Talk:Poultry/Archive 1

Untitled

Discussion moved from user pages re categorisation of, interalia, Phasianidae, Anatidae and Dove.

Reverted today

an anonymous user changed the bottom paragraph relating to different cuts of meat. It related dark meat and it's higher muscle mass to that of African-Americans and their ability to flee from the police better.

Fowl in ancient religion and divination

The paragraph about how we came to domesticate chicken states our intent was for food. Chicken and other birds were also used in religious rituals for divination (such as cutting open a chicken and inspecting its entrails), and may have preceded our use of them as food. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timh stlouis (talk • contribs) 23:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's happened to geese?

Are geese a type of poultry or not. They have been domesticated since ancient times (Geese saved Rome from Celtic invasion). I suggest they be included.

Regards

John D. Croft 17:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't categorize geese as being the first thing that comes to mind when we think of poultry. I'm going to try and find a different picture of an actual chicken to place on there. It makes sense.--WaltCip 14:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any birds kept for domestic use as food and associated use (e.g. down feathers, oil)should be considered poultry. --Dr Bird (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted several of your category additions. Poultry refers to domesticated birds, and is appropriate for say Chicken or Helmeted Guineafowl, but not for eg Phasianidae. Most birds in this large family are never domesticated, and many are rare, protected or little known, like the Himalayan pheasants. jimfbleak 05:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, here's the reason for inclusion of pheasant, from the opening two paragraphs of the poultry article itself:

Poultry is the class of domesticated fowl (birds) used for food or for their eggs. These most typically are members of the orders Galliformes (such as chickens and turkeys), and Anseriformes (waterfowl such as ducks and geese).

The word poultry is often used to refer to the meat of these birds. In a more general sense, it may refer to the meat of other birds, such as pigeons or doves, or game birds like pheasants.

I have seen pheasant in markets at various times; the pheasant is definitely involved in the poultry industry. --McDogm 15:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Much more than pheasants, doves are poultry. In the middle east, including Egypt, the dove is the main domesticated bird used for food. Have you read Lawrence Durrell's Alexandria Quartet? The dove industry is featured, as a universal presence in Durrell's Egypt. One recurring image is that of the doves which, having escaped from their cage in the market, don't escape or fly away but just stay there where the cage broke. I really hope you reinstate pheasant and especially dove. The two species are eaten every day around the world. More specifically, doves are very heavily domesticated and should not have been removed from the list in the first place. Thanks for reading. --McDogm 15:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was trying to make was that individual species like Common Pheasant can appropopriately be classed as poultry, but not the Phasianidae family as a whole. I've never heard of anyone in the west at least eating any other of the many pheasant species, and some are extremely rare and difficult to find.

Similarly with dove. I would accept that say Wood Pigeon, Turtle Dove and some others might be classed as poultry, but not all 300-odd species. If you know the African species, cat that, and I have no problem, but I do have a problem with all members of the pheasant/dove/ducks, geese and swan families being so labelled when only a handful are verifiably actually used as poultry. jimfbleak 17:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again at your note on my talk page, I think the confusion is between the species and the family. Pheasant is commonly used to refer to the widely eaten and very tasty Common Pheasant, but the Pheasant article refers to the whole family - similarly with dove, only more so.

The thing of it is, that because pheasants are poultry, and because pheasants are phasinadae, then logically phasinidae are closely linked to poultry. Rhetorically, is not the article birds included in the poultry category?--McDogm 05:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And since birds are vertebrates then all vertebrates are poultry.... ok, do you see the flaw in your logic? Poultry refers to specific birds that are prepared, cooked and eaten. Individual bird species should be tagged as poultry, and if a higher order (genus or larger) contains only birds tagged as poultry, then that higher grouping may also be tagged as such. If the higher grouping includes species that are not poultry, then that higher grouping should not be tagged as poultry. - UtherSRG 13:17, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Come in a bit late on this one - to add to the above, 'poultry' is domesticated, farmed birds only, not gamebirds - so Wood Pigeon (a gamebird) and Turtle Dove are not poultry, but Rock Dove (in respect of domestic pigeons) is poultry. Common Pheasant is farmed, but other pheasant species are not, so aren't poultry. - MPF 23:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ive moved duck to domesticated duck.

Ive added goose but I dont know that much about them so could someone else fill it in?

I would have thought that domesticated geese in the west are derived from Greylag Goose, and in the east from Swan Goose jimfbleak 18:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Millions of upland game birds are raised for both sport and culinary use. Specific color variants of Pheasants and quail are routinely delivered to fine restaurants around the world. Pheasant under glass is a well known dish. --Dr Bird (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

diet section?

Why the section on diet in the chart? All four birds have the same items listed, and they are thoroughly unclear: is a seed not part of a plant? Does this particularly refer to leafy plant matter? And what is the diet of the modern mass-produced chicken (a large percentage of the global chicken population)? Not insects or leafy plants, or even seeds, unless soybeans be included in that category. Do we include cattle in the chicken diet? I don't know enough to say, but I think that a minority of American chickens are raised on diets free of livestock parts.

I suggest that the diet section be removed until it can be cleaned up. --Zachbe 15:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This part in the diet section -- "The common misconception of "I can't eat unless there is meat" is largely due to cultural attitudes and how one is raised to think about food.[3]" -- sounds like more of an advertisement for vegetarianism or veganism than an objective part of an entry about poultry. First, I don't know how "common" this specific idea is. Where is the evidence for it? Don't plenty of people all over the world enjoy meals that don't include meat? Second, "misconception" is a loaded, not objective word. Maybe people eat meat because they want to -- is a "desire" or "preference" a "misconception"? Third, this statement is not necessary for the reader to understand what poultry is.

The diet section overall should probably be folded into a separate article about diet. At the very least, it needs to be cleaned up. Right now it's a jumble of poorly argued opinion stated as fact, and random facts.

Catfish70 (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancy on chickens in the chart

In the chart of "Types of Poultry" for chickens, the "Domestication" columns states that chickens were domesticated in China in 3000 BC. However, in the article for Red Junglefowl, it states that chickens were domesticated from the Red Junglefowl in India. So which is it? These two articles appear to conflict.

Vandalism

Someone changed the names of types of poultry to those of several politicians. The whole thing is not only stupid but also offensive with sick racist overtones. Whoever is in charge of this, please revert.70.118.242.240 23:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request

Please remove "'''Bold text'''" from the end of this article. Thanks -- 86.137.47.240 19:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --- RockMFR 21:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it rather implausible to claim that domestic swans are descended from wild mallards?

65.213.77.129 (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic rabbit

As indicated in the francophone wikipedia for them the domestic rabbit is included into the poultry since its meat is cooked the same way. 216.86.113.233 (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ostrich

Shouldn't ostrich be included? Commercial ostrich farming started in South Africa in 1860.

Call for the critical assessment of ISO..... if possible

ISO 7251

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=ISO+7251&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1 --222.64.18.61 (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 11866

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+ISO+11866&btnG=Search --222.64.18.61 (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 16649

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+ISO+16649&btnG=Search --222.64.18.61 (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 16654

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+ISO+16654&btnG=Search --222.64.18.61 (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the appeal is based on the following http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=Escherichia+coli+poultry&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+Escherichia+coli+poultry+product&btnG=Search —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.64.18.61 (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+Escherichia+coli+cheese&btnG=Search --222.64.18.61 (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further standization for the detection of.....

Listeria is needed http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=Listeria+poultry&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1 --222.64.223.101 (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

murdered and exploited for?

Really? That sure has a negative context to it. Sounds like it was written by some radical vegan. What ever happened to staying neutral?

71.22.116.230 (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC) - Peace Out.[reply]

Final column in 'Examples' section was 'Killed For' - misleading because birds are not killed for egg/feather/weed & pest control uses. Changed 'Killed For' to 'Utilization' which hopefully is not too complex a word for this use. Kerani (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)kerani[reply]

The Health section still has a strong whiff of animal rights activism about it. --Ef80 (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

poultry a cupboard for storing food

Poultry is a cupboard for storing food. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.3.224.78 (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Poult

The article Poult has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Only a dictionary definition. Not a dab page either - no articles called "Poult" to disambiguate.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PamD (talk) 08:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chickens and flight

The article states, "Chickens cannot fly." This is blatant ignorance, based on experience only with domesticated chickens. Wild birds of Gallus gallus can certainly fly, and so can feral chickens, and also domesticated chickens if allowed to free range without wing clipping. Most domestic chickens nowadays are bred, live and die in caged structures, and never learn to fly. While it is true that chickens even in the wild prefer running to flying, they are certainly capable of it, and do so to reach tree perches. See the articles chicken and Red Junglefowl. I am deleting this sentence. Ptilinopus (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Health

Please consider stating the fact that cooking temperatures kill S. aureus, and most bacteria but poses a cross-contamination threat. This was stated in the citation used. Dr Bird (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing lead image

I propose to change the lead image of this article. The current lead image appears to show model hens in a museum exhibit. Surely we can find an image more aesthetically pleasing and informative. There are many images we could use, however, my favourite is Poultry of the world.jpg on Wikimedia Commons; I propose to replace the current image with this. __DrChrissy (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

I am intending to expand this article within the next few weeks. I intend to have a section for each type of bird and will probably remove the unreferenced table that is there at the moment. I have been researching a definition for poultry and do not believe the term should include emu and ostrich. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

immunizations

Eggs are used in vast quantities for growing viruses needed to make vaccines. Hence, some vaccinations can not be given to people with egg allergies. Snowman (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a paragraph on this topic. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys. This is interesting information, but I am wondering whether it is just a bit too detailed for "Poultry" - a rather general page. Perhaps it should go on an "Egg XXX" page, or medical page? Keep up the good editing. __DrChrissy (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The aim is to make the article comprehensive and avoid major omissions. Snowman (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK - just seems it is not the sort of information that an average reader would expect on Poultry. As I said, great information, but just not sure it belongs here. There are many other issues that are not explained on here.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it might be a surprise, but what is wrong with that? It could be shortened to "Eggs are used to generate viruses for vaccines" and not much else, but I suspect that would be too short for some readers. Which issues are not explained? Snowman (talk) 10:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting your information should be on a page which might get a wider audience. If I were to be looking for the effects of developing immunizations in hen eggs (is it only hen eggs?), I would not be looking at Poultry. Regarding missing issues on this page, there are many. The article does not mention pheasants, the number/variety of hen breeds, any description about swans, various issues about welfare such as shooting....and the list goes on. This is not a complaint - merely an observarion.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Vaccine#Production - seems ideal for your information. Just trying to be helpful.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccine#Production has the information already in rather greater detail. I'd have thought Chicken would be a better destination if the paragraph is to move, but I would be happy to leave it where it is. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pheasants may be game birds and not poultry, nevertheless the article could clarify definitions. I doubt if poultry are shot, since there are less expensive ways of killing them. I think chickens are (or were) generally killed by pulling their necks, but I am not certain if this is out-of-date now. Snowman (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, another example, Ducks are discussed in the article, but duck shooting is not. Commercial broilers today are usually killed by exanguination (slitting their throats and letting them bleed to death)__DrChrissy (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that wild ducks are shot. Wild ducks are game birds and not poultry. Snowman (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eggs

As far as I understand, a lot of people just keep chickens for eggs, so egg showing became popular; see The Poultry Club. Snowman (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: "most commercial birds are of hybrid origin.[10]". Does this refer to birds grown for their meat only? I have the impression that the temperament and egg laying of chickens is more predictable with a pure breed of hen, and that a pure breed is better for egg laying. Snowman (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meat

"Originally, birds were only killed for food after their egg-laying ability declined, by which time they might be scrawny and tough. " - unreferenced, & dubious. The females maybe, but what about the males? When was "originally"? The Romans had capons, and passed laws against eating egg-layers in 162 BC apparently. Johnbod (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the sentence. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Poultry

I am just posting to alert people watching this page, since it is one of the core pages of a new project, to fact that WikiProject Poultry has now been launched and can be found at WP:POULTRY. I thought I let people know so those who may be interested in our topic will know about WikiProject Poultry's creation. Thank you for your time. JTdale ^Talk 12:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Poultry/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: StudiesWorld (talk · contribs) 19:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);^[2] and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Review

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	I have read the article and it meets the Prose criteria.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	I have read the article and it complies with MoS criteria.	Pass

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	There is a proper list of references.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	It properly cites sources everywhere except the lead.	Pass
(c) (original research)	The lead could be original research. In general it is well sourced.	Pass

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	It covers all major aspects of the article.	Pass
(b) (focused)	It maintains a good focus throughout the article.	Pass

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
This maintains a neutral point of view.	Pass

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
This article currently is not experiencing an edit war.	Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	All images are proerly used.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	All caption are suitable.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	Overall this is a good article.

Discussion

Please add any related discussion here.

Additional notes

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

For multiple reasons removed from summary the sentence: "There is some concern that poultry farmers ... risks of a pandemic."

For multiple reasons removed from summary the sentence: There is some concern that poultry farmers who come in intimate contact with their birds could be exposed to avian influenza, and that new strains of the disease, transmissible man to man, may develop and could pose risks of a pandemic. 1. This is a suspect statement without a citation from an expert body, so removed this rather than just marking 'cite?'. 2. Out of scope of a summary/introduction because it adds nothing to readers' understanding of the topic Poultry; put it elsewhere in the article once a cite is found. 3. Superfluous without elucidation because all farming operations face various health risks. 129.55.200.20 (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with removal - this certainly should not be in the lead. It is more appropriate to Avian influenza but would still need citations.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of bird names

I recently edited the article to change bird common names to lower case based the changes made to MOS:LIFE in April 2014 following a long discussion and request for comment documented at WP:BIRDCON. There it says "English vernacular ('common') names are given in lower case in article prose". Another editor has reversed one of those changes stating "Precedent shows poultry breed names, standardised by international and national poultry bodies, are capitalised in all wikipedia articles". My thought would be that as this is Wikipedia rather than a publication of "poultry bodies" we should follow Wikipedia style. I'd appreciate other views on this issue. Thank you. SchreiberBike talk 02:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not talking about bird names, we're discussing specifically poultry. I am aware of the mess that was caused with WikiProject Birds, and as I understand, sufficiently annoyed most other animal Wikiprojects to cause a mass exodus of editors in our area. However, poultry breed names (granted, Red Jungle Fowl being a weird case) are not species. They are breeds, major difference. Wild bird names are not officially sanctioned by major organisations responsible for standardising them, while poultry breeds are - i.e: The Poultry Club of Great Britain, American Poultry Association and American Bantam Association, Entente Européenne d’Aviculture et de Cuniculture, the Australian Poultry Standards Committee, the New Zealand Poultry, Pigeon & Cage Bird Association. I can go on all day about societies and these are just the English language ones, who have a role in what we call our poultry breeds.. JT_dale^Talk~ 08:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand what you are saying. I'm not advocating for changing capitalization of breeds here. Red junglefowl (Gallus gallus) though is a species; chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus) is one of its subspecies. Breeds are generally capitalized on Wikipedia, but species common names are not. Do you understand that the same way? SchreiberBike talk 17:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe SchreiberBike is correct. I started a related topic at the Talk page of Mustang. I personally do not believe that breeds should be capitalised and that to capitalise is against WP:MOS. However, this is a much larger issue and this is not the page to discuss it on.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Poultry. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20140227163240/http://www.aseellovers.20m.com/custom.html to http://www.aseellovers.20m.com/custom.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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pheasant

They are not part of the Poultry? Pheasantries could indicate that they are partly domesticated like the Guineafowls. Informationskampagne (talk) 11:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Poultry. 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/20130607080043/http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C10/C10Links/www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/pubs/mpcolor.htm to http://dwb.unl.edu/teacher/nsf/c10/c10links/www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/pubs/mpcolor.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) 16:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Poultry. 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/20070602122944/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-04/11/content_4409586.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-04/11/content_4409586.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) 19:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Poultry. 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/20131216083304/http://www.wspa-international.org/publicfiles/Free_range_farming_and_avian_flu__3_.pdf to http://wspa-international.org/publicfiles/Free_range_farming_and_avian_flu__3_.pdf

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) 20:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ostriches and Emus

Aren't Ostriches and Emus generally considered to be poultry? They are farmed for their meat, eggs, fat, and oil. 2001:1970:48AA:8100:3D9B:37CD:558C:BFF0 (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I also do not see pheasants and partridges. 2001:1970:48AA:8100:3D9B:37CD:558C:BFF0 (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT 2: Quail also isn't on here. Strange, all these birds are farmed for meat and eggs, yet they somehow don't meet the defintion? 2001:1970:48AA:8100:3D9B:37CD:558C:BFF0 (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary much?

The lead presently contains all of the following:

The word "poultry" comes from the French/Norman word poule, itself derived from the Latin word pullus, which means small animal.
The word "poultry" comes from the West & English "pultrie", from Old French pouletrie, from pouletier, poultry dealer, from poulet, pullet.
The word "pullet" itself comes from Middle English pulet, from Old French polet, both from Latin pullus, a young fowl, young animal or chicken.
The word "fowl" is of Germanic origin (cf. Old English Fugol, German Vogel, Danish Fugl).

— MaxEnt 18:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Dunghill fowl" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Dunghill fowl and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 21#Dunghill fowl until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]