Talk:Illuminati/Archive 5

Introduction

There is no reason to use the word fiction. Why not say 'speculation' or 'theory' for things unknown? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.101.135 (talk) 10:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

We use the word fiction because the Illuminati appear in works of fiction... such as Dan Brown's Angels and Demons or in the Laura Croft - Tomb Raider movie. We are not talking about the various speculations or theories concerning the Illuminati when we use this word. Blueboar (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This bottom sentence is clearly an edit but why does wikipedia have the wrong founder? The founder of the illuminati was Galileo not Adam Weishaupt, he was only a member at the time with several other and Galileo as their head —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.158.154 (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! You have just completed the first step in creating a successful conspiracy theory... disregarding pesky details like dates. Never mind the fact that Galileo died in 1642 while Weishaupt was not born until 1748... never mind that this means your statement that "Weishaupt was only a member" at the time that "Galileo was their head" is flawed. Never let facts get in the way of a good theory! Now you can expand on your theory... For example, Leonardo da Vinci needs to be incorporated into your thinking. He makes a much better founder than Galileo. Better yet, try to push your founding back to Jacques de Molay... then you can tie in the Templars and the Freemasons. Caution, however, trying to push it too far back (like claiming that the Illuminati was founded by Joseph of Arimathea in order to protect the child of Jesus and Mary Magdalen) will just get you branded as a nut job.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia does have to pay attention to pesky facts, and to what reliable sources say. Blueboar (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

current group that call themselves the Illuminati

There's no evidence at present that The Illuminati Order Homepage, Official website of The Illuminati Order, or Orden Illuminati Consejo Central México are anything more than webpages, nor evidence that they're notable in any way. Delete? Шизомби (talk) 05:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the real illuinati disbanded, so there really just hoax's. Liam Robson ( L-ROB) 02:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The various modern groups that call themselves Illuminati are definitely not hoaxes... they are real attempts to recreate the historical Illuminati (or what they think was the historical illuminati). Many of these groups honestly believe that they are direct decendants of the historical group... others admit to being self-created, but believe in what the historical Illuminati stood for. Yes, there are some that are in it for purely monitery motives (join the "Mystic Rosecrucian Order of Illuminati" and I'll send you my pamphlet revealing the secrets of the ages... just $19.95... plus shipping and handelling)... I have done my best to weed out the latter.

As for notability, please note that we are talking about three citations. Notability does not apply to citations. The websites in question are cited to back the claim that modern groups that use the name Illuminati exist. Used in that context they are appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with you there, about notability not applying to citations. Will have to check what Wikipedia says on this subject. The mere existence of a webpage claiming to be revival of the Illuminati does not establish that there really is such a group, that's part of the problem with regard to the notability; anybody could create such a page. I think there may be some other ones over the years that have some notability, though. Шизомби (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, we are not claiming that these groups are in any way notable, or legitimate. We are mearly stating that there are modern groups that use the name (and these groups do). The websites listed in the citation do verify this statement (in that the websites point to a group that uses the name). That said, if you can find better examples to use, I would have no problem with adding to, or even replacing the examples given. Blueboar (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd argue we are saying they're legitimate(ly) groups and I don't see strong evidence that they are anything more than webpages. One better example that comes to mind is Engel's attempt at reviving the Illuminati. I'll have to dig out my old amateur research on the subject. Шизомби (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the OTO's use of the Latin word for "Enlightened" as one of its grades constitutes a connection to the Bavarian Illuminati, or "modern groups calling themselves Illuminati". The purpose of the OTO is to attain enlightenment. Hence, the name of the grade. KBlackthorne (talk) 06:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)KBlackthorne

Agreed, not sure who added that. Some is made of Crowley's Journal of Scientific Illuminism, but I'm quite certain that besides those rather weak connections that the OTO has actually claimed some kind of actual connection, but somebody would have to find the source(s). And I still don't think the online "groups" i.e. self-published webpages merit inclusion. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... well, according to this source, OTO does claim a direct connection to the Bavarian Illuminati. Don't know if the source would pass RS, but it is from someone directly connected to OTO. Blueboar (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It might do, but I'd prefer to see a better one. I think the 1912 document it refers to is something I've actually seen, but that was years ago. The A to Z of new religious movements http://books.google.com/books?id=Hq988pEebSAC&pg=PA168 draws a connection too, but it's an awfully goofy entry. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Page semi-protected again

FYI, given the on going vandalism (some POV, some just nonsense), I requested an indefinite semi-protect. We didn't quite get indefinite... but at least we have a long term respite... 6 months of peace (be allert in March of next year). Blueboar (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

which means in 6 months...? Sfjin (talk) 12:39, 1 May 2010 [UTC)

Well, after 6 months the page was unlocked, and as expected the vandalism returned... it is now again semi-protected (for a year this time). Given the history of the page, I expect that the same thing will happen when the current protection is lifted. Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I am The Illuminati, i am the new world order fear my wrath 2012 is my year to.... do something... GOOD for mankind —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.32.158 (talk) 04:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Disputing use of word thoerists to describe conspiracy theorists and political agitators (very different)

"Theorists have claimed that many notable people were or are members of the Illuminati, including Winston Churchill, the Bush family,[10] Barack Obama, [11] the Rothschild family,[12] David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski." Including Rush Limbaugh as a "theorist" is stretching the definition, as is the inclusion of the illuminati news, and the "sligthly" tin-foil poweredbyjesus site.

Surely it is a little misleading? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sekfetenmet (talk • contribs) 01:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Not at all misleading... a conspiracy theorist is anyone who theorizes that a conspiracy is taking place (in this case the theory is that the Illuminati exist, that notable people are members, and are conspiring to control events). They come in all shapes and sizes, from all political spectums. Some publish news web pages... others have radio shows... still others write books. They are still conspiracy theorists. Blueboar (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem I have with the statement is that it's only supported by primary sources. The citations do show that there exists writing on the Internet claiming connections between various personalities and the Illuminati, but it doesn't establish whether or not anyone outside of whoever added the citation to Wikipedia has taken notice. Even if it removes the specific example theories, I would prefer the article to use a fact that sources a summary of the various Illuminati connection theories. -Verdatum (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Shortening "conspiracy theorists" to just "theorists" is arguably problematic, as is citing webpages that may have no notability. It might count for something (in the context of this article) if Art Bell or Texe Marrs says Bush is one of the Illuminati, but what really does it matter if "poweredbychrist.homestead.com" does? Шизомби (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The websites like poweredbychrist or rushlimbaughsites that are being used as sources are unworthy. There was some little discussion of this here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_41#notability_in_citations.3F but perhaps it needs to be addressed further. The Modern Illuminati section of the article is predominantly garbage. Шизомби (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

illuminati ficticious? CNBC slip up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYiEYrHuZcY

why would he reference this? It would be a terrible metaphor if not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.242.27 (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Read the opening again... we don't say the Illuminati is fictitious... we say it is a name that refers to several groups, both historical and modern, and both real and fictitious. In other words some illuminati groups are real, while others are fictitious.

Granted, I think the "illuminati" the CNBC guy was talking about is purely in the guy's head... but that's just me. Blueboar (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to tell from such a brief clip, but I suspect he may be using it in the general sense of "Persons affecting or claiming to possess special knowledge or enlightenment on any subject: often used satirically." Шизомби (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The question must be asked, "who is the fellow in this video?"

The group of "Illuminati" often looked upon as fictitious are those believed to be in control of the world via the monetary system, but not in a form of power where they can do what they want absolutely as of 2009. Their goal is to use monetary devices to weaken the people via media, spirituality, wealth, etc., and once in total power either kill a large majority of the population to save the earth from the dangers of over population or to heard the population in an Orwellian manner to serve their subjective greater good.

In the video the gentlemen is grouping the Federal Reserve [USA] with Hank Paulson for creating the economic circumstances of the day. It is commonly believed that the market is not controlled by a select few individuals and that it is free and or mysterious. Based on ancestry {blood lines}, memberships in secret societies [skull and bones for example] and geopolitical position one can arrive at a conclusion that this elite class is being intentionally harmful to a system others deem for the entire people's ownership and responsibility. The people are often referred to as "conspiracy theorists." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.242.27 (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

None of this changes anything about the article ... we correctly say that the Illuminati refers to groups that are both real and fictitions... real, in that a real life group that used the name existed historically (and also that real life groups that use the name currently exist... it does not matter to the article whether there is any actual connection between the two), and fictitious in that some depictions of the Illuminati appear in fiction (Novels, TV shows, etc.). We report that conspiracy theories about the Illuminati exist, and accurately label them as such, but purposely omit trying to prove or disprove whether any theory is "true" or not.

I think it is time to end this particular discussion... This page is for discussing the article... not for proving or disproving things.Blueboar (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Illuminati link

I posted over external links a link to an article about a theory-conspiracy about Illuminati :

http://nexus23.org/warfare/content/view/799/38/

The site does not advertise or promote any stuff , neither it is a blog , but an editor kept to delete the link opening a flame about nothing , I hope that some real administrator will verify the good sense of my action and will allow the link , else will give good reason , not propaganda of the nothing , about the censorship applied on that innocent (demonstrate opposite) link .

Thank you. --Sp4rt4n (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp4rt4n (talk • contribs) 17:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

So- who are these people? I can't tell if they are just a web-hosting service, or a collective of the woo-woo obsessed, or what. They don't strike me as being a reliable source for anything. Mangoe (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sp4rt4n... you may want to take a look at: Wikipedia:EL#Links normally to be avoided... with a quick glance at the link you want to add, I have multiple concerns relating to that guideline. Probably best to leave it out. Blueboar (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Bavarian Gov. published evidence

According to William Guy Car in his book "Satan Prince of This World", he describes how a member of the Illuminati was struck by lightning whilst riding his horse through a town. The Bavarian Gov. found documents on the rider incriminating the order. They had them arrested on grounds they where trying to conduct treasonous activities. The Bavarian gov. subsequently published the findings to the general public. The books Title is stated in "Satan prince of this world". :P yay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.211.155.189 (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Carr was a nut job and is not a reliable source for anything. Blueboar (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:-D I have read that lightning story elsewhere, as well as the government's publishing of the documents. The lightning sounds too poetic to be true, but the docs were published. Maybe come January I can work on improving the article with some reliable sources I had collected pre-internet days that I pulled out of storage. Шизомби (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously dissatisfied with the length!

I just feel there is not much information given in this article, it all revolves around how the conspiracy theorists relate them with New World Order and all. I believe more should be written about THEM and the causes and how they had the downfall and give possible indications of their existence, Lexi lover (talk) 11:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

So fix it. Do some research and add more to the history section. Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Lived By Us Or Not By Us

What if everything that happened in our global history was not a coincidence? What if the world as we know it was someehow governed and controlled by secret beings that we have never seen before, but they somehow control how we think, what we do, how we feel, and what we believe? Are we living through the thoughts of people who consider themselves as an " Elite of the World" or are we, as humans, really living strictly through our very own thoughts? Many strongly believe that the illuminati is a society of evil that created the break-outs of mjor diseases, started the wars, and influenced many other events, but its true intentions are still unknown. Whether or not the Illuminati is real or fictitious is still arguable and very much disputed.Atrerokristina (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)atrerokristina

What if people were paranoid and delusional? Many believe that space aliens secretly rule the world. And since it is obvious that you didn't actually read the article, I'll just note that it explicitly states that the Illuminati were/are both real and fictitious, depending on what claims you are talking about. Blueboar (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 99.69.72.114, 17 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Other rumored members include Jeffrey C Harris.

99.69.72.114 (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SpigotMap 15:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Questioning the inclusion of Barack Obama in the list of suspected Illuminati members

I wandered into the article and was surprised to discover that President Obama was listed in the suspected Illuminati members. I was shocked further to find that the source for the inclusion is a Rush Limbaugh "Themed" site. Taken from the disclaimer at the bottom of the page

The Rush Limbaugh Featured Site is in no way affiliated with Rush Limbaugh, or any venture associated with his TV or Radio Show.

If nobody has any concerns, I'd like to remove the link and President Obama from the list as the source to support this claim is just a simple enthusiast site that does not have Limbaugh's support or endorsement and therefore fails at being a reliable source. If no objections are raised in 2 weeks, I'll make the change. I understand WP:BRD, but prefer to discuss before making a bold change that has the potential to spark an edit war. Hasteur (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please note the context here... the statement is about what conspiracy theorists say about the illuminati. It is a statement as to an opinion, not a statement of fact. In this context, the website supports the statement. We are not saying that these claims have any basis in reality... we are merely reporting that the claims exist and what they are, per WP:NPOV. Blueboar (talk) 05:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

So, to play the devil's advocate, If I make a website claiming Gordon Brown, Dimitri Midevev, and John McCain are illumaniti we can add those names to the list of conspiracy theorist claims as long as they are sourced? The source still fails at being notable (see WP:SPS) Hasteur (talk) 12:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Well... one website is probably not enough... but if multiple conspiracy websites said they were Illuminati we could add them. This is the case with Obama... the claim that he is an Illuminati is actually quite common in conspiracy circles... as a simple google search for Obama Illuminati shows.

We obviously don't want this article to turn into a "list of world leaders who conspiracy nuts claim are Illuminati". The goal here is to give a quick sampling... listing a few of the more prominent names, to show that the claim is made about leaders who are on both the political right and the political left. Listing both Bush and Obama next to each other does this. Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Allowing me to play devil's advocate: the section might as well be called "world figures at least a few crazy people dislike", right? Each of Brown, Medvedev, and McCain has tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of matches on Google tying them to the Illuminati. Perhaps a silly nitpick about a fundamentally silly set of theories, but do we have evidence that the listed individuals are more-frequently considered "members" than other leaders, or is it a sampling bias thing? Joshua McGee (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well... no. The intent of the section isn't to give a list of "world figures that crazy people dislike". The goal of the section is to describe a cultural phenomenon... to note that there are people who believe that the Illuminati still exist, and note that these people believe that certain world figures are members. We then give a few examples... limiting it to the most prominent world figures that the claims are made about. And, to keep the article neutral, we include leaders that come from both sides of the political spectrum.

We may think that these people are crazy... but NPOV demands that we not let that opinion influence what we say in our article. The fact is, these people exist and have certain beliefs... and we can not neutrally discuss the Illuminati as a topic without mentioning them and their beliefs. Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no, sorry -- I needed to be clearer. My point was that any list of people about whom the claims are made could be thus described. As for 'prominence', Brown and Medvedev both rather qualify, from a worldwide perspective, yes?

I don't know the solution to this, but it seems that our sampling, especially when it's influenced by editorial criteria such as "come from both sides of the political spectrum", may be problematic. Might it be better (brainstorming here) to find a document, or documents, distributed amongst believers (book, pamphlet, online FAQ, newsletter, etc.) and directly cite a list included there? In any case, I appreciate everyone's work here, and I'm not trying to knock it, I'm trying to help. :-) Joshua McGee (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the nature of the people who make the claims, I think their websites are enough. However, I could see avoiding making this a list... and instead say something along the lines of:

• ...Conspiracy theorists have claimed that many notable people were or are members of the Illuminati, from notable historical figures such as the the Rothschilds and Rockefellers to modern politicians Gordon Brown and David Cammeron. It is especially common to claim that US Presidents are members (the claim has been made about almost every president, from Washington to Obama).

would this help clarify? Blueboar (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

@Blueboar: I think that's marvelous, and I like your Google search terms. Offering the following for consideration as a modification to your proposed text:

• ...Conspiracy theorists have claimed that many notable people are or were members of the Illuminati, especially the very wealthy (such as the the Rothschilds and Rockefellers) and prominent politicians (such as Dmitry Medvedev, Gordon Brown, and David Cameron.) It is especially common to claim...

Also, can a non-American help identify whether we need to amend this to "It is especially common in the United States to claim that US Presidents are members...", or do American presidents get disproportionate allegations everywhere? I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case, but I'd like to make sure this article maintains a proper global perspective. Joshua McGee (talk) 08:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits by User:Davykamanz

The above user has added a lot of material relating to the various Illuminati conspiracy theories which I have reverted for two reasons: 1) his material was overly detailed... we have separate articles for conspiracy theories and so this article should summarize (briefly) and point to them, rather than go into details. 2) his material seems a bit POV... presenting the conspiracy theories as factual when they are not. I would like to discuss such changes here on the talk page before we add material promoting a fringe POV to a serious article. Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the very detailed edits did not contain a single reliable source, it was proper procedure to remove it all (and that is without going into the very questionable claims made about known pop musicians, and the possibility of BLP violations). --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I have also made recent edits. Why had that been reverted? (WalkingInTheLight2 (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC))

Your contribution history does not show any edits made to this article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)