Talk:Illuminati

Archived

Archive of the discussion page can be found at.

• Talk:Illuminati/Archive1

Gavin Scott 14:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The need for inline citations

While this article is referenced, without any inline citations or text attributions it is impossible to know which statements are backed by which sources. This is especially true in the case of some of the more "controvercial" statements and quotes. For example: there is a quote from Thomas Jefferson that simply crys out for a direct citation to where he said it, or at least to a book that claims he said it. To highlight the issue, I am going to "mess up" the article by placing a citation request tag where I think a direct citation is needed. I will probably get a few people screaming at me that I have overdone it... and if so, I appoligize ahead of time. I realize that this makes the article look ugly... but I am doing this in good faith to highlight what I see as a serious problem with this article. Blueboar 22:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. You've been doing good work on the article. Thanks! IPSOS (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Factual Dispute

23/08/07 - Alex I am not saying for one moment that I am an expert on the Illuminati,however I have just finished writing a paper for my PHD on them. I went away from the usual references and started from scratch. I had doubts before I started about the time frames. I found references in symbol form that the illuminati or the idea there of date back to 1600's. Now then for the interesting twist, I also read some fiction novels on the subject namely Dan Brown's angels and demons. I wrote to the publisher to find out if there was any fact in the book and they said alot of the information came from various sources and not all of it is fiction. So I started investigating certain pieces of information. It is indeed true that a group of scientists in the 1600's did start a free thinking society that was heavy criticised by the Vatican. They were known as the 'Enlightened Ones'. The So called Bavarian Illuminati was actually a trade union of sorts and has more links to the Masons than the Illuminati. If you visit Ingolstadt you will find in the city museum alot of their early records. People will rave on about the Illuminati for years and it is very easy to speculate in the modern day that the Oil, Industry and Political cartels are trying to form a new world order and therefore are the Illuminati, let us not forget the Bilderbergs and the Rothchilds. If they really exsist today then they are not getting very far with their plans. As Gavin mentioned below those authors have written some fantastic books on the history side of things, however my only concern is that there maybe a certain poetic licence at work to make the books sellable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.64.197.117 (talk) 08:42, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

There are many, many groups that pre-date the Illuminati but have been "tied" to them by various sources (Rosicrucians, Knights Templar, Catharism, various Qabalistic sects) The problem is that the term "Illuminati", as far as I've been able to determine, really originated as a proper term for a group with the Bavarian group and Adam Weishaupt. Even the Alumbrados (who were stamped out during the Inquisition) & Illuminés who bear similar names really bear nothing in common with the Bavarian order and have no clear historical conection; other than some authors trying to tie them together because of the names, the term "Illuminati" isn't one normally used for those similarly named groups. Calling other "freethinker" groups and movements who came out of the Renaissance or the Enlightenment periods "Illuminati" would be original research. Furthermore, I wouldn't call the Bavarian Illuminati a trade union as much as a radical anti-monarchical/ anti-religious establishment group of deistic anarchists who wanted to overthrow the establishment and set up a new form of government more akin to what would later be expounded upon as "Communism" by Karl Marx. Weishaupt and his fellow conspirators were just 100+ years too early to see their dreams realized.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, as raised before, there are no references here anywhere despite extraordinary claims. This article needs some serious work. Gavin Scott 14:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Much if it won't be that difficult to source... but before I go around getting my books back from people I lent them to and digging through for page numbers etc, does anyone object to citing Neal Wilgus, Robert Anton Wilson, or Seth Payson... at least for the historical aspect (I don't want to get into the claims of continued existence). I don't want to go through all the leg work of getting my books back if it is just going to be a edit war over these being reliable sources.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Isotope, I am not familiar with these authors, so I can not pass judgement on whether they are reliable or not. The fact that you feel the need to ask about them makes me suspect that they are perhaps marginal (?) ... then again, I could be wrong. Could you tell us something about each author and tell us why they are (or are not) reliable?

(FYI... I tend to be a "direct attribution is OK" kind of person when it comes to stuff like the illuminati claims. As long as things are phraised as: "According to Author A, the illuminati are the secret masters of the Universe. <ref to page in Author A's book that says this>," I rarely have a problem with mentioning it.) Blueboar 18:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd call them marginal. Maybe I've just been observing way too many disputes lately over content that I think is largely not grounds for dispute, and that is why I'm asking before I go through the trouble of trying to retrieve my books. You can Google Neal Wilgus; he wrote a book called The Illuminoids. Robert Anton Wilson is mentioned on this article and has written some decent information about the Bavarian Illuminati; Payson wrote Proof of the Illuminati which contains some good historical information (and incidentally was written in 1802; fairly soon after the demise of the historical group). The problem with sourcing the historical parts of the article is finding sources that don't get into "they still exist and they are out to GET YOU". There is so much conspiracy theorism about this topic that it is hard to find authors who tackle the topic without extending it out into speculation.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL... I know what you mean about finding neutral (non-conspiracy theory) historical accounts. I guess it comes down to this... since you know the sources better than I do, if you think they are reliable go ahead and cite them (it is better than not having anything cited.) If someone with even better sources comes along, we can always re-write. Blueboar 18:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. It will probably take a while for me to get my books back though. The people I lent them to are as liable to be hiding in an underground bunker with tin-foil hats on as not... kidding aside it is very hard to get someone to return your phone calls when they think the government is tapping their phone because they visited Alex Jones's website. I'll see how quick I can get my stuff back and start adding cites. If someone wants to replace them, that is fine.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sure this article isn't going anywhere anytime soon. While it may be a mess and need a lot of work, the subject matter is clearly notable and worthy of having an article. The point of this is to make it a better article. Blueboar 19:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed... I'm all for that.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible Split?

Should this article be split into Bavarian Illuminati and Illuminati (conspiracy)? This would make it easier to deal with the two very separate issues. One is factual and definite sources of it agree and another is as stated a conspiracy which is harder to cite reliable references for. Besides, they are two separate organizations. Thoughts? Gavin Scott 08:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that (according to the conspiracy theorists, at least) they aren't two seperate organizations. In some ways the whole point of the conspiracy stuff is the allegation that the Bavarian Illuminati simply went underground and still exists. Any article on the historical organization has to at least mention the existance of this allegation.

That said, I could see an article on the historical group that includes a brief summary of the conspiracy stuff and a prominent link to a more complete article on the conspiracy theories. Blueboar 13:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly! I think thats the best way. Gavin Scott 13:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I would fully support that; though as Blueboar (talk · contribs) has said this may prove contentious. Still, a DAB here to 2 articles is a better way to go about it in my opinion. Actually this is somewhat how New World Order is laid out.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if we are going to split, we would need three articles... one for the Conspiracy theories, one for the historic Bavarian Illuminati, and a third for the various modern re-creations and groups claiming the mantle of the historic group. All three overlap and should be heavily linked, but all three could be justified in having their own articles. Blueboar 14:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Are any of the modern groups notable enough to need an article at this time? DenisMoskowitz 14:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The only reservation I have about a 3rd article about "modern" Illuminati groups is as Denis queried, "are they notable"? Oh, and I wouldn't want to see it turn into a situation like what is currently happening with the "modern" Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn sub articles where a individuals with a conflict of interest getting into a pissing match over notability of their own and competing organizations. At that point it nearly becomes more trouble than it is worth to have articles about marginal groups.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thus my hesitancy to start creating multiple articles. I agree that it can be done, but do we really want to do so? Does it create more headaches than it is worth? Blueboar 15:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Bavarian Illuminati and Illuminati (conspiracy) would necessarily create more problems than the current one article. The current article doesn't only mentions "modern" Illuminati briefly and I think it would be fair to fork the post-1790 text intact to Bavarian Illuminati if this were split simply to indicate that there are those who lay claim to being the "inheritors" of the group. That could always be split out at a later date if the section got expanded with enough WP:V info to warrant it. My reservation would be creating a whole new article with new info at this time rather than just splitting and rewording what is currently here.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Modern Incarnations of the Bavarian Illuminati would be included in the Bavarian Illuminati article surely? Like modern antipopes are listed in the Antipope article. There is no need for three articles, only two. Gavin Scott 15:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That adresses my concern: Where to put a mention of the "heirs" to the Bavarian Illuminati. I agree that they are probably not notable enough for more that a short mention, but they do need to be mentioned somewhere (otherwise we get into NPOV arguments and edit wars). So what we are essentially proposing is this: Discussion of the historical group and it's various modern recreations goes under Bavarian Illuminati... discussion of supposition and conspiracy theories go under Illuminati (conspiracy). There will be some overlap and interlinking between the two articles (since the historical group is wrapped up in the conspiracy theories and vise-versa), but the degree of coverage and focus of that coverage will be different and clearly defined. I could live with that. Blueboar 17:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it would really improve the quality of Wiki's coverage of the Illuminati and it seems natural to me anyway, just about doing it now isn't it. Gavin Scott 17:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave it to you then... I really just got involved in this article in an attempt to prod people to improve the citations and references. I have a layman's knowledge of the subject (as an editor of articles related to Masonic History, I can not help but gain some degree of familiarity with the Illuminati... if only as far as the two orgs are related in the minds of conspiracy theorists), but that knowledge is not enough to make major contributions. Good luck Blueboar 17:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)