore as I'd lose my position. Do you want me to help or not?

So before you try enforcing the unorthodox way of sourcing that's not used anywhere here, not even in your own Methods and Ideology sections, I'd suggest you ask for permission to use that method by the admins. The "compromises" about the "exceptions" would be dealt with as normal if it wasn't for your unorthodox method that you specifically want to use on the Corruption section despite the entire wiki itself does't use it all, seeing as it does't limit itself to specific medias but what the pages of this wiki does limits itself to is everything relevant to the topic of that page. If the topic is Black Crosses, then everything said about them and that rank is relevant to that page. If the topic is the traditionalist Assassins methods and beliefs, then everything about their said about their methods and beliefs is Revenant to that section. If the topic is corruption, then everything said about corruption is relevant to that section. You're not including everything, as you have time and time again said you want to limit the source of the cases to specific medias. Like for example Revelations that by itself has no judgments by Assassins about stealth and precision but a lot of other sources do, what Revelation does mention is the killing of wrong targets and the creed in every initiation, something that's relevant to his corruption of the time. That is sources you are not allowing me to use as you wants the sources limited to the specific media the specific corruption itself is in. Rather than looking for sources that deals with specific actions that not allowed and the punishments from breaking it. By not doing that we can not include, we can not include Achilles Brotherhood, Bellec and old Ezio. You said it yourself, we're not supposed to be cherry-picking, something we would with the unorthodox policy you're trying to enforce no matter what we'd include because we'd lack the source ex need to include them. It's a policy not based on using all available sources but one that has so narrow specifics that including simply the creed itself wouldn't be a reliable source. Something you've acknowledged as a factual source but don't use. It's asking not for all sources on a topic but only the sources on a topic from a specific media. And this different policies between topics is not how it's done, you can't make your own rules. That's your inconsistent behavior on the topics on the very same page. This causes the "exemptions" to not only lack sources to actually be on the page but to make the corruption section itself inconsistent with everything from the methods and ideology section. As you've have said, the methods and ideology sections are cited from several various sources. Sources relevant to the topic of the sections themselves. I know how to source, you don't need to explain it.

That you highlighted that with even valid sources on the topic is not relevant even when it's conclusion made by other characters from other valid sources on the very same topic topic is cherry-picking of sources made possible by your unorthodox policy that alienate everything except the media the corruption itself is in. It's their judgment, not ours. I've not said anything about judging someone as good, evil or violated the creed. I've been siting sources from the start that made such conclusions when others did the same, don't claim judgments by characters on actions the Assassins are not permitted to do as my conclusion. The quotes are still re-readable above this discussion. I did what you did with methods and ideology, find quotes relevant to the topic of the section.

1. Like you I found quotes about specific actions, those quotes are conclusions made by the characters I quoted. It's not my conclusion that actions like it isn't allowed, I'm simply using the standard policy. Unlike you I'm not limiting sources.

2. I know we have and I admitted my mistake, as starting conflicts has no sources of being against how the Assassins operate. Found nothing saying such actions wasn't allowed. You was right about that one.

3. It's not about any of us, we are not relevant to the topic of the corruption section. I've said my intentions, don't confuse it with anything else. It being central to the story only makes it debatable without using any other valid sources speaking against the actions they did. And you forgot Abbas. It wouldn't need compromising and wouldn't break the NOR at all if we used all available sources on the topic of corruption. Wether it's text or judgments by characters. Something we can't with the policy you're using on the corruption section alone.

Yes, there was until you fully explained your use of the NOR policy. Something you've done excellently. As said, I understood it but your specific of wanting the only sources to be the ones where the corruption itself happens rather than using all available sources like you did with methods and ideology was something that should be criticized. As the only place I've heard it, seen it and had it enforced is on the corruption section. Well I've gotten what I need and understand it. But before I leave the this discussion entirely to focus on the work itself. What policy do you want to use? The one specifically used on the corruption section or the one used on the methods and ideology section? With the first one you clearly don't need me, maybe the admin can help. If they approve it. Or the one used everywhere except the corruption section? As we'd use everything said and written about corruption, like how all pages have sources relevant to it's own topics. But if the do the fist, then follow the rules. Unsourced exceptions break the rules. --ACsenior (talk) 19:08, November 1, 2016 (UTC)

If you wanted Ezio's destruction of the Great Chain to be included, that is because you judge that act (and Ezio) as having violated the creed. You don't understand that logical progression. You're skipping a step because you see that as so obviously supported by the sources that say Assassins oppose inflicting collateral damage and indiscriminate slaughter. I am not alienating any sources at all. I am using every source that I can through the entirety of the article.
ACSenior, you're still not understanding me. I am not limiting sources specifically so that only my interpretations can be used, or to enforce my specific perspective. I already responded to your accusation with as clear of an explanation I could provide but you did not address it or nor did you seem to understand it at all. I recommend that it would help you to comprehend the misunderstanding if you took a step back, played Devil's Advocate, and assume that that is not what I'm doing, respect that it's an honest confusion between us, then reread my explanation, because it is clouding your comprehension of my writing. I gave you my explanation on why your citations were not citations to begin with, why the confusion over its use in the Corruption section occurred, your logical fallacy, and you don't understand it, and rather than considering the logical fallacy to be at the source of our misunderstanding continued to be fixated at your one-sided presupposition, so there is nothing more that I can say to convince you otherwise.
My policy is not unorthodox. When I first explained it to you, I gave the exact quotes on the policy from Wookieepedia and Wikipedia. It is a policy heavily enforced on both those sites. It is true that it is not used here that strictly but that is owing to it being a younger wiki with less active of a community (even if the AC franchise is almost a decade old).
I have already contacted administrators to intervene in this case and that should prove most helpful. I suppose there is little more to say between us.
P.S. Once again, I didn't forget Abbas, I was just listing examples, not necessarily all of them. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 20:59, November 1, 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Templar Corruption

I disagree with splitting the Templars into three sections: moderate, extremists, and corrupted. The reason is because while we can definitely see different strains of Templars, this clear delineation isn't cited and would be a case of our personal interpretations. I know that back in Wookieepedia, I was cautioned about doing just this because even if I were correct, I might even be influencing or setting precedents for future AC producers with my interpretations when this was an interpretation they did not have. It might sound odd that this is possible with Assassin's Creed, but Wookieepedia was enormously influential on Star Wars authors back in the day.

But my main reason for opposing this is because Templar ideology honestly hasn't been clearly defined. It is not like Assassin ideology where we were given these key tenets, explicitly set down, and Altaïr writes a philosophically profound book on the whole matter, and then we weave together all the consistent explanations and words by the rest of the Assassins.

The Templars don't have this because we don't really see from their perspectives. We know a lot about their beliefs from just their arguments and last words, but there isn't anything that we can say is a definition of a who a Templar is. I thought that a Templar is defined by (a) the idea that the best route to peace is through the imposition of a New World Order run by Templars (b) in contrast to Assassins they view security and stability as a paramount priority over welfare and fulfillment (which is a real-world contrast b/w conservatives and liberals) because the Assassins value freedom not for freedom's sake but because they think that peace without the fulfillment of individual expression of character, happiness, & life is an empty peace, or a low-standard for peace, hence why it is not okay to sacrifice these things for security; the Templars think that Assassins are idiotic because peace is more easily achieved by the securing stability and security, whether cultivating internal (individual) "prosperity" or not, hence why they think that the Assassins' method of allowing freedom of expression and liberties is too risky. (c) a mentality of certainty within one's own beliefs, which Haytham cited was the deciding allure of Templar ways when he was introduced to them; he felt he could be sure of himself (d) a lack of faith in humanity's ability to gradually achieve peace through mutual understanding; the pessimistic belief that humanity is inherently corrupt(d) achievement of the goal of New World Order by any means necessary is acceptable.

I didn't go too deep into my understanding of Templar philosophy, but these were some of the unifying characteristics that I found, most of which were almost entirely taken from Haytham since he's the Templar whose views were most well described. But are these characteristics really what defines a Templar? The last point is especially contentious since it essentially means that it is not against Templar philosophy to pursue their goal by any means necessary, hence genocide is justifiable. Templars are known to be more callous or dismissive towards innocent lives; Haytham killed the guards he and Connor captured for interrogation to Connor's horror. In Haytham's eyes, they weren't necessarily innocent since they were military targets, and he did not bat an eyelash at the prospect that their lives were in any way valuable enough to risk the effort to keep them around. But even Haytham (who I personally don't find to be that moderate) condemned the wanton brutality of Edward Braddock, who was so extreme, he probably thought the Templars he associated with were not severe enough in their methods, so it is conceivable that Haytham likely would not have endorsed wholesale genocide.

But is it established that Templars are explicitly against genocide? Is it established they have any specific moral code that forbids the killing of innocents? Or is this only a case-by-case individual basis because there is simply no regulation against it in their code? Does the traditional Templar code have any reservations against burning books, mass censorship, performing medical experiments on patients who have not consented? So here's the key question: are moderate Templars the norm or are they the exception in the same way Mackandal and Jack the Ripper are exceptions to Assassin standards? Perhaps this is why you argue that we should treat three different strains of Templars, but we simply can't do that if we don't have it sourced explicitly they saw themselves as 3 discrete strains. It's only our interpretation that there are 3 discrete strains. Certainly they saw that the Borgias were too corrupt to represent them, but would Haytham and Shay have disagreed with Jubair al Hakim? With Garnier de Naplouse? With Warren Vidic? With Laureano de Torres or François-Thomas Germain?

We know the general Templar ideology, but we don't have their discrete code, not like that of the Assassins. As a result, we can't decisively say when a Templar action violates their code or not. When you cite Hitler and Stalin orchestrating WW2, yes, that is corrupt to us, but would it have been corrupt to the average Templar, to Germain, to Robert de Sable? Is it a deviation from their normal code? They called the Borgias corrupt, but it wasn't so much their brutality or disregard for innocent lives so much that this disregard served no purpose other than to satisfy their own personal greed. Templars traditionally seem to think such atrocities are justifiable, but only in service to a greater good, hence why the Borgias were corrupt in their eyes, not because of their methods, but because of their intentions and goals. And if we call Hitler a corrupt (and he is!) Templar, are we (a) not being neutral because we are casting judgment (b) also being biased because we think to ourselves that because he is evil, he must be an exception to Templars, thus implying that standard Templar ideology must be opposed to his ways. This actually goes back to what I said about Golden Mean Fallacy. We shouldn't assume that traditional Templar ideology is pure evil and endorses genocide. We also shouldn't assume that traditional Templar ideology will most assuredly be opposed to these atrocities because that is us denying the fact they can possibly be that low on average. It isn't me taking a side, it's me acknowledging the possibility that here we have a faction whose morality doesn't classically oppose such actions, whether or not I believe that is okay or not.

The Golden Mean Fallacy is when we do take a side. The side of a "third way" which is a side in itself. I like to remind my friend that it's not that in defying black-and-white thinking, we should take the side of absolute grey. You're supposed to see the world in shades of grey, and sometimes people end up seeing an absolute grey instead. (This friend, because he wants to be open-minded enough to not see the world in black-and-white, ends up thinking ethics is so non-existent, it is perfectly fine to do anything he wants even at the expense of others; this is by the way, something that Altaïr mentioned is a danger to the creed, some Assassin recruits end up seeing the world in absolute gray in stead of shades of grey). We shouldn't assume that Templars are black, but we shouldn't assume they are perfect gray either because then we may end up willfully cherry-picking out any crimes they commit as decidedly not representative of their "true" way, which just isn't objective or honest. Who are we to decide that the "true" Templar way doesn't condone these atrocities? And that's what I fear is going to happen. We are afraid to make the Templars too evil, so we brush aside all the atrocities they have committed by either saying that they are exceptions to the Templar standard or not representative of them, but how do we know that they don't represent the true Templar way? This is why NPOV shouldn't revolve around psychologically manipulating the presentation of facts such that the sides are more equal. My point is we shouldn't manipulate at all. We are supposed to give the facts, period. If Templars classically commit so many atrocities, we present it as just a factual description. This is what they did, this is how they acted, and we act as though this doesn't necessarily make them evil because we shouldn't be judging, but if that makes Templars look more evil in the eyes of the audience, then it can't be helped. We promote honest facts. We have been doing fine thus far, but we should be careful of manipulating the presentation of facts in our quest for "neutrality" which would be faked through our forced manipulation. If we were to somehow present such extremist Templars as the exception, then that is exactly what we would be doing: manipulating. We don't know that they are the "exception" to classical Templar code because we don't know whether classic Templar code prohibits such excessive methods. The case of wiki editing, seeing the world in shades of grey may mean we do subconsciously "pick a side", hence why neutrality is a delicate matter, but we also have to be mindful that picking such a perfect middle ground is still picking a side when as you said, we shouldn't be picking any sides. We shouldn't assume at all.

I know that that preceding paragraph may be missing your intention, as you may be seeking instead to present both extremist and moderate Templars as just different strains without presenting either as "norms" or "exceptions". But the other issue is that it is subject to personal interpretation which ones are moderate and which ones are extremists. Assassin's Creed is not nearly as black-and-white as most franchises, like Star Wars, or Harry Potter, or Dragonball, or Pokémon, or Naruto, or The Lord of the Rings, or Orphan Black, or even Game of Thrones. Even Death Note, where the villain protagonist Light Yagami has pretty much Knight Templar goals is more black-and-white because he's portrayed as ultimately a psychopath no different from the criminals he murders. Case in point, the Assassins' resolve to deliver their own form of social justice, even as precise as it is, is still constantly questioned in terms of morality. Shaun and Rebecca even comment on it. The Templars in Assassin's Creed were as follows and these examples also deal with the difficulty of distinguishing moderates (like Haytham) from extremists:

  1. Robert de Sablé's views honestly weren't too well defined, he was just the leader of a faction who wanted a New World Order and probably condoned the actions of his subordinates. He could have been no different from Haytham.
  2. Tamir murdered a subordinate, but we have seen Haytham murder redcoats he interrogated who had nothing to do with the conflict.
  3. Abu'l Nuqoud massacred his party, but he did so out of defiance against the prejudice he suffered in life and believed that the Templars would pave the way for a world without such prejudices. It is villainous, but there's a realistic humane reason behind it. Again, this goes back to what I mean about the Golden Mean Fallacy. Sometimes, people do commit atrocities, and I don't want us to sugarcoat it by saying that oh this isn't representative of how Templars are truly like or complain about how it's being biased or making the Templars look evil. This is what occurred, and the audience should judge as they will without us trying to adjust the presentation such that we make sure Templars don't look "evil". What made this extremely profound for me is that here we have someone who clearly did something villainous, but we also see his human motivatons behind it. This is what it means to promote a grey-and-gray tale, shades of gray, not taking turns portraying opposing factions as pure good vs. pure evil (AC2 & Brotherhood, then Rogue), but showing characters with complex characters, who are villainous but have human motivations, or who are heroic but with villainous tendencies or dark depths.
  4. Majd Addin is shown to be a pure psychopath that wanted power and nothing more, but he was no different from Thomas Hickey, a hedonistic, psychopathic mercenary that saw morality as non-existent and did not buy into the Templar dream.
  5. Jubair al-Hakim went on a literary inquisition, burning hundreds of books, and his mass censorship in our democratic society is inexcusable but we shouldn't just think "ah this is evil so AC is black-and-white" there's a perspective behind it that still motivates many conservatives and also totalitarian regimes, who do such extreme censorship as the morally right thing to do. If we label this as extremist, are we not then being biased by implying that it is corrupt? Yes, I do think it is wrong, but there are many people in real-life who don't think this is wrong, so by labeling it as extremist, we are taking a side. By not realizing how this isn't so black-and-white, how much of AC1 isn't so black-and-white, we are failing to look at the different perspectives that were brought up. Jubair has a compelling counter-argument: am I not just another source of knowledge that you seek to extinguish for the greater good? It's actually quite powerful because his words strike at you, asking whether the Assassins are any better than the Templars, but Altaïr responds in his journal that while there is a similarity, he personally thinks that the difference lied in the precision, the selection of targets, but at the time he admitted he didn't have a satisfactory answer. And there is a satisfactory answer, but the producers ensured Altaïr didn't give it at the time so that the situation was more morally ambiguous.
  6. William Johnson wanted to force the Iroquois to relinquish more land, arguing that doing so would allow him to protect them more against colonists, yet we see that he thinks that killing them is an acceptable means of forcing them to sign the treaty that allows him to, in the long-term, "save them". This perspective is awkward enough that not just Connor and Shaun, but even Haytham mocks it his journals, but is it extreme enough to be extremist? Or is it just a lapse in judgment.
  7. William of Montferrat argued that while his method of disciplining his troops were strict and severe, he had acted responsibly and competently for the good of the city and its people.I do not see how William is more extreme than Haytham, as we never see William killing innocents but merely being severe with his ways of management, yet William colluded with Templars who did perform unethical medical experiments and abduct people into slavery. My point is that, delineation of "moderates" and "extremists" just isn't clear.
  8. And as for George Munro, Christopher Gist, Jack Weeks, and François de la Serre, we honestly don't know anything about them. We see them being normal, friendly people, but this isn't enough for us to tell who they are and what they truly believe. Just because they act as friends, doesn't mean that we know what their convictions and goals are. So they stopped crime and helped the city, so moderate Templars are mere vigilantes who believe they are promoting general peace? This doesn't distinguish them from even a moderate Assassin. What do they believe? We have nothing. Just rhetoric about peace and harmony is too vague especially since they meant to convert Shay. An Assassin can argue that the believes in peace and harmony too.

So yet another point is that, I don't think we have enough information to really describe what moderate Templars believe to commit to an entire section for them. I think at best we just give a general overview of main Templar beliefs, which can manifest in more extreme actions or not, but dividing them into "moderate" vs. "extremist" is too discrete, too blatant, and too subject to individual interpretations and opposing viewpoints.

I do support a Corruption section, but only because the Borgias are explicitly described as being corrupt by the perspective of the Templars, and we know why: it wasn't their methods but their lack of end goals to justify those methods. But we don't know how much "moderates" were horrified by the actions of "extremists". We never read any commentary on them.

The "Corruption" in the Assassins article is better described as cases where Assassins violated their tenets. To judge them as corrupt is to take a side too, the side of traditional Assassins, in all technicality, even though the actions of Mackandal and Jack the Ripper are obviously corrupt to all but psychopaths, in terms of professionalism, we are still taking a side by calling them corrupt. But in the Assassins article, we have an explicit code to refer to such that we can objectively judge whether an action violates that code or not (for some cases, not the more nuanced cases like the Destruction of the Great Chain). We don't have this code for Templars. If the Templars don't have a code that condemns viewing innocents as exploitable and expendable in the name of the New World Order, and this is almost entirely consistent throughout the entire series with the exception of Rogue and de la Serre's faction where it is ambiguous, then we can't have a section that treats such atrocities as "violations of Templar code". Because do genocide, do exploitation of innocent lives contradict classic Templar code? We don't know. And we might call it "Corruption", but then we strike upon the same problem we have with the Assassins, which is that we are essentially taking a side by condemning the majority of Templars as corrupt or extreme. It may even be ironically counter-productive to the cause of neutrality because with the majority of Templars having the "extremist" perspective, the audience might view extremism as the standard or true identity of the Templars. Unlike the Assassins, we can at least get away with calling those extremists "corrupt" because we know that they violated a sanctified Assassin tenet. In the same way, we can get away with calling the Borgias corrupt because besides the fact the Templars remember them as such, we at least know that wanton savagery in the name of personal greed and powerlust is against Templar ideology where such methods have to serve a "greater good", but for all the other Templars, we don't know if such methods that do serve a "greater good" violate their classic philosophy. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 22:59, September 26, 2016 (UTC)

Give you time to respond

If you want me to stop responding so quickly and with so much content, and give you time to catch-up, let me know here. I can't imagine that you won't feel overwhelmed. I can wait. :)Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 22:59, September 26, 2016 (UTC)

I am overwhelmed, so I'd prefer if you'd stop for a while to allow me to rethink, reorganize, rewrite and then respond. I've a few old and new cases to deal with because of everything so far. Give me so time and I'll returns with a case that touches everything. I can't guaranty when as for some of your claims I'll have to look up some old and new content you havn't seem to be updated on. Like the difference between, corrupt, moderate and extremist Templars. So I'll return with a lot of content. Be patient and you'll see :). Just tough I'd give a heads up instead of keeping you working in the dark.--ACsenior (talk) 14:25, September 27, 2016 (UTC)

  • Yeah I have a bad impulse of feeling compelled to respond promptly to any message I receive. Well, maybe normally that won't be a bad thing. I do want to point out that I actually re-read the article yesterday, and it is actually in a better state than I had expected. There are a few places that I think needs some modifications or tweaking, but I will tell you more about those later. For the most part, I think we have done fairly well with trying to maintain neutrality, so I think I've been a little overdramatic. ^_^ Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 20:30, September 27, 2016 (UTC)
  • Amd that's why I've waited with responding to this as well. It's not but I got a lot to reply too, I'll be busy with a few days. Surprised and good to hear it's in a better shape than expected, but I've been holding back so far but won't be doing the same this time, even if it's in a better shape. I'll try to get my points out clearer and better explained. We can discuss the modifications and tweaking another time. We both have as we have different methods of wanting neutrality while being cautious and are in the opposite side of the spectrum as I agree with the (moderate)Templar philosophy and you with the Assassin philosophy. It's a bag of snakes. Either way I'm just going to say that I've just started writing the reply.--ACsenior (talk) 18:49, September 29, 2016 (UTC)
So do you plan to not post your response until you have everything written out completely? That way I know when you're ready for me to reply. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 01:37, October 2, 2016 (UTC)
That's the plan, I'll write everything and then respond. I'm soon finished with the Assassin part and have made some groundwork for the Templar.--ACsenior (talk) 07:02, October 2, 2016 (UTC)
I'm finished with the Assassin section but I'll not respond until all is done. Simply updating. The Templar section might take longer as I'll have to look up old and new citations of my claims--ACsenior (talk) 17:58, October 2, 2016 (UTC)
By the way, the Templars article is apparently a Featured Article, even though I really don't think that it's up to that status yet. However, this might be something to take into consideration. I'm not sure how much we should be tweaking a Featured Article. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 01:13, October 3, 2016 (UTC)
Didn't know that but I'm sure there's a way around it. Either make a deal with one of the moderators/Mentors in this wiki or try to add the category "Article in need of updates" and see what happens. As long as we get to continue our work in increasing both the quality and depth of the page, just like we have done with the Assassin page.--ACsenior (talk) 13:41, October 3, 2016 (UTC)
We have Template:Revamp for that or Category:Articles_revamp -- feel free to add them to the list. Most of these are tracked in the maintenance page. I know there's not always a lot of admin presence tracking those, but I'm trying to be better about it. DarkFeather Raven's NestRaven's Hunt 16:28, October 4, 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll add one of the. True and by the looks of it a lot of pages need a revamp too.--ACsenior (talk) 20:45, October 4, 2016 (UTC)

Real-Life Advice

This does not concern AC wiki per se and is meant to be helpful advice in dealing with problems in real-life relationships.

When you have a problem with someone, and in the ensuing argument, it appears that that person disagrees with your problem, giving his or her own explanation, you should consider that your perspective needs adaptation and modification. If you believe that there are underlying subconscious bias involved in a friend's actions, but that friend defended himself by explaining his perspective on why that is not so, you should consider that maybe the situation is more nuanced than you think and your friend's defense. Even if you turn out to be correct about underlying subconscious motives, be it selfishness, egoism, greed (whatever the situation is), it doesn't change the fact that that friend might be convinced that those vices play no influence on his or her action. From there, you have to consider why they don't agree, rather than assuming they're in denial or pushing your assumption, that there is an honest misunderstanding somewhere. Too often belligerents in a conflict don't respect the possibility that the source of contention lies in misunderstanding rather than the selfish motives of one another, and that is something that I did not see in our former debate. You're too fixated on the idea that I am trying to censor sources or articles, or that I'm abusing or modifying a policy for my own selfish purposes to give myself exceptions, that you don't listen to my explanation of the honest confusion between us while I try to explain to you logical fallacies and the miscommunication. Prioritize assuming that both parties have the best of intentions, and that the matter is one of pure misunderstanding, not underlying vices.

Throughout, I never assumed that you were someone whose moderate Templar affiliation led him to feel that the article would be forever unbalanced no matter what even if it was fine or who simply can't admit that he's wrong but those are assumptions I could've made about you. Instead, my assumption was that you simply need some help understanding what is an established, core policy of Wikipedia and how it works but that you were thoroughly convinced of your commitment to NPOV. Meanwhile, your assumption was that I'm either willfully or subconsciously trying to censor information and sources to promote my perspective or agenda, and even when I denied that, rather than even mollifying it a little bit by thinking (maybe he's doing it without realizing he's doing it and is sincerely committed to NPOV and non-censorship), you became obstinate in your assumption.

Learn to prioritize seeing conflicts as honest misunderstandings. And when someone gives a defense, at least consider that you are wrong or that he is sincere. Learn to not be so quick to assume that someone has selfish motives underlying his actions because that is how I viewed you the entire time, as someone that was just ignorant and needed help with understanding how sourcing works, not someone who just can't admit that he's wrong or who is subconsciously biased for Templar promotion himself (which I certainly could've assumed about you). And even if you don't believe my defense, at least believe that I believe in my defense sincerely, and adapt your perspective accordingly.

Again, this isn't just about our debate. It's a common cause of conflicts between friends I've seen in real-life. People are so prone to becoming so obsessed with their preconceptions about one another, they fail to respect the fact that both have valid perspectives, and honest, good intentions, and that there is just a misunderstanding in either logic or implementation. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 21:29, November 1, 2016 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith—here is another policy of Wikipedia that partially refers to what I mean. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 21:39, November 1, 2016 (UTC)

Alright. :)

The problem is that I have tried adopting and modifiing some suggestions but you've not approved any of it, and with non of us doing any more compromising to understand each other we end up where we currently are. A fair point, it is nuanced conflict. That may be but there's shades of gray to this, so wether that friend knows if the subconscious bias does influence makes it worth to debate. Although unlike you I've been more straightforward about things, so what you might actually think is something I know less than you of me. However in case you do want know I did purposely drag this thing longer than needed, I considered throwing in the towel 2 replies ago. But seeing as I was unsure of either bias or subconscious bias I figured I might continue the aggressive and disrespectful approach to get a full explanation as you never directly established if the quotes from Altaïr, Al Mualim, the French Assassin Cuncil and of course Ezio himself are reliable, you choose to rather explain the NOR. Something the quotes themselves does't cross, my summary with them might have but I expected you to verify if my quotes dealt with the topics of the article and discussion and choose wether to include it or not. Something that is policy and something you did not, seeing as you said it was my opinions and interpretations. Something the quotes without my summary with them all would not be by themselves. From my view. This is what started this honest misunderstanding. You never explained why the quotes wasn't reliable. Was it because they didn't go in line with the topics of the page?(killing wrong target, lack of stealth and precision, indiscriminate slaughter and violating the creed) Was it because the sources are unreliable?(Altaïr, Al Mualim, French Assassin Council, Ezio and the creed(Revelations, AC1 and Unity)). I did on the begging as there at least was an understanding about the sources referenced too when writing about Achilles Brotherhood. Something there was not about Ezio, and I've not found all either but it's too late for that.

And I've apologized for that behavior. An approach I consider myself forced to do I never got an explanation that dealt with the sources themselves, but rather my presentation of them. So instead of correcting that or finding correct sources yourself you explain logical fallacies and the miscommunication. There was none of that in the begging but at least then you explained your case on the sources themselves instead of explaining things for me. And when we operated that way I verified with other sources that dealt with the topics we worked on(Achilles Brotherhood is a prime example here). So I went with a pragmatic approach, by putting my hands in muddy waters for an explanation. Obviously I take your attempts as explaining your motives at face value, but you made me question your methods and intention by a lack of explanation of the sources provided. Some confusion you mean, seeing as I stretched longer.

Truth is I've suggested things that might balance it more but never said it always will be unbalanced. Suggestions that was adoptions and modifications with your perspective in mind. I tried finding a mutual agreeable outcome based on the the arguments you've presented, apart from the explanations that's there for me rather than the article. But you've turned down everything, how can I help if you don't allow me to help? In this case, I separated my moderate Templar affiliation completely. I did admitted I was wrong that starting conflicts is against the methods of the Assassins and that Ezio never was punished for breaking the creed, but until you start verifying the sources provided instead of explaining policy to me I will stand my defense. Claiming they are my interpretations and opinions is not verifying, nor is explaining policy. I do however appreciate your concerns and agree we should be careful and have a natural point of view. But as an industrial worker I'd say measuring with eye sight only does not guaranty a hight quality result, sometimes it's better to double check by using a measurement tool. Check if sources provided verify if you don't trust them, wether it's a quote from an individual, organization or both. Approach them directly. The moment I knew I properly should stop was also when I got the assumption that you most likely have that view of me, just that you hasn't said it. That assumption of yours just pushed my assumption further, something that's a reason I pushed things further you didn't verify the sources and still hasn't. I've no assumptions now, you've explained you're case and I do think you have good intentions. When you sum up everything like that I properly should have stopped half way trough and properly explained some policy myself to fully avoid things getting this far. I believe some of your defenses as you have proved me wrong before, but you didn't use policy then. Explanation or not, teaching policy does't verify sources if the policy teached does't also include the sources themselves being either proved reliable or unreliable. Something your policy explanation did not include, as you've been saying the statements by the sources themselves was my conclusions. So instead of focusing on my presentation and implementation of sources, my point is that instead of explaining things to me you should focus on the sources. Those should be the main priority to be unbiased, maintaining a NPOV and not crossing the NOR. Verifying them is very important to that. I was being an asshole, no need to sugarcoat it, I know I was.

It isn't but it's an underlying theme that clearly needs to be discussed. Although I'm mostly at fault for pushing the entire thing over the edge, but it was for a good cause. That I would agree with, if there was actually any acknowledgement that there was something valid, honest and good intentions about my side. Because being explained policy does not do that. The sources should be our discussion and the verification should determine what to include or not. Something it hasn't directly been since you introduced NOR, at least when talking about NPOV and GMF you focused on the sources. This is my problem.--ACsenior (talk) 17:25, November 2, 2016 (UTC)

This is the policies I'm focusing on:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

The guideline in this page discusses the reliability of various types of sources. The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception, and in particular to biographies of living persons.

In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. When reliable sources disagree, maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight.

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.

For how to write citations, see citing sources. Verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies. They work together to determine content, so editors should understand the key points of all three. Articles must also comply with the copyright policy.

A citation, also called a reference,[1] uniquely identifies a source of information:

Ritter, Ron (2002). The Oxford Style Manual. Oxford University Press. p. 1.

Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space.

A citation or reference in an article usually has two parts. In the first part, each section of text that is either based on, or quoted from, an outside source is marked as such with an inline citation. The inline citation may be a superscript footnote number, or an abbreviated version of the citation called a short citation. The second necessary part of the citation or reference is the list of full references, which provides complete, formatted detail about the source, so that anyone reading the article can find it and verify it.

This page explains how to place and format both parts of the citation. Each article should use one citation method or style throughout. If an article already has citations, preserve consistency by using that method or seek consensus on the talk page before changing it (the principle is reviewed at § Variation in citation methods). While you should try to write citations correctly, what matters most is that you provide enough information to identify the source. Others will improve the formatting if needed. Help:Referencing for beginners provides a brief introduction on how to reference Wikipedia articles.--ACsenior (talk) 17:25, November 2, 2016 (UTC)

Sources are my main focus, if you question it. Verify if it is reliable or not by looking for citations relevant to the topics discussed. Explain sources, not policies.--ACsenior (talk) 17:25, November 2, 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your earnest and civil response, ACSenior. One of the things that I don't think you realized, and still might not, is that I have absolute no idea what you are or were referring to every time you spoke of sources or verification of sources. You talk as though you expected me to address certain quotations or citations, but that was never obvious to me, and in fact in your initial responses concerning those, I didn't even have any recollection of you ever posting any quotations or citations in the slightest, which only fueled my irritation at what I perceived to be a lack of understanding of what a citation even is. Even now, I don't understand what you are referring to when you repeatedly grind in my head "verify the sources". What sources? What are you talking about? When did you provide any sources? When was that even a topic? Part of my annoyance was that you always acted as though this was so obvious that I must be purposefully avoiding it, when it is not, and did not consider the possibility that I have no idea what you're referring to.
From what I understood of the discussion, the response where you seem to be referring to providing sources, you were just going down the list of whether and which cases can be maintained, but I had thought that our clarification of NOR renders the entire discussion on the Corruption section moot (albeit I remember I made the typo "mute") and irrelevant, dissolving it completely such that we didn't even have to argue which cases to include (and therefore the sources behind them) because the section might as well not exist. However, I wasn't immediately pushing for the section to be removed, as part of my compromise with you was to allow it to remain. At the time when I mentioned NOR, saying that it made the entire discussion on each case irrelevant, I had only meant to introduce the policy of NOR then wait to see what you would suggest based on it. Instead, you ignored the NOR and referred back to "citations" that I "avoided addressing" when I had said that I thought the topic was closed anyways since no matter what citations or sources we have, none can support our inclusion of these cases as corruption as that would be our own original interpretations.
I think I should be clear that I don't honestly think you ever were straightforward or clear or concise with what you meant. Sure, I think I was. Sure you probably think you were as well. You talk of compromises and proposals, but from the moment I introduced NOR into the discussion, I was arguing only to try to explain NOR and how that rendered our entire discussion moot and irrelevant, that we were both overstepping our boundaries. Meanwhile, it seemed to me you were continuing to try to talk of what to do with the article, but in your insistence over how I was not addressing the topic anymore, it seemed to be you did not understand what I said when I said that we should effectively cease to debate which cases should be included or not, in other words, the discussion altogether.
I made one proposal after I introduced NOR, which was for compromise: that cases of "corruption" should be noted in the Trivia/BTS section as contradictions to the creed, so that we still include whichever cases you and I want, but we don't have to debate whether they constitute corruption or not, and that if we insist on even maintaining the Corruption section, its purpose should be to cover major plot points of antagonistic Assassins, almost more-so as a section dedicated more towards a history of rogue or controversial Assassins, rather than to say so much "these Assassins were corrupt and violated the creed". A nuanced difference. I repeated this proposal several times, which I saw as a great compromise, but you never addressed it.
All my other words in the discussion were meant to defend myself from what I saw as a baseless accusation and explain why we should cease debating case-by-case entirely. If I failed to "verify sources" as you said, it was because that debate had already ended and rendered irrelevant, and for the rest of the discussion, I felt like I was simply trying to remind you that I'm effectively not even debating that anymore.
Finally, I assumed that as with Wookieepedia, essentially any Assassin's Creed material officially published by Ubisoft and its subsidiaries is perfectly reliable, easing the policy of verifiability. It is even simpler than in Star Wars because there are no tiers of canonicity or contradictions in canon. I think it is better said that I thought you failed to understand that it was not that any of the sources were unreliable or incorrect, but that you were misusing them or extrapolating or presenting them incorrectly. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 01:49, November 3, 2016 (UTC)


I doubt that, pol. Given what I just admitted. Well I've given you both the names of the characters and the names of the medias I've cited when brining up quotes regarding corruption, that you don't acknowledge them does't mean they don't exist. Claiming they are not sources or that it's original research is baseless accusations when it's not my conclusions. I do expect you to verify a source if you don't trust it, it's policy to verify sources, something you didn't do and "muted" the discussion without an agreement. And because of that I saw no reason to be civil as you attempted to dictate the discussion and sources. Not regulate, since you didn't verify anything. Jumping to the conclusion of original research "because you didn't want to discuss it anymore" is not how it works, neither professional and of course uncivilized to the user you're discussing it with. I've noticed that you don't understand, have a recollection and a hard time remembering as no matter how I explain anything you always fall back to questioning that I've even provided sources along with either accusing of enforcing my own opinions or original research. And this gas-lighting and baseless accusations made me consider making things worse on purpose, that maybe actions as ridiculous as your own would make you see your own mistake. Seeing as explaining anything fails. I know you don't understand and that's frustrating because I've no idea how to explain anything to you without being accused of anything regardless of how sourced the topic is. The point of grinding you about verifying sources is because you've not done that when I provided them, something you must do as it's policy. I won't answer your questions until you answer all of mine, so don't ask anymore unless you want to start explains things yourself. Policy isn't explaining unless we've broken it, something we gave not, so would you kindly explain all my questions regarding the characters and medias that's the sources I've provided. Bear in mind I've done more digging since the last time, so I've even more sources now. Just a heads up in case you want to discuss things again, because a backhanded but friendly advise won't convince me to change my positions, discussing the sources will. Until then we have nothing further to discuss. It should be obvious, I expected a user as active and dedicated as you to know what to do, you not wanting to discuss anymore does not equal original research. Discussing things is part of how articles are made, not wanting to do it anymore does't excuse it. You considered the discussion about the Corruption section moot after you brought up NOR despite the fact that we have not broken it. Everything so far is sourced, I only brought up sources that supported the the section as the citations was about corruption and therefor relevant to the section. And that does not break policy, it is policy. You not wanting to discuss the cases and sources does't mean it broke NOR. For it to be NOR, then any of us has to come to the conclusions instead of characters and medias across this series. We do have sources and I've looked up more since. I did give you the chance to removing it, however you didn't do I exited you to discuss the sources rather than continue talking about NOR. Seeing as we have not broken it, so it's fine as it is and therefor I ignored. You being ignorant of the topic does't make it NOR, surprised you even are that ignorant of this topic as you even have the links to all AC missions in your own profile. So before not considering the sources provided as citations, I'd suggest you read more on the topic. Try to remember it too. Addressing the sources is the only reasonable way you can change my position on this, policy talk is a waste of time. Especially since we have not broken it. You'd know we have sources to support the Corruption section if you'd actually look these things up. There currently is no original interpretations and all we have to do is look up sources that do state these thing as both unusual behavior and how they both think and operate. So we can write the description of corrupt Assassins while providing examples.

Not surprised given what I just said, but I've stated all my goals with this. You having doubts about that would be overthinking. The problem is that there was no reason to introduce the NOR, since we have not broken it. Sure we've gotten a few minor things inaccurate but beyond that the section is solid. It never rendered the discussion moot and irrelevant, it was nothing but an unneeded advise against a boundary we have not crossed. Because there was no reason to stop talking about what to do with the article, being stubborn and ending the discussion without a valid reason isn't professional nor civil. That you lacked the self-awareness to see that me blowing the discussion overboard was no different that your insistence that we've broken a policy is something I can't do anything about.

I've said I'll do what I can to avoid the topic being dumbed down, wether it's by ignorance or personal opinions. So that's a compromise I won't agree with. It's not about what we want, it's about what's cited. You not wanting up discuss and doing anything you can to avoid discussing it is no less a sabotage of the discussion as me blowing it overboard because of theNOR and your behavior. A policy we have not broken and a questionable behavior. Discussing this case by case is the best option on this given that's it's a controversial topic, especially for someone that promoted their Assassin alliance, has doubted from the start and didn't even want the section to begin with. Along with doing everything they can do avoid discussing it case by case by brining up a policy that hadn't been violated. And I've agreed on the fact that it should cover major cases of corruption and that it should stay. But they are and there are citations to explain what that defines corrupt Assassins. Because there was no reason to change the structure of the topic, it's solid but still needs refinements here and there and support from various sources on the topic of corruption. Currently the only compromise I'm willing to do is to make the section a page for itself since it's minority view in the AC universe. There no flat Earth section in the page of Earth in Wikipedia. Beyond that you'll have to discuss both the sources and article if you want my help on this and change my position by reason rather than policies that's not broken. Until then we have nothing further to discuss.

Makes two of us then as your accusations of NOR and my opinions is baseless as well, except unlike you I purposely did that and you still failed to see your own mistakes. You didn't fail to verify the sources because you never tried to verify them, you refused to do it regardless of how I presented them and when I started mentioning the sources my self, then you accuse me of NOR. You not wanting to discuss it while bringing up NOR does't make any of it less relevant as you've not verified them nor ended the discussion because we hadn't come to an agreeable outcome. Well not wanting to have a discussion does't help creating a healthy discussion, does it? As you'd be forcing yourself to find a way to end it and that would mean finding a way to talk the other user out of it. Something you've failed to reasonably do, choosing to exploit a policy and nearly had me actually until I started reading the policies myself. All I've used is sources officially published by Ubisoft and that it's less messy than Star Wars simply enforce my case. I know the sources isn't unreliable and incorrect, I've checked and rechecked several times to make sure. I could say the same of your use of NOR, seeing as it's a policy we've not violated. You have links to the sources the your own profile, so before saying anything I'd suggest you look up everything related to corruption yourself. That or start discussing and trying to refute them. There are two kinds of sources relevant to this, those about the corrupt Assassins and those about corruption itself. The first is used in the example and the second is used to explain what that defines corrupt Assassins. How they both think and operate.--ACsenior (talk) 13:55, January 5, 2017 (UTC)

So if I'm perfectly honest with you, I had thought that the conversation was already ended back in November (and on a positive note too - my bad), and because I thought we had finished our discussion, I already moved on from the topic, and I no longer have the recollection of the very precise details for me to understand everything you're saying, especially since it's still in such stark contrast to my perspective of the situation.
Maybe if I had the time later (and I don't), I would re-read what you wrote and see if I can provide a more constructive response, but a quick look at my response that you just replied to, I genuinely think I have said my piece.
1) In particular, you're responding to a comment where I was merely describing my perspective of a past conversation, not making an argument. I was literally being just telling you what I was thinking throughout our past argument, not saying whether what I was thinking of the situation was right or wrong.
2) I still have a compromise proposed above that you never addressed.
3) I addressed your issue with verifiability in my last comment in the message you just responded to. All the sources we are using are simply reliable, like you said, which only brings me back to why I wasn't "verifying the sources" because whether the sources are reliable or not is not the issue. All the sources are published by Ubisoft. They're canon, they're reliable. This is probably why I haven't been arguing or addressing this whole thing about "verifying sources", which by the way, I think you might actually mean "verifying content" (hence my confusion?)?
4) My point still stands that you were extrapolating additional conclusions from sources than explicitly stated. When I realized that I may have been mistaken for thinking that NOR rendered our discussion moot, I actually did try to explain why I thought your logic, and actually your content was flawed. Refer to my message with the timestamp: 01:55, November 1, 2016 (UTC). It was here that I tried to explain to you why I think your usage of the sources are wrong, and why your content isn't verifiable. But you never addressed that, and that's when I thought our discussion was done, and I moved to a different topic: your failure to assume good faith (which you're failing to do again).
Those above four points are just reviews of what I've already said in regards to this argument.
Ultimately, it's quite obvious that we're going around in circles, and for that reason, as I have already said, I asked an administrator to take over for this article for the timebeing, though I'm not sure if she'll actually get around to it. Since then, other users have edited the article. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 17:05, January 5, 2017 (UTC)
Not until we've come to an agreement, but if you're finished with then fine, but the section itself isn't finished. It's missing Abbas, Jack and a definition of corrupt Assassins in the description. A definition is needed to and the current does't fully explain how they think and operate. There's also the Templar that needs to be revision in the ideology and methods section. You may be finished with this but I'm not, so after the admin has done what she thinks is right I'll see what I can do from there. However it still is on a positive note, I simply explained my case further. Even if my comment is semi-aggressive but I simply responded with the same tone as you.
Then maybe our discussion is over after all.
1) So was I but we have conflicting perspectives on this, and that's why I tought we wasn't finished.
2) Didn't I adress your compromise to move it to trivia? Or is it something else?
3) Obviously that wasn't the issue. Yes I meant the content of the sources, my mistake for the bad wording. English is my native language.
4) We do have sources addressing corruption, 3 of them state the corrupt Assassins use of the Creed is not the traditional way while one cites a brotherhood and it's Mentor as corrupt and going against everything they stand for. The content is clear as day and all those cases antagonize the Assassins, just like you said the cases of corrupt Assassins should be to be included in the section. And of course the quotes from the corrupt Assassins themselves is relevant to the description of their philosophy. And that's what I've been waiting to hear too, that the NOR wasn't broken. Then again I never understood why you brought it up to begin with since all the content provided are conclusions by other reliable sources regarding corruption. It would be flawed if it wasn't reliable or not relevant to the topic, then I'd be wrong. It would be wring if the sources never stated that the corrupt Assassins use of the creed wasn't their way and they wasn't corrupt. And it's not against policy to use multiple sources related to a speficic topic. I didn't adress it because the content is relevant and from reliable sources. You may have but I haven't. It's why I'll still continue on that section since it's not done. And the Templar section. Always assuming good faith can backfire too, I'm simply more strick and coutious when dealing with sensitive topics.
We and still hasn't reached an agreement allowing a productive cooperation on the rest of the section. Unfortunate but running for an admin did give this a full stop. I might have a look at it's current state then.--ACsenior (talk) 17:57, January 5, 2017 (UTC)
3) Honestly I think this might be one of the greatest factors to the miscommunication between us, or at least why I didn't understand you.
4) And to that, my answer is at my message with the timestamp: 01:55, November 1, 2016 (UTC).
Always "assuming good faith" can backfire only if you or someone you know are actually in danger of being betrayed (and thus harmed in some way). In a work environment like this, you should adopt an innocent before proven guilty stance. Don't just blatantly assume ill intentions or deny someone's earnest perspective just because there's a misunderstanding. That will only aggravate those misunderstandings.
I will definitely resume work on this article at a later point, even if the administrator doesn't get around to it, but given there's so much else to do around here, I'm putting it aside indefinitely. I suppose my timetable for moving forward with this will be if the admin still hasn't reviewed it by the time I'm finished with my other tasks on this wiki. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 17:46, January 6, 2017 (UTC)
Wouldn't be the first person to say that. My bad wording(+ bad autocorrect) makes my writing a mess, and English not being my native language does't help either.
Re-read that message. If the answer is assuming good faith, then let's do that.
I didn't mean betrayal but that assuming good faith can often rely on trust, so always assuming it can lead to a blind trust and an user could take advantage of that. These things go both ways wether it's intentional or just sub-concious bias. And controversial topics that will be challenged will also result in conflict because it's controversial. I've told you why I approached the situation like I did, I've no reason to accuse since the face-in-the-door approach provided all the answers needed to not assume anything about you. I've used it before when frustrated, annoyed and without fully knowing the other person. Our misunderstanding would still be a misunderstanding had nothing been done, because this discussion has cleared a lot more than our messy circle arguments.
I'm still willing to support if you want. So if you do, let me know. Currently I'm reviewing it myself, trying to fix the Jack The Ripper part too, since unlike those written by you it fails to explain his views and methods in depth. I'll let you see any revisions and do before I revision anything.--ACsenior (talk) 18:33, January 6, 2017 (UTC)

Jenkins (Sigma)

I see you added some categories to Jenkins' page. Just wondering: did the Staff come to a conclusion on the matter, or did Ubisoft release some info I'm not aware of? I know that may sound harsh over a talk page; I mean to sound confused. See, I discussed the exact same matter with Nestyy & Stormbeast here. I'd reiterate their points, but you can see them yourself. If you've found something we missed, could you please explain it? I'm still at a loss on this. Thanks. --Darman (talk) 02:00, October 26, 2016 (UTC)

I assumed he was part of Sigma Team because of the name of the page. I just read it, and agree with the rest. We have no way of confirming he was part of Sigma Team. We don't even know if Sigma Team existed before they recruited Berg. So you can remove the category as we have no sources anywhere that he was a member. Shouldn't the page be renamed too? As it does currently imply he's part of Sigma Team. --ACsenior (talk) 19:03, November 1, 2016 (UTC)


ACsenior, I don't mean this as an insult, and I understand English may not be your first language, but could you please pay a little bit more attention to sentence structure and spelling? You're really contributing a lot, but you're also not lessening the amount of work that needs to be done when other people need to clean up after everything you produce. But again, don't get me wrong: keep up all the good work you do! -- Master Sima Yi Clogs 09:15, February 18, 2017 (UTC)

I'll be more careful then.--ACsenior (talk) 10:10, February 18, 2017 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+