![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
The article is too conversational in places; also in some places it borders on lacking objectivity. It needs a bit of a rewrite so as to make it more professional sounding -- Mydoghasworms 18:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeagh, verily. citations needed fer sure! Check out the origons section, especially. Thaddeus Slamp 02:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm reading Angels & Demons written by Dan Brown, and what I've read in the article so far, doesn't seem to fit the fiction. Delta.Change Renata S.B. ( talk) 23:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure it's true that among some, "A famous key element of the Illuminati order is the mystical number 23." But unless the above cryptic assertions are put into some proper context, they make the article look like the work of a crank. -- LMS
(The work of a crank?
http://afgen.com/numbr23b.html )
That first sentence seems to take the Illuminati awfully seriously. Can we redo this a little more Neutral point of view?
Why the hacker community? - Tubby
This page and Bavarian Illuminati are duplicates. olivier 08:53 Nov 12, 2002 (UTC)
---
Being a bavarian, I know what Freising is and means (also Ingolstadt...which became the University of Munich). But anybody else? The article needs a lot of work. Go to study, damned! ---
"Illuminati" does not generally mean specifically the obscure modern group calling themselves after the historical Bavarian Illuminati of the late 18th century. By removing the following grandstanding text from the heading, the article takes a neutral historical balance:
The section "Was 1790 really the end of the Illuminati" is somewhat poorly written, has NPOV problems, and seems to be a ranty long paragraph. Furthermore, it lacks in hard evidence that the United States founding fathers were awash in corruption from the Bavarian Illuminati. If you're going to put it in Wikipedia, there should be some evidence to back it up, like: "According to this source the United States' founding fathers were evil Bavarianists."
I've looked, and I can find very little evidence that George Washington knew about Adam Weishaupt or thought about him favorably. Yes, Washington was a Mason, but that seems to be the only connection. Many of Washington's letters can be found on-line but a search doesn't reveal that he wrote anything about Weisbaum. But maybe that's what they want us to think! :-) -- Yekrats 15:20, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Althought the Illumanati Band of Brothers were science incorperators, I cant see how they would allow Gaileo to join if they knew he had a faith in him
needs more on this character Weisbaum. I thought it was Weishopt? 69.195.36.213 17:06, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No mention of pop fiction which contains illuminati references? Like Angels and Demons by Dan Brown?
The Illuminati are very real, and are currently manipulating the world toward a New World Order based upon Draconian beliefs. I wish it weren't true, but I can't deny reality, history or my own experience. For proof that the Illuminati exist and that the New World Order is a very real threat, refer to Prison Planet, www.infowars.com infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used Infowars], and Propganda Matrix Since most of this information is difficult for most people to swallow, I would suggest beginning with 9/11, the Road to Tyranny--Alex Jones' excellent film on government-sponsored terrorism. You can see it for free at 9/11, the Road to Tyranny. Truth is indeed far stranger, but also far more realistic than fiction. This is the way governments always behaved throughout history, except for a few rare exceptions. It is a delusion to believe that there are not elitist royals controlling as much as they can today. - 129.173.208.188 ( Talk) 09:39, September 9, 2004
Your conspiratorial content may be edited out and treated as spam here. The wiki link on my Userpage will welcome that content though Conwiki 04:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
AFAIK, the Bavarian Illuminati were inclined very much towards the ideals of enlightenment, and this was one of the reasons for their direct conflict with the contemporary Rosicrucians (more specifically: the "Orden des Gold- und Rosen-Kreutzes"), who were deep into Christian mystics. This conflict should at least be mentioned.
The decline of the B.I. is also said to have been favoured by the rise to power of the RCs in Prussia. I'll have to look up the sources, but Schiller's novel "Der Geisterseher" is probably based on events that actually took place in Berlin around 1784.
Suggested reading: Karl Frick, "Die Erleuchteten" -- a work generally considered as the product of serious scholarship. I'll search out the ISBN.
-- flaig@sanctacaris.net (Chevalier Dr. Dr. Ruediger Marcus Flaig, Heidelberg Univ.)
-- I also did find no reason to have these two section here, explicating what Rosicrucians and Martinist are:
I suppressed both sections, and simply placed a link to Rosicrucianism and to Martinism in the introductory section, where they seem (IMMO) more appropriate. -- Gco 09:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Are we agreed that "Illuminati-esque" organizations that are not called anything like "Illuminati" do not belong in this article, and should instead be put into secret society or something of the sort? An anon user has added Revenge of the Sith and Metal Gear Solid references twice, though the organizations involved are not named "the Illuminati" and have no connection to the historical Illuminati besides being secret societies or conspiracies. DenisMoskowitz 23:09, 2005 August 17 (UTC)
'No Purpose No Design' Song by the Artist 'Meat Beat Manifesto' has some reference to Bavarian Illuminati.
Like WHAT reference? And who are you? Add your name and what the hellin' reference ya talkin' 'bout?-- OleMurder 19:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay, that's jolly good. How come nearly all of the "... in Popular Culture" sections of the Louvre, Leonardo da Vinci, Rosslyn Chapel, etc. are full of information about Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, but the first Robert Langdon book, Angels and Demons, has no mention whatsoever in this article, where the Bavarian Illuminati is the main subject of the book. -- Robin Kerrison 20:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
edit: Oh, it reads much better than the other day! Thanks people!
original: The Illuminati entry is silly, unrealistic, and spotted heavily with misinformation. It should just be replaced with something less fantasy-filled. -- D24 19:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Timothy LaHaye apparently thinks that the Illuminati exist. I don't think that this is relevant to the Illuminati article.
For one, the current presentation is overly verbose - all we really need to convey the information is " Timothy LaHaye has been quoted as saying that the Illuminati are a currently existing evil organization". But that's not an important addition to the article on the Illuminati - if the Pope said something like that, it still doesn't belong here because it doesn't add to our knowledge about the Illuminati, only about the speaker.
Now if LaHaye was to write a non-fiction book about the Illuminati, I could see mentioning it. (Fictional books already have a place in the article.) But there's no new information in this single quote, and it doesn't belong in this article.
If no-one responds to this, I'll assume that I'm generally agreed with and continue reverting this addition. DenisMoskowitz 19:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I recently watched BBC's "Revealing Angels and Demons". I don't take secret societies even nearly that serious, but one thing crossed my mind. When the name "Illuminati" was discussed, they told that people often translate it as "enlightened", although illuminati themselves claim that the name means "light bearers". Was it left to ourselves to figure, or was it just because nobody in BBC noticed that, put out other way, "light bearer" translates into "Lucifer". (check the lucifer quote in wikipedia).
It is shame humanity has come to this. Lying governments, secret societies, it's all a terrible mess. What on earth can save us now?
I would like to request some heavy editing of this article. My suggestion would be to add more biographical information on Adam Weishaupt and a lot more information on the actual beliefs and philosophical views of the Illuminati - both the Bavarian variant and it precedents and antecedents.
Also I think the article is too colored by the notions of the Illuminati which have been nurtured by the conspiracy theorists. I am thinking of sentences such as the following:
"Groups describing themselves as Illuminati say they have members and chapters (lodges) throughout the world; only time will tell if the Illuminati still exists and if they suceed in taking over the world to establish Satan's New World Order."
This is extremely speculative and it hardly seems fit to include such a statement in a Wikipedia article. From what I've read about Weishaupt's actual views on society it would seem that he represented a kind of proto-social liberalism which, albeit extreme and atheistic in nature, was not necessarily "Satanic" - except possibly in the eyes of Christian fundamentalists.
Please rework this article thoroughly. ( Jonas Liljeström 22:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC))
Found this in the catneeded category. I'm redirecting the entry here (since another name doesn't need another article), but I'm afraid to merge the info in case it's not true. If it is verifiable, someone please merge it:
NickelShoe 20:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that the Alumbrados of Spain is of sufficient historical interest as to warrent their own article. Especially given that Wikipedia supplies a small tome on the history of Superman. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.252.81.211 ( talk • contribs) .
Is the origins section really well-named? Origins of what? It seems to be primarily pre-Bavarian Illuminati groups that called themselves or were called illuminati. Also, where should groups called the illuminati that came after the Bavarian Illuminati go in the article, like James Strang's Society of the Illuminati? Schizombie 08:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I do not know anything about it, but I stumbled upon a deleted paragraph...
I am inserting it a again, as I see no reason on the talk page why this would have been deleted deliberately. — Xiutwel (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
There's a really good explanation for d illuminati in the book 'Angels and demons' by Dan brown.It's a fiction but the Iluminati are described correctly.Fact:I am 13 but i have read the book.It's meant for 18 and above.Hey,but dont call me a prodigy,alrite? diff showing rev as of 10:38, 21 April 2006 by User:59.95.163.75
Was looking for the article on the novel The Illuminati by Larry Burkett. It is listed in the Illuminati (disambiguation) page but redirected to this page.
As the Illuminati appeared
The Illuminati is a millenarian institution, been born in the dawn of history. In its beddings they are specific secrets, forming a society based on the secrecy and the obedience. The system of the illuminated ones was developed by diverse leaders, between them Hassan Sabath (nazarins - 1090), of Bayezid Ansari (roshynaia - 1550), and of the illuminated ones of Weishaupt (1776). Other sets of ten of lesser groups had developed the system illuminati, more or less perfectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.67.129.6 ( talk)
Statements such as "few historians support this view" (re: continued existence of Illuminati) are not terribly academic and come across as an attempt to sway opinion using the projected opinion of vague 'experts' - this statement needs some qualification. Also if you wish to be thorough and objective you should consider possible Illuminati links to the German revolution that fomented in Bavaria following WW1 whose followers named themselves the 'Spartakusbund' - it seems naive not to consider possible connections to the ideology of 'Frater Spartakus' (Weishaupts nickname within his order). Consequently it may be worth considering to what extent the entire Illuminati project comes across as a blueprint for the Republic as well as Communism. Finally, in the course of an analysis of the Bavarian Illuminati, it seems extraordinarily naive to fail to take into account the fact that the Illuminati were a SECRET society. The continued existence of the order, its true motives, nature and activities are all to often subject to knee-jerk dismissal by pseudo-authorities who frequently ignore not only the complexity of the subject, but also the core characteristic of the order they are investigating. Sometimes one does need to think outside the box. 10/08/2006
There is no information in the article on how to apply.
Masterhomer
06:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggested a merge incoming article " Order of Illuminati" is same info about the Bevarian Order --- with no source on the incoming article I propose to just delete it altoghether and redirect people here, unless anyone can salvage anything useful out of it ? Goldenrowley 03:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm a bit puzzled by this section:
About the time that the Illuminati were outlawed in Bavaria, the Roman Catholic Church prohibited its members from joining Masonic lodges, on pain of excommunication. This was done as a general edict, since the Church believed many lodges to have been infiltrated and subverted by the Illuminati, but was not able to accurately ascertain which ones.
Not only is there no citation on this, Ratzinger's quote says nothing about the Illuminati, and the original edict against Freemasonry (see here) dates from 1736, forty years before the Illuminati existed. Therefore, are thre any objections to removal of the above statement, as well as Ratzinger's statement, which is really irrelevant anyway? MSJapan 18:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
What a bunch of speculation this article is.
Incidently there are any number of reliable source about the Bavarian Illuminati so that a perfectly sober article about them can be written, compare de:Illuminatenorden.
As the conspiracy theorists will never stop to put their version on this page, I suggest splitting off Bavarian Illuminati for the historical facts.
Pjacobi 09:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
What (the devil) is "mopery with intent to gawk"? Does this mean something of is it vandalism? Billlion 13:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I perceive illuminati, plutocrat, oligarch, as having largely overlapping definitions. Does anyone agree?
Thank You.
[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 04:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I've removed material pasted in by 72.64.159.98 at 19:21, October 6, 2006, from Cosmic Trigger I: Final Secret of the Illuminati by Robert Anton Wilson that unfortunately lasted for a while in the history without anyone catching it. Luckily, it remained in two discrete paragraphs in the "Origins" section, so I was able to just remove that and leave the rest of the revised content on top. Here is the history, for the purposes of fulfilling the GFDL. Of course, administrators can view the deleted revisions if necessary. -- Slowking Man 11:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
15:36, December 5, 2006 210.1.71.3 (→The Bavarian Illuminati) 12:12, December 2, 2006 Differentgravy m 02:42, December 2, 2006 86.13.229.158 (→See also) 23:34, December 1, 2006 Jayvdb m (rv unrelated wikilink by 216.68.66.25) 21:34, December 1, 2006 216.68.66.25 12:50, November 29, 2006 RussBot m (Robot-assisted fixing links to disambiguation page (you can help!): Jacobin) 01:45, November 29, 2006 202.56.233.131 (→The Bavarian Illuminati) 14:24, November 28, 2006 David.Monniaux (→External links - rm irrelevant video) 03:03, November 27, 2006 BorgQueen m (Reverted edits by 68.0.115.19 (talk) to last version by BorgQueen) 01:48, November 27, 2006 68.0.115.19 (→Rosicrucians) 10:24, November 26, 2006 BorgQueen m (Reverted edits by 69.158.6.103 (talk) to last version by 69.120.56.27) 10:24, November 26, 2006 69.158.6.103 (→Rosicrucians) 10:23, November 26, 2006 69.158.6.103 (→Rosicrucians) 19:47, November 25, 2006 69.120.56.27 (→External links - - deleted two non-Illuminati links) 11:35, November 25, 2006 Kmweber m (Reverted edits by 72.83.162.234 to last version by Acjihlanfeldt) 11:35, November 25, 2006 72.83.162.234 11:04, November 25, 2006 Acjihlanfeldt 12:27, November 22, 2006 XDev m (→External links - Got rid of the link to the couple of chapters of Robison's book; it was redundant in light of the whole book being recently scanned and posted online.) 09:44, November 21, 2006 BorgQueen (→See also - remove link to a deleted article - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arizona Wilder) 08:24, November 21, 2006 Bdevoe (→Origins - Changed 'unsubstantial' to 'unsubstantiated' and verb/noun agreement) 04:54, November 20, 2006 Buddah178 m 16:06, November 18, 2006 63.249.108.58 (→External links) 13:10, November 18, 2006 ST47 m (Reverted 1 edits by 83.108.159.179 (talk) to last revision (88665682) by MSJapan using VP2) 13:10, November 18, 2006 83.108.159.179 (→External links) 11:41, November 18, 2006 MSJapan (rv. A novel is not really credible as a "See Also" article.) 10:33, November 18, 2006 81.152.165.149 (→See also) 14:41, November 16, 2006 AntiVandalBot m (BOT - rv 195.93.21.40 (talk) to last version by Polenth) 14:41, November 16, 2006 195.93.21.40 (Replacing page with 'Illuminati is defeated by Jesus Christ!') 21:31, November 15, 2006 Polenth m (→Origins - Repairing alchemist disambig link.) 03:29, November 12, 2006 86.142.109.13 14:49, November 10, 2006 AntiVandalBot m (BOT - rv 75.51.6.103 (talk) to last version by JFreeman) 14:49, November 10, 2006 75.51.6.103 (→The Bavarian Illuminati) 07:54, November 7, 2006 JFreeman m (Reverted edits by 142.227.224.199 to last version by Bubba hotep) 07:52, November 7, 2006 142.227.224.199 (→See also) 07:51, November 7, 2006 142.227.224.199 (→Cultural effect) 07:51, November 7, 2006 Bubba hotep (Reverted edits by 142.227.224.199 to version 86286120 by AntiVandalBot) 07:50, November 7, 2006 142.227.224.199 (→Martinists) 07:49, November 7, 2006 AntiVandalBot m (BOT - rv 142.227.224.199 (talk) to last version by Hello32020) 07:49, November 7, 2006 142.227.224.199 (→Origins) 07:48, November 7, 2006 Hello32020 m (Reverted 2 edits by 142.227.224.199 (talk) to last revision (86203644) by Bakilas using VP) 07:47, November 7, 2006 142.227.224.199 (→Cultural effect) 07:47, November 7, 2006 142.227.224.199 (→History) 20:04, November 6, 2006 Bakilas m (→See also) 01:33, November 6, 2006 Nevit (→Origins) 17:12, November 5, 2006 213.130.141.80 (→External links) 13:43, November 5, 2006 JoshuaZ m (Reverted edits by 88.109.224.44 (talk) to last version by 203.164.97.18) 12:39, November 5, 2006 88.109.224.44 (→Origins) 18:52, November 4, 2006 203.164.97.18 ('Believed to' is enough. No need to second-guess twice.) 01:09, November 4, 2006 JoshuaZ m (Reverted edits by 72.75.61.113 (talk) to last version by 84.72.89.14) 23:34, November 3, 2006 72.75.61.113 (→Origins) 12:58, November 3, 2006 84.72.89.14 (→External links) 05:32, November 3, 2006 Wiki alf m (Revert to revision 85395932 by MTSbot.) 05:29, November 3, 2006 211.28.144.185 (→See also) 18:43, November 2, 2006 MTSbot m (robot Adding: lt) 08:16, October 29, 2006 Lemmus m (→Origins) 22:04, October 27, 2006 Brimba (→See also - rm red links) 22:03, October 27, 2006 Brimba (→See also - rm speculation) 15:59, October 27, 2006 Liberal Freemason (+ {{Link FA|de}}) 09:24, October 26, 2006 201.41.251.242 (→External links) 16:16, October 25, 2006 Redeagle688 m (→External links) 11:34, October 21, 2006 208.19.15.51 (→External links) 17:08, October 20, 2006 Idolater718 (→See also) 17:03, October 20, 2006 Idolater718 (→Origins) 10:48, October 20, 2006 Webucation (→History) 23:39, October 18, 2006 Wiki alf m (Reverted edits by 68.21.245.21 (talk) to last version by AntiVandalBot) 20:54, October 18, 2006 68.21.245.21 (→Cultural effect) 20:52, October 18, 2006 68.21.245.21 (→History) 19:49, October 18, 2006 AntiVandalBot m (BOT - rv 208.114.155.8 (talk) to last version by Shinmawa) 19:49, October 18, 2006 208.114.155.8 (→Cultural effect) 19:48, October 18, 2006 208.114.155.8 (→Cultural effect) 22:41, October 15, 2006 Shinmawa m (Reverted edits by CatastrophicToad to last version by Schaef) 22:35, October 15, 2006 CatastrophicToad m (minor spelling correction) 06:27, October 14, 2006 Schaef (fixed incomplete text link to Emanuel Swedenborg) 19:00, October 12, 2006 Kerowyn (→Origins) 18:58, October 12, 2006 Kerowyn (→History) 18:56, October 12, 2006 Kerowyn (→Origins) 18:52, October 12, 2006 Kerowyn (→Origins) 16:41, October 12, 2006 199.74.70.155 (→Origins) 09:22, October 12, 2006 Rory096 m (whitespace) 04:32, October 12, 2006 66.226.32.195 (→Origins) 17:23, October 11, 2006 82.34.131.221 (→Origins) 17:22, October 11, 2006 82.34.131.221 (→Origins) 16:17, October 11, 2006 142.231.69.45 (→Origins) 20:39, October 10, 2006 XDev m (→External links - erased a link that was basically spam and not a resource or substantial in any way; added another one that is considerably researched) 16:36, October 10, 2006 69.33.44.226 15:30, October 10, 2006 146.7.112.10 (→Origins) 09:57, October 10, 2006 69.254.65.58 (→Origins) 14:49, October 9, 2006 Shadowlynk (Revert to revision 80458867 dated 2006-10-09 18:47:50 by Mydoghasworms using popups) 14:48, October 9, 2006 68.148.180.147 10:47, October 9, 2006 Mydoghasworms 09:21, October 8, 2006 67.15.76.111 05:43, October 8, 2006 Mackensen (→See also - rm link to deleted article)
18:16UT, 12/12/06: Sadly, it seems that someone has deleted and replaced the entire article with a short flame/rant. Just as sadly, I'm not terribly well-informed on the history of the group (which is why I was viewing the page), so I can't help much other than to flag it as Non-Compliant (which I've already done). Good luck, and I hope this gets fixed soon.--
128.61.54.108
18:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)timberwolf16739
I just reverted an edit which replaced "Illuminati" with lower case "illuminati". I'm not an expert on the subject but I think the capitalizing is appropriate, yes? If I'm wrong and someone has a problem with this, drop me a note on my talk page because I'd like to know. -- Pigman ( talk • contribs) 06:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I am a Free Mason and I will tell you that groups calling themselves the Illuminati did (and posibly stil do) exist, but not reconized by the ruling body of the Free Mason Fraturnity.
The is so main assumptions made in this article it looks like it should be listed in the Wolrd News Daily.
Stop with the hourse shit and only list what is confirmed as factual. (thegrimmling)
Should a video game really be there perhaps somewhere else? Any way if we do add video games we might as well as Deus Ex where the Illuminati try to defeat rogue Illlumianti and conquer the world.
I corrected conspiracy theory--this is not vandalism. The burden of proof lies on YOU to prove your rhetoric as anything more than contemporary folk mythology.
The subject should be treated as nothing more than what it is, Folklore.
Then why is there a mythology category on wikipedia?
The following can be found at conspiracy theory here on wikipedia.
The term "conspiracy theory" is used by mainstream scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with particular methodological flaws. Lojah
--- The entire article is a bad edit with an obvious POV. It's based on unsubstantial accusations by unscholarly resources. A conspiracy theory about the "Illuminati" controlling the world is no more realistic than the belief that Reptiles from another planet control world affairs and it IS mythology at best. You can look up any number of articles on Wikipedia that clearly define the conrtent as folklore and mytholgy, even though some people might believe in it. In it's current form the Illuminati article is on wikipedia simply to perpetuate a nearly religious belief, not to inform with a neutral POV. Lojah 20:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
When correcting a POV, it is not wise, actually counter productive, to "correct" it with a counter POV edit. A counter POV edit does not cancel out a POV edit to make a neutral POV edit. Brentt 00:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
--You know, after reconsidering some of what you've said and re-reading the article, I will mostly concede to your argument at this time. Since I really don’t know exactly how to ‘fix; this article in a few short, concise edits I will try to refrain from criticizing it too directly for its, as you might say ‘horribleness.’ I have to wonder a couple things however; 1, What is the best approach to making this article something worth reading and referencing?—I think the topic is worthy of inclusion, if valid facts and resources other than conspiracy manuals ala the Alex Jones variety are used. And 2, Does in undermine the integrity of Wikipedia to have such an obviously outlandish entry as this Illuminati article on here. Lojah 00:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
--Now that's an idea I really like. Lojah
Novus Ordo Seclorum has nothing to do with 'nonreligious order'. This translation is in accurate. 129.57.9.147 18:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Probably been answered. If the pyramid with an eye isn't some Illuminati or Mason symbol then what the heck is it. Some engraver might be as bored as most of us at work but someone - his boss, etc - over the years would have noticed this thing - but I have never heard anyone say a word about it. 159.105.80.141 19:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)I found the mottos and the Eye of Providence - nothing on the Pyramid. If I had been a Founding Father I would have completely forgotten about cool things like mottos and pyramids and symbols. Secret handshakes etc - these guys sound like too much of a bunch of frat boys to have ever run a country - thankfully the British were even dopier. 159.105.80.141 19:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I have a question about the following line: "About the time that the Illuminati were outlawed in Bavaria, the Roman Catholic Church prohibited its members from joining Masonic lodges, on pain of excommunication." I am not challenging the factual accuracy of this statement (it is somewhat misleading, but is accurate) ... but is there a direct connection? What does the Illuminati being outlawed in Bavaria have to do wtih the RCC banning Freemasonry? If there is a direct connection, we need to state that connection (with proper citation of course)... if there is no connection, we should probably cut the sentence as being irrelevant. Blueboar 20:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hiya
I noticed this section about the "Illuminati."
I was wondering why it does not mention Suzanne Ward, the writer of the Matthew Books ( http://www.matthewbooks.com)? Her fourth book, "Voices of the Universe" (ISBN: 0-9717875-4-9) has an entire chapter on the Illuminati. WIthin that chapter, she has several references to many "conspiracy theories" including global banking, European royalty, the United Nations, education system, prescription drugs, and so on. She says that the "reptilian civilization" is behind much of this. The also talks about the "Illuminati" in her other three books. The Matthew Books, including thus one, are fairly well known, and have been translated into many different languages around the world.
In addition, in her "messages" on her site ( http://www.matthewbooks.com/mattsmessage.htm), there are several pages talking about the Illuminati including this one: http://www.matthewbooks.com/mm/anmviewer.asp?a=45&z=2 Doing a quick search will find more messages about it.
It would seem that given the popularity of her books and messages, and since she talks about NESARA, that you would have said something about it in your investigation.
Anyways, just wanted to inform you. Thank you.
I think the subsection called "Groups identifying themselves as Illuminati" was a valid subsection and should be returned, especially since some of the groups are specifically mentioned in the article. I noticed that the O.T.O. has a long list of groups referenced in its article. I am sure there are others.
I realize that one of groups was apparently a blog site, but the Orden Illuminati and The Illuminati Order are actual groups that have been around for years. They are established claimants.
The reason given for the section's removal was: "The 'groups' links are nothing but advertising, and there's nothing notable about any of them." The last part is just one person's opinion with which I obviously disagree, but the first...is not all of this "advertising"? That is, is not the purpose of Wikipedia to "make generally known" a vast array of information? Neither of the sites referenced above are pay sites or openly selling anything.
I reviewed WP:EL. The first item under "What should be linked" says, "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." This is an article about an organization. When one tries to view a Wikipedia article of the Bavarian Illuminati or The Illuminati Order, one is redirected to this article. Since the two groups mentioned above do not have their own Wikipedia article, I think it makes sense to include them (and any other valid groups) in the External Links of this article.
JustMe1776
14:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Never. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.41.245.249 ( talk)
I'm not a member of anything. But you are a vandal. IPSOS ( talk) 14:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The Illuminati is a follower of Adam Weishaupt or Aleyster Crowley? Or follows the founder Weishaupt or follows a liar Crowley?
Don't exclude my texts or alterations. Is my right! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.41.224.91 ( talk)
16 July 2007 (UTC)
claiming… illuminati article. These people cannot be cited, therefore they are it are of the context. They are satanists and atheists, but not illuminati. Veriter 22:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I go to exclude this text to improve Veriter 22:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
This article cannot be in the project atheism, therefore the founder Adam Weishaupt, and the original Order (Bavarian) was not atheistic nor satanist. Veriter 22:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Exclude claiming.... fraudulent organizations.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Veriter ( talk • contribs)
visit the website Ofalli.square.site 2601:5CB:C200:FB20:6451:156C:AB3E:F37E ( talk) 19:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
The article is too conversational in places; also in some places it borders on lacking objectivity. It needs a bit of a rewrite so as to make it more professional sounding -- Mydoghasworms 18:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeagh, verily. citations needed fer sure! Check out the origons section, especially. Thaddeus Slamp 02:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm reading Angels & Demons written by Dan Brown, and what I've read in the article so far, doesn't seem to fit the fiction. Delta.Change Renata S.B. ( talk) 23:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure it's true that among some, "A famous key element of the Illuminati order is the mystical number 23." But unless the above cryptic assertions are put into some proper context, they make the article look like the work of a crank. -- LMS
(The work of a crank?
http://afgen.com/numbr23b.html )
That first sentence seems to take the Illuminati awfully seriously. Can we redo this a little more Neutral point of view?
Why the hacker community? - Tubby
This page and Bavarian Illuminati are duplicates. olivier 08:53 Nov 12, 2002 (UTC)
---
Being a bavarian, I know what Freising is and means (also Ingolstadt...which became the University of Munich). But anybody else? The article needs a lot of work. Go to study, damned! ---
"Illuminati" does not generally mean specifically the obscure modern group calling themselves after the historical Bavarian Illuminati of the late 18th century. By removing the following grandstanding text from the heading, the article takes a neutral historical balance:
The section "Was 1790 really the end of the Illuminati" is somewhat poorly written, has NPOV problems, and seems to be a ranty long paragraph. Furthermore, it lacks in hard evidence that the United States founding fathers were awash in corruption from the Bavarian Illuminati. If you're going to put it in Wikipedia, there should be some evidence to back it up, like: "According to this source the United States' founding fathers were evil Bavarianists."
I've looked, and I can find very little evidence that George Washington knew about Adam Weishaupt or thought about him favorably. Yes, Washington was a Mason, but that seems to be the only connection. Many of Washington's letters can be found on-line but a search doesn't reveal that he wrote anything about Weisbaum. But maybe that's what they want us to think! :-) -- Yekrats 15:20, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Althought the Illumanati Band of Brothers were science incorperators, I cant see how they would allow Gaileo to join if they knew he had a faith in him
needs more on this character Weisbaum. I thought it was Weishopt? 69.195.36.213 17:06, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No mention of pop fiction which contains illuminati references? Like Angels and Demons by Dan Brown?
The Illuminati are very real, and are currently manipulating the world toward a New World Order based upon Draconian beliefs. I wish it weren't true, but I can't deny reality, history or my own experience. For proof that the Illuminati exist and that the New World Order is a very real threat, refer to Prison Planet, www.infowars.com infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used Infowars], and Propganda Matrix Since most of this information is difficult for most people to swallow, I would suggest beginning with 9/11, the Road to Tyranny--Alex Jones' excellent film on government-sponsored terrorism. You can see it for free at 9/11, the Road to Tyranny. Truth is indeed far stranger, but also far more realistic than fiction. This is the way governments always behaved throughout history, except for a few rare exceptions. It is a delusion to believe that there are not elitist royals controlling as much as they can today. - 129.173.208.188 ( Talk) 09:39, September 9, 2004
Your conspiratorial content may be edited out and treated as spam here. The wiki link on my Userpage will welcome that content though Conwiki 04:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
AFAIK, the Bavarian Illuminati were inclined very much towards the ideals of enlightenment, and this was one of the reasons for their direct conflict with the contemporary Rosicrucians (more specifically: the "Orden des Gold- und Rosen-Kreutzes"), who were deep into Christian mystics. This conflict should at least be mentioned.
The decline of the B.I. is also said to have been favoured by the rise to power of the RCs in Prussia. I'll have to look up the sources, but Schiller's novel "Der Geisterseher" is probably based on events that actually took place in Berlin around 1784.
Suggested reading: Karl Frick, "Die Erleuchteten" -- a work generally considered as the product of serious scholarship. I'll search out the ISBN.
-- flaig@sanctacaris.net (Chevalier Dr. Dr. Ruediger Marcus Flaig, Heidelberg Univ.)
-- I also did find no reason to have these two section here, explicating what Rosicrucians and Martinist are:
I suppressed both sections, and simply placed a link to Rosicrucianism and to Martinism in the introductory section, where they seem (IMMO) more appropriate. -- Gco 09:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Are we agreed that "Illuminati-esque" organizations that are not called anything like "Illuminati" do not belong in this article, and should instead be put into secret society or something of the sort? An anon user has added Revenge of the Sith and Metal Gear Solid references twice, though the organizations involved are not named "the Illuminati" and have no connection to the historical Illuminati besides being secret societies or conspiracies. DenisMoskowitz 23:09, 2005 August 17 (UTC)
'No Purpose No Design' Song by the Artist 'Meat Beat Manifesto' has some reference to Bavarian Illuminati.
Like WHAT reference? And who are you? Add your name and what the hellin' reference ya talkin' 'bout?-- OleMurder 19:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay, that's jolly good. How come nearly all of the "... in Popular Culture" sections of the Louvre, Leonardo da Vinci, Rosslyn Chapel, etc. are full of information about Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, but the first Robert Langdon book, Angels and Demons, has no mention whatsoever in this article, where the Bavarian Illuminati is the main subject of the book. -- Robin Kerrison 20:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
edit: Oh, it reads much better than the other day! Thanks people!
original: The Illuminati entry is silly, unrealistic, and spotted heavily with misinformation. It should just be replaced with something less fantasy-filled. -- D24 19:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Timothy LaHaye apparently thinks that the Illuminati exist. I don't think that this is relevant to the Illuminati article.
For one, the current presentation is overly verbose - all we really need to convey the information is " Timothy LaHaye has been quoted as saying that the Illuminati are a currently existing evil organization". But that's not an important addition to the article on the Illuminati - if the Pope said something like that, it still doesn't belong here because it doesn't add to our knowledge about the Illuminati, only about the speaker.
Now if LaHaye was to write a non-fiction book about the Illuminati, I could see mentioning it. (Fictional books already have a place in the article.) But there's no new information in this single quote, and it doesn't belong in this article.
If no-one responds to this, I'll assume that I'm generally agreed with and continue reverting this addition. DenisMoskowitz 19:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I recently watched BBC's "Revealing Angels and Demons". I don't take secret societies even nearly that serious, but one thing crossed my mind. When the name "Illuminati" was discussed, they told that people often translate it as "enlightened", although illuminati themselves claim that the name means "light bearers". Was it left to ourselves to figure, or was it just because nobody in BBC noticed that, put out other way, "light bearer" translates into "Lucifer". (check the lucifer quote in wikipedia).
It is shame humanity has come to this. Lying governments, secret societies, it's all a terrible mess. What on earth can save us now?
I would like to request some heavy editing of this article. My suggestion would be to add more biographical information on Adam Weishaupt and a lot more information on the actual beliefs and philosophical views of the Illuminati - both the Bavarian variant and it precedents and antecedents.
Also I think the article is too colored by the notions of the Illuminati which have been nurtured by the conspiracy theorists. I am thinking of sentences such as the following:
"Groups describing themselves as Illuminati say they have members and chapters (lodges) throughout the world; only time will tell if the Illuminati still exists and if they suceed in taking over the world to establish Satan's New World Order."
This is extremely speculative and it hardly seems fit to include such a statement in a Wikipedia article. From what I've read about Weishaupt's actual views on society it would seem that he represented a kind of proto-social liberalism which, albeit extreme and atheistic in nature, was not necessarily "Satanic" - except possibly in the eyes of Christian fundamentalists.
Please rework this article thoroughly. ( Jonas Liljeström 22:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC))
Found this in the catneeded category. I'm redirecting the entry here (since another name doesn't need another article), but I'm afraid to merge the info in case it's not true. If it is verifiable, someone please merge it:
NickelShoe 20:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that the Alumbrados of Spain is of sufficient historical interest as to warrent their own article. Especially given that Wikipedia supplies a small tome on the history of Superman. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.252.81.211 ( talk • contribs) .
Is the origins section really well-named? Origins of what? It seems to be primarily pre-Bavarian Illuminati groups that called themselves or were called illuminati. Also, where should groups called the illuminati that came after the Bavarian Illuminati go in the article, like James Strang's Society of the Illuminati? Schizombie 08:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I do not know anything about it, but I stumbled upon a deleted paragraph...
I am inserting it a again, as I see no reason on the talk page why this would have been deleted deliberately. — Xiutwel (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
There's a really good explanation for d illuminati in the book 'Angels and demons' by Dan brown.It's a fiction but the Iluminati are described correctly.Fact:I am 13 but i have read the book.It's meant for 18 and above.Hey,but dont call me a prodigy,alrite? diff showing rev as of 10:38, 21 April 2006 by User:59.95.163.75
Was looking for the article on the novel The Illuminati by Larry Burkett. It is listed in the Illuminati (disambiguation) page but redirected to this page.
As the Illuminati appeared
The Illuminati is a millenarian institution, been born in the dawn of history. In its beddings they are specific secrets, forming a society based on the secrecy and the obedience. The system of the illuminated ones was developed by diverse leaders, between them Hassan Sabath (nazarins - 1090), of Bayezid Ansari (roshynaia - 1550), and of the illuminated ones of Weishaupt (1776). Other sets of ten of lesser groups had developed the system illuminati, more or less perfectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.67.129.6 ( talk)
Statements such as "few historians support this view" (re: continued existence of Illuminati) are not terribly academic and come across as an attempt to sway opinion using the projected opinion of vague 'experts' - this statement needs some qualification. Also if you wish to be thorough and objective you should consider possible Illuminati links to the German revolution that fomented in Bavaria following WW1 whose followers named themselves the 'Spartakusbund' - it seems naive not to consider possible connections to the ideology of 'Frater Spartakus' (Weishaupts nickname within his order). Consequently it may be worth considering to what extent the entire Illuminati project comes across as a blueprint for the Republic as well as Communism. Finally, in the course of an analysis of the Bavarian Illuminati, it seems extraordinarily naive to fail to take into account the fact that the Illuminati were a SECRET society. The continued existence of the order, its true motives, nature and activities are all to often subject to knee-jerk dismissal by pseudo-authorities who frequently ignore not only the complexity of the subject, but also the core characteristic of the order they are investigating. Sometimes one does need to think outside the box. 10/08/2006
There is no information in the article on how to apply.
Masterhomer
06:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggested a merge incoming article " Order of Illuminati" is same info about the Bevarian Order --- with no source on the incoming article I propose to just delete it altoghether and redirect people here, unless anyone can salvage anything useful out of it ? Goldenrowley 03:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm a bit puzzled by this section:
About the time that the Illuminati were outlawed in Bavaria, the Roman Catholic Church prohibited its members from joining Masonic lodges, on pain of excommunication. This was done as a general edict, since the Church believed many lodges to have been infiltrated and subverted by the Illuminati, but was not able to accurately ascertain which ones.
Not only is there no citation on this, Ratzinger's quote says nothing about the Illuminati, and the original edict against Freemasonry (see here) dates from 1736, forty years before the Illuminati existed. Therefore, are thre any objections to removal of the above statement, as well as Ratzinger's statement, which is really irrelevant anyway? MSJapan 18:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
What a bunch of speculation this article is.
Incidently there are any number of reliable source about the Bavarian Illuminati so that a perfectly sober article about them can be written, compare de:Illuminatenorden.
As the conspiracy theorists will never stop to put their version on this page, I suggest splitting off Bavarian Illuminati for the historical facts.
Pjacobi 09:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
What (the devil) is "mopery with intent to gawk"? Does this mean something of is it vandalism? Billlion 13:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I perceive illuminati, plutocrat, oligarch, as having largely overlapping definitions. Does anyone agree?
Thank You.
[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 04:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I've removed material pasted in by 72.64.159.98 at 19:21, October 6, 2006, from Cosmic Trigger I: Final Secret of the Illuminati by Robert Anton Wilson that unfortunately lasted for a while in the history without anyone catching it. Luckily, it remained in two discrete paragraphs in the "Origins" section, so I was able to just remove that and leave the rest of the revised content on top. Here is the history, for the purposes of fulfilling the GFDL. Of course, administrators can view the deleted revisions if necessary. -- Slowking Man 11:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
15:36, December 5, 2006 210.1.71.3 (→The Bavarian Illuminati) 12:12, December 2, 2006 Differentgravy m 02:42, December 2, 2006 86.13.229.158 (→See also) 23:34, December 1, 2006 Jayvdb m (rv unrelated wikilink by 216.68.66.25) 21:34, December 1, 2006 216.68.66.25 12:50, November 29, 2006 RussBot m (Robot-assisted fixing links to disambiguation page (you can help!): Jacobin) 01:45, November 29, 2006 202.56.233.131 (→The Bavarian Illuminati) 14:24, November 28, 2006 David.Monniaux (→External links - rm irrelevant video) 03:03, November 27, 2006 BorgQueen m (Reverted edits by 68.0.115.19 (talk) to last version by BorgQueen) 01:48, November 27, 2006 68.0.115.19 (→Rosicrucians) 10:24, November 26, 2006 BorgQueen m (Reverted edits by 69.158.6.103 (talk) to last version by 69.120.56.27) 10:24, November 26, 2006 69.158.6.103 (→Rosicrucians) 10:23, November 26, 2006 69.158.6.103 (→Rosicrucians) 19:47, November 25, 2006 69.120.56.27 (→External links - - deleted two non-Illuminati links) 11:35, November 25, 2006 Kmweber m (Reverted edits by 72.83.162.234 to last version by Acjihlanfeldt) 11:35, November 25, 2006 72.83.162.234 11:04, November 25, 2006 Acjihlanfeldt 12:27, November 22, 2006 XDev m (→External links - Got rid of the link to the couple of chapters of Robison's book; it was redundant in light of the whole book being recently scanned and posted online.) 09:44, November 21, 2006 BorgQueen (→See also - remove link to a deleted article - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arizona Wilder) 08:24, November 21, 2006 Bdevoe (→Origins - Changed 'unsubstantial' to 'unsubstantiated' and verb/noun agreement) 04:54, November 20, 2006 Buddah178 m 16:06, November 18, 2006 63.249.108.58 (→External links) 13:10, November 18, 2006 ST47 m (Reverted 1 edits by 83.108.159.179 (talk) to last revision (88665682) by MSJapan using VP2) 13:10, November 18, 2006 83.108.159.179 (→External links) 11:41, November 18, 2006 MSJapan (rv. A novel is not really credible as a "See Also" article.) 10:33, November 18, 2006 81.152.165.149 (→See also) 14:41, November 16, 2006 AntiVandalBot m (BOT - rv 195.93.21.40 (talk) to last version by Polenth) 14:41, November 16, 2006 195.93.21.40 (Replacing page with 'Illuminati is defeated by Jesus Christ!') 21:31, November 15, 2006 Polenth m (→Origins - Repairing alchemist disambig link.) 03:29, November 12, 2006 86.142.109.13 14:49, November 10, 2006 AntiVandalBot m (BOT - rv 75.51.6.103 (talk) to last version by JFreeman) 14:49, November 10, 2006 75.51.6.103 (→The Bavarian Illuminati) 07:54, November 7, 2006 JFreeman m (Reverted edits by 142.227.224.199 to last version by Bubba hotep) 07:52, November 7, 2006 142.227.224.199 (→See also) 07:51, November 7, 2006 142.227.224.199 (→Cultural effect) 07:51, November 7, 2006 Bubba hotep (Reverted edits by 142.227.224.199 to version 86286120 by AntiVandalBot) 07:50, November 7, 2006 142.227.224.199 (→Martinists) 07:49, November 7, 2006 AntiVandalBot m (BOT - rv 142.227.224.199 (talk) to last version by Hello32020) 07:49, November 7, 2006 142.227.224.199 (→Origins) 07:48, November 7, 2006 Hello32020 m (Reverted 2 edits by 142.227.224.199 (talk) to last revision (86203644) by Bakilas using VP) 07:47, November 7, 2006 142.227.224.199 (→Cultural effect) 07:47, November 7, 2006 142.227.224.199 (→History) 20:04, November 6, 2006 Bakilas m (→See also) 01:33, November 6, 2006 Nevit (→Origins) 17:12, November 5, 2006 213.130.141.80 (→External links) 13:43, November 5, 2006 JoshuaZ m (Reverted edits by 88.109.224.44 (talk) to last version by 203.164.97.18) 12:39, November 5, 2006 88.109.224.44 (→Origins) 18:52, November 4, 2006 203.164.97.18 ('Believed to' is enough. No need to second-guess twice.) 01:09, November 4, 2006 JoshuaZ m (Reverted edits by 72.75.61.113 (talk) to last version by 84.72.89.14) 23:34, November 3, 2006 72.75.61.113 (→Origins) 12:58, November 3, 2006 84.72.89.14 (→External links) 05:32, November 3, 2006 Wiki alf m (Revert to revision 85395932 by MTSbot.) 05:29, November 3, 2006 211.28.144.185 (→See also) 18:43, November 2, 2006 MTSbot m (robot Adding: lt) 08:16, October 29, 2006 Lemmus m (→Origins) 22:04, October 27, 2006 Brimba (→See also - rm red links) 22:03, October 27, 2006 Brimba (→See also - rm speculation) 15:59, October 27, 2006 Liberal Freemason (+ {{Link FA|de}}) 09:24, October 26, 2006 201.41.251.242 (→External links) 16:16, October 25, 2006 Redeagle688 m (→External links) 11:34, October 21, 2006 208.19.15.51 (→External links) 17:08, October 20, 2006 Idolater718 (→See also) 17:03, October 20, 2006 Idolater718 (→Origins) 10:48, October 20, 2006 Webucation (→History) 23:39, October 18, 2006 Wiki alf m (Reverted edits by 68.21.245.21 (talk) to last version by AntiVandalBot) 20:54, October 18, 2006 68.21.245.21 (→Cultural effect) 20:52, October 18, 2006 68.21.245.21 (→History) 19:49, October 18, 2006 AntiVandalBot m (BOT - rv 208.114.155.8 (talk) to last version by Shinmawa) 19:49, October 18, 2006 208.114.155.8 (→Cultural effect) 19:48, October 18, 2006 208.114.155.8 (→Cultural effect) 22:41, October 15, 2006 Shinmawa m (Reverted edits by CatastrophicToad to last version by Schaef) 22:35, October 15, 2006 CatastrophicToad m (minor spelling correction) 06:27, October 14, 2006 Schaef (fixed incomplete text link to Emanuel Swedenborg) 19:00, October 12, 2006 Kerowyn (→Origins) 18:58, October 12, 2006 Kerowyn (→History) 18:56, October 12, 2006 Kerowyn (→Origins) 18:52, October 12, 2006 Kerowyn (→Origins) 16:41, October 12, 2006 199.74.70.155 (→Origins) 09:22, October 12, 2006 Rory096 m (whitespace) 04:32, October 12, 2006 66.226.32.195 (→Origins) 17:23, October 11, 2006 82.34.131.221 (→Origins) 17:22, October 11, 2006 82.34.131.221 (→Origins) 16:17, October 11, 2006 142.231.69.45 (→Origins) 20:39, October 10, 2006 XDev m (→External links - erased a link that was basically spam and not a resource or substantial in any way; added another one that is considerably researched) 16:36, October 10, 2006 69.33.44.226 15:30, October 10, 2006 146.7.112.10 (→Origins) 09:57, October 10, 2006 69.254.65.58 (→Origins) 14:49, October 9, 2006 Shadowlynk (Revert to revision 80458867 dated 2006-10-09 18:47:50 by Mydoghasworms using popups) 14:48, October 9, 2006 68.148.180.147 10:47, October 9, 2006 Mydoghasworms 09:21, October 8, 2006 67.15.76.111 05:43, October 8, 2006 Mackensen (→See also - rm link to deleted article)
18:16UT, 12/12/06: Sadly, it seems that someone has deleted and replaced the entire article with a short flame/rant. Just as sadly, I'm not terribly well-informed on the history of the group (which is why I was viewing the page), so I can't help much other than to flag it as Non-Compliant (which I've already done). Good luck, and I hope this gets fixed soon.--
128.61.54.108
18:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)timberwolf16739
I just reverted an edit which replaced "Illuminati" with lower case "illuminati". I'm not an expert on the subject but I think the capitalizing is appropriate, yes? If I'm wrong and someone has a problem with this, drop me a note on my talk page because I'd like to know. -- Pigman ( talk • contribs) 06:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I am a Free Mason and I will tell you that groups calling themselves the Illuminati did (and posibly stil do) exist, but not reconized by the ruling body of the Free Mason Fraturnity.
The is so main assumptions made in this article it looks like it should be listed in the Wolrd News Daily.
Stop with the hourse shit and only list what is confirmed as factual. (thegrimmling)
Should a video game really be there perhaps somewhere else? Any way if we do add video games we might as well as Deus Ex where the Illuminati try to defeat rogue Illlumianti and conquer the world.
I corrected conspiracy theory--this is not vandalism. The burden of proof lies on YOU to prove your rhetoric as anything more than contemporary folk mythology.
The subject should be treated as nothing more than what it is, Folklore.
Then why is there a mythology category on wikipedia?
The following can be found at conspiracy theory here on wikipedia.
The term "conspiracy theory" is used by mainstream scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with particular methodological flaws. Lojah
--- The entire article is a bad edit with an obvious POV. It's based on unsubstantial accusations by unscholarly resources. A conspiracy theory about the "Illuminati" controlling the world is no more realistic than the belief that Reptiles from another planet control world affairs and it IS mythology at best. You can look up any number of articles on Wikipedia that clearly define the conrtent as folklore and mytholgy, even though some people might believe in it. In it's current form the Illuminati article is on wikipedia simply to perpetuate a nearly religious belief, not to inform with a neutral POV. Lojah 20:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
When correcting a POV, it is not wise, actually counter productive, to "correct" it with a counter POV edit. A counter POV edit does not cancel out a POV edit to make a neutral POV edit. Brentt 00:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
--You know, after reconsidering some of what you've said and re-reading the article, I will mostly concede to your argument at this time. Since I really don’t know exactly how to ‘fix; this article in a few short, concise edits I will try to refrain from criticizing it too directly for its, as you might say ‘horribleness.’ I have to wonder a couple things however; 1, What is the best approach to making this article something worth reading and referencing?—I think the topic is worthy of inclusion, if valid facts and resources other than conspiracy manuals ala the Alex Jones variety are used. And 2, Does in undermine the integrity of Wikipedia to have such an obviously outlandish entry as this Illuminati article on here. Lojah 00:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
--Now that's an idea I really like. Lojah
Novus Ordo Seclorum has nothing to do with 'nonreligious order'. This translation is in accurate. 129.57.9.147 18:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Probably been answered. If the pyramid with an eye isn't some Illuminati or Mason symbol then what the heck is it. Some engraver might be as bored as most of us at work but someone - his boss, etc - over the years would have noticed this thing - but I have never heard anyone say a word about it. 159.105.80.141 19:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)I found the mottos and the Eye of Providence - nothing on the Pyramid. If I had been a Founding Father I would have completely forgotten about cool things like mottos and pyramids and symbols. Secret handshakes etc - these guys sound like too much of a bunch of frat boys to have ever run a country - thankfully the British were even dopier. 159.105.80.141 19:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I have a question about the following line: "About the time that the Illuminati were outlawed in Bavaria, the Roman Catholic Church prohibited its members from joining Masonic lodges, on pain of excommunication." I am not challenging the factual accuracy of this statement (it is somewhat misleading, but is accurate) ... but is there a direct connection? What does the Illuminati being outlawed in Bavaria have to do wtih the RCC banning Freemasonry? If there is a direct connection, we need to state that connection (with proper citation of course)... if there is no connection, we should probably cut the sentence as being irrelevant. Blueboar 20:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hiya
I noticed this section about the "Illuminati."
I was wondering why it does not mention Suzanne Ward, the writer of the Matthew Books ( http://www.matthewbooks.com)? Her fourth book, "Voices of the Universe" (ISBN: 0-9717875-4-9) has an entire chapter on the Illuminati. WIthin that chapter, she has several references to many "conspiracy theories" including global banking, European royalty, the United Nations, education system, prescription drugs, and so on. She says that the "reptilian civilization" is behind much of this. The also talks about the "Illuminati" in her other three books. The Matthew Books, including thus one, are fairly well known, and have been translated into many different languages around the world.
In addition, in her "messages" on her site ( http://www.matthewbooks.com/mattsmessage.htm), there are several pages talking about the Illuminati including this one: http://www.matthewbooks.com/mm/anmviewer.asp?a=45&z=2 Doing a quick search will find more messages about it.
It would seem that given the popularity of her books and messages, and since she talks about NESARA, that you would have said something about it in your investigation.
Anyways, just wanted to inform you. Thank you.
I think the subsection called "Groups identifying themselves as Illuminati" was a valid subsection and should be returned, especially since some of the groups are specifically mentioned in the article. I noticed that the O.T.O. has a long list of groups referenced in its article. I am sure there are others.
I realize that one of groups was apparently a blog site, but the Orden Illuminati and The Illuminati Order are actual groups that have been around for years. They are established claimants.
The reason given for the section's removal was: "The 'groups' links are nothing but advertising, and there's nothing notable about any of them." The last part is just one person's opinion with which I obviously disagree, but the first...is not all of this "advertising"? That is, is not the purpose of Wikipedia to "make generally known" a vast array of information? Neither of the sites referenced above are pay sites or openly selling anything.
I reviewed WP:EL. The first item under "What should be linked" says, "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." This is an article about an organization. When one tries to view a Wikipedia article of the Bavarian Illuminati or The Illuminati Order, one is redirected to this article. Since the two groups mentioned above do not have their own Wikipedia article, I think it makes sense to include them (and any other valid groups) in the External Links of this article.
JustMe1776
14:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Never. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.41.245.249 ( talk)
I'm not a member of anything. But you are a vandal. IPSOS ( talk) 14:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The Illuminati is a follower of Adam Weishaupt or Aleyster Crowley? Or follows the founder Weishaupt or follows a liar Crowley?
Don't exclude my texts or alterations. Is my right! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.41.224.91 ( talk)
16 July 2007 (UTC)
claiming… illuminati article. These people cannot be cited, therefore they are it are of the context. They are satanists and atheists, but not illuminati. Veriter 22:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I go to exclude this text to improve Veriter 22:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
This article cannot be in the project atheism, therefore the founder Adam Weishaupt, and the original Order (Bavarian) was not atheistic nor satanist. Veriter 22:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Exclude claiming.... fraudulent organizations.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Veriter ( talk • contribs)
visit the website Ofalli.square.site 2601:5CB:C200:FB20:6451:156C:AB3E:F37E ( talk) 19:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)