Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:16, 18 November 2014

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

	This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Secret Societies (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Secret Societies, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Secret SocietiesWikipedia:WikiProject Secret SocietiesTemplate:WikiProject Secret SocietiesSecret Societies

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on May 1, 2004, May 1, 2005, May 1, 2009, and May 1, 2013.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Moving old discussions to archives

January - August 2001 move to archive 6 Blueboar (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The main criteria is that the page is too large. Archive 6 is hardly that, and is extremely short if anything. What was your reason for archiving it? --XDev (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}

In Illuminati#Popular culture please change the text Dr. John Coleman to John Coleman per WP:CREDENTIAL.

76.119.90.74 (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done--Jac16888 14:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The was a game put out by Steve Jackson Games called Illuminati. You should add that to the popular culture selection where you speak about movies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.161.165 (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You may want to add this book to the list of novels: The Illuminati by Larry Burkett. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.60.150.250 (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

How do i join the illuminati am a Ugandan male aged 20 help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.43.133.28 (talk) 07:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

To join the Illuminati, you'll need a time machine. The Illuminati was destroyed over two centuries ago, any claims otherwise are paranoid conspiracy theories. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

do your own research as has been done by several people throughout history, the Illuminati does still exist and calling people who know that "paranoid" is not going to hide the truth.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.32.162 (talk • contribs)

Ok, let's pretend that the Illuminati did still exist, and that the other legends about them are true. You think this site wouldn't be under their control, that there wouldn't at least be agents of theirs here, or that they wouldn't be tracking your IP address? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

SUMMARY: Mention of Davis for inclusion in POP CULTURE section of Illuminati page. BODY: Jonathan Davis of rock band Korn claims that Barack Obama is an "...Illuminati puppet..." in December 7, 2011 online media interview. Source: http://www.avclub.com/articles/korns-jonathan-davis-obama-an-illuminati-puppet,66301/ SUBMITTED BY: Alex Kliner, Grad Cert., American University, 2009; BA, Towson University, 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.78.64.154 (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

If you type "itanimulli.com" into your web browser, you are re-directed to the US government's National Security Agency website. "itanimmuli" is "Illuminati" spelled backwards. This should be added to the article. Don't believe me? Try it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.114.161.29 (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Appears to be true - but trivial. Just the NSA having a little joke, I expect. In any case, per WP:OR, we'd have to get this from a published reliable source before we added it. Not that we will. Because it is trivial, and nothing to do with the Illuminati anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} (Sorry If I am not using this correctly) In the summary at the top of Illuminati the reference to the Roman Catholic Church should be removed or reinvestigated as the church's "encouragement" is not mentioned in the cited source. The Catholic church is only referenced historically to movements related to the Illuminati.

Page protected for 1 year

We have tried shorter periods (a month or so), and the instant the protection expires, random IPs around the world begin randomly vandalising the article. I have semi protected for one year, and apologise sincerely to good faith IPs, who will have to use the {{editsemiprotected}} template and make a request on this page to make any edits. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sikh word used erroneously for referring to Muslim fundamentalist

Sikh word is used erroneously as Muslim Fundamentalist in section Popular culture. Sikhs and Muslim follow different religion.Sikhism ad Islam are separate religions.--Ravinder121 (talk) 08:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Be aware that this article does not claim the statement is the truth. It is only verbatim repeating what the conspiracy theorists believe. And they clearly write "Sikhs" in the source, so it is not up to us to interpret that it was a misuse of the term for "Moslems". --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Since Sikhs in the United States are being frequently attacked by random angry people who mistake them for Muslims, without concern or awareness that their religion is a peaceful one, differing fundamentally from any religion that can be accused of responsibility for encouraging terrorism, please consider the respectful suggestion that even if it is "not up to us" to correct a mis-interpretation, it would be responsible and beneficial for you to at least acknowledge in or near the citation that the Sikhism and Islam are separate religions with widely different beliefs, and that confusing them is an error. 172.10.236.215 (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Illuminatius! Trilogy

the section on the modern conspiracy theories starts with:

• Interest in the Illuminati and the assertions that it exists today began after the publication of The Illuminatus! Trilogy, a postmodern science fiction work whose plot prominently featured an Illuminati plot to rule the world.

It was cited to the books themselves. The citation does actually verify what influence the books had or that statement that they sparked an interest in the Illuminati. Given that there have been conspiracy theorists who have talked about the Illuminati since at least the early 1800s, I have marked this statement as dubious. We need a source that actually discusses the books and their influence. Blueboar (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC) Ryan Messenger, supported Illuminati strongly, people like to call him the leader.http://mediaexposed.tumblr.com/post/6774231247/ryan-dunn-solstice-sacrifice

Illuminati and Freemasonry

I am not entirely happy with this edit for several reasons. First of all, leading members of the Bavarian Illuminati for a period of time actually controlled the leading assembly of the German freemasonic lodges and actually caused them to abandon their adherence to the Templar-school of observance. Any history of the Bavarian Illuminati will invariably also be the history of German freemasonry of the period. The two orders were very much interconnected at the time, with illuminism being presented as a branch of freemasonry. A complete separation occurred later, but the edit doesn't comment on this. Secondly by the usage of sources it gives the impression of a unity of freemasonry that did not exist at the time. While technically under the authority of the Grand Lodge in London, the continentral masonic lodges had at the time developed their own hierarchies, the Germans had theirs, the French theirs, and as such cite used to source that "conspiracy theorists have long tried to link the Illuminati to Freemasonry" is exclusively about the influence on the French Masonic lodges during the end of the 18th century. And it is not clear what exactly George Washington is actually referring to in this matter. His statement can not be taken as other than a personal opinion of a single individual. If this edit should be re-added, it should be rephrased to be less generalised and specify precisely what the sources claim, namely that it is referring to the Barruel Robison controversy in France. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree with much of what you say. Do you have a reliable source for it? Blueboar (talk) 12:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

My sources would be mainly in German and Danish, but since it would take a short while for me to get access to them via the public library, I can only say that at the moment my main source is Bugge, K.L.: Det Danske Frimureries Historie, 2 vols., Rome, 1910-1927. In his work Bugge applied the archives of Karl Gotthelf von Hund who is apparently in the possession of the Danish freemasonry lodge (or was at the time of writing, Bugge was, as the official archivist of the main Danish lodge, writing the official history of Danish masonry). However the chapter 31 of Jonathan Israels book, Democratic Enlightenment, Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 822-858 supports my claim regarding the influence of the Illuminati on the German masonic lodges. I am assuming this is your main objection, since I can't see how you would object to my objections about how the cited sources, which are only really mentioning specific circumstances, are used in this edit in a very generalised way. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Questioning the historical reliability

How reliable are the sources for the claims about a historical Illuminati society? I am curious because to me it seems that the basis for the real historical Illuminati is a synthesis of various important dates and names. The founding day of the year, May 1, is the International Workers Day, a big date for communism and the labour movement. The year, 1776, the signing of the Declaration of Independence was on this year, in effect the beginning of the United States of America. The founder? Adam, as in the first man and Weishaupt as in 'Looking ahead'... The probability that this is purely coincidental doesn't seem so likely especially when taking into account how much interest there is in fabricating information about the 'Illuminati'. -- Rkos (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

One does always need to be aware and avoid regurgitating an organisation's own version of it's history - particularly where the occult (ie secret) societies are concerned!! However, the sources look reliable enough. There's no need to look for a communist significance for May 1 - it has lengthy historic associations which would explain the choice. 1776 was one of those years of revolution where a lot of things got founded, written, overturned, marched for/against etc. There's no reason to invoke anything but zeitgeist - at least for the choice of day to put in their books as the day they were founded. Adam Weishaupt had a father, wife and offspring who also all used the name Weishaupt, making it unlikely that it is a pseudonym, although I agree pseudonyms are common among secret societies.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

True, in the context of a Bavarian society the significance of May 1 might better lie in the Walpurgisnacht, a gathering of witches according to legend and even in modern times a lot of crazy drunken ideas begin on that day... I guess it's possible for all those things to be purely coincidental, perhaps they contributed to the Illuminati becoming so well known. Rkos (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It is rumored that the Illuminati "Pindar" is an elusive, reclusive man named Patrick T.Bowen, not Phillip Rothschild. Theonlyprimi (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

We don't include rumor. Can you cite a source for this claim? Blueboar (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

but why did they kill bob marley— Preceding unsigned comment added by Masonmps3 (talk • contribs)

How could an organization that was disbanded in the 18th century kill a 20th century musician? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 December 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The text:

"In 1777 Karl Theodor became ruler of Bavaria. He was a proponent of Enlightened Despotism and his government banned all secret societies including the Illuminati."

should be changed to:

"In 1777 the Bavarian government, by the will of their new ruler Karl Theodor, banned all secret socities within Bavarian borders. It is believed that Theodor's affections for the concept of Enlightened Despotism influenced his decision. "

for overall readability and accuracy. Claiming light (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

 Not done, its weasely and original research unless you have a source--Jac16888 21:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Text translated from the German

Text is currently being added to the English language article from the German language article, which is a featured article in that language. This is not unreferenced or unsourced text. Please help us include the sources (this is a technicality that few of us master at the moment). --OberMegaTrans (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, this article is on the list of translation requests. OberMegaTrans (talk) 09:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Could we have text translated from the German marked in some way prior to proper citations being added. The current situation (see "Members" for an example) has a highly non-encyclopaedic look and feel. Bern1005 (talk) 10:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Issues with new material

Some new material (two paragraphs, apparently translated from the German Misplaced Pages article) has been added to the history section... first and foremost, it needs sourcing.

Second, the new material needs some re-writing to integrate it into the existing text... for example, the first line of the new material starts with: "As a result, the disagreement between Weishaupt and Knigge intensified ..." As a result of what? Who is Knigge? What disagreement? Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I already asked for help in the section just above this but I've also just put in a request for 'source support' on the German article's talk page. Hopefully, there'll be some additions soon.

Secondly, we are a big group (almost all of them new to this) working on the article. We are trying our best to keep the transfer of translated material as tidy as we can but I'm sure it'll still need some proofreading, re-writing and editing once we're done. If anyone wants to help us and/or hurry the project along, you can find our pre-published work on this page. Almost the entire German article has been translated - at least roughly - and I think, at this point, no one will mind people outside our group trying to help us. On the contrary, in fact: I might have underestimated how controversial this article/topic could be and, consequently, how quick and how strict people would be about sources. :-) Be assured, though, we are doing all of this in good faith! --OberMegaTrans (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It is definitely a controversial topic (with a lot of WP:Fringe potential), so good sourcing as you move forward is a must... but good faith is assumed. Blueboar (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

If the passage "As a result, the disagreement between Weishaupt and Knigge intensified ..." hasn't been fixed yet, "disagreement" should be changed to "dispute." The German word used, "Dissens," refers to a difference in opinion. I'll be happy to look at any problematic translations of the German article, btw. JevaSinghAnand (talk) 04:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Bias

I am sorry if I somehow violate the Misplaced Pages rules in my following post, since I don't post any articles on wikipedia, no I am just a very fond reader, And I do not have any type of wikipedia article writing skills.

I personally just find that the articles is slightly bias against the Illuminati in some paragraphs, and would be pleased to see if somebody took some time to edit it.

Thank you, and excuse my un-profesionalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.158.196 (talk • contribs) 18:58, December 16, 2011

New posts go at the bottom, do not overwrite other's posts, and sign your posts by using four tildes (~~~~). Could you point out which parts you think are biased and how they are? Could someone else fill in the unsigned template? I'm on my phone, so I can't do proper ¦'s and my ability to copy and paste is hindered. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Loaded language--conspiracy theory

The term, conspiracy theory, perhaps was once a neutral term, but no longer. It now carries a powerful connotative meaning that includes denigration, disdain, and ridicule. Today, any idea that is labeled as conspiracy theory is immediately derailed with no further need for discussion. I don't think that is appropriate in Misplaced Pages articles.

Texas Star Thrower 17:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zambaman (talk • contribs)

It would be even less appropriate to not refer to something which clearly is a conspiracy theory as such. Your argument is with the world at large, over its use of the term, and not with Misplaced Pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 January 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

dude, orgamization not organisation

75.57.169.6 (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

'orgamization'? I assume you mean 'organization... And yes, we have a problem here - but not necessarily the one you think. U.S. English uses a 'z', British English uses a 's', and this article can't seem to make its mind up one way or another. As to which spelling Misplaced Pages should be using, this is a tricky subject - so much so that we have a section on the topic in our manual of style, see WP:ENGVAR. Basically, if there is no direct link between either the U.S. or British/Commonwealth countries in the article (as seems to be the case here), we should be using whatever variety of spelling was used first - consistantly. As to which one was used first, that will probably involve trawling through the article history, possibly followed by another re-enactment of the battles between the disreputable mob that claimed to be a 'revolutionary army', and His Majesties Loyal forces (actually mostly German mercenary, and probably generally loyal to whoever paid them the most). Sadly, this seems to be a recurring issue on Misplaced Pages... ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done, a discussion needs to take place to determine a consensus on whether to use English or Americanizh--Jac16888 11:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we should be consistent within the article. Since the topic is not primarily identified with either the UK or the US, WP:ENGVAR does not come into play. This means we would fall back on the "first use" rule. The edit that created the article (seen here) used UK spelling (calling it an "organisation"... with an 's'), so I suppose UK spelling is what we should conform to. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit Requests

7.4 Nonfiction Books

Nonfiction books exposing the Illuminati have been publication since at least the late 1700s when the Bavarian Illuminati was exposed after some of the group’s writings had been seized by the authorities. (Dice) Since then, a variety of authors have published books, both exposing the Illuminati and their subsidiary organizations, as well as writing books targeted for elitists and occultists to spread the satanic and occult teachings along with the political and financial aspirations of the secret brotherhood. (Dice) Books ranging from focusing specifically on the original Illuminati, to exposing Skull and Bones, the Bohemian Grove, the Federal Reserve, the Bilderberg group, and more. (Dice) One of the first and most popular books written about the Illuminati was published in 1798 by John Robison, a professor of natural philosophy at Edinburgh University in Scotland. The full title of the book is Proofs of a Conspiracy Against all the Religious and Governments of Europe Carried on in the Secret Meetings of Freemasons, Illuminati, and Reading Societies. (Dice) Robison’s book is extremely important because it was written at the time the Illuminati was first exposed to the public. It is basically a first hand account of what the Illuminati were doing and how they became known to the public. (Dice)

Source: Mark Dice, Author of "Illuminati: Facts & Fiction"

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Addition to "History"

Most of the information distributed surrounding the Illuminati stems from the Knights Templar, the Freemasons, and the Bavarian Illuminati founded in Germany in 1776. (Dice) Many other organizations had existed earlier, for hundreds if not thousands of years. (Dice) The Knights Templar date back to the 1100s and the Freemasons to the late 1500s, but before these organizations had formed, secret societies which possessed supposed secret knowledge had existed much earlier and would later grow into these newer and more sophisticated groups. (Dice)

Superpotta-NJITWILL (talk) 03:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Superpotta

Under 7.1 Popular Culture

7.3 - Media

The control of information as well as disinformation is one of the most powerful tools at the Illuminati’s disposal. (Dice) The best way to do this as they discovered hundreds of years ago, is to own the sources of mainstream media. (Dice) Television, newspapers, magazine publishers, radio networks, and film studios are largely owned and controlled by Illuminati branches. (Dice) If a particular issue or person needs to be presented in a favorable light, then this is what will happen. In 2008, former White House press secretary Scott McClellan reported on CNN that the White House gave regular talking points to several hosts at the Fox News Channel. The 2004 documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism details how Fox News was used as both a mouth piece and an attack dog for the Bush Administration. (Dice)

Source: Mark Dice, Author of "Illuminati: Facts & Fiction"

Superpotta-NJITWILL (talk) 03:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Superpotta

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 03:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Mark Dice is hardly a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 July 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

created my the great man called, ALI KAZIME, whom served justice and equality

X7legend (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

See above: "This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it". AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I think he wants us to create an article about some guy named Ali Kazime. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: per above Topher385 (talk) 03:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

My view on the Illuminati

who is the illuminati — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.123.128 (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's a lovely article right here on who they were. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

After reading this, I'm still confused. Who exactly are they? 108.93.72.184 (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The name "Illuminati" primarily refers to a secret society in late 18th century Bavaria (in modern Germany) that tried to overthrow the monarchy, and were persecuted by the Bavarian aristocracy. Later conspiracy theorists claim (without evidence) that the group survived and are responsible for all kinds of things wrong with the world. That's what the article says, that's who they were. There is no other way to answer that question. Do you mean something other than 'who are they?' Ian.thomson (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Minor point, but it's very likely they never tried to overthrow the aristocracy, or even made concrete plans to do so. They sort of discussed the idea of the aristocracy being overthrown in abstract terms, and not necessarily by them. They were far more opposed to the Roman Catholic Church's influence in day-to-day government, and they did have a plan to do something about that, but it never got off the ground because it involved placing members in (relatively minor) government offices. But such infiltrators were more interested in obtaining those positions than remaining loyal to the Illuminati, so it just didn't work out. Josh Joaquin (talk) 06:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Was Adam Weishaupt not trained by the Society of Jesus, a Roman Catholic secret society? 87.208.10.4 (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You probably mean the Jesuits who ran many schools which usually observed a high intellectual standard. Jesuit schools did not always produce devout Catholics. Voltaire and Molière attended Jesuit schools. Possibly Weishaupt´s anti-clerical position was a reaction to his dogmatic education at the Ingolstadt Jesuit school. Ontologix (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Major cuts

I have removed several sections of the article... these were completely unsourced (and tagged as such for a long time... in some cases for over a year.) The reader had no way to know what was verifiable information, what was Original research, and what was pure speculation or invention. Given the nature of the topic (with all the conspiracy theory crap that is commonly associated with the Illuminati) it is vital that any historical information we include be supported by high quality sources.

I hope someone will rebuild the material that I removed... but please include proper citations when you do. Blueboar (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I think there is probably support for much of the text in your cuts and this subsequent cut including in some of the existing sources, but I'm not going to go through it all today. I am placing this here so it's easier for people to see and source the cuts you're referring to in the future. Josh Joaquin (talk) 06:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, after poking around in the sources already in the article, I'm not too sure about either of those diffs. Even if they are 100% accurate, I'm not sure they add much to the article. Josh Joaquin (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Can the required sources be the original German ones? JevaSinghAnand (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Preferably. I can't think of anyone more qualified to source the German Illuminati page, than yourself. Have at it!--XDev (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

25 Goals

1. Men are inclined to evil rather than good 2. Preach liberalism 3. Use ideas of freedom to bring about class wars 4. Any and all means should be used to reach their goals because they are justified 5. Believe their rights lie in force 6. The power of their resources must remain invicible until the very moment they have gained the strength so that no group or force can undermine it. 7. Advocate a mob psychology to obtain control of the masses 8. Promotes the use of alcohol , drugs , moral corruption , and all forms of vice to systematically corrupt the youth of the nation 9. Seize citizens private property by any means necessarily and on a daily basis 10. The use of slogans such as equity , liberty , and fraternity are used on the masses as psychological warfare 11. Warfare should be directed so that the nations on both sides are placed further in debt and peace conferences are designed so that neither combatant retain territory rights. 12. Members must use their wealth to have candidates chosen to public office who would be obedient to their demands , and would be used as pawns in the game by the men behind the scenes. The advisors will have been bred , reared , and trained from childhood to rule the affairs of the world. 13. control the press and hence most of the information the public receives. 14 Agents and provocuers will come forward after creating traumatic situations , and appear to be the saviour of the masses , when they are actually interested in just the opposite , the reduction of the population 15. Create industrial depression and finacial panic , unemployment , hunger , shortage of food , use these events to control the masses and mobs , and use them to wipe out those who stand in the way. 16. Infiltrate Freemasonary which is to be used to conceal and further objectives. 17. Expand the value of systematic deception , use high sounding slogans and phrases , advocate lavish sounding promises to the masses even though they can't be kept. 18. The art of street fighting is necessarily to bring population into subjection. 19. Use agents as advisers and provocatuers behind the scenes and after wars use secret diplomacy talks to gain control 20 Establish huge monopolies towards world government control. 21. Use high taxes and unfair competition to bring about economic ruin by controlling raw materials , organised agitation among the workers , and subsidizing competitors 22. Build up armaments with police and soldiers who can protect and further illuminati interests. 23. Members and leaders of the one world government would be appointed by the Director 24. Infiltrate into all classes and levels of society and government for the purpose of teaching the youth in the schools theories and principles known to be false. 25. Create and use national and international laws to destroy civilazation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.134.100.225 (talk) 08:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Source? Blueboar (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Good job, people! This article is much better than last year, which is no small feat given the constant onslaught of nuttiness such as the above. Now if you will excuse me, I need to continue building up monopolies for government control.... 120.204.83.23 (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Original insignia for History section

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

According to multiple sources already cited in this article, and the German Misplaced Pages's FA on the Illuminati, this was their original insignia, so the image would go great in the History section. 71.212.245.37 (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll leave this unasnwered in case someone would like to add it anyone. But if you'd be able to give me a link to a reliable sources which says that it is the original symbol/insignia that would be great. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/history/bavarian_illuminati/das_verb.html 71.208.7.158 (talk) 08:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it can be added... but from my reading of the BC&Y article, a more accurate description would be to call it "An emblem used by the Bavarian Illuminati (specific to the "Minerval" degree)". I would assume they had others as well (most fraternal groups use lots of emblems, and I doubt the Illuminati were any different). Blueboar (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done, but changed 'the original' to 'an'.--Launchballer 17:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

illumination

Hello do u know anything bout illumination — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.209.230 (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

See: Illumination. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Source material

http://www.bavarian-illuminati.info/ has original text from and commentary on hundreds of Bavarian Illuminati source materials, translated into English and often linking to PDF file scans, which Terry Melanson has been compiling over the past five years. He also runs conspiracyarchive.com, but he's completely aware that the Illuminati conspiracies are all myths (see ). I think it would make a pretty good external link for the article here, because it represents what has become an invaluable resource for anyone wanting to do serious historical research. Swstabren (talk) 08:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

 Added EJM86 (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

@Blueboar: a document archive organized as a blog with posts (the most recent more than a year ago, by the way) when documents are added is still a source material archive passing WP:EL, is it not? Do you have a particular provision of EL you think it doesn't meet or of ELNO you think it does? EJM86 (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It is disingenuous to call Melanson's webpage an "archive"... Many of his posts don't actually link to any source documents. A document archive should have a simple index of the documents contained in the archive... so that those trying to do serious historical research can go right to the original documents... without having to wade through the archivist's commentary to find the link (commentary which could potentially introduce a bias). Blueboar (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't find any reason in three dictionary definitions that organization chronologically by accession or lack of an list index would preclude a collection from being called an archive. It has a full text search engine index in the lower right. Can you give an example of a post which doesn't link to, contain, or describe an original document, photograph or translation? I didn't see any. Can you give an example of an actual bias in the commentary? Again, I see nothing in WP:EL or ELNO which would suggest this isn't an exemplary external link. EJM86 (talk) 08:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Categories are prominently displayed to the right. Two of the links are for "Primary Documents" and "Original Writings" (of the Illuminati). There's unnecessary semantics involved here about the word "archive." It's a valuable source and represents the state of the art research on the subject drawing from specialist scholars in the field, in French and German, and provides translations of Illuminati writings. There's no other source on the internet like it. XDev (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the links. My first thought was that it would be OK if we linked directly to those pages (by-passing Melanson's commontary), but when you look deaper, there is another issue... those are not actually the entire primary documents or the entire original writings... they are selected passages taken from primary documents and original writings. It does our readers no good to present them with partial material that has been taken out of its original context. Blueboar (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing taken out of context. Partial - yes. The site is the site, and it's being posted in whatever time he sees fit, in whatever manner. Check your own biases once in a while. You're a piece of work. Carry on in your delusions of grandeur. Lord of the laughable sub-par Illuminati wiki article. Yay for you. Link or don't link. Could care less.XDev (talk) 04:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to add that you're purposely keeping it sub-par. After a large swath of the stellar German Illuminaten page was translated and posted, you proceeded to question tidbits here and there - particularly when it came to any mention of Masons and/or the real agenda of the Illuminati. Then, after complaining about no source here and there, you erased the whole thing. It's typical of the way you've lorded over this page for almost ten years, maybe more. It's the reason why there are and has been only 2 or 3 error-ridden paragraphs about them at all. You want people to think that there just isn't any real information about them out there. That scholars haven't written tomes about them for hundreds of years. Cause if you do include the information, then you'll have to admit that they took over many lodges, infiltrated the state at every level, were conspiratorial at its very core and basically made the Masons look like fools. Who's really biased here, because everything I've just said is stone cold history pal.XDev (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

When you only quote part of a text, you have removed it from the context in which it originally appeared. That's the very definition of taking something "out of context". If there is a website which provides the entire text of the original, I would have no problem linking to it in the EL. But I do object to linking to a website that only provides readers with a selected sampling of the original text. Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Although the translations have been slow, and who knows if they'll ever get finished, the site is more than just original writings translations. They are the home for continuing research by Melanson and others. Articles such as this are unequalled by anyone writing about them on the net. The notes alone are helpful for research beyond measure. Most people do not even know where to begin when it comes to this subject. If you start there, then you won't have wade through all the bunk that has accrued by the amateurs. Groundbreaking discoveries are also written about, such as here - about the Illuminati's plan for a colony in America, the letters they sent to Adams and Franklin about it, and Adams' reply. Instead of real information about the real Illuminati, you'd like the world to think that everyone who still talks about them does so in the manner of a Dice or an Icke, when in fact real scholarship has and continues to occur in English and other languages. When people want real info on the Illuminati, they go to Melanson's book and articles (on both his sites). Period. You know this, the net knows this (including the masons who full well know he's no friend of their's, but respect his Illuminati research nonetheless). — Preceding unsigned comment added by XDev (talk • contribs) 16:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it is very common for translators of historical documents to select passages, especially with letters and personal papers where otherwise you will waste time on personal esoterica and reiterations of concepts more fully covered in other works. It would be nice if we always had complete translations of everything, but that's just not how most historical scholarship progresses. If you link to it and he starts getting more attention, maybe he will want to translate more. Who knows? 75.98.22.35 (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, that's the order in which those documents are arranged in "Einige Originalschriften, etc." The criticism is justified, but must be leveled at the original editor of the German documents. That discussion, however, is outside the scope of this page.JevaSinghAnand (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Kudos to Blueboar for sticking to responsible historical analysis. (Kudos too, for responding calmly in the face of provocation and unjustified personal attack, a most un-scholarly and immature way of reinforcing an argument.) Quoting a partial text is okay, not providing the whole text for reference is not. It is absolutely correct that a partial text, out of context, can not be accurately evaluated. Remove "on a Tuesday" from the statement "I've never shot anyone", and you get a whole different story, to provide a simple example. 172.10.236.215 (talk) 06:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

question

Hi everbody,the book Angels&Demons and some other material say that Galileo was a member of Illuminati,I want to find something to prove it,can anybody help me? Recommend some books or some link will be good. Thank you.Caroline cassiopeia (talk) 03:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

This talk page is intended only for discussions regarding changes to the content of our article - if you want to ask general questions about the Illuminati, you will need to do so elsewhere - I'd suggest that you ask at Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I will go under the assumption that the question was preliminary to asking if this article should mention what is said in Angels&Demons... And the answer to that is "no"... The reality is that Galileo simply couldn't have been a member of the Illuminati. Galileo died in 1642... The Illuminati was founded in 1776. Galileo had been dead for over a hundred years by the time the Illuminati was created. Angels&Demons (both book and movie) is a fun story... but it is fiction and not reliable history. Blueboar (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The Peace Sign

Would someone care to explain how the peace sign came to be associated with the Illuminati? I've seen that it is associated but never a reason why or how it began. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.49.143 (talk) 03:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

What is the evidence that it is? 64.134.235.244 (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Illuminati exposed

i clicked on the picture of Adam Weishaupt on the illuminati page of wiki there was a thing under date and time it was posted,it siad 17:40, 8 May 2005 so i copied 17:40 and i googled it as a bible verse.the verse is this link: http://biblehub.com/1_samuel/17-40.htm the verse is about david slaying goliaith :David Slays Goliath …39David girded his sword over his armor and tried to walk, for he had not tested them. So David said to Saul, "I cannot go with these, for I have not tested them." And David took them off. 40He took his stick in his hand and chose for himself five smooth stones from the brook, and put them in the shepherd's bag which he had, even in his pouch, and his sling was in his hand; and he approached the Philistine. 41Then the Philistine came on and approached David, with the shield-bearer in front of him.… soooo could goliath be satan !?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exsposed (talk • contribs) 18:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not expect to get this much crazy from Misplaced Pages, even on a topic like this. 172.10.236.215 (talk) 06:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Featured in hunagian wikipedia

Please put the featured template: hu:Illumáintus rend. Thanks! 46.35.207.216 (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Please check your link... there is no article (much less a featured article) at the link you provided. Blueboar (talk) 01:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah... the Hungarian article is at hu:Illuminátus rend ... linked.

Why no mention of antisemitism?

The antisemitic origins of 20th century illuminati conspiracy theory are well known, as shown in Misplaced Pages's own article on Nesta Helen Webster. Why is antisemitism given no mention this article? For that matter, why no cross reference to Webster? To my mind, these omissions render this entire article incompetent. Burressd (talk) 08:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It isn't mentioned because mentioning it would give WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to the views of fringe conspiracy theorists. This article is a history article about the actual historical 18th century Illuminati (who were not particularly antisemetic). For the sake of completeness, the article appropriately mentions the fact that this historical group has inspired conspiracy theories, but it does so in passing. The point is to explain what the impact of the historical Illuminati was... not to explain the details of theories themselves. We save the details of those theories for other articles (articles that are more explicitly about the various theories). In other words... we don't go into details on the conspiracy theories because this article isn't really about the conspiracy theories (there are other articles for that), it's about the actual historical Illuminati. Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC). In 2009

there was talk that a women from North denver Colo named June Carrasco Jiron had made Illuminati a house hold name by preaching about it amoung other North siders letting them know the true meaning of it roots

"there was talk" ... ie rumor. We don't deal in rumor. Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Competent answer. Since there are no true and original Illuminati today there cannot be any anti-semitism among them. Please continue this policy. Ontologix (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Ryanmessengerx (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Ryan Messenger, flaunts Illuminati everywhere. Big supporter.

Not done: - sorry Mr. Messenger, this is not the place to promote yourself. Blueboar (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Illuminati hip hop and pop music

dear WIKIPEDIA readers in my own interest i would like to ask how do those prominent figures in the music industry have got to do with anything that is without doubt associated with ILLUMINATI . I was watching video giving us tremendous feedback about the wicked music industry . how does this prominent singer Satan10:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)10:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)10:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)~ worshippers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.25.208.206 (talk)

The answer to your question is simple: don't believe everything you see in an internet video. Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced Statements

The italicized claims, which cite McKeown, are actually unsourced:

"The Illuminati – along with other secret societies – were outlawed by the Bavarian ruler, Charles Theodore, with the encouragement of the Roman Catholic Church, and permanently disbanded in 1785."

"There is no evidence that the original Bavarian Illuminati survived its suppression in 1785."

There is nothing in McKeown to support them. None of the academic literature on the order I have read places any emphasis on the Catholic Church's involvement in or support of the suppression. The 1785 date applies only to the Bavarian branch, Johann Joachim Christoph Bode continued to run the order from Weimar for a few years afterwards. The prefectural reports and protocols in Bode's literary estate stop around 1787, and there is evidence that the Copenhagen and Jena branches were active until 1788; suggesting a formal dissolution in either 1787 or 1788. See Monika Neugebauer-Wölk's entry on "Illuminaten" in The Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism (2006), ed. Wouter Hanegraaff, Brill. Zwackattack (talk) 10:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. There are more errors in McKeown as well, which have been addressed here: “Bavarian Illuminati primer”. In the Monika Neugebauer-Wölk article, she writes: "The persecution of the Illuminaten in Bavaria and the ostentatious measures to end the Order’s activities suggest that the year 1785 marks its end. This is however not the case. The centre of the society shifted rather from Munich, Ingolstadt and Neuwied to Weimar and Gotha, which lay in the protective realm of the two Illuminaten princes. Under the protection of Ernst von Gotha, it was above all Johann Joachim Christoph Bode (1730- 1793) who took over the affairs of the Order and, in its final phase, assumed the position previously held by Weishaupt. A reform of the Order system was undertaken, while its activities and contacts were concentrated in northern and western Germany. For the first time, several foreign branches were now founded in Italy, France and Russia. The Order branches in Copenhagen and Jena were still functioning until the beginning of 1788; in general, however, the delivery of prefecture reports and protocols breaks off around the end of 1787. At the turn of the year 1787-1788 the secret society of the Illuminaten expired, without any formal decree of dissolution being documented" (p. 592). Neugebauer-Wölk is one of a handful of dedicated German scholars who almost entirely specialize in the Illuminaten. A total rework of this wiki article can be accomplished by citing her English article in the Brill Dictionary. She covers all the essentials and the latest findings from recent scholarship in Germany.

Now concerning the Catholic church statement, this is in error too - but not entirely. Carl Theodor's confessor was Ignaz Franck who was a Jesuit (then ex-Jesuit after his Order was abolished in 1773). Franck started to denounce the Illuminati publicly as early as 1781. He was also involved with the Golden and Rosy Cross who were the antagonists of the Illuminati. Franck kept up his investigations of the Illuminati and was the guiding hand all throughout the official persecution of the Order from 1784-1787, even being on the council that edited and published the Original Writings of the Illuminati in 1787. One can suppose that he kept in touch with Rome on these matters. There is a more direct connection, however. While the official persecutions were already under way: "June 18 . Pope Pius VI (1717-1799) sends the first of two letters (the other, on November 12) to the Bishop of Freising warning of the dangers of the Illuminati and that membership in the Order is incompatible with the teachings of the Church" (Melanson, Perfectibilists, p. 32). Melanson cites the Gruber Catholic encyclopedia Illuminati article, and also a German paper on the web called "Illuminaten" which ultimately is an overview of the research found in Leopold Engel's Geschichte des Illuminaten-Ordens. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte Bayerns. Bermühler, Berlin 1906. I'm sure that's where Gruber got the info from as well. Engel probably even printed verbatim the correspondence, as he did many times in the book with other primary material.(XDev (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC))

In addition to Melanson's critique, which I think raises enough serious concerns to consider removing the Primer from the page altogether, I think the primer counts as a self-published source WP:SPS since McKeown is the webmaster of the site. I had originally planned to present an edit request which involved replacing McKeown and the American Atheists article with Neugebauer-Wölk's entry, but I decided to start out with something less ambitious. If you were to include things like the order's utopian plans and education system in article, the additions would have to be worded very precisely to avoid unnecessary misinterpretation.

Actually, I'll take back the Catholic Church statement. I've only read English sources, none of which emphasize the Church's involvement, but the impression I get from (admittedly a machine translation of) Engels' Geschichte is that the Church was involved to a significant extent. Engels does actually reproduce the letters in the introduction, and it seems like in the November letter Pius VI is congratulating the bishop for having traveled to Munich and convinced the Elector of the seriousness of the matter: "So gingst Du unverzüglich nach München zum Kurfürsten selbst und stelltest ihm mit dem gemeldeten Eifer den Ernst des Übels dar." (Source). While it seems obvious that papal pressure also influenced the suppresions in Mainz and Bonn (Israel, Democratic Enlightenment, p. 843), Engels can only be used to support the statement that the Bavarian suppression was encouraged by the Church. So if the statement in the article were to be revised, it would have to be implied or stated outright that the Church's encouragement was limited to the Bavarian suppression. Anything beyond that, however likely, would be original research going from the sources brought up thus far. In addition, it seems like Karl Theodor's decision was also influenced by members of the Gold- und Rosenkreuz and the former electress, Maria Anne of Saxony, if not more opponents of the bavarian-belgian barter project (McIntosh, The Rose Cross and the Age of Reason, p. 108). With all that in mind, it might be more accurate to revise the statement in the article to something along the lines of: "With the encouragement of several members of his court and a representative of the Catholic Church, Karl Theodor banned all secret societies in 1784 and began suppressing the Bavarian branch of the Illuminati in 1785." Though I realize that it is not exactly ideal. Zwackattack (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI... McKeown is the editor of the BC&Y website (and the author of much of its material)... but he is not the publisher (the publisher is the Grand Lodge of British Columbia & Yukon). Thus there is no SPS issue. Furthermore, even if it were an SPS, McKeown qualifies as a subject matter expert writing in his field of expertise (McKeown is definitely one of the more respected Masonic historians in North America).

That said, McKeown's purpose is to give a brief overview of the topic for those who have heard that there is some connection between the Illuminati and Freemasonry. He is not attempting an in-depth history... While it is reliable as a short overview, I would agree that there are other scholarly sources on the Illuminati that are even more reliable. Blueboar (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

McKeown is both the editor of the site and the author of the Primer. Unless the editorial process is more complex than that, it's no different than vanity publishing, which is generally considered a self-published source WP:USESPS and would also be classified as a questionable source WP:QS since it lacks "meaningful editorial oversight". The self-published source WP:SPS guidelines are very clear: "self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." You'll need to provide examples of reliable third-party publications, unfortunately I can't find any.

Furthermore, the primer is definitely not reliable as a short overview: McKeown does not mention anything about the Order's deliberate infiltration of local governments, the order's eventual goal of a utopian state where Chrisitanity would be replaced by a "religion of reason" and positive government would be superfluous, as well as the part where members were expected to constantly spy on their subordinates in order to find weaknesses that could be exploited to "direct" their education (Neugebauer-Wölk 591); these are all central aspects of the order's existence and are mentioned in several reliable academic sources (Epstein, The Genesis of German Conservatism, 95; McIntosh, The Rose Cross and the Age of Reason 105, 109; Israel, Democratic Enlightenment 834-836; Neugebauer-Wölk, Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism 591-592), yet McKeown makes no mention of them, he even edits out a reference to the Illuminati using Freemasonry as a tool when quoting Mackey. Or, for example, he quotes R.A. Gilbert's assessment that McIntosh "overestimates the strength and significance of the Illuminati", while offering no justification as to why we should take Gilbert's (who, if he's the same RA Gilbert who wrote "A.E. Waite: Magician of Many Parts", has mostly written on Victorian esotericism) over McIntosh's. These are not acceptable oversights for a "short overview". Zwackattack (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The British Columbia & Yukon site is usually reliable and well referenced, but McKeown seems to have written this piece on a Monday morning, as it misses most of the issues that matter. Further, it is clearly a review article, and not intended to be mined for detailed information. This present article is rated Start Class (not terribly good) and needs attention. Rather than arguing about a dud article which was used (in good faith) as a building block here, can we address what needs to be amended in the Misplaced Pages article as a result of this realisation, and get on and do it? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a discussion worth having, but I absolutely agree that we should work on specific amendments to the article as well. Though, if it's alright with the other contributors, I'd prefer to move that discussion to a new section, since the original purpose of this section was just to point out that the two sentences quoted above are not supported by McKeown. Zwackattack (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense to proceed this way, to at least try and make a sensible article. I have all of the above sources which Zwackattack cites; utilizing the information in those books would make sense. The Neugebauer-Wölk article and Israel book could be a base from which to proceed, and check for corroboration in those other sources which are older. Both Neugebauer-Wölk and Israel are concise and do not fail to at least mention the essentials. Concise but accurate is probably what we should strive for (along with current). XDev (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Encylopedia Catholica

I found some historical knowledge on the subject on Encylopedia Catholica - was wondering if this is an allowable source? See here. Thought it would help if so. That is all. Too soon for love (talk) 04:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with it, it's just 100 years old, and doesn't appear to contain much relevant material that isn't in the article already. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 13:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It was an excellent (and very scholarly) summary of what was known about the Illuminati 100 years ago... but it obviously would not include any information that has been uncovered by historians since that time. It's not unreliable... but it is outdated. Better sources are available. Blueboar (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

i need to add more information on the illuminati 162.227.103.98 (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

That's what the edit request is for. What information do you need to add? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} 01:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Satanism

There is a myth that illuminati is a satanic cult, which many people believe. I think that it should be explored more in the aritcle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.149.2 (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

This page is about the historical group, but it links to pages that go into more detail about those myths. The New World Order page discusses and links to the origins of those myths, such as the Taxil hoax. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The Illuminati were anti-religion in the sense they were "fighting" against religious opression on scientific freedom; a matter which arguably exists today (stem cell research for example). During this time in the region, being against the catholic church even in the mild manner of athiesm, would be considered satanic; we know this from documentation that persecution of people as satanists for things such as not attending church existed and they were tried as satanists and heretics. So the myth they're a satanic cult probably has some origins based on this, as the illuminati have always had the air of satanism attached to them. Whether any referenceable material can be found to have it put in the article however, is another matter entirely. But should such a reference exist, then it would belong in this article as it would be a direct rumour of satanism to the original group at the original time. 194.138.39.59 (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing in the entire ritual, even in the Magus and Rex degrees, that the Illuminati were even atheist. The notion that they were atheist is an invention by Barruel in "Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobism." He took militant language from Babeuf and made speculations about the Magus and Rex degrees, degrees which he had never read.JevaSinghAnand (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)JevaSinghAnand

Adding a new title to popular culture reading list.

Hi.

May I recommend a book to be added to the popular culture reading list on this subject: Illuminati Hunter by Sebastian Drechsler student of Adam Weishaupt at Ingolstadt University 1784-85. More info @ http://illuminatihunter.com/ . International Times review 24/4/2014 'Without doubt one of the most gripping and important books Ive ever read.' http://internationaltimes.it/illuminati-hunter/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan Harrison (talk • contribs) 15:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

See WP:COI. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Council of 13

The Council of 13 is a major part of a lot of modern Illuminati conspiracy theories and think it should be mentioned somewhere in this article. The best place would probably be the Modern conspiracy theory subsection of Popular Culture. The idea is that the heads of 13 major families(the Rothschilds, Bruces, Kennedys, De Medicis, Hanovers, Hapsburgs, Krupps, Plantagenets, Rockefellers, Romanovs, Sinclairs, Warburgs, and Windsors) secretly rule the Illuminati and control the world. This group is also known as the Grand Druid Council— Preceding unsigned comment added by Flonzo (talk • contribs) 15:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:UNDUE for why we haven't added it. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

As has been said many times before here on this talk page... this article is primarily a history oriented article about a group that actually existed in Germany in the 1700s. It is not about the various conspiracy theories. Yes, we briefly mention that there are modern day conspiracy theories that claim that the Illuminati still exist ... saying that much is appropriate... but it would be inappropriate to go into all the details of what various conspiracy theorists say. For the reasons why it would be inappropriate to do this, see all the policies and guidelines that Ian just cited. Blueboar (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I got curious and looked at a few websites... I note that the list of who makes up the Council of 13 shifts depending on which conspiracy theorist you read... For example, Flonzo's list does not include the Astors, Roosevelts, and the Bushs, who are included by many theorists. Yet another reason not to mention it... It would take several paragraphs to discuss all the variations on the basic theme, and the disagreements between theorists over who is and is not supposedly on the council... which would definitely give it UNDUE WEIGHT. Blueboar (talk) 01:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Bluebear, you are a model administrator. Anyone may call himself/herself an Illuminato and utter all sorts of humbug in the name of this defunct progressive society. such humbug is to be ignored. Ontologix (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Illuminatus? --P123ct1 (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

How to join

We know about illuminati but some people have to join illuminati. The question is how — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.98.193.129 (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

They're about 230 years too late to join, the Illuminati was disbanded in 1785. Please read the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

For the historical perspective on the same question, which of the revival attempts has the greatest fidelity to the original? 114.84.134.219 (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

This page is not a forum, and is intended solely for discussions concerning article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Illuminati censorship in action, you may not discuss the Illuminati, especially not with the Illuminati. Watch how quickly my comments get deleted and I get banned. 194.138.39.59 (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Right, never mind the WP:NOTFORUM page that Andy linked, representing a site-wide consensus to not use this page as a discussion forum as the two above IPs tried to do. Clearly it couldn't be that. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I have a feeling they're joking... Or they're really that bat**** crazy. Projectmayhem666 (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Quotation in article

I notice what seems to be a missing word ("a" or "the") in the short quote in the last para in the "History" section. On checking back in the article's history pages, I see this quote has always been like that, but cannot check it from footnote 6, which just gives some page references from a book. Can anyone check this and amend? --P123ct1 (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

American English?

As the earliest non-stub versions of this article were clearly in UK English, I am uncertain of the reasons for editing it into American English. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see my exchanges yesterday with Blueboar (talk) re this. I am the one who changed the spellings back to the American after I copy-edited the article. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah... To explain further... as part of his recent copy editing (which has been excellent) P123 changed the spelling from US English to UK English. After a comment by me on his user talk page, he reverted himself... and changed it back to US English. That self-revert was (in my opinion) unnecessary... but that's what happened.

Personally, I don't think it matters which variety is used. The subject is neither US or UK focused. If someone has a strong preference one way or the other, I won't object. The important thing is that we not edit war over it. Blueboar (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that - no personal preference, I just twitch a bit when I see this sort of thing. Article now in US English, been discussed, P123ct1 been through enough, nobody else particularly bothered. Sorted. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

As nobody minds which spelling style is used in this case, I'll revert to the English spelling which was my first instinct as this article is on a European subject. Only half a dozen or so words involved, so no sweat. -- P123ct1 (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

As good a rational as any. No objections from the left side of the pond. Blueboar (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

'Murica! 194.138.39.59 (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Alternate Origin

Why is there no mention of Nimrod (descendant of Noah) and the Tower of Babel where Illuminati arguably originated from? After all, The All Seeing Eye of Horus was first seen there and Horus is just another name for Nimrod. Thanks, JoshuaMiller0 (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC).

Why are there no reliable sources cited for that fringe suggestion that is unarguably just another ahistorical conspiracy theory? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Other than the bible itself, there are no reliable sources for the actual origin of the Illuminati, Nimrod or the Tower of Babel. The page needs to at least state that this does not necessarily represent original Illuminati, it in fact represents the recorded knowledge of a group called the Illuminati which may not be the origin of the name. Thanks, JoshuaMiller0 (talk) 13:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC).

No. Not without a source it doesn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Even if we did accept the Bible as a reliable source (which we rarely do), those claims would still be completely unsourced. The Bible only gives minimal details regarding Nimrod and the Tower of Babel, and does not actually make any connections to Horus or the Illuminati. Eisegesis is original research, which goes against some of our foundational principles.

Then there's problems with neutrality and due weight. The claim that the Illuminati goes back to the Tower of Babel is far from mainstream history, and would be rejected by any peer-reviewed academic journal. If there was a notable claim or claimant of such a theory, we could document their fantasy as such, but not as fact. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Andy and Ian here... to mention an alternative origin, we would need reliable sources to at least take notice of that alternative and comment on it. Even a disparaging remark to debunk it would do... but in this case, the alternative is so fringe that no reliable source even bothers to disparage or debunk it. It is simply ignored. We should not give it undue weight by mentioning it. Blueboar (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Nimrod and the Tower of Babel are part of the history of Freemasonry from the old constitutions, which eventually evolved into the York Legend. If Weishaupt or Knigge used the York Legend, it would be worth mentioning. If they didn't, I think I can see the cause of the confusion. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

see WP:SYNTH... Misplaced Pages can't make connections that are not directly made by sources. In order to say that Freemasonry's "York Legend" had any influence on Weishapt, we would need a reliable source to spell out the connection and tie it all together. It is not our place to speculate. Blueboar (talk) 11:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The word "Nimrod" appears nowhere in the entire ritual of the Illuminati, the word "Babel" once, in the Philosophus or Magus degree (simultaneously published by Wilson and Schüttler), in this passage, "Und da in diesen ältesten Zeiten der Zusammenhang der Völker mit andern, und so auch mit ihrem Mutterlande sehr schwach seyn mußte, werden ohne Wunder, ohne Thurmbau zu Babel neue Sprachen entstehen, werden die Nachkommen eines gemeinschaftlichen Stammvaters einander unverständlich werden." (trans. "And since in these ancient times, the cohesion of nations among one another and thus with their motherland also must have been very weak, new languages will come into existence even without miracles or the construction of the Tower of Babel, and the descendants of a common forefather will no longer be able to understand one another.") In this degree, Weishaupt borrowed heavily from Boulanger's theories. JevaSinghAnand (talk) 04:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)JevaSinghAnand

Misplaced Pages is the Illuminati

Or what is left of it, being the encyclopedia of the world, they can "edit" history as they see fit. I've seen real referenced and proven facts in articles disappear without explanation and the article then locked from editing, with the talk page questions simply ignored. Open your eyes people, the all seeing eye is watching you!

Proof you say? Check out the Illuminati card game article, there are articles all over the web which show these cards from 1995 depict real world events... Sort of, like 9/11 etc. Yet if you attempt to add that to the article, quickly reverted. A look in the talk page shows many questions regarding these issues, all ignored.

Welcome to the Novi Orbis! 194.138.39.59 (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Damn... we have been exposed... curses, foiled again! Blueboar (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

In fairness, I regularly tell conspiracy theorists that if the Illuminati were real, we-- I mean they would control the site, and that there's no point in trying to "fight" the Illuminati here. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Sed lumen aperire oculosProjectmayhem666 (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

This actually looks like a plea for help, of some sort, anyway, or maybe more than one sort (collect them all!) considering the matter is basically irrelevant to this page. The anonymous editor seems to be complaining about one of the two articles we have on Illuminati card games. Unfortunately, the anon also seems to be at best dubiously aware of our policies regarding what constitute reliable sources, and I urge him/her/it/whatever to read WP:RS, after which the anon might better understand what kind of sources are considered acceptable around here. Of course, certain images from the cards are by definition going to be deleted, like the one of the secret meeting Blueboar and I had to determine the winner of the 2000 US Presidential race, I don't know who took that one anyway, but rational people would know better than to mess with either of our exalted selves anyway.

Yes, anonymous editor, it is very likely that content based on webpages which don't meet WP:RS standards will be removed, because the sources don't meet our standards. The same happens for a lot of content relating to pop culture articles. And, considering any changes to our policy involving several of us illustrious individuals who control the world physically meeting, and several of us have long-standing contracts out for the assassination of others (hint, Blueboar - do not hire your hit men from Manpower in the future, use Blackwater men like I do), I don't think our policies likely on these matters to change much in the near future. John Carter (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I find Andromedan mind control lasers to be far more effective than Blackwater chimps. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Ian, I have to draw all my thugs from Opus Dei and other fanatical Catholic nuts. We gots no one competent with lasers in those groups after I had to kill the one who made the new and improved Shroud of Turin when he threatened to reveal the documents of Jesus's divorces. Shell-shocked psycho killers by the hundreds of course, but most of them can't even figure out how to the rack effectively, let alone lasers. John Carter (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

HA! You refer to reliable sources yet even on the topic of conspiracy theory, it should still be on the article! Even if listed as a conspiracy theory, that way the sources don't in fact have to be reliable because you're pointing out it's a conspiracy theory. It's like the articles on Jesus and any religion, since by your definition, holy texts are also unreliable sources except you refer to them as it says, not whether or not that is fact. "The bible claims" and "Some conspiracy theorists claim", which is backed up by the fact the WTCs or "terrorist nuke" card does seem to show, almost exactly the WTCs in 9/11 as the explosion is in the same place. With the pentagon image too it's fair to say it being mentioned in the article as a conspiracy theory does not breach any Misplaced Pages rules what so ever. Otherwise the conspiracy theories listed in other articles are in clear violation.

So what can be taken from this? The Illuminati controlling Misplaced Pages don't want you to know, that's what! 194.138.39.59 (talk) 06:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

No, we can take from this that an anon editor which has had repeated warnings on the talk page of that IP, and at least one block, likes to pontificate, in an apparently completely pointless manner by the way, about things he has little if any understanding of. 'All information must be verifiable from reliable sources, and that includes even references to things said on the net. Maybe the anon could do something more productive, like maybe try to meet WP:BURDEN and look to find sources we can actually use. May I suggest to that editor that they maybe read the documents linked to in welcome template I am adding to the address talk page, and perhaps refrain from engaging in completely useless commentary, in violation of WP:DE and WP:TE, to this page. John Carter (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It does seem quite dubious to talk about WP:RS, when what constitutes a reliable source is exactly what comes into question when talking about conspiracy theories... the claim behind most is generally that mainstream media is controlled by secret societies, yet only the mainstream sources of information are considered a reliable source. How does the WP:RS policy weight against the WP:NPV policy when it comes to these articles? In cases like these, it seems like the best option would be to give both the mainstream sources and the alternative sources equal weight. Scarily, the less information about these conspiracy theories is presented, the more it appears that Misplaced Pages is indeed "owned by Illuminati!!!", thus somewhat validating the theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.250.85 (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is determined by WP:RS. We do not give equal validity to concepts that mainstream academia laughs at, because a false balance is still false. For those who are not tinfoil-hat-level paranoid, Misplaced Pages not giving any validity to conspiracy theories is an indication that those conspiracy theories are fairy tales made up by powerless individuals who want to blame others for problems that sane people either accept are a part of life or actually do something about. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you just use a cracked article to validate that statement? I wonder how that kind of reference could be used to make all sorts of other statements... it's not like there are possibly more than 5 lies mainstream media has passed off as fact in history or 7 fake news stories that fooled mainstream media... But if that's really how much blind faith Misplaced Pages puts in mainstream sources, I guess I'm better off reading cracked.com articles from now on. It at least seems to have a better neutrality policy. All joking aside, "we do not give equal validity" makes a rule which relies on a certain level of subjectivity in every situation. In an article about something which is at the center of most major tinfoil-hat-level (nice neutrality policy use there, by the way) conspiracy theories, it is debatable that the amount of validity given to the theories ought to touch on the side of the theories a bit more to actually be considered equal, in order to be informative. It isn't giving them validity to simply explain exactly what the conspiracy theorists think and provide citations where more can be learned about their theories. The best way to falsify something is to study it thoroughly, which is why I try to use Misplaced Pages instead of any other more biased source of information when it comes to this kind of subject. 92.40.250.85 (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

No, WP:GEVAL doesn't require all that much subjectivity. It's a simple matter of gathering mainstream academic sources and summarizing them. One does not have to give validity to theories to falsify them, doing so would be the opposite of falsifying them. If you want conspiracy theories to have validity, you're clearly not here to falsify it.

If your concern is that this article does not discuss mainstream academic discourse on conspiracy theories about the Illuminati surviving or predating the Bavarian Illuminati, that'd be New World Order (conspiracy theory).

If, however, it is to claim that mainstream sources are not reliable enough, no amount of interpreting out-of-context portions of the letter of other policies against the spirit of the interdependent policies and guidelines will change that. Attempts to "right great wrongs" with regards to that matter will only result in trouble. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

To, uh, "illuminate" my previous point, though... Imagine I'm someone in an argument with a guy wearing a tinfoil hat. He makes a statement about a conspiracy theory, but instead of just arguing against it without knowing what I (or he) is talking about, I go to Misplaced Pages to find out exactly what his theory is and why it's wrong. I fail to do this, though, since, as he would have predicted of all mainstream media sources, it fails to give a fair amount of information on the matter. I am now, as an honest and respectable person who doesn't like to make claims without knowing the facts, forced to assume he's right, because he knows more about the topic we're arguing about than I do. I think this is quite relevant especially as we're talking under a category that makes the statement that "Misplaced Pages is the Illuminati because they're withholding information". My issue isn't even about the mainstream sources, though, it's that information on the theories aren't given with the necessary citations to see how they're opposed. It's like making an article on the subject of an argument, only to not give enough information about one side of it to provide information about the opposing side. And yes, that other article did catch my attention and I should have maybe started this there as it similarly provides a lack of information or citations pointing towards both sides of the debate, but this amusing section caught my eye first. 92.40.250.85 (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

A fair point, but WP isn't about debunking, it's about stating what we've actually got. Arguably there should be a section, or even an article, about Illuminatus nutters, but it's like stabbing fog. They have no facts, and the guy in the foil hat isn't a credible reference. The modern Illuminati paranoia seems to get facts from Robert Anton Wilson and Malaclypse the Younger. The people who believe this crap won't be dissuaded by Misplaced Pages. We also have lives. Give us a break. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not saying it should attempt to debunk anything, since that breaks neutrality policy... but just give information about it. For example, there's more information about less believable things such as Esotericism and heck, even religious things like Moses, than a theory concerning a secret society controlling the USA. I can go to an article like Magic_(paranormal) or Greek_mythology for more than enough information on something considered silly by mainstream media, but not for a conspiracy theory. Yet they are all equally interesting to me. Yet any time something has a conspiracy theory attached to it, I can only find a tiny bit of almost useless information (that I usually already knew) regarding it. Feels kind of like people just want to avoid the topic too much for personal reasons rather than because it's not "real" enough to make a topic about. There's plenty of books and "alternative news source" websites out there. I've never gotten why they whether they can be trusted is relevant - Misplaced Pages doesn't have to say "this book said it, so it's true", but just "some say blah blah, while others say blah blah", citing both sources. But yeah, I think I've indeed picked the wrong place to bring this up. Still, I'm happy to just have more of an idea why these things are treated the way they are. 94.197.122.72 (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The real problem is that there aren't any credible sources which tell us which of the umpteen tinfoil-hat Illuminati theories have the most support, or indeed what these theories really are. We can't just cherry-pick random primary-source conspiracy websites and present them as some sort of authority on what the conspiracy-theorists believe. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand... what we can do is read a whole bunch of tin-foil hat Illuminati conspiracy pages, and see which theories are repeated over and over again within the tin foil hat community, and which are only stated by a few outliers. That would give us at least a relative sense of how much weight to give the various theories... ie we would at least know which theories should definitely be excluded (for being non-notice worthy "fringe of the fringe" outliers) vs which should probably be excluded (for merely being fringe). Blueboar (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

In other words, Illuminati#Modern conspiracy theory is as full of holes as the rest of the article. (The whole thing would probably benefit from a complete rewrite, but that's a big job for somebody with a working knowledge of German.) Blueboar's suggestion is probably the best, but it involves a long process of reading screeds of drivel over months, causing brains to boil and the infamous square eyes. My own theory is that most of this stuff can be traced to Barruel or Wilson/Malaclypse, and anything modern that predates Discordian literature is likely to be intrinsically interesting. Google sorts by relevance and frequency of consultation, thus provides a good indication of the go-tos of the man in the tin-foil hat. Don't forget, there are also the Catholic and Islamist paranoids. The biggest problem is finding an editor that's mad/bored enough to take it on. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 10:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Something else we have to consider is the issue of article focus... This article is focused on the historical (real life) Bavarian Illuminati... and in that context, I am not sure that we should give much if any weight to the various individual conspiracy theories. I think it is appropriate to mention that (in broad sweep) the Illuminati have inspired conspiracy theories... and that there are many theories based on the idea that the Illuminati somehow survived and are secretly manipulating events today... but I don't think it appropriate to go into details about what the various theories say. In this article, no single conspiracy theory rises to the DUE WEIGHT level where we should outline it.

Now, in some other context, in some other article (say an article devoted to Illuminati (conspiracy theories)), it would be more appropriate to discuss the various theories in more depth... giving more weight to the more common theories, and less (or no) weight to the outliers. Blueboar (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I also agree, but the research in that case should be done by someone who doesn't so often refer to the subjects as "tin-foil hatters" and instead see's them as genuine human beings with different beliefs. That'd be like constructing a Misplaced Pages page on Christianity while treating it like a strange form of mythology supported by magical acts. As I'm genuinely as interested in hearing all the conspiracy theories just as equally as the theories I (don't) watch on TV (but am somehow subjected to the information anyway) and figuring out for myself what's wrong or right with both. I've seen major holes and flaws in a lot of mainstream story's and news reports too, which don't necessarily make them wrong, but I'd be hypocritical in automatically presuming other sources wrong just because they have holes too. I like to study this and other random stuff in my spare time, but I'm not sure if I'd be able to produce a good basis for an article/section. If I end up finding any reasonable sources that aren't too "tinfoil hat"-ish I'll try to share them and give a filtered explanation of their intended message (as interpreted by someone without bias towards conspiracy theories, as I've found at least one to actually have been confirmed valid in the past). Unfortunately the few theories that make sense and are actually part of the "main thread" of conspiracists are the theories least spoken on in the mainstream media, even if they're obviously wrong, probably because they'd be too "heavy" and not make good laughable stories, which kind of makes it hard to find an article which fits Misplaced Pages's strange RS policy regarding that, though Misplaced Pages policies tend to be a bit vague and subjective for my tastes so I'll leave the actual editing up to someone else. 92.40.250.85 (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll treat the conspiracy theorists as "genuine human beings" when they stop saying that the Illuminati are reptilian aliens from outer space. :>) Blueboar (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

As I tried to explain above, the men in the tinfoil hats are just small part of the equation, and the Illuminati are currently a peg supporting all sorts of other stuff that was previously only blamed on the masons. For example, the Islamic Illuminati paranoids are recycling material from the Taxil hoax, the self-exposure of which was designed to embarass the Catholic Church. This (English) encyclopedia doesn't cover how Domenico Margiotta took Taxil's material and nailed it to the Italian Grand Orient, accusing Grand Master Adriano Lemmi (still no article here) of Satanism. Lemmi may (really) have inspired Propaganda Due. This is the stuff that passes from mouth to ear, and after a century's garbling, ends up on a blog as "Satanic Illuminati Run The World". It's foggy, and a lot of it is going to look like original research, and (as Blueboar states above) it would probably require a new article to draw the whole thing together. Yes, it needs covered, but probably not here, in an article about a real organisation. We have Knights Templar legends, why not Illuminati myths? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

can you add the picture

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Felix Saunderz (talk • contribs) 09:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: - the image file you want added does not exist. Blueboar (talk) 12:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Illuminati in Non-profit?

Perhaps noting examples in this article such as Lucis Trust or Illuminatius? Both have Illuminati themes for their organizations and seem strongly tied to the Illuminati. Conspirasee1 (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, if it's not explicitly published in reliable sources then it can't be in Misplaced Pages. Lucis doesn't even claim a connection, and both of those organizations have "themes" closer to the Shea-Wilson New Age psychedelia re-imagining of the Illuminati than the original Bavarians or any of the organisations trying to claim an actual lineage. You want Illuminati in popular culture, assuming you can find reliable, third-party, objective, non-fringe sources, and honestly, good luck with that.

Having said that though, there's probably room in this article to expand a little on the Shea-Wilson influence, because it's fairly straightforward to show that they're responsible for much of the modern revival of the conspiracy theory and intentionally at that, so it might not be too hard to find sources. There is certainly no dearth of reliable mainstream news sources surrounding the Steve Jackson Games fiasco. I can't speak for other editors, but there may be a decent case to be made that major US federal law enforcement action transcends simple "popular culture." Novis Ordo (talk) 05:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the interesting insight. Here are a few links in support of both organizations' Illuminati themes: Lucis Trust Illuminatius Illuminatius might be deserving of some sort of minor acknowledgment somewhere but Lucis Trust seems to have a solid argument for inclusion? It also appears as if their Misplaced Pages article could use some work. Conspirasee1 (talk) 06:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I am seeing lots of self published primary sources in those links... and no reliably published secondary sources (which is what we would need). More importantly, mentioning what these conspiracy theorists say about Lucis Trust in this article would give UNDUE WEIGHT to fringe views.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs)

Illuminatius, so far as I can find, does not begin to qualify as noteworthy. The website (which I'm not even linking to because I would feel it'd qualify as spam and I don't want to quadruple their traffic) has almost no content, just links to sites they're not necessarily affiliated with. I've yet to see any indication that it's more than one person who bought a domain name and some blogging software.

I'm only seeing conspiracy theories connecting the Lucis Trust to the Illuminati, but the same sort of "connections" that are imagined with the Catholic Church, Judaism, the ₵hur¢h of $¢i€ntol₤g¥, the US Department of Defense... in other words, paranoid delusions rather than any historical connection or even claims by the Lucis Trust. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Understood. Although Illuminatius sounds strikingly related to some sort of non-profit version of the Illuminati, they do not blatantly admit to any affiliations directly. Lucis Trust seems much more known, but with a similar elusiveness. Both were still worth noting, however, especially if there were to ever be a non-profit sector written about here regarding an alleged modern day Illuminati. Conspirasee1 (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Dajjal or Antichrist

Should we discuss either of these topics from Islamic prospective at least in the article somewhere. Teaksmitty (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Probably not, unless somebody can explain, with references, how any sort of false messiah has some sort of relevance to the article. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Symbolism

Hello there, I wrote a small part about what conspiracy theorists claim are symbols of the illuminati. I just read that there seem to be 2 articles, from which the New World Order one has a better reference to modern conspiracy theories. Ehm, my question is, should I remove it or can it stay, as it's only a short description but it's about the modern illuminati, which is also described partly in the other parts of this paragraph. Bokareis (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

This article concerns the Historically-verifiable Illuminati, as founded by Adam Weishaupt. It does not concern itself with in-depth coverage of what conspiracy theorists claim about any hypothetical 'modern Illuminati', and accordingly cannot concern itself with what such theorists have to say about symbolism either. Accordingly, I have removed the material. And please note that for such material to be added to any relevant article, you will need to establish that you are using significant and reliable sources, and to cite them properly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Academic research on the Bavarian Illuminati

"The Bavarian Illuminati is a dominant theme of Western conspiracy narratives, however, discourses are replete with opinions and theories founded on exceedingly poor scholarship, exaggerations and hearsay. Perpetuation of the hullabaloo is precipitated by a complete lack of access to English translations of the original work of authors and theorists, which include Dr. Adam Weishaupt, Adolphe Knigge and J. J. C. Bode. Western conspiracists purport a sinister global deception as the raison d'être of the Bavarian Illuminati, but this is not what is gleaned from English translations of the original texts. Knigge's apology, written in 1788, Philo's endliche Erklarung und Antwort auf verschiedene Anforderungen und Fragen die an ihn ergangen seine Verbidnung mit dem Orden der Illuminaten (translated in 2012, as Philo's Explanation to Various Questions Concerning His Connection with the Order of the Illuminati) is critically examined, providing textual evidence contrary to contemporary conspiracist claims. Knigge's text reveals a personal account of his experience with the Bavarian Illuminati. It includes an intimate (but quaint) autobiographical sketch, a biographical insight into Dr. Adam Weishaupt, and a view into late eighteenth century German occult culture. It hints at the origins of esoteric doctrines, and provides a descriptive array of the doctrinal foundations and operational functions, of the Order. The conclusion is obtained that no textual evidence exists supporting the claims made by late twentieth and twenty-first century conspiracy theorists. An affirmation is made for the necessity of transliterating Illuminati primary-source documents for English researchers as a partial, but powerful, remedy for the growing conspiracy delusion in the English speaking world."

---> Source: Adolphe Knigge, the Bavarian Illuminati and Contemporary Conspiracy Culture.

To be included in the text, perchance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.250.167.33 (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Certainly it looks relevant, though any edit will require reading the source, rather than the abstract.

Incidentally, please note that you should not copy-paste large volumes of text to talk pages (or elsewhere on Misplaced Pages) for copyright reasons - I've not deleted this, as it is probably just about acceptable, but in future please provide a summary and a link. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Being desperately short of English language sources on the Illuminati, K. M. Hataley, the author of the abstract, seems to be a useful resource. Thanks for that. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The official title of Knigge's "Philo's endliche Erklarung und Antwort auf verschiedene Anforderungen und Fragen, etc." is "Philo's Reply to Questions Concerning his Association with the Illuminati," Copyright 2012 by Jeva Singh-Anand (me). How can I help? JevaSinghAnand (talk) 02:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC) JevaSinghAnand

How can anyone hold the copyright of a book published in 1788? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The translation used by Hataley is the one I did in 2012. While there is no copyright on the German 1788 text, the 2012 translation is copyrighted. I have no problem with passages from the translation being used. I'm just asking that if used, they're cited properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JevaSinghAnand (talk • contribs) 03:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Per Misplaced Pages policy, we require any direct quotations to be cited, though generally direct quotation should be avoided anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah... I would avoid quoting (especially such a large passage). Summarize it - and format a citation that notes both what the original publication was and which translation we are using. Blueboar (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Enlightenment era Illuminati

I'm interested in editing/learning some on the subject of the Illuminati's role in the Enlightenment era, which I believe is the era that the Illuminati were founded by the dates on the article. Enlightenment and Illuminati share the same principles. (Against Religious superstition, Equal rights, etc.) and I was wondering about the connections, but I can't find any reliable sources to confirm it. I am a fairly new editor, and I was hoping someone shared my suspicions. Anybody agree? Feel free to edit this. Thank you.

Da Cheezeburger (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I would put it the other way around... While Enlightenment philosophy had a huge impact on the Illuminati, the Illuminati actually had little to no roll in the Enlightenment. First, consider the timing... the Illuminati were formed towards the end of the Enlightenment era (the Enlightenment had been going on for decades before the Illuminati were formed). Second, the Illuminati simply did not exist long enough to have much impact (on anything except conspiracy theory). Blueboar (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

So would you say that the Illuminati were a continuation of the Enlightenment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Da Cheezeburger (talk • contribs) 14:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

No... because the Enlightenment era continued (for at least another decade) after the Illuminati were disbanded. The most I would say is that the Illuminati existed during(or within) the latter part of the Enlightenment era. Blueboar (talk) 13:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The Illuminati were more of a sideshow. Weishaupt sought to spread enlightenment ideals using a super-secret society with unquestioning obedience to him. What is wrong with this picture? Knigge saw him as creating a new version of the Jesuits and baled. The contradiction, and Weishaupt's own personality, set them apart from mainstream Enlightenment thought. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Forwards?

Somewhere up there ^ is a very valid complaint about over-reliance on McKeown. With a view to elimination, I've started mining le Forestier, and checking out English equivalents, as this still seems to be the seminal text on the order. I don't intend to rush. The de:Misplaced Pages article is supposed to be FA, but similarly has unreferenced stuff I can't trace. There is a link in the previous set of postings to a site that attacks both McKeown and Misplaced Pages for minimalising the Illuminati/Freemasonry connection. This does need looked at, but for me, the major part of the connection is Knigge. Weishaupt wasn't at Wilhelmsbad. Wilhelmsbad was the order's big chance to take over a large part of German masonry. They found some impressive recruits, but Willermoz didn't bite, and the Three Globes went home and blew the whistle on them for saying bad things about religion. So, long term plan. Expand history, move ritual and its development to a separate section, and work in some sort of analysis of the convent of Wilhelmsbad. Comments? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. We do rely on McKeown heavily, but that is simply out of convenience (it's on-line, and thus easy to cite). Blueboar (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

A reworking of the article can be acheived by utilizing two sources:Johnathan Israel, Democratic Enlightenment (pp. 822-46); Monika Neugebauer-Wölk's entry "Illuminaten," in The Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism (pp. 590-7). Both incorporate the current state of research known to scholars, and have accurate accounts of the importance of the Order within the Enlightenment and their place within secret society traditions and/or esotericism; what they believed and what they hoped (and tried) to achieve - succinct and to the point. The contributions of Knigge are fleshed out accurately by both as well.--XDev (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth is directly related to 3 Bavarian Illuminati members

Misplaced Pages editors are closing down discussion without attempting to verify it

Misplaced Pages editors are closing down discussion without attempting to verify it

I recently made the above post and was quickly shut down without any attempt to verify the information provided. There is no conspiracy theory only historical fact and the Misplaced Pages editors are attempting to put across a biased opinion as if their opinion is the only opinion that matters. Now Queen Elizabeth is related to the Bavarian Illuminati and by hiding that information from the article Misplaced Pages are putting across an incorrect and biased perspective of the Illuminati. Misplaced Pages editors are essentially deciding which parts of history to show the public, which parts best fit their world view. It isn't conspiracy theory that Queen Elizabeth is related to the Bavarian Illuminati, in fact if the editors bothered to do 10 minutes of research they would find that the Queen is in fact related to the Bavarian Illuminati.

XX Jon Doe Xx (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The only way that Queen Elizabeth being related to the Illuminati could possibly be relevant to this article is if you believe they're still around or still have any sort of power. That is a conspiracy theory. Whether or not Queen Elizabeth is related to them could only matter to conspiracy theorists. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It is important because it gives a true history of who and what the Illuminati is and where it originated, not just a poorly researched bunch of quotes from people who have a one sided opinion. The article is not very well written to be honest, it's put across in a one sided manner, there are multiple opinions of the Illuminati not just the small collection that is currently on display. To understand who and what the Illuminati is and where the Illuminati originated a person needs to understand who, what, when, where, why and how. You say Misplaced Pages is not a random collection of facts, but that's a lie, that is what Misplaced Pages is in its current form. You can confirm the information using Misplaced Pages, I confirmed it with Misplaced Pages after using ancestry.com and other genealogy websites. It isn't a theory I am coming discussing, if it was a theory I wouldn't of written it down. I have a degree I understand how to write and fact check. It is relevant because it explains where certain members originated and helps explain why certain members wanted to destroy the Monarch. It is a key part of understanding the original Illuminati and by denying historical fact you are essentially playing with peoples reality. Everything written on Misplaced Pages is read by children and adults who will then go out into their communities and regurgitate what is written, if it isn't factual they will be regurgitating utter nonsense. Now the Queen is related to the Bavarian Illuminati, if the Illuminati exists or it doesn't, it doesn't change the fact that the Queen is directly related to 3 original Bavarian Illuminati members.

XX Jon Doe Xx (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

What part of "Misplaced Pages articles are based on published reliable sources, not on contributors own research" do you not understand? Frankly, this is uninteresting trivia anyway, and even with a proper source, it wouldn't merit inclusion - with a membership of 2000 odd, and maybe 10 generations between then and now, it is highly likely that a significant proportion of the population of Europe has an Illuminati member amongst their ancestors - do the maths... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Look what are you a paid troll, have you even attempted to verify this information in between your attempting to character assassinate and discredit what is being said? The only reason that information wouldn't be displayed is if you want to portray a version of history which best suits a world view you want to portray and not an actual factual account.

XX Jon Doe Xx (talk) 05:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The history of the Illuminati and where it originated does not involve persons born in the 20th century. That's getting time completely backwards. The Illuminati could not have been aware that a few of their members were going to be the ancestors of Queen Elizabeth. Queen Elizabeth's existence is no more relevant to the Illuminati than Bill Clinton is to the Boston Tea Party.

Misplaced Pages is not a collection of random facts, that is a foundational policy, see WP:NOTRANDOM. We do not accept original research either, see WP:NOR, another foundational site policy. We only use mainstream academic or journalistic sources, see WP:RS. You are in the wrong place, you do not belong here. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

So I now have recorded screenshots of attempting to bully people off Misplaced Pages, you clearly do not understand what the Illuminati was. You are attempting to discredit what is being said without fact checking the information. You are attempting to tell me I do not belong on Misplaced Pages, now that is a disgrace, and I have it recorded for the world to see that 2 editors attempted to bully me off Misplaced Pages because they want to portray a perspective of reality that isn't true. It is intentionally misleading, biased individuals are attempting to portray a biased world view. I'm not a child and I don't care if you think I don't belong here, I have just as much of a right as anyone else to be here. Are you going to fact check the information provided or are you going to continue an attempted bullying and character assassination attempt?

XX Jon Doe Xx (talk) 05:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Why the fuck should we be the slightest bit concerned about you taking screenshots of yourself demonstrating how utterly clueless you are? You have repeatedly been told that Misplaced Pages articles are based on published reliable sources, not on contributors own research. If you are too stupid to understand that simple statement, it is your problem, not ours. Now toddle off and peddle your conspiracy theories elsewhere... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Just so you know, this conversation has been a study for a dissertation about bullying and bias on the internet. Everything you and your friend have said is being put in a paper for other academics to read. The last laugh will be on me dear friend, when our conversations are publicly published. You're obviously not very intelligent and have to resort to name calling because you don't have the mental capacity to fact check. You will be finding our conversations around the internet as well as in publicly published university papers. I will also be sending our conversation to universities who link to Misplaced Pages so they can see just how disgraceful the bullying is when people bring factual information that the editors refuse to fact check because they want to portray a world view that is out of touch with reality. Now have you fact checked the information or are you going to continue this disgraceful bullying attempt which is like that of a school child to be honest. I'm not even going to entertain your childish behavior, it's pathetic, and predictable. At least use something that isn't in Edward Bernays propaganda or Saul Alinskys rules for Radicals.

XX Jon Doe Xx (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• Selected anniversaries (May 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2013)