Talk:Illuminati

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)

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)

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)

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