Talk:Duk-Duk

Melanesia: Papua New Guinea Low‑importance

	Oceania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Melanesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Melanesia 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.MelanesiaWikipedia:WikiProject MelanesiaTemplate:WikiProject MelanesiaMelanesia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Papua New Guinea (assessed as Low-importance).

Secret Societies (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Secret Societies, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Secret SocietiesWikipedia:WikiProject Secret SocietiesTemplate:WikiProject Secret SocietiesSecret Societies articles

I wonder if this page violates the NPOV. In particular the paragraph beginning "The Duk-Duk can be seen as a piece of imposture, by which the older natives play upon the superstitions of the younger..." If nobody has any objections, I'll make some changes, but since a lot of the little I know about the dukduk I can't find in references anywhere, this might mean simply taking a lot of this out.--Sheena V 05:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It most certainly does violate NPOV, agreed. I'm amazed I didn't pick up on that "imposture" para earlier. The problematic text comes from the Catholic Encyclopaedia (1911 or so), which should not be treated as a reliable or neutral source on anything to do with Melanesian culture, in my opinion. Please cut as you see fit. -- Wantok 06:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of wonder if there hasn't been some vandalism regarding the videotapes of Hobo Wars. I mean, I don't know much about Duk-Duk, but some of the stuff in this article seems too funny/trying to be funny to be credible without citing a source. messor (talk) 02:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. 86.46.203.253 (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK; someone has been having some fun vandalising this article. Is there any way to revert it back to a serious article? Kidding aside, duk-duk is important to some people, and I think it is offensive to leave the article as it is now.Ndriley97 (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the anonymous edit, but really? you're just going to leave this up? just about every source is non existant or is citing an offline source that clearly none of this information appears in. This is clearly a retarded joke and god damn someone should just delete the article if you honestly expect this place to be serious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.87.52 (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. I've done some initial cleanup to remove vandalism and edit the Catholic Encyc text for dated language/attitudes and NPOV. Still needs plenty of improvement - this is little more than a stub at present. Wantok (toktok) 03:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Duk-Duk. 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/20051020094910/http://www.pacificislandtravel.com:80/png/hotels/rab_hamamashotel.html to http://www.pacificislandtravel.com/png/hotels/rab_hamamashotel.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 13:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]