Difference between revisions of "Talk:Limited hangout"

From Wikispooks
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Text replacement - "WikiSpooks" to "Wikispooks")
 
(6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{HighTraffic|As of March 2015, this was Google's #5 hit on {{t|modified limited hangout}}}}
+
{{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 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:
+
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

Searchtraffic.jpg
This is a high traffic page. As of August 2016, this was Google's #2 hit on limited hangout

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=
=See also=

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)