Talk:Order of Assassins

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A Winner of the September 2005 West Dakota Prize

Chaos Theory??[edit]

The reference to "chaos theories" in the history section is either vandalism or a mistake. Perhaps someone meant "conspiracy theories", but in that case a reference is needed. comment added by 19 April 2008 by user Lee Sawyer

A possibly garbled reference to Chaos Magic, however: the apocryphal Hassan i Sabah quotation,Nothing is true; everything is permitted being a virtual "canonical text" of Discordianism, and hence of albeit ironic inspiration to Chaotes.
Nuttyskin (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also check out[edit]

I also suggest checking out Farhad Daftary's "The Assassin Legends: Myths of the Ismailies" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 23:07, 8 May 2005 (talk • contribs) 69.156.153.207

The History of the Irish Republican Brotherhood. SalahMagnifiqueSherlockFBI (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative derivation[edit]

Much has been written about the error in considering "Cannabis Users" as the root for assassins. Consider this alternative: A French, (crusader lingua franca!) slightly inaccurate, rendering of the master's name, "'Assan Sabah", fading out towards the end.SBader (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But they were already called Hashshashin (or similar) in Arabic before the crusaders had a word for them. The crusaders definitely borrowed the word from Arabic, not the other way around. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SBader: In addition to what Adam Bishop pointed out, you need to consider WP:DUEWEIGHT: meaning an article's topic may have multiple opinions or findings, and they should be represented in proportion. Even if its wrong because we'll never know–we need to back it up according to the citations. Only WP:FRINGETHEORY are the exception. DA1 (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine arguments gentlemen. "The crusaders definitely borrowed the word from Arabic.." Oh definitely, sorry, example please. Due weight; my suggestion is not one of multiple opinions, it's something brand new. AND it has not been represented in proportion. Will you back up my suggestion "Even if its wrong..." ? In conclusion the idea of using pot to induce violence however indirectly is farcical. On the other hand the expanding Europeans since the middle ages have wreaked havoc on names and words. When I comment on the ridiculous use of the word "Indian" for aboriginal Americans another moderator declares. "....they prefer it that way themselves." !!!! Fortunately this is only a talk page. I express, you negate, nothing gets deleted.SBader (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The etymology in the lead[edit]

The etymology of the word "assassin" is disputed and we should cover it in a separate section, probably the first section of the article, and therefore avoid populating the lead section. --Z 06:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 April 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved per WP:PTOPIC (non-admin closure) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 12:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Assassins → Order of Assassins – See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 17#Assassin. This article is not the WP:PTOPIC for "Assassins". feminist (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @JIP, Rubbish computer, Thryduulf, Tavix, PC78, and Spinningspark: pinging participants at the RfD discussion. feminist (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my comments at the RfD. -- Tavix (talk) 03:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, and redirect to Assassin In ictu oculi (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above and previous comments. PC78 (talk) 08:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and retarget the resulting redirect to the disambiguation page, search engine results show there is no primary topic for "assassins": The first four pages of google results (excluding Wikipedia) for the exact term show at least two books, at least three plays, the Order of Assassins, assassination, and Assassins Creed all mixed in together with none predominating. Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and retarget the resulting redirect to the disambiguation page per Thryduulf above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per others above and split. I was surprised that a link to Hashshashin dropped me to a page that was generically-termed for "Assassin", then further confused when the article as a whole isn't really about what a common-English interpretation of that term (someone paid to kill influential people), but about the Hashshashin (the Order of Assassins) after all. Agree with Thryduulf on the disamb as well, but we also need an article about people who perform assassination, hence my !VOTE for splitting. Last1in (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose since nobody calls them "order of Assassins" except (let me guess) in Assassin's Creed, and a name like that suggests something other than what they actually were. This article used to be called "Hashashin" or some other similar transliteration; we should move it back there, if anywhere. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and retarget to Assassin (disambiguation). Order of Assassins is important enough to compete with the common term on the basis of plurality (thus I oppose a redirect to Assassination) but not enough to be the primary topic. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Order of"[edit]

Are there actually any sources that use the term "Order of Assassins"? I can see some Google results for that but nothing seems particularly reliable. Why are we using it? Adam Bishop (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how I missed this RM. I totally agree. Rather embarrassing, really, that nobody cared to ask if the proposed new title were, y'know, actually used. Brill uses Ḥashīshiyya. What do you think about that? Srnec (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Marshall Hodgson's book is titled Order of Assassins and it's RS. The majority of more recent RS that use the term appear to be citations of Hodgson. Srnec (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ḥashīshiyya, Hashashin, etc., they would all be preferable to Order of Assassins. Hodgson is a pretty old book now and there are tons of newer RS that don't call them that. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Hashashin would be the better choice here. The Spanish article calls them Nizari first and foremost, and then both Hashashin and its translation Assassins; I'd say that's a valid criterion as well, although I don't think Nizari should be the title since most people don't know them by that name. Attilapw (talk) 06:04, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I found a source that actually states that it is a misleading term. By the way, I again propose merging this article to Nizari Ismaili state. --Z 19:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned in the last RM, I got here by searching for Hashashin and was surprised with the title and content of the article. I would strongly support a move to that title. On the other hand, I would really oppose any attempt to merge this article into Nizari Ismaili article. There is overlap, but the Hashashin were an unique and fascinating element of that state; that merge would be like killing off the Founding Fathers of the United States in favour of expanding either American Revolutionary War or the Thirteen Colonies article. Last1in (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan II[edit]

Ali Muhammad Khorasi The reason I reverted your edit is that your write-up is confusing. The next paragraph discusses his lineage and if you want to expand on the "concealed Imans" then go for it as long as there are valid sources. There should be a Wikipedia article on that, but I doubt it. Also, Juyvani said a lot of things that weren't true and why call that out? In the meantime, I'm going to revert back awaiting a better write-up.Dr. Grampinator (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Nizari Ismaili state here[edit]

Nizari Ismaili state (created in 2016) is a pretty clear duplication of this page (created in 2004) but with a slightly different spin. The similitude is in fact quite freely admitted under Nizari Ismaili state#Name, where it says "also known as the Order of Assassins", somewhat raising the question of why it was created in the first place. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I supported a merge back in 2019 (see Talk:Nizari Ismaili state#Merge). Srnec (talk) 23:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is going to be a difficult merge, but it's the right thing to do. Both articles have good info that is well-sourced, but they diverge considerably in how they present that info. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose since the term "Order of Assassins" is based on misconceptions by early orientalists and outdated. The modern scholarly literature in English normally use the terms "the Nizaris" and "the Nizari state". See also https://doi.org/10.1080/00210860500470201. --Z 14:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't pick the names here; we follow the literature. But that's not the point here: the question is if these are two pages on the same subject under different names, orientalist or otherwise, and if they are, well, we don't keep duplicate pages around just to entertain WP:POVFORKS over terminological quibbles. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ZxxZxxZ and Richard-of-Earth raise a valid point. It is reasonable to support the merge and differ on the target, and after reading this input I fall into that category. Do the sources, in point of fact, use Nizari Ismaili state more or less than Order of Assassins? I don't think they do, but I am not a subject-matter expert here. Without that datum, I don't think we can make an informed decision. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support duplications of the same topic. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer to see the merge go the other way, so oppose. I do not believe for a moment that any religious group in history referred to themselves as the "Order of Assassins" and it is downright stupid to think that they would. This is a name given in fiction and by detractors only. Until people realize that, there should be two articles, one that is neutrally named and this one. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per nom. This article is unnecessary and some of the stuff here is already found in Order of Assassins. EbnShareq (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Merge - The resulting article would be too long or "clunky", and separate topics should be standalone (but cross-linked) articles.TRL (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caucasus Mountains[edit]

I do believe that the "Assassin Guild" had an impressive presence in the "Caucasus Mountains" and possibly as distant as the "Pamir Mountain Range".

before the Safavid Qizilbash created their own Iran.

08:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)08:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)08:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)\\\\\\\\\\\08:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)43.242.178.227 (talk)\\\\\\\\\\\\\\08:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)~[reply]

@43.242.178.227 Any sources? Riad Salih (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_Assassins&oldid=1216983750"