Misplaced Pages

Talk:Homosexual behavior in animals: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:32, 24 February 2018 editПутеец (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users874 edits →"there is a political motive"← Previous edit Revision as of 14:07, 24 February 2018 edit undoПутеец (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users874 edits →The scientific value of mentioning 1500 species of animals and homosexual behaviorNext edit →
Line 81: Line 81:
No scientific source says 1,500 species of homosexual animals. Here is the news of the exposition in the scientific source (Nature). About 500 species are mentioned. The number 1500 was used for political and propaganda purposes, as they say in the very news of BBC, where the number 1500 was first published. "''An American commentator said it was an example of "'''propaganda''' invading the scientific world". Petter Bockman, a zoologist who helped put the show together, admitted that "there is a '''political motive'''".''" No scientific source says 1,500 species of homosexual animals. Here is the news of the exposition in the scientific source (Nature). About 500 species are mentioned. The number 1500 was used for political and propaganda purposes, as they say in the very news of BBC, where the number 1500 was first published. "''An American commentator said it was an example of "'''propaganda''' invading the scientific world". Petter Bockman, a zoologist who helped put the show together, admitted that "there is a '''political motive'''".''"
All references that contain this number (1500) are not scientific and should be deleted. ] (]) 07:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC) All references that contain this number (1500) are not scientific and should be deleted. ] (]) 07:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
{{ping|Rhinopias}} Help with this situation until it grew into a world war of revisions. ] (]) 14:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


== Help me with editing == == Help me with editing ==

Revision as of 14:07, 24 February 2018

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Homosexual behavior in animals article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 45 days 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconLGBTQ+ studies
WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiology Low‑importance
WikiProject iconHomosexual behavior in animals is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Misplaced Pages. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAnimals Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconHomosexual behavior in animals is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Animals To-do:


 Here are some Open Tasks :
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Template:WAP assignment

Template:Find sources notice

To-do list for Homosexual behavior in animals: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2016-12-12


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:


Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10


This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

In Captivity or In the Wild

This article fails to specify when these behaviors have been observed only in captivity or if they have also be observed in the wild. Without this distinction the article is of little value at best and deceitful at worst, because it is to be expected that animals will dramatically alter their behavior under the conditions of captivity.

homosexuality of animals

Animals show homosexual behavior. This statement is an oxymoron. Homo is Latin for human. Animals are called beasts. So it should be beastsexuality or a more correct terminology -bestiality-. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.86.20 (talk • contribs)

Saying that animals show homosexual behavior is not an oxymoron. This type of phrasing has been used in research literature. The line of argument that you present for justifying how the phrasing is oxymoronic is flawed. As stated on the relevant wiki article, the word homosexual is a Greek and Latin hybrid, with the first element derived from Greek ὁμός homos, meaning "same." It is not related to the Latin word homo, meaning "man", thus the word homosexual connotes sexual acts and affections between members of the same sex. As animals of the same sex do display sexual behavior with each other, the word homosexual can be used to describe their behavior. Bestiality is no where near a correct terminology for homosexual behavior in animals; it has a variety of meanings and the specific sexual meaning that it has is not a correct description for same-sex sexual behaviour between animals mentioned in this article. —Human10.0 (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Human10.0, how much content are you looking to add to this article? I ask because you've been making large additions, and this is already a big article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Flyer22 Reborn, I currently want to add more information about homosexual behavior in the animals already mentioned in the article. There is also a significant amount of information (e.g., in books and scientific journals) about homosexual behavior in certain animals not mentioned in the article. I would like to add that information too. I hope that is okay. —Human10.0 (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm just trying to keep WP:SIZE in mind. If some of the material is better suited for the sub-articles, then consider those sub-articles. This is per WP:Summary style. If there is anything that can be validly split off into its own article, then also consider doing that per WP:Summary style. If it's better to have the material in this article, than that is fine; we just need to keep WP:SIZE in mind. Also, too many subheadings from the table of contents can overwhelm readers and make the article look bigger than it is. So we shouldn't create additional subheadings unless needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for informing me about the appropriate options for this article and for directing me to the Wiki guidelines, Flyer22 Reborn. After reading them, I feel that the "Some selected species and groups" section of this article can branch off into sub-articles. I think that ideally the "Some selected species and groups" section of this article should be in summary style while the topics summarized in that section should be expanded in more detail in sub-articles, one on "Homosexual behavior in mammals" and the other on "Homosexual behavior in birds." However, sub-articles on homosexual behavior in mammals and in birds do not currently exist on Misplaced Pages (typing "Homosexual behavior in birds" in the search bar leads to this article's subsection on birds), so it seems the most relevant place on Misplaced Pages for adding info on homosexual behavior in animals is still this article. I definitely feel that sub-articles/child articles on "Homosexual behavior in mammals" and "Homosexual behavior in birds" can be created as they meet the general notability guideline. I would create them myself but I currently do not have enough time.
One could argue that I could add details of homosexual behavior in animals (e.g., their same-sex courtship ritual) on each animal's own individual Wiki article instead of on this article, where it's lengthening the article. I hope to add info on each animal's individual page too, in the future, but I think that information should also be added to this article because someone who wants to learn about homosexual behavior in various animals is more likely to visit this article, instead of the individual Wiki articles of each animal they can think of. Another issue with adding info about homosexual behavior of an animal on its own Wiki article is where to add that info, since many times, the article lacks an appropriate place or section (e.g., a general section on sexual behaviors) to add that info. I've noticed that sexual behavior of animals is often discussed in the "Reproductive behavior" section, so only the opposite-sex sexual behavior gets discussed. If sub-articles on homosexual behavior in mammals and birds get created, then I think details of homosexual behavior of animals should be moved to their appropriate sub-articles with summaries to replace them in this article (e.g., details of the same-sex courtship ritual of wild sheep could be moved to the homosexual behavior in mammals sub-article while this article could just state in the sheep section that wild sheep engage in a same-sex courtship ritual).
Since there aren't sub-articles about homosexual behavior in animals and since this article has not yet crossed the 100kB mark after which dividing it into sub-articles would be essential, I feel that for the time being, additional content or examples of homosexual behavior in animals should be added to this article, and then any material that could be moved to the sub-articles should be moved there, if said sub-articles are created. What are your thoughts on this? I will also refrain from adding some detailed content to the article that I previously intended to add.
I agree with your point about too many subheadings in the table of contents being overwhelming. We could remedy this using H:LIMITTOC. —Human10.0 (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Good points. I also considered the route of adding details of homosexual behavior in animals on each animal's own individual Misplaced Pages article. That's certainly another option, and you shouldn't let any of the articles currently only or mainly discussing reproductive behavior discourage you from adding homosexual material to the articles. As for expanding this article further, feel free. I just wanted to bring up the matters I brought up. And, yeah, if we need to use TOC limit, I'm fine with that. As for a "Homosexual behavior in mammals" article and a "Homosexual behavior in birds" article, we have the List of mammals displaying homosexual behavior and List of birds displaying homosexual behavior articles. Those two articles can be renamed so that the titles do not designate them as lists. I definitely don't think we should have all four articles (for example, both a "Homosexual behavior in mammals" article and a "List of mammals displaying homosexual behavior" article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the mammals section I would like to add, according to Dr. Carin Bondar, elephants (family Elephantidae) and spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta), are well known for having "pentile-clitoris" structures. It is impossible to have sex with females without consent because they must retract their penile-clitoris back into their bodies first. In spotted hyenas, the females penile-clitoris are extremely complex and a pesudoscrotum is formed by their external labia fusing together. They are also able to achieve erections.The Real JS 02:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

References Bondar, C, (2016). Wild sex: The science behind mating in the animal kingdom. First Pegasus Books hardcover edition. New York: Pegasus Books, 2016. The Real JS 02:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Not done: This article is about homosexual behavior in animals not sexual behavior in animals SparklingPessimist 02:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Homosexual behavior in animals. 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:

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) 08:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The scientific value of mentioning 1500 species of animals and homosexual behavior

To the best of my knowledge the “1500” number was coined by Joan Rugganger (MTF transsexual), who got inspired by the book of a gay linguist Bagemihl, published by a publishing company devoted to romance and fantasy novels, and edited by “Stonewall inn” — the famous gay bar. No scientific publication I have come across cites this number. Bagemihl mentions in his book “more than 450 species”, of which about 100 are insects and worms, whose same sex behavior happens due to errors in identification of a partner because of disability or traces of female pheromones of on male’s cuticle. Birds in same-sex relationship also do not engage in sexual activity, for example, geese—according to Lorentz— mate only with females. Lorentz also describes how primates simulate coital movements as display of dominance. It has no sexual meaning or sexual motivation whatsoever. In fact, none of the species in nature actually engage in penetrative homosexual activity. We are talking about same sex behavior that in nearly all cases has no sexual context . As wrote Frank Beach: “I don't know any authenticated instance of males or females in the animal world preferring a homosexual partner. There is mounting of males by males, but without intromission of the penis or climax. There's also mounting of females by female (and makes by females) I'm not even sure we should call mounting sexual.” In addition, cannibalism, “pedophilia”, “coprophagy”, “necrophilia” are usual in the animal world, and occur in a much larger number of species, and are much more common. I regard the mention of 1500 species with homosexual behavior as manipulative and misleading, that only reflects the bias of the author. Therefore I suggest to remove this unsubstantiated and misinforming number and use the number of species whose same-sex behaviour has been documented, that is about 450. Путеец (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you that the article is unclear and seems to pit the numbers 450 and 1500 against each other, but the sources attached to the sentence citing 1500 seem to consistently use the word "observed", while the 450 number's references use "documented". Perhaps you haven't come across this figure in literature because they're simply instances of observed behavior, and haven't been published (which is what I think the distinction is between observed and. documented). Also, this is just any behavior and not specifically sex. Do we have reason to distrust the University of Oslo's exhibition which utilized the number in 2006? You haven't provided any sources which might discredit this claim, so I don't think the sentence should be removed just yet. I don't know who Joan Rugganger or Lorentz or Frank Beach are. Rhinopias (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I think that this edit gives less credibility to the number. Rhinopias (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The authors of numbers 450 and 1500 are not neutral. Путеец (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Something went wrong with the editing. Путеец (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@Rhinopias: You deleted the statements of biologists, but left a quote from a linguist who does not have a special education. Please return this text . Путеец (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Feel free to remove any of the quotes from the lead. I removed your contributions with that edit of mine for two reasons. One, your text In all other animal species, with the exception of humans, individuals who participate in same-sex sexual interactions are also involved in heterosexuals is a mischaracterization of the reference you used, Bailey et al.. On pages 68–69: "Exclusive same-sex sexual orientation across the life course is, however, extremely rare among animals …" (emphasis mine). This is not what you wrote.
Two, the lead section of this article is already a mess. The purpose of the section is to be "an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents", not to be a place for many detailed quotes or information not present in the body of the article. Subsections could be added to #Research. I only removed the content that you added and did not purposefully evaluate other content in the section. Rhinopias (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Bailey et al. says: "Approximately 6% to 10% of rams in these domestic breeds choose to court and mount other rams, but never ewes, when given a choice (Roselli, Larkin, Resko, Stellflug, & Stormshak, 2004). During some mounts between rams, penile-anal intromission and ejaculation occurs (Perkins & Fitzgerald, 1997). In all other animal species, with the exception of humans, individu-als that engage in same-sex genital interactions engage in heterosexual ones as well." Путеец (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
My mistake, so you added a copyright violation not a misinterpretation.
I don't think the sentence is very clear; some content in #Research contradicts the statement that Bailey et al. make of all "individuals" besides individuals of the few species specified. Regardless of that being a very large statement for the authors to make without directly attributing any other published work, all of this doesn't belong in the lead. A quick summary (such as "Rarely do non-human animals engage solely in homosexual behavior") is all that is warranted. The research on this particular aspect of homosexual behavior in non-human animals can be expanded in the body of the article. Rhinopias (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

No scientific source says 1,500 species of homosexual animals. Here is the news of the exposition in the scientific source (Nature). About 500 species are mentioned. The number 1500 was used for political and propaganda purposes, as they say in the very news of BBC, where the number 1500 was first published. "An American commentator said it was an example of "propaganda invading the scientific world". Petter Bockman, a zoologist who helped put the show together, admitted that "there is a political motive"." All references that contain this number (1500) are not scientific and should be deleted. Путеец (talk) 07:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC) @Rhinopias: Help with this situation until it grew into a world war of revisions. Путеец (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Help me with editing

I have collected extensive material on the topic, I will gradually add. But English is not native to me. I can not qualitatively retell the text of the quote. I ask you to correct my spelling, and if possible, instead of quoting, I should retell the quoted one. Путеец (talk) 07:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Modus operandi of the User:Путеец

User:Путеец, DO NOT DELETE the information from the article (escpecially from the intro) just because you dont like it. If the info in this artcle existe for month and years, you can NOT delete it without disscussion, especially if there is an objection against such removing an info. M.Karelin (talk) 10:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that you added other sources, such as comedy video authors. Scientific sources such as Nature, published 500. Путеец (talk) 10:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Thats why it is written - Other sources describe. If this was the only numbers in the Intro, I d remove it, but now its just show, that there are other sources too, and there is NO contradiction - one researcher can found 500 species, the other one - 1500. There is NO contradiction. M.Karelin (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

"there is a political motive"

Lets discuss here what does it mena - "there is a political motive". I hope native English speaking editors will help us. M.Karelin (talk) 10:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Categories: