Talk:Order of Assassins/Archive 1

Untitled

This entry, one of an unprecedented 52, has won the September 2005 West Dakota Prize, awarded for successfully employing the expression "legend states" in a complete sentence.

---

Riddled with inaccuracies

Since many authentic Isma'ili sources have come to light after the collapse of the soviet union, there should be a consolidated effort to re-edit this text, I would like to mention that Marshall Hodgeson, Farhad daftary, and others have added new light from Ismaili sources on this period. (Water Stirs (talk) 09:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC))

See also the review article by Farhad Daftary in Iranian Studies 39 (number 1, March 2006)which explains the origins of the misnomer Assassin for Nizari Ismailis.North Dakotan (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Would like to remove

I would like to remove the following text--or radically edit it:

The power of the Hashshashin was destroyed by the Mongol warlord Hulagu Khan, but several smaller sects remain to this day, such as the sect led by the Aga Khan.

Are we saying that the group that accepts Aga Khan are "Hashashin"? Or followers of Hasan Ibn Sabah, even? 67.119.12.107 23:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, actually. A lot of what we know of the later history of the Assassin branch of the Ismailis comes from a court case in India in 1866, in a case taking almost a month of court time, in which much of their later history was put into the record. The presiding judge found that the Indian Ismailis, the Khojas, were "bound by ties of spiritual allegiance to the hereditary Imams of the Ismailis", the latest of whom was the Aga Khan. The trial and results are discussed in detail in Bernard Lewis, The Assassins, pp. 15-17. Noel (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The main problem is in the title of the piece. No Ismaili likes to be labelled a Hashshashin. Aga Khan is the head of the Nizari group of Ismaili Moslems, which is the modern face of the sect once led by Hassan ibn Sabbah.--Vindheim (talk) 10:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Exhaustive

Informative and lively account of an interesting people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 23:20, 20 March 2005 (talk • contribs) 81.157.164.47

Even more exhaustive

Addressed 67.119.12.107's concerns. Added much interesting history, many wikilinks, carefully revised original text somewhat for style and consistency. Started to introduce sources (The Crusades Through Arab Eyes by Amin Maalouf is highly recommended). Well done to whoever wrote the original body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.27.165 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 30 March 2005

FYI

In the next few days I'm going to completely restructure this article (as well as many of the Ismaili articles on Wikipedia). I've been studing the Ismailies (in particular the Nizariyyah) for a very long time, and I've got a lot of information to add to this article.

FYI, the best resources for the Nizari Ismailies is Farhad Daftary's "The Isma'ilies, Their History and Doctrines", and Bernard Lewis' "The Assasins" if you have any comments, feel free to add them.--Venerable Bede 03:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Attempted Conversion

If the Hashashin really had attempted to convert to Christianity, it was selfish and hypocritical of the Knights Templar if they had prevented them from doing so. Anglius 02:00, 2 June 2005

As far as I know only some of the Hashshashin wished to convert to Christianity, and there were political reasons for the Knights Templar to prevent that. Aran|heru|nar 13:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Heru. They were not so holy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anglius (talk • contribs) 02:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Shia isma'ili used the Shia idea of Taqiyya (dissimulation) as a political tool...unlike twelvers who used it for survival. So their offers of conversion were not authentic. (Water Stirs (talk) 09:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC))

Casual Reader recommends for deletion

However, assassination and terror are often major components of Arab and Israeli politics.

This is a strange mention. Whether or not assassination is universally employed to achieve political goals is arguable insofar as we define "universally". Political terrorism is also not exclusive to Middle Eastern politics. Off of the top of my head, in Russia, Ireland/Great Britain, Indonesia, South Asia, Japan, many states in Africa, France, Germany, and Italy, terrorism has played a significant role in political struggles. It seems this statement is too topical. Yes, Middle Eastern terrorism is an issue of the day, but this formulation is inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.68.98 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 21 July 2005

How about adding the U.S to that too since we nuked japan with one of the objectives as causeing terror,and every cutlure uses assasination in one way or the other. --Thew Morte (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Reference for this?

I have removed this line from the section comparing the Hashashin to Al-Qaida as I couldn't find anything to back it up.

Moreover, confirmed culprits so far for 9-11 and the Madrid Bombs were all drug-users.

Xebedee 18:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Al-da'wa al-jadīda spelled wrong in Arabic?

I always thought that in Arabic the adjectives come after the nouns but according to this article it's "al-da'wa al-jadīda (الجديدة الدعوة)". Al-da'wa means "the doctrine" and is spelled الدعوة and al-jadīda is equivalent to "new" and is spelled الجديدة. But because Arabic reads from right to left al-da'wa al-jadīda should read الدعوةالجديدة and not الجديدة الدعوة. Am I correct in saying this? I'm going to change it for now until someone either realizes that I'm mistaken or comments back that I'm correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowabunga5587 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 18 December 2005

Your correction on the order of adjective and noun are correct, but translating ad-da'oua as "doctrine" strikes me as quite peculiar. New Preaching, New Summons (in a religious sense), New Mission (as religious mission, e.g. missionaries), the New Call - these all strike me as decent translations, but doctrine? Where did you get that? (Collounsbury 07:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)).

Yeah sorry bout that i'm only recently studying arabic, but my main point was for the order of the words Mike 20:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Al-da'wat al-jadidiya (Pronunciation: Edda'vet-ül cedidiyye). First L in "el" is not pronounced becoz of Şemsi letter "dal". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.96.172.23 (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Para on links with knights Templar

Don't really feel qualified to enter this myself but anyone with the right information could, perhaps a paragraph on the suspected Templar/Hashassin link should be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.48.118 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 20 March 2006

This is an absolute minefield as almost everything anyone has written about this is probably speculative. The only thing we do know about is that Templar and Hashashin strongholds were close to each other, that there was an balance or power between them and that there was an indicent in which Templars ambushed and killed some Hashashin ambassadors, I think. Speculation is rife. Maugre believes the Templars were hand in glove with the Hashashin and modelled themselves on them. Others say the Templars gained Sufic and other mystical ideas from them. Others that they were parallel spiritual sects - both warrior-monk types with powerful military and financial might, independent of most authorities and in pursuit of mystical knowledge. We just don't know. ThePeg 17:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

why hypocritical?

why hypocritical? If anything the Templars practised a perverted form of christianity if not out right heresy as were the grounds for their destruction by the King of France and Pope —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.48.118 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 20 March 2006

That isnt proven to be true.It was more likely that the king wanted their tresure and out of fear of how powerful they had became.--Thew Morte (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Influences

Just a quick comment on the Influences section saying the Terry Pratchett Assassins are based on the historical group. This is a very tenuous link; the Discworld Assassins are trained at what amounts to a public school and have no ideology or agenda to promote, with no goal except to make money and to look good. You may as well say they're based on the Ninja, the cultural differences are vast. They share a name and that seems to be about it, as the historical Assassins never exactly had the monopoly on stealthy murder. I'll leave it up to the regular contributers to decide if it should be deleted or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.148.37 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 13 May 2006

I really don't think that the Assassin's guild in Discworld is based on the Haschhashin since in the book pyramids they are mentioned too. As the "only group of assassins that will kill you laughing hysterically at their own reflection in the daggers thy're killing you with". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.16.115 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 3 February 2007

Why Hypocritical? I find this comment tendentious in that the Vatican itself has recently admitted it's persecution of the Knights Templar to have been unfounded and the Order to have been innocent of the charges brought against it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.115.27 (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible Reference from Herbert's Dune

It has been some time since I read Dune by Frank Herbert but if I recall correctly Paul Mau'dib had an army of what were called Feydakin, a corruption of the Hashshashin's name for themselves. The Feydakin were religeous soldiers who worshipped Paul as a god and would follow his orders, like the Hashshashin, unto death. I also believe there was an initiation involving a drug but to become feydakin but my memory of that is unclear at best. I'll read into it a little when I get the time to confirm or deny this. There may be further references to them as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonzaisuru (talk • contribs) 02:14, 22 June 2006

The Fedaykin were indeed followers of Paul Muad'dib Atreides, and Fremen, or natives of Arrakis (the desert wasteland planet). As Fremen, they grew up with more or less constant exposure to Spice, which is a drug that eventually gives people certain psychic or prescient abilities. I don't remember if the Fedaykin took extra doses of spice (as in drinking the Water of Life), but they certainly had enough spice over their lifetimes to turn their eyes that weird glowing blue of the Fremen people. Pterodactyl katya 04:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The water of life was deadly to anyone, who was not trained by the Bene Gesserit. If I remember correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.225.136 (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Herbert based Dune on the Assassins, even the mysticism as in the Mahdi based on Nizari Isma'ili theology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Water Stirs (talk • contribs) 17:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I always thought the Feydakin were more based on the Fedayeen "those who sacrifice themselves" --Degen Earthfast (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Drugs or not?

I took out the following:

It has now come to light by many historians that there is no actual proof or historical fact that show that the so called "Assasins" actually used hashish. It was actually considered a sin by the sect to use such drugs.

because it duplicates what is already said by Edward Burman as quoted in the article; and it doesn't cite any of these "many historians". If you want to put it back in, please cite at least one source! Andrew Dalby 09:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Daftary or not?

I removed the long review of Daftary's book, which was copied (apparently without permission) from [2]. I inserted a mention of the book, and a link to the review, under 'References'. Andrew Dalby 14:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, the section about parallels with Al Qaeda has disappeared. This may be for the best, but I point it out in case anyone wants to reinstate it. Andrew Dalby 14:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Overall Article Tone

As someone with a passing familiarity with the medieval Near East, I have to say that this article reads like the reader is already familiar with the subject matter. For example, I'm not altogether certain what this sect was, a small group of religious fanatics, or a small state? What with all the talk of 'power bases' and 'citadels' Perhaps this could be addressed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.207.172.182 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 29 July 2006

Hashshashin dagger

In the text, there is a mention to the use of a "Hashshashin dagger". How exactly does on of these things look like? I mean, what were their distinctive symbols? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorum (talk • contribs) 16:33, 18 October 2006

Apparently the blade was triangular. This was one of the distinctive things about them. That's all I know, I'm afraid. ThePeg 17:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any reference regarding to the claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorum (talk • contribs) 09:45, 10 October 2007

Grass or Booze?

"However, there are those who dispute this etymology, arguing that it originates from Marco Polo's account of his visit to Alamut in 1273, in which he describes a drug whose effects are more like those of alcohol than of hashish."

There isn't really much difference, especially after you translate someone's recollection of getting wasted from 1000 years ago. In fact Opium is a more plausible explanation than alcohol, the explicitly Haram status of alcohol led to hashish being the Arab world's intoxicant of choice from the mid 7th century until the present day, it wouldn't be surprising if Opium was also commonly consumed during the Middle Ages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.102.215 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 21 November 2006

Neutrality of this article is disputed

This article is an attack on the Shia Nizari Ismaili Muslim community, by twisting and misrepresenting a part of its history. Altough it lists a number of books as references, the article invents more than it reflects from verifiable sources. It needs to be cleaned up and brought into line with Wikipedia standards. -- Aylahs ^(talk) 21:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is just giving a bad idea to people about Muslims. And those were the crusades. Almost EVERYTHING was violent then. Iman S1995 23:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The article mentions nothing about the Nizari or muslim beliefs, nor does it present the Hashshashin as exceptionally violent or bloodthirsty, nor does it portray murder or terror as a primary tenet of either Middle Eastern lifestyle or of Islam. What precisely is the problem? 164.67.226.47 23:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is, if anything swayed towards the muslim side slightly. There is no attack involved. Stating some unsavory yet true and verifiable facts about a group of people is not an attack (outside of the muslim world at least). If the truth offends you then I say shame on you. nefariousski —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.246.98.254 (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved

I moved the following over here, since it does not fit in with the article. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

A group known as the Fedayeen were active from the 8th to the 14th century, and were described by their enemies as hashshāshīn: "those who habitually use hashish" (The name "assassin" is commonly believed to be a mutation of the Arabic "haššāšīn" (حشّاشين, "hashish-eaters"). However, there are those who dispute this etymology, arguing that it originates from Marco Polo's account of his visit to Alamut in 1273, in which he describes a drug whose effects are more like those of alcohol than of hashish. It is suggested by some writers that assassin simply means 'followers of Al-Hassan' (or Hasan bin Sabbah, the Sheikh of Alamut (see below). Others suggest that since hashish-eaters were generally ostracized in the middle ages the word "Hashshashin" had become a common synonym for "outlaws". So the attribution of Hassan's Ismaili sect with this term is not necessarily a clue for drug usage. Some common accounts of their connection with hashish are that these "assassins" would take hashish before missions in order to calm themselves; others say that it helped to boost their strength, and turned them into madmen in battle. Yet other accounts state it was used in their initiation rites in order to show the neophyte the sensual pleasures awaiting him in the afterlife. The connection between their mysticism and that drug is not something subject to reliable or consistent historical accounts; this is not surprising given their secrecy and infamy

Hashish doesn't make you a madman in battle! I actually has an opposite effect (its a pacifier if anything).--Skatewalk 04:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Hi, I added some sources while browsing this article. However it didn't cater to all of the "citation needed" tags so I left those open to anybody who can cite a source for them (it would be useful if somebody here is fluent in arabic) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.63.138 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 21 February 2007

interesting linguistic analysis

This is an interesting source I am removing from Libricide as it doesnt fit within that article:

Nunberg, G. "The Time of the Assassins". NPR "Fresh Air" Commentary, Air date February 20,2004. [3]

John Vandenberg 13:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Change the name of the article?

Alamut Assasins? (the name used is proven wrong and misleading)--Skatewalk 04:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not Assassins (Sect), since they are not always affiliated to their "headquarter" in Alamut? Or even just Assassins, and removing the redirection of Assassins to Assassination.TerreOcre 22:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, "Assassins" is their most commonly used name in English (see, e.g. the titles of the Hodgson, Lewis, etc books, which are all the standard references in English on this subject. So I would definitely support a move to Assassins (sect) - or even to Assassins, actually - 'What links here' for Assassins shows quite a few articles to that name, many of which are for the sect. If nobody objects, I will make this move in a week or so. Noel (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look into it in a little more detail, I think probably we should move the article to Assassins (sect), and make Assassins a redirect to either Assassins (disambiguation) or the article about the sect (I would suggest the former, but I don't care that much which).

My reasoning for suggesting that Assassins should be a redirect is that a lot of people are being lazy, and just linking to 'Assassins', without bothering to check to see where that ends up, when they really want the movie or the musical or the band, etc, etc, etc. So if Assassins is a redirect, then it's really easy to every so often go along and check its 'what links here', secure in the knowledge that everything that links there is bogus, and parcel them out to their correct actual destinations, without having to look through a whole flock of valid links to find the few that have recently been added which are erroneous. Comments? Noel (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've cleaned up a lot of the bad links to Assassins, but having gone through almost all of them, I'm more sure than ever that Assassins ought to wind up at a disambiguation page (either directly or indirectly), and not be the page for the sect. There are way too many people linking to Assassins without checking to see what they are getting; I'd guess 75% of them were to the musical, the movie, the band, etc, etc. No single target for Assassins would be correct for more than a small percentage, which to me says 'disambiguation' very strongly. Noel (talk) 02:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

No disagreement having been posted, I have re-targeted Assassins to the disambig page. Comments on the proposed rename of this page to Assassins (sect) are now solicited. Noel (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Assassins (sect) is good, but there is simply no need for a disambig for the word "Assassins". It would be like doing a disambig for Gypsies or Mongols. Beyond this however, I will not bother on this point again. Please though, somebody tell SCJessey to stop following me around the wiki - it's VERY creepy that he followed me to my re-direct edit.216.153.214.89 (talk) 05:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Conflicts with Crusaders

The introduction states that the Assassins specialised in terrorising Crusaders, which is contradicted by the next sentence. The latter corresponds to what I have heard many times. Their main adversaries were Muslim rulers. Apparently, they have assassinated only a few Crusaders, the most prominent one being Raymond II of Tripoli. I suggest to replace "the Crusaders" with "their adversaries". The wording "specialise in terrorising" is probably too exaggerated too.TerreOcre 22:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Daylam Mountains

It says in the article that Almut is located in the Daylam mountains, shouldn't it be the Alborz Mountains.Bahador —Preceding comment was added at 19:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This trivia section has become a bit ridiculous

I'm being bold and am going to dramatically trim the trivia section. I don't think we need to list every historical instance in which the word "Hashshashin" is used in popular literature, movies, games, etc.... It's hardly noteworthy when a video game's storyline is "based" on this group, depicting them in a historically inaccurate manner. Same goes for some of these books. Basically, this section is just junking up the article and is very unencyclopedic. AlphaEta^{T / C} 14:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Legend

Well, this whole story is a legend; this has been documented http://books.google.com/books?id=V2PisfCC7gkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:Farhad+inauthor:Daftary&sig=le8fkpQ6RepvOrm7pLrnYyyKnTE please don't take everything that videogames take for granted JB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.115.66 (talk) 05:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This is all based on the Secret Society of the Assassins. The name taken from the Arabic word meaning Hashish smokers. The main story talks about a Spanish Cardinal coming to the leader and asking him to give up his beliefs and join them. "the Old Man of the Mountain" then pointed to a cloaked figure who stood atop a tower and simply waved. The figure then jumped to his death. He turned to the Cardinal and said "I have 70,000 people across the world waiting to do this at my command." The Cardinal promptly left. The Assassins were lead to believe if they completed their task they would be sent directly to paradise. A belief still held buy Muslim sects. Assassins spent their entire lives getting close to their kill, becoming the right hand man so to speak of the target. Then when the moment was right they would make the kill, if killed before they could escape they were sent paradise. This isn't from a video game like the person above says, they don't read many books apparently. Turn off the TV and read people, life is beyond what the liberal government controlled media tells you. Be a seeker and find the truth, pull the wool from your eyes and see the world for what it is. STOP WATCHING CELEBRITY BS AND LEAD YOUR OWN LIFE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.148.170 (talk) 07:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Some parts of the stories told about the Assassins are untrue myth, indeed. But if you read careful, scholarly, books like Hodgson and Lewis, you will discover that the Assassins (the usual Western name for them) were a sect which had dedicated agents who killed many leading men of the powers who opposed them. So it's not all made up. Noel (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Post-Islamic Persia

Someone asked: "What is Post-Islamic Persia? Post-Islamic would imply that Islam no longer exists." Post-Islamic Persia describes the region following the influx and influence of Islam (i.e. Iran). Because it does appear to indicate "after" Islam, it can be confusing, but it actually means "after Islam has arrived," and has found common usage in modern vernacular. Regards, AlphaEta 16:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

On the Use of Hashish

I will have to question that. My reason is, Hashish is a hallucinogenic drug. Correct me if I'm wrong but, wouldn't the use of hallucinogenic drugs by people who work for modern secret organizations get them fired? I mean, sensitive jobs such as intelligence gathering, espionage, etc, would be severely compromised by someone high on that stuff. If wanting to bring down a specific target, by using realistic methods such as planting poison, using a woman seduce and kill, etc, don't know about anyone else out there but I think the use of Hashish would be a very bad idea in such sensitive operations and that the word "assassin" comes from "Hashayashiyin" makes absolutely no sense to me. Took the liberty to read about Hashish on the World Book encyclopedia, and the entry on that Encyclopedia states that after the hallucinations, Hashish leaves individuals a bit...... out of it to put it mildly. I think some historic revision is in order, because it also needs to be taken into consideration that the religion of Islam strictly forbids the consumption of any mind or body altering drugs. With the exception of coffee; coffee is okay. I mean, the Arab Muslims drink more coffee than water.... 206.63.78.91 (talk)stardingo747 —Preceding comment was added at 03:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The hashish was used not constantly simply to drug them and convince them they were in paradise. After they were convinced that they would go to paradise for completing their work they wouldn't smoke again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.148.170 (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

They didn't consume it while doing their work. They were simply given it occassionally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.19.118.182 (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hashish is not a hallucinogenic drug. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.23.195 (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

i wish i could remember the name of the book, but at the moment i can't. it was on the history of marijuana. in it, it talks about a man, who lived in the deserts of persia, hashishin, who for a lack of a better term, was a bandit. he had no allegiences with any group or government. he built a group of followers, basically a gang of fellow bandits, and they "terrorized" desert travellers. they would raid caravans and individuals, killing everyone, and taking everything. his gang became known as hashashins. this is where the assassin conection to the word can be made, it never had to do with their drug use, which they did take part in. however, it doesn't influence the name of the group, that comes from hashishin being their leader. the term hashish was first attributed to cannabis resin, because of their using it, not the other way around. this book may be wrong i don't know. the dates of hashishins time on earth, while i can't remember them exactly, were well before the crusades. assassin and hashish are derivided from hashishin, a man. they are not because assassins were drug users. lastly, hashish, marijuana, and hash oil, are all the same, and they are not hallucinegenics. i have smoked all 3 many times, and the only time i ever hallucinated, was when i was also on lsd, mdma, mushrooms, or ketamine. (in other words, an actual hallucinegenic) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.55.134 (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Twinkies?

The sect's own extant accounts tell of Rashid ad-Din Sinan, stealing into Saladin's tent in the heart of his camp, and leaving a poisoned Hostess Twinkie and a note saying "You are in our power" on Saladin's chest as he slept.

I suspect this was a malicious edit. Last I checked, neither Hostess nor Hostess Twinkies existed in the 12th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.52.225 (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio text?

This edit by an anonymous user (202.83.175.35 (talk · contribs)) seems to have added a bunch of probably copyrighted material; the block of text added starts with:

This is an edited version of an article that was originally published in Medieval Islamic Civilization, An Encyclopaedia, Vol. I, p. 72-73, ed. Josef W. Meri, Routledge (New York-London, 2006)

Unless someone can prove we have rights to use this text, I'm going to delete it all as a copyvio (pity, it's well-written - although out of place, some of its clearly introductory material). Any feel like incorporating any useful info from this addition to the rest of the article? Noel (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, hearing no objections, I've gone ahead and done it. BTW, here is the identical text online at the Institute of Ismaili Studies web-site, prominently marked as "Copyright 2007". Noel (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Leader's Name

The article uses inconsistent names for the leader of the sect, at the top is mentions him as "Hasan i Sabbah", and for most of the rest, it is "Hassan-i-Sabah", both point to the same wikipedia entry, so presumably they are both the same person. Someone please make this consistent. I would, but I don't know which one is proper. IsmAvatar (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The WP article about him actually uses a different spelling, Hasan-i Sabbah, which seems to be the correct transliteration from Persian. Also, I looked up Bernard Lewis' book (which is something of an authoritative text on the subject) and he also spells the name as Hasan-i Sabbah. So probably that is the spelling that should be used in this article for consistency purposes. Nsk92 (talk) 03:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The difference is purely stylistic, although arguably the linked up version is clearer. Neither is "more correct" as such. (collounsbury (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

Payment

Under the History section, there is the line "...They continued being used under the Mamluks, Ibn Battuta recording in the 14th century their fixed rate of pay per murder"...

My question is, does anyone know what that payment was back then? If so, would it be best to include the amount, converted to modern money? The sentence about Ibn Battuta recording a price, makes the statement; incomplete without it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.210.107 (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

What happens after the assassination?

So the assassin has killed the target. Now what? Does he run away, fight his way through the guards or what? Because the German version states that they let themself getting killed by the guards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.225.136 (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Presumably they returned to Alamut or some other safe haven. However, if there was no escape, suicide was the only option. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.19.118.182 (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah apparently they either made a token attempt to run away, or they just kind of stood around waiting to be killed - at least, that's what happened in the instances that spring to mind (al-Afdal Shahanshah, COnrad of Montferrat, and the attempt against Saladin). Adam Bishop (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually suicide is in Islam forbiden. So thats why they let themselves get killed by the guards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.65.84.80 (talk) 10:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Generally the Assassin's were killed on the spot (basically it's a suicide mission), but I believe they tried to make a getaway, in the example of the murder of Conrad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MacedonianWolf (talk • contribs) 18:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Janna?

Where was Janna as the Hashshasshin martial art cited from, I can't find it anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfullerw (talk • contribs) 18:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It was taken from the Haha Lung book. Using it as a reference just makes an already ridiculously inaccurate article worse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.33.111 (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism sidebar?

What on earth does this article have a sidebar linked with the subject of terrorism? Is it because it has to do with Islam? It comes under gangs not terrorism.--90.214.246.12 (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The period of history in the development of Isma'ili history cannot be classified simply by terrorism, and alleged drug consumption. Their is poetry, literature, philosophy, architecture, society and politics inter-woven. The sidebar should remain but should take second standing to the Isma'ili side bar. Water Stirs (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC).

In popular culture

I'd add that in 1977, space-rock band Hawkwind released an album called 'Quark, Strangeness and Charm'. The second song on side two is "Hassan I Sahba" (Calvert, Paul Rudolph).

Lyrics: Hashish-hashin Hashish-hashin Black-September Black-September

Death unto all infidels in oil Guide us, oh thou genie of the smoke Lead us to a thousand and one nights In the perfumed garden of delights

Petro-dollar Petro-dollar

It is written in the song of the desert It is written in the signs in the stars It is written in the sands of the hour-glass It is written

It is written in the eye of the falcon It is written in the shade of the scorpion It is written in the wealth of the sun It is written

It is written that man's truth is a mirage It is written that death's an oasis It is written for all unbelievers It is written

Death unto all infidels in oil Guide us, oh thou genie of the smoke Lead us to a thousand and one nights In the perfumed garden of delights

Not sure if that's the sort of thing you guys want? _________________

Should I add a section about them in popular culture? They were featured prominently in Assassin's Creed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.89.108.51 (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

yeah sure go ahead70.160.102.251 (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Rodiggidy

This section was changed unilaterally by RepublicanJacobite from "In Popular Culture" to "References in Literature", seemingly largely in order to justify his/her desire to remove the reference to Assassin's Creed. While I agree that previously the list contained too many obscure computer game references, Assassin's creed is not only a very notable computer game, it is directly relevant. This insistence that it is somehow trivial while Angels & Demons is not appears to be to be based on nothing other than arbitrary preference. If, RepublicanJacobite, you would care to make a case for changing what is essentially just a short list of works that reference the Hashishins rather than an section containing any literary analysis from the more usual "In Popular Culture" to "References in Literature" for reasons other than just to exclude a medium your point of view happens to consider intrinsically trivial, then please do so here and try to persuade other editors of it. Going back and forth until someone gets bored and gives up is not the way to improve an encyclopaedia. GideonF (talk) 12:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Given that the "popular culture" section was added for the explicit purpose of mentioning the video game, which does not in any way add to one's understanding of the topic, yes, I believe it is trivial and unimportant. I would be fine with seeing the entire section removed, if the literary examples cannot be referenced. But you tell me how the video game aids in an understanding of the topic. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The video game is about a Hashshashin. Perhaps, you may say, the real Hashshashin were not able to run across walls, and were not reliving someone's memories through technology; but it's a far better reference than Angels and Demons, at least. (I hate these sections in general and would not mind seeing it removed, but in this case Assassin's Creed is actually relevant, amazingly.) Adam Bishop (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not enough to keep saying it's relevant. How is it relevant? How does it illuminate the subject matter? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It provides an example of the way the Hashishins have entered public consciousness through popular culture - the same thing all "In Popular Culture" entries do. You've still not provided any basis for your assertion that Angels & Demons is less "trivial" than Assassin's creed. It is abundantly clear that there is no consensus for changing the section. GideonF (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Your appeal to consensus is disingenuous, as there was no "consensus" for creating a "popular culture" section in the first place. The section has been a target for trivial information, as such sections always are. Hence, my change to a section that specifically discusses literature. And, quite frankly, if you need a "basis" for the assertion that a best-selling novel, which was the source material for a popular film, is less trivial that a run-of-the-mill computer game, you are either being completely disingenuous or you simply haven't a clue. As to your assertion that the game "provides an example of the way the Hashishins have entered public consciousness through popular culture," I'd like you to provide one source for this. I very much doubt that you can. On the other hand, I can and will provide sources for the role the Hashshashin play in these works of literature. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It's rather disingenuous to suggest that Angels and Demons is "literature". Adam Bishop (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I see, so this is all about POV-pushing. Well, it's good of you to come right out and just say it like that; but unfortunately for you Wikipedia does not share your opinion that all computer games are inherently more trivial than all books, that the most trashy, critically derided airport novel conceivable is automatically higher culture than any video game, however critically acclaimed. Wikipedia doesn't make those kind of value judgements.GideonF (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If people think "In Popular Culture" is trivial and should be removed completely, I'm fine with that, but I can't see any reasonable guideline for notability that would include Angels & Demons and not Assassin's Creed. Angels & Demons was made into a critically panned movie (and the novel was received with similar enthusiasm), but was a best seller, and used the Assassins as a plot device. Assassin's Creed obviously didn't sell as many copies (no game does), but it received rave reviews, sold incredibly well for a game, and the Assassins were *the* central element of the game. The game has been repeatedly referenced in other games by unrelated companies due to its popularity (See the References in Other Media section of Assassin's Creed). ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

So, RepublicanJacobite, you think that a best-selling novel should be included, but not a best-selling game? That's just hypocritical. 72.241.80.103 (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Another problem is the statement that AC is based on the Alamut novel. I see there is an interview as a source, but what could that possibly mean? The creators of the game read that novel and nothing else? I guess that's not as ridiculous as it sounds (consider the sources of the movie Kingdom of Heaven, for comparison), but I don't think it is necessary in this article. In the AC article, yes; in the article about the book, sure; but not here, where it is irrelevant. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I see that an anonymous user has reinserted the link. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The anon in question was me, while logged out. I reinstated it because that's what the developers say the game was based on, as reflected in the cited source. If you have another source (perhaps quoting someone better-placed than the developers themselves to say on what the game was based, whoever that might be) that contradicts the citation, then by all means add it and text to the effect that the game's basis is disputed. If you do not have such a source, bear in mind that verifiability and not truth is the criterion for inclusion of information in Wikipedia. I believe the information is relevant because a (sourced and cited) example of fiction-based-on-fiction-based-on-fact illustrates the penetration of the image, as opposed to the actuality, of the Hashshashin into popular consciousness. If I was being cheeky, I would also suggest that its use as the basis for Assassin's Creed helps establish the notability of Alamut for inclusion.GideonF (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

i am not sure where anyone gets off saying a video game isn't revelant as a literary reference. not sure how much any of you know about the video game making process. but, before anything visually is done, they need a story, a piece of literature, written by a person. so right there, you have a reference point for a literary qualification. if you are going to reference the literature behind a movie, you can't disqualify the literature behind a video game. second unless you have played the game or watched someone play the whole game, then you have no leg to stand on, when discreditting its accuracy. they make no claim on the game, to being 100% historically accurate. (which to me is fine, because lets face, history in general is not 100% accurate. we only know half of most historical events, as the winners get to write the history.) i have seen this game from beginning to end, and it definitely, in my opinion, deserves to be referenced on this subject. discreditting the literary value of of this, simply because it is in a medium you feel is irrevelant, is just plain ignorant. this game puts this story and the characters involved in it, in front of kids who would otherwise never take the time to read up on it. some of them take these games so serious, that they do read up on it. that in itself makes it incredibly revelant from a literary point of view. keep telling yourself that because its a video game, that it is irrevelant. in time you will take your place next to other igorant people who claimed viable art forms were not, ie, critics of rock n roll, critics of the abstract movement, critics of rap, breakdancing, turntablism, and various other forms of artistic or literary skill. you have an easier time convincing me of its historical inaccuracy as a reason for removing or moving this article, than trying to postulate its irrevellance from a literary standpoint. but, somehow i doubt, thats just me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.55.134 (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. That means that regardless of your arguments, unsourced content about video games will be removed. Most of the video game additions have been completely unsourced or only had the most tenuous connection to the subject. --NickDupree (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to reference the game. There is also the controversy that followed the game in which the Nizari community objected to the publication of a series of novellas, which the game publisher subsequently agreed to abandon. (Water Stirs (talk) 13:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC))

Murder of Greek Patriarch

The murder[when?] of the Patriarch of Jerusalem[specify], for example, was instigated by the Hospitallers.

I tried to find useful sources for this, or at the very least figure out who was being talked about and when it happened. The best reference I can find seems to focus on "Who was Christian in the Holy Land", so I don't know if it is reliable. The information there indicates that John VII (who lacks an article on Wikipedia) was murdered by "Moslem assassins" in 966, but indicates it was a reprisal for victories by the Byzantine Emperor in 960. I see nothing to support rumors of Hospitaller involvement. Link: http://servus.christusrex.org/www1/ofm/sbf/escurs/wwc/j.html If no one else can find a source for this, the line should be removed for flagrantly unsupported statements.

Albert Avogadro, the Latin Patriarch, was murdered, but I don't think the Hospitallers or Assassins had anything to do with it. I'm not sure what this refers to. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I was the anon user who created this section initially nearly a month ago, and given that no one has provided a reasonable explanation for the line, I'm removing it now. ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm reasonably sure it wasn't by the Assassins I'm aware of all their most notable assassinations and he was never mentioned. (Water Stirs (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC))

Dune

I removed the following from the article and bring it here for discussion:

Frank Herbert's science fiction masterpiece "Dune", which was twice filmed for Cinema and Television, was inspired by the Ismā'īlī. The character Paul Orestes Atreides is a revolutionary who leads an insurgency against the corrupt and morally bankrupt state. He comes to be known as the Mahdi, His elite freeman soldiers units are called "feydakin" inspired by the elite Assassin Commando units fidā'īyun (Arabic: فدائيون) , and his later work "Prayers for the Assassin" picks up the theme again.

Aside from needing to be rewritten for balance and clarity, this is unreferenced and seems more like an opinion or original research. I have noted the parallels myself in the past, and wondered whether the Assassins were not a source of inspiration for Herbert, but we need a source that backs up the claim. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I noted the same parallels, but I know of no source that clearly indicates that they were an inspiration for Herbert. Given that the religion of the Fremen is a constructed religion (combining Islam with Zen Buddhism), the links appear to be largely in the terminology, not the ideology. Since many of the terms are part of the Arabic language, the link to the Assassins is even fuzzier. ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I hate this version of the article that strips away so much history and legend

This article used to be full of relevant information (well sourced) with the history and legends of the Hashshashins and their tactics. Now that is all but gone. The writers of this barren version have suddenly made the Hashshashins a subsidiary article under the Nizari article (with no sources proving a link). What? They claim that the well-known legends are from "the polemic of Arab historians of the period" against Persians, and with no sources at all proving this, it looks like POV-pushing at its worst! Basically, the most interesting Hashshashin content was toned down or removed, with no hard proof cited to back up the overhaul, and that's terrible. I recommend reverting to an earlier version, and will do so myself when I get time. NickDupree (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Major clean-up--accomplished! Some serious sourcing problems remain, but the article is cleaner and clearer now. NickDupree (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

@Nick It's a basic fact that the Hashshashin were Nizari Isma'ili. I'm curious as to what you've been reading if your unaware of this simple fact, which may explain why you prefer the earlier "sexed up" version. (Water Stirs (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC))

@Water Stirs The "sexed up version" is what should be here. There Nizari never referred to themselves as Hashshashins, though others may have used the term against them in a derogatory way. "Hashshashin" is one that uses hashish and murders people. The Nizari did murder people, but there is no proof that they used Hashish. A good model for this article would be the article on Atlantis. That article goes through all the legends and myths and then has some links to some real islands that may have been the source of those legends. There should be an article on the Nizari sect that contains just the facts and there should be a link to that article explaining that the Nizari were what inspired all the legends of the Hashshashins.

It would be pretty silly to have the Atlantis article contain only a few verifiable facts about the civilizations found on the islands in the Aegean. Its just as silly having an article titled Hashshashin which only has a few facts about the Nizari. Hashshashins = Legend, Nizari = Real People. This article SHOULD be documenting all the legends and myths surrounding Hashshashins, because there already is an article on the Nizari that gives us the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.81.216 (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

+1,000,000 to that 19:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

necessarily vs. unnecessarily

I reverted this because it seriously changes the meaning. When the word "necessarily" is used, it means the agents sometimes accomplish goals without killing. When changed to "unnecessarily" it means that they never kill unless they have to. I don't have the book, but I assume that the editor who originally added the info got it right. Thundermaker (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Article title (again)

I see this was discussed several years ago but apparently nothing came of it (or it was moved back, maybe). Why exactly do we use "Hashshashin"? "Assassins" is by far the most commonly-used English name, whether in popular culture or academic writing. Is it just to avoid confusion with the "assassination" article and the "assassin" disambiguation page? Adam Bishop (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess that might have been the reason, but you're right. "Assassins" is what they are usually called in English sources (Daftary, etc.) and so that would the most appropriate title for this article. I'd be fine with "Assassins", without something between brackets. Cavila (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Hashshashin → Assassins — I figure this might be somewhat controversial, so hopefully people can comment on it before we move it. All English sources, even the scholarly ones, call them "Assassins" (Daftary, Lewis, anything about the crusades). "Hashshashin" is not even proper Arabic, as far as I can tell (unless it's supposed to be some form of the singular?). In the plural they are called "Hashshashiyyin". So "Assassins", or even "Assassins (sect)" as was proposed once before, would seem to be the best title. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Support, per the above. As the plural form is more peculiar to this group than to the practice of assassination in general, I don't think that disambiguation is necessary (P. S. Daftary gives the plural forms hashishin or hashishiyya as the original Arabic nickname for this group). Cavila (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Assassins (musical) competes for primary topic, even if we discount Assassin as a target. Assassins (sect) would be fine. Powers ^T 19:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Support Assassins as primary – I don't see a competition with Assassins (musical). Alfie↑↓© 00:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I support a move only if it is as primary topic. No "(sect)" or whatever behind it. FunkMonk (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose the primary usage of assassins is the plural form of assassin, in its modern usage (such as Lee Harvey Oswald) 184.144.167.193 (talk) 05:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Assassins (sect) is the way to go. Johnbod (talk) 11:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Assassins: It's useful to know the original Perso-Arabic is Hashshashin and the word Assassination in English is derived from this word. Both names are used in sources, but I guess Assassins is more used nowadays. Assassins was a movement not a sect.--Aliwiki (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support a move to Assassins (sect) or some other similar disambiguator per WP:UE. Oppose a move to Assassins due to confusion with Assassin/Assassination. — AjaxSmack 03:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support Assassins as primary. No need for (sect) --Doug (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support Assassins or Assassins (sect).

(a) Have frequently heard of Hashashin or Hashashiyun but only mentioned secondarily to the subsequent English term Assassins. Have never previously come across Hashshashin. Assassins appears to be a recognisable term in the relevant literature. I think an intelligent reader can tell the diffference between Assassins and assassins without having to use the unusual word Hashshashin.

(b) Although an Assassins page with a capital letter might be sufficient, a disambig page would still be a good idea. Aside from the obvious, it would also serve to emphasise the fact of a difference between big-a assassins and the rest.

(c) Even though the article conceded the pejorativeness of the term Assassin/Hashashin, the fact that there is a separate article for the Ismailis emphasises that this article does not necessarily apply to the modern sect. There is no need (assuming that was the reasoning) for this article to try to turn away from the pejorativeness.

• • Comment there is no difference between the pagename assassins and pagenameAssassins ... they are the exact same physical page. Wikipedia does not support lowercase first letters. Wiktionary does, but Wikipedia does not. Anyplace you see a lowercase first letter, it is title fudge that adjusts the rendering of the page, but not the name of the page. 65.93.13.148 (talk) 06:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nietzsche

Is the Friedrich Nietzsche section needed in this article? To begin with, it appears from that text that Nietzsche merely mentioned and quoted them. He otherwise lacks any connection to them. As for his quoting them (i.e. their secret: "nothing is true, everything is permitted"), which source did Nietzsche cite? Or is he just putting words into their mouths for his own purposes?--~ ~ : Lincoln Cooper : ~ ~ (talk) 06:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the Nietzsche section on this article for the reasons stated above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.87.153.170 (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Alternative move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. The current setup seems reasonable and pragmatic and we should move on. Andrewa (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Assassins → Assassins (sect) — I simply cannot see how there was a consensus for this move in the above discussion. I attempted to ask User:Deacon of Pndapetzim about his/her reasoning but only received one initial response and no response to my followup that pointed out problems with that response. Putting this article at Assassins presumes it to be the primary topic for the word and I just don't see that -- not with Assassination and Assassins (musical) both competing. Assassins should be a disambiguation page (or redirect to Assassin (disambiguation)). --Powers ^T 21:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support I cannot see how the last RM ended in a move, it makes no sense. 64.229.103.44 (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Whatever the origins of the term, the common usage for "assassins" is as the plural of assassin, and by convention we redirect plurals to the singular entity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose There are two questions here:

• What are the men of Alamut called? Normally Assassins,
• Is this the primary or sufficiently disambiguated use of the word? Yes, I think so; the generalized meaning of assassin is under assassination; the musical is under Assassins (musical), which is where I should expect to find it; the various films are under The Assassin (1961 film) and so on, as the reader will alos expect. This leaves Assassins free for the Ismailis. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The Assassins were not a sect, but, as the intro says, an order of Ismaili Muslims. Moving to (sect) would be inaccurate. If anything, move back to Hashashin. FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Since "assassin", singular of "assassins", isn't even an article (that would be assassination, to which it redirects), this doesn't seem to me a big deal. Incoming links appear to be mostly correct right now (although that might be because of a template, but so what?). Srnec (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose – following Septentrionalis' arguments. Alfie↑↓© 23:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support My main concern in the previous RM discussion (where it appears I forgot to add four tildes) was that the term Assassins seems to be a more recognisable name for the sect. Have never heard of Assassins (musical) but, I think, if there are two or more alternative uses of a word, there should be some sort of disambiguation.~ ~ : Lincoln Cooper : ~ ~ (talk) 05:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Provisionally oppose Septentrionalis' arguments are compelling. I think I also see a potential guideline here: If a word has both a formal/technical meaning (usually capitalised) and an alternative informal/nontechnical meaning, then the word's formal usage usually should be the default for disambig purposes. As an example, China (the country) as opposed to china (pottery).~ ~ : Lincoln Cooper : ~ ~ (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Again remember, this isn't a name for a sect. They were as much a "sect" as the crusaders were. FunkMonk (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

How are they not a sect? By any definition, whether you mean it neutrally or pejoratively, they are a sect. Daftary's book "Assassin Legends" (to take one quick example) describes them (and other Ismaili groups) as a sect. In any case, we definitely can't move it back to "Hashashin", as you suggested, for the reasons given in my original move request. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said, they are as much a sect as the crusaders were. They were Ismailis. Ismailis are a sect. The Assassins were not a separate sect by themselves, but a group of Ismailis. Just like the crusaders were not a separate sect from whatever Christian sect they represented. FunkMonk (talk) 03:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

How did this discussion get here? My only guess is that it started as a response to my original Support comments, which I moved (check the history) as a way to show they had been superseded by my later Provisionally oppose statement. Perhaps I should have just deleted my original entry.~ ~ : Lincoln Cooper : ~ ~ (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Look, I don't care if it's "(sect)" or not. All I'm saying is that this isn't the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the word "Assassins". A person linking to or searching for that term is at least as likely, and probably moreso, to be looking for Assassination or Assassins (musical). That's my motive behind the move; the exact disambiguator is not as important. Powers ^T 15:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Persian

This article has been clearly written by Persian nationalist scum. Just in the intro, it mentions specifically "The Persian Hassan-i Sabbah". What is the relevance or purpose of explicitly mentioning his ethnicity time and again if it weren't for the stereotypical Iranian attitude of claiming everything as their own? This type or ethnocentric and racist attitude has no place here on Wikipedia, and as these statements have no relevance or purpose to the article, I will be removing every single one of them. The article can also do with a clean-up, a lot of the claims seem completely unsourced and merely made up to allign with the Persian Nationalist agendas of some. Peace. SaSH (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Upon reading the article on Hasan-i Sabbah, he was infact an Arab too, not Persian (despite his family moving to Persia when he was young Persia). This just goes to highlight the blatant and shameless alterations of history, historical denial and revisionism and dilluded nature of those people. Note how I am not going to place an "Arab" decription of Hassan-i Sabbah assoon as his name is mentioned in the article as I don't have such a racist and ethnocentric agenda myself (just before I get accused of that). Please keep Wikipedia neutral and free from political nonsense. Peace. SaSH (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It's probably a slip up, like those times I keep referring Julius Caesar as "the Roman Julius Caesar". If you find something wrong, fix it. Although with your attitude, you sound like you have Nationalist problems yourself, otherwise you wouldn't need to write a tirade like that. Perhaps you should take your own advice? --69.108.27.152 (talk) 08:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I also think you need to calm down and don't get to excited. If the article is not perfect, it's absolutely ok, try to tell us how you think it'd be better and why. We will accept it if there is a logic behind it. PEACE! Ycarcomed (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Sources

The cited source http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/34754-hassan-ibn-sabah/ is a message board, a type of self-published source. I don't think it meets Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source. How much of the material in the Timeline section depends on it? Thundermaker (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

All of it. Unfortunately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.80.103 (talk) 02:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

the 13th century

not all assassins were eradicated some fled and went into hiding because a lot of people wanted them dead they chose to remain anonymous but there are communes today an which still practice isolationism but most chose to live amongst templers as I have done --Owen1983 (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleting the Nietzche section

I think an Assassin's Creed fan is having a little too much fun with this article. --69.108.27.152 (talk) 08:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction requiring expert attention

This article directly contradicts almost everything said about Hassan-i Sabbah, Alamut and the "assassins" in the article Alamut. Considering the sparcity of sources here, the questionable reliability of these sources, and the tendency for Assassin's Creed fanbois to try to turn this into a dumping ground for every hysterical legend ever heard about the "assassins", the intervention of an expert on this subject is required. 12.233.146.130 (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The chunks of text added recently need some work, definitely. (Wasn't all that information actually removed in the past?) Adam Bishop (talk) 08:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The Assassins of Maseyaf,New york and Italy

The Assassin's of Maseyaf were round about the First Crusade in 1080 AD just south of Jerusalem,Acre and Flori(Florence). The leader of these deadly Assassin's was a man called Al-Mualin and his 9'th grade assassin Altair ibn'al'ahahd but then was striped of his rank for for breaking the 1 rule of their creed: 1.Stay their blade from the innocent. To redeem himself he had to hunt down 9 TEMPLAR,9 men drunk on power when Altair killed the last templar he reavled 10'th one his own master Al-mualin once he approched him he used a strange devise called "THE APPLE OF EDEN" Created by the first civilization but Altair was able to kill his master and when he did his master he droped the APPLE the APPLE then reveleded 10 locations of what these templars call the "PIECES OF EDEN".

By Sean Harkin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.90.133 (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Assassins/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 08:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll read through in more detail and review later today. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm failing at this stage, as the article needs considerable work, as listed below. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

• The prose needs some work.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

• The list of dates should really become regular prose. The Lead needs considerable work, as it doesn't really summarise the article.

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

• Multiple forms of referencing are in use.

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

• Large parts are unreferenced, including challengable material in Origins, Military tactics, Assassination, Downfall and aftermath, and In popular culture.
• Some citations, e.g. that for the Timeline section, don't marry up at all with the text in the article.

(c) it contains no original research.

• Hard to tell, as much is unreferenced.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

• Yes.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

• Yes.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

• Probably neutral.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• Stable.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

• File:Asabah2.jpg, File:Crusaderstates.jpeg both need work.

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• Several captions end in a period (.) but are not complete sentenced.

Any further notes?

I'm trying to remove the timeline and some unecessary garbage if there is. About the reference thing we accidentally marked it noes and marked notes with references but fixed it. I'm trying to add more references. The prose thing you said that I don't know what to do because I think its well written, but if said to be incomplete I'll try to find the problems and some hints may be needed. Thanks man for doing the review. Me and some people will try to improve it. This article is important in Medieval categories especially the folklore so it deserves to be a GA and will be fixed to be GA. heck this article won a cool award.110.55.4.166 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Some examples of the prose issues... Some bits like "Hashashin are also made to be adept in furusiyya, or the Islamic warrior code, where they are trained in combat, disguises, and equestrianism." are in the wrong tense; some abbreviations to catch, e.g. "They didn't always assassinate their targets, however, preferring at times to try threatening an enemy into submission.", some bits that don't make much sense as written, e.g. "The military approach of the Nizari Ismaili state was largely a defensive one, with strategically chosen sites that appeared to avoid confrontation wherever possible without the loss of life.", some repetition, e.g. about innocent lives, etc. It's not appalling, but it does need a decent copyedit. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Merging with Nizari Ismaili state

I think this article should be merged with Nizari Ismaili state, with the article Assassin (or Assassin (word)?) being about the word and its etymology. --Z 11:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Marco Polo's story "disputed"?

In the article, it says:

However, this story is disputed due to the fact that Sabbah died in 1124 and Sinan, who is frequently known as the "Old Man of the Mountain", died in 1192, whereas Marco Polo was not born until around 1254.

But that alone is not sufficient to dispute it, because Polo is merely telling the old man's story and not claiming he met him. What might be sufficient is that he explicitly claims the old man was killed in 1252+3=1255. But even then, this is original research and we should find a credible source that did the math for us. To this end, I added a "by whom?" note to the article. --94.216.167.160 (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.216.167.160 (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

"Old Man of the Mountain" refers to any of the Assassin leaders, not just Hasan ibn Sabbah or Rashid ad-Din Sinan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.88.177.153 (talk) 06:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Grandson of Gengis Khan died at Alamut, the defenders starved extremely

Information from a well-researched article in a Polish paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcin862 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Etymology

This section speaks of "western scholarship", which smacks of cultural bias sugggesting that somehow scholarship in the west is not real scholarship.

How academically rigourous are these cited sources claiming that Assassin does not come from Hashish User? LeapUK (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

expert help in this article

I think experts and scholars should rather write this article. It is very contradictory and confuses me too much. I wanted something good and interesting and REAL to read...not all this contradictions and confusions. please wikipedia, only allow those to write who know what is right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.223.199.145 (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Repetition in article

• The murders of political adversaries were usually carried out in public spaces, creating resounding intimidation for other possible enemies.

• These killings were often conducted in full view of the public and often in broad daylight, so as to instill terror in their foes.

• ... the fact that the hashashin performed their assassinations in full view of the public, often in broad daylight,

rewriting needed. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Modern Intelligence Agencies

Modern spies work for money. Instead of this cheap herbal smoke (420) as payment. So, if nothing´s true and everything´s legal. If you´d be confronted with the choice.

( ) Money.
( ) Cheap Herbal Smoke. 
( ) Your own daily judgment ability. 

What´s your choice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.145.147 (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Assassins and Alamut Castle

I noticed on the page "Assassins" under origins in the 3rd paragraph is the line "It is still disputed whether Sabbah built the fortress himself or if it was already built at the time of his arrival" According to the wikipedia page of Alamut Castle, Alamut Castle was already built by the time Hassan-i Sabbah decided to use it as the headquarters of the Assassins. Adrranos (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

References