Difference between revisions of "Talk:Limited hangout"
(update high traffic) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{talk}} | {{talk}} | ||
| − | {{HighTraffic|As of | + | {{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)? == | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
~ [[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... -- | + | 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) |
Revision as of 15:01, 17 August 2016
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)
