Talk:Illuminati/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

General comments on article

The article is too conversational in places; also in some places it borders on lacking objectivity. It needs a bit of a rewrite so as to make it more professional sounding --Mydoghasworms 18:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeagh, verily. citations needed fer sure! Check out the origons section, especially.Thaddeus Slamp 02:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm reading Angels & Demons written by Dan Brown, and what I've read in the article so far, doesn't seem to fit the fiction. Delta.Change Renata S.B. (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Opening comments

A famous key element of the Illuminati order is the mystical number 23. So is the letter W (as in the founder Weishaupt) the 23rd letter of the alphabet. The digits 2 and 3 (from 23) are also supposed to have a special meaning if occurring together. Countless occurrences of these numbers have been found throughout history. The latest example is the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack on the World Trade Center. The cross sum of the date (11+9+2+1) is 23; the letters WTC are number 23, 20(=23-3), and 3 in the alphabet; the Pentagon has 5(=2+3) corners.

I'm sure it's true that among some, "A famous key element of the Illuminati order is the mystical number 23." But unless the above cryptic assertions are put into some proper context, they make the article look like the work of a crank. --LMS

The number 23 is not an original element of the Illuminati order foundet by Weishaupt. It was contrieved by Wilson in his Illuminatus! books.

Another point is the 23 myth of 9/11: Why does the inventor use the sum of digit at the year 2001 (2+1), but not at the day (11)? If you play and trick a bit, you will find a reference to 23 (or any other number) nearly everywhere.

That would appear to be the point - see The Law of Fives. Wibbble 15:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

(The work of a crank?

http://afgen.com/num23.html

http://afgen.com/numbr23b.html )

Sorry, now I see it, it really looks strange...

I wandered across it by accident (at [1], for those of you who read German) and tried to add it to the article. --Magnus Manske

---

That first sentence seems to take the Illuminati awfully seriously. Can we redo this a little more Neutral point of view?

Why the hacker community? -Tubby

---

This page and Bavarian Illuminati are duplicates. olivier 08:53 Nov 12, 2002 (UTC)

Oops. Yeah, they should be reintegrated, but under which title? "Illuminati" is also a common noun; "Bavarian Illuminati" is specific to Weishaupt's group. IIRC, they actually called themselves the "Order of Illuminati" (in German, though), which is different from either.

I would also hope that whatever historical facts can be reconstructed about the historical Illuminati can be well distinguished in our text from Wilson and Shea's merry pranks and their descendants. Weishaupt's Illuminati were a real organization with real purposes -- not a joke, a "mythos", or a work of fiction. --FOo

---

Being a bavarian, I know what Freising is and means (also Ingolstadt...which became the University of Munich). But anybody else? The article needs a lot of work. Go to study, damned! ---

"Illuminati" does not generally mean specifically the obscure modern group calling themselves after the historical Bavarian Illuminati of the late 18th century. By removing the following grandstanding text from the heading, the article takes a neutral historical balance:

The Illuminati is the name of many groups, modern and historical, real and fictitious, verified and alleged. Most commonly, however, The Illuminati refers specifically to the Bavarian Illuminati, described below. Most alleged and fictitious uses refer to a shadowy conspiratorial organization which controls world affairs behind the scenes, usually a modern incarnation or continuation of the Bavarian Illuminati. Illuminati is sometimes used synonymously with New World Order (conspiracy) Wetman 10:41, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)~

---

The section "Was 1790 really the end of the Illuminati" is somewhat poorly written, has NPOV problems, and seems to be a ranty long paragraph. Furthermore, it lacks in hard evidence that the United States founding fathers were awash in corruption from the Bavarian Illuminati. If you're going to put it in Wikipedia, there should be some evidence to back it up, like: "According to this source the United States' founding fathers were evil Bavarianists."

I've looked, and I can find very little evidence that George Washington knew about Adam Weishaupt or thought about him favorably. Yes, Washington was a Mason, but that seems to be the only connection. Many of Washington's letters can be found on-line but a search doesn't reveal that he wrote anything about Weisbaum. But maybe that's what they want us to think! :-) --Yekrats 15:20, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Washington rarely frequented masonic lodges, he did hear about the "the nefarious, and dangerous plan, and doctrines of the Illuminati" but doubted they had affected american masonic lodges. loc.gov Neophytesoftware 13:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Althought the Illumanati Band of Brothers were science incorperators, I cant see how they would allow Gaileo to join if they knew he had a faith in him

Here I am, answering my own response, but the entire section of "A Conspiracy Theorist's view" seems to be totally whacked and lacks good documentation. Any advice on how to change it? --Yekrats 15:45, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

needs more on this character Weisbaum. I thought it was Weishopt? 69.195.36.213 17:06, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

No mention of pop fiction which contains illuminati references? Like Angels and Demons by Dan Brown?

The Reality of the Illuminati

The Illuminati are very real, and are currently manipulating the world toward a New World Order based upon Draconian beliefs. I wish it weren't true, but I can't deny reality, history or my own experience. For proof that the Illuminati exist and that the New World Order is a very real threat, refer to Prison Planet, www.infowars.com ^{infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used} Infowars], and Propganda Matrix Since most of this information is difficult for most people to swallow, I would suggest beginning with 9/11, the Road to Tyranny--Alex Jones' excellent film on government-sponsored terrorism. You can see it for free at 9/11, the Road to Tyranny. Truth is indeed far stranger, but also far more realistic than fiction. This is the way governments always behaved throughout history, except for a few rare exceptions. It is a delusion to believe that there are not elitist royals controlling as much as they can today. -129.173.208.188 (Talk) 09:39, September 9, 2004

I feel free to divulge this since you would be hard pressed to trace me being born to a family of "Illuminati" (as we are commonly known) and subsequently being inducted into the order in my teenage years. Our goals are not "Draconian", this is a myth perpetrated by a rival and less powerful order, but we do indeed have global political goals. We work "in the dark" not because what we are doing will be malignant to mankind but because mankind resists change (the very definition of conservatism) that is needed for the long term survival of humanity. We do not have direct control over all governments, and I assure you the Illuminati weren't responsible for 9/11. If you were to put the goal of the "Illuminati" simpy it would be the same as it was since the Bavarian Illuminati was initially founded: to work towards a world dominated by humanism instead of irrational religious ideas. We aren't trying to enslave humanity, we are trying to free humanity from ignorance and irrationality. You may ask why the Illuminati don't just come out and say what our goals are? The answer is simple: an effective strategy against resistance is for the resistors to be unaware, or unsure, of your existence and your nature. And to state our goals would be to acknowledge our existence. The negative image hardly effects us as our existence is so thouroughly questioned. Of course every once in a while it doesn't hurt to acknowledge our existence to a few individuals, because most of them won't believe us, and the ones that do can never find any solid traces of our existence. Hiding such an organization is an art that, at the risk of sounding pompous, has not been surpassed by any organization since our founding; much of our edification as "Illuminati" is in this art. We know when, where, and what we can divulge, and what we can't. --Brentt 06:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

heh, sorry, I was just messing with the guy who started this toptic. I shouldn't have misused the talk page like that--I apologize. (Of course it was also innapropriate for the person who started the topic to use the talk page to discuss the reality of the illuminati--this isn't a discussion forum for anything but the article). --Brentt 07:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy Folks

Your conspiratorial content may be edited out and treated as spam here. The wiki link on my Userpage will welcome that content though Conwiki 04:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Illuminati vs. rosicrucians

AFAIK, the Bavarian Illuminati were inclined very much towards the ideals of enlightenment, and this was one of the reasons for their direct conflict with the contemporary Rosicrucians (more specifically: the "Orden des Gold- und Rosen-Kreutzes"), who were deep into Christian mystics. This conflict should at least be mentioned.

The decline of the B.I. is also said to have been favoured by the rise to power of the RCs in Prussia. I'll have to look up the sources, but Schiller's novel "Der Geisterseher" is probably based on events that actually took place in Berlin around 1784.

Suggested reading: Karl Frick, "Die Erleuchteten" -- a work generally considered as the product of serious scholarship. I'll search out the ISBN.

-- flaig@sanctacaris.net (Chevalier Dr. Dr. Ruediger Marcus Flaig, Heidelberg Univ.)

-- I also did find no reason to have these two section here, explicating what Rosicrucians and Martinist are:

"=== Rosicrucians ===

The Rosicrucians claimed to have originated in 1407, but rose to notice in 1614 when their main text Fama Fraternitatis appeared. As a secret society, they claimed to combine the possession of esoteric principles of religion with the mysteries of alchemy. Their positions are described in three anonymous treatises from 1614, as well as in the Confessio Fraternitatis of 1615. Rosicrucians also claimed heritage from the Knights Templar. "

"=== Martinists ===

Later, the title Illuminati was applied to the French Martinists, which had been founded in 1754 by Martinez Pasqualis, and to their imitators the Russian Martinists, headed about 1790 by Professor Schwartz of Moscow; both were occultist cabalists and allegorists, absorbing eclectic ideas from Jakob Boehme and Emanuel Swedenborg."

I suppressed both sections, and simply placed a link to Rosicrucianism and to Martinism in the introductory section, where they seem (IMMO) more appropriate. -- Gco 09:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Illuminati in popular culture

Are we agreed that "Illuminati-esque" organizations that are not called anything like "Illuminati" do not belong in this article, and should instead be put into secret society or something of the sort? An anon user has added Revenge of the Sith and Metal Gear Solid references twice, though the organizations involved are not named "the Illuminati" and have no connection to the historical Illuminati besides being secret societies or conspiracies. DenisMoskowitz 23:09, 2005 August 17 (UTC)

Illuminati in Popular Culture

'No Purpose No Design' Song by the Artist 'Meat Beat Manifesto' has some reference to Bavarian Illuminati.

Like WHAT reference? And who are you? Add your name and what the hellin' reference ya talkin' 'bout?--OleMurder 19:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, that's jolly good. How come nearly all of the "... in Popular Culture" sections of the Louvre, Leonardo da Vinci, Rosslyn Chapel, etc. are full of information about Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, but the first Robert Langdon book, Angels and Demons, has no mention whatsoever in this article, where the Bavarian Illuminati is the main subject of the book. --Robin Kerrison 20:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The Illuminati entry is silly

edit: Oh, it reads much better than the other day! Thanks people!

original: The Illuminati entry is silly, unrealistic, and spotted heavily with misinformation. It should just be replaced with something less fantasy-filled. --D24 19:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Timothy LaHaye quote

Timothy LaHaye apparently thinks that the Illuminati exist. I don't think that this is relevant to the Illuminati article.

For one, the current presentation is overly verbose - all we really need to convey the information is "Timothy LaHaye has been quoted as saying that the Illuminati are a currently existing evil organization". But that's not an important addition to the article on the Illuminati - if the Pope said something like that, it still doesn't belong here because it doesn't add to our knowledge about the Illuminati, only about the speaker.

Now if LaHaye was to write a non-fiction book about the Illuminati, I could see mentioning it. (Fictional books already have a place in the article.) But there's no new information in this single quote, and it doesn't belong in this article.

If no-one responds to this, I'll assume that I'm generally agreed with and continue reverting this addition. DenisMoskowitz 19:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The name

I recently watched BBC's "Revealing Angels and Demons". I don't take secret societies even nearly that serious, but one thing crossed my mind. When the name "Illuminati" was discussed, they told that people often translate it as "enlightened", although illuminati themselves claim that the name means "light bearers". Was it left to ourselves to figure, or was it just because nobody in BBC noticed that, put out other way, "light bearer" translates into "Lucifer". (check the lucifer quote in wikipedia).

No, Lucifer translates as an adjective as "lightbringing" and as masculine noun as "Morning Star" - more commonly known as "Venus" and is the Vulgate translation of the original Hebrew which was used to refer to the King of Babylon. It appears twice in the OT, and has nothing to do with satan or anything else demonic. But don't let facts stand in the way of polemic. docboat 04:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Beware

It is shame humanity has come to this. Lying governments, secret societies, it's all a terrible mess. What on earth can save us now?

Too POV and conspiratorial

I would like to request some heavy editing of this article. My suggestion would be to add more biographical information on Adam Weishaupt and a lot more information on the actual beliefs and philosophical views of the Illuminati - both the Bavarian variant and it precedents and antecedents.

Also I think the article is too colored by the notions of the Illuminati which have been nurtured by the conspiracy theorists. I am thinking of sentences such as the following:

"Groups describing themselves as Illuminati say they have members and chapters (lodges) throughout the world; only time will tell if the Illuminati still exists and if they suceed in taking over the world to establish Satan's New World Order."

This is extremely speculative and it hardly seems fit to include such a statement in a Wikipedia article. From what I've read about Weishaupt's actual views on society it would seem that he represented a kind of proto-social liberalism which, albeit extreme and atheistic in nature, was not necessarily "Satanic" - except possibly in the eyes of Christian fundamentalists.

Please rework this article thoroughly. (Jonas Liljeström 22:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC))

I agree with your conclusions, but it's all very well to ask other people to do things - why don't you take a stab at it and we'll back you up. I'd also appreciate your continued attention to the article to help revert the constant vandalism it attracts. DenisMoskowitz 19:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, Denis - I'll give it a shot as time permits. I just have to locate some sufficiently impeccable and level-headed sources first. Jonas Liljeström 16:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Knight of the Secret Circle

Found this in the catneeded category. I'm redirecting the entry here (since another name doesn't need another article), but I'm afraid to merge the info in case it's not true. If it is verifiable, someone please merge it:

Knight of the Secret Circle is the named used by Albert Pike and Aleister Crowley for the Illuminati

NickelShoe 20:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Alumbrados

I think that the Alumbrados of Spain is of sufficient historical interest as to warrent their own article. Especially given that Wikipedia supplies a small tome on the history of Superman. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.252.81.211 (talk • contribs) .

Go for it. Let me know if you have questions about the mechanics. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Done! You will find the new article here. The Alumbrados had absolutely nothing to do with the Illuminati or any of those conspiracy schemes. --Jdemarcos 23:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Origins & other Illuminati

Is the origins section really well-named? Origins of what? It seems to be primarily pre-Bavarian Illuminati groups that called themselves or were called illuminati. Also, where should groups called the illuminati that came after the Bavarian Illuminati go in the article, like James Strang's Society of the Illuminati? Schizombie 08:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Missing text on "Alumbrados"

I do not know anything about it, but I stumbled upon a deleted paragraph...

• Revision as of 11:12, 24 January 2006
• Revision as of 02:48, 25 January 2006

Others were not so fortunate. In 1529 a congregation of naïve

adherents at Toledo was subjected to whippings and imprisonment. Greater

rigors followed, and for about a century the alumbrados sent many

victims to the Inquisition, especially at Córdoba.

I am inserting it a again, as I see no reason on the talk page why this would have been deleted deliberately. — Xiutwel (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment moved from article

There's a really good explanation for d illuminati in the book 'Angels and demons' by Dan brown.It's a fiction but the Iluminati are described correctly.Fact:I am 13 but i have read the book.It's meant for 18 and above.Hey,but dont call me a prodigy,alrite? diff showing rev as of 10:38, 21 April 2006 by User:59.95.163.75

Actually, the book is stupid, poorly researched, and unoriginal. For even just a quick look at a few of the more egregious errors in the book, see this [2] Wikipedia article. And no, reading it at 13 doesn't make you a prodigy. JoshuaZ 13:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Lost article on the novel

Was looking for the article on the novel The Illuminati by Larry Burkett. It is listed in the Illuminati (disambiguation) page but redirected to this page.

Illuminati

As the Illuminati appeared

The Illuminati is a millenarian institution, been born in the dawn of history. In its beddings they are specific secrets, forming a society based on the secrecy and the obedience. The system of the illuminated ones was developed by diverse leaders, between them Hassan Sabath (nazarins - 1090), of Bayezid Ansari (roshynaia - 1550), and of the illuminated ones of Weishaupt (1776). Other sets of ten of lesser groups had developed the system illuminati, more or less perfectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.67.129.6 (talk)

errr, what? It looks like that was the output of a program made to imitate a person saying something. Brentt 03:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Statements such as "few historians support this view" (re: continued existence of Illuminati) are not terribly academic and come across as an attempt to sway opinion using the projected opinion of vague 'experts' - this statement needs some qualification. Also if you wish to be thorough and objective you should consider possible Illuminati links to the German revolution that fomented in Bavaria following WW1 whose followers named themselves the 'Spartakusbund' - it seems naive not to consider possible connections to the ideology of 'Frater Spartakus' (Weishaupts nickname within his order). Consequently it may be worth considering to what extent the entire Illuminati project comes across as a blueprint for the Republic as well as Communism. Finally, in the course of an analysis of the Bavarian Illuminati, it seems extraordinarily naive to fail to take into account the fact that the Illuminati were a SECRET society. The continued existence of the order, its true motives, nature and activities are all to often subject to knee-jerk dismissal by pseudo-authorities who frequently ignore not only the complexity of the subject, but also the core characteristic of the order they are investigating. Sometimes one does need to think outside the box. 10/08/2006

How do I apply?

There is no information in the article on how to apply. Masterhomer 06:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You apply here. Cheers,  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  10:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Order of Illuminati

I suggested a merge incoming article "Order of Illuminati" is same info about the Bevarian Order --- with no source on the incoming article I propose to just delete it altoghether and redirect people here, unless anyone can salvage anything useful out of it ? Goldenrowley 03:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Also agree. JoshuaZ 18:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Now completed. Goldenrowley 20:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Cultural effect section.

I'm a bit puzzled by this section:

About the time that the Illuminati were outlawed in Bavaria, the Roman Catholic Church prohibited its members from joining Masonic lodges, on pain of excommunication. This was done as a general edict, since the Church believed many lodges to have been infiltrated and subverted by the Illuminati, but was not able to accurately ascertain which ones.

Not only is there no citation on this, Ratzinger's quote says nothing about the Illuminati, and the original edict against Freemasonry (see here) dates from 1736, forty years before the Illuminati existed. Therefore, are thre any objections to removal of the above statement, as well as Ratzinger's statement, which is really irrelevant anyway? MSJapan 18:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that just proves how powerful the Illuminati are: obviously they must have time machines. Its no wonder they've been able to keep the conspiracy a secret for so long. Brentt 21:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ouch!

What a bunch of speculation this article is.

Incidently there are any number of reliable source about the Bavarian Illuminati so that a perfectly sober article about them can be written, compare de:Illuminatenorden.

As the conspiracy theorists will never stop to put their version on this page, I suggest splitting off Bavarian Illuminati for the historical facts.

Pjacobi 09:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"mopery with intent to gawk"

What (the devil) is "mopery with intent to gawk"? Does this mean something of is it vandalism? Billlion 13:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"Cosmic Trigger Volume 1 - Final Secret of the Illuminati...", by Robert Anton Wilson is the likely source of this phrase. Ronabop 08:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I perceive illuminati, plutocrat, oligarch, as having largely overlapping definitions. Does anyone agree?

Thank You.

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 04:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio removed from history

I've removed material pasted in by 72.64.159.98 at 19:21, October 6, 2006, from Cosmic Trigger I: Final Secret of the Illuminati by Robert Anton Wilson that unfortunately lasted for a while in the history without anyone catching it. Luckily, it remained in two discrete paragraphs in the "Origins" section, so I was able to just remove that and leave the rest of the revised content on top. Here is the history, for the purposes of fulfilling the GFDL. Of course, administrators can view the deleted revisions if necessary. --Slowking Man 11:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

15:36, December 5, 2006 210.1.71.3  (→The Bavarian Illuminati)
12:12, December 2, 2006 Differentgravy  m
02:42, December 2, 2006 86.13.229.158  (→See also)
23:34, December 1, 2006 Jayvdb  m (rv unrelated wikilink by 216.68.66.25)
21:34, December 1, 2006 216.68.66.25 
12:50, November 29, 2006 RussBot  m (Robot-assisted fixing links to disambiguation page (you can help!): Jacobin)
01:45, November 29, 2006 202.56.233.131  (→The Bavarian Illuminati)
14:24, November 28, 2006 David.Monniaux  (→External links - rm irrelevant video)
03:03, November 27, 2006 BorgQueen  m (Reverted edits by 68.0.115.19 (talk) to last version by BorgQueen)
01:48, November 27, 2006 68.0.115.19  (→Rosicrucians)
10:24, November 26, 2006 BorgQueen  m (Reverted edits by 69.158.6.103 (talk) to last version by 69.120.56.27)
10:24, November 26, 2006 69.158.6.103  (→Rosicrucians)
10:23, November 26, 2006 69.158.6.103  (→Rosicrucians)
19:47, November 25, 2006 69.120.56.27  (→External links - - deleted two non-Illuminati links)
11:35, November 25, 2006 Kmweber  m (Reverted edits by 72.83.162.234 to last version by Acjihlanfeldt)
11:35, November 25, 2006 72.83.162.234 
11:04, November 25, 2006 Acjihlanfeldt 
12:27, November 22, 2006 XDev  m (→External links - Got rid of the link to the couple of chapters of Robison's book; it was redundant in light of the whole book being recently scanned and posted online.)
09:44, November 21, 2006 BorgQueen  (→See also - remove link to a deleted article - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arizona Wilder)
08:24, November 21, 2006 Bdevoe  (→Origins - Changed 'unsubstantial' to 'unsubstantiated' and verb/noun agreement)
04:54, November 20, 2006 Buddah178  m
16:06, November 18, 2006 63.249.108.58  (→External links)
13:10, November 18, 2006 ST47  m (Reverted 1 edits by 83.108.159.179 (talk) to last revision (88665682) by MSJapan using VP2)
13:10, November 18, 2006 83.108.159.179  (→External links)
11:41, November 18, 2006 MSJapan  (rv. A novel is not really credible as a "See Also" article.)
10:33, November 18, 2006 81.152.165.149  (→See also)
14:41, November 16, 2006 AntiVandalBot  m (BOT - rv 195.93.21.40 (talk) to last version by Polenth)
14:41, November 16, 2006 195.93.21.40  (Replacing page with 'Illuminati is defeated by Jesus Christ!')
21:31, November 15, 2006 Polenth  m (→Origins - Repairing alchemist disambig link.)
03:29, November 12, 2006 86.142.109.13 
14:49, November 10, 2006 AntiVandalBot  m (BOT - rv 75.51.6.103 (talk) to last version by JFreeman)
14:49, November 10, 2006 75.51.6.103  (→The Bavarian Illuminati)
07:54, November 7, 2006 JFreeman  m (Reverted edits by 142.227.224.199 to last version by Bubba hotep)
07:52, November 7, 2006 142.227.224.199  (→See also)
07:51, November 7, 2006 142.227.224.199  (→Cultural effect)
07:51, November 7, 2006 Bubba hotep  (Reverted edits by 142.227.224.199 to version 86286120 by AntiVandalBot)
07:50, November 7, 2006 142.227.224.199  (→Martinists)
07:49, November 7, 2006 AntiVandalBot  m (BOT - rv 142.227.224.199 (talk) to last version by Hello32020)
07:49, November 7, 2006 142.227.224.199  (→Origins)
07:48, November 7, 2006 Hello32020  m (Reverted 2 edits by 142.227.224.199 (talk) to last revision (86203644) by Bakilas using VP)
07:47, November 7, 2006 142.227.224.199  (→Cultural effect)
07:47, November 7, 2006 142.227.224.199  (→History)
20:04, November 6, 2006 Bakilas  m (→See also)
01:33, November 6, 2006 Nevit  (→Origins)
17:12, November 5, 2006 213.130.141.80  (→External links)
13:43, November 5, 2006 JoshuaZ  m (Reverted edits by 88.109.224.44 (talk) to last version by 203.164.97.18)
12:39, November 5, 2006 88.109.224.44  (→Origins)
18:52, November 4, 2006 203.164.97.18  ('Believed to' is enough. No need to second-guess twice.)
01:09, November 4, 2006 JoshuaZ  m (Reverted edits by 72.75.61.113 (talk) to last version by 84.72.89.14)
23:34, November 3, 2006 72.75.61.113  (→Origins)
12:58, November 3, 2006 84.72.89.14  (→External links)
05:32, November 3, 2006 Wiki alf  m (Revert to revision 85395932 by MTSbot.)
05:29, November 3, 2006 211.28.144.185  (→See also)
18:43, November 2, 2006 MTSbot  m (robot Adding: lt)
08:16, October 29, 2006 Lemmus  m (→Origins)
22:04, October 27, 2006 Brimba  (→See also - rm red links)
22:03, October 27, 2006 Brimba  (→See also - rm speculation)
15:59, October 27, 2006 Liberal Freemason  (+ {{Link FA|de}})
09:24, October 26, 2006 201.41.251.242  (→External links)
16:16, October 25, 2006 Redeagle688  m (→External links)
11:34, October 21, 2006 208.19.15.51  (→External links)
17:08, October 20, 2006 Idolater718  (→See also)
17:03, October 20, 2006 Idolater718  (→Origins)
10:48, October 20, 2006 Webucation  (→History)
23:39, October 18, 2006 Wiki alf  m (Reverted edits by 68.21.245.21 (talk) to last version by AntiVandalBot)
20:54, October 18, 2006 68.21.245.21  (→Cultural effect)
20:52, October 18, 2006 68.21.245.21  (→History)
19:49, October 18, 2006 AntiVandalBot  m (BOT - rv 208.114.155.8 (talk) to last version by Shinmawa)
19:49, October 18, 2006 208.114.155.8  (→Cultural effect)
19:48, October 18, 2006 208.114.155.8  (→Cultural effect)
22:41, October 15, 2006 Shinmawa  m (Reverted edits by CatastrophicToad to last version by Schaef)
22:35, October 15, 2006 CatastrophicToad  m (minor spelling correction)
06:27, October 14, 2006 Schaef  (fixed incomplete text link to Emanuel Swedenborg)
19:00, October 12, 2006 Kerowyn  (→Origins)
18:58, October 12, 2006 Kerowyn  (→History)
18:56, October 12, 2006 Kerowyn  (→Origins)
18:52, October 12, 2006 Kerowyn  (→Origins)
16:41, October 12, 2006 199.74.70.155  (→Origins)
09:22, October 12, 2006 Rory096  m (whitespace)
04:32, October 12, 2006 66.226.32.195  (→Origins)
17:23, October 11, 2006 82.34.131.221  (→Origins)
17:22, October 11, 2006 82.34.131.221  (→Origins)
16:17, October 11, 2006 142.231.69.45  (→Origins)
20:39, October 10, 2006 XDev  m (→External links - erased a link that was basically spam and not a resource or substantial in any way; added another one that is considerably researched)
16:36, October 10, 2006 69.33.44.226 
15:30, October 10, 2006 146.7.112.10  (→Origins)
09:57, October 10, 2006 69.254.65.58  (→Origins)
14:49, October 9, 2006 Shadowlynk  (Revert to revision 80458867 dated 2006-10-09 18:47:50 by Mydoghasworms using popups)
14:48, October 9, 2006 68.148.180.147 
10:47, October 9, 2006 Mydoghasworms 
09:21, October 8, 2006 67.15.76.111 
05:43, October 8, 2006 Mackensen  (→See also - rm link to deleted article)

18:16UT, 12/12/06: Sadly, it seems that someone has deleted and replaced the entire article with a short flame/rant. Just as sadly, I'm not terribly well-informed on the history of the group (which is why I was viewing the page), so I can't help much other than to flag it as Non-Compliant (which I've already done). Good luck, and I hope this gets fixed soon.--128.61.54.108 18:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)timberwolf16739

Done thanks. --Alf ^melmac 18:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Revert of lower case

I just reverted an edit which replaced "Illuminati" with lower case "illuminati". I'm not an expert on the subject but I think the capitalizing is appropriate, yes? If I'm wrong and someone has a problem with this, drop me a note on my talk page because I'd like to know. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 06:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Article should be deleted

I am a Free Mason and I will tell you that groups calling themselves the Illuminati did (and posibly stil do) exist, but not reconized by the ruling body of the Free Mason Fraturnity.

The is so main assumptions made in this article it looks like it should be listed in the Wolrd News Daily.

Stop with the hourse shit and only list what is confirmed as factual. (thegrimmling)

The sections on the World Wars is filled with fiction/conspiracy therory nonsense presented as fact. --71.110.157.123 15:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It's always good to see a fellow FreeMason, but I'm pretty sure most FreeMasons take the time to spell correctly. As per your proposal to delete this article, there is a Wikipedia process for deleting an article, but it contains a vote and it will for all intensive purposes, will not pass. Your far better off improving and 'factualising' the existing article through the normal Wikipedian means. --Sharz 22:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

ok youre supposed to use the 4 tilda thingys and this article is in love with conspiracy theories. Dappled Sage 18:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Tomb Raider

Should a video game really be there perhaps somewhere else? Any way if we do add video games we might as well as Deus Ex where the Illuminati try to defeat rogue Illlumianti and conquer the world.

Conspiracy Theory without valid Facts

I corrected conspiracy theory--this is not vandalism. The burden of proof lies on YOU to prove your rhetoric as anything more than contemporary folk mythology.

The subject should be treated as nothing more than what it is, Folklore.

Lojah

Your tact is a bit counter-productive. Articles do not need to take a stance on whether some more or less widespread belief is true or not, no matter how ridiculous.

Take Flat-Earth Theory as a case study. You could count on one hand how many people think it is true, but that does not mean the article should ever refer to it as false--or similarly, dismiss it as "folklore" which amounts to the same thing. There is no sacrifice in information content. Saying it is a "purported" organization is best, since it doesn't take a stance on the the organization's existence. Calling it folklore on the other hand does take a implied stance, because "folklore" has connotations of falsity. Articles should never take a stance on a subject matter's truth or falsity if there is even a small minority of people who believe it. See the NPOV policy pages for more info on this. Of course the Illuminati as extant shadow organization is a much more widely believed than Flath-Earth theory. The article need not and should not take a stance on its truth or falsity as long as all claims about the organization are attributed to a published source, and not presented as fact but as claims made by published works. (and there are plenty of quacks out there that have been published to attribute the claims to)

Personally I think the likelihood that the Illuminati exists is the same likelihood that all my missing left socks were stolen by silent left-sock eating monsters which dissapear as soon as soon as they are observed. But thats just me. If there were a missing-left sock monster article, and advocates of their actual existence, I would not advocate calling them folklore either. Brentt 00:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Then why is there a mythology category on wikipedia?

The following can be found at conspiracy theory here on wikipedia.

The term "conspiracy theory" is used by mainstream scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with particular methodological flaws.Lojah

Well you kind of made my argument for me. The sentence says it is folklore according to the POV of mainstream scholars. Wikipedia is not MSPOV, it is NPOV.

Why is there a mythology category? because there are things you can label mythology without getting into POV issues. But there are grey areas where you do. This is one of those.

There is no information added to the article by labeling it folklore and mythology except to discredit it as folklore and mythology. And to discredit a POV, no matter how ridiculous you may think it is, is not up to NPOV standards.

Generally if you can make a pretty certain guess what somebody's POV is from their edits, then it is a bad edit. And you can clearly see what your POV is from you edits.Brentt 22:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

--- The entire article is a bad edit with an obvious POV. It's based on unsubstantial accusations by unscholarly resources. A conspiracy theory about the "Illuminati" controlling the world is no more realistic than the belief that Reptiles from another planet control world affairs and it IS mythology at best. You can look up any number of articles on Wikipedia that clearly define the conrtent as folklore and mytholgy, even though some people might believe in it. In it's current form the Illuminati article is on wikipedia simply to perpetuate a nearly religious belief, not to inform with a neutral POV. Lojah 20:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If we are arguing about the quality of the article: no contest, its horrible.

When correcting a POV, it is not wise, actually counter productive, to "correct" it with a counter POV edit. A counter POV edit does not cancel out a POV edit to make a neutral POV edit. Brentt 00:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

--You know, after reconsidering some of what you've said and re-reading the article, I will mostly concede to your argument at this time. Since I really don’t know exactly how to ‘fix; this article in a few short, concise edits I will try to refrain from criticizing it too directly for its, as you might say ‘horribleness.’ I have to wonder a couple things however; 1, What is the best approach to making this article something worth reading and referencing?—I think the topic is worthy of inclusion, if valid facts and resources other than conspiracy manuals ala the Alex Jones variety are used. And 2, Does in undermine the integrity of Wikipedia to have such an obviously outlandish entry as this Illuminati article on here. Lojah 00:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right about one thing: ideally you do stick to the facts. Facts will include beliefs, and articles about notable beliefs do not discredit wikipedia. Notable does not mean true, reasonable, plausible, or sane. It just means some group of people believe it enough to have had some material published about it which can be referenced. Referencing uncredible sources, such as books on conspiracy theories, is not bad form if you do it in a manner like "[so and so], author of [such and such], believes [some wacky idea]". Or maybe an academic study that has shown "x number of people believe this [insert wacky idea here]". Or you could even get away with "conspiracy theorists believe [wacky idea]". Since thats its not really a disputed fact that many conspiracy theorist do in fact believe in it. You'll notice if you do this, you are strictly sticking to facts. Wikipedia is not endorsing the belief, just telling who believes it and what they believe. Just as you would in a article on a religion. Having a article on the illuminati doesn't make wikipedia a conspiracy theory website anymore than having an article on Jerry Fallwell makes Wikipedia a dick.

An argument could be made that the conspiracy theories about the Illuminati, while notable, is not the same thing as the historical Illuminati, so should be split into its own article to avoid confusion. Brentt 03:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

--Now that's an idea I really like. Lojah

Explanation of the Great Seal of the United States

Novus Ordo Seclorum has nothing to do with 'nonreligious order'. This translation is in accurate. 129.57.9.147 18:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably been answered. If the pyramid with an eye isn't some Illuminati or Mason symbol then what the heck is it. Some engraver might be as bored as most of us at work but someone - his boss, etc - over the years would have noticed this thing - but I have never heard anyone say a word about it.159.105.80.141 19:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)I found the mottos and the Eye of Providence - nothing on the Pyramid. If I had been a Founding Father I would have completely forgotten about cool things like mottos and pyramids and symbols. Secret handshakes etc - these guys sound like too much of a bunch of frat boys to have ever run a country - thankfully the British were even dopier.159.105.80.141 19:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a connection

I have a question about the following line: "About the time that the Illuminati were outlawed in Bavaria, the Roman Catholic Church prohibited its members from joining Masonic lodges, on pain of excommunication." I am not challenging the factual accuracy of this statement (it is somewhat misleading, but is accurate) ... but is there a direct connection? What does the Illuminati being outlawed in Bavaria have to do wtih the RCC banning Freemasonry? If there is a direct connection, we need to state that connection (with proper citation of course)... if there is no connection, we should probably cut the sentence as being irrelevant. Blueboar 20:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well it is now August, and since there has been no reply to my querry, I have cut the line. Blueboar 17:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Mattnew Books in the Illuminati

Hiya

I noticed this section about the "Illuminati."

I was wondering why it does not mention Suzanne Ward, the writer of the Matthew Books (http://www.matthewbooks.com)? Her fourth book, "Voices of the Universe" (ISBN: 0-9717875-4-9) has an entire chapter on the Illuminati. WIthin that chapter, she has several references to many "conspiracy theories" including global banking, European royalty, the United Nations, education system, prescription drugs, and so on. She says that the "reptilian civilization" is behind much of this. The also talks about the "Illuminati" in her other three books. The Matthew Books, including thus one, are fairly well known, and have been translated into many different languages around the world.

In addition, in her "messages" on her site (http://www.matthewbooks.com/mattsmessage.htm), there are several pages talking about the Illuminati including this one: http://www.matthewbooks.com/mm/anmviewer.asp?a=45&z=2 Doing a quick search will find more messages about it.

It would seem that given the popularity of her books and messages, and since she talks about NESARA, that you would have said something about it in your investigation.

Anyways, just wanted to inform you. Thank you.

Return the groups in the External Links section

I think the subsection called "Groups identifying themselves as Illuminati" was a valid subsection and should be returned, especially since some of the groups are specifically mentioned in the article. I noticed that the O.T.O. has a long list of groups referenced in its article. I am sure there are others.

I realize that one of groups was apparently a blog site, but the Orden Illuminati and The Illuminati Order are actual groups that have been around for years. They are established claimants.

The reason given for the section's removal was: "The 'groups' links are nothing but advertising, and there's nothing notable about any of them." The last part is just one person's opinion with which I obviously disagree, but the first...is not all of this "advertising"? That is, is not the purpose of Wikipedia to "make generally known" a vast array of information? Neither of the sites referenced above are pay sites or openly selling anything.

I reviewed WP:EL. The first item under "What should be linked" says, "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." This is an article about an organization. When one tries to view a Wikipedia article of the Bavarian Illuminati or The Illuminati Order, one is redirected to this article. Since the two groups mentioned above do not have their own Wikipedia article, I think it makes sense to include them (and any other valid groups) in the External Links of this article.

JustMe1776 14:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned on your talk page, no it isn't, and if they are important, you've got a better idea in mentioning them in the article and linking them as refs. MSJapan 15:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thelema, OTO .....illuminati?

Never. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.41.245.249 (talk)

Please stop vandalising this article. IPSOS (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

HOW IS IPSOS?? MEMBER OF SECT?

I'm not a member of anything. But you are a vandal. IPSOS (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The Illuminati is a follower of Adam Weishaupt or Aleyster Crowley? Or follows the founder Weishaupt or follows a liar Crowley?

Please read WP:TRUTH. IPSOS (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, try reading the sentence: "However, several groups have used the name Illuminati since to found their own rites, claiming to be the Illuminati ..." This is perfectly accurate, these groups have at some point "claimed" to be or to be descended from or associated with the Illuminati. What precisely is your problem with reporting this. Nobody is saying that they actually are the Illuminati. Don't you bother to read the article before you vandalize it? IPSOS (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't exclude my texts or alterations. Is my right! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.41.224.91 (talk)

Afraid not, editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. That privilege can be revoked if you don't follow policy or if you edit disruptively. IPSOS (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A privledge I myself will remove from you, 201/sock, if your puerile edits don't stop sharpish.--Alf ^melmac 16:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the talk page as well now (my oversight), and will protect the talk pages of user:IPSOS who is the traget for this vandalism. ^Khukri 16:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! IPSOS (talk) 16:40,

16 July 2007 (UTC)

New discussion

claiming… illuminati article. These people cannot be cited, therefore they are it are of the context. They are satanists and atheists, but not illuminati. Veriter 22:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I go to exclude this text to improve Veriter 22:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

But there is a citation for the claim. Therefore, you may not remove the statement. GlassFET 22:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This article cannot be in the project atheism, therefore the founder Adam Weishaupt, and the original Order (Bavarian) was not atheistic nor satanist. Veriter 22:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You make no sense whatsoever. If English is not your first language, might I respectfully suggest that you consider editing the Wikipedia which is in your native language. GlassFET 22:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Farse claiming

Exclude claiming.... fraudulent organizations.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Veriter (talk • contribs)

• Yoda.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll bet this is the IP from above. I'd say a username block if the "Veriter Institute" exists. MSJapan 01:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it seems pretty clear to me that it is the same individual. Just waiting for it to do something justifying filing a sockpuppet report. Of course, the puppetmaster account, Truesalomon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), has been indef blocked so I suppose block evasion has been committed. IPSOS (talk) 02:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother...I've blocked as it is abundantly clear this is the same individual as the IP editor and very likely Truesalomon. Given the contributions, I need to have a talk with the individual behind this account before they edit here again.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

illuminati

visit the website Ofalli.square.site 2601:5CB:C200:FB20:6451:156C:AB3E:F37E (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)