Difference between revisions of "Talk:Limited hangout"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This is a high traffic page. As of August 2016, this was Google's #2 hit on limited hangout
m (Text replacement - "WikiSpooks" to "Wikispooks") |
|||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | {{HighTraffic|As of | + | {{talk}} |
| + | {{HighTraffic|As of August 2016, this was Google's #2 hit on {{t|limited hangout}}}} | ||
== Include Concept(s) Or Part(s)? == | == Include Concept(s) Or Part(s)? == | ||
| − | I read this | + | I read this Wikispooks Article identical to the Wikipedia article with additions, and the RationalWiki article. The RationalWiki had the following section I thought might be worthy for your consideration to re-edit and include: |
:::=Counter-examples= | :::=Counter-examples= | ||
| − | :::[[Conspiracy theorists]] in their [[paranoia]] tend to be over-sensitive to seeing "limited hangouts" where none exist. For example [[9/11]] and [[John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory|John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists]] are notoriously fractious, often accusing ''each other'' of being part of the cover-up by only revealing selective information. | + | :::*[[Conspiracy theorists]] in their [[paranoia]] tend to be over-sensitive to seeing "limited hangouts" where none exist. For example [[9/11]] and [[John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory|John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists]] are notoriously fractious, often accusing ''each other'' of being part of the cover-up by only revealing selective information. |
| − | :::[[Selective reporting]] is a sort of flip side of a limited hangout, deliberate overreporting of minor events to make a political point or stir up [[moral panic]]. | + | :::*[[Selective reporting]] is a sort of flip side of a limited hangout, deliberate overreporting of minor events to make a political point or stir up [[moral panic]]. |
| + | :::=See also= | ||
| + | :::*[[Cherry picking]] | ||
| + | :::*[[Quote mining]] | ||
| + | :::*[[Straw man]] | ||
| + | :::*[[Weasel word]] | ||
| + | :::*[[Willful ignorance]] | ||
| + | Also, would the [[Panama Papers]] be considered a limited hangout that hurt few Americans? | ||
~ [[User:JasonCarswell|JasonCarswell]] ([[User talk:JasonCarswell|talk]]) 22:41, 16 August 2016 (IST) | ~ [[User:JasonCarswell|JasonCarswell]] ([[User talk:JasonCarswell|talk]]) 22:41, 16 August 2016 (IST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | The bit about never knowing who to trust and the general fractiousness of the truth movement is important stuff. I don't know much about the [[Panama Papers]] - lot of data there - but yes, I have heard people suggesting that's a limited hangout, so I've worked that in to the article. An endorsement by [[Edward Snowden]] is a suspicious sign in my book... -- [[User:Robin|Robin]] ([[User talk:Robin|talk]]) 16:01, 17 August 2016 (IST) | ||
Latest revision as of 17:07, 14 October 2018
Include Concept(s) Or Part(s)?
I read this Wikispooks Article identical to the Wikipedia article with additions, and the RationalWiki article. The RationalWiki had the following section I thought might be worthy for your consideration to re-edit and include:
- =Counter-examples=
- Conspiracy theorists in their paranoia tend to be over-sensitive to seeing "limited hangouts" where none exist. For example 9/11 and John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists are notoriously fractious, often accusing each other of being part of the cover-up by only revealing selective information.
- Selective reporting is a sort of flip side of a limited hangout, deliberate overreporting of minor events to make a political point or stir up moral panic.
- =See also=
- =Counter-examples=
Also, would the Panama Papers be considered a limited hangout that hurt few Americans? ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2016 (IST)
The bit about never knowing who to trust and the general fractiousness of the truth movement is important stuff. I don't know much about the Panama Papers - lot of data there - but yes, I have heard people suggesting that's a limited hangout, so I've worked that in to the article. An endorsement by Edward Snowden is a suspicious sign in my book... -- Robin (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2016 (IST)
