Talk:Illuminati/Archive 6

Additional information needed

I suggest that the editors of this page (I currently cannot edit as a new user, plus this article is protected) read the book, 'Perfectibilists' by Terry Melanson who tackles the Illuminati from a respectible and historical approach, talks in great detail after having sifted through dusty documents for hours about their actual rituals, ideals, founding, fall and members that are genuinely known to have been recorded in documents. This book contains a lot of facts that this page is missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordyorae (talk • contribs) 11:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not quite sure a book written by the manager of a website called the Illuminati conspiracy archive and published by a self-admitted publisher of "conspiracy theory books" qualifies as a reliable source on this subject. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Well if you're "not quite sure," that's a problem then. Christopher L. Hodapp, the esteemed Freemasonic author (who is referenced numerous times at Wikipedia) was "not quite sure" either. However, he reluctantly had to be honest about the book (see first review at Amazon). Further, Melanson is a well-known anti-mason, so for such a Freemason to recommend the work - who has indeed studied the era to which we speak, is a skeptic, and has written standard texts on secret societies and "conspiracy theories" - is high praise indeed.

Quote: "Possibly the most important English language work on the Bavarian Illuminati ever published to date. Based on documentation translated from French and German sources, Melanson keeps hysteria and paranoia to a minimum and provides an incredible reference work that outlines the history of the Order and its far-reaching cast of characters. Researched, footnoted and sourced in great detail, with documents never seen in English. [...] I disagree strongly with Melanson's website on a regular basis ... But The Perfectibilists does not engage in the hysterics of that website. Melanson has produced a solid work of scholarship, and he is to be commended."

In fact, 'Perfectibilists' is the only monograph ever produced on the Order in English. Stauffer's thesis dedicated only one chapter to the Illuminati-proper. The rest tackled the various conspiracy theories rampant in America at the time.

Anyone who is at all familiar with the Illuminati knows that Melanson does not mess around when it comes to this subject, and never has. He is the only Anglophone author in the entire world who actually produces scholarly work on the Bavarian Illuminati. Period. XDev (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Um... I note you only quote the first paragraph of Hodapp's review. The rest of it was a bit more guarded. The book can probably be used as a source in this article... but I would use it with attribution ("According to author Terry Melanson...") Material taken from it should be hedged as being opinion and not stated as 100% accepted fact. Blueboar (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

First and last para (actually). But by all means, preface it with "according." But do follow the source of the citation itself - e.g. "According to Melanson, who cited Illuminati experts Le Forestier and Hermann Schuttler" (or something to that effect).

Contact the author himself. He is more than willing to send out copies for free to anyone who desires, and has done so on numerous occasions.

In the meantime, it should be included in the "references" section. XDev (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, we would not include it in the "references" unless we actually took information from it (which, right now, we don't)... however, we could include it in a "further reading" section. Blueboar (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You don't take info from Le Forestier, Hermann Schuttler, Bergquist et al., Leopold Engel, Alexander Gordon, Massimo Introvigne, Reinhold Markner, Monica Neugebauer-Wölk, Mounier (only mentioning that his book exists) - but they are included in the "references." Frankly, if you did actually use those sources - especially Le Forestier, Engel, and Schuttler - you'd actually have a factual and informative article. XDev (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see what the problem is... the section titles are mis-nomered. Usually, Wikipedia applies the term "References" only to those sources that are actually used as citations in the article. Other sources that are worth reading, but were not used as citations in the article are normally listed under either "Further reading" (or "Additional sources", or "Bibliography", etc.) or "External links" (if they are on-line).

I have edited the section titles to conform to Wikipedia norms ("Notes" --> "References", and "References --> "Further reading"). Hope this helps. Blueboar (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Errors in the article

- "The movement was founded." "Movement" is repeated a few more times as well. It was not a "movement." It was a secret society in the strictest sense of the word. Most people didn't even know that it existed until they were exposed.

- "Originally Weishaupt had planned the order to be named the 'Perfectibilists'." Actually Weishaupt did in fact call it Perfectibilists but changed it almost immediately after to Illuminaten-Orden, at the request of his cohorts.

- "During the period when the Illuminati were legally allowed to operate." Preposterous. The Illuminati were never "legally allowed to operate." No one gave them sanction as they did for Freemasonry. The Illuminati were secret from its inception, and thus totally "illegal."

- The March 2, 1785 edict was apparently a "deathblow to the Illuminati in Bavaria." Nothing apparent about that. In fact, it was only the second in the series of Edicts against them. The next occurred August 16, 1787 (Perfectibilists, p. 39 [quoting the edict itself and translating it from Le Forestier]). The fourth and final was on November 15, 1790 (Perfectibilists, p. 56 [Le Forestier translation and citation]). There was never a "deathblow," really. The third edict proposed the death penalty for those who continued to recruit, and the 1790 one repeated the threat. In general, they petered out, but continued in a different form under the leadership of J. J. C. Bode until his death in December 1793. Half-hearted attempts at some continuity persisted, however. In the words of scholar Jan A.M. Snoek: "When Bode died in 1793, Reinhold took over. The Order was now re-christened the ‘Bund des Einverständnisses’ [or Einverstandenen]. Together with Schröder, Herder, Goethe, Hufeland and others, Reinhold continued the reform-project, which eventually resulted in the famous Schröder Ritual of 1801, which was of great influence on German freemasonry. Schröder’s ‘Engbund’, which continued until 1868, can be regarded as the last continuation of the original Order of the Bavarian Illuminati."

- "Between 1787 and 1789 Augustin Barruel's Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism and John Robison's Proofs of a Conspiracy both publicized" Umm ... that would be 1797 and 1798. - XDev (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed the dates for Barruel and Robison...

I agree that the original Bavarian Illuminati was an "order" or "society"... however, that order inspired others (after it was shut down). It was the inspiration for a whole range of imitations. In that sense, I think it may be appropriate to use the term "movement". (ie when discussing the original Illuminati, we should indeed use the term "order", but perhaps we could use "movement" in discussions of what came after it.) Blueboar (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You are coming close to the "no original research" faux pas. Find me a couple of sources - authoritative or otherwise - that call the secret society of the Order of the Illuminati (or its subsequent followers) a "movement." Further, this "illuminism" business - that was indeed a "movement." However, it was diametrically opposed to everything that the Order of the Illuminati were all about. Scholars have specialized in it since at least the 1920s. Illuminism was a mystical movement (from the 1760s to around 1830) represented by martinists, rosicrucians, alchemists, pietists and mesmerists; doctrines espoused by Karl von Eckartshausen (1752-1803), Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772), Antoine-Joseph Pernety (1716-1796), Martinez de Pasqually (1727-1774), Franz Anton Mesmer (1734-1815), Louis Claude de Saint-Martin (1743-1803), Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821), Franz Xaver von Baader (1765-1841), Baron von Kirchberger de Liebisdorf (1739-1799), Jean-Baptiste Willermoz (1730-1824) and Landgrave Karl von Hessen-Kassel (1744-1836). Barruel and Robison conflated the two, naturally, and confusion has reigned ever since. XDev (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Doncoff, 14 July 2011

hi i just wanted to ask if you knew that the illuminati like to spell important messages backwords. I ask this because i have heard this and many other interesting things about the illuminati from a friend and he showed me something which is really disturbing. What he showed me is that when you type in www.itanimulli.com (which if you cant allready tell is illuminati backwards)it takes you to www.nsa.gov which is the United States national security agencys site (if you dont beleive me try it yourself),but you wouldnt know unless you specifically typed that domain name in, then instead of www.itanimulli.com it is www.nsa.gov. I was completely speachless when i saw this. THERE IS NO WAY THIS IS A COINCIDENCE. The only explination for it is that the illuminati is real and is in control of our country(and no doubt others to). I really hope you read this because this is something that the people need to know. I do beleive that the illuminati still exists and is probablly in controll of more of the crap that goes on in the world then any of us will ever know. Thank you for your time and i hope this helps in some way.

Doncoff (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. "I heard it from a friend" is not a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)