Talk:Serama

2005

Okay, I know pretty much nil about chicken care. I came here clicking through the Random Articles link, looking for articles to improve. That said, all this referencing to an "I" reads like some sort of POV... since I don't really know enough to fix it, I have marked the article with NPOV and Expert tags. --Sparky Lurkdragon 21:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed all the POV stuff.

Looks much better now. Thanks. :)

Just a reminder, but it helps keep conversations clearer when you sign your name on talk pages. You can either click the signature button, or just type four tidles (~~~~). Thanks! --Sparky Lurkdragon 07:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

66.82.9.xx

I think perhaps some discussion is in order, 66.82.9.xx. I ask that you please stop reverting the article to its POV state. See, all these references to "I" and saying things like "that's what makes them so fun!" and so on are quite clearly pushing a point of view - something that is not allowed on Wikipedia. The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a how-to guide - for that, I recommend its sister project, Wikibooks. This page should not take any stance on how neat these chickens are or the details on their care, merely describe what they are and the basics of their care.

I ask that you please review the guidelines and rules for editing here at Wikipedia, and please take the message at the bottom of the edit screen that your work will be edited mercilessly to heart. --Sparky Lurkdragon 02:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it is best left as is, and if changes are to be made, they will be made by someone more knowledgeable. I will clean it up some, but this article has been here a LONG time.

Thank you for understanding and cleaning it up a bit.  :)

Also, I may not know anything much about chicken breeding, but I do about formatting and tone for the Wikipedia, so I'll fix up a few tone problems ('you', mainly), standarize the formatting a bit, and add some wikilinks. I'm also a bit confused about what is meant by "Class A" and "Class B" - some sort of size measurement, I'm guessing? - and I think the article could do with some sort of short explanation so the layperson can understand that better. --Sparky Lurkdragon 06:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Chickenbreed Infobox

A new infobox {{Infobox Chickenbreed}} has been created for chicken articles. If you see anywhere it needs improved please contact User:Stepshep. If it meets your criteria it is requested you add it to this article's page for standardization. Thanks! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 17:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Characteristics

It seems that lately there has been some confusion regarding what the Malaysian Serama and the American Serama are. The purpose of this article is to aid people in understanding what these labels mean in relation to the Serama.

In Malaysia, these bantams are called Ayam Serama. Under this name, there are several different types or styles which Malaysians also use in reference to their birds. Some of these styles include, but are not limited to, Slim, Apple, Ball, and Dragon. Each of these styles has a distinctly different look to them. Note that there is no reference to Malaysian Serama or American Serama as styles or types within Malaysia itself.

For those unfamiliar with Malaysian Ayam Serama types, the following is a brief description of each of the types mentioned: Slim is a relatively tall, slender bird with a very small breast. This type looks as though it could fit into a cylinder without problem. Ball are quite round in appearance. The legs are short and the wings are not held at vertical, but closer to 45 degrees or less, due to wing and leg length. The breast is as large as it can be given the anatomy of the bird. Apple isn't as intuitive. The breast on the Apple Serama is a bit lower and larger and the legs on this type are medium in length. Dragons are the "extreme" Serama. Their head is held so far back that, on some individuals, the breast is actually held higher than the head. Wings are held vertically, and legs tend to be medium to short in length.

The Serama was imported into the U.S. in 2001 and at that time was widely referred to as the Malaysian Serama, denoting its country of origin. Upon its inception in 2002, the Serama Council of North America (SCNA) created a standard to which breeders within the organization would breed their birds. This is where the terminology American Serama came in. American Serama does not refer to Serama from America, but Serama of American type. The founders of SCNA wrote the standard to be a combination of two types, those being the Apple and the Slim types. Since references like Slim Apple Serama would invoke further confusion, we at SCNA felt it appropriate to refer to this type as the American Serama, as it was a type developed here in the U.S. We felt it necessary to choose one type and stay with it as Serama in Malaysia have evolved greatly, which you can see from the reference to the various types found there.

Since the term American Serama came into being, there is now reference to Malaysian Serama as well within the United States. This has led to a certain amount of confusion because some breeders refer to Malaysian Serama as Serama of Malaysian type rather than Serama from Malaysia. Malaysian Serama referring to type consists of a breed that is similar to the American Serama, but differs as a shorter- legged, longer- winged bird, which is more a combination of the ball and slim type. At this time, the Serama in the U.S. are in their infancy in the development of type and there is some difficulty in distinguishing between the American and Malaysian types. In five years, that will change and the types will be notably discernable.

Most people, at the moment, refer to Malaysian Serama as Serama from Malaysia. I know of several breeders that refer to their birds as Malaysian Serama, but actually breed American Serama. I have done that on occasion. You can see why there might be some confusion regarding names.

Throughout this article you've seen me speak of nothing but type; one further difference does exist between the types within their standards. The SCNA standard recognizes the A, B, and C classes, other standards simply recognize A and B classes. The SCNA currently recognizes three class sizes because we do not want to limit ourselves at this time to possible non-viable weights, such as may be occurring within the Micro-A's. In turn, breeding larger Serama outside of the C class is not promoted and is strongly discouraged. As stated before, the American Serama is in its infancy and all genetic potential must be considered in order to build the birds which best fit our standard. The current classes as defined by that standard make the best use of that genetic potential at this time. SCNA will ultimately lower their size classes to one class in order to prepare for eventual acceptance into the APA and ABA, but presently feels that it is more important to perfect the American Serama type first.

I hope that this clears some confusion when someone refers to one of these tiny birds as a Malaysian Serama or an American Serama.

This was in the mainspace...clearly not encyclopedic, but perhaps makes some points that some of you may use. --Smashville^talk 20:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Citation Needed Tags Removed

If anyone would like to explain why a 'Citation Needed' tag was added to the section of the article referring to the Serama as bantams, please do. Bantams are not a genetic variation from large fowl, but rather any type of chicken which falls in to the size standards for the Bantam or which has an even larger variety of its breed. If anyone wishes to argue against this, please feel free to. Since I have already removed the tag, this is just to explain my justification in doing so.

Thank you, Anjwalker (talk) 07:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Early Breeders section

Information in wikipedia almost always need a strong reference, per the WP:Verification pillar. This needs to come from a WP:Reliable source. If a source is questioned, it needs to be shown to be reliable. The writing must be WP:Notable, WP:Neutral, and WP:Due, in addition to being sourced. This is especially true for this situation as wikipedia has a strong policy on writing about people. The Early Breeders section does not meet these requirements, and information should be discussed here before being inserted. CMD (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

However, the imports are not cited and who did them. The fact that Jerry Schexnayder was not the only founder os the SCNA is always blocked out, when it was in fact Reeder, Sparks and Schexnayder who founded it. ChipminkDavis, you only use the "rules" to try to stop accurate information from being presented. And thats sad.

If you don't want ALL the info, then maybe NO ONE should be mentioned at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.11.133.214 (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right, removed as well. Info needs a direct, reliable source, not a name and instruction to google. CMD (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

As I noted above, I removed the Early Breeders section because of the strong Biographies of Living People policy. Why do you dispute the rest of the information? CMD (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I have semiprotected the article again because you kept on repeatedly adding unsourced material. Under Wikipedia's policies, material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source. Furthermore, you might have a conflict of interest with regard to the subject matter. Please, do discuss the changes you'd like to make to the article here on the talk page and provide reliable sources supporting them. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Some information may not be popular, yet is true. For an accurate account, it should be left as is. Or, as an alternative, the SCNA group should author its own American Serama page. This one needs to reflect both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AccurateHistoricalRecord (talk • contribs) 18:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:Reliable source, then explain the changed you want here. These were the kind of edits that led to the page being semi-protected. More edits will probably lead to your account being blocked. If however, a discussion here based on wikipedias policies and guidelines leads to change, the article profits and no-one gets blocked. I suggest therefore, that you describe the problem here so others can examine it. CMD (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, I know you belong to the SCNA. But you cannot hide truth and fact. For all these facts, cites are in place. There are cites proving who bred the pictured bird. There are cites showing experts have proven "Serama" in the US are actually Kapan. The ASA is real and exists. There were two importers. Why continually try to force such real fact and real history off the page? CMD —Preceding undated comment added 21:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest stating what you want removed and the reason "why" is some detail, as it appears now that facts are being removed.--AccurateHistoricalRecord (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Source is reliable as has first hand experience seeing the breed both in Malaysia and here. Very few can claim this level of expertise. As for picture siite, the Feathersite attributes the image to Brian Sparks and they are considered a very credible source of poultry information. Chipmunkdavis must learn he does NOT decide what fact is distributed on Wikipedia simply because he does not like it. --AccurateHistoricalRecord (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That is not what determines a reliable source. Please see WP:Reliable source, which is a community guideline, not one determined by Chipmunkdavis. CMD (talk) 08:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Poultrysite is deemed a credible source, used throughtout Wikipedia. There is no question. Thus, their reference to the questioned picture as being attributed to Mr. Brian Sparks is credible and stands.

Please also remember: "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources; see WP:NEWSBLOG. Serama John is a well known expert on serama. He is also part of a larger organization, links can be found in his blog. The blog is used because his larger site is not in English. However, per WIKI standards cited above, it is an ACCEPTABLE source. Chipmunkdavis, I know you guys want to sell birds and think this info may hurt your sales and promotion, but it is still fact and will remain fact. Time to stop hiding it.--AccurateHistoricalRecord (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Photo reference:

The photo is attributed to a hen produced by Mr. Brian Sparks of Wisconsin. Feathersite is used throught wikipedia as a credible source. Since the citation does not promote anything other than fact (Mr. Sparks no longer has serama and therefore could not be promoting the sale of them, or any club association), why do you feel it must be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.11.133.214 (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Feathersite is a personal website, so it's being a reliable source is not certain. Even if it wasn't, the inserted text provides the reader with no useful information. CMD (talk) 07:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Feathersite is used all across wikipedia as a credible source. In fact, it is used earlier in THIS article. Citing this picture shoud remain as it provides a visual and written link to the type Mr. Sparks sought to solidify in his Malaysian style of breeding as opposed to the americanized kapan look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.11.133.214 (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

There's been no reason provided that we should promote the view of Mr. Sparks on this page. Neither is usage on wikipedia an indicator of reliability - wikipedia is not a wp:reliable source. CMD (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The pictures in question were NOT photoshopped. These are actual Malaysian birds of the current type most commonly bread and gaining fast acceptance even in the U.S. These truly represent the birds as they are and should not be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NCOCEO (talk • contribs) 21:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

As I responded on my talkpage, they're blatantly photoshopped, unlike the picture you removed. CMD (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The photo I removed contained promotional language. Since it was embedded in the pic, it could not be fixed, only removed. As for "photoshopping", the birds themselves are real. The face was covered to protect privacy of the person and does not affect the bird itself. These more extreme birds are quite common in Malaysia. Fighting has gone on, self-promotion and more on this page. Enough is enough. All copyrights are intact and verified, sources are good, everything lines up. Let's leave this one alone now.--NCOCEO (talk) 08:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You've used a blogspot source. That does not line up. As for your embedded promotional language (traditional is promotional language?), ask for that to change on commons. Whether or not the birds are real, the pictures are of poor quality, and if you care about promotion, actually have some on the image. CMD (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2013 (UT

Who took the photo is NOT promotional. The pictures represent real birds. Restored. You fight all editors on this page, please refrain from warring with everyone repeatedly.--NCOCEO (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Blogs rarely be reliable sources, but even by Wikipedia standards, this one falls in that rare case. Serama John is VERY well known for his expertise on serama. He is one of VERY few people who have seen serama in several countries and continents. He is sought out by breeders for his knowledge. He provides pictures and background on everything he does. Because he uses a blog also DOES NOT make him a unreliable source. He would fall under "Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field may be acceptable".--NCOCEO (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Advertising a photographer's name on the photograph seems fairly promotional. Far more so than an image without it at any rate (an image without awful photoshopping to boot). You can ask if a blogspot is acceptable on WP:RS/N, but the WP:BURDEN of evidence is on the one wanting to use the source to do this. Surely there's some sort of book published by an actual publisher that better documents such changes, rather than a blogspot. CMD (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

SERAMA INFORMATION

Hiding accurate information is not a good way to go about page editing, and constant warring should stop. I have watched this page and two of you try to control the information. Both of you may be too close to the subject. Please, begin a discussion here, but stop with the warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NCOCEO (talk • contribs) 13:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)