Talk:Backbone cabal

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Backbone cabal article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on September 2, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Secret Societies Start‑class (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Secret Societies, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Secret SocietiesWikipedia:WikiProject Secret SocietiesTemplate:WikiProject Secret SocietiesSecret Societies articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

his article seems to have been largely plagarised[edit]

This article seems to have been largely plagarised from the [http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/B/backbone-cabal.html Jargon File article] about the cabal. I don't know anything about this subject so I'm not going to attempt a rewrite, but a rewrite should be strongly considered. Gsgeorge 05:53, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jargon File is PD, so we can use it. Removed copyvio notice & restored original content. --SJK 04:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be marked w/ a template indicating this origin like the FOLDOC-based articles? --Cybercobra 02:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't have to be done for PD works, since you can use them without restrictions. For Copyleft, you do. Halo 17:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I just linked a few things in here for you guys in case people don't fully understand what some of your terms mean. Valeriya 21:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

WP[edit]

Can I ask why this mainspace article exists? --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 13:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deny this article existsPdeitiker 16:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC) (member#666: TINC since 2000)[reply]

What article? Rissa (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article

Neutrality[edit]

This page is too one sided. I'm tagging it for neutrality. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 22:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there is no "other side" to compare neutrality against. I'm not just making a TINC joke. usenet, especially ALT.* was and is a different world, with different rules. it's "slanted" because it reflects the attitude and reality of usenet as opposed to the "real world" (which would be more like "huh?")mxt96.24.93.114 (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A published reference[edit]

A published reference is:

Hardy, Henry Edward, 1993. The Usenet System, ITCA Teleconferencing Yearbook 1993, ITCA Research Committee, International Teleconferencing Association, Washington, DC. pp 140-151, esp. p 146 at subheading "The Great Renaming" and "The Breaking of the Backbone Cartel".

NB I have not put this in the main body of the article as I am the author of the reference provided above from the ITCA Yearbook, and therefore will leave the determination about including it to others.

I'm dubious about leaving the Jargon File as the principle reference, as it exists in many forks and versions and contains much "myth" and "folklore". It lacks proper sourcing and dates to provide context and verifiability.

Scanlyze 17:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone make this remotely comprehensible?[edit]

I mean, I've read it four times now, and all I can really pick up is that it was some bunch of guys who supplied servers for USENET who are involved in the Masons? Or something? 82.41.76.233 21:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, perhaps you should read it again. If you can make it more comprehensible, you don't even need to know about the subject, just help its readability. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 01:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. One cannot make something more readable without knowing the subject. I also think the article does not define the meaning of "Backbone cabal" in a clear way. Wed Jul 16 15:10:51 CEST 2008

Cabal lasted well after 1988[edit]

The Cabal was around well after 1988. It was around into the 2000s at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.189.168 (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no. it wasn't. there is no cabal. it cannot have existed in a reduced form with different members until 2003. one cannot learn more about it in alt.config, so don't go look up the archives. -mycroft xavier tanstaafl (there is no mycroft xavier tanstaafl, either)96.24.93.114 (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article both says that it lasted until the 2000s (in the intro) and that it was disbanded in late 1988 (in the body). Does anyone know which is actually accurate? So that this article can be internally consistent and correct? IllQuill (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2 external links (faqs.org) not giving expected result[edit]

Hi,

It seems that the two external links to faqs.org do not give the expected page anymore.

I don't know what they were pointing to, but here are suggestions:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/by-newsgroup/alt/alt.conspiracy.usenet-cabal.html (meta information on the FAQ)

http://www.filewatcher.com/m/cabal-conspiracy-FAQ.8716-1.html (links to the copies of the contents of the Usenet cabal FAQ)

I let contributors to this article amend as I am unsure what to do.

Cheers — Boism 00:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]