Talk:Illuminati

Template:FAOL

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)

If I have learned anything on Wikipedia, it is that fact tags and demands for references are the telltale signs that there are serious attempts to suppress the truth by those who place those tags, who are typically characterized by remaining anonymous. By anonymous, I also include Wiki names because you can't tell who they really are without access to the inner workings of Wikipedia.--216.167.225.56 20:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Remember that {{fact}} tags are not used to suppress truth, but are used to question material that is false or unsupportable. Also remember that the demand for references existed before anybody asserted the demand in any particular case.  — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 02:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's also remember that according to Wikipedia's rules (specifically WP:V): "The criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Even if something is "true", we still need to be able to verify that someone said it. If we are going to quote Thomas Jefferson, we need to supply a citation to where he said it. Conversly, even if we think something is not true, it is verifiable then we can not simply cut it saying "that's not true". "Truth" often depends on one's viewpoint. Verifiability moves things beyond what an editor thinks is true... and places it on what some reliable source external to Wikipedia thinks is true. "Truth" does not matter one way or the other. Blueboar 13:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Factual Dispute

I have Jewish blood from my parentage, so you may say I am not objective, but please be objective to consider this. Our world is full of selfish people to achieve their own ends. If a list of all powerful people [still alive] can be drawn up, why should they cooperate with each other or be related with one another? How can there be conspiracy among them?

Just like Adolf Hitler blamed the Jews for everything [as if the Jews at that time were so powerful to control German economy] the German suffered, Illuminati is a concept used by different people for different ends. Maybe to discriminate against / blame leaders, or the rich, or government, or to unite people for an uprising. Illuminati is a fabrication created for human beings' selfish purposes and it does not objectively exist.

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)

yup —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.177.204 (talk) 17:36, 28 September 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)

"Freethinkers" of the "Enlightenment"

I've, for the second time now, neutralized a non-NPOV statement which was pretending that the question about the Bavarian Illuminati being "freethinkers" from the "enlightenment" had been completely settled to all the world's satisfaction. I found and included both a reference for those claiming such and a reference for those claiming that it was instead a conspiracy to infiltrate and overthrow governments, so readers could look up both sides of the story and decide for themselves, rather than us bullying their minds by making that decision for them. I invite Taroaldo to comment here, if he/she disagrees. Yosemite1967 05:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem that I have with your edit is that you set up a false opposition of ideas... read the sentence without the citations:

• "While some believe that the movement was made up of freethinkers, as an offshoot of the Enlightenment, others believe that it was a conspiracy to infiltrate and otherthrow the governments of many European states."

Without going into the merits of each option... my point is that it is possible for something to be "a movement of freethinkers" and "a conspiracy". The While some believe X others believe Y is the wrong approach. Blueboar 13:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that whether "freethinker" and "conspirator" are mutually exclusive terms is debatable, and because of that, I wasn't really satisfied with the way that I worded it, but at the time, I couldn't think of a better way of wording it.  However, the way that you edited it reintroduced the POV problem that I was trying to fix in the first place--that of making the assumption that the "freethinker" assessment is correct, when it is also debatable.  I've removed this POV problem again (3rd time now), but this time, I tried to make it more clear that "freethinker" and "conspirator" are not necessarily mutually exclusive.  Let me know what you think of my most recent edit. Yosemite1967 17:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... Given that there is a source to back the statement that the they were freethinkers... I don't think we can call that statement an "assumption"... To remove or qualify the bald statement that they were freethinkers, I think we need to establish that some reliable source disagrees with it. We would need a source that says the movement was not made up of freethinkers, or that there is some question on the issue.

Without a source that shows some debate on the matter, we have to take the source at face value and treat the sourced statement as an uncontroverted fact... to state otherwise would be inserting our own Original Research into the article. Facts are not, by themselves, POV. If there is a source that claims they were not freethinkers, or that there is some question on the matter, then due to NPOV we would have to indicate that the issue is debated. Without it, NPOV does not really come into play. Blueboar 17:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It was me who added the source showing that at least someone considered them freethinkers, though that article was definitely an opinion piece and not a mere factual report.  I'll just leave it as-is, since there are so many flavours of "freethinker" (anti-establishment Catholic, anti-Catholic Protestant, anti-Protestant Christian, Christian theist, anti-Christian theist, anti-theist deist, etc., ad nauseum), so this battle should be fought elsewhere.  Yosemite1967 23:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Any reason that "freethinking" is restricted to those of a Christian persuasion? There's a bit of POV there. MSJapan 00:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Real and Fictitious

Given the existence of the Illuminatus Trilogy, I don't see why there's any controversy about this edit.--SarekOfVulcan 14:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. The edit was made on an erroneous assumption - that of claiming theories were fictitious, and that's simply not what it says. nor is there any real way to interpret it that way. MSJapan 14:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Blueboar 14:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That just doesnt make sense, that was a book series, it isn't in any way associated with the historical illuminati. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.98.19 (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The article does not claim that that any connection exists between this fictional illuminati and the historical one. Indeed almost all fictional illuminati have no connection to the historical illuminati. That does not mean that the article should not discuss the fictional ones as well as the historical. Blueboar (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing John Robinson

Why was the John Robinson reference removed? It may merit its dismissal as "loony stuff" but his book was the first English speaking work that talked about the Illuminati and so should have been kept (even if a link to the text has been left in). I don't know any of the other titles (and I saw Lulu - so I would not be surprised if these texts were less worthy of inclusion than Robinson), but surely references should not simply be taken out in a blanket motion with the minimum of explanation.

JASpencer (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Gabriel Rojas

Gabriel Rojas is no longer the head of his Illuminati Order. He resigned November of 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.137.68.67 (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the mention of Rojas was to indicate that he was the founder of his order, not that he currently was the head of it. Similar to Crowley and Reuss for OTO. Blueboar (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

NOTA PÚBLICA:

1 DE NOVIEMBRE DE 2006 A principios de octubre de 2006, decidí entrar en "sueños", es decir, en inactividad esotérica, dejando la responsabilidad de afiliar y transmitir grados de iniciación momentáneamente a los Cabezas Nacionales de la Orden Illuminati y la Societas OTO.

En 1 noviembre de 2006, me retiro definitivamente de las órdenes Orden Illuminati y Societas OTO y nombro un Supremo Consejo compuesto por un triunvirato como responsable internacional de la Orden Illuminati y la Societas OTO, único organismo desde esta fecha con responsabilidad de afiliar y transmitir grados.

Además, hago público que me desvinculo por completo de todas las órdenes esotéricas (masónicas, rosacruces, templarias, illuminati...), renegando del idealismo esotérico e iniciático de las mismas, ya que, para mí, en estos momentos, limita la voluntad y la razón y genera sectarismo y manipulación, sobretodo al estar unido a estructuras que sobredimensionan los riesgos.

El Sistema de iniciación que creé para la Orden Illuminati y la Societas OTO, el Rojismo, evoluciona del idealismo al materialismo, pero está demasiado próximo al idealismo y no siempre es bien comprendido, tanto por iniciados como por profanos.

Deseo aprovechar esta nota para desmentir las difamaciones que varios conspiranoicos y agentes o colaboradores de la Central Nacional de Inteligencia (servicio de inteligencia español) que se hacen pasar por iniciados, escritores e investigadores antisectas, han vertido contra nosotros en la Red, durante los últimos años. Jamás hemos conspirado, ni realizado nada ilegal. La única ilegalidad que cometimos fue un problema de amenazas a una revista con colaboradores nazis en 1999 que nos supuso una multa y punto. A partir de ahí, lo demás es pura mentira y difamación.

Atentamente,

Gabriel Lopez de Rojas

Rough Translation

PUBLIC NOTE:

1 OF NOVEMBER OF 2006 At the beginning of October of 2006, I decided to enter "dreams", that is to say, in esoteric inactivity, letting the responsibility to momentarily affiliate and transmit degrees of initiation to the National Heads of the Illuminati Order and Societas OTO.

On 1 November of 2006, I definitively retire from the orders Illuminati and Societas OTO and name a triunvirate like an international personage in charge of the Illuminati Order and Societas OTO, the only organism from this date with responsibility to affiliate and to transmit degrees.

In addition, I make public that I break contact myself completely with all the esoteric orders (masons, rosacrucians, templars, illuminati, etc.), apostatizing of the esoteric idealism and initiations of the same, at the moment, it limits the will, reason, and generates sectarianism and manipulation, amongst us all when united.

The System of initiation that I created for the Illuminati Order and Societas OTO, the Rojismo, evolved of the idealism to materialism, but this is next to the idealism and not always included or understood, as much by initiates or by the profane.

The desire to take advantage of this note to deny the defamations that several conspiracists and agents or collaborators of the National Power station of Intelligence (Spanish intelligence service) that has happened through initiates, writers and investigators, have spilled against us in the Network, during the few last years. We have never conspired, nor made nothing illegal. The only illegality that we committed were threats to a magazine with Nazi collaborators in 1999. From there, the others are pure lie and defamation.

Kindly,

Gabriel Lopez de Rojas

And even if you want to say well he just founded it, im giving you the information to expand as the section is about the illuminati after 1790.

Oh... OK, thanks. I am not sure if your information is really relevant to the article. This article is really about the original 1700s group, and the point of the "Post 1790" section is essentially just to say that, since then, there have been numerous groups that have claimed to be the heirs of that original order. Rojas's group is listed simply as an example of this... However, I do appreciate the intent behind giving us the info. Again, thank you. Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there a freemason, Dave Hume?? history International freemasons_(disambiguation)

• illuminati_(disambiguation)
• Federal_Triangle
• Albert_Pike

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 14:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure at all what you are asking... Could you rephrase please? Blueboar (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

fixing sourcing problems

We seem to have quite a few references... and yet every third sentence remains tagged with a citation request! Surely we can substatiate at least some of the information with inline citations. I can do some of it based on the online refs (the BC&Y page for example)... but I don't have access to the printed material. We need to fix this... the article has been tagged for several months now. Blueboar (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

falses orders, end to marketin in wikipedia

falses orders, falses illuminati, end to marketing (Edictorwikicentral (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)).

I assume you are referring to this sentence: "However, several groups have used the name Illuminati since to found their own rites, claiming to be the Illuminati, including the Ordo Templi Orientis (OTO) founded by Theodor Reuss and Aleister Crowley (England), Grand Lodge Rockefeller founded by David Goldman (USA), Orden Illuminati founded by Gabriel López de Rojas (Spain), The Illuminati Order and others."

First, I do not understand your comment that this is "marketing"?... all we do is list groups that have claimed to be the Illuminati. We are not "Marketing" them in any way. I also do not understand your comment that these are "false orders". It is a fact that these orders exist. As to whether they are "false illuminati"... that is irrelevant. We do not determine whether any of these groups actually are the Illuminati or not ... indeed according to WP:NOR and WP:NPOV we are not allowed to make that determination. In order to say that these groups are "false" we would need to refer to a reliable source that says they are "false". If you have such a source, then we can include a statement to that effect. Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

marketing continue

Continue marketing in wikipedia? (Edictorwikicentral (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC))

Please explain what you mean by your comment. It seems as if you think this article is marketing something... but we have no idea what you think is being marketed. Blueboar (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Your comments are basically incomprehensible. Few if any of the editors, and specifically neither Blueboar nor I, are remotely tied to any groups with have any ties to the alleged Illuminati. The subject meets the criteria of Wikipedia:Verifiability, and on that basis it merits inclusion in wikipedia. If you have any serious complaints regarding the existing content, please present them more clearly. John Carter (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

ARTICLE ILLUMINATI

FALSE, LIES ARTICLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.30.114.209 (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back User:Edictorwikicentral... once again, you will have to clearly explain your problems with this article if you wish us to take any action. Blueboar (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The link I tried to add

I tried adding a link to the page: www.truthcontrol.com/conspiracies/illuminati as I feel it adds information to this topic that can not be found in the current article. It also includes links to videos about the illuminati. Just my thoughts.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slayerment (talk • contribs) 07:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If you tried to link it and could not... it is probably blocked. In any case, this is a fairly typical conspiracy theory website. Not reliable as a source, and not really helpful as an EL. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Its lest that not useful- its essentially useless- for everything but proving people believe that the Illuminati is real and plotting to take over the globe. Gavin Scott (talk) 09:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Psychiatric Point of View

I think this article is missing the psychiatric point of view, such as the one pointed out by http://illuminated.tripod.com

It highlights Rodney St.Michael's book, Illuminati: Healing and Developing the Mind. The illuminati is not a single organization, but a generic word for individuals or organizations, independant from each other; not a single unified entity, but having a related or similar mindset, characteristic of the ancient Asian Buddhas, which is the sansrkit word for Enlightened One, and typifies a quest to cure schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, not just in the self, but also in the macro sense, in a schizoaffective universe.

The mindset evolved in Europe's Enlightenment era and was developed by various individuals and groups. The mindset influenced the formation of different governments around the world, but did not necessarily have direct control.

Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder has been around for thousands of years, and it will naturally continue to exist with the human race perpetually. The mindset to cure it, the Illuminati, will, of course, be around as a result of it.

Rodney St.Michael's books are viewable for free at books.google.com or at his website.

Colourfulglobe (talk) 11:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like new-age pseudo-spiritual-psychology if you ask me. We're more into facts than fringe theories here at Wikipedia. But I suppose if you can find a reliable, neutral source, then this could be added, in the proper context. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:40, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)

And PS, no, Tripod sites are not reliable sources. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:41, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I think that the fact that you replied a few seconds after the previous msg was posted clearly points to the fact that u are not neutral urself. U haven't even read it and judged it immediately. Just because something is free, specially a tripod site, doesn't mean it's unreliable. Money doesn't create reliability nor neutrality.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.55.146.150 (talk • contribs)

I replied immediately because this happened to be the first thing that came up in my watchlist for the day. I have no pre-existing bias on the subject. Tripod is unreliable according to Wikipedia rules, see WP:RS. It's a free site where anyone is allowed to post anything, so it can't be relied on for purely factual information. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:03, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)

That would make wikipedia biased then. Bill Gates has a lot of money and can create Encarta. Neutrality points to an open mind. Wikipedia should follow an open mind and not be biased against free sites, freethinking and the freeworld. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.55.146.150 (talk) 12:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would be able to get away with fact-tampering with an encyclopedia, even if they did own the company that produced it. People would notice, and once the question were raised, no one would trust the product anymore. In any event, Wikipedia is not a place for "freethinking". Just like any encyclopedia, Wikipedia requires all its facts to be sourced via outside, reliable, neutral sources. If you seek to change this, be my guest: WT:V is the place to comment. Good luck. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:19, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks. Not many people trust Bill Gates. Nothing is perfect in this world, even neutrality and trustworthiness. Wikipedia may be biased, but at least you have a good discussion area. And very quick responses! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.55.146.150 (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, discussion is one of our strong points. I try to respond quickly if possible, but there are times when I've had to wait a while for responses myself. Lots of diverse people here all working on a non-hierarchical volunteer basis, so you never know. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:43, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)

My 2 cents: I agree that Tripod sites are certainly not viable as sources. It would be comparable to getting the evening news from Myspace blogs. Back to the point, I agree with the original post that the Illuminati is not any one identifiable group or entity. This can obviously be seen, even from the wiki article. Although, I am quickly lost by the idea that the "Illuminati mindset" is going to cure bipolar disorder? As an educated psychologist myself, I am open to the idea of expanding the article to include some psychological or psychiatric aspects of the Illuminati, but I'm sure we can all agree with Equazcion that fringe theories should be kept out of Wikipedia. Jonathanbaker1 (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Fringe theories are certainly allowed in Wikipedia... if they meet certain requirements. See WP:FRINGE. Essentially, the concept is that a fringe theory must have been discussed in a serious manner (either to present it or debunk it... or even to disparage or ridicule it) by multiple mainsteam sources that have no connection to the theory or those who propose it. In other words it must be both notable and noted. In the case of the Illuminati, certain fringe theories absolutely meet this criteria (some of the basic New World Order conspiracy theories for example). Others definitely do not.

That said, there are already several articles that deal with these conspiracy theories in detail. While it is appropriate to mention them here, this is not the place to go into details. This article should focus mostly on the original historical Illuminati of the 1700s. The various modern groups that claim some sort of tie or descent from them should, and are listed... but again, they can have their own articles if details are needed. The claims that the original Illuminati never died out and are secretly controling the world deserve a very brief mention, as do the various fictional versions. As to the phychiatric aspects... I honestly don't see this relating to the article at all. For one thing, this article isn't about the "Illuminati mindset" (whatever that is)... it is about an organization (either real, fictional, or "alleged"). We would need a stronger tie between the organization and psychology... and very solid sources to mention it. Blueboar (talk) 02:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed completely. Especially with the need for Very strong sources to support such a tie. Probably, none or few sources (reliable/verifiable) exist to support the idea, so probably should be left out.Jonathanbaker1 (talk) 07:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your insights. One of wikipedia's references is the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. And I think the free online version of it, the “Classic Encyclopedia” gives a better definition of what the Illuminati is. (See http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Illuminati)

It is defined as a label or designation used much earlier than the 1700s ”applied to, or assumed by, enthusiasts of types distinct from each other, according as the 'light' claimed was viewed as directly communicated from a higher source, or as due to a clarified and exalted condition of the human intelligence. “

This 'light' or mindset is classified into 2. One is spiritual, like talking directly to the 'voice of God' and the other is rational, seeing the mind as God. The article then gives an example of each class. For the spiritual type, the Alumbrados is cited. For the rational-spiritual type, the Rosicrucians. As it says, “Of different class were the so-called Illuminati, better known as Rosicrucians, who claimed to originate in 1422, but rose into notice in 1537”.

It barely mentions the Perfektibilisten (Bavarian Illuminati), who were also labeled “illuminati” by the public since the emphasis of the article is on the label instead of its use as a proper noun.

Even the 2002 (and perhaps higher) Encyclopedia Britannica uses “illuminati” as a label as far back as the 2nd century CE when referring to the group of Montanus:

"Before his (Montanus) conversion to Christianity, he apparently was a priest of the Oriental ecstatic cult of Cybele, the mother goddess of fertility."

"Montanus became the leader of a group of illuminati ('the enlightened'), including the prophetesses Priscilla (or Prisca) and Maximilla. The members exhibited the frenzied nature of their religious experience by enraptured seizures and utterances of strange languages that the disciples regarded as oracles of the Holy Spirit."

This type of 'light' or 'mindset' or 'direct communication with God' by hearing his 'voice' is called today as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or schizoaffective disorder. Although at that time, it was not called that way.

The renowned psychiatrist who specializes in schizophrenia described it in Discover magazine as a condition where a person hears "voices that command you to kill yourself, voices from outer space, two voices carrying on a conversation, even the voice of God."

For the rational type of Illuminati, the 'mindset' is described better by Buddhists, who think that the mind is God and whose goal is to attain Enlightenment.

I think the disambiguation portion of the article will be made clearer if the illuminati is not described as a proper noun but more emphasized as a label for people who carry this schizophrenic mindset. Notice for example in the comic books, Marvel describes it as good like the United Nations for superheroes. But DC comics and Disney describes it as evil. The bipolar characteristic of the illuminati is more visible when the Britannica's definition is used.

Politically today, China views the Dalai Lama as evil, while the U.S. Congress good. Adam W. may be viewed by Americans as evil but perhaps good for the Chinese. Maybe people will understand why if the illuminati is defined by Wiki in the same way as the Britannica.

Thanks for your help! Colourfulglobe (talk) 12:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"emphasized as a label for people who carry this schizophrenic mindset" would not be in agreement with the prominent usage of the word in current times. Mention of that usage in context, meaning we say "it used to be used this way", "it used to be considered this and this", might be fine. It's fine to use old references, but Wikipedia articles need to describe the current usage first and describe the history of the word second. There's simply no compelling reason to emphasize an archaic definition of the word as if it reflected current use.

Furthermore, the psychological relationship to the past definition is not one of the things contained in your reference. You're making that connection yourself -- which might be a valid point, but not in a Wikipedia article. Perhaps for a college thesis or a blog posting, but any theories and conclusions here need to be sourced. See WP:SYN for more on this, but in short, you can't take two referenced facts and draw your own relationship between them; so although "voices in the head" is a refereceable psychological condition, and illuminati is referenceable as a term that used to describe people with voices in their heads, that does not give us license to say illuminati is something pyschological. We call that an improperly synthesized conclusion based on referenced material. Hope that's clear enough. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:22, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Much of what Colourfulglobe discusses is Original Research, and thus could not be added. However, I do understand the underlying point he/she is trying to make. We have to ask what the intended scope of this article is supposed to be? If it is about the word "Illuminati" then some expansion into new areas is appropriate. If it is about the organization called "The Illuminati" (and I think this is what is intended), then expanding into new areas is not appropriate.

This brings up some un-resolved issues that were discussed a while ago, but never acted upon. Perhaps we need to disambiguate this topic... have one article for the historical Bavarian Illuminati, another article for the conspiracy theories... a third for modern pop culture/fictional references, etc. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to disambiguate until there are separate articles, and there's no reason for separate articles until sections of this one become too long. For now, any sourced use of the word can be included here; worry about separate articles only when you need to. This particular use (psychological) is not sourced, so it can't be included. The voices-in-the-head aspect could be included, though, as it apparently is sourced, and rather interesting IMO. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:58, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. The connection between the 2 is pointed out in Rodney St.Michael's books, including Illuminati: Healing and Developing the Mind, specially in Chapter 10, found in books.google.com as I mentioned in my original post. It's also found in his author blog at his website http://illuminated.tripod.com but as you said, tripod is not allowed. It is his original research however. Anyway, thanks for your time. I know you guys are busy and I must've consumed too much of your time already and it is quite embarrassing for me since you are not paid for this kind of work and yet you serve your customers so well. I wish banks had similar customer service! Anywayz, I'm dropping my complaint since I'm a bit busy with work too. At least wiki has an article on the illuminati. Encarta doesn't even have it at all! Again, thanks for your time! :) Colourfulglobe (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy Illuminati

I feel the current version of the Illuminati Conspiracy section is adequate, but not good enough. As in modern times most people consider the Illuminati to mean some sort of secret organization plotting to take over the globe it should be given more coverage in this article. Even though this modern Illuminati is probably rubbish thats not for us to decide- it should be given fair coverage...it does have quite a following after all. Also, this Illuminati is represented by the Eye Of Providence so it seems fair to include a picture of it- just for aesthetic tastes perhaps but it certainly contributes to the article. Gavin Scott (talk) 09:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

There are already several articles dealing with these conspiracy theories. We include a "Main article" link to the most prominent of them. That is all that needs to be done. Details can and should be discussed in that article. You say "most people" consider the Illuminati to mean some sort of secret org. plotting to take over the globe. Not so... rather a few conspiracy theorist think this. It is a distinctly minority (ie WP:FRINGE) view. The only reason why the NWO conspiracy theory deserves an article is that it has been extensively debunked in reliable mainstream source, and so passes the inclusion criteria laid out in WP:FRINGE. In this article it is worth a brief mention, and that is it. To go into details violates WP:UNDUE. As to the dollar bill image. It is inappropriate. Images should illustrate something mentioned in the article. The article does not mention anything about the dollar bill (nor should it). Furthermore, we know that it is not an "Illuminati symbol". It is the reverse of the Great Seal of the United States, and we know the full history behind how that seal was created. Blueboar (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about this further... I have removed the entire section, and moved the sentence on conspiracy theories to the section on "Modern Illuminati". The entire thrust of the theories is that the Illuminati exist to this day... thus it belongs under the discussion of modern incarnations. Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Missing Tomb Raider Movie Starring Angelina Jolie

Hello again! I'm back with some free time, and the latest version of your illuminati article has improved, I must say. :)

But I just noticed that it is missing Lara Croft's movie under the section of fictional illuminati. Lara discovered that her father, Lord Croft, was an illuminatus, and she had to travel to Cambodia and Siberia to retrieve 2 split halves of the "Triangle of Light" or Illuminati Triangle and mend it together to save a life.

There's a wiki article about it: Lara Croft: Tomb Raider

--Colourfulglobe (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

so... add it. Blueboar (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the keys and the go signal. :)