Talk:Illuminati/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

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

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 ^Talk 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.

Toggling first request re-opened in July 2016. Unclear what the request is specifying. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic Church is mentioned several times in the source, as a body and through several individuals that represented it. Yes, the reference needs to be removed from the lead and expanded in the body, that's a to-do. Meanwhile, the main target of the Illuminati was the Catholic Church, the most powerful non-governmental body in Bavaria. The Church hit back. Any questions?  Not done Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

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)

Yes? This article may talk about sikhs as muslims but it may be a simple mistake. Raniyah4583 (talk) 06:24, 3 November 2016 (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)

I may not know much about the Illuminati, but I do know this: Walt Disney was part of the Illuminati!! Didn't know that, did you? Tehya vauthier (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Yup... as you say, you don't know much about the Illuminati. Suggest you read the article and learn something. Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2016 (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

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 ^Talk 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 January 2012

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia... ;-) 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 ^Talk 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)

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"

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

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

This is not a forum for general discussions about the Illuminati.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I always thought the 'Illuminati' was a group even more powerful of than the 'Government' I also got told this dunno if it has anything to do with the 'Illuminati' but anyway here I go on a rant... Facebook was made by the CIA to keep an eye on everyone without them even knowing. They are most likely watching our convocation right now. Mark Zuckersburg is the Director of CIA's Facebook Program, Twitter was there first but never got anywhere with it, so they got Agent Zuckersburg to make a new one. wallblog.co.uk/2011/05/23/facebo...ret-agent/ And this. Another rant.... The Government is doing loads of secret stuff we don't know about. Did you know the Government doesn't even have the final say about anything? A cult called the Illuminati is the most powerful cult on earth, they can do anything from start a war by bringing 2 towers to the floor to killing people for speaking out against them. A lot of the music industry is involved with the 'Illuminati'. The main ones being Jay-Z, Rihannah, Lady Gaga and others. youtube.com/watch?v=JcS8YhtFKRI it's a long video but watch it. I believe it took them 4 years to kill Michael Jackson so before you start asking why they aren't dead yet, it was only posted roughly 2 months ago. There we go rant over.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.70.2 (talk • contribs) None of that is reliably sourced, and will not make it into the article. The ideas that Zuckerburg is a CIA agent, that Jay-Z is part of some powerful cult, or that some clandestine organization was out to kill Michael Jackson are all conspiracy fantasies without evidence and nothing more. You're looking too hard for the Fnords to actually see them. If any group was so organized as to control the world, the easiest way for them to ensure domination would be to provide basic necessities to third world countries in exchange for military service. They wouldn't need to mess about inept plans and idiotic conspiracies, they could just openly rule. But they haven't. All those armies out there, requiring very few resources to openly conquer the world with, and they don't. Because there is no conspiracy. Besides, if there was a conspiracy, wouldn't we be another part of it? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

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)

Speaking of goals, I question two of them "...and to support women's education and gender equality" given in the lede. I see nothing in the sources, at least those I can get to, that show these. Can someone show me this is not original search or wishful thinking for the historical organization? Thanks 155.213.224.59 (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Excellent "bourgeois" "right-hegelian" mumble. Those 25 points are lol. Weishaught and the gang absolutely supported "state back private property". Weishaupht loved Jefferson and the gang. When they talk about "private property" they are talking about feudal property and feudal property only. Amazing how so many of these modern "conservatives" fit the "Weishaupt-ian superman" to such a nigh. Turn the peasants into supermen. Adam would be very proud of you!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.30.183.129 (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Original insignia for History section

The Owl of Minerva perched on a book was the original insignia of the Bavarian Illuminati.

According to multiple sources already cited in this article, and the German Wikipedia'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 [1]). 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia, even on a topic like this. 172.10.236.215 (talk) 06:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Why were you surprised? Religious foolishness like this permeates every discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.170.194.82 (talk) 08:28, 5 June 2015 (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 Wikipedia'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

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)

all that is is marketing, and it appears to be working considering how many sheep buy it hook line and sinker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.167.200 (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2016 (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 [1785]. 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 Wikipedia 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

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}} ^{(t • e • c)} 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)

ILLUMINATI is real and it does exist,in the howl world.Some people cant see ILLUMINATI,and ILLUMINATI is always there in our every day life.symbols of ILLUMINATI are mostly shown on TV,pictures of some celebrities and some artist drawing,one of my friend is an ILLUMINATI and most of them are saying this to me >"we are SATANIST ONLY"my question is this, "what is the difference between satanism and ILLUMINATI BRAEN B STANBRAEN B STAN (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2016 (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... Wikipedia 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

Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 "Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 - Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia's strange RS policy regarding that, though Wikipedia 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

File:No goooods.jpg

the motto

— 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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)

1978 ClaeszXIV (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:53, 27 December 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 Wikipedia) 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 Wikipedia 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:Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

Thanks for that. For the record, I have reservations about Melanson as a reference. Aside from Le Forestier, his interviews cite Barruel and Robison as sources - the first being a liar and the second an early conspiracy nut who used Barruel as a source, and then embellished. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

In Melanson Le Forestier and Schuttler are used extensively for a rounded history of the Illuminati, Barruel only for translations of parts of the Original Writings (whom Le Forestier had to admit did a good job translating the German material). The specific conspiracy theories held by Barruel and Robison aren't necessary only as much as they cribbed it from ex-Illuminati-turned-conservatives in the first place like Leopold Hoffmann, Gochhausen and Grolman, as Melanson covered. XDev (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I corrected the info on Sutor in the article, claiming he didn't have a nom de guerre. He in fact did, and that's why I cited Melanson. His info came from Illuminaten scholar Hermann Schutter, who did a large membership study in the 1990s, whom he cites continuously in the section with (480) bios of initiates, along with their Illuminaten and Freemasonic stats. The state of knowledge has advanced quite a bit since Le Forestier, especially in the area of membership details. XDev (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I can vouch that Neugebauer-Wölk is good, with a lot of material we don't have here. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Before we go much further... I just want to reiterate the concerns that I stated (a few threads above) about using Melanson as a source. Not unreliable... but entirely reliable either. Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Women and feminism

Regarding this edit by User:XDev ("Excised the McKeown tall-tale about Illuminati advocating woman's rights. Just not true. Added real data, from scholarly sources") I would appreciate comments on detractors' quotes from recovered correspondence by "Minos," at [2] and [3] for example, stating, "We cannot improve the world without improving women," and then going on at length about the design of women's lodges and their support towards induction and organization. 75.171.235.215 (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The editors added a footnote to consult earlier in the collection where just such an order is proposed, but with the women being educated in one tier and another tier being whores for the male masons - to provide them with voluptuous pleasure, to be precise. Can't talk about one letter vs what looks like an official proposal published in the same collection. In any case, treating females as your pleasure thing is hardly pro women's rights, despite the views of Ditfurth/Minos. Also, elsewhere in the Regent degree discourses (Instruction B; directive VI) a directive was that women were to be used to control men, as they have particular sway over them. Women were to be conned, with appeal to their "enslaved minds" with language about emancipation so that they could be used by the Order. No cherry picking. Use all three references or don't use any, but especially don't use language about Illuminati being akin to early feminists! XDev (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Terry Melanson's translation of Zwack's Women's Order proposal found at the beginning pages of the Original Writings vol 1:

Particular items found prior to the visit at the residence of Zwack

1. Proposition with a view toward the establishment of a female Order

(From the hand of Zwack)

Object and Purpose of this Order

The practicality of promoting the women

[p. 6]

would be to procure a real Order of gold; that is to say, in an advantageous manner, we provide protection and wait for them to obtain new secrets, all the while providing voluptuous pleasure for the Freemasons.

2. Establishment of an Order for women

(From the hand of Zwack)

This Order must consist of two classes, each of which constituting a separate Society, considering its own obligations (nexus), and remaining unknown to the other: a class of the virtuous; the other of debauchery.

Both classes must be unaware that they are directed by the men, and the Superiors of each class must believe there is a higher Lodge from which they receive their orders; though in reality it will be the men who have given it to them.

The two classes should assist in the means of pedagogy as competently as the male Masters proposed to these ends—who happen to be members of the Order, but would remain ignorant of each other as well as to the women. Proper books would also be provided, and the second class would in secret give satisfaction to its passions.

(At the time of the search at Zwack’s residence, we found two sheets in 8vo (bearing):

[p. 7]

Short character drafts of 95 women in Mannheim in the French language and with this description:

Portraits Des Demoiselles à Mannheim

XDev (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Do we know which of these rather diametrically opposed passages is the best representation of actual Illuminati practice? 75.171.235.215 (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no evidence of practice. Like much Illuminati theory, it's all words. I would be VERY interested to be proved wrong. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It can't be reconciled. They didn't last long enough to form any coherent practice of ritual let alone matters of this nature. I'm sure individual Illuminati had differing views about the place of woman in society, but characterizing the Illuminati as pro- woman's rights would be incorrect. McKeown probably came across that same passage in Robison and it stuck in his head. Another passage in Robison, however, is this:"There is no way of influencing men so powerfully as by means of the women. These should therefore be our chief study; we should insinuate ourselves into their good opinion, give them hints of emancipation from the tyranny of public opinion, and of standing up for themselves; it will be an immense relief to their enslaved minds to be freed from any one bond of restraint, and it will fire them the more, and cause them to work for us with zeal, without knowing that they do so; for they will only be indulging their own desire of personal admiration."

Unfortunately, I can't bring myself to trust Robison at any level. In a Continental society in the era of the Illuminati, there would inevitably be the thought, or even a pressure, to create some sort of equivalent of Freemasonry's "Lodges of Adoption". Whatever the intention, as XDev says, what we can access indicates they managed to implode before anything was accomplished. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Popular culture

I really don't understand how the Illuminati existing in the modern age could be considered 'pop culture'. I agree that popular culture has been inspired by the subject, but I doubt the subject of the existence of the Illuminati could be considered in itself popular culture. Could it be possible to give this part it's own section, with popular culture being a subsection, instead of the other way around? Thanks.

2607:FB90:2707:AA9A:2485:8595:9BC3:CCD8 (talk) 10:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The only people to say that the Illuminati exist in modern times are those producing pop culture media (movies, video games, conspiracy theory websites, etc.). Academics dismiss the idea. Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It is probably significant that the modern Illuminati "discoveries" post-date the work of Robert Anton Wilson, who in turn acknowledges a considerable debt to Malaclypse the Younger, neither of whom would wish to be taken seriously, but laugh their socks off when they are. How this material came to be presented as fact probably constitutes a whole new field of study, but it is discussed ad nauseam further up this page. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 10:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Illuminati official (?) site

What's about this site?--Adûnâi (talk) 07:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, if the original Illuminati still existed, they wouldn't advertise. That was the entire point, that enlightenment would secretly triumph over the forces of superstition by keeping their heads under the parapet, and picking their recruits. It didn't work then, and the various modern organisations claiming Illuminism run through weird, sad, and plain hilarious. Before you make your mind up, don't forget after your money. And their Latin is even worse than mine. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 12:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there are modern "copy-cat" organizations that pretend to be descended from original Illuminati. However, looking at the website in question, I don't think it is even that... The language is not that of a legitimate "copy-cat". The modern versions tend to take themselves seriously, and make a point of distancing themselves from the conspiracy theory claims. This website, on the other hand, celebrates such claims. It strikes me as either a joke (at best) or a scam (at worst). I would ignore it. Blueboar (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

So far as I can remember, there seem to me to be multiple groups of varying degree of notability, although some clearly are minimally notable, which use the name of Illuminati or claim to be the "official" survival of the old group. It could very easily be the case that this particular website is tied to a notable group that doesn't yet have an article (I don't know, I haven't checked) and of course anyone who would want to create an article on a topic with clear indications of the specific notability of that topic is welcome to do so. But I can't see any reason to add the link to this article until perhaps such a separate article, which would also probably include the link, is created, to give us a better idea of exactly how to describe the group it links to. John Carter (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Goethe

Dülmen, quoted in Appendix 1 here, has Goethe's membership as unconfirmed (Mitgliedschaft ungesichert). We have him as a confirmed member. Does anybody know where this unreferenced factoid came from? My own opinion is that several of the names here came from the order's own wish-lists of people they wanted to recruit. Any (sane) sources to the contrary? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

He's since been confirmed. Dullmen's study was in the 1970s. Schuttler's study is now the gold standard. Goethe was an active member of the Wiemar Illuminati, and was a high ranking Regent. The University of Erfurt is presently gathering and posting all membership data of Schuttler, his archives, and his students are helping. I have Schuttler's book from the 90s here and going to the Erfurt University I can confirm that all the members are there and more - the new ones found in the Swedishbox stolen by the Nazis, captured by the Russians and only returned fully recently.

http://illuminaten-wiki.uni-erfurt.de/Mitglieder_des_Illuminatenordens http://illuminaten-wiki.uni-erfurt.de/Johann_Wolfgang_Goethe

XDev (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2014

Please revert the last edit as it is an act of vandalism. "Obama is a great deal to do with this" is the only thing they actually changed. 73.172.255.167 (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 14:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

New material

I've started adding "new" material from Le Forestier. This still seems to be the most complete source for the order, but needs padded with other references. I tried to mine the de:Wikipedia article but found too many mistakes and unreferenced assertions. It's probably wordy, But it seems that the order is a bigger topic than it deserves to be, so a detailed explanation of what a handless bunch of idiots they were seems to be justified. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I really appreciate the updates you've been doing through a systematic presentation, mostly, of Le Forestier's material. On the latest update, however (Latest revision as of 23:35, 11 April 2015) - assassinations, treason, rebellion etc. - Le Forestier is recounting the famous joint juridical account by Renner, Vitus and Utzschneider, specifically: Drey merkwürdige Aussagen die innere Einrichtung des Illuminatenordens in Baiern betreffend, [München] 1786. In short it is only their account. It is weird the way he presents this material; almost in a manner of giving it some credence. It is only the testimony of defectors, however. The writings and rituals themselves certainly don't bear out these claims. Some of what they wrote was certainly true, but some of it seems total fabrication and a whole lot of exaggeration. Barruel and Robison had a field day with their testimony as you can imagine. XDev (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Le Forestier isn't presenting assassination & friends as Illuminati policy, rather as the loose talk of boastful Minervals to a credulous audience. I think he was giving the authors of Drei merkwürdige Aussagen the benefit of the doubt as to deliberate falsification, and making sense of the evidence. As I said above, I'm just picking through Le Forestier and creating a narrative. Hopefully, this will create a framework that can boil down into a decent article. Do you think Renner & co made it up? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think he realized who the authors were. If he did, he would have mentioned it specifically - he knew full well who they were and what they did. Later on he takes to task the individual testimonies they made. Cosandey was one of them as well. They were the reason why the persecutions began. I would advise at least to stress it that they were defectors intent on bringing down the Illuminati. Their testimony isn't used seriously by any modern Illuminaten investigators. It was tainted, and besides the most outrageous of the accusations (assassination, treason, rebellion - which you have highlighted) hasn't been confirmed by any primary material, not even in correspondences. Quote: "The Minervals expanded still further, that assasination, perjury, treason and rebellion were all justified to further the aims of the order. The French rhyme, "Tous les rois et tous les pretres, Sont des fripons et des traitres" (All the kings and all the priests are rogues and traitors) was freely repeated, and it now seemed that nobody could pass to the higher grades without turning his back on religion. These boasts also reached the ears of the censors." I would change it to say that the defectors Joseph (von) Utzschneider and Vitus Renner further accused or claimed the Order of such and such, and cite the book (whom Le Forestier cites [p. 432] but neglected to say who its authors were).XDev (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Like it or not, Drey merkwürdige is primary material, but I take your point. We need to work round this in a way that isn't OR or synthesis. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what OR or synthesis means.XDev (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No original research. Original Research (OR) speaks for itself. Synthesis is using multiple published sources to imply a conclusion not present in any of them. While your conclusion is transparently correct, referencing it under WP rules is not straightforward. At the moment, the text essentially states that what the Bavarian government learned about the Illuminati was not necessarily true. In the absence of better ideas, I'm going to leave it like that until I've finished filleting Le Forestier. The second pass will pad out the references and deal with issues like this. Progress is slow because of time constraints. Meanwhile, if you can find a referenced rewording, feel free. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

New book Secret School of Wisdom

There's a recently published book presenting 'the authentic rituals and doctrines of the Illuminati' which should be added to the bibliography. --89.247.35.193 (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Itanimulli

The itanimulli and illuminati connection is not explained here. Also the reason why is itanimulli.com/.org/.net redirected to nsa.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterdanek (talk • contribs) 02:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The reason none of that is explained is because it's horseshit, pure and simple. Some guy named John Fenley bought the domain and had it redirect to the NSA website (as a joke). Sorry you wasted money on the domain name. If the Illuminati were still around, why would they be so fucking stupid as to buy a backwards domain name and have it redirect to the NSA website? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Bin Laden owned Bloodlines of the Illuminati

CNN is presently reporting that Osama bin Laden had Bloodlines of the Illuminati, naming it along with a few other far less surprising titles out of 30 English language volumes found in his personal library, attributed to a US military announcement of 20 May 2015. The book looks like full-blown conspiracy theory mongering. I suggest including this as an example of how pervasive and potentially influential the conspiracy theories have become. Whether you agree with that or not, this Guardian article is hilarious, and this NYT article is a good and less editorialized source. 209.210.168.146 (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

This source has a gov't official saying that "bin Laden was probably an avid conspiracy theorist." However, this article is more about the historical (and short-lived) group than the conspiracy theories about them. This article would probably be a better place, if we get a source that specifically says he had beliefs about "the Illuminati." Ian.thomson (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It should probably be noted that the term is dubious... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.250.253 (talk) 08:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the Order of Perfectibilists (Illuminaten) not Illuminati

The first part of the article states that "historically" the Illuminati is the Order of Perfectibilists founded by Weishaupt. But historically, "Illuminati" is an Italian label used by the Church for various "enlightened" groups against the Church. For instance, the Encyclopedia Britannica states that the Montanists were labeled as "Illuminati" by the early Church.

Illuminaten is German. Even the Perfectibilists of Weishaupt use "Illuminaten" not "Illuminati" as a proper noun. Thus, this article should be called "Order of Perfectibilists," and another article should be made for "Illuminati."

There is no citation for the Order of Perfectibilists being "the Illuminati" historically because it is actually a LABEL used for various groups. On the other hand, there are sources such as the Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 edition that defines the Illuminati as a label for various groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.145.163.101 (talk) 09:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that maybe the word "historically" should be changed or further expounded upon. Historically, Illuminati, in the early church, was a term referring to those who were baptized - i.e. they had become enlightened with the holy spirit. They were specifically called Illuminati. The Bavarian Illuminati were aware of this tradition, not the least because Weishaupt himself was a canon law professor; they initially called themselves Perfectibilists but changed it afterwards to Illuminati (in the sense of being the elect of the enlightenment). XDev (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

They used Illuminatenorden, as the article states. Illuminaten has been rendered into English as Illuminati for two centuries. Calling them anything else here would be pure obfuscation, and more than a bit pretentious. Perfectibilists (surely Perfektibilisten) went out before the order was actually formed. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

There are other historical groups who have used "Illuminati" as a translated word besides the Perfectibilists. The Spanish Alumbrados and the French Illumines are among them. To say that "the Illuminati" is historically just the Perfectibilists (die Illuminaten) is misleading. They are one of the many groups labelled as "Illuminati," but they are not the only ones. This article talks completely about the Perfectibilists as if it only applied to them. There is no section that tells the story of how it has historically been used by the Church. Readers want to know the history of the "Illuminati" as it is used as a label by the Church, not just the history of the Perfectibilists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.145.163.101 (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Because they were the first group that called themselves that. So, yes, it does only apply to them. Alumbrados was a catch-all term used by the inquisition for a whole spiritual movement which they were suspicious of. Illuminés, in turn, was a pejorative (and still is), denoting a spiritual fanatic. Followers of Pierre Guérin and other mystics in the early 1600s were called Illuminés, for example, but again we're not talking about a self identified group by that name. Maybe it should be made clear in the article; but also it should be accurately stated.

Interestingly, in the new book of Illuminati translations by Jeva Singh-Anand (Secret School of Wisdom), in the section of a document they found called GENERAL EXPLANATION OF THE SOCIETY OF THE ILLUMINATI (ALTERNATIVE BEGINNING), the Illuminati specifically mentions the Alumbrados in the following manner: "There is an ancient society that has always remained secret for more than one reason; which is why not many have heard of it, but he who has studied the history of the Pythagorean school, has heard of the Illuminés, condemned long ago in Spain, and has read Crata Repoa with some attentiveness, too, will be able to find some kind of trace of it. This society is comprised of men who, since times immemorial, have investigated, searched, and in part have been handed down from their ancestors everything that men can know" (p. 417).

They made quite a few statements like this throughout the degrees and official doctrine - that they were part of a single tradition hidden in the shadows and secretly guiding mankind throughout the ages. This is the one and only reference to the Alumbrados, however. And it's quite ironic at that. For the Illuminati were antagonistic toward anything that smacked of spiritualism or theosophical mysticism.XDev (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The Perfectibilists were self-identified as "Illuminaten" later, but their original name is the Order of Perfectibilists. The article title is "Iluminati," the Italian word for "Englightened Ones." It is the label used by the Church and the proper noun used by others to identify various enlightenment groups. The wikipedia article under Alumbrados states that "the alumbrados held that the human soul can reach such a degree of perfection" that it could engage in "sinful acts freely without staining their souls." That's the foundation of the Perfectibilists, as you stated.

The Freemasons are also labeled "Illuminati," so the word really applies both as a label and a proper noun historically. Since the original name of Weishaupt's group is the Perfectibilists, they simply used the label "Illuminaten" to go with the standard label of the Church for such groups.

There are separate articles for both Alumbrados and Illumines in Wikipedia, so this article should be called "Order of Perfectibilists (Illuminaten)" to be consistent with the other articles. Then another article about the "Illuminati," should be created which links to all of these groups. And what you mentioned should be cited in that article to show their links or evolution as a similar or singular tradition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.145.163.101 (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The Alumbrados article is misleading on a few points, especially the last section without any sources cited for its assertions. I don't buy the 1911 catholic encyclopedia's short article on them either (which is the source of your quotes). It was the inquisition that began its investigations of them as an heretical antimonian movement, but they later backtracked on this assertion, not finding sufficient proof.XDev (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The Catholic Church has more authority in this subject because remember, the word Illuminati is ITALIAN, not GERMAN. Historically, the Church is the one who originated the label. The historian Menedez says that the ideas of the Alumbrados originated in ITALY, where it would have been called Illuminati (Italian):

Menéndez y Pelayo, Marcelino (1880). Historia de los heterodoxos españoles. Madrid. pp. II, 521–585; III, 403–408.

Thus, it is INACCURATE to say that "historically" the Illuminati is the Perfectibilists since they called themselves "Illuminaten" (German). If they are called Illuminati by others, the word would then be a LABEL used similarly by the Church against many other groups. It's not a proper name because "Illuminaten" is the proper name, just as "Illumines" is used in France and "Alumbrados" is used in Spain. In English, it means "enlightened."

It's like using the name Apple Computer as a company name. Apple can't sue you if you name your company Pomme (French) or Apfel (German) or Mela (Italian) even if they all mean "apple" because the proper name of Apple Computer is in ENGLISH.

The proper name of the Perfectibilists is "Illuminaten," so they are definitely not the ones who first used "Illuminati" (Italian) because they used a German word.

There is no disambiguation portion in this article even if Wikipedia has articles on Alumbrados and Illumines which are also labeled as "Illuminati" by the Church and by others in the same way as the "Illuminaten" is labeled as "Illuminati."

Therefore, this article should be called "Order of Perfectibilists (Illuminaten)" to be consistent with the Wikipedia articles for Alumbrados and Illumines. Then another article for "Illuminati" should be created because historically, Illuminati was first used by the ITALIANS. It's an ITALIAN word, not a German word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.145.163.101 (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I would point you to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME. While the term "Illuminati" may have been applied to other groups throughout history, they are most commonly referred to by other names (ie Illuminati would be an alternative, lesser used name). The exception is the Bavarian Illuminati (the subject of this article)... for them the opposite is true. They are almost universally referred to as "The Illuminati" (and alternative names, such as "Order of Perfectabilists" are rarely used). Blueboar (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The statement that "historically," the Illuminati is the Perfectibilists is still INACCURATE. Where's your source for that? That's my point. It's an ITALIAN word, not a German word. The Perfectibilists never used "Illuminati." They used "Illuminaten." So when people or books call them "Illuminati" (Italian), how did they arrive from German (Illuminaten) to Italian (Illuminati) when they are writing in English? They didn't use the English word "Enlightened" when referring to them. Thus, they are using an Italian label! So how did they get from German to Italian?

Thus, people generally use the word today as a LABEL. The Freemasons are also labeled "Illuminati" today, which is why people think that the Illuminati is alive and active. Even people who have similar philosophies are labeled "Illuminati" even if they don't belong to any particular group. That's how it is commonly used. That's why there's a need for a separate article. Most people aren't simply referring to the Perfectibilists when using "Illuminati" because they are using the Italian term. WHERE'S YOUR SOURCE? To say that "historically" the "Bavarian Illuminati" is "the Illuminati" is your own personal biased assertion. It's not a fact with a SOURCE. Even the words "Bavarian Illuminati" is a label used by others, not by the Pefectibilists themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.145.163.101 (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

You could try reading the references. Again, the title Bund der Perfektibilisten was rejected by Weishaupt, and the order was founded as Illuminatenorden, usually rendered into English as Illuminati which is Latin, but less cumbersome than "Illuminated ones" or whatever else. It's been standard for 2 centuries. Please produce sources for your own propositions, and perhaps we can reach a sensible consensus. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Perfectibilists was the founding name and remained so for close to two years. After flirting with changing it to the Bee Order and similar variants, Illuminatenorden was settled upon April 1778 - this according to Illuminaten scholar Reinhard Markner in the introduction to Secret School of Wisdom, pp. 15-16. Basically, they weren't satisfied with the name from the beginning and wanted to change because it was strange sounding. It probably wouldn't hurt to change the paragraph that talks about the name change to reflect what Markner says. He's literally looked at every original document by the Illuminati and can tell you who wrote what just by the handwriting style. XDev (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that - Le Forestier implies that the name change occurred before May 1776. I shall try to get my filthy hands on the book. Yes, please change that section. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

And this needs to be changed: "Historically, the name refers to the Bavarian Illuminati," It implies that the name refers ONLY to the Perfectibilists. You could say that some people use "Illuminati" for Bund der Perfektibilisten who changed their name two years later to Illuminatenorden, but historically, it has been applied to other groups by the Church. For example,"Montanus became the leader of a group of illuminati ('the enlightened'), including the prophetesses Priscilla (or Prisca) and Maximilla" (Encyclopedia Britannica 2015). Clearly, "Illuminati" is an Italian/Latin label. It's NOT ENGLISH. "Enlightened" is the ENGLISH word for it.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/390572/Montanus

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.145.221.66 (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC) 

All of our English references refer to the organisation as Illuminati. While it's not English, it's clearly not German either - Illuminaten is a Latin word with a German case ending. Wikipedia is not an organ for attempting to change standard English usage, and without supporting source material, this conversation is becoming nit-picking and tedious. There is a perfectly good disambiguation page to which you may add other uses of the term. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Illuminaten is still German! They converted the word to GERMAN. This is just basic English. You're giving the run-around. Let's go back to the Apple Computer example again. Suppose my name is Adam W. and I start a company called Apfel in Bavaria because I admire Steve Jobs. If I make Apfel products similar to Steve Job's products, then the press may call Apfel the "Bavarian Apple" in dozens of articles. Then if Wikipedia states that "historically Apple refers to the Bavarian Apple," that would obviously be ridiculous. Steve Jobs would rise from the grave and (God forbid) sue Wikipedia. Historically, Apfel is just a clone, just like Bund der Perfektibilisten. This is already ridiculous. I can't be giving English lessons here.

You're making this article like a blog post or opinion editorial. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA! This is not your personal blog for your personal thesis that Illuminati refers ONLY to Bund der Perfektibilisten! All reputable universities DO NOT ALLOW WIKIPEDIA AS A VALID SOURCE BECAUSE OF ITS INACCURACIES. YOU SHOULD CHANGE THIS! OTHERWISE, WIKIPEDIA WILL LOSE MORE SUPPORT AND DONATIONS! I'M HELPING YOU OUT HERE! WAKE UP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.145.221.66 (talk) 05:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The 2015 Encyclopedia Britannica article for "Alumbrado" clearly states that "Illuminati" is an Italian plural word and alternative proper name for "Alumbrados," composed of rebellious Jesuits, just like Adam W., who was trained by Jesuits and taught in a Jesuit school. It also mentions that the Spanish Illuminati reached a state of perfection just like the Perfectibilists that allowed them to disobey the Church.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/17894/Alumbrado

This is corroborated by the 1829 Encyclopaedia Britannica: Or, A Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and Miscellaneous Literature, Enlarged and Improved, Volume 11.

It says that "Illuminati is also a sect of heretics who sprang up in Spain about the year 1575..." But it goes on to say that "the sect was revived in France in the year 1634 and were soon joined after by the Guerinets, or disciples of Peter Guerin, who together made but one body." Then it goes on to say that the Rosycrusians are also sometimes called Illuminati. The article is saying that the Spanish Illuminati (which originated in Italy according to a Spanish historian) is the same body as the French and similar, if not the same, as the Bavarian Illuminati.

https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=T8wnAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=britannica+illumines&source=bl&ots=KaDxPr6GGF&sig=lZb2HdexsW5bHQWOhGG6S5WP6mM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LxNzVdyoNsi9swGb-YDQBA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=britannica%20illumines&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.145.221.66 (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Illuminaten isn't in my German dictionary, and de:Wikipedia, in a Featured article, claims it is Latin (lat. illuminati „die Erleuchteten“).

1829? Really? Scroll back and read what it says under the entry for Illuminati. You gave Illumined. So, even your antique Britannica gives Illuminati = Bavarian Illuminati as standard English usage. We're done. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

BAD OMMISSION ? I scrolled through all of this material and not once is the full title of the organisation(s) stated

I can't say more than that can I ? DaiSaw (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

You could say a great deal more, like what title, which organisation, what year, useful stuff. Not helpful. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Citation needed for disparaging comments of Rosicrucian practitioners.

The following phrase from section 1.6, is an opinion and requires a citation to be considered fact:

• "The Rosicrucians were not above promoting their own brand of mysticism with fraudulent seances."

-Thank-you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valheol (talk • contribs) 15:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Um... I don't have the source in front of me, but my understanding is that it is cited... to "René le Forestier, Les Illuminés de Bavière et la franc-maçonnerie allemande, Paris, 1914, Book 4 Chapter 2, pp389-429" ... which is cited at the end of the paragraph (usually when there is just one citation at the end of a paragraph or short section, that citation is taken as applying to the whole paragraph or section).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs)

funny thing is that people think the Illuminati as a society of its own agenda but what you don't know is that the it is not its own order it is connected to the Templar knights in which i know some people are going to hate me but find research study the history of the Templar knights or Illuminati order which ever you prefer to call them and you might see the connections between the Illuminati and the Templar knights this not a full answer to your questions this is not yet confirmed but this one of the answers that we have to the mysterious orders no this is not confirmed in a way it is just something i thought interesting and maybe all of you may indeed enjoy this find helpful in a way so enjoy the rest of the articles yet to come. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.118.122.33 (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

See WP:No original research and WP:Identifying reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Please consider - the small inroads the Illuminati made into Freemasonry came from presenting themselves as an alternative to Templar Freemasonry, which the Wilhelmsbad convention had identified as utterly without foundation. They were too socially inept to capitalise on this. See article. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2015

Illuminati are diamons, believe it bums!!!

Pksnake (talk) 04:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 No. I'm not going to introduce spam into an article. Krett12 (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2015

remove an l in title Jim56665 (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done No reason to do that whatsoever. All English sources use two l's to spell Illuminati. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Over-reliance on one source?

I have just noticed that the article relies on one book for about half of its text (the book is René le Forestier's Les Illuminés de Bavière et la franc-maçonnerie allemande). I am never happy when an article is so heavily based on one single source... I start to wonder whether the source's POV has been given UNDUE weight.
I am also concerned by the age of this particular source... it was published over 100 years ago (in 1914) and thus may be outdated. Thoughts and comments? Blueboar (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Believe it or not Le Forestier's book is still considered the standard reference by Illuminaten scholars, even by German researchers. Some data is obsolete, but the minutia of the chronological events surrounding the Order is still sound. Nevertheless, it does rely too much on one book. Newer sources are available that could be cited; those sources have been listed on this talk page for awhile.XDev (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The plan was to use Le Forestier to outline the history (it's still the standard reference, as XDev says) then to pad with other sources. I sort of ground to a halt dealing with my mother's dementia. I shall return to the task when some sort of normality returns. Meanwhile, I am happy to assist and support anyone else in raising the previously lamentable standard of this article. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2015

[[--41.202.228.62 (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Moses misango

engineer i want to be rich man

41.202.228.62 (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• NOT DONE - requested file does not exist. Blueboar (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Should we expand the part about pop culture?

The illuminati is very popular in pop culture, both with conspiracy theorists and just fun. Many people do also make jokes, like "illuminati confirmed". The part about this is very short. 80.212.44.121 (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe there is enough material to make an excellent separate article. There is much more real Illuminati history to insert, with new sources becoming available and the Swedenkist being published in German, the fun bits might be less fun joined to the end of an already long article. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• I think a separate article would give the pop culture stuff UNDUE weight. Most of it is based on pseudo-historical bullshit, and so you need the real historical stuff to give it proper context. Blueboar (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thing is, the bullshit has history too, mainly frauds but the recent stuff starts with practical jokers (the Erisians and Robert Anton Wilson for a start). It needs held up to the light, and I feel that the necessary analysis would be too wordy and detract from the current article. It will also constitute a useful "please see.." for people in tinfoil hats. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2016

Add a picture of the illuminati triangle. Jh82228 (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• I assume you are talking about the Eye of Providence? If so, I suggest you read that article to see why it isn't actually an illuminati symbol (although often thought to be one in pop culture.) Blueboar (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2016

Shit1234567890 (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC) Illuminati info not complete

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Last Paragraph of "Decline" section out of place?

The last paragraph, the two sentences beginning with: "Many influential intellectuals ..." no longer seems to fit. The section could end well without it, but I think there's info in there which is nowhere else in the article, so perhaps a better idea is to move it. Just came across the article this morning, and don't want to make a poorly unconsidered change. Thanks! Wigbold (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Mea culpa, it's unfinished. The last two paragraphs are the remnants of the previous history, I was working on a new one when life caught up with me. I'll be back on the project soon, meanwhile, feel free to add/adjust/comment. We can always revert and discuss. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I am not a very active editor, but enough edits to be auto-confirmed. I pasted the paragraph in question to be the second paragraph in the intro. That increases its prominence, but seemed the most logical place. Enjoy the other parts of your life. Cheers! Wigbold (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Illuminati

Are you sure that the Illuminati started in the 18th century? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.60.8.34 (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Read the article. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

So much improvement

This article is so much better than it was just three years ago. User:Fiddlersmouth and everyone else, you should be proud. This article gets read every 7.2 seconds, and as such is by far the most popular article on any Enlightenment Era movement; even the American Revolution which doesn't even have a third as many readers per day. --174.16.103.182 (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Illuminati

Illuminati is trying to make all people equal, and to destroy the Catholic Church and all religions in itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.177.117 (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Read the article... your concerns are about 240 years out of date. Blueboar (talk) 11:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Looney Tunes' Three Little Bops hidden reference?

There's this 1957 Looney Tunes episode called Three Little Bops (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Three_Little_Bops) which is a parody of the Three Little Pigs story. In this episode, the wolf is trying to enter the three little pigs jazz band, but suffers from a complete lack of skills. When the three little pigs find shelter in the bricks house, there's a curious detail that is emphasized: a cornerstone in which you can read "May 1 1776". The song follows by these terms:

"Sturdy place this house of bricks, Built in seventeen seventy six, High-class place with a high-class crowd, Sign on the door "no wolves allowed"

Then, after trying to break in, the wolf explodes and goes to hell, where he finally is accepted in the band.

Well, I searched for any important events related to that specific date and all I could find was the foundation of the Illuminati Society. Anyone who watches that episode will see the date is important to the point of being shown onscreen AND sung in the lyrics. The lyrics say the house is old and sturdy. Also, there's a mention to the high social position of the goers and an explicit prohibition for wolves (unskilled people? low class people?).

This is possibly material evidence that, if the Illuminati Society has ceased to exist, is very alive in the imagination of our best creators (ie. Fritz Freleng) and deserves to be cited as a Illuminati reference in Popular Culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.179.62.241 (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

No. No. No. See also Pareidolia and Coincidence. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Ian has it right... In order to mention any pop culture connection between the cartoon and the Illuminati, we would need to cite solid sources that have noted the connection. Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)