Talk:Limited hangout

Philosophy: Logic / Ethics Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic
	Ethics

Commments[edit]

this page is terrible... I can't believe it's remained here at all... I guess it's only because "limited hangout" is (as far as i can tell) a piece of conspiricy theory fandom newspeak that most people wouldn't use or think to look up here. Considering some of the incredibly pedantic 'NPOV' arguments i've read on more popular pages, it's amazing that this survives, especially the list of alleged examples. :-S 86.145.55.59 17:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As one recruited by the CIA as age sixteen, trained with the prototype special forces unit (the Tenth), and who did several "executive action" operations including that having to do with Operation Mongoose (originally named for me), I find the comment made here suspicious in the extreme. First, Victor Marchetti's definition of "limited hangout" is accurate. Secondly, limited hangout was a tactical device included in the original Operation Mockingbird tactical dogma, an "orchestration" - to use the favorite and characteristic term of one of its principal creators - designed and intended to subvert and co-opt the U.S. news and information media. The Ronald Reagan White House, among others, employed a variation for the same purpose, that of deliberately and speciously leaking false information in order that it should become the equivalent of a booby trap for journalists. Rendered uncertain as to the veracity of the "leak," reporters like those who broke the Watergate Story would be thwarted.

Still another variation on the "limited hangout" is what the initial comment resulting in the "disputed" tag here may be. The individual or concern affected by an intelligence leak, antagonistic discovery, or report raises without showing of contradictory proof a question concerning it. As long as the audience can be made to believe there is doubt about the truth of the leak, discovery, or report, it may not be acted upon or useful; the exposure therefore need not compromise the operation of activity in question, and being altered only insignificantly it may proceed.

The tactical intelligence device and variations thereon is used as an inter-agency tool, also. The "operative" or "asset" (the intelligence community's manipulation and encoding of terms is as confusingly cryptic as any of its literally thousands of security measures) is prevented from obtaining critical knowledge having to do with his role in any given operation, even his basic employment by the agency (CIA, FBI, or otherwise) by means of seeding everything he knows with false, useless, and confusing information and data. Like a football player who knows only his specific part of the play and no other, he could not betray it to the other team, even were he to want to.

Unfamiliar with operation of this site or its rules, I hestitate (don't know how, actually) to link to my own site (where a detailed discussion of the matter and its history is to be found), but any search for the CIA program Operation Mockingbird will yield pertinent information. Judoknighterrant 14:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the most recent edit about the Canadian engineers. There's nothing to suggest that the phrase "limited hangout" was used in this case, or is even applicable. Note that Wikipedia should not make its own judgements in cases like this. A Reliable Source has to use the phrase.JQ (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed a merge of Modified limited hangout into this. The case seems self-evident, so unless someone objects quickly, I'll just be WP:BOLD and do it.JQ (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this page looking for a definition for "modified limited hangout" in reference to Nixon. The initial definition of limited hangout is very hard to read. It is a run-on sentence that lasts for 4 lines. A more clear definition would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwshook (talk • contribs) 20:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

blatant NPOV[edit]

So, what are the odds that it is fixed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.21.187 (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy[edit]

Please step me through how this belongs in Philosophy. Kortoso (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Snowden.[edit]

Edward Snowden. Benjamin (talk) 07:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

agreed!Mbsyl (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Broader perspective[edit]

Isnt this concept used quite broadly for example in a drugs raid. The cop asks where the drugs are, but the druggy just owns up to a small stash with the hope that they wont look any further for the bigger stash.--Penbat (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good explanation - why can't we embed some of this in the main page? --Massintel (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WikiLeaks' diplomatic cables have also sometimes been viewed as a limited hangout[edit]

since they didn't really disclose any sensitive cables involving the UK, Israel, or other key allies. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]