Jump to content

Talk:Illuminati

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RaptorOwl (talk | contribs) at 03:43, 14 October 2017 (→18th Century Pagans?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Fake

This is wrong and fake Abdurrahmanchamp1 (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific? What exactly do you think is "wrong and fake"? Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article is screaming out for reliable, modern references. We've done our best with what we can find, perhaps you can help? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Illuminati. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

conspiracy theory

An editor has objected to the inclusion of the term "conspiracy theorists" in this section, on the grounds that the term is "biased". Please discuss. Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that this is an accurate and appropriate term to use in this context. The overwhelming majority of those who say that the Illuminati still exist, do so in the context of discussing various conspiracies. It is not biased to describe those who believe in a conspiracy as being "conspiracy theorists"... it is the literal definition of that term. Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely support. Conspiracy theorist is more encyclopedic than nutter, but most of the survival myth was, I believe, constructed to make money out of gullible people. I have my own words, all of which would result in an editorial ban. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the primary scope?

"In subsequent use, "Illuminati" refers to various organisations which claim or are purported to have links to the original Bavarian Illuminati or similar secret societies, though these links are unsubstantiated."

Almost certainly the most notable and recognizable use of "Illuminati" in modern times is either as part of a conspiracy theory or as generic secretive world order used in fiction (e.g. Deus Ex). I fail to see how these supposed organisations claiming to be descended from the actual Illuminati have a higher notability (or ANY, for that matter) than the ones alleged to exist in conspiracy theories and fiction. I know I've never heard of them, and I doubt anyone - perhaps not even the groups themselves - would take it seriously. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may not have heard of these groups.... but they do exist. And while their claims to be continuations or recreations of the Bavarian Illuminati may well be bogus, that is the claim that they make. Blueboar (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Blueboar, don't revert something when clear reason has been given for its removal. Two of the links I deleted were literally expired meaning whoever registered them could no longer be bothered with it, while the third denounced their claim of being an "Illuminati". You may want them to be, but using outdated sources to support a claim is extremely misleading. Also please read WP:NOTABILITY. Not everything that is written down should be on Wikipedia. Some unknown fraternity claiming to be related to the Illuminati is certainly one of these cases. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) Don't revert when you have been reverted. Use the talk page first. The reason is not clear. Even if it was, you are still edit warring. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was of the opinion that Blueboar missed the point of my deletion of the expired/redacted sources, which was quite uncontroversial as there is no point in using sources that have lost their only value. My stance of their relevance wasn't related to that. But you're right, it does count as edit warring. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Prinsgezind, your concern about the expired links is somewhat valid (It is possible that some of these groups may have shit down since the article was written, and so I will see if the groups have updated websites before I restore).
As for your concern about WP:Notability, I don't need to read it, as I helped write it. That guideline only applies to the question of whether something merits having an entire article devoted to it... not whether it should be mentioned (in passing) in a related article. I would agree that these modern fraternal groups do not merit there own stand alone articles... but they certainly merit a passing (one sentence) mention in this article...if only so readers understand the difference between a) the historical order, b) these real modern groups (which either pretend to have a direct link to the historical group, or pretend to be a recreation of it) and c) the paranoid imaginings of conspiracy theorists. Blueboar (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar: You're also right there, I actually linked the wrong policy. I was thinking of Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. This, though, was to justify my edit to the lead. I don't think expired sources (not broken or archived ones, mind you) are of any value when discussiong the present-day situation. But my other point was that while it's related to the subject and can be found online, the relevance of the existence of such fringe groups is very low. If we are to include information on groups that personally identify with the Illuminati, do we also include information on groups that say they're fighting the Illuminati? Because that's a rabbit hole I don't think would lead to very appropriate encyclopedic material. And that's just assuming they can be properly verified, as it would likely require resorting to the use of more self-published sources (such as the ones formerly provided) that are in no way reliable. Even as proof of existence it looks like a red flag to me:
  • "challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest"
  • "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them."
Ding ding on both. I'm of the same opinion that the distinction between the actual historical group and the modern cultural/conspirational/fictional forms should be clearly distinguished, but what place do these fringe claims have in it? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
re: "do we also include information on groups that say they're fighting the Illuminati?"... nope. The topic of this article is a historical fraternal order... it is "on topic" to mention (in passing) that there are modern groups that claim to be a continuation (or recreation) of that historical order... but to mention modern opposition groups takes us "off topic". Blueboar (talk) 12:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2017

The illuminati is the devil 66.87.64.174 (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Request invalid on a variety of grounds. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18th Century Pagans?

"Christians of good character were actively sought, with Jews and pagans specifically excluded, along with women, monks, and members of other secret societies."

Is there are source for their being pagans in 18th Century Bavaria? I find it rather hard to believe, as fascinating as it would be if true.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Illuminati&oldid=805257127"