Talk:Homosexual behavior in animals/Archive 1

message: Replacing it with "widespread" only partially deals with the problem. It is still too vague. Also, to precede it with a statement about the "parallel" without a caveat statement from another study, does not seem fair. I did not delete the parallel statement, I only let people know there are competing conclusions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.225.204.7 (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, anal sex is common, but only among males and only in animals with a penis (i.e. mammals). The wast majority of animals do not have a penis.Petter Bøckman 19:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: widespread

message: Fix, change it, do what you want. But an article, per the Manual of Style, must have an introduction. There's no two ways about it. You simply cannot remove an intro entirely, whatever the problems. As to the style/content objections: I reverted not because I disagree with the spirit of improving the content (it's a crap intro), but because it removed essential elements rather than improving them. Example: you must have a basic definition and statement of notability as the first sentence. Jumping right into facts without context or a proper lead is a violation of basic article writing principles. Change whatever you want, but removing basic structural necessities is not an improvement. VanTucky (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lede should also include a statement about that the subject is seen as controversial because it is used as proof that homosexuality et al is natural while others point to the same research as proof that sexuality and gender are influenced by environmental factors and/or an aberation. Benjiboi 02:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated the lede and moved the controversy (political implications) statement to address the balance concern. Benjiboi 02:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ouch, sorry for not checking the style manual before revising, my bad! The new introduction is better than the old one, but I feel that the topics that was in the sections I wrote should be covered (use of the term "homosexual" in particular). Would it be an idea to make a more "neutral" introduction (stating a few facts now covered by the introduction), and moving the controversy part to it's own chapter? I believe the controversy is important enough to warrant a proper treatment, not just be mentioned in passim in the intro.Petter Bøckman 05:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually that this article has been and is likely to remain a magnet for strong POVs I suggest leaving the lede intact and starting a Criticism of research section or whatever seems appropriate. In my experience, articles that deal with GLBT issues attract a fair amount of anon editors but if they see that criticisms are addressed clearly and upfront the editing becomes more focused on the article than assuring a POV is preserved. Benjiboi 06:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I have left the introduction as it was, and put in a chapter on the problematic use of the term homosexuality, mostly put together from my old sections.Petter Bøckman 09:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which unfortunately was full of POV. The worst has now been removed, but somebody else needs to look at it and clean it up a lot more. Pairadox 09:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, I fail to see where the entry was full of POV. I see you have edited away the section saying that homosexuality is a matter of sexual preference. It is not that I insist that it should be mentioned, I'm just surprised that this constitute a POV. This use of the word follows from the definition (the original Preussian one), at least from where I'm from, this is totally uncontroversial. If this is not Wikipedia policy on GLBT matters, please let me know. The section was an attempt at giving a quick intro to the problem of terminology, which I in all fairness think the readers should know about.Petter Bøckman 18:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: intro

message: This article needs citations and sources. The article is plenty long and is likely to be seen as controversial so editors should start adding references where conflict is likely to arise. I'm tagging the article for sources so that editors who don't read talk pages will see the alert as well. Benjiboi 00:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've formatted all the references that were there and added reflist so they appear. Benjiboi 02:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your tremendous effort on this article. Haiduc 04:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're very welcome. The more references added to back-up assertions occurs the more I believe the article will come into a balance. i think some quotes from researches on both sides of the debate as well as neutral scientists will also help. I'm sure Scientific American and National Geographic have material on these subjects as well. Benjiboi 04:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: In-line references

message: Female hyenas have a pseudo-penis, but it is not an actual penis. It only appears to be one. This lead to the misconception that hyenas were hermaphrodites. They aren't. And they do not display homosexual behavior. Placing them in this article because of that misconception will only increase people's belief in the misconception and hurt this article, because if there's one section that is false why should readers believe any of the other sections? -Freak104 12:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They actually do exhibit homosexual behavior (mounting) as well as males mounting each other - probably as a result of higher testosterone levels, but both male and female hyenas exhibit this behavior so I'm re-adding the section with references. Benjiboi 16:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They only exhibit play mounting, which is not an example of homosexual behavior. It is a form of play. And most of the time the young males play mount a female. -Freak104 16:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen nothing that the mounting researchers documented was considered play and, in fact, believe that they would have quickly (and more readily) categorized the mountings as such. Please stop deleting the entire section and instead find a reference that supports that all the mounting exhibited by hyenas is exclusively "play mounting" and that "play mounting" cannot be considered homosexual activity. Benjiboi 16:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously you have never taken an actual class in animal behavior. The mounting behavior you have listed is juveniles only, and it is play. If we defined play mounting as homosexual behavior then all mammals would have to be listed in this article. And do not add the section back in until other editors have voiced their opinion. Otherwise this will devolve into an edit war, and we don't want that. Let's settle this dispute with other people's opinions, the way Wikipedia says we're supposed to. -Freak104 16:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will refrain from listing my credentials as an authority on sexual behavior in animals and instead focus on the verifiable information for this article. I also appreciate your apparent interest in following protocols although it should be noted that you simply deleted the entire section here and herebecause the section only covered the hermaphrodite "ignorance" stating there is no homosexuality in their behavior. Then after I added references supporting homosexual behavior you again deleted the entire section hereand here instead of voicing your concerns. Now any editors will have to dig through history to even access what was written and referenced. I now have to hold off re-adding the section you've efficiently removed four times so that I too don't violate the three-revert rule. I again assert, as does the article, that traditionally researchers have avoided labeling the same behavior by different sexes  for various reasons and that researchers didn't categorize the mountings as "play mountings" but simply mountings. I have every belief that they would have been more likely to err by calling something a play mounting (especially if it was juveniles) rather than  labeling the mountings as they did. I am, however, quite open to amending the freshly deleted text if some reference can be found that asserts those mountings can only be considered play and play cannot mean homosexual. If that information can be referenced then we should add it as a counter to the other research as a disagreement in research or research results. Since it seems like you're open to what other editors (besides me) have to say, let's see what transpires. Benjiboi 17:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The standard for inclusion is verifiability, not truth.  The section in controversy seems well sourced.  If there is contradictory literature, that can be included too.  Fireplace 18:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, that does conflict with the the other researcher's statements so possibly including both makes sense. Where is that referenced by the way? Benjiboi 02:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't conflict with other researchers statements. It conflicts with WP:Original Research posted on this page. Freak104 16:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I intend to re-add the deleted section whether any conflicting or balancing sources are provided or not. As the other editor cited verifiability, not truth. If there are sources to back up the assertion then please provide. Benjiboi 16:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "When they are cubs they mount both males and females" Therefore, not a homosexual behavior. Freak104 23:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds interesting, please provide a WP:RS for that assertion. Benjiboi 23:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bottom line is: the test for inclusion is verifiability in reliable, published sources, not truth. As multiple sources treat this topic in the context of animal homosexuality, it meets the test. VanTucky Talk 23:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This is not the complaints department, stick to comments about the article. VanTucky Talk 04:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spotted hyena

message: Does this paragraph belong in this article? While there are some interesting homosexual activity across species (Baboons/chimpanzees and Amazone River Dolphin/Tucuxi), the general paragraph deals with cross species sex, not homosexuality.Petter Bøckman 19:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it has little to do with the article's subject matter. I say either remove it or move it to a proper animal sexuality article. VanTucky (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it does help understand the subject but should be moved to the bottom with a sentence referencing it added to the intro or first section. Benjiboi 02:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually where it was, was the bottom of the theorizing or essay aspect of the article and the remainder of the article Selected species are provided as examples so its placement was fine. Benjiboi 01:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: To clarify, the article has two main parts; the lede and information (what I termed above "theorizing or essay aspect") and the second part a list of selected examples. I'm sure there are more technical or wiki-correct terms but the end result is the same - the list of examples is purposely shortenend and is appropriately the last aspect of the basic article. Benjiboi 13:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cross species sex

message: The Japanese macaque is another animal that displays homosexual behavior. If I remember what I read about them it is primarily female-female behavior, and the males don't exhibit in homosexual behavior. I don't remember where to find this, but if someone could that would be an excellent addition to this page. -Freak104 12:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: done. Benjiboi 00:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Japanese macaque

message: Stupid question: why is a 'cross-species sex'-section in this article? Firstly, cross-species sex has nothing to do with homosexuality, secondly the section is mostly giving heterosexual examples (e.g. horse+donkey=mule). Wouldn't this entire section rather belong in Animal sexual behavior? In fact that article already has a more detailed section about cross-species sex. Therefore I suggest to delete/merge it here. Splette :) How's my driving? 19:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm of mixed opinions on this presently. I do see that for the average reader this could be useful information If we have it detailed better elsewhere than a summary here would be appropriate as it relates to this article. Banjeboi 21:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All kinds of information might be interesting to the average reader. But thats besides the point. Homosexuality in animals simply has no relation to cross-species sex (please correct me if I am wrong). Therefore I also oppose a summary of it here. I am against deleting content in wikipedia articles just because they are misplaced; in the wrong article. But this is not the case here since Animal sexual behavior has the topic well covered. Even more Animal sexual behavior is linked to in the very first sentence of this article here. Splette :) How's my driving? 23:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The section starts off with "research regularly records that many animals are sexual opportunists" which would seem to be at the core of what this article is about, that is why do animals exhibit homosexual behaviors. The section certainly could be improved a bit, as is, however, it does suggest exactly why it's there so I would faovr keeping it and improving it if it's not clear enough. Banjeboi 10:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cross-species sex 

message: "homosexual behaviour is commonplace in the animal kingdom"
There are estimated to be 1,015,000 species in the order animalia, with 1,500 displaying homosexual traits. This is equal to 0.001% of all species. Is this really commonplace?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.M.M. Dowd (talk • contribs) 14:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That does depend on what you'd call common. The problem with the vast majority of animal’s species is that we don't know much about their sexual life and preferences, homosexual or otherwise. Among the number of animals where that has been surveyed closely enough to observe homosexuality, it can be said to be a fairly common phenomenon. This is dealt with a bit further down in the text, but I think a rephrasing is on order.Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Also please note your comparison to 1,500 is wonky as these are the first 1500 to be identified not the only 1500. I'm not sure if there is sourcing that speaks to the percentage of animals that fall into this category but that might be useful if found. Banjeboi 21:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commonplace