Talk:Illuminati

Moving old discussions to archives

January - August 2001 move to archive 6 Blueboar (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The main criteria is that the page is too large. Archive 6 is hardly that, and is extremely short if anything. What was your reason for archiving it? --XDev (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}

In Illuminati#Popular culture please change the text Dr. John Coleman to John Coleman per WP:CREDENTIAL.

76.119.90.74 (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done--Jac16888 ^Talk 14:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The was a game put out by Steve Jackson Games called Illuminati. You should add that to the popular culture selection where you speak about movies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.161.165 (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You may want to add this book to the list of novels: The Illuminati by Larry Burkett. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.60.150.250 (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

How do i join the illuminati am a Ugandan male aged 20 help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.43.133.28 (talk) 07:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

To join the Illuminati, you'll need a time machine. The Illuminati was destroyed over two centuries ago, any claims otherwise are paranoid conspiracy theories. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

do your own research as has been done by several people throughout history, the Illuminati does still exist and calling people who know that "paranoid" is not going to hide the truth.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.32.162 (talk • contribs)

Ok, let's pretend that the Illuminati did still exist, and that the other legends about them are true. You think this site wouldn't be under their control, that there wouldn't at least be agents of theirs here, or that they wouldn't be tracking your IP address? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

SUMMARY: Mention of Davis for inclusion in POP CULTURE section of Illuminati page. BODY: Jonathan Davis of rock band Korn claims that Barack Obama is an "...Illuminati puppet..." in December 7, 2011 online media interview. Source: http://www.avclub.com/articles/korns-jonathan-davis-obama-an-illuminati-puppet,66301/ SUBMITTED BY: Alex Kliner, Grad Cert., American University, 2009; BA, Towson University, 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.78.64.154 (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

If you type "itanimulli.com" into your web browser, you are re-directed to the US government's National Security Agency website. "itanimmuli" is "Illuminati" spelled backwards. This should be added to the article. Don't believe me? Try it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.114.161.29 (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Appears to be true - but trivial. Just the NSA having a little joke, I expect. In any case, per WP:OR, we'd have to get this from a published reliable source before we added it. Not that we will. Because it is trivial, and nothing to do with the Illuminati anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} (Sorry If I am not using this correctly) In the summary at the top of Illuminati the reference to the Roman Catholic Church should be removed or reinvestigated as the church's "encouragement" is not mentioned in the cited source. The Catholic church is only referenced historically to movements related to the Illuminati.

Page protected for 1 year

We have tried shorter periods (a month or so), and the instant the protection expires, random IPs around the world begin randomly vandalising the article. I have semi protected for one year, and apologise sincerely to good faith IPs, who will have to use the {{editsemiprotected}} template and make a request on this page to make any edits. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sikh word used erroneously for referring to Muslim fundamentalist

Sikh word is used erroneously as Muslim Fundamentalist in section Popular culture. Sikhs and Muslim follow different religion.Sikhism ad Islam are separate religions.--Ravinder121 (talk) 08:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Be aware that this article does not claim the statement is the truth. It is only verbatim repeating what the conspiracy theorists believe. And they clearly write "Sikhs" in the source, so it is not up to us to interpret that it was a misuse of the term for "Moslems". --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Since Sikhs in the United States are being frequently attacked by random angry people who mistake them for Muslims, without concern or awareness that their religion is a peaceful one, differing fundamentally from any religion that can be accused of responsibility for encouraging terrorism, please consider the respectful suggestion that even if it is "not up to us" to correct a mis-interpretation, it would be responsible and beneficial for you to at least acknowledge in or near the citation that the Sikhism and Islam are separate religions with widely different beliefs, and that confusing them is an error. 172.10.236.215 (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Illuminatius! Trilogy

the section on the modern conspiracy theories starts with:

• Interest in the Illuminati and the assertions that it exists today began after the publication of The Illuminatus! Trilogy, a postmodern science fiction work whose plot prominently featured an Illuminati plot to rule the world.

It was cited to the books themselves. The citation does actually verify what influence the books had or that statement that they sparked an interest in the Illuminati. Given that there have been conspiracy theorists who have talked about the Illuminati since at least the early 1800s, I have marked this statement as dubious. We need a source that actually discusses the books and their influence. Blueboar (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

On second thought... I am going to simply cut the sentence as OR cited to a primary source. Blueboar (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Illuminati and Freemasonry

I am not entirely happy with this edit for several reasons. First of all, leading members of the Bavarian Illuminati for a period of time actually controlled the leading assembly of the German freemasonic lodges and actually caused them to abandon their adherence to the Templar-school of observance. Any history of the Bavarian Illuminati will invariably also be the history of German freemasonry of the period. The two orders were very much interconnected at the time, with illuminism being presented as a branch of freemasonry. A complete separation occurred later, but the edit doesn't comment on this. Secondly by the usage of sources it gives the impression of a unity of freemasonry that did not exist at the time. While technically under the authority of the Grand Lodge in London, the continentral masonic lodges had at the time developed their own hierarchies, the Germans had theirs, the French theirs, and as such cite used to source that "conspiracy theorists have long tried to link the Illuminati to Freemasonry" is exclusively about the influence on the French Masonic lodges during the end of the 18th century. And it is not clear what exactly George Washington is actually referring to in this matter. His statement can not be taken as other than a personal opinion of a single individual. If this edit should be re-added, it should be rephrased to be less generalised and specify precisely what the sources claim, namely that it is referring to the Barruel Robison controversy in France. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree with much of what you say. Do you have a reliable source for it? Blueboar (talk) 12:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

My sources would be mainly in German and Danish, but since it would take a short while for me to get access to them via the public library, I can only say that at the moment my main source is Bugge, K.L.: Det Danske Frimureries Historie, 2 vols., Rome, 1910-1927. In his work Bugge applied the archives of Karl Gotthelf von Hund who is apparently in the possession of the Danish freemasonry lodge (or was at the time of writing, Bugge was, as the official archivist of the main Danish lodge, writing the official history of Danish masonry). However the chapter 31 of Jonathan Israels book, Democratic Enlightenment, Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 822-858 supports my claim regarding the influence of the Illuminati on the German masonic lodges. I am assuming this is your main objection, since I can't see how you would object to my objections about how the cited sources, which are only really mentioning specific circumstances, are used in this edit in a very generalised way. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Questioning the historical reliability

How reliable are the sources for the claims about a historical Illuminati society? I am curious because to me it seems that the basis for the real historical Illuminati is a synthesis of various important dates and names. The founding day of the year, May 1, is the International Workers Day, a big date for communism and the labour movement. The year, 1776, the signing of the Declaration of Independence was on this year, in effect the beginning of the United States of America. The founder? Adam, as in the first man and Weishaupt as in 'Looking ahead'... The probability that this is purely coincidental doesn't seem so likely especially when taking into account how much interest there is in fabricating information about the 'Illuminati'. -- Rkos (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

One does always need to be aware and avoid regurgitating an organisation's own version of it's history - particularly where the occult (ie secret) societies are concerned!! However, the sources look reliable enough. There's no need to look for a communist significance for May 1 - it has lengthy historic associations which would explain the choice. 1776 was one of those years of revolution where a lot of things got founded, written, overturned, marched for/against etc. There's no reason to invoke anything but zeitgeist - at least for the choice of day to put in their books as the day they were founded. Adam Weishaupt had a father, wife and offspring who also all used the name Weishaupt, making it unlikely that it is a pseudonym, although I agree pseudonyms are common among secret societies.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

True, in the context of a Bavarian society the significance of May 1 might better lie in the Walpurgisnacht, a gathering of witches according to legend and even in modern times a lot of crazy drunken ideas begin on that day... I guess it's possible for all those things to be purely coincidental, perhaps they contributed to the Illuminati becoming so well known. Rkos (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It is rumored that the Illuminati "Pindar" is an elusive, reclusive man named Patrick T.Bowen, not Phillip Rothschild. Theonlyprimi (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

We don't include rumor. Can you cite a source for this claim? Blueboar (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

but why did they kill bob marley— Preceding unsigned comment added by Masonmps3 (talk • contribs)

How could an organization that was disbanded in the 18th century kill a 20th century musician? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 December 2011

The text:

"In 1777 Karl Theodor became ruler of Bavaria. He was a proponent of Enlightened Despotism and his government banned all secret societies including the Illuminati."

should be changed to:

"In 1777 the Bavarian government, by the will of their new ruler Karl Theodor, banned all secret socities within Bavarian borders. It is believed that Theodor's affections for the concept of Enlightened Despotism influenced his decision. "

for overall readability and accuracy. Claiming light (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

 Not done, its weasely and original research unless you have a source--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Text translated from the German

Text is currently being added to the English language article from the German language article, which is a featured article in that language. This is not unreferenced or unsourced text. Please help us include the sources (this is a technicality that few of us master at the moment). --OberMegaTrans (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, this article is on the list of translation requests. OberMegaTrans (talk) 09:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Could we have text translated from the German marked in some way prior to proper citations being added. The current situation (see "Members" for an example) has a highly non-encyclopaedic look and feel. Bern1005 (talk) 10:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Issues with new material

Some new material (two paragraphs, apparently translated from the German Wikipedia article) has been added to the history section... first and foremost, it needs sourcing.

Second, the new material needs some re-writing to integrate it into the existing text... for example, the first line of the new material starts with: "As a result, the disagreement between Weishaupt and Knigge intensified ..." As a result of what? Who is Knigge? What disagreement? Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I already asked for help in the section just above this but I've also just put in a request for 'source support' on the German article's talk page. Hopefully, there'll be some additions soon.

Secondly, we are a big group (almost all of them new to this) working on the article. We are trying our best to keep the transfer of translated material as tidy as we can but I'm sure it'll still need some proofreading, re-writing and editing once we're done. If anyone wants to help us and/or hurry the project along, you can find our pre-published work on this page. Almost the entire German article has been translated - at least roughly - and I think, at this point, no one will mind people outside our group trying to help us. On the contrary, in fact: I might have underestimated how controversial this article/topic could be and, consequently, how quick and how strict people would be about sources. :-) Be assured, though, we are doing all of this in good faith! --OberMegaTrans (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It is definitely a controversial topic (with a lot of WP:Fringe potential), so good sourcing as you move forward is a must... but good faith is assumed. Blueboar (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Bias

I am sorry if I somehow violate the Wikipedia rules in my following post, since I don't post any articles on wikipedia, no I am just a very fond reader, And I do not have any type of wikipedia article writing skills.

I personally just find that the articles is slightly bias against the Illuminati in some paragraphs, and would be pleased to see if somebody took some time to edit it.

Thank you, and excuse my un-profesionalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.158.196 (talk • contribs) 18:58, December 16, 2011

New posts go at the bottom, do not overwrite other's posts, and sign your posts by using four tildes (~~~~). Could you point out which parts you think are biased and how they are? Could someone else fill in the unsigned template? I'm on my phone, so I can't do proper ¦'s and my ability to copy and paste is hindered. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Loaded language--conspiracy theory

The term, conspiracy theory, perhaps was once a neutral term, but no longer. It now carries a powerful connotative meaning that includes denigration, disdain, and ridicule. Today, any idea that is labeled as conspiracy theory is immediately derailed with no further need for discussion. I don't think that is appropriate in Wikipedia articles.

Texas Star Thrower 17:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zambaman (talk • contribs)

It would be even less appropriate to not refer to something which clearly is a conspiracy theory as such. Your argument is with the world at large, over its use of the term, and not with Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 January 2012

dude, orgamization not organisation

75.57.169.6 (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

'orgamization'? I assume you mean 'organization... And yes, we have a problem here - but not necessarily the one you think. U.S. English uses a 'z', British English uses a 's', and this article can't seem to make its mind up one way or another. As to which spelling Wikipedia should be using, this is a tricky subject - so much so that we have a section on the topic in our manual of style, see WP:ENGVAR. Basically, if there is no direct link between either the U.S. or British/Commonwealth countries in the article (as seems to be the case here), we should be using whatever variety of spelling was used first - consistantly. As to which one was used first, that will probably involve trawling through the article history, possibly followed by another re-enactment of the battles between the disreputable mob that claimed to be a 'revolutionary army', and His Majesties Loyal forces (actually mostly German mercenary, and probably generally loyal to whoever paid them the most). Sadly, this seems to be a recurring issue on Wikipedia... ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done, a discussion needs to take place to determine a consensus on whether to use English or Americanizh--Jac16888 ^Talk 11:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we should be consistent within the article. Since the topic is not primarily identified with either the UK or the US, WP:ENGVAR does not come into play. This means we would fall back on the "first use" rule. The edit that created the article (seen here) used UK spelling (calling it an "organisation"... with an 's'), so I suppose UK spelling is what we should conform to. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

7.4 Nonfiction Books

Nonfiction books exposing the Illuminati have been publication since at least the late 1700s when the Bavarian Illuminati was exposed after some of the group’s writings had been seized by the authorities. (Dice) Since then, a variety of authors have published books, both exposing the Illuminati and their subsidiary organizations, as well as writing books targeted for elitists and occultists to spread the satanic and occult teachings along with the political and financial aspirations of the secret brotherhood. (Dice) Books ranging from focusing specifically on the original Illuminati, to exposing Skull and Bones, the Bohemian Grove, the Federal Reserve, the Bilderberg group, and more. (Dice) One of the first and most popular books written about the Illuminati was published in 1798 by John Robison, a professor of natural philosophy at Edinburgh University in Scotland. The full title of the book is Proofs of a Conspiracy Against all the Religious and Governments of Europe Carried on in the Secret Meetings of Freemasons, Illuminati, and Reading Societies. (Dice) Robison’s book is extremely important because it was written at the time the Illuminati was first exposed to the public. It is basically a first hand account of what the Illuminati were doing and how they became known to the public. (Dice)

Source: Mark Dice, Author of "Illuminati: Facts & Fiction"

Addition to "History"

Most of the information distributed surrounding the Illuminati stems from the Knights Templar, the Freemasons, and the Bavarian Illuminati founded in Germany in 1776. (Dice) Many other organizations had existed earlier, for hundreds if not thousands of years. (Dice) The Knights Templar date back to the 1100s and the Freemasons to the late 1500s, but before these organizations had formed, secret societies which possessed supposed secret knowledge had existed much earlier and would later grow into these newer and more sophisticated groups. (Dice)

Superpotta-NJITWILL (talk) 03:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Superpotta

Under 7.1 Popular Culture

7.3 - Media

The control of information as well as disinformation is one of the most powerful tools at the Illuminati’s disposal. (Dice) The best way to do this as they discovered hundreds of years ago, is to own the sources of mainstream media. (Dice) Television, newspapers, magazine publishers, radio networks, and film studios are largely owned and controlled by Illuminati branches. (Dice) If a particular issue or person needs to be presented in a favorable light, then this is what will happen. In 2008, former White House press secretary Scott McClellan reported on CNN that the White House gave regular talking points to several hosts at the Fox News Channel. The 2004 documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism details how Fox News was used as both a mouth piece and an attack dog for the Bush Administration. (Dice)

Source: Mark Dice, Author of "Illuminati: Facts & Fiction"

Superpotta-NJITWILL (talk) 03:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Superpotta

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 03:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Mark Dice is hardly a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 July 2012

created my the great man called, ALI KAZIME, whom served justice and equality

X7legend (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

See above: "This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it". AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I think he wants us to create an article about some guy named Ali Kazime. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: per above Topher385 (talk) 03:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

My view on the Illuminati

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

who is the illuminati — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.123.128 (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's a lovely article right here on who they were. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

After reading this, I'm still confused. Who exactly are they? 108.93.72.184 (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The name "Illuminati" primarily refers to a secret society in late 18th century Bavaria (in modern Germany) that tried to overthrow the monarchy, and were persecuted by the Bavarian aristocracy. Later conspiracy theorists claim (without evidence) that the group survived and are responsible for all kinds of things wrong with the world. That's what the article says, that's who they were. There is no other way to answer that question. Do you mean something other than 'who are they?' Ian.thomson (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Minor point, but it's very likely they never tried to overthrow the aristocracy, or even made concrete plans to do so. They sort of discussed the idea of the aristocracy being overthrown in abstract terms, and not necessarily by them. They were far more opposed to the Roman Catholic Church's influence in day-to-day government, and they did have a plan to do something about that, but it never got off the ground because it involved placing members in (relatively minor) government offices. But such infiltrators were more interested in obtaining those positions than remaining loyal to the Illuminati, so it just didn't work out. Josh Joaquin (talk) 06:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Was Adam Weishaupt not trained by the Society of Jesus, a Roman Catholic secret society? 87.208.10.4 (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Major cuts

I have removed several sections of the article... these were completely unsourced (and tagged as such for a long time... in some cases for over a year.) The reader had no way to know what was verifiable information, what was Original research, and what was pure speculation or invention. Given the nature of the topic (with all the conspiracy theory crap that is commonly associated with the Illuminati) it is vital that any historical information we include be supported by high quality sources.

I hope someone will rebuild the material that I removed... but please include proper citations when you do. Blueboar (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I think there is probably support for much of the text in your cuts and this subsequent cut including in some of the existing sources, but I'm not going to go through it all today. I am placing this here so it's easier for people to see and source the cuts you're referring to in the future. Josh Joaquin (talk) 06:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, after poking around in the sources already in the article, I'm not too sure about either of those diffs. Even if they are 100% accurate, I'm not sure they add much to the article. Josh Joaquin (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

25 Goals

1. Men are inclined to evil rather than good 2. Preach liberalism 3. Use ideas of freedom to bring about class wars 4. Any and all means should be used to reach their goals because they are justified 5. Believe their rights lie in force 6. The power of their resources must remain invicible until the very moment they have gained the strength so that no group or force can undermine it. 7. Advocate a mob psychology to obtain control of the masses 8. Promotes the use of alcohol , drugs , moral corruption , and all forms of vice to systematically corrupt the youth of the nation 9. Seize citizens private property by any means necessarily and on a daily basis 10. The use of slogans such as equity , liberty , and fraternity are used on the masses as psychological warfare 11. Warfare should be directed so that the nations on both sides are placed further in debt and peace conferences are designed so that neither combatant retain territory rights. 12. Members must use their wealth to have candidates chosen to public office who would be obedient to their demands , and would be used as pawns in the game by the men behind the scenes. The advisors will have been bred , reared , and trained from childhood to rule the affairs of the world. 13. control the press and hence most of the information the public receives. 14 Agents and provocuers will come forward after creating traumatic situations , and appear to be the saviour of the masses , when they are actually interested in just the opposite , the reduction of the population 15. Create industrial depression and finacial panic , unemployment , hunger , shortage of food , use these events to control the masses and mobs , and use them to wipe out those who stand in the way. 16. Infiltrate Freemasonary which is to be used to conceal and further objectives. 17. Expand the value of systematic deception , use high sounding slogans and phrases , advocate lavish sounding promises to the masses even though they can't be kept. 18. The art of street fighting is necessarily to bring population into subjection. 19. Use agents as advisers and provocatuers behind the scenes and after wars use secret diplomacy talks to gain control 20 Establish huge monopolies towards world government control. 21. Use high taxes and unfair competition to bring about economic ruin by controlling raw materials , organised agitation among the workers , and subsidizing competitors 22. Build up armaments with police and soldiers who can protect and further illuminati interests. 23. Members and leaders of the one world government would be appointed by the Director 24. Infiltrate into all classes and levels of society and government for the purpose of teaching the youth in the schools theories and principles known to be false. 25. Create and use national and international laws to destroy civilazation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.134.100.225 (talk) 08:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Source? Blueboar (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Good job, people! This article is much better than last year, which is no small feat given the constant onslaught of nuttiness such as the above. Now if you will excuse me, I need to continue building up monopolies for government control.... 120.204.83.23 (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Original insignia for History section

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

According to multiple sources already cited in this article, and the German Wikipedia's FA on the Illuminati, this was their original insignia, so the image would go great in the History section. 71.212.245.37 (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll leave this unasnwered in case someone would like to add it anyone. But if you'd be able to give me a link to a reliable sources which says that it is the original symbol/insignia that would be great. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/history/bavarian_illuminati/das_verb.html 71.208.7.158 (talk) 08:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it can be added... but from my reading of the BC&Y article, a more accurate description would be to call it "An emblem used by the Bavarian Illuminati (specific to the "Minerval" degree)". I would assume they had others as well (most fraternal groups use lots of emblems, and I doubt the Illuminati were any different). Blueboar (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done, but changed 'the original' to 'an'.--Launchballer 17:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

illumination

Hello do u know anything bout illumination — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.209.230 (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

See: Illumination. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Source material

http://www.bavarian-illuminati.info/ has original text from and commentary on hundreds of Bavarian Illuminati source materials, translated into English and often linking to PDF file scans, which Terry Melanson has been compiling over the past five years. He also runs conspiracyarchive.com, but he's completely aware that the Illuminati conspiracies are all myths (see [1]). I think it would make a pretty good external link for the article here, because it represents what has become an invaluable resource for anyone wanting to do serious historical research. Swstabren (talk) 08:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

 Added EJM86 (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

@Blueboar: a document archive organized as a blog with posts (the most recent more than a year ago, by the way) when documents are added is still a source material archive passing WP:EL, is it not? Do you have a particular provision of EL you think it doesn't meet or of ELNO you think it does? EJM86 (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It is disingenuous to call Melanson's webpage an "archive"... Many of his posts don't actually link to any source documents. A document archive should have a simple index of the documents contained in the archive... so that those trying to do serious historical research can go right to the original documents... without having to wade through the archivist's commentary to find the link (commentary which could potentially introduce a bias). Blueboar (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't find any reason in three dictionary definitions that organization chronologically by accession or lack of an list index would preclude a collection from being called an archive. It has a full text search engine index in the lower right. Can you give an example of a post which doesn't link to, contain, or describe an original document, photograph or translation? I didn't see any. Can you give an example of an actual bias in the commentary? Again, I see nothing in WP:EL or ELNO which would suggest this isn't an exemplary external link. EJM86 (talk) 08:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Categories are prominently displayed to the right. Two of the links are for "Primary Documents" and "Original Writings" (of the Illuminati). There's unnecessary semantics involved here about the word "archive." It's a valuable source and represents the state of the art research on the subject drawing from specialist scholars in the field, in French and German, and provides translations of Illuminati writings. There's no other source on the internet like it. XDev (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the links. My first thought was that it would be OK if we linked directly to those pages (by-passing Melanson's commontary), but when you look deaper, there is another issue... those are not actually the entire primary documents or the entire original writings... they are selected passages taken from primary documents and original writings. It does our readers no good to present them with partial material that has been taken out of its original context. Blueboar (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing taken out of context. Partial - yes. The site is the site, and it's being posted in whatever time he sees fit, in whatever manner. Check your own biases once in a while. You're a piece of work. Carry on in your delusions of grandeur. Lord of the laughable sub-par Illuminati wiki article. Yay for you. Link or don't link. Could care less.XDev (talk) 04:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to add that you're purposely keeping it sub-par. After a large swath of the stellar German Illuminaten page was translated and posted, you proceeded to question tidbits here and there - particularly when it came to any mention of Masons and/or the real agenda of the Illuminati. Then, after complaining about no source here and there, you erased the whole thing. It's typical of the way you've lorded over this page for almost ten years, maybe more. It's the reason why there are and has been only 2 or 3 error-ridden paragraphs about them at all. You want people to think that there just isn't any real information about them out there. That scholars haven't written tomes about them for hundreds of years. Cause if you do include the information, then you'll have to admit that they took over many lodges, infiltrated the state at every level, were conspiratorial at its very core and basically made the Masons look like fools. Who's really biased here, because everything I've just said is stone cold history pal.XDev (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

When you only quote part of a text, you have removed it from the context in which it originally appeared. That's the very definition of taking something "out of context". If there is a website which provides the entire text of the original, I would have no problem linking to it in the EL. But I do object to linking to a website that only provides readers with a selected sampling of the original text. Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Although the translations have been slow, and who knows if they'll ever get finished, the site is more than just original writings translations. They are the home for continuing research by Melanson and others. Articles such as this are unequalled by anyone writing about them on the net. The notes alone are helpful for research beyond measure. Most people do not even know where to begin when it comes to this subject. If you start there, then you won't have wade through all the bunk that has accrued by the amateurs. Groundbreaking discoveries are also written about, such as here - about the Illuminati's plan for a colony in America, the letters they sent to Adams and Franklin about it, and Adams' reply. Instead of real information about the real Illuminati, you'd like the world to think that everyone who still talks about them does so in the manner of a Dice or an Icke, when in fact real scholarship has and continues to occur in English and other languages. When people want real info on the Illuminati, they go to Melanson's book and articles (on both his sites). Period. You know this, the net knows this (including the masons who full well know he's no friend of their's, but respect his Illuminati research nonetheless). — Preceding unsigned comment added by XDev (talk • contribs) 16:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it is very common for translators of historical documents to select passages, especially with letters and personal papers where otherwise you will waste time on personal esoterica and reiterations of concepts more fully covered in other works. It would be nice if we always had complete translations of everything, but that's just not how most historical scholarship progresses. If you link to it and he starts getting more attention, maybe he will want to translate more. Who knows? 75.98.22.35 (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Kudos to Blueboar for sticking to responsible historical analysis. (Kudos too, for responding calmly in the face of provocation and unjustified personal attack, a most un-scholarly and immature way of reinforcing an argument.) Quoting a partial text is okay, not providing the whole text for reference is not. It is absolutely correct that a partial text, out of context, can not be accurately evaluated. Remove "on a Tuesday" from the statement "I've never shot anyone", and you get a whole different story, to provide a simple example. 172.10.236.215 (talk) 06:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

question

Hi everbody,the book Angels&Demons and some other material say that Galileo was a member of Illuminati,I want to find something to prove it,can anybody help me? Recommend some books or some link will be good. Thank you.Caroline cassiopeia (talk) 03:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

This talk page is intended only for discussions regarding changes to the content of our article - if you want to ask general questions about the Illuminati, you will need to do so elsewhere - I'd suggest that you ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I will go under the assumption that the question was preliminary to asking if this article should mention what is said in Angels&Demons... And the answer to that is "no"... The reality is that Galileo simply couldn't have been a member of the Illuminati. Galileo died in 1642... The Illuminati was founded in 1776. Galileo had been dead for over a hundred years by the time the Illuminati was created. Angels&Demons (both book and movie) is a fun story... but it is fiction and not reliable history. Blueboar (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The Peace Sign

Would someone care to explain how the peace sign came to be associated with the Illuminati? I've seen that it is associated but never a reason why or how it began. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.49.143 (talk) 03:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

What is the evidence that it is? 64.134.235.244 (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Illuminati exposed

i clicked on the picture of Roger Tokomato on the illuminati page of wiki there was a thing under date and time it was posted,it siad 17:40, 8 May 2005 so i copied 17:40 and i googled it as a bible verse.the verse is this link: http://biblehub.com/1_samuel/17-40.htm the verse is about david slaying goliaith :David Slays Goliath …39David girded his sword over his armor and tried to walk, for he had not tested them. So David said to Saul, "I cannot go with these, for I have not tested them." And David took them off. 40He took his stick in his hand and chose for himself five smooth stones from the brook, and put them in the shepherd's bag which he had, even in his pouch, and his sling was in his hand; and he approached the Philistine. 41Then the Philistine came on and approached David, with the shield-bearer in front of him.… soooo could goliath be satan !?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exsposed (talk • contribs) 18:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not expect to get this much crazy from Wikipedia, even on a topic like this. 172.10.236.215 (talk) 06:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)