Talk:Cabal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Removed the following:
- The term took on its present invidious meaning from a group of five ministers chosen in 1667 by King Charles II of England (Clifford, Arlington, Buckingham, Ashley, and Lauderdale), whose initial letters coincidentally spelled Cabal.
- This Cabal, never very unified in its members' aims and sympathies, fell apart by 1672; Lord Ashley, who became Earl of Shaftesbury, still later even became one of Charles II's fiercest opponents.
- The term, in any case, continued to hold its general meaning of intrigue and conspiracy.
This explanation (implying that the term is an acronym) has been convincingly debunked.
Urban Legends Reference Pages article on "Cabal"
Ellsworth 19:30, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- That would be a reason to keep it in the article with an explanation that it is commonly believed but false, rather than to remove it! - Nunh-huh 19:33, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
In fact, it's not even false - the article said that their initial letters coincidentally spelled Cabal. john k 20:12, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I added a clarifying sentence that the acronym explanation, as it relates to the ministers names, is a UL. Ellsworth 22:42, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It's not exactly an urban legend. The word doesn't derive from the fact of the names. Nor were they called the Cabal because of the initials. But the initials were noticed at the time, and jokes were made on that basis. john k 22:57, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Lately right-wing Americans are claiming that the existence of the word "cabal" is a proof that left-wing Americans are anti-semitic. If someone can explain this to me in terms I can understand, I will be grateful. -- Anon
- No doubt it suits their purposes to do so, whatever those purposes might be -- insulting their left-wing opponents perhaps ? It need be no more complicated than that. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:10, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
Anon, how is your political plug relevant? 21:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
A justification of the Wikipedia self-reference has been requested. Unfortunately, as its original author the best I can supply is "it was totally worth it." Well, it was. -- Kizor 15:38, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
