Contents

Talk:Jumping to conclusions

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 December 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Business High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Engineering High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Psychology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Systems High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the field of Systems engineering.

I'm no editor, so, just wondering if the following section

 == Information ==

Jumping to tae is a form of [cognitive distortion]

"Jumping to tae" - shouldn't this be "Jumping to conclusions" ? Thanks 92.19.105.185 (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jumping to conclusions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116135345/http://daphne.palomar.edu/jtagg/jump.htmtohttp://daphne.palomar.edu/jtagg/jump.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find it odd that the article for The Phantom Tollbooth is put in the "see also" section without a clear connection to the article. I have read the book, and know that one part of the book involves literally jumping to conclusions. However, someone who doesn't know that would be confused as to why it is in the see also section. I feel like it would be better to actually mention that book in the article, probably in the Comedy section. NicolinoChess31415926 (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]