Talk:Illuminati/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Untitled nonsense

The world leaders,I want to join the society groups of rich and famous in the secret to your organization but one thing I will confirmed in my self is that every society have his law to rule in that society so please world leaders I will be respect and be bumble in the society and I will keep secret in my self so please I have interest in that group so please they should help me to join in the society,if everything I will abide the law of the society,thank you

Creation of Archive 3

Just a note that I moved the recent rant threads to the archives on this date Blueboar (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm, it seems like a lot of it could just have been deleted as pure vandalism (in my book nonsense rants equals vandalism). Kudos to you for showing such a high degree of patience though. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks Blueboar (talk) 04:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's time again to archive more sections of nonsense or delete them? Шизомби (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Link to Wikimedia commons

Just wanted to let you guys know that the wikimedia commons link is showing an old name. Would it fix the problem to... uhh... reset the page cache?

tinlv7 [Please copy a response here] 03:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No idea... would it? And if so, how do you do that? Blueboar (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

illuminati in video games

In resident evil 4 ;under "files" and under village files the "communication log" says : Apparently,there's a religious cult group involved ; they're called the los ILLUMINADOS. illuminados as the Alumbrados or aluminados of early spain ;the action of the video game taking place in spain . the game who declare at the end that the caracters are (of cours) fictionals is far more real that the lies on tv that they own. there are subjects of their activities in the game , like abduction ,mind control, ritual sacrifices , human genetic manipulation, and above all their plan who unfortunatly has succeed ,the infiltration corruption and takeover of the usa; in the game under "island files" under "our mission" and their plan for the new world order and massive depopulation of the world (global 2000 plan) buy any ways (you see the missile at the end. this is real unfortunately ,you can also see the vatican connection because the "bad guys" are dressed like monks and catolic priests ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.67.214.89 (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

We mention that the Illuminati feature prominently in many video games... no need to single out any one in particular by mentioning it. Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit wars

An IP editor (first using the IP address: 122.55.152.184 and then IP address: 116.50.233.2) seems to be insistant that we include material based on the book: Illuminati: Healing and Developing the Mind by Rodney St.Michael. The material has been repeatedly removed, with edit summaries stating that it is unrelated to the topic of this article (which is the Bavarian Illuminati and its successors, both real and fictitious), that it is WP:Fringe nonsense, and (to my mind the most important) based upon a book that does not pass WP:Reliable sources.

I invite the IP editor to stop edit warring, andinstead to address these concerns here on the talk page. Blueboar (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the IPer isn't listening, as I just reverted him (the .184 addy) again. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, he has been asked to stop on both of his user talk pages, as well as being asked to stop and discuss the edits here on this page. That is about all we can do at the moment. If he continues to edit war we should report it as WP:3rr... and then we can treat any further edit warring as vandalism. Blueboar (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Reported. Blueboar (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've s-protected the page, and I'm gonna go block the IP for hitting 3rr limit. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Illuminati, Illuminati Order and Orden Illuminati

HOMO EST DEUS

Thank you for your work.

Your reference (#10) to Orden Illuminati at orderniluminati.org, for the subject 'illuminati' is incorrect.

Grand Master Gabriel López de Rojas has been silent for quite sometime. We Upper Initiates and National Heads (Illuminati Order at Illuminatiorder.us being the National Head of the United States) have been charged to oversee our designated territories.

I contact you today on behalf of the Illuminati Order and the Illuminati Order of the United States respectively.

The correct official website for the Illuminati Order is no longer orderniluminati.org

For the initiated line of the Thirteen Rites of the Illuminati Order of Bavaria, the official Websites would be as follows:

IlluminatiOrder.com
IlluminatiOrder.us (Official Website Illuminati Order of the United States)

Feel free verify this the Grand Master de Rojas himself. Please inform him that the United States Head, Frater Pan, Father of I, referred you.

We honor the work set in to motion by Pioneers and Scholars of yesterday. They lived in a time that had particular requirements. We live in another with it's own. The Goal will always be the same.

The way the Illuminati Order seeks it's ultimate Leaders may look obvious. I assure you the chances of them coming from the pool of those who simply request to JOIN is slim. And...
...currently... the Illuminati Order of the United States itself allocates very little resources to such a facility.

As for the other 'Illuminati' factions and self appointed Orders and their Websites, they do serve a purpose.

I tell you this because media has always been useful; Wikipedia being a neo medium.

In Sincere light,

Frater Pan .·.
Father of I
OI United States National Head Xº
IO XIIIº

Illuminati (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

To "Frater Pan"... Unfortunately, both of the websites you give above simply contain links to various search engines. As such, they do not support the existence of your particular group, nor do they support the statement that your group is the one that was founded by de Rojas (I am not doubting your statement, but we need to be able to verify it). That said, you are correct in pointing out that the website that we did list is now a dead link, so I have removed that. Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar
Wouldn't conspiracy lovers love this one. It just so happens that I have contacted you during one of our Internet Protocol Rolls which is now propagating. We have to do this from time to time.

illuminatiOrder.com (propagating), illuminatiorder.net (Propagating), illuminatiOrder.us (propagated).

For your convenience you may use http://119.82.30.253/~ill004a, http://119.82.30.253/~ill004b and c.

With http://network-tools.com/default.asp?prog=trace&host=illuminatiorder.com you can see that propagation is happening for some people but not all. You will find http://119.82.30.211/~ill004a was most recently used.

Also, for your convenience, you may also contact Frater Bukannan at Orden iluminati.

Frater Pan .·.
Illuminati (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. We can wait until your site is fully functional. Actually, what we would prefer is an independant secondary source ... either a website or a book that talks about your group, but has no connection to it. Blueboar (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Beloved Blueboar

HOMO EST DEUS

Just a quick note to let you know our systems have long propagated. As for those who talk about the order, but have no connection with it... I will call no witnesses here. So to speak.

But I will say it is odd that illuminati-order.org is listed as the Official Website of the Illuminati Order. But I digress.

So...as a direct result of work done with the initiated National Head of the United States (being an Institution not a Person), perhaps you can find some editorials amongst the readers, commentators, and editors at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theilluminatiorder/ (336 participants to date)
http://www.facebook.com/pages/illuminati/27312331989 (1,141 participants)
http://illuminatiorder.com/pages/blogs/i/ (undisclosed)

These being the only ones I am authorized to suggest.

In light,

Frater Pan .·.
IO XIIIº
Illuminati (talk) 05:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we can not use a Yohoo group, Facebook page or blog (these are not considered reliable sources)... We would need a stand alone "official" website. From what I gather, there are several groups that use the name "Illuminati Order", or "Orden Illuminati". Perhaps this is the problem? One is as good as another for our purposes (which is simply to give a few examples of modern groups that use the name "Illuminati"). Blueboar (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

HOMO EST DEUS

Beloved Blueboar

I completely understand. No problems. As mentioned earlier, these other "Orders" serve their purposes for those that "need" to join something.
For me, contacting you has been a little bit of FYI, and because of the duties of my assignment. I would not refer any level of media to use a Faceboook Group, etc. as a definitive source of our Work. The point I tried to make is that I'm not allowed to make recommendations outside of my assignment, whether the references exist or not. Sort of like Freemasons not making an invitation to join. Tried to point you (and others?) in a direction.... (When the Teacher is ready, the Student will appear!)? I do thank you for your time.

In light,

Frater Pan .·.
IO XIIIº
Illuminati (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Blueboar (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

References to illuminati research

Is the following useable: [1] [2]? Faro0485 (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Amateurity

Is it correct to state the thought as many "amateur" historians believe? Would it not possibly make one believe that educated historians could and will not believe as such (biased)? 99.237.182.182 (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Um... I don't think we use that phrase in this article? Are you suggesting that we add it somewhere? Blueboar (talk) 12:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That phrase is indeed in the article, the second sentence under History: "The movement was made up of freethinkers, as an offshoot of the Enlightenment, which some amateur historians believe was a conspiracy..." (emphasis mine). The wording at least seems pretty biased. absoluteflatness (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It was added way back in this edit. It is definitely POV and should be removed. However a sentence that states that "some believe" is actually not acceptable either. It should state exactly who states it and why. In this case it should be "Seth Payson in his book Proof of the Illuminati (1804) claimed to have proof of...etc". I will change it accordingly. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of the Group

There seems to be no mention in the entire article of what the purpose of the Order of Perfection was. Why was it founded? What was the goal or intention of the group? The article focuses entirely on conspiracy theories and is not very helpful for someone interested in learning about why this group was formed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.151.7 (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This is because there is great confusion on that exact question. We know that it existed, but people don't agree as to what it's purpose was. Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Blueboar
For the readers interest in knowing how much time is spent on this topic, have you had, and do you currently have time to acquire access to wikipedia qualified sources of information on the Bavarian Illuminati?

Thanks

Frater Pan .·.
IO XIIIº
Illuminati (talk) 06:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

My 'bit'

All of you lot should stop bickering and help each other. Being educated does not mean that you have a God given right to know everything. I am a well respected historian and the Illuminati are more than likely disbanded, but there is always chance that they have survived into modern day society. Any problems e-mail me on momo.1992@hotmail.co.uk. Thanks, Liam Robson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liamr9983 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Archives are not always right. we were not there to witness the facts so we cannot be sure of anything. Historians and books dating back over 150 years are all questionable for facts, as there will always be wise guys who change stuff for there liking, as it may not be to standards, or it contradicts what is 'allowed'.Liamr9983 (talk) 11:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The Importance of Silence

Silence

And that is my point. I hit a dog with my car one night. I pulled the dog to the curb and felt much anguish over what had just happened. As I sat with it and pulled out my cell phone, the dog recovered, snapped at me then ran off in to the night. I told only one other person, until now. I have found no evidence that they have documented my event, but still the event happened. Illuminati (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The dog ran off, it was not documented. It happened. But the effects are left on the dog. The Illuminati have had a long term effect on Europe and the world, you just have to look at the great seal on the American Dollar. Apparently, they have their hand in the New World order, but i can't see why, maybe because they have lost their path to their true goal.Liamr9983 (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Pan/Illuminati, I have to request that you not use the blue font color any more, Wikipedia uses that color to indicate a link to another article, and it can mess up the talk page and confuse people if you use it for comments... if you must use non-standard font colors, please use something other than blue, red or purple. And please close them when you complete your comments...

Now as to the current thread... May I suggest that this entire thread is pointless... The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is "Verifiability, not Truth"... that means that unless someone wrote about an event, it does not matter whether it happened or not, nor what its impact might have been... if we can not verify that it happened (through reference to reliable sources) then we can not include discussion of it. So, even if the dog was hit and survived, and went on to bite people due to the tauma it suffered... because no one wrote about it, the event is unverifiable and thus can not be included in Wikipedia.

As to the Great Seal of the United States... Liam, I suggest you read that article ... you will see that there is no actual tie to the Illuminati, nor the New World Order (dispite the conspiracy theories). Blueboar (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

How Can you be sure it has no ties. It's a theory, so it has not been proved. Ask yourself, why is 13 reaccuring.Liamr9983 (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Why 13? Gee... I don't know... do you think it might have something to do with the fact that there were 13 States in the Union. Seriously, we know who devised the Great Seal... they left us discriptions of it's symbolism and what that symbolism was intended to convey. Sorry to burst your bubble, but this isn't theory... it's recorded historical fact. The Great Seal has nothing to do with the Illuminati. Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

if you read what was written earlier up the page, you would see and stop hiding behind so-called facts.Liamr9983 (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Not hiding behind facts... simply stating them. Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you know them to be true, or are you reading words off paper, or a computer site, or a teacher or lecturer at a university or college. Had it never ocured to you that that the books may have been misinformed. I see why you are amateur. Think for yourself. Liamr9983 (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Something that has not been disproven is not inherently proven. Unless you have something reliable to back up any of your theories, I suggest you get off your conspiracy theory high horse. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, but i can back-up my theories. 13 perfect colenies, countries, not states. If it unproven, then who is to say it could not come to pass. watch the news, forced vaccinations will be soon, from this swine flu, and we don@t know whats in them drugs.Liamr9983 (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Try this. I'm not going to argue the point with a nut job. Blueboar (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not a nutjob, and i am just saying a theory. You are an arrogant person, with little morals, and it shows. But what also was formed in 1776.Liam Robson (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. You're no historian...just an adolescent conspiracy theorist. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not a conspiracy theorist, and i am not adolescent. I am a historian, but i freelance.Liam Robson (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Nishkid64... DNFTT. Blueboar (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Troll, I am offended. You two can SMB. If you want to argue, please do it on Facebook or msn or something, but not on here. Or on my talkpage. Lets just talk about Illuminati. Liam Robson (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a better idea... let's just talk about this Wikipedia article. The purpose of a Wikipeida talk page is to discuss the article, after all, not the topic. There are tons of forums and chat rooms out there where you can specualte and discuss your theories about the Illuminati. This isn't the location for it. Now, do you have anything about the article you wish to discuss? Blueboar (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

(This was typed before I read the snide message from Saddhiyama)

Brother/Sister Blueboar, I completely understand about the color, and forgive me for not closing it as I intended to do.

Liam, I understand EXACTLY what you're saying. Don't get so upset or take it personal. I am actually a Freemason (can actually produce a secure portion of correspondence to that fact, and a secure portion of my government ID) and I've taken an oath of Illuminism, but I'm constantly trained to put my feelings about most of whats on the internet (even here) aside. It is all very personal to me, so I had to discover that I am not a good candidate for editing the article. ...(stricken) ...

I was a bit offended when I was told that one illuminati website was just as good as the next, but I can tell it was not personal. It is the same attitude we have about many things to get our work done.

Now then, Blueboar, I agree. So there are things missing from the article that would be notable to include. At least two of which are directly published books by illuminati claimants (who I've have personal experience with), one who is listed in the article already and actually a Frater of mine.

With time and authorization I will provide and cite material.

The U.S.A. National Enquirer said "inquiring minds want to know"... Ha! Illuminati (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Pan... it would be "Brother" ... although I doubt we are from jurisdictions that recognize each other (then again, you never know). However, I don't edit as a Mason... I edit as a Wikipedian. Blueboar (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning Angels and Demons (movie)

Please stop adding comments about the new Angels and Demons movie... please note that the article already mentions the book Angels and Demons (see the foot note on books in the cultural references section). The movie is derivative of that book. Thank you Blueboar (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree, particularly egregious is that after the listing of the types of media the Illuminati have featured in (all with very fair referencing for those that care), people are adding one film by name, also asserting that it the most notable of these, (imho that's Robert Anton Wilson's and I really don't care who says otherwise, that's my POV and not for inclusion), there is a whole page where these things can be discussed and if there is a cite that does agree that Brown's A&D is the most notable, it still belongs in Illuminati in popular culture and not this article.--Alf ^melmac 17:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Inprofesionalism

Why don't you lot talk about the article. Blueboar, stop being an imbecile and stop being mean to Liam. That film is full of inaccurate information.Illuminati721 (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Blurboar has put allot of effort into this article and has been here for a long time, lets not insult people for being dedicated. Gavin (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I certainly am not going to take criticism from an editor who thinks it is appropriate to vandalize user pages. Blueboar (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2009

(UTC)

I did not say he was undedicated, i just said that he should not be mean. I am sorry if it was taken as an insult. Now, i had to nip to the toilet and left this on and my nephew sat down, and he likes messing with stuff, and as i returned he said he had done something to your userpage. On behalf of him, I apoligise. Illuminati721 (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, given that we are supposed to assume good faith, I will accept your appology. Blueboar (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you BlueBoar, and I think you owe Liam an apology, and I will tell him to apoligise to you. I shall check both your talk pages to make sure this has happened, or on this. Now, lets continue talk about Illuminati, this article, etc.Illuminati721 (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Until we get to see The Light of Other Days, Wikipedia will have to rely on what has been recorded for us. The project long ago defined it's core principles on what is (and what isn't) for inclusion. Blueboar has patiently explained this to people on this page and others hundreds of times (ok so I didn't actually count them up but I won't be far off the mark). Continuing to ignore these principals in favour of what 'is known to be true or possible' after repeatedly being told otherwise should not be treated with a cup of tea and a slice of cake. Curtness in the face of repeated failure to understand the issue is not rudeness, nor is being sharp when thrown invectives any form of being mean. Neither side need write sorry notes to each other.

Now, what reliably sourced information, bearing Wikipedia:Fringe theories firmly in mind, is this article lacking?--Alf ^melmac 16:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes they do need to write sorry notes to each other. As this happenes they will both be reconciled of each other and work together not against each other, as all us historians should.Illuminati721 (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I stand to be corrected, but sending/getting an apology from someone when they have a gun against their head been told to is worse than useless. I am confident that Blueboar will be entirely collegial once discussion focusses entirely on what is in the remit of the project. I would hope that Liam feels likewise.

Now, what reliably sourced information, bearing Wikipedia:Fringe theories firmly in mind, is this article lacking?--Alf ^melmac 17:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not telling them they have to apologize, just that it would be a moraly better thing to do. If BlueBoar does not apologize then it is his concience, and this matter is over from this bit onwards. Illuminati721.. (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your standing up to me but I left school long ago and I do not want teachers/older people telling me what I need to do. I have apoligised, but only because it is of my better concienceLiam Robson (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

ENOUGH! Discuss the article not each other... I have offered my appologies to all concerned, and recieved appologies from all concerned. Let that be an end to it. Blueboar (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Liam/Illuminati721, are you aware of our sockpuppetry policy? Familiarize yourself with that policy and then stop editing from Illuminati721, or else I will block the account. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Given this new information ... I will will not retract any appologies... but I won't be patient with any future disruptive comments either. Now... back to editing. Blueboar (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

short...

please more info... not enough information and i founded it very short. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.44.220.84 (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Not much more that is not pure speculation... and pure speculation does not belong in Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe in the modern history category you should add in the U.S. dollar

On the back of the U.S. one dollar bill there is an illuminati pyramid and eye with the words "NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM," or New Secular Order. New Secular Order is very similar to the Illuminati slogan of "New World Order", and at the same time representing the view of the illuminati's views on religion. The strangest part of this slogan is that it is printed right beside the American slogan ,"In God We Trust".

Another thing you should add into the pop culture area should be how it is referenced in the best selling novel and now movie Angels and Demons by Dan Brown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paintballdude666 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not. The image and motto on the one US dollar bill is taken from from the Great Seal of the United States. The motto is taken from a poem by the Roman poet, Virgil, and translates as "A new order for the ages" and NOT as "New Secular Order" or "New World Order" (anyone who tells you differently has never studied latin). It has absolutely nothing to do with the Illuminati (and furthermore the phrase "New World Order" was not actually Illuminati slogan... Pat Robertson invented that connection in the 1980s).

As for adding Angels and Demons... we do mention it, look at the foot notes. Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)