Talk:Duck test

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Duck test article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 2 years

Philosophy: Epistemology 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:
/
	Epistemology

"In popular culture" section

The section titled 'in popular culture' seems a little long, and kind of random

Starchamelix (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)`[reply]

American Vandalism

Just as Americans refer to the pinnacle of their national game as the World Series, in this article, quality international research is deleted in favour of references to American entertainment and history. This seems to be a trend in parts of Wikipedia where the quality is deleted, leaving a bland residue of little value to anyone.

Logical fallacies are used in politics, law and popular culture, and the duck test is one of the more egregious. By deleting the historical reference to France in the 18th century, an important reference that will be used by serious users of Wikipedia is lost. We are left with Dirk Gently, Monty Python and the Marx Brothers.

And what is the elephant test doing here? CDT1997 (talk) 08:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]