Talk:List of animals displaying homosexual behavior/Archive 1

message: I don't really understand why we have a page for this. It doesn't have very much information, and doesn't explain its self. Are these species where most the animals act homosexual, or a few for some odd reason tend to...? Maybe we should merge it with Animal homosexuality. What do you think? Chooserr 05:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a good precedent for keeping long lists separate from the article describing the list. Non-human animal sexuality (nee Animal homosexuality) adequately describes what's going on and points to this list. If you disagree, you should Wikipedia:be bold and update either article to make the connection better. I think you will find resistence to merging the two together, though. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Look how long the list is. Merging this long list with an existing page seems like a bad idea. It seems that your problem is not with redundant content in the list, but the nature of having a list such as this to begin with.--Andrew c 18:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least it's a good article to point the nth homophobe ignorant troll to (somehow the brand of people claiming homosexuality is a purely human perversion of nature never dies out) without having to refer to original research (anyone who has had a lot to do with animals can easily disprove such arguments, but Wikipedia is something of an authority by comparison). — Ashmodai (talk · contribs) 15:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we also need a list of animals with cancer for all those intolerant cancerophobes? charon 22:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Putting aside the issue of homophobia (which there's no evidence of here) this article isn't really very good. A list of species with a covering line indicating all these species display homosexual behavior? The information given is so tenuous it verges on the point of non-existence. MK2 20:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?

message: For some reason, I have a bit of trouble believing the factuality of the first animal on the list. Should I just go ahead and delete it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trebs (talk • contribs) .
:I've gone ahead and removed that and other joke entires of the same editor. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: African Amorous Ape?

message: See the discussion here. Don't reinsert it. -Freak104 16:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because you're edit warring on another article doesn't justify the same action/results on this article (although in both cases I think you're mistaken and the results will be to keep). Ordering others to do or not do something is also likely to backfire. Benjiboi 19:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spotted hyenas

message: But this list strikes me as one that could use a massive sourcing crackdown.  I mean, especially of the red-link animals.  These are animals about which Wikipedia knows absolutely nothing other than that (without a source, mind you) they MIGHT BE GAY.  I think it doesn't take much imagination to understand that this list could easily be full of hoaxes and jokes.--Jimbo Wales 16:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tagged it as , I hope that I used the right template (I also can't do much now, I'm meant to be doing a maths assignment!) PhilB ~ T/C 18:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There are some logical flaws in Jimbo's argument, but I completely agree that the lack of sourcing is a problem. I'll make a start on the birds section. SP-KP 19:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect Stuart's Marsupial Mouse is a good example of a hoax. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. See Brown Antechinus. Benjiboi 10:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed all unsourced red links and the 3 sections which did not contain a single source but all the unsourced material should be deleted. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've re-added them all, every item checks out as was indicated in the lede. Benjiboi 17:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Please read our policy about sourcing, any disputed material must be sourced or removed immediately not in some indeterminate future. I did not remove all the red links but all the unsourced red links. And please do nott ell me to get a grip, its uncivil. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm working on linking and sourcing the list and must agree with the bogus sentiment above. The majority of the list is from one source and editors are having to look up every entry and add a ref for each to determine which aren't reffed in that book. Deleting entire sections that no one has yet gotten to contradicts what the article states and what a quick look at the main source for the entire list also supports. Please gain consensus here before deleting half the list and consider doing a quick online search before deleting species wikipedia has no article for; scientists have yet to discover untold (millions?) of species and wikipedia is hardly the authority whether one exists or not. Benjiboi 10:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: As an example, Gray-headed Flying Fox is one of the largest species in Australia and should have an article but simply doesn't yet. I will add a link to Bat and will add the ref after I've wikilinked as many as I can. Hard to see mass deletions as good faith but will more easily see that demonstrated when you contribute to the article by adding sources as most everyone agrees should happen. Benjiboi 10:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the excellent work. I know it's tedious but it really is needed (and much appreciated) in bringing this article up to Wikipedia's standard.  I also understand and agree with Squeakbox's initial reaction that the best thing to do, if no sources were quickly forthcoming, was to trim the redlinks.  Thanks to your excellent work that won't be necessary. --Tony Sidaway 15:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree, the entire list was sourced as is laid out in the lede. I don't see deletions as good faith but now it matters less as individual sources have been added. Not a single hoax item so far. And every item on the list was fine, I could have added quite a few as well but just trying to keep things from being deleted for now. Benjiboi 17:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well done, Benjiboi for the hard work. I'll hold off from tackling more birds until you've done the rest of the species, to avoid the inevitable edit conflicts. Just one thing though - following my earlier message on your talk page, I've noticed that you're using "cite web" - if we want to go with full citations, rather than the abbreviated version I was using, isn't this the wrong template? Cite book is correct, surely? I looked at where the web links go, and they're all pointing to the same URL, unless I've missed something, so if we want to reference an online catalogue entry for the book (I think that's what you're trying to achieve?) how about we do it just the once, at the bottom, in the references section? SP-KP 17:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll leave it up to others to decide, I feel if I'm accessing via the web and not a book then I should cite web instead (and provide a link); I think it's pretty much the same version of the book so I imagine all the links will eventually be cleaned up in some fashion - I would suggest keeping the link on each ref there so someone can easily click a ref and be vectored to the online book. Benjiboi 17:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry - I must be missing something then - the links take me to a Google Booksearch catalogue entry, that's all, not to an online book. What's the link to the online book? SP-KP 18:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I meant, it takes you to the Google book copy so those who don't have or are less inspired to get the actual book can see the book itself online. Benjiboi 20:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That is looking better, I am happy to wait a few days but will then remove all unsourced blue links. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And then I'll put them back. No one "owns" an article and I'm curious when you were elected this article's governor? --  ALLSTAR  ECHO 20:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This list has been watched over and now the vast majority have been referenced individually. Hard to see your "contributions" as anything but antagonistic and indeed seem to go against consensus building. Jimbo's original comment was valid but he didn't decree that the items had to go just that sources need to be introduced and they have been by leaps and bounds. If you have a specific item you think is a hoax then bring it up. If you want to reference something then please help. If you want to play content judge and executioner for a list that's been pretty stable then maybe an encyclopedia isn't a good match. We're trying to expand knowledge not burn books. Benjiboi 20:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Asking for sources and owning an article are as far apart as it is possible to be and any editor has a right to demand that unsourced material be removed, or remove it themselves, otherwise the encyclopedia could fill up with junk. See WP:Reliable sources. And the fact that the article is dramatically improving is a tribute to the hard work of everybody involved. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You weren't asking for sources as others have done you were deleting valid content despite numerous editors posting throughout this talk page that they were all cited in the article and that source was added to the lede and all those listed were available for anyone to check up on the google book site. As has been pointed out there pretty much was no junk that was filling up the article, Jimbo's concern was hoaxes - there didn't seem to be any. I hope your draconian style doesn't haunt you too much when articles you've worked on are gutted without due cause because every moment of information isn't cited explicitly. Benjiboi 08:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Squeakbox, while I am sure you're acting in good faith, you seem to have BLP concerns about queer animals, for God's sake! I assure you, nobody will be suing Wikipedia because we said that the spotted woolly rhino had a gay fling. The animals are being sourced, the article had sat here for eons before Fearless Leader dropped by to state his (mild) concern. You can go back to editing your normal field of interest now, safe in the knowledge that things are under control here. My thanks to the editors who have worked so hard on this. I'll try to add some refs myself tomorrow. Jeffpw 21:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it is not BLP but we are an educational encyclopedia and we don't want people to be thinking so and so an animal is gay when they are not. The sourcing is excellent, and while I may be being criticised I do believe my insistence ont hat has transformed the article, which is so much better than it was. Perhaps we can get it up to FA standard, it just looks so much better than the other day, and of course being ref'd people will take it seriously rather than tending to, say dismiss it as pro-gay propaganda, which was certainly possible in the past but not now. My normal editing pattern is to edit a wide range of articles, the common thread being that they need attention, I certainly won't be removing it from my watchlist until the POV problem is sorted but otherwise I will again applaud everyone's hard work on making a better article. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I won't do anything now 

message: I need to get off to bed now, but wil return to this tomorrow if there's still work outstanding. What's particularly pleasing is that we've only found one hoax in all this work: This edit on 12 July was the source of Scabrous Codcatcher. So, in fact, at the point Jimbo raised his concerns, the article was hoax-free. SP-KP 23:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've finished with the refs and updated the editor's note (hidden text). Benjiboi 11:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Almost done

message: Carl Zimmer's book Parasite Rex mentions homosexual blood flukes in the genus Schistosoma if no one objects I'll add them here with a citation to his book. JoshuaZ 16:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Benjiboi 08:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible addition? 

message: Here's a list of the species in the recent referencing exercise which could not be found in Bagemihl:
*Least Darter - SP-KP 18:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which phrase? the quotes are accurate. Benjiboi 01:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: And yes, anything that seems more encyclopedic is fine it's the deletions I have issue with and weasel words (like possibly) that others had issue with so any suggestions appreciated. Benjiboi 01:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, just to clarify my murky writing what I meant was that Bagamihl attributes the lack of obvservation of homosexual behaviour in animals to bias amongst researchers.  I think that's what you agreed to, correct?  I'll go ahead and make the change, so I hope this is right!  :)  Also Benjiboi, may I compliment your hard work on this list!  It's fantastic now with the detailed references!! Aleta 01:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Change looks fine and thank you. Let's hope this keeps some of the special editing to a minimum - I'm always glad to save good content. Benjiboi 01:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a little tweaking to that sentence. I am also glad that this material is now attributed to a specific researcher rather than just inserted into the article. Anyways, I am  not disputing the "truth" of that sentence, just that is properly sourced and is contectual sound. Anyways, thanks, --Tom 20:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ps, I tried to look at the citation to see exactly what Bagemihl writes but couldn't find it in that article. Can anybody please cut and paste it or write it here verbaitum?? I would like the article to read as closely to Bagemihl's words as possible, thanks, --Tom 20:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, which phrase? (first couple of words?) I will have to deal with it after i get home but I'm happy to transcribe it (the page should be in the cite but google book doesn't seem readily available to all. Benjiboi 02:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe it certainly does. And he actually seems to devote three chapters:
* Chapter Three. "Two Hundred Years of Looking at Homosexual Wildlife" with 
* Chapter Four. "Exlaining (Away) Animal Homosexuality"
* Chapter Five. "Not For Breeding Only" Benjiboi 18:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted species

message: Perhaps we should say "which Bagamihl attributes to..."  if that is accurate.  That way we aren't stating it as fact that that is the reason, only that it's what Bagamihl says is the reason.  I haven't read the source material - is that phrasing accurate? Aleta 01:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which phrase? the quotes are accurate. Benjiboi 01:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: And yes, anything that seems more encyclopedic is fine it's the deletions I have issue with and weasel words (like possibly) that others had issue with so any suggestions appreciated. Benjiboi 01:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, just to clarify my murky writing what I meant was that Bagamihl attributes the lack of obvservation of homosexual behaviour in animals to bias amongst researchers.  I think that's what you agreed to, correct?  I'll go ahead and make the change, so I hope this is right!  :)  Also Benjiboi, may I compliment your hard work on this list!  It's fantastic now with the detailed references!! Aleta 01:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Change looks fine and thank you. Let's hope this keeps some of the special editing to a minimum - I'm always glad to save good content. Benjiboi 01:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a little tweaking to that sentence. I am also glad that this material is now attributed to a specific researcher rather than just inserted into the article. Anyways, I am  not disputing the "truth" of that sentence, just that is properly sourced and is contectual sound. Anyways, thanks, --Tom 20:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ps, I tried to look at the citation to see exactly what Bagemihl writes but couldn't find it in that article. Can anybody please cut and paste it or write it here verbaitum?? I would like the article to read as closely to Bagemihl's words as possible, thanks, --Tom 20:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, which phrase? (first couple of words?) I will have to deal with it after i get home but I'm happy to transcribe it (the page should be in the cite but google book doesn't seem readily available to all. Benjiboi 02:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe it certainly does. And he actually seems to devote three chapters:
* Chapter Three. "Two Hundred Years of Looking at Homosexual Wildlife" with 
* Chapter Four. "Exlaining (Away) Animal Homosexuality"
* Chapter Five. "Not For Breeding Only" Benjiboi 18:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible rephrasing